Our group read Kafka's "Before the
Law" through a poststructuralist lens. One poststructuralist idea that we
applied to the short story was the argument that a text can be interpreted in
multiple different ways, all of which are valid. This may be demonstrated with
the scene in which the man tries to bribe the gatekeeper with "everything
[he has], no matter how valuable." Some might focus on how the gatekeeper
"takes it all," which perhaps demonstrates how work in pursuit of a
goal is never futile, regardless of whether or not the goal is achieved. Others
may highlight the man's immorality in trying to bribe a representative of the
law. They might conclude that man — when reduced to his most base desires — is
morally corrupt. These analyses of one scene are starkly different, yet both
reasonable and valid per a poststructuralist approach.
Another
poststructuralist concept that we focused on was the idea that parts of a story
may be unclear and confusing so that the reader is never sure if they have
arrived at the truth of the text. We wondered why Kafka created several
gatekeepers, "each more powerful than the other." It was unclear as
to why the law required many guardians, and why each guardian had to be
stronger than its predecessor. We also could not determine why the gatekeeper
"cannot grant him entry at the moment." Despite reading the story
several times, we were unsure of what the gatekeeper's criteria for entry were,
and we weren't even sure of whether or not those criteria were relevant to the
overall meaning of the story. The ending of the story was similarly
incomprehensible. We could not determine the significance of the man having his
own, personal entrance to the law.
A
poststructuralist approach allowed us to interpret "Before the Law"
in several different ways. However, we were unable to analyze several aspects
of the text, and we could not determine the overarching themes of the story.
Reading the story with a focus on poststructuralism allowed me to only analyze
specific plot points. I believe that taking a psychological approach to Kafka's
work might reveal more useful analyses of his literature because it takes into
account the larger implications of the characters and the story. Reading the
story through a psychological lens allowed me to focus on the motivations and
underlying themes of the text, which I think is more useful in understanding
what the story teaches the reader.
Psychological
theories are meant to shed light on man's desires and motivations. I decided to
start by analyzing Kafka's motivations for writing the story. I learned that
"Before the Law" was written in 1915, which was during World War I
(1914-1918). I observed parallelism between soldiers' deference to authority in
real life and the man's complacence with the jurisdiction of the gatekeeper in
Kafka's story. Kafka writes that the man "decides that it would be better
to wait until he gets permission to go inside." This emphasizes the fact
that the man can pass through the gate on his own; however, he chooses to obey
the guardian instead. The man's unquestioning obedience seems very similar to
the obedience of soldiers to their commanders.
Kafka may be
demonstrating how an individual's blind subservience to authority does not
benefit the individual. The reader is left wondering what might have happened
if the man had disobeyed the gatekeeper and approached the law. This could be
Kafka encouraging the reader to question authority and exercise autonomy, as
those who are passive and subservient achieve nothing.
I also tried
to interpret the motivations of the gatekeeper. However, I came to believe that
it does not matter what his reasoning is; more significance lies in his solid,
unwavering refusal to grant the man entry. He only tells the man that "'It
is possible...but not now.'" This impersonality and reasonless obstruction
of the law is perhaps meant to symbolize the seemingly meaningless hurdles that
people must bypass in order to achieve justice from the law. These obstacles
might be copious amounts of paperwork, confusing language and wording of legal
documents, and people's unfamiliarity with legal proceedings. Kafka's
impersonal depiction of the gatekeeper obstructing the law might be an
illustration of how people are deterred from legal justice by these pointless
or confusing obstacles. The man in Kafka's story is unclear of what he must do
to access the law, and the gatekeeper refuses to give him a clear explanation
of how to approach the law. This cycle of confusion ensures that man never
reaches the law.
I think the essay is nicely organized with details supporting both sides of the argument. The possible different interpretations of the same actions was a nice touch. I didn't know about the history of the story and possible connections to real-life events; the comparison of the soldiers' and the man's obedience was a good observation. Personally, I agree that a psychological approach fits the story best. However, I feel that the third paragraph would have fit better as the final paragraph as the conclusion doesn't feel very conclusive. I also feel that having more evidence for the psychological approach would be better. For example, having more lines related to the theme of authority would strengthen the argument. Overall, a good first blog.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed how you split your analysis of the short story into two different critical approaches. It showed how sometimes one reading may lead to more questions and another may enlighten more questions. In your psychological reading of the story, something that I would like to mention is the confusion of the "law" which Kafka writes. I believe that Kafka in the writing makes the point that the law and institutional structures and policies ultimately do not make sense. This is seen in the premise of the short story, for the man to get into the "law" he must break it. The law was meant to serve the man, thus why he is the only one to be able to enter it, but he cannot enter it. He tries to enter it through wealth and pleading and other means one can imagine. However, despite all of his efforts are in vain and he is never to enter the law while obeying it. Thus he must break it, disobeying the guard. Ultimately an orderly vision of the lawful structure of our societies do not make sense and the logic of our societies do not make sense. This reading, I argue, make the most sense when read in the context of the First World War, which you mention in your post. But that it just my reading of the post, and as we have seen through your post, one of the many other readings which can be interpreted from the story.
ReplyDelete