12.10.2009
(Continued from
part 1 and part 2.)
3) Where do we stand right now? I have traced two interpretational
themes in the dialogue immediately surrounding 'Before the law': K. charges
the doorkeeper of deceptive behavior, and he also thinks that the doorkeeper
violates his duties. Both turn out to be misinterpretations: the first is
promoted by the ambiguity in "Täuschung" and its cognates and by K.'s
strong tendency to see himself as victim of malicious forces; the second
by an ambiguity in the reading of the doorkeeper's behavior (granting some
ephemeral hope, which is due to a character weakness, but interpreted by
K. as conferring a right).
Having failed to correct the first misunderstanding, the chaplain seems
to be more successful in countering the second; at least he ascertains K.'s
agreement regarding his analysis of the doorkeeper's character. He also
relativizes K.'s opinion that the man from the country is deceived and thus
in an antagonistic relationship towards the doorkeeper. That's some
improvement, but not much: all this doesn't remove the wrong-headed idea
that there is primarily a deception going on, and only shifts the antagonism
to the world surrounding both the man from the country and the
doorkeeper.
The discussion in the dome with the chaplain reveals a deeper aspect of
K.'s general attitude: he has a tendency to blame others (or at least, blame
something), and so avoid taking responsibility for his own
interactions with the world. Such interactions are generally of two kinds:
perception and action. In perception we take in what goes on around us, and
form opinions and beliefs. In action, we attempt to change our surroundings
(actions in this general sense may be physical actions as well as verbal
actions). Both actions and perceptions can fail or succeed: we can manage
to get them more or less right; we can misperceive, an action may or may not
fulfill its purpose, in some instances we may even completely miss something
we should be aware of, or fail to act where we should have tried. How
successful we are, however, depends not only on ourselves, but also at least
partly on circumstances and factors outside us. Still, we are responsible
for what we do and what we perceive — unless our actions are
constrained or our perceptions mislead by malicious others, in which cases
we may be excused.
K.'s behavior, and his overall argumentation, aims at exculpating the
actions and perceptions of the man from the country, thereby preempting
or at least mitigating any judgment that might be taken on their correctness.
Failure to perceive vital aspects of the situation (such as the fact that
nobody ever asked for entrance at this particular door) are explained by
reference to deception; failure to act (be it to grasp the nettle and enter
when the doorkeeper offers it or simply walking away from an unpromising
situation) is excused by the wrongly inflicted constraints resulting from
the doorkeeper's supposed violation of his duty. In the background, to
mention it once more, is K.'s tendency to strongly identify himself with the
man from the country, a tendency that has sometimes seduced commentators to
take the doorkeeper story as a parable standing for the whole novel; and
certainly, if we take K.'s point of view, that precisely is an expression of
the identification. In what follows, we'll have to see how thin the
interpretational ice really is here, and how questionable a move it can be
to simple assume K.'s point of view in these matters.
