Marxist and Psychological Criticism in "Before the Law"

“Before the Law” can be examined through the lens of Marxist criticism, which deals primarily in struggle between social classes and the quest for material elevation of status.  Opportunities for Marxist criticism run throughout the story, one of the strongest examples of which being the class system depicted in the form of the gatekeepers.  The gatekeepers appear to be arranged in their own hierarchy, as is seen when the first gatekeeper insists that “I am only the most lowly gatekeeper,” suggesting that there is an entire system of guardians with each being more powerful and more socially elevated than the last.  This is representative of a class system, the argument for which grows even stronger when examining the actions of the man from the country in relation to this system.  The man from the country strives to reach the next rung on the social ladder, shown when he attempts to gain access to that first gate.  He is shown relinquishing all material possessions in his attempts, as the story describes him as “[spending] everything, no matter how valuable, to win over the gatekeeper.”  This ties back into the Marxist approach.  The man from the country is engaging in class struggle, giving his all his material possessions in an attempt to elevate himself while remaining trapped in his current position outside the first gate.  Ultimately the tale appears to be that of class warfare.

Taking another critical approach, the story may also be examined through psychological theory.  When viewed this way, “Before the Law” becomes the tale of a man attempting to overcome something within his own mind.  This would explain away many of the story’s oddities.  For example, the gatekeeper seems to remain the same age even as the man from the country ages and dies (though keeping with the psychological approach, it’s equally likely that the death of the man is figurative, representing him giving up on overcoming whatever mental block he was facing in the form of the gatekeepers).  Either way, the suggestion that the story is taking place entirely in a psychological plane would explain this peculiarity.  In addition, a psychological approach would explain the final line, which somewhat disrupts the Marxist approach.  The line claims, “…no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you.” This sense of individualism isn’t suited to Marxist criticism, but it’s perfectly suited to a psychological approach.  The claim that only that specific man could gain entry supports the theory that everything that’s happening is in his head.  If only he can gain entrance, the story is taking place on a personalized plane that could very well be representative of the human mind.  The hierarchy of gatekeepers can be explained by this theory as well, with each gatekeeper symbolizing some realization greater than the last in a series of mental blocks the man from the country is trying to overcome or otherwise make peace with.  Under this approach, these details fall into place.

So the question remains—which approach is more suited to the story at hand?  The psychological approach does seem to clarify the final line of the story, as well as a few lingering concerns such as the ageless nature of the gatekeeper.  However looking at the Marxist approach, an argument could be made that the ageless gatekeeper could represent the unchanging social hierarchy, and that the final line is symbolic rather than literal, with all of mankind being represented by the man from the country and a cruel economic system being represented by the system of gatekeepers.  Both critical approaches seem equally useful.  What pushes the story in the direction of Marxist theory instead of psychological theory, though, is in the title of the text itself—the law.  Under psychological theory, there is no concrete reason for the word law to be used, as the term does not play into the interpretation that the man is attempting to overcome some form of mental block by going through the various gates.  Equating the law to these mental gates doesn’t quite fit.  Looking to Marxist criticism, though, the word slots perfectly into place.  The law here could easily be seen as something far more direct, such as the nonconcrete but ever-present social law dictating who can and cannot enter which area of the class hierarchy.  It’s not a literal law—rather it’s a regulation set in place by the people, dictated by material wealth and status, which is strikingly similar to the way the man from the country follows some groundless rule made by gatekeeper that he is not allowed to enter the next area.  This coincides with Marxist theory far more than psychological theory, pushing “Before the Law” in the direction of that branch of criticism.