Marxist vs. Poststructuralist Approach

The short story “Before the Law” by Franz Kafka is about a man who attempts to gain an entry to the gate despite the gatekeeper’s prevention. Among the ten literary criticisms we talked about in class, our group used the Marxist approach to understand this story. With the Marxist approach, our group pointed out an important element that I was not able to catch with the poststructuralist approach. While Kafka’s intentions can be narrowed down to one with the Marxist approach, multiple interpretations of the story can exist with the poststructuralist approach.

Under the Marxist approach, a literary text presents some kind of power struggle between social classes draw public attention to social inequality (Fountain 169). Applying the Marxist approach to “Before the Law,” my group pointed out an evident power struggle between two different social classes. They consist of the “man,” who is attempting to gain entry to the gate, and the “gatekeeper,” who prevents the “man” from passing the gate. The “man” trying to cross the gate is a countryman (Kafka), which readers may perceive him from a low socioeconomic class. In contrast, the “gatekeeper” is presented as a figure in authority. Considering how the “man” and the “gatekeeper” are challenging each other, my group argued that this is a representation of power struggle—inferior power challenging the authority due to their own troubled reasonings such as social inequality.

In contrast to the Marxist approach, the poststructuralist approach is generally defined to convey multiple interpretations, have interdependent ideas with each idea being of equal value, or holding no value at all (Fountain 177). Applying this approach, Kafka’s “Before the Law” can generate multiple meanings. For instance, one reader may consider the “law” as a symbol of division between two social classes, while some other reader may perceive it as a gate to a prestigious place that not everyone is titled to enter. Kafka also foreshadows two endings to this story early on when the man asks the gatekeeper if his entry to the “law” (gate) will be permissioned at a later time. The gatekeeper responds to the man’s question saying: “‘It is possible,’”(Kafka), which conveys that the man’s entry may be granted at a later time but certainly does not guarantee that it will. Therefore, readers can expect two endings to this story; the man’s entry to the gate will be granted or get denied again. Regardless of how an individual perceives and interprets the characters and or the ending, the main point of using the poststructuralist approach is that no interpretation has more value than the other.

Another element that supports readers to generate individual interpretation are the mysterious illustration of characters, overall structure of the story and literary mechanism. More specifically, Kafka avoids using actual names to refer to the characters. Rather, he uses the most general and simple nouns to refer them as the “man,” the “gatekeeper,” and the “law” (Kafka). In addition, Kafka provides readers with no information on why the man desperately desires to enter the gate, why the gatekeeper prevents him, and why the gate has to be kept secured by the gatekeeper(s), which all would relate to one another. Another element that supports the text to have no single meaning is the irony at the end of the story. As the man is portrayed to be in the process of dying, the gatekeeper yells at the man saying that nobody sought after an entry because the entrance was only assigned to be open for him, the man (Kafka). This irony further complicates the understanding of the story and provides the reader another element to take into consideration when interpreting.

With the Marxist approach, “Before the Law” seems to be narrowed down to depict a social inequality. However, when applying the poststructuralist approach, readers have the freedom to explicate the text based on their own perception or understanding. With limited textual evidences or information that can be used to fully understand this story, using the poststructuralist approach might be a wise choice than Marxist as it does not require the readers to conform to one type of interpretation.