Hey Mayra,
I think that your term paper was decently written. I particularly liked the part in the beginning where you started off talking about Kafka’s upbringing. I think a lot of people tend to overlook the importance of the author himself when analyzing his works. I also believe that you integrated Kafka’s biographical elements well into your overall thesis. Good job!
- Franz
Hey Alex,
first of all, I like how you put the novel into “reality” by finding similarities between “The Trial” and the actual Europe.
Your term paper helped me understand better Kafka’s criticism to his contemporary European society. If we looked at “The Trial” from a more historical perspective, it becomes clear that the book was somewhat Kafka’s “prediction” for Europe’s future.
I also believe that the way you wrote it made it interesting to read, particularly the way you go into detail in analyzing the very first part of the book.
Good job!
- Franz
Hey Sonia,
thanks first of all for your comment. I really appreciate it. What I like in particular about your term paper is how you first go back mentioning the past societies and how government power has been taken granted since then, and then relating it back to “The Trial.”
You do a great job explaining how the whole story seems like a plot against the protagonist, and it is a very interesting point of view I previously hadn’t thought about.
Your term paper provides great insight into Josef K.’s doom and the “plot” that seems to be going on throughout the novel.
Good job!
- Franz
Hey Cody,
I really like your Term Paper. You always have such a peculiar way of writing that makes it both interesting and fascinating to read.
You mentioned that Josef K. is part of a legal, yet corrupt system that ultimately destroys him. It could not be more accurate the way you put it.
Your Term Paper demonstrates great analysis of the corrupt (and legal) system in which Kafka lets the story play out as well as extremely well written.
Good job!
- Franz
Cody,
First off, you write very well and your paper runs smoothly. I enjoyed your comparison between the members of the Holocaust and K’s unknown conviction of an invisible crime. Joseph K can be considered an the manipulated part of society that lacks justice. The doctors and lawyers can be related to K who are both put into a situation where they have no way to escape with justice and moral ruling. K can be a symbol for the millions who were murdered for unknown crimes during WWII. The reasoning that the millions who died during the war was directly related to who they were as civilians. K is also being convicted of a crime that does not exist, solely for living his life in an orderly manner. You make a strong point that any legal system must have both morals and fair rights for individuals, and in K’s case both are missing. Since K is given no reasoning he must rely on the idea of faith and only hope for the best, since he is given no proper conviction to fight against. I enjoyed reading your paper because it showed how K’s punishment was soon reflected and almost copied onto millions of innocent people. Although the law is supposed to guide individuals to a safe and organized life style, it ultimately questions their survival as an individual and their life as a whole.
Franz,
The idea of power seems to be a reoccurring theme throughout this novel. I appreciate you explaining the period and giving the reader a slight background on the era Kafka wrote this book. His inspiration of nineteenth century Europe influenced him to reflect his experiences onto a novel and main character, K. A totalitarian society takes over most traditional values with their government and court system. I also agree on the way that you split the members of society into two separate groups - powerful and the powerless. Most people, like K, are forced to put themselves into the powerless party by actions taken upon them by most government officials. You also explain how there is a secretive power working behind the corrupt government. Kafka’s usage of power in the novel can also be tied back to his personal political views. It is interesting in your paper that you mention that Kafka may have been afraid of political figures himself and wanted his work to be private. I enjoyed reading your term paper because it gave me an insight on the reasoning behind Kafka’s writing about the specific time period and the government actions that took place.
-Sonia
Alex,
By just reading your introduction paragraph, I am interested in reading more about your paper due to the originality of the subject you are writing about. I agree with your statement that The Trial serves in criticizing the government and it’s unjust ways. Manipulation is also a large factor in this novel which can be directly linked to the ruling of Hitler and his Nazi party. The Nazi party did form by conforming into an idea and not acting against it. This seems to be occurring in the court room with K and although he is innocent, no one is acting against his convictions to set him free. The officials in the government seem to just arrest innocent civilians with the sole idea that they can. They will never be fought against since they are considered to be of a higher authority figure. I like how you stated that K is a mediator between society and government. K seems to be seeing both sides of the people he is dealing with and the differences between them both. Through all the stress government puts on society, it ultimately wears them out. I enjoyed reading your paper because it gave me a different insight on the reasoning behind Kafka’s idea when writing The Trial.
-Sonia
Mayra,
Giving the reader an insight on Kafka’s past helped in explaining the reasoning to his themes in his writing. The question you are asking the reader also opens a new door when thinking about the control between society and the individual. Society is a huge aspect of everyones lives due to the idea that it surrounds them each day. Most people cannot escape the laws that are intertwined with their society, therefor seem to have no freedom. The question then arrises that if one does not agree with society, how come they are part of it? Many do decide on agreeing to laws and do not know the reason why they are enforced. You are also correct in explaining how individuals are told to follow their dreams and express individuality but guided to be like everyone else and go down the same path as other members of society. Life is filled with many struggles including wanting to have power over your own life and the people around you. I enjoyed reading how you tie K’s struggle with the government with the idea of who controls and who is controlled.
Sonia
Franz,
You make a great point by stating that the reader never knows of the power that arrests K. In fact, K. does not know the extent of the power that arrests him. That is the essence of the paradox Kafka presents with this work. Law is in place to protect people, specifically the accused, yet, in this case, it does not. In this case, law exists to serve the elite, as a means of control. Law is not in place for the defense.
Moreover, you state that the police officers that arrest K. represent organized crime. You could not be more correct in this evaluation. They not only represent organized crime, but they represent legally sanctioned organized crime. They are executioners of the twisted law within this society. They can be equated to the Nazi Gestapo who arrested and murdered undesirables - under the law.
In this society, law is blind rather than justice, which is non-existent. Law is bastardized and serves to destroy the individual. The law that Kafka presents is his prediction for the future within Europe, where law could destroy people and society. Twenty years later, Europe would see the effects of such ’law’. Ten years after that, those that executed such law would plead the infamous Nuremberg Defense, claiming that law can exist without the moral counterbalance of justice.
Cody
Alex,
Your discussion of liminality as a central idea presented by Kafka is excellent. Those who arrest K. are liminal entities as they thrive on the edge of society. The warden’s purpose is to serve those above him only.
By contrast, K. thrives within society as a capitalist. He is a young and intelligent banker, representing everything but liminality. However, in this modern world he lives in, individual gains and intelligence are not ideas aligned with the government. Thus, liminal entities are used to repress advancement. K. represents everything the government is out to destroy.
The wardens do their job blindly. There is no reason for them to know who they are arresting and why. They act only - executors of the blind law in place. In reality, they have no true skills or meaning. They only have a limited job - process the accused.
Cody
Sonia
I particularly like the way that you have included the definitions of law, justice, and judgement in your paper. By defining these terms, you show that lack of existance of the last two within the story. The Trial is a story of blind law rather than blind justice. With that, it is also a story of blind trust placed forth by K. K. trusts the law. He may not know why he has been arrested, yet he feels the only way out is to trust the process. Yet, this process is there only to serve those above him. Thus, K. has doomed himself even further by trusting the law.
Moreover, you describe the personal connection between K. and Kafka. K. must powerlessly sit idle as society convicts him essentially for the crime of living as a capitalist. Similarly, Kafka as a boy tolerated abuse from his father. Both listened to their controlling entities and were damaged as a result.
Cody
Mayra,
Inaccessibility of the government is a major point illustrated by Kafka in this novel. You address it quite well. The government is presented as some far-off entity, exercising its power with an iron fist through a series of low level actuators in the form of bureaucrats. The inaccessibility of the government is crucial as it means that it cannot be opposed by conventional means. Lower aspects of the government work without contest and without merit, justice, or due process. They work only with the law handed to them by the elite. That law is final and uncontested.
Further, you state that Kafka could survive if he was alone but society noes not allow that possibility. No one is alone as all are born into a society. A society is inherently made up of preconceived notions and boundless expectation. There is no such thing as alone.
You did an excellent job with your paper and presenting K.’s hopeless case and Kafka’s hopeless prediction of government. The only thing that may need a little oversight is some grammar and spelling but otherwise you did a great job.
Cody
The Trial defines a unique worldview prevalent in Eastern European society during its time of publication (1925). The story presents a certain undefinable fear of both the unknown and of government organization. Moreover, it represents Franz Kafka’s own reservations about the organized society, in which the individual loses all rights to life and due process. The book serves as a prediction for the future in Kafka’s eyes, where unnamed agents under the guise of civil servants can arrest a person without any probable cause, and force him into a trial for his life. All the while its main character, Josef K., is completely unbeknown to the crime he has committed, similar to the victims of the Holocaust just fifteen years after the book’s publication. The Trial serves as Franz Kafka’s commentary on the inherent conflict between law and justice in the systematic societies of post-World War I Europe and as a prediction for the fate of the individual in such societies as a result of expressing their individualities. Kafka would never live to see his predictions become the abhorrent reality of Hitler’s Third Reich, which would have most likely been his demise, being that he was Jewish.
In The Trial, Franz Kafka presents the dichotomy of law and justice as parts of the legal system. In the story, Josef K. becomes a manipulated entity of a system in which there is only law without its counterpart of justice. The laws allow for K. to be charged without any evidence of a crime are Kafka’s predictions for the laws of the future based on his perception of post-World War I Europe. He places not only K. in a unique and foreboding position but also those who are intended to serve justice. Years later, those who acted under the laws of the Third Reich – lawyers, judges, and doctors, would take part in the Nuremberg Trials. Their defense is one that is directly predicted by Kafka in The Trial. When the justices of the Third Reich were judged in Nuremberg, their primary and namesake defense was that they were acting rightfully under the laws of the nation in which their courts had jurisdiction in. Essentially, they acted under blind law, rather than blind justice. Kafka places K. in a world of judicial relativity, where only law exists, with no counterbalance in the form of the scales of justice. Kafka places K. in a world where he is doomed and helpless, much like those who were being “served justice” under Reich Ministers of the Second World War. His crime is unknown, just as the “crimes” of the millions who were murdered in Europe twenty-five years after the book’s publication. Furthermore, K. is not able to defend himself as he does not conform. By not knowing his crime, the legal system is of no use to him as one cannot defend himself if he does not know what he is being charged with. None of those sentenced to death, labor, or sterilization knew why they were being punished, other than for being themselves. Defense can only come if there is justice and context. The Nuremberg Trials brought some initial form of justice and context back to Germany in the form of international human rights laws. Kafka’s work is a prediction for the Germany that came, the nation that took so many lives – under the law. A verdict is a balance between law and justice. Anything but a conglomeration of the two is but a bastardization of the legal system, and a defense that does not work when justice is present. A legal system must always include morality and rights for the individual, of which K. is given none.
Kafka also uses this judicial relativity to show that law and justice are not indifferent by nature. Yet society has become indifferent. In the midst of World War I, the societies of the future become indifferent, and, as a result, their judicial systems reflect that indifference.
In K.’s world, society has become indifferent. The world is indifferent to him and he can do nothing but accept the indifference with vein hope for survival. K. places faith in the law within his society – however the law is no longer in place to serve the people. The law is in place to serve the status quo of a bureaucracy. K. can never decide how to logically argue against the Court as he has no logical basis for his charge. In essence, K. is in a void, trapped between life, law, and logic, with the latter two objects taking ahold of the former. To not accept the Trial as logic is to deny justice. To deny justice is to define life, and, in this instance, justice is ambiguous and unknown until K.’s ultimate demise. His fate is sealed yet he does not know it. This contention made by Kafka reflects his fears of organized society. K. believes that accepting the law, in whatever ambiguous form it may come, will increase the chances of justice prevailing. The presence of law creates the assumption that justice exists coincidentally. It provides a sense of false hope and ensures that those charged with crimes are pacified and will trust the organized system in place.
In K’s will to accept the law, he still fails in his quest for acquittal. K. attempts to use the law to find justice, but his will to survive is not as great as his unconditional acceptance of the law. Justice, blurred by law, becomes unclear. The law, on the other hand, remains the clear and the final authority, however ambiguous and illogical it may seem.
In the society K. lives in, uniformity is the only method of organization, just as it was in Hitler’s Germany. Those that participate in the bureaucracy are not harmed. Yet those who dare to oppose, whether by intent or by nature, are those who stand trial. They are the businessmen and people who contribute to a thriving and diversified society. K. represents the opposite of a conformist in many ways. He is a banker, and thus involved in a profession that promotes diversity and progress. These two facets of his industry directly contradict that of a static fascist nation. The banker promotes capitalism, which typically contradicts fascism and socialism. The banker acts as an individual promoting advancement. Yet, in K.’s post-modernist world, the individual is made irrelevant through bureaucracy.
Franz Kafka directly questions the future of the individual by making K. a banker. The progressive bankers, intellectuals, lawyers, and doctors become replaced by thoughtless civil servants and ambiguous ultimatums. The realization of Kafka’s prediction for the educated and the competent comes true in Hitler’s Germany.
Hitler’s bureaucracy in the form of the Nazi court system and through the Waffen-SS systematically destroyed the ability of the educated to conduct business, thrive and promote the future. These two aspects of society, judicial and military, together destroyed any prospects of Germany recovering from World War I and thrust it into becoming a state of destruction, the likes never seen before. The judicial system essentially becomes a means of carrying out politics and social agenda. Bureaucratic agencies placed Jews into organized ghettos and concentration camps. Three of Kafka’s sisters were sent to their deaths in Poland by the Nazis.
The fact that bastardized law still exists in K.’s society is indicative of a false sense of normalcy. This can be compared to the façade of the Nazi concentration camp Theresienstadt. Theresienstadt, to any outsider, such as the Red Cross, appeared to represent Hitler’s claim of his progressive Germany. It was nothing but a means of appeasement, just as K’s trial is. Kafka’s sister would eventually be sent to Theresienstadt, before being sent to her death at Auschwitz (Czech, Internet Edition).
As K. is arrested, he is handled by multiple agents that are cordial to him, yet simpleminded. They are controlled and pacified. They are a function of society just as a machine functions in a factory. They provide an image of both authority and anti-resistance. Their uniforms present the image of power. They instill fear, just as those of Hitler’s SS. The fact that Kafka presents them as cordial decreases the chances of any acts of resistance occurring against them. When individuals were deported to camps in Europe in World War II, they were deceived by fear. The possibility of individual resistance was mitigated by both force and propaganda. The individual lost the will to fight to preserve short-term sanity. Such was Kafka’s prediction based on K’s compliance in the novel. By complying with the law, K. can rationalize that he will prevail and keep his sanity. This rationalization will ultimately only last him until his thirty-first birthday, when he would meet his end.
After K. is finally convicted, he is murdered on his thirty-first birthday by agents of the law. He is not allowed any dignity in his death. He is stripped naked prior to his execution. Not only is he physically stripped naked, but he is stripped of legal rights, privileges, and most of all, justice. He is stripped of his ability to function and will to survive. K. is asked to kill himself yet he refuses to do so. He chooses the warden to do the job, not giving society the satisfaction that the individual has destroyed himself. The only choice left for the individual at the end of a bureaucracy is to decide who shall be the executioner. The individual has only truly died when he or she has decided to take their own life.
Kafka’s prediction for the demise of the individual is completed with the death of Josef K., representing the death of the individual. Just fifteen years later, eleven million people, including Kafka’s own family, would be stripped exactly as K. was, both physically and in other manners. They were stripped of identity and humanity and became a number rather than a name. They were stripped of their rights to existence and to due process. Law and justice inherently conflict each other as law is procedural and justice bears a certain moral grounding. Yet the two cannot exist without one another. The Trial is Kafka’s manifesto on the future of the modern society where the law becomes corrupt and unchecked by justice and morality. The law becomes so corrupt that it conflicts with justice and the ability of the individual to survive and define his or her life.
(Edited at 06:58 05/01/2012)
The government sets rules and regulations that citizens are expected to abide by. The question then arrises, what if the laws start to formulate into unjust actions? In Franz Kafka’s, The Trial,the government portrays the prejudice rulings towards an innocent civilian due to the availability of power. The civilian seems to be content with the arrest and follows all commands and orders given by his government. This is simply because the government is the higher power and is expected to be abided by. There seems to be an existing conflict between the society and individual which brings forward the idea of justice versus judgement.
In past societies, government power has been taken for granted due to the ability given to officials and people of higher ranking. Although most of the actions are to help benefit the people, there have many instances where they have been unjust and cruel. These malicious actions have taken place for months or even years until they have been stopped. Looking back to the time era that Franz Kafka wrote this novel, was the time of World War II. Government was completely corrupt since the Nazi party had the political power. Explaining the treatment of civilians as unjust and unmoral is an understatement. For many years the treatment of innocent civilians developed in crucial manners. Millions were dying and continued to lose their lives. So many people were fooled by the acts of Hitler and his party that they were blind to the actual horror of his ideas in politics. Many would believe that if acts so horrid were continuing for such a long period of time that they would be stopped immediately, but these innocent civilians were targeted without reasoning. This can be directly related to the way Kafka is targeted and convicted of an unknown crime. Although K. is not treated with such malicious tactics as the people who endured World War II, Kafka is still giving the reader an idea of the acts of a government party who claims all power and decisions that are made.
K. seems to be experiencing a conflict where society as a whole which seem to have some sort of plot against him. He no longer can trust the people that surround him and seems to be caught at a dead end. Each person he comes into contact with is never clear which side they are on. He feels as if he is being manipulated and misled in order to obtain answers. This is not a healthy way for anyone to live in that manner. The novel shows that it is K. by himself as an individual against the governmental system. Justice does not exist in his presence because once he enters the court room, the the members seem to be against him. The government seems to be taking their power too far by not allowing him an intricate reason why he was arrested in the first place. By not explaining the arrest and predicament he is put into, K. has no ability to fend for his freedom and ability to express his innocence to the people.
Justice is defined as the quality of being right, including being morally right or correct. The idea of showing justice to citizens in government seems to be an important aspect. This allows for people to express their opinions as well as differentiate innocent from guilty. K. was not given that ability, but on the other hand, he did not seem to fight his arrest. He was nonchalant with the whole situation, thinking his friends were playing a joke on him for his birthday. Instead, government officials were taking advantage of his carefree attitude and were continuing in requesting his appearance in the court room. Justice is completely absent in the society that K. lives in. He is constantly being confused with who is on his side and who is planning to betray him.
Franz Kafka’s relationship with his father can be linked back to K.’s relationship with the government. Kafka suffered anger and mental abuse from his father while growing up without any reasoning because of his ill-temperament. He had to endure it because his father was his authoritative figure. This can be linked back to K. who must listen to the government officials who are claiming he is under arrest. Although they may be incorrect about the crime they are claiming he committed, he must listen to their commands since they are considered to be the higher power who rule over him and the society which surrounds him. This can conclude the question asking that even if the actions are cruel and intentionally harmful, should they still be abided by? Kafka should not have suffered mental abuse from his father as a young kid because his father was not aware of a proper way to handle his issues. K. should also not be convicted of a crime without first knowing what it consists of and if he can even be found guilty for committing it.
The Trial seems to question the justice system versus laws that are expected to be followed. When laws are no longer just, they are fought against in order to be appealed or changed so they start exhibiting moral and just actions. The way Kafka seems to explain the law and the way it functions is completely different from ordinary. The court can be considered the symbol of the government system and the laws it provides. When considering the equality that citizens of the United States are given, it makes one question what their rights actually consist of. Are the people who live in the United States really equal? The government has the ability to determine what level of intrusion they have on people. They get to also determine what they consider to be equal. Ultimately, the government controls every single aspect of the lives it rules. People who abide by the government are setting aside their freedom to be part of the whole and not form themselves into an outcast. Kafka is attempting to provide an example of constant struggle that citizens run into while being controlled by the government. The issue or crime is not explained, but it is reflecting the idea of the struggles a citizen must run into to be a part of the “equal” society.
The issues that K. seems to be running into are far from ordinary. The court that he must stand in front of is made up of human beings just like himself. Not only is the law expected to be equal and just to all of it’s citizens, it should not be mischievous and take it’s power for granted. Most who are summoned by this court are indeed oblivious to the fact that they are providing unjust rulings to the people. The court can also be seen as a trap. No matter how hard K. attempts to escape the unjust rulings, it seems that he cannot and finds himself in deeper trouble. The law seems to be justifying absolutely no justice system or just laws towards it’s citizens. The idea of law seems to exist to remain and have power, but there is an absence justice especially towards K.
Judgement can be defined as the ability to make a decision as well as form an opinion in an objective manner. It is usually used by an authoritative figure in affecting action. In The Trial, K. seems to not be able to defend himself for the crime he is being convicted of. The court has no actual charge against K. Although there is no charge presented and K. is well aware he is innocent, he uses no initiative to prove himself innocent of the conviction. He uses a poor sense of judgement by acknowledging what the court is claiming and not standing up for himself. It is obvious to the reader that the court uses poor judgement as well. They are taking advantage of their ability to summon people to acts or crimes.This ultimately shows that the government is corrupt and disorganized. It seems as if K. is scared to even discover the unknown depths of the government so instead he allows for the continuation of the blame for the crime he never committed.
The idea and purpose of law is to provide restrictions and rules. When the rules are broken and gone against, consequences are taken into action. This is the control that law has over all the people who live under it. The question arises, when does law and it’s ability to punish take their power too far? K. might feel as if he is being targeted, but everyone that surrounds him has been treated in the same unjust manner since the beginning of the use of law. It seems that there is no way to escape the law since everyone is born into it without any other option. Justice seems to only be an option to those with a connection to a higher authority. Connections have and always will be a great factor in the success of a person’s goals. If one is just an ordinary civilian, the judgement of the court against them will not be any different from the others around him. Again, this arises the fact that judgement from the law or court is unjust towards others. They seem to favor their stronger connections. If law was supposed to be equal for all, then no one should be put on a higher pedestal depending on who they are connected to.
Power has been taking for granted in immense levels which shows the corruption of a government system that citizens should rely on for support and protection. The law and government in K.’s society is ultimately extremely corrupt which causes his death at the end of the novel. His conviction is never revealed which can lead back to the idea that he may have been innocent the entire time and was killed without reason, much like the people who were involved in the killings during World War II.
The existing conflict between society and the individual, K. was supported by all the unjust actions that occurred to K. while being put on trial for an unknown crime. The corruption of the government serves as as proof that although an authoritative figure is above thee average citizen, they do not always serve proper justice. Not only do both the law and K. fail to use proper sense of judgement to refrain from the continuation of the situation, but they seem to have no justification why K. is being convicted of an unknown crime. It has been supported and proven that in Franz Kafka’s The Trial lacks both an ideal sense of judgement as well as justice.
The Role Of Power In The Trial
The Trial written by Franz Kafka is extremely controversial in nature and during the story, it can be seen that there are certain peculiarities that are not clear even until the very end. Arguably one of the most interesting primary themes present, however, is the way this book portrays power. The distribution of power, the abuse of power, as well as the sense of powerlessness are all prevalent themes throughout Kafka’s masterpiece. The ability to direct or influence the behavior of others along with the course of events is possibly the most important issue that Kafka stresses out in great depth in The Trial. Almost all of this novel’s explicit as well as implicit secondary themes are in some way relatable to power.
In order to understand the motives behind the author’s emphasis on power, it is crucial to first analyze the time period of the author Franz Kafka, since it is highly likely that there are certain elements of Kafka’s nineteenth century Europe that inspired him to write this book. Central Europe during the 1800s was in a state of progression. For centuries, powerful institutions enforced traditional values, quelling most of the dissent and not allowing almost anyone to question their authority. The nineteenth century saw a huge revolution in Western society, most notably in the arts and literature, which would ultimately be known as a movement called modernism – Kafka being one of its most renowned authors. His famous and unfinished masterpiece, “Der Prozess,” also known as “The Trial,” is an iconic piece of modernism, as it illustrates significant characteristics of modernism such as a strong and intentional break with traditional values with the portrayal of a totalitarian society where an authority, in this case the court system, has unlimited power to persecute, detain, and ultimately execute individuals (Child, 137). Power always involves two parties – the powerful and the powerless. The quote “He realized at once that he shouldn’t have spoken aloud, and that by doing so he had, in a sense, acknowledged the stranger’s right to oversee his actions.” effectively demonstrates that the powerless party, in this cases the novel’s protagonist Josef K., is pressed into a corner where he has no choice but to succumb to the powerful party. From this point on, the reader is introduced to a world where nearly all aspects of one’s everyday life are subject to surveillance by authority figures. The individual, with very limited options, is in many ways helpless and has no other choice but to submit and obey.
Besides hinting at elements of modernism in his novels, Kafka also indicates in an implicit way at the corruptions associated with power, insinuating at something anomalous of the authority, possibly suggesting that there is something else at work in addition to the legitimate state apparatus. The reader is never truly familiar with the authentic power of the authority to arrest Josef K., however, after reading the sarcastic quote “After all, K. lived in a state governed by law, there was universal peace, all statutes were in force; who dared assault him in his lodgings?” (Kafka, 48) it becomes clear that there is another extraneous force at work behind the curtains. It is likely that the author used this quote as an allegory for a totalitarian state, where the party possesses the main political power (e.g.: Nazi Party), rather than the official government. Therefore, it is not a stretch to consider the act of arresting K. by the policemen as an “organized crime” by a certain political party vying for power rather than a consequence of a formal arrest warrant issued by the government.
Kafka’s emphasis on power can also be considered as a reflection of his own political views. It is known that Kafka, being an anarchist, strongly disregarded the political system of his time, most evident in the fact of him joining the club “Klub Mladých”, a Czech anarchist, anti-militarist, and anti-clerical organization. Kafka’s disdain for the government and consequently his repugnance for the vast majority of government law enforcement officials plays in vital role in his later writings, which are all a direct or indirect reflection of his dissatisfaction with his contemporary society. Power comes with fear. And fear is also an issue that shares a strong connection not only with Kafka’s novels, but also with his personal life. It seems reasonable to infer that Kafka himself felt in many ways powerless in regards to the seemingly invincible and untouchable authority. This is probably best substantiated by Kafka’s letters shortly before his death in 1924 to his friend and literary executor Max Brod, where he requested all of his unread work to be burned to ashes. Nevertheless, Brod ignored these requests and went on to publish Kafka’s previously hidden works. This suggests that it is likely that Kafka had developed a personal fear along with his disdain for authority figures, and the fact that he did not want his works to be published is most likely a reflection of his fear, as the government may classify his works as an act of defiance toward the authority.
The Trial is a book that completely reverses the idea that government exists to serve the people. The quote “Try to realize that this vast judicial organism remains, so to speak, in a state of eternal equilibrium, and that if you change something on your own where you are, you can cut the ground out from under your own feel and fall, while the vast organism easily compensates for the minor disturbance at some other spot (…) and remains unchanged, if not, which is likely, even more resolute, more vigilant, more severe, more malicious” (Kafka, 102) shows without doubt that government institutions, in this case the court, are inherently superior and thus invincible to the common man. This quote portrays the court as immensely huge, sophisticated, and closed system that exists to support itself rather than the needs of society. Moreover, not only is the court seen as clandestine in its operations, but also it is accountable to nobody except itself, meaning that no individual can ever hope to triumph over it, and consequently demonstrating the abundance and the concentration of power in one single organization.
It can be seen that Franz Kafka also employs the use of exaggeration to demonstrate power. Quoting the short dialogue “First, you must see who I am,” said the priest. “You’re the prison chaplain,” said K. (…) “Therefore I belong to the court,” said the priest. “Why should I want something from you? The court wants nothing from you. It receives you when you come and dismisses you when you go” (Kafka, 98) effectively confirms the expansion of power that the reader witnesses. This short dialogue between the protagonist and the priest is particularly shocking because it shows the power of the court twists into the religious institution, the church. It is also perplexing to note that the court is extremely pervasive when it is infiltrating the church, because it goes as far as replacing religious authority (God) with its own authority. It is tremendously disturbing to observe the priest, who also happens to be the prison chaplain, first owing his allegiance to the court and not to God, as it should be. This short, but straightforward dialogue provides more than sufficient evidence to conclude that one government institution, in this case the court, has exceeded its “traditional” boundaries and crossed the line. It has reached the point where its sphere of power has completely engulfed another whole institution, the church. Consequently implanting its own rules, the court now has total control over the church, as well as its subjects, best illustrated by the actions and attitude of the priest while talking to the protagonist of the novel, Josef K.
Josef K.’s trial is over before it has even begun. The overwhelming power of the court makes it obvious that all attempts against its will are futile. This is best illustrated by the quote “When a group occasionally begin to believe they share some common interest, it soon proves a delusion. Group action is entirely ineffective against the court” (Kafka, 76) as it verifies the court’s interminable range of influence as well as its seemingly invincibility. It also provides convincing evidence that since the court is a closed system that operates on its own rule with absolute power, it is effective at rebuffing any effort from outsiders, most notably ambitious defendants, to penetrate its deepest mysteries.
It is evident that the entire book written by Kafka is a corroboration of power and all the things associated with it. Analyzing specific quotes from the book as well as taking into account the unique time period in which the author lived in inevitably suggests that The Trial is not only a literary masterpiece that shares plenty of modernist characteristics but also a personal reflection and criticism of Kafka on the Central European political system of his time. The Trial’s hidden, but powerful messages as well as its unique writing style give great insight into the power play that was happening in the author’s time along with a deeper comprehension of the author himself.
