How does Steinbeck reconcile the viewpoints of individuality and collectivity?Socio-economic views in The Grapes of Wrath seem to be based on ideas...

I think that part of what makes Steinbeck such a great
writer is that he recognized that two of the basic elements that defined America are at
fundamental odds with one another.  Participatory democracy was one of the most basic
ideas in American History.  It led to the foundation of the nation and argues a sense of
the collective good.  However, this comes into direct opposition with the tenets of
capitalism, which is more of a "winner take all" economic condition of the world.  The
overall sense of fairness that is evident in democratic advocacy is not present in
capitalism.  This might not have been the original intent of capitalist endeavors, but
Steinbeck understands that this is how capitalism was perceived and manipulated
throughout the 1920s.   The results from this Jazz Age style of economics were that the
political vision of the nation and its economic machine were in conflict with one
another.  Lack of regulation become synonymous with greed and self interest and
discarding any notion of social solidarity.  This came to a massive fountainhead in the
1930s and the Great Depression.  Democratic advocacy was weakened in the face of
capitalist struggle where individuals are divided for the smallest of
pittance.

For Steinbeck, the resolution of works such
as The Grapes of Wrath is how he seeks to reconcile capitalism and
democratic tendencies.  Through the characters of Tom Joad and Jim Casy, Steinbeck
argues that the only way for capitalism and democracy to coexist is when individuals
adopt a perspective that sees beyond individual and embraces a collective element. 
Steinbeck is quick to see disaster and problems result if individuals remain in their
own isolated and fragmented states.  Tom's evolution from someone who wants nothing to
do with people to a figure who sees himself linked with the struggles of another is
where Steinbeck believes reconciliation is possible for America.  The embrace of
capitalism and the embodiment of democratic participation can only happen when
individuals see past their own conditions.  Consider the image of Rose of Sharon.  She
has something that is valued as wealth.  There is a man in the barn who is impoverished,
meaning he needs milk.  Her sacrifice is what enables life to continue, and Steinbeck
must have seen this as the secret that will harmonize the dissonant sounds of capitalism
and democracy.  It is in this light that Steinbeck is able to see a unity between both
collectivity and individuality.  Steinbeck sees this as the only answer to the collision
of incommensurate notions of the good.