Is Lennie a monster? A reconsideration of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men in a 21st century inclusive classroom context

The paper examines how Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men—widely taught in US and UK schools—shapes students’ perceptions of disability, especially autism and intellectual disability, through the character of Lennie. With the text’s shift in the UK from GCSE to Key Stage 3, teachers have more freedom to explore disability issues. The central research question is: If Lennie is a “monster,” what does that imply for students’ understanding of autism and intellectual disability inside and outside the classroom? The introduction situates the work within citizenship education requirements and the lack of explicit disability coverage, highlighting the influence of literary portrayals on youths’ attitudes and underscoring teachers’ responsibility to unpack ableist representations and frame the novella within a contemporary ethical context.

The article engages with scholarship in Disability Studies and education, including the Social Model of disability (Linton, 1998; Thomas, 2007) and classroom practices (Kennedy & Menten, 2010). It draws on Loftis (2015, 2016), who, as an autistic researcher, identifies Lennie’s traits aligned with public conceptions of autism (e.g., echolalia, sensory seeking, meltdowns) and critiques cultural narratives that deny autistic subjectivity. Prior analyses note Steinbeck’s animalistic and infantilizing depictions (Chivers, 2003; McCabe, 2014; Iyer, 2007) and place them within naturalism and eugenics-era ideologies (Abdullah, 2010; Jensen-Moulton, 2012), including arguments by animal rights philosophers (Singer, 1995; McMahan, 1996, 2002) about moral status. Educational context sources show the text’s prevalence (BBC 2014; Wilson, 2016), curriculum constraints (DfE 2013, 2014; National Audit Office, 2018), and problematic adolescent responses aligning with eugenic beliefs (Garrison, 2008). Contemporary concerns include institutional conditions and restrictive practices against autistic/LD people (House of Commons/House of Lords, 2019; Dahlgreen, 2019) and high rates of victimization and bullying (Hughes et al., 2012; Chaplin & Mukhopadhyay, 2018; Dimensions, 2016; Luciano & Savage, 2007; Bejerot & Mörtberg, 2009). Legal scholarship on the Briseño factors and their reliance on Lennie in Texas death penalty cases is also reviewed (Crowell, 2015; Long, 2013; Liptak, 2016; Kupetz, 2016; Moore v. Texas, 2017).

A qualitative textual analysis employing Disability Studies—specifically the Social Model of disability—interrogates Of Mice and Men’s portrayal of Lennie within both its 1930s eugenics context and contemporary classroom settings. The study asks students to consider the extent to which Lennie’s challenges stem from intrinsic impairment versus disabling social responses and barriers, and examines how to frame the book’s final act within a modern ethical framework to challenge ableist rhetoric. The analysis integrates prior scholarship on autistic representation (Loftis, 2015, 2016) and pedagogical implications, identifying how narrative techniques (animalistic imagery, infantilization, staging directions) shape reader sympathies and classroom discourse.

- Lennie is systematically “othered,” portrayed as un-human and animal-like (bear, horse, bull, terrier), and infantilized (“big baby”), which primes readers to empathize with George and condone Lennie’s killing. His immense strength coupled with limited agency and childlike obedience reinforces a dehumanizing frame. - Animal metaphors and naturalistic determinism position all characters near nature, but Lennie closer than others; Slim’s authority normalizes euthanasia (Candy’s dog) and implicitly sanctions Lennie’s death. Eugenic logics (culling puppies, acceptable disability via head injury vs developmental) permeate the narrative. - Lennie exhibits traits commonly associated with autism (repetition, echolalia, sensory seeking, overload), and his sensory-driven actions (e.g., touching soft things) are misread as deviant or predatory, complicating perceptions of intent and agency. - Reader alignment with George reframes the killing as “mercy,” paralleling real-world media narratives that center caregiver hardship in filicide of disabled people; the Anti-filicide Toolkit recommends humanizing victims and naming murder, practices transferrable to classroom discussions of Lennie’s death. - Classroom ethical debates should be contextualized with contemporary evidence about detention and restraint of autistic/LD people: in June 2019, 11% of inpatients with learning disabilities and/or autism experienced restrictive interventions (NHS Digital via Dahlgreen, 2019), including chemical, mechanical, and prone restraint. High victimization rates underscore vulnerability: 73% report disability-related victimization (Dimensions, 2016); 83% of students with learning difficulties report bullying (Luciano & Savage, 2007); up to 80% of children with autism plus other characteristics report bullying (Bejerot & Mörtberg, 2009). - The Briseño factors in Texas controversially used Lennie as a benchmark for intellectual disability in capital cases, contested in Moore v. Texas (2017), highlighting dangerous real-world consequences of literary stereotypes. - Within the novel’s resolution, George faces no legal sanction, while Lennie is effectively tried by a mob logic, reinforcing Lennie’s dehumanization. - Teacher expertise in disability/ableism is crucial; without critical framing, students may adopt eugenic-aligned views (Garrison, 2008). Centering autistic voices in scholarship and teaching enriches ethical analysis and counters deficit framings.

Applying a Disability Studies lens reveals that Steinbeck’s narrative techniques construct Lennie as less than human, facilitating reader acceptance of his killing and mirroring broader societal ableism rooted in eugenic ideology. This framing answers the research question by showing how labeling Lennie a “monster” risks entrenching harmful beliefs about autistic and intellectually disabled people among students. The findings argue for reframing classroom debates: shift focus from George’s decision to Lennie’s humanity; interrogate animalization/infantilization; contextualize historical institutionalization with current evidence of restraint and abuse; and employ guidelines that humanize disabled victims in discussions. The legal case of the Briseño factors exemplifies the stakes of literary stereotypes crossing into policy, underscoring the need for disability-literate pedagogy and inclusion of autistic perspectives to challenge ableist narratives and improve students’ ethical reasoning.

The study contributes a disability-centered reinterpretation of Of Mice and Men for contemporary classrooms, demonstrating how Lennie’s portrayal as un-human enables readers to endorse his death and how this resonates with current abuses, media narratives of filicide, and even legal standards (Briseño factors) that once invoked Lennie to assess intellectual disability in death penalty cases, later repudiated in Moore v. Texas (2017). It calls on educators to explicitly teach disability awareness, center autistic and intellectually disabled voices, adopt anti-filicide framing that humanizes victims, and reposition the novella within an inclusive curriculum to challenge ableist assumptions. Future work could develop concrete classroom resources, empirically evaluate pedagogical interventions on students’ disability attitudes, and expand analyses to other canonical texts featuring disability.