"Before the Law" Literary Criticism Analysis

The ambiguity present in Franz Kafka’s “Before the Law” creates the opportunity for a variety of interpretations and interactions with the text through the use of literary criticisms and literary theories. When discussing the contents of the story with my group, the unanimous decision was that the Marxist criticism was the better-equipped approach to deciphering the story; however, one could argue that the psychological theory is equally as qualified in responding to Kafka’s work. This post will examine the strengths of both theories in response to the conflict in “Before the Law” and will present an argument as to why the Marxist criticism is better suited in the comprehension of the story.

In our group discussion, we noted the multiples ways the Marxist theory explained why the man never passed the gate and the ways the theory coincided with “Before the Law”. The Marxist criticism emphasizes that human progress is based on the struggle of power between different social classes; this relationship between progress and power is the prominent conflict within the story and explains the man’s tragic ending. We began by noting the clear distinctions in the status of the gatekeeper and how they contrasted with the image being presented of the man. The gatekeeper is described wearing a fur coat, which is often a sign associated with wealth, while the man is described in simple, mundane traits.  This distinction sets the foundation for the difference in power that both characters hold. In comparison to the gatekeeper, the man does not have much wealth or power thus immediately placing him at a disadvantage where the gatekeeper has a complete authority. Our group then analyzed the words and traits associated with each figure that further illustrated the power and status differences between the two. When Kafka describes the gatekeeper, he uses phrases such as “powerful” and “great men” to highlight the power the gatekeeper possesses and to continue the dominant image being developed of him. As the gatekeeper’s powerful image continues to grow, the man’s subordinate persona is repeatedly presented to the reader through associating the man with “childish” and “weak” features. Aside from way in which the characters are presented, the distinction in status is immediately noted within the first lines of the poem. The reason the man does not enter the gate is because the gatekeeper prohibits him and warns the man not to disobey him or else the man would face serious consequences given the gatekeeper’s abilities. This immediate denial of entrance establishes that the reins of power are being held only by the gatekeeper. As the story progresses, the man waits on the gatekeeper’s permission and does a multitude of things, most notably giving all his valuable possessions to the gatekeeper for the sake of entering the gate. The simple notion of the man having to ask for the gatekeeper’s permission and continually begging him for entrance solidifies who holds the control. Towards the end of the story, we drew our attention on the way the man fades with time yet the gatekeeper remains unaltered. This detail coincides with a central component in the Marxist theory, reification, which is the process where opposed workers lose their sense of individual humanity. The man withers away and loses himself more and more as time passes for the sake of appealing to the gatekeeper because of that continual emphasis in the idea that the man can only ever make progress if the gatekeeper, who is of higher status, allows him to.

 Despite the strengths that lay within the Marxist criticism, the psychological theory also holds value when trying to comprehend “Before the Law.”  This theory directs the emphasis on the internal mental states of the characters and what motivates and dictates their desires. The central question in regards to this story is why was the man never allowed into the gate if the gate was intentionally made solely for him? Approaching the question from the psychological theory standpoint, the reason why the man was never able to enter the gate was that he psychologically allowed himself to be deemed inferior to the gatekeeper and in doing so, blindly accepted the gatekeeper’s decisions. Taking into consideration what the gatekeeper represented, power and strength, the man felt mentally and physically inferior to him because, through the perspective of the man, he did not possess those grand qualities that he associated with authority and control. The intimidation led to the man feeling subordinate so much so that he believed and accepted that he was inferior to the gatekeeper. With the acceptance of inferiority, it allowed the gatekeeper to repeatedly mistreat him and deny the man entrance but more importantly, it allowed the man to accept those actions without question. The power held by the gatekeeper did not actually come from the attributes that he possessed but rather from the control the man gave him because he psychologically believed he was inferior to the gatekeeper.

Between the Marxist theory and the psychological theory, I believe the Marxist approach is better suited to aid the meaning behind “Before the Law.” The central struggle, at its core, is the difference in power between the man and the gatekeeper. The gatekeeper is presented as a powerful, strong, almost godly figure while the man is depicted as a mundane, weak human. There is uneven power distributed between the characters which make them unequal. It is this inequality that leaves one man at the mercy of the other. If one character had the sole control of the situation, then the other character has no choice but to accept what the other dictates. The man has no choice but to accept what the gatekeeper decides because the man is at an inferior status compared to the powerful gatekeeper, which is the essence of the Marxist theory. The psychological theory explains why the man and the gatekeeper did what they did, essentially due to inequality of power held, but the Marxist theory explains where that inequality comes from and in doing so explains why the characters acted the way they did and why the ending was what it was.  

Total word count:1,019