Understanding the Approach of "Before the Law" by Franz Kafka

“Before the Law” by Franz Kafka is a story about how a man arrives before the gates of the Law desiring access to enter. The man failed attempts to be allowed in, he patiently waits until the gatekeeper lets him in. As he is near death, asking the gatekeeper why access is not allowed into this well known place, the gatekeeper shares that “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it” (Kafka). From this, the reader is left pondering what reason was at fault for the man not being granted access into his own gate.

A critical approach that can be used while reading this story is Poststructuralism and Deconstruction. This theory understands concepts by relying on the help of other concepts. Reading a piece, the reader must focus on the whole idea by understanding and interpreting the context. This piece can be perceived differently amongst cultures. An underlying religious context is present; the gates, the gatekeeper, the anticipation to enter the unknown place and the dying man are all key components of the story that can be connected to the religious place of Heaven. The prolonging experience the man goes through at the front of the gate, is similar to how people are constantly thinking and pondering about what that place is like. His curiosity and attempts towards discovering what is behind the gates results in him just peacefully waiting. Similarly, religious followers continuously read up and imagine what it is like behind the gates. Often, people begin their path of life with a strong mentality that they fully deserve what they are going after and will not stop until they achieve it. From this, I was under the impression to form my own interpretation of; the path you have entered in life, is truly the one destined for you. No matter what obstacles might come you way, your path will always lead you to where you need to be. I believe the man could have figured this out, if he did not give up on his effort to be granted access to the Law.

On the other hand, the Marxist approach provides the reader with a better understanding of this story. This focuses on the, “insistence that human interactions are economically driven and that the basic model of human progress is based on a struggle for power between different social classes” (Gardner 169). The reason why this approach can be applied to this story is found in the oppressor vs victim situation between the gatekeeper and the man. The Gatekeeper is able to establish dominance through his appearance; “his fur coat, at his large pointed nose and his long, thin, black Tartar’s beard” (Kafka). The difference in their characters opens the reader to the idea that they might not be in the same social class. Since the man is not given a name and is just labeled as “a man from the country” (Kafka). The difference between the characters is further identified as the man starts to age later in the story. This disadvantage shows him as weak and vulnerable since there is no identification that the gatekeeper is going through the same circumstances as him. With this, the reader can further question his status compared to the gatekeeper. A piece of evidence that supports this story of being a Marxist piece is that there has to be some economic drive. In this story, the man resorted to bribing, he: “spends everything, no matter how valuable, to win over the gatekeeper” (Kafka). This dedication did not work but resulted in him losing all of his belongings because the gatekeeper still took everything. From this part of the story, the reader can identify that these individuals value possessions. The interaction between the man and the gatekeeper was revolved around using material items to please someone into giving you what you want. However, one disadvantage to this approach is that Kafka never explicitly states that there is a socioeconomic status difference between the man and the gatekeeper. There are several hints and ideas towards the gatekeeper being of higher status than the man, but if it were to be a true representation of a Marxist piece, there would be a clear portrayal. Also, if the man was of lesser status, why would he have his own gate? If this were part of a true society, as Marxism describes, he would not have access to such personal luxury.