"Before the Law" Analysis: Marxism vs. Reader-Response

            The ambiguity present in Franz Kafka's "Before the Law" and the variety of possible interpretations led my group to decide that the reader-response critical theory fits best for this story. It explains the nameless man who is trying to gain entry into an unspecified law, and the vagueness in Kafka's writing opens up different interactions readers can have with the text. However, despite the obscurities, the Marxist criticism better highlights the clear and distinct qualities that help decipher its meaning. Although the reader-response criticism can complete the missing elements of the text, the Marxist criticism is best equipped in understanding the existing qualities in "Before the Law".

            During our group discussion, we mentioned that the different experiences of the reader lead to multiple explanations to the story. We observed that the law the man is striving for could relay different meanings, and the message of the story can vary depending on the reader. In result, the reader-response theory seemed appropriate in analyzing the text. According to Gardner, a reader-response theory is an "interaction between an author and a reader, and it can never be complete unless readers bring to it their own insight." In other words, the text is "not a container filled with meaning by its author" that the readers are left to interpret based on their own experiences (Gardner 175). Kafka, however, has filled the text with meaning and can be complete without the reader's personal analysis. Granted, there are gaps in the story, such as the unidentified man, but knowing the age or name of the man does not add to the comprehension of the reading. The central point is that there is a clear hierarchical divide between the man and the gatekeeper as the man strives his entire life trying to enter into the law. It is this attempt at gaining entry and the power dynamic between the two characters that are the core elements of the story. The flaw in our group's analysis is that we interpreted "a container filled with meaning" and analyzed gaps that were not necessary to the central theme.

            On the other hand, the Marxist criticism identifies the prominent characteristics of the text and provides a more comprehensive reading. Gardener describes that “for Marxist critics… literary characters could be divided into powerful oppressors and their powerless victims," which is clearly exemplified through the clear distinction between the gatekeeper and the country man (Gardner 170). There is already an established divide between the two characters from the beginning as the gatekeeper has an appointed role before the law while the man is stranger from the country with no designated purpose. The hierarchy continues to grow when the gatekeeper states that he is "the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other" (Kafka 1). The "powerful oppressor" role is further shown as the "gatekeeper in his fur coat" and "large pointed nose" has enough authority to hinder his entry into the law while the author provides no description of the man. The fur coat is often associated with wealth and status, and large noses are highly considered as a symbol of confidence and power; these both highlight and elevate the gatekeeper's position. In the next sentence, the "gatekeeper gives him a stool and allows him to sit down" (Kafka 1). This physically places the man at a lower level than the gatekeeper. Additionally, the gatekeeper does not force the man but "allows him to sit down". While this scene can be seen as an act of kindness, it can also reveal a patronizing attitude as the gatekeeper literally exemplifies the idiomatic phrase "to look down one's nose". These actions and descriptions reveal the unequal social status between the man and the gatekeeper that coincides with the Marxist theorists' oppressor and victim statement.

            Another characteristic of the Marxist criticism that is seen in "Before the Law" is the "reification (the process whereby oppressed workers lose their sense of individual humanity)" (Gardner 170). His loss of individual humanity is reflected through his desperate endeavours at persuading the gatekeeper to let him in. This is shown through the man's degradation as he devolves into a character who begs and bribes in demoralizing attempts to enter the law. A pinnacle example is when he seeks help from the "fleas in [the gatekeeper's] fur collar" (Kafka 1). The fleas' home in the fur collar not only reveals an unnatural hierarchy between the man and the insects but also demeans him. Despite being parasites, they are in a higher position than the man as they live in a symbol of prosperity -- the fur collar. Furthermore, the man degrades himself to the point in which he has to ask the fleas for help. Ultimately, he continues to lose himself until death while the gatekeeper remains unaltered. The oppressor remains unchanged while the victim withers away.

            While the reader-response allows for a variety of different interpretations, the Marxist approach tackles the principal component of the story: the struggle between the man and the gatekeeper. The reader-response story focuses on the gaps but does not help explain the attributes that are present. The Marxist theory is best suited in explaining the small yet symbolic illustrations, which aid in understanding the prominent uneven power distribution that plays at the center of the story.

Word Count: 894