Kafka’s “Before the Law” is a passage that is open to numerous interpretations. Our attempt, in Tuesday’s class, to elucidate the grey areas of this text and to unearth the true meaning of Kafka’s “allegory” not only bettered my understanding of the text, but gave me fresher insight into the narrative, which I would like to put up for discussion. One interpretation that I found fascinating during our discourse in class, and which I would like to expound upon, is the idea that the law represents one’s purpose or goal in life, and the gatekeeper symbolizes the obstacles one encounters on the journey towards that goal or purpose.
From the passage, the gatekeeper denies the man admittance to the law. The man then questions the gatekeeper about the possibility of gaining entry later, and the gatekeeper responds, “It is possible [but not now].” Now, in life’s journey, obstacles are to be encountered. An anonymous author once stated: “If you can find a path with no obstacles, it probably doesn’t lead anywhere.” I agree with this statement because I believe obstacles serve a purpose in life’s journey: They are there to challenge you. They are like taking finals in college: passing ushers you into the next stage in your academic journey. Obstacles may be overwhelming and may even seem like stumbling blocks, but by perseverance one can transform these obstacles into stepping stones for the next stage in life. I believe this idea is encapsulated in the gatekeeper’s statement: “It is possible [to gain entry later].” This possibility is dependent on one’s perseverance. Michael Jordan aptly uttered: “Obstacles don’t have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don’t turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it.” Perseverance, therefore, is essential in overcoming obstacles. However, this is what the man from the country lacked.
When the man peers through the gateway into the interior, the gatekeeper remarks, “…I am powerful. And I am the least of the gatekeepers. From hall to hall there is one doorkeeper after another, each more powerful than the last. The third gatekeeper is already so terrible that even I cannot bear to look at him.” Now, this is completely hope-shuttering. The man stands before what seems to be an insurmountable obstacle; and to his amazement he finds out that this is the first, and even more frustrating, the least, of the numerous adversaries he has to conquer before reaching his goal. He probably thought: “Well, at this rate, I guess I’ll reach my goal in the afterlife.” The stratified nature of the obstacles (gatekeeper 1, 2, 3 …) parallels the levels of challenges we face in life. It’s just like a college education, the higher you climb up the academic ladder, the greater the intellectual challenges you encounter. Interestingly, gatekeeper 1 offers the man a stool and lets him sit down. The gatekeeper’s offer is very common of obstacles: they attempt to make one feel “comfortable” and “okay” with one’s present state when it seems almost impossible to surmount that barrier. In other words, they make one accept the situation as it is, thus diminishing any urge to progress towards one's goal. It’s no surprise then that the man “sits for days and years.”
I’ll like to end my discussion here. I’m looking forward to hearing your views and impressions on this interpretation.
-Emmanuel John-Teye
Emmanuel, I really appreciate your post. As we have already discussed, I really like the part of your post, when you talk about the afterlife. You said that the man in front of the gate probably thought: “I guess I’ll reach my goal in the afterlife”, which I think is a very common way to deal with obstacles. If we take a look at the history of religions, we can see that the image of an afterlife was often times used as a mean to control people and to let them "sit in front of the gate" for their whole lives. What I mean is that people where oftentimes told to suffer in their lives, so that they will benefit in the afterlife, or not to stand up against existing hierarchies. Indeed, it lets people feel comfortable with their present situation, it calms them down, in order to preserve the power of higher authorities, like the clergy or the nobles.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good interpretation of Kafka's story.
Assuming this interpretation as Kafka's goal, I really agree with him that people should get up, living their lives without giving unnecessary authority. If we think about, what is really important regarding authorities, then we can limit this amount on a minimum, regarding institutions that help us keeping security and justice, but everything else is unnecessary and takes a great part of our freedom away.
Flo, it's quite interesting how you've elaborated on the topic of the afterlife. I actually meant to use it in a metaphorical sense to imply that the gatekeeper had lost all hope of reaching his goal. All the same,one point you made, which I'm not very sure about, is that, the image of an afterlife was used by religions, throughout history, as a means to control people. Those religions, did not tell people to suffer in their lives because they will benefit in the after life. It was a consolatory approach to the people's suffering that necessitated the topic of the benefiting from the afterlife. In other words, the religions consoled the "suffering people" by assuring them of a better and happier life in the afterlife. This, I believe, is what you intended to use as support for the claim that "it lets people feel comfortable with their present situation."
ReplyDelete