Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle Failed to Deliver Its Socialist Message

Sinclair was disappointed by the impact of The Jungle. It was written as a cry for social justice, stressing the importance of taking care of society's working class by redefining human rights. It had also depicted the corrupting nature of capitalism, a game where only a very few can reach the "American Dream" exclusively by the exploitation of expendable immigrant workers. Unfortunately for Sinclair, the public reacted with their stomachs. Congress enacted the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906, but the book did not do anything major pertaining to improving workers' rights, and democratic socialism never became a major American political party. Although The Jungle was supposed to be what Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin did for slavery, The Jungle did not achieve its paramount goal. There are several reasons for its failure. For one, The Jungle's realism undermines its socialist message. The concrete examples of dangerous meat products are considered a more important matter to take care of than the abstract message that oppressing immigrant workers is wrong and should be solved by converting everyone to the ideals of Socialism. Another reason was the discrimination and alienation of African Americans in The Jungle; although racism was still rampant in the early 1900's, many people were offended by the book's way of victimizing blacks, thus discouraging some would-be socialists. Driven by his want to better society, he wrote The Jungle as a means to convince others, especially appealing to the middle and upper classes, to convert their political philosophy to one that was then called the American Socialist Party. Upton Sinclair had become so blind to his own faith in socialism that he had substantially biased the book, having published the book punctuated with distorting "facts." A case in point was the government meat inspectors’ accusal of Sinclair's testimony: some of the sausages supposedly had human parts accidentally inserted in them. After inspecting the very same meat packing plants (Armour & Co., Swift, Morris, and Hammond) and finding no evidence of some “facts”, some seeds of doubt had begun to germinate, instigating some critics to condemn him of being a propagandist, and even worse, a phony. As distrust and skepticism from the government officials brought about doubt to Upton Sinclair’s works, supporters of the "beef trust" took immediate action to dismantle Upton Sinclair's credibility as a writer. His reputation was so tarnished that even the audience who initially appreciated The Jungle would sneer at him and even today, the damage still takes its toll: “apart from The Jungle, Sinclair’s works have been largely forgotten, or perhaps simply mislaid, his name confused with that of Sinclair Lewis, the author of Main Street, Babbitt, and Dodsworth” (Denby 32).

Though his writing of The Jungle, Sinclair hoped to reach the general public to introduce and ultimately convince them that Socialism is the political party that will change the country for the better. During the rise of Industrial America, the rapid growth of the U.S. economy was contributed to many factors, including but not limited to: America’s treasure-house supply of natural resources, an abundant cheap labor supply supplemented yearly by the arrival of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, a growing population and cheaper and faster transportation making the United States the largest market in the world (at the time), the advancement of labor-saving technology, and the friendly government policies that benefited businesses. Unfortunately, Capitalism had unfavorable consequences. Those with power and money were getting richer while the poor stayed poor. Sinclair was infuriated that despite America’s growing economic power, only the oligarchy of profitable industries had the luxury enjoy it.

For Sinclair, bringing democracy to industry represented an answer to both economic and spiritual questions. He was not the first American to come to this conclusion… The Protestant Reformation had acknowledged all men equal in status before God. The American and French Revolutions had introduced political equality. Now it was necessary to add economic equality in order to allow men their natural right to a humane and fulfilling existence. (Yoder 61)

Sinclair sincerely believed in the philosophy of Socialism; in his point of view, if people have religious and political equality, then it was reasonable that there should be economic equality as well. Just as religious and political equality had resolved age-old disputes Sinclair thought that if economic equality was successfully implemented, we would be one step closer to a perfect society, or a society free of harmful competition and malice. Should society treat its lowest class with all forms of equality there would be no need for government to dictate how society should be run: a true utopia. Following Upton Sinclair’s logic, in order to convince the masses to convert to Socialism, Sinclair depicted Capitalism as a system where people “have few chances [of success and/or happiness] in a world of corruption and oppression” (Bloodworth 22-23). If the people are truly convinced that Capitalism is not an ideal economic system for the United States, they will surly act upon it until it becomes Socialism.

Since he wanted to give a current report on the state of the American experiment, Sinclair decided to write about the story of a Lithuanian immigrant family and their relationship with the livestock business. Like many rising powerful industries, the “beef trust” —what historians and contemporaries labeled the group of big livestock companies working together— was an open secret, and since “the big companies…bribed government inspectors, and exercised enough control over the local newspapers to avoid serious censure…Unions were weak and defenseless” (Denby 34), he saw enough corruption, filth, and poverty to make The Jungle a gripping, emotionally wrenching novel.

The fruit of his work bore nothing of what he had in mind. The Jungle originally intended to be just a weekly article in the Socialist magazine The Appeal to Reason. After gaining popular proletarian support, The Jungle was finally published “…in book form in 1906. It was an immediate and enormous success. It became a ‘bestseller’ in America, England, and the British Colonies. It was translated into seventeen languages, and the world became aware that industrial America in its tail, its misery and its hope had found a voice” (Dell 43). With international acclaim, Sinclair had hoped to at least find a sympathetic audience in America, but to his dismay the American populace was more concerned with the harmful meat products than the questionable morality of capitalizing on desperate fresh-off-the-boat immigrants.

There are many reasons to his failure but one of the most prominent reasons was the overwhelming realism of the dismal aspects of immigrant life in The Jungle. His details of the meat processing were so disgusting that his words “by accident…hit it [the public’s heart] in the stomach” (Yoder 62). Sinclair intended to spark an outrage for the inhumane working conditions, but all he got was “a revolution among consumers instead” (Hitchens 104). One of the many problems with Sinclair writing The Jungle was that he did not understand what the average reader would get out of his work. As an idealist, Sinclair hoped that the masses would understand his abstract message: to stop the plight of immigrant workers by embracing socialism. However noble that goal might be, for the general audience, that idealism is overshadowed by the more impressive and memorable concrete examples of the gruesome facts of the meatpacking industry. “It is easier to remember that children’s fingers, cows’ fetuses, and rat dung are the unlisted ingredients in deviled ham than the workers are oppressed, by definition, a capitalist economy” (Yoder 63). In the end, most people will prioritize importance in how it will affect them. The concrete examples will win over the abstract messages every time because it is more real to the audience. “If the story is read as exposing a scandal, a law can be passed, inspectors can be appointed to enforce that law, and we the people can receive a sense of continuing progress” (Yoder 64). The public’s positive response to vex the government to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was far more palatable than reading the story as an indictment of one’s entire way of life.

            Not surprisingly, Sinclair’s target audience was not the poor people of Packingtown nor was it the proletariats of society that he wrote about. This was for three obvious reasons. The most obvious reason was immigrants from other countries do not magically know how to read English as soon as they get off the boat. Although it is true that The Jungle was printed in seventeen languages, there are more than seventeen languages in the world; immigrants who speak any other language than the seventeen provided will have a hard time reading it. The second reason was that immigrants usually do not have the time to read; many have to work more than ten hours, presumably six out of seven days a week, for little pay, and most of the money would go directly toward food and rent. Frankly speaking, leisure reading was a luxury strictly for the middle and upper class. The most important reason, however, is of the lack of power in the plebian forces of society. Although large in number, the working class citizens of the United States were divided in opinion. Less than ten percent of all workers were in a union. “The plight of workers in general might stir sympathy, even indignation, but their protests often come in the form of strikes that inconvenienced and antagonized the public” (Arthur 70). Whenever unions attacked and demanded change, the more organized trusts usually counterattacked, had legal authority to do so, and made the public aware that the strikers were the troublemakers. With government and industries hand in hand, to depend on the weak, defenseless workers to carry out the ideals of Socialism was not a safe bet in Sinclair’s eye.

His target audience—the upper and middle class—, however, were no better. “The hard fact was that the largely middle-class Americans, mostly women, who bought and read books in the early 1900’s were not likely to demand the end of “wage slavery.” Workers’ problems for these readers were mostly distant and theoretical concerns, no matter how vividly described” (Arthur 70). The upper and middle class definitely had more power than the working class and lower class and they have successfully brought about change but not exactly in the way that Sinclair intended. With the inflamed public outcry and immediate demand for consumer protection, Congress enacted two regulatory laws in 1906: The Pure Food and Drug Act and The Meat Inspection Act. While Sinclair had always been a proponent of better meat products, his main point of the novel The Jungle was to express the immorality of “wage slavery.” If at all the plight of workers had moved the audience’s heart, figuratively, there was nothing done to prove it. Once the government had passed the laws, the public was holistically satisfied and moved on; the public saw a problem, acted upon it, and saw to the successful result of passing laws to prevent bad meat products. The work was something tangible. On the other hand, to abolish “wage slavery” was an abstract concern; fixing this problem would not benefit the audience. Simply put, one of the reasons The Jungle failed was because when the public was faced with two problems and two solutions to them, the public chose to solve the problem that concerned them the most.

Sometimes, rise in popularity is produced by hype, and The Jungle is no exception. Jack London “[American novelist] … his [Sinclair’s] comrade in the Socialist movement…acclaim this achievement…’The Uncle Tom’s Cabin of wage slavery’ …and with that legend on the jacket and in the advertisements it was brought before the general American public in book form in 1906” (Dell 43). With the positive feedback of several popular contemporaries at the time, the book has successfully been advertised. Like many popular things, there are some aspects that were overlooked by the “advertisers.” One of the biggest flaws overlooked was the hollowness of the characters.

Any kind of inwardness was beyond Sinclair: his characters, suffering without any gain in consciousness, remain mere names attached to dressing social conditions. Jurgis falls in with criminals and corrupt politicians, and then, suddenly, at a public meeting, he’s electrified by a fervent voice… The book ends with Jurgis rapid conversion to socialism and with an outpouring of blood-raising speeches inspired by the words of Eugene V. Debs. The last line in the novel is “CHICAGO WILL BE OURS!” (Denby 37)

Without insight to anything that the characters are thinking, with only the actions provided by the characters, the audience will never truly understand the characters themselves. Without empathy of the situation they are in, Jurgis and his immigrant family are just “mere names” (37), or dummies that Sinclair can bash social problems with. Through awkward placement, the ideas of socialism was forced into the last forth segment of the book. “Through Jurgis, the reader learns about the advantages and imminence of socialism. But the speeches are tacked onto a plot that stops moving when Jurgis sits down and listen” (Yoder 63). For much of the last fourth part of the book, Jurgis just “sits down and listen” (63), losing his role as protagonist; there is no real plot at the end of the story, and critics attacked Sinclair, denouncing his book as mere propaganda for socialism.

Upton Sinclair was considered one of the most forward thinking radicals of his time. He had a flexible mind and most certainly did not agree with the American Socialist Party all the time. During the Great War, many socialists in America felt it was in their best interest to not get involved in the matter. However, “…feeling that the German militarism represented a threat to world peace, Sinclair temporarily parted ways with the American Socialist Party…Sinclair’s flexibility became just as evident in 1918 when he grew critical of American military attempts to suppress the Bolshevik revolution” (Bloodworth 27). It was surprising to have such writer publish a work full of racist remarks. Perhaps Sinclair has not fully “broken with his own Southern roots” (Bloodworth 23) “as his writing an abolitionist novel [Manassas] suggested” (23). Although racism was still rampant in the early 1900s, Sinclair should have taken caution to not discriminate anyone from the ideologies of Socialism. However, he did discriminate against African Americans. Sinclair’s origin was deeply rooted from the genteel community and his racist remarks were inherited, but the fact does not excuse Sinclair of his discriminating action. By using “pleonasm [use of more words than necessary to express a meaning]” (Hitchens 108), his words such as “throng of stupid black negroes” (108) and such explicitly define his voice in the matter. Although Sinclair does not outright state it in The Jungle, it is strongly suggested that Sinclair made use of racism to preach “white socialism,” a misleading claim of being the “liberator of the wage slaves” (108) from the early American labor movement. By trying to gain popular support from the white supremacists, Upton Sinclair had lost critical support from many would-have-been African American socialists.

One of the most important things that authors never want to lose is credibility. For those who have lost it, it is very difficult to retrieve it. As soon as it was found that Sinclair might have been exaggerating the reality of the meatpacking industry, Winston Churchill, a supporter of Upton Sinclair and the ideologies of Socialism, wrote a positive review of The Jungle. “The worst has been told, and only the worst; it has been told in the most effective way; and the reader is confronted- nay, overwhelmed- by the concantations [series of] of filthy, tragic, detestable details, which reduce him, however combative or incredulous, to a kind of horror-struck docility” (Churchill 87). However, the damage has been done, and there was nothing to regain the public’s trust in the information of his books.

Sinclair had been discredited for his exaggeration of housing woes. Knowledgeable contemporaries did not share Sinclair’s grim assessment. Robert Hunter omitted the distinct from his study of substandard Chicago housing because

There is no large area…where the conditions seem to be uniformly bad…Very few houses…are deficient in provisions for light and ventilation, and none of them seem to be overly crowded…. As did fault some for inadequate drainage and filthy yards, but those evils do not extend over a large area. They are, in their worst forms, extraordinary and not typical. (Wade 81-82)

Sinclair’s “fact” that there was a massive scam of realty was completely proven to be false.

Another misleading piece of information was of the wages of the workers. While it was true that “it was characteristic that about then [1900], for every hundred dollars earned by native wage users, the Italian born earned eighty-four, the Hungarians sixty-eight, and the other Europeans fifty-four” (Yoder 59), Sinclair’s depictions of the workers that ”Packinghouse workers were ‘rats in a trap,’ that prostitutes fared better than ‘decent’ girls, and that ‘if you met a man who was rising…you met a knave…’” (Wade 80) were misleading. Carl William Thompson, an academic investigator, concluded from his research that “even laborers…Slovak and Lithuanian girls working…at the low wage of five dollars a week…save a considerable fraction of their income” (80) and that it was “very common. There are thousands of immigrants like me” (80).The discrediting information of the wages was reviewed by many more labor statisticians (Commons, Poole, McDowell, Stewart, and recently Brody and Barrett) confirmed Thompson’s work. There is no doubt that some of Sinclair’s “facts” were distorted, misleading, or just false. Had Sinclair took measures to not exaggerate the life of the Packingtown worker, he might have saved face from the intellectual community.

Sometimes, there are factors in which one person cannot control. The situation is often called fate, and Sinclair’s fate was in the hands of two outside forces: his financial woes and beef trust influence. His financial woes were what directly affected his writing. It is important to note that Sinclair was not a rich man. In his childhood, Upton Sinclair had firsthand experience with the crushing poverty of his immediate family and the saturating rich tastes of his more fortunate cousins. Shortly after leaving his childhood home, he found that he could only make a modest amount of money writing for several magazines and newspapers. Upon completing The Jungle, Sinclair agreed that the conclusion was weak, but it was weak because at the time, he had barely enough money to survive between him and his wife. “He was too poor to turn his socialistic sermons into a more effective ending of The Jungle. In his Autobiography, he writes: ‘The last chapters were not up to standard because my health and my money were gone, and a second trip to Chicago, which I had hoped to make, was out of the question’” (Yoder 63-64). It is possible that he could have written a better conclusion had he the money to adequately provide basic needs for himself and his wife. And with a better conclusion, (although not in a massive conversion) he might have had a better chance at spreading his socialist message.

Sinclair was a nuisance to the beef trust: a group of the biggest meat market in America. When the young novelist accepted the opportunity to strike the meatpacking industry by questioning its products and the morality of exploiting its workers, the beef trust was by no means friendly.

The packers, and the large business interest, in general, were aroused, and all their power and influence was used to keep this agitation from reaching the public, and to represent the young agitator as an irresponsible sensation-monger. He set up a publicity bureau…; but so thoroughly had the newspapers been mobilized by the business interests that the publicity he actually achieved the workers’ cause was slight; and on the other hand, his own reputation, in genteel literacy and critical circles, and among the public at large, was seriously damaged. (Dell 44)

When the meatpacking industry was done bruising up Sinclair’s career, the interest groups felt that just giving an example was not enough. Rather than take on individual “sensation-mongers,” the business had an even smarter plan: to control the public by manipulating the media, just like it has done to the government inspectors before the reveal. The newspapers, one of the biggest media at the time, were already handled well before Sinclair’s published book. The only opposition the meatpackers faced was a group of free magazines which were making money out of muckraking-the very center of the intellectual rebellion.

Big business struck at this group of free magazines, effectively, through the medium of advertising. The magazine policies were changed. Writers were called off from investigations of industrial conditions. An immense campaign of optimism was begun, and a cheerful outlook upon American industrial conditions was preached and made synonymous with patriotism. (Dell 47)

The editor of The Appeal to Reason, the magazine that originally published The Jungle weekly, in response to the beef trust’s crackdown on radical news and magazines and to the immense profit that it had gained “speedily repudiated its early muckraking habits and became a defender of big business; and he had made a fortune for his publishers, who immediately became conservative and devoted to their profits from The Jungle to promote a land of writing hostile to everything in everything which he believed” (Dell 46). The beef trust had so much power that it had the ability to make Upton Sinclair’s benefactors turn against him.

After controlling the media, the beef trust has convinced the American populace that “it was the fashion to sneer at Upton Sinclair, and to accept yellow journalism [disreputable newspapers] pictures of him, in which he was represented as a mere sensation-monger and fool to boot” (Dell 48). His career turned into an anticlimactic ending, his reputation going downhill from there.

George Brandes, generally accounted the world’s greatest modern critic, was astonished at this American neglect of one of its greatest writers; on visiting this country in 1914, he took pains to say to the American novelists who he found worth reading, among them being Upton Sinclair. This statement, as it generally appeared in the press, referred only to Frank Norris and Jack London, omitting Upton Sinclair’s name altogether. (48)

Sometimes, literature is a popularity game, and it was apparent that Sinclair was no longer a celebrity in American literature. As a fallen angel, Sinclair knew that any book with his name would be shot down; he resisted the temptation of writing what was popular and wrote muckraking novels for six more decades, completing a total of more than ninety novels in his lifetime.

            Attempting to meet short-term goals, Sinclair relinquished his chance to revise and edit his book, missing the precious opportunity to convert others in the socialist faith. Nothing in particular was done immediately about the workers’ conditions. “The President’s meat-inspection law, as finally passed, had, in the opinion of those behind it, all its teeth drawn [pulled] first. Sinclair attempted to agitate the question, but the public had been reassured, and the effort was futile” (Dell 45). In today’s political tempest, the American Socialist Party that Sinclair once stood for has all but disappeared; the Republicans and Democrats still reign as the duopoly of the modern political system. However, should Sinclair suddenly come back to life today, he would not be disappointed. Yes. It is true that socialism is losing ground in the political field, but there are traces of his ideology still prevalent today. His ideas bore the foundation of such organizations as food co-operations, daycare centers, public TV and radio, and his personal habits of non-stop opinionizing lead to the creation of the blog. Even though socialism does not take root in American life, at least Sinclair’s ideals have passed on.