However, although I concede that a “formalist” perspective on the story is intriguing, I do not believe it is the most useful or significant way of viewing the text. In my opinion, a “marxist” critique of the man and gatekeeper is the most true and useful. As it relates to Kafka’s literary work, a marxist is not concerned with analyzing the text itself, but rather the underlying struggle for power between the man and the gatekeeper. As expressed by Gardner, “marxist” theory derived out of the ideas of Karl Marx: the idea that all “human interactions are economically driven” and that much of human progress relies on a “struggle for power between different social classes.” Those ideas are clearly evident in “Before the Law,” and I would contend that understanding the power dynamic between the man and the gatekeeper is crucial in understanding the tale as a whole. In the second sentence of the story, the man is said to have come from the “country,” and one can infer that this means that he is meant to represent the low class. The gatekeeper is symbolic for the wealthier, more powerful, high class. If we were to examine the text through this type of literary theory, we may interpret the story not as just a story about a man’s struggle, but rather a textual representation of oppression that “poorer” citizens face all around the world. I believe it is also important to note that “Before the Law” was published in 1915, in the midst of WWI, so the importance of “power” and “prowess” was at an all time high, so it may be that the socioeconomics and power struggle of the war was reflected in Kafka’s writing. All in all, a marxist approach is more useful, because it allows us, the readers, to not only extract meaning from the words themselves, but also from the events and circumstances surrounding them.
Monday, April 16, 2018
Prompt #1: Formalism vs. Marxist Criticism (in "Before the Law")
Franz Kafka’s “Before the Law” is a fascinating piece of literary work, because it can be interpreted and approached in a variety of ways. As we discussed Kafka’s short story, our group came to a consensus that the narrative regarding the man and gatekeeper could be seen through an interpretation based on “formalism.” This critical approach was popular, and heavily used in the twentieth century, and is an approach that focuses on the formal elements of a text, and not necessarily its historical, economic, or cultural undertones. A formalist critic is concerned with analyzing the piece of text itself, and not the externalities surrounding it. From a “formalist” point of view, “Before the Law” can be critically analyzed as a symbolic tale, filled with intertwining elements (characters, symbols, setting, etc.) that contribute to the overall message and meaning of the story. In the story, the man “asks to gain entry into the law,” but ultimately gets rejected by the gatekeeper who “cannot grant him entry at the moment.” As our group discussed further, we came to the conclusion that if we were to analyze the short story like a formalist critic would, it would be sensible to assume that each character, and “the law” itself, is symbolic. We agreed that “the man” was meant to represent the “average” person who struggled against authority, and of course, the gatekeeper himself embodied strict authority who was “powerful” compared to the typical citizen. The law is a physical environment that personifies the rights and powers that the common man are denied by the “authority” within society. Like most average citizens, the man believes that “the law should always be accessible for everyone,” but is ultimately surprised to find out that the gateway into freedom, and advancement, is blocked by the people (typically the wealthy, or the politically prominent) who run society. Our group’s reading was simple, yet relatable. Through a “formalist” perspective, we interpreted Kafka’s story as a tale regarding the common man’s struggle to penetrate the “higher” levels of society. However, we also thought the ending was specifically interesting, because it gave us the impression that perhaps the common man can become more influential and powerful, they just need to fight for it. At the end of the story, the gatekeeper reveals that, at the gate, “no one else” except the man could gain entry. To our group, this hinted at the idea that people do have the opportunity to enter into the law, but in order to do so, must get up off their “stool” and challenge the status quo. In short, our group attempted to extract meaning out of the text itself, and what each element may have symbolized, and, in my opinion, this is a very interesting way to look at “Before the Law.”
However, although I concede that a “formalist” perspective on the story is intriguing, I do not believe it is the most useful or significant way of viewing the text. In my opinion, a “marxist” critique of the man and gatekeeper is the most true and useful. As it relates to Kafka’s literary work, a marxist is not concerned with analyzing the text itself, but rather the underlying struggle for power between the man and the gatekeeper. As expressed by Gardner, “marxist” theory derived out of the ideas of Karl Marx: the idea that all “human interactions are economically driven” and that much of human progress relies on a “struggle for power between different social classes.” Those ideas are clearly evident in “Before the Law,” and I would contend that understanding the power dynamic between the man and the gatekeeper is crucial in understanding the tale as a whole. In the second sentence of the story, the man is said to have come from the “country,” and one can infer that this means that he is meant to represent the low class. The gatekeeper is symbolic for the wealthier, more powerful, high class. If we were to examine the text through this type of literary theory, we may interpret the story not as just a story about a man’s struggle, but rather a textual representation of oppression that “poorer” citizens face all around the world. I believe it is also important to note that “Before the Law” was published in 1915, in the midst of WWI, so the importance of “power” and “prowess” was at an all time high, so it may be that the socioeconomics and power struggle of the war was reflected in Kafka’s writing. All in all, a marxist approach is more useful, because it allows us, the readers, to not only extract meaning from the words themselves, but also from the events and circumstances surrounding them.
However, although I concede that a “formalist” perspective on the story is intriguing, I do not believe it is the most useful or significant way of viewing the text. In my opinion, a “marxist” critique of the man and gatekeeper is the most true and useful. As it relates to Kafka’s literary work, a marxist is not concerned with analyzing the text itself, but rather the underlying struggle for power between the man and the gatekeeper. As expressed by Gardner, “marxist” theory derived out of the ideas of Karl Marx: the idea that all “human interactions are economically driven” and that much of human progress relies on a “struggle for power between different social classes.” Those ideas are clearly evident in “Before the Law,” and I would contend that understanding the power dynamic between the man and the gatekeeper is crucial in understanding the tale as a whole. In the second sentence of the story, the man is said to have come from the “country,” and one can infer that this means that he is meant to represent the low class. The gatekeeper is symbolic for the wealthier, more powerful, high class. If we were to examine the text through this type of literary theory, we may interpret the story not as just a story about a man’s struggle, but rather a textual representation of oppression that “poorer” citizens face all around the world. I believe it is also important to note that “Before the Law” was published in 1915, in the midst of WWI, so the importance of “power” and “prowess” was at an all time high, so it may be that the socioeconomics and power struggle of the war was reflected in Kafka’s writing. All in all, a marxist approach is more useful, because it allows us, the readers, to not only extract meaning from the words themselves, but also from the events and circumstances surrounding them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour argument provides a strong case for analyzing Before the Law from both Formalist and Marxist perspectives. Something you could improve on is a decrease in the use of passive voice, as it often sounds more awkward than an active voice in writing. Also, you spend more time than necessary defining Formalism and Marxist. You could benefit from trimming those descriptions to be more concise, and flow directly into the analysis.
ReplyDelete