In continuing the trend of discussing Kafka's Before the Law, and as a sort of response to Matt's post, I want to look at why the man should have resisted the doorkeeper's supposed authority. While I completely understand Matt's concern with the hypocrisy of condemning the man when we ourselves would submit just as quickly, I think that that only extends so far. The man in the story spent his entire life waiting to be allowed through the gate; I highly doubt that anyone in his right mind would wait forever for something without action. Additionally, the man's goal was not a negligible one, such as wanting to walk through grounds with a No Trespassing sign, it was along the lines of his life's goal. He gave up everything he had to the doorkeeper in hopes of bribing him. The doorkeeper repeatedly tells the man that he is "only taking it to keep [him] from thinking [he has] omitted anything" (172). This implies that there is nothing the man can give that will earn him passage. If this is the case, what hope should he have that he'll ever make it through? What baffles me even more is that the doorkeeper also told the man that it was possible for him to get around the doorkeeper without permission, difficult though it may be. I like to think that if I were barred from reaching my life's goal by an obstacle as interminable and yet surmountable as the doorkeeper, I would wait no longer than a few days before trying my luck.
Sartre's concept of the adversarial coefficient only adds to this. If everything outside of oneself is a facticity and is not inherently helpful or harmful to one's agenda, then personal perception is the only factor impeding progress. In this case, the doorkeeper's power is given to him by the man because of his perception of the doorkeeper's presence as strong and intimidating. If the man were able to overcome this self-imposed submission, the doorkeeper would lose all so-called authority. However, the man continues to handicap himself and any progress toward his goal of reaching the Law.
I agree with you that the man gives the doorkeeper his authority. My question however is if the man is a representative of all of us or at least a majority, why do we give the doorkeeper his power? I think there is something to the fact we have a stool to sit on. It is like the man was meant to wait outside that door sitting by the doorkeeper. This is his place. Do we have a choice to go through the door or is it who we are to absurdly make the doorkeeper an authority before the Law? If Kafka believes in choice rather than the illusion of choice, I find it hard to believe that there any way the man can be representative of all mankind or even a majority.
ReplyDeleteIf the man is free, his choice is random and arbitrary because nothing causes it, and thus there is no predicting the choice of the man. This means there can be no absurdity to the mans action because that would be to judge the man by criteria of rational action which only matters in determined beings who must think according to structures reflected in their brain.
In conclusion, I will restate my three questions to you: Do you think the man is a representative of all mankind? Must the man be before the Law or could he have gone through? Despite my criticisms of the possibility of rational choice, is the choice to be before the law rational or absurd?
I agree with this post a lot. While reading Kafka's piece, I was a little off-put by the man's reluctance to act. If he was willing to sacrifice all he had with him, to even waste away his life while sitting outside this gate, then why didn't he ever make an attempt to enter?
ReplyDeleteI can only help but wonder if the man sacrificing his life and all his worldly possessions was, in some form, his attempt at entry. Would we chastise the man as much if he had turned away from the gate and given up after a few days? Or a few years, even? If the man was only deciding between bribing his way into the gate or departing from it, then maybe he did put forth all the effort he could.
Of course, in any given situation, human beings typically have more than two simple choices. And I'm sure the man was no exception - he could have attempted to force his way through the gate, fought the guard, etc. I just find it interesting to consider why he didn't leave the gate to seek another pursuit. Apparently the man thought the Law was worth all the waiting.
I'm not sure if I'd 'blame' the man at the gate, but I would definitely hold him 'responsible' in a Sartrian sense. He was able to respond, and did so, even with his dying breath. Perhaps a better (or at least different) question to ask is: Is the man at the gate acting in bad faith?
ReplyDelete