"Before the Law": Reader-response v Psychological Theory

“Before the Law” by Franz Kafka is a short story about a man who is trying to gain entry into “the law.” However, the gatekeeper prohibits the man from passing claiming he cannot grant him access at the moment. The gatekeeper warns the man against trying to enter forcefully because there are other gatekeepers that are more powerful than him waiting inside. Due to this, the man sits outside the gate and waits his entire life for permission to enter. As the man’s life is coming to an end he asks the gatekeeper why nobody else besides him has tried to gain entry into “the law” if it something everyone strives for; the gatekeeper responds by telling him the entrance was assigned to the man, but since he is dying it will be closed. The ending of the story is very ambiguous, which allows for different readings based on different critical approaches to apply.

            When reading “Before the Law” in class, the reader-response theory seemed to work best due to the fact that each group member had different interpretations. According to the reader-response theory, the text “can never be complete unless the readers bring their own unique insights to it” (Gardner 175); therefore, each reader’s interpretation is considered equal. During the group discussion, each member shared their own analysis of the story and it was evident the ambiguity left by Kafka was interpreted in different ways by each person. For example, one approach taken was the Marxist theory. In the short story, there is an instance where the man is observing the gatekeeper and contemplating whether or not he should enter by force because “the law should be always accessible for everyone, but as he looks more closely at the gatekeeper in his fur coat…he decides it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside” (Kafka). This line exemplifies the difference in socioeconomic class between the countryman and the gatekeeper, which is the foundation of the Marxist theory. The purpose of the Marxist theory is to “expose the inequalities that underlie societies” (Gardner 170), and when one looks at “Before the Law” through the Marxist lens it is apparent that there is a power dynamic between the two characters. The gatekeeper is the oppressor who is given luxurious items and a position of authority that exert power over the countryman without needing to take any physical action; this in turn prevents the countryman—a poor and powerless man—from reaching higher goals, such as entering the law. The group discussion also emphasized other theories such as formalism and historical criticism that interpreted the text in completely different ways. Due to the fact each member brought a different approach to the discussion and were able to provide evidence to support their interpretation, we ultimately decided reader-response was the best approach because it allows each reader to give the story their own meaning. However, reader-response leaves significant space for interpretation, which not only can result in deviation from the author’s intended meaning but also a never-ending cycle of interpretations that never lead to a concrete answer.

            While the group discussion had ultimately led to a unanimous decision in support of the reader-response theory, another approach that works well is the psychological theory. According to Freud, the mind is divided into many layers within our conscious, subconscious and unconscious, all of which influence human action. In “Before the Law” the countryman is warned about all three gates and gatekeepers guarding the law, which could be interpreted as the three layers of the mind. The gatekeeper warns the man of the others by stating, “I am the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other” (Kafka). When looked at through a psychological perspective, the gates appear to be physical manifestations of the Freudian model, as each part of the mind gets more powerful, so do the gatekeepers. As stated, each part of the mind also controls human actions, meaning one’s motivation and desires. Another interpretation of the story could be that the gates and gatekeepers represent obstacles individuals place for themselves in order to hinder them from reaching their goals. In the story, the gatekeeper never physically prevented the man from entering the law nor did he threaten the man, however, the man stopped himself from entering to avoid failure, confrontation, or perhaps harm. This goes to show that individuals are the only ones hindering their success. Humans utilize their fears and anxieties as excuses to justify the lack of upward mobility in their lives, just like the man used the fear of being harmed by the gatekeeper to justify his failure to enter the law.