In Kafka's Before The Law, we encounter the man at the gate. He waits his entire life for admittance to the Law, or whatever it is behind the gate that the gatekeeper is guarding. He blindly accepts the gatekeeper's authority that hadn't been established nor given any merit. He eventually passes in front of the gate and the gatekeeper tells him it was only his gate to pass through, and was made for him.
Initially we were quick to jump the man and blame him for not questioning the authority. I think this is wrong of us to do for certain reasons. First and foremost, we must assume that the man came from a society where there was already a power hierarchy and he was just a country man, who has not been concerned with questioning power. It is simply human nature, in a slavish morale you could say, to not question the present authority, even when it is stopping you from accessing something that is yours, such as the law and this man's gate. Also, i think it is foolish for us to blame the man for not entering the gate without permission. If we are put in his situation, or something similar, and told not to enter, we do not enter, especially if a guard is present. We act even more sheepish than him and don't ask questions when there is something as simple as a "No Trespassing" sign on a gate. That's all it takes for us to not enter a gate. We are at fault for blaming the man for not trying to enter the gate with the presence of the guard, when it takes much less for us to not even question the authority or legitimacy of an opposing force.
I think we should be asking the question, not why the man didn’t try to enter against the guard, but rather what exactly is the guard doing there and why? Is he a figment of the country man’s imagination, or was he placed there by a greater force that is there to guard the law? But if that’s the case, then why doe he not let the man through or admit him to the law since the gate to the law is made solely for the man? Or is the man wrong about the Law by thinking it is beyond the gate, when rather the Law is simply the guard standing there, and by submitting himself to the guard is giving the Law its legitimacy?
Matt, I'd like to press you on some of the assumptions you are making about the man at the gate. Why must he be so familiar with a 'power hierarchy' that he must respect the authority of the door keeper? I would also say that nothing is 'simply' human nature. I would press you on better defining what this 'simple' human nature is.
ReplyDeleteI do think that questioning why the guard is there is good. It is definitely ambiguous whether or not the Law justifies the door keeper or vice versa.
This is an interesting post for me to think about, because I disagree with the approach but agree with your ultimate conclusion. Because the story is such an abstract, metaphorical narrative, I do not think it completely wise to adhere so such strict standard that we observe in everyday situations. While I recognize that we run away from authority in reality, I don't think the man is simply scared of the doorkeeper because he respects his authority; I believe Kafka intends for a slightly different approach. However, I do agree with this mentality as it is manifested within our interpretation of the personifications of both the man and the doorkeeper; it provides interesting insight into how social norms are created. This follows along the lines of the idea of a reversal of subject and object: when we give authority to the law, it becomes the subject that acts upon us as objects. Therefore, we creates these norms and, therefore, have the ability to transcend them.
ReplyDelete