The group had decided that Kafka’s Before the Law would be appropriately read under a Marxist critical theory. Consideration was given towards other interpretations but the overwhelming consensus favored a Marxist lens. The reasoning behind this could be found within the descriptions of the two main characters. The gatekeeper positions himself in a position of power, protecting something that the man from the country desires. The gatekeepers status as a person of power, and an obstacle in the way of the man’s goal parodies the traits of the bourgeoisie. The “law”, though not assigned any given definition, was perceived by the group as something akin to property. In the hands of the few gatekeepers, the “law” was held by a small but intimidating and discriminating group of people. Much like how the bourgeoisie protect the means of production from the vast proletariat, deciding who deserves property and opportunity, the gatekeepers are able to pick and choose who gains access to the land of the law. Consequently, Kafka’s story can be interpreted as a Marxist commentary on the socioeconomic powers that play into consideration when dealing with class struggle and power. However, many other groups came to the same conclusion that Kafka’s Before the Law should be read using a Marxist perspective. In addition to being a hasty, this decision also seemed like the most convenient, as it was easy to ride with popular opinion. The reasons for choosing a Marxist perspective were also very isolated and cherry-picked. A psychological evaluation of Kafka’s story seems more appropriate if a reader were to contextualize the entire story.
A psychological perspective of Kafka’s Before the Law would be just as useful and appropriate. As mentioned before, the overwhelming consensus of not just the group, but the entire class, favored a Marxist lens for literary criticism. This lead to a lot of echoing of ideas and motifs that propelled discussion into a corner. It is important to lend an ear to all perspectives as there is no one absolute way to read a text, just one that stands out more than others on a superficial level.
Kafka’s story has a plethora of plot points that jump out to a psychological literary critic. An example can be found in the conclusion of the story. As the gatekeeper approaches the dying man, he tells him that “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it.” The notion that an individual can have personal obstacles in the way of achieving success is not purely a symptom of Marxism. Rather the opposite can be true: Marxism seeks to dismantle the identity of the individual, and instead unite everyone under the same identity. The obstacles that the proletariat face, are unique to the class, not the individual. The man faces a situation unique to him, something that cannot be solved by overpowering the dominant ruling class. The man from the country discovers this for himself by asking “Everyone strives after the law, so how is it that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?” The use of the word “everyone” implies a lower level of understanding that the problems that the man faces cannot be solved through unity or cooperation. It can be assumed that others have tried to gain access to the land of the law and succeeded. If they could do it, why should the man not simply try to emulate others. Herein lies what makes a psychological criticism important to consider: the significance of examining an individual and his attempt to resolve conflict cannot be accomplished under a Marxist criticism.
At least within the group, the identity of the gatekeeper was extensively evaluated the most and for good reason. The immediate identity of the gatekeeper made it easy to place him within the hierarchy of Marxist theory and thus easy to analyze under a Marxist criticism. He has more direct quotes to draw upon, and a deeper description of who he is. However, in a story with only two characters, analyzing only the gatekeeper means the reader is only analyzing half of all available characters. The two characters represent a complex relationship that would be very useful to discern under a psychological literary criticism. It is stated that the man “has not expected such difficulties” as he thinks “the law should always be accessible for everyone.” The man’s belief in the accessibility of the law is a personal one, and it signifies an element of haughty presumption. If the law is something that everyone strives after, then should it really be accessible to everyone? An especially interesting point can be found in the midst of the passage of time in the story: the man forgets the other gatekeepers over time, and comes to perceive the first gatekeeper as only the only obstacle for entry. A psychological critic might come to the conclusion under these points that the moral of Kafka’s story is that there is value in struggling to achieve success, and not to lose sight of one’s goals or aspirations even for a moment. This is radically different from the conclusion that a Marxist critic would come to, and the distinction between these two conclusions makes it important to consider less immediately obvious literary criticisms.
A psychological perspective of Kafka’s Before the Law would be just as useful and appropriate. As mentioned before, the overwhelming consensus of not just the group, but the entire class, favored a Marxist lens for literary criticism. This lead to a lot of echoing of ideas and motifs that propelled discussion into a corner. It is important to lend an ear to all perspectives as there is no one absolute way to read a text, just one that stands out more than others on a superficial level.
Kafka’s story has a plethora of plot points that jump out to a psychological literary critic. An example can be found in the conclusion of the story. As the gatekeeper approaches the dying man, he tells him that “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it.” The notion that an individual can have personal obstacles in the way of achieving success is not purely a symptom of Marxism. Rather the opposite can be true: Marxism seeks to dismantle the identity of the individual, and instead unite everyone under the same identity. The obstacles that the proletariat face, are unique to the class, not the individual. The man faces a situation unique to him, something that cannot be solved by overpowering the dominant ruling class. The man from the country discovers this for himself by asking “Everyone strives after the law, so how is it that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?” The use of the word “everyone” implies a lower level of understanding that the problems that the man faces cannot be solved through unity or cooperation. It can be assumed that others have tried to gain access to the land of the law and succeeded. If they could do it, why should the man not simply try to emulate others. Herein lies what makes a psychological criticism important to consider: the significance of examining an individual and his attempt to resolve conflict cannot be accomplished under a Marxist criticism.
At least within the group, the identity of the gatekeeper was extensively evaluated the most and for good reason. The immediate identity of the gatekeeper made it easy to place him within the hierarchy of Marxist theory and thus easy to analyze under a Marxist criticism. He has more direct quotes to draw upon, and a deeper description of who he is. However, in a story with only two characters, analyzing only the gatekeeper means the reader is only analyzing half of all available characters. The two characters represent a complex relationship that would be very useful to discern under a psychological literary criticism. It is stated that the man “has not expected such difficulties” as he thinks “the law should always be accessible for everyone.” The man’s belief in the accessibility of the law is a personal one, and it signifies an element of haughty presumption. If the law is something that everyone strives after, then should it really be accessible to everyone? An especially interesting point can be found in the midst of the passage of time in the story: the man forgets the other gatekeepers over time, and comes to perceive the first gatekeeper as only the only obstacle for entry. A psychological critic might come to the conclusion under these points that the moral of Kafka’s story is that there is value in struggling to achieve success, and not to lose sight of one’s goals or aspirations even for a moment. This is radically different from the conclusion that a Marxist critic would come to, and the distinction between these two conclusions makes it important to consider less immediately obvious literary criticisms.
I did the Marxist vs. Psychological Theory analysis too, but I found your explanation for the psychological really interesting! The point about being an individual vs a class was well thought out and argued. However, I believe that it could be improved by referencing the Psychological Theory part of Gardner's Literary Criticism, because the blog is seemingly disproving the Marxist Criticism more than it is proving the Psychological Theory.
ReplyDeleteHi Zachary,
ReplyDeleteYour interpretation of the Kafka reading was an intriguing read. I liked how you went against the opposition of the class discussion where the majority believed that the Marxist approach was most appropriate for this text. The part about the individual versus the collective was a unique interpretation. It gave emphasis to struggles that each individual face that a collective group may or may not face together. Other than additional references that could be included for the different approaches, I am interested in whether or not there are any part of the reading that does not fit with the psychological approach.