Marxist and Reader-Response Approaches to "Before the Law"

When discussing “Before the Law” my group settled upon a Marxist reading to interpret the text. This worked well for a majority of the text, but fell short when we attempted to make sense of the end of the text. Though Marxist theory may be used to analyze much of the story, considering reader-response theory is most useful as it provides insight into the ending of the story which a Marxist approach cannot.

When using a Marxist approach, my group and I took note of the implications of capitalism such as the moment when the man attempts to pay the guard to go through the gate, but focused primarily on the representations of class differences. The guard representing a higher socioeconomic class, with more guards closer to the law representing even higher status preventing the man and the lower class he represents from accessing the law and having a voice in government. This reading is supported by not only the guard’s occupation, but through his appearance, wearing the status symbol of a fur coat. By the end of the story, the guard also has a distinct physical advantage over the now old man who can “no longer lift up his stiffening body” while the guard still stands tall and must bend over to speak to him (Kafka). This reading of the story sees it as commentary on class difference and the lower class’s inability to access or change the government or law. This critical approach and reading is confused by the ending of the story, when the man is at his own door, rather than one for all people of his socioeconomic class.   

Due to the predominance of capitalism, many readers may interpret much of the text in the same way my group interpreted it in our Marxist approach, but use a reader-response approach to integrate their own experiences and cultural context in order to better make sense of the ending. A reader who has experiences with the law and its interpretation may choose to focus on the legal implications of the story. When the man is about to die and he asks “everyone strives after the law. . . so how is it that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?” and the gatekeeper replies “here no one else can gain entry, for this entrance was assigned only for you.” (Kafka). Though “everyone strives after the law” it is revealed that this entrance is only for the man because the law is interpretable (Kafka). As the man is never granted access to the law, it is never truly described, leaving its appearance up to the reader’s interpretation, again drawing attention to the law’s non-concrete nature. As each person has their own ideas about how the law should be interpreted or changed, each person shall be assigned their own gate, unable to access the law, as the law itself is only a product of their own interpretation. The use of a reader-response approach allows for a more nuanced interpretation of the text, less constrained than a more specific theoretical approach.

While the Marxist interpretation provides insight into how power structures and capitalism are represented in the story, considering reader-response allows for a more complete interpretation of the text. In recognizing reading as a process in which the reader fills in the blanks of the story, there emerges a more complete interpretation than can be provided by the constraints of a singular approach.  The Marxist interpretation originally decided upon by my group also fills in gaps within the text and provides meaning not explicitly stated, yet it falls short when considering the end of the story. A reader-response approach is not subject to this type of incompletion, as its constraints do not stem from its function as a written theory separate from the analyzed text, but rather from the personal and cultural viewpoint of the reader. As readers are not defined by a singular guiding experience, theory, or way of thinking, their responses are able to make meaning from the entirety of the text, even if those interpretations vary from reader to reader.

While my group decided that a Marxist approach would best used to interpret “Before the Law” this theory is not able to give a clear explanation of the story’s ending. The reader-response critical approach is able to provide a more convincing interpretation of the text because it is less constrained than the use of one particular theoretical approach.