Kafka: Reader Response vs Marxism

When our group began our conversation regarding approaches to the cryptic and strange text we read, most of us were delineated between Marxist and reader response. In my opinion, reader response theory seems most appropriate. When Looking at ‘Before the Law’ by Franz Kafka through a reader response approach, the intended reader can, with the correct avenues of analysis, excavate many distinct and unique meanings in the text itself. However, some of my group mates put forth a convincing argument that Marxist theory also seemed appropriate for this specific text. In my forthcoming blog post, I’ll be contrasting the two theories and articulating which I feel is more suitable for Kafka’s text.

‘Before the Law,’ by Franz Kafka, even throughout many reads, reads as a nebulous and strange parable with an ambiguous and unclear ultimate meaning. The plot reads like this: A man approaches the law, guarded by a gatekeeper, hoping to gain entry into the law. The man speaks to the gatekeeper, who informs him that he is not able to gain entry into the law just yet. From there on, the man waits at the door, his patience spanning his entire life, till the point where he is a withered man about to die. As he is dying, the gatekeeper informs him that the entry was always available for him.

Now, at first glance, and many afterwards, this story might make seemingly no sense to a reader that is not aware of the many literary criticisms that aid in understanding and garnering meaning from a certain text. Even myself, an English major of sort, had quite a bit of difficulty gathering an astute analysis that I felt confident about. But, with the aid of reader response theory (which is a school of literary thought that focuses on the reader and how different peoples unique experiences and thoughts might result in a different interpretation of the text), it is evident that this text does not seem to cater to one analysis or one type of reader. I also think that this method of analysis is even welcomed by Kafka himself. I say this because of the certain and purposefully elusive language that lends this particular story to multiple avenues of analysis. For example, in this story, the identities and symbolic implications of what the law, or the man, or the gatekeeper are left purposefully vague, allowing for the intended reader to arrive at a myriad of possible analyses.

Along with my previous point, this story itself is so strange; not at all linear with our own realities, that it also leaves a lot of blank room for a certain reader to implement their own meanings to it. By implement their own meaning, I mean, for example: a more straightforward reader, one who doesn’t care much about digging too deep into texts or anything, might just see this story as the tale of one person who is ultimately unable to gain entrance into the law. He might think, ‘huh this sounds like a parable of sort,’ but that might just be the end of his literary pondering. But let’s say, for example, someone with a more pious attitude were to approach this piece. That particularly pious person might interpret this piece as a parable of someone who lacked devotion to god; one who had sinned or something and was punished in front of the gates of heaven. Language like, "If it tempts you so much, try in spite of my prohibition. But take note, I am powerful," has heavily implied connotations of God or another metaphorically powerful deity. The words ‘gates’ can very well allude to heaven, it’s this type of loose language that allows this story to be interpreted in many ways.

On the other hand, this story could be illuminated under a Marxist light. Marxist criticism is a school of theory that focuses on power dynamics and class struggles within a story. Using this lens, the confusing roles of the two characters within the story become more clear. Within a Marxist lens, a reader could interpret the gatekeeper as a sort of power wielding bourgeois, while the old man would be a powerless proletariat of sort. The gatekeeper is restricting the man, which could symbolize a restriction of personal freedom and equality, which the rich are gate-keeping the poor from. The closing lines, “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it,” could potentially refer to the possibility of a revolution, or stating that there is a method in which pedestrians could enter that gate that the rich regulate. This theory also makes historical sense, because Kafka himself (according to Wikipedia) was a socialist. This text can be interpreted as an allegory of sort to point out the stark power differences between the rich and poor, encouraging the latter to do something about this unbalanced power difference.

As I wrote this blog post, I slowly warmed up to the Marxist Criticism. They both make sense, but the latter does have the backing of historical evidence. Regardless, both theories feel suitable as a tool to garner meaning from Kafka’s vague, elusive, and difficult text.