Franz Kafka the Trial

Franz Kafka "The Trial"

Franz Kafka's possibly unfinished novel, "The Trial," is one of the great mysteries of modernist literature. It was at once an astute, even prescient critique of modern power structures as well as a novel that does not quite make sense from a literary perspective. Left on the shelf by Kafka in 1915, the book was published in 1925 during the tense interwar period, which was, not coincidentally, the heyday of Modernist literature. Like most Modernist writers, Kafka used his art to express his sense of alienation and powerlessness in an increasingly hostile, meaningless, and dehumanized world. Thesis: "The Trial" is a critique of the bureaucratized nature of power in modern society and its effect on the modern individual's will. K.'s attempts to understand the purpose of the power structure persecuting him are frustrated because the power structure has no actual meaning or purpose, existing instead for the sole purpose of following is own rules and internal logic.

1) The court house: Its claustrophobic nature and labyrinthine structure to further clarify the theme of bureaucratic excess.

Kafka's introduces his reader to the power structure of modern society by illustrating the physical structures which represent its power. He describes the first structure that K. encounters, the court house, as being difficult to access as if on purpose. On his first visit, he goes "...over to the stairway to get to the room where the hearing was to take place, but then stood still again as besides these steps he could see three other stairway entrances, and there also seemed to be a small passageway at the end of the yard leading into a second yard." (28). It is clear that the structure is not designed to serve the needs of outsiders such as the general public which it supposedly serves. Indeed, it is doubtful if the structure is designed to serve the needs of humans at all.

The court house, which is built to maintain order, appears rather to make a fetish out of order. This fetish is illustrated by the symmetry of the four stairway entrances that K. encounters when he steps into the building for the first time. The symmetry here is reminiscent of a clever maze because it makes the path to the court house indistinguishable even with specific directions, which are unfortunately only given to people already in trouble and at the mercy of the court.

The air of obfuscation pervading the court house indicates that it, although supposedly a public good, is a highly secretive and nearly inaccessible institution. It is designed to confuse and discourage even the most determined members of society such as K., who "As he reached the fifth floor, he decided to give up the search, took his leave of a friendly, young worker who wanted to lead him on still further and went down the stairs.…" (29).

2) The Flogging of the two guards as an allegorical symbol of the tyranny of the court system.

Kafka addresses the absurdity and brutality of a power structure that exists only to follow its own rules. When K. discovers that his complaints about the two guards assigned to him have caused the two guards to be flogged by a third guard, he is unable to prevent the flogging, even though it was he who initiated the complaint. The conversation between the K., the two guards, and the third guard ordered to flog them illustrates the bureaucratic nature of power and the ultimate powerlessness of individuals within this structure:

"I made no sort of request that you be punished, I was simply acting on principle." "Franz," said Willem, turning to the other policeman, "didn't I tell you that the gentleman didn't say he wanted us to be punished? Now you can hear for yourself, he didn't even know we'd have to be punished." "Don't you let them persuade you, talking like that," said the third man to K., "this punishment is both just and unavoidable." (63).

Although K. seemingly held and exercised some type of authority here through his complaint about the guards' misconduct, he did not get to explain to the judge the relatively minor degree of actual harm arising from the misconduct. Thus, K. had no say regarding the consequences of such misconduct in this power structure, as that issue was determined solely by a set of rigid and arbitrary rules. Indeed, even the two guards who staff the power structure are powerless to stop it when it turns on them, appealing to the authority of the heretofore downtrodden K. The two guards, being stripped of their uniforms for the flogging, metaphorically join K. As just another criminal that must be dealt with by the law.

The third guard, still on the right side of the law, gives voice to the rigid, impractical, and self-serving spirit of this power structure, explaining that "…this punishment is both just and unavoidable." That is, it is "unavoidable" because the law is set in stone and society is under the rule of law instead of the rule of men, who might have been able to avoid such excesses. The punishment is "just" only because the law was applied correctly and impartially. It was certainly not "just" in the sense that the victim gets the relief so requested or that the offender gets the punishment that he deserves. The third guard's understanding of what is "just" indicates that the power structure here is not guided by meaningful goals, but is guided solely by its own process and logic. Thus, the power structure here is self-serving in the most disturbing and absurd sense, existing only to follow its own rules.

3) The parable of the doorman and countryman as exemplifying the ambiguous and self serving nature of man-made law.

The parable is meant to show that the hyper-bureaucratized power structure labeled in the parable as simply "the law" is beyond the sort of moral reasoning and moral judgment that we have judged all previous power structures with. The "law" described in the parable, which is never seen by the countryman nor illustrated in detail by the narrator, is as shapeless as the power structure that had assailed K. In his world. (156). Both are difficult to pin down by those accustomed to traditional sources of authority such as kings and priests.

The "law" in the parable and its analogue in K.'s society seem to exist more as a metaphor than an actual entity that can be engaged with in any meaningful way. A mere metaphor, however, is not real so it is incapable of organizing so many intelligent people to defend its legitimacy in society. Thus, there must be a man behind the metaphor, an actual person behind this supposedly impersonal institution. The reader expects for K. To meet some person or group who can explain the workings of the world to him and why he has had to suffer. The reader expects it to be some evil genius who needs to remove K. To protect his own selfish interests. However, no such man is revealed in the novel. The Chaplain, at first, seems to be some type of surrogate or spokesmen for this figure, but his conversation with K. suggests that no such figure actually exists.