After reading Kafka’s “Before the Law” my group immediately started discussing the Marxist criticism appeals of the story. The narrator describes the struggles of a country man who is trying to get into the law. The man believes “the law should always be accessible for everyone” this appears to be a common marxist idea. Yet the reality is far from the ideal as the man is barred from entering by a gatekeeper and is fed with empty hopes “It is possible…but not now.” The story contains cues of a class struggle, especially emphasized in the following statement from the gatekeeper “I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other.” The gatekeepers statement illustrates a sort of hierarchy as the gatekeeper labels himself as powerful, yet lowly. As odd as it sounds, people with one title (gatekeepers) are increasing more powerful at each room/level, especially since the gatekeeper that the story is focused on claims to have nothing on the power of the third gatekeeper up from him. This revels that the subjects in each class hierarchy/structure are fixed and unable to move from their place. This is further supported as the story ends with the man never making it into the law.
Alternatively, I read this story considering the concept of reader response theories. Although my group unanimously agreed to present our reading using marxist criticism, each member had different interpretations. When I read this piece a third time, I began to imagine how a person that is not a young college student would interpret this story. Remembering my conversations with my late grandfather, who spent his life getting suppressed by the communist culture of the Soviet Union, I would image him concluding that this story portrays the communists of the SSSR never allowing the Christian and even the Jewish minorities the opportunities. Not only to move up in class, but to get an education or even a job that would provide for a family. On the other side of the world, individuals from the late nineteenth or early twentieth century - when this piece was published, would certainly view this story differently. They would consider this story to be about the early stock market. The wall would be Wall Street, which symbolizes the stock market, the gatekeepers would symbolize the people already in the stock market, who would not let other newcomers into the system.
For me, the Marxist criticism appears to be more convincing. Speaking for myself, I feel that there is more evidence and support for this approach. I do however have to admit that there is a chance that I incline toward the Marxist criticism because explaining it feels easier than the other criticisms… For this reason, I believe than that the alternate - reader response theory would be more useful for the interpretation of this mysterious and ambiguous piece. My classmates had an interesting discussion surrounding this story which resulted in a diverse interpretation, each with valid evidence. I believe that in a more diversified setting the discussion would escalate the variety of interpretations, as we individuals filter this story through our minds, each saturated with unique experiences and knowledge.
I really enjoyed reading your unique interpretation of "Before the Law." I never thought that the story could be seen as representing Christian and Jewish a sort of banishment. You linked your interpretation as well as that of your groups quite well. Perhaps at the start you could have included how the Marxist theory attempts to interpret texts based off of social class and then proceed with your explanation that the class struggle is evidence.
ReplyDeleteI found your reader response criticism interpretation of the story to be very interesting and refreshing. It is important to consider how readers of different backgrounds piece together a story. Perhaps you could elaborate on what causes them to view the content differently to make your blog more solid. As for your Marxist criticism interpretation, I agree that the criticism relates to the story. However, the analysis of the provided evidences seems to be weak because they tend to repeat what occurred in the story, and does not provide any new information. Perhaps elaborating more on how your evidence connects to the Marxist criticism will help others understand why Marxist criticism applies to the story.
ReplyDelete