Psychoanalytical Reading of “Before the Law”

      When first interpreting “Before the Law,” by Franz Kafka, our group decided the Marxist Literary Criticism made the most sense for understanding what the short story was about. Through the Marxist Criticism lens, “Before the Law” seemed to depict a classic struggle of the lower socioeconomic class, the “man from the country,” trying to gain access to the benefits guarded by “the gatekeeper.” Some of the evidence we gathered included the simple description of the “man from the country,” perhaps depicting the rural and economically struggling class, and the gatekeeper in a “fur coat” and authoritative face with a “Tartar’s beard.” Additionally, the text describes the man from the country spending “everything, no matter how valuable, to win over the gatekeeper,” which seemed to indicate that money played a factor in getting past the gatekeeper. We also interpreted the struggle to reach “the law” as either the economically disadvantaged fighting to gain equal access to justice and the law of the land that catered to the richer, or even heaven, which some used to believe could be accessed through higher social and economic status. The one part of the short story that our group struggled to make sense of, especially in light of the Marxist Criticism, was the ending, in which it is made clear no one else attempted to pass through the gate and the gatekeeper states that “this entrance” was only for this individual man. Thus, the class struggle theory was complicated by this emphasis on the individual.

      Another critical lens that can be used to interpret this short story is the Psychoanalytical Criticism, in which we focus on the mind of the man from the country. Using this literary criticism, the gate and gatekeeper can be understood as the man’s mental barriers he is struggling to overcome. This critical lens made sense of the “journey” this man was on, perhaps some goal he was trying to reach in life (according to the story, attempted numerous times over the years), and one he was willing to spend all his money to obtain. This theory also made the “mental” aspect of the barrier make more sense since physical aspects, money or pleading, made no difference in overcoming it. Additionally, when the text describes how he “forgets the other gatekeepers, and this one seems to him the only obstacle for entry into the law,” it can be understood that there are other avenues available, but the man becomes so fixated on this one entry that he is unable to move on or find another solution. This fixation can be compared to when people get some idea or belief stuck in their mind and cannot overcome it, in spite of other factors or solutions that may be present, even observable by outsiders. Indeed, his stubborn fixation can be understood as the “childish” demeanor he is described as taking over the years, much like someone stubbornly holding onto a belief through heir life. Finally, the ending of the story that describes the gate as being solely available to the man, can cement the interpretation of this specific mental barrier the man has been struggling to overcome and why no one else has been present. With this understanding, it makes sense that everyone would have their own individual barrier to overcome. Thus, through the psychoanalytical lens, the story can be understood as one man’s struggle against a barrier in his mind, perhaps a belief or understanding that keeps him from a certain goal or reaching his full potential. To his mind, it is immovable, but the outsider can see other ways or gates that he ignores in favor of obsessing or fixating on this one barrier.

      Some aspects of the story that are still hard to fit exactly in this critical theory are “the law” being the object the gate separates from the man and the very specific physical description of the gatekeeper. However, after reading the story again through the Psychoanalytical critical lens, the interpretation of this story as depicting the mental barriers people can place on themselves and struggle with their whole lives, in spite of other solutions that outsiders can see, makes more sense. The ending is no longer a mystery and complication as it was with the Marxist criticism, but a cementing of this idea, which I appreciate since I struggled to understand it during the first round of interpretation.