Pursuit of Life & Equality: Kafka's "Before the Law"

Word Count: 901

Pursuit of Life & Equality: Kafka's "Before the Law"

My group adopted my psychoanalytical approach toward Kafka’s “Before the Law” which emphasizes humanity’s helplessness in uncovering the meaning of life. The countryman’s childish behavior during his long wait, his lifelong attempt to access the law, and the limited accessibility of the law acts as supporting evidence for such a perspective.

The man’s behavior shows how humanity is flustered and impatiently eager to uncover what life really means. After the gatekeeper gives him a stool to sit on during his years of waiting to see the law, the countryman “makes many attempts to be let in, and he wears the gatekeeper out with his requests.” Because humanity is currently unable to make sense of life’s underlying mechanics, it is left helpless to time’s – aka the gatekeeper’s – prohibitions.  The gatekeeper, by telling the man “’It is possible’ [to gain access to the law] … ‘but not now,’’” gives the man a false sense of hope that he might one day be able to see it. This false sense of hope only adds fuel to the fire of helplessness and is the main influence of the humanity’s impatience and fervent hunt to uncovering the unknown.

The man’s lifelong attempt to access “the law” and failure at doing so represents how mankind’s endless search for the core of life even surpasses a single lifetime. During his later years of waiting and hoping to access the law, the countryman’s “eyes grow weak… [and] he can no longer lift his stiffening body.” Humanity wishes to understand the complexities that govern our universe and become omniscient; however, it is impossible to derive the true meaning of life in a single lifetime. Again, humanity is left helpless and cannot satisfy its single, most pure desire. The grand concept of life’s hidden meaning is unattainable by a person while they experience life (perhaps because experiencing life is the true meaning of life – but that is simply speculation). Furthermore, the limited accessibility of the law to the man reflects how humans are tempted to uncover the true meaning of life at whatever means possible. At the beginning of the passage “the gate to the law stands open, as always, and the gatekeeper walks to the side, so the man bends over in order to see through the gate into the inside… [but] he decides that it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside.” By getting a glimpse of what lies beyond our limited experience with life, this feeds into our desires to find some deeper secret within the grand scheme of life but shows how humanity will not uncover the whole meaning of life while they are living; we are only allowed a sneak peek.

However, one of my group members interpreted the text from a historical approach, which is most evident by the gatekeeper saying he is powerful and the man thinking the law should be accessible by everyone. They considered it to be a criticism of the growing social tensions in Austria-Hungary at the beginning of World War I.

The gatekeeper’s precaution of his own strength and the mention of stronger gatekeepers ahead represents the different tiers of power and influence within the anti-Serbian movement during World War I. As the man peers over, the gatekeeper says:

“’I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other. I can’t endure even one glimpse of the third.’”

The first gatekeeper symbolizes the common folk: the Christian and Muslim citizens of Austria who supported the scapegoating of Serbs, while the stronger gatekeepers that lie ahead symbolize the politicians and other government figures that encouraged the Anti-Serb riots. This highlights how the discrimination at the core of this sentiment was not just among ordinary civilians, but it was deeply rooted within the national government.

On the other hand, the countryman believing “the law should always be accessible for everyone” represents the Serbians who were being restricted from fair treatment and respect. The Serbians were denied equal protection and being persecuted by the its fellow countrymen and government, hoping to one day be equal members of society and not be blamed for something that they had no influence on. However, as time went on and their discrimination continued, Serbian citizens became restless and watch their hopes die under the Austrian government, eventually causing a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. The gatekeeper’s final words "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it" further illuminates how the Anti-Serbian members specifically targeted Serbians to be their scapegoat. It acts as the final nail in the coffin to Serbians since it is saying that specifically Serbians cannot be fully equal according to anti-Serb sentiment, and therefore the notion of an egalitarian society is impossible.

In my opinion, I think both approaches are equally truthful and have different uses that can be beneficial in a variety of ways. A psychoanalytical approach helps a person understand the mindset of another human being and appeals to logos. A historical approach gives social, political, and cultural context and can appeal to pathos and ethos. I don’t think any one approach is better or more useful than the others. Instead, I would encourage the use of multiple approaches in order to get a complicated yet holistic perspective.