logo

44 pages 1 hour read

Franz Kafka

The Trial

Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1925

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Themes

The Relationship Between Law and Guilt

Franz Kafka’s The Trial explores how the machinery of the legal system is related to and takes advantage of the human experience of guilt. Through the protagonist, Josef K., Kafka presents a nightmarish depiction of the dehumanizing nature of bureaucracy and the psychological burden of guilt in a world governed by opaque laws and inaccessible authorities. In the novel, the law (capitalized in many editions, becoming the “Law”) is an omnipotent and impersonal force that shapes the lives of those subject to it in ways that often have little to do with truth or justice—as the priest tells K. in Chapter 9, one must accept the Law and its agents as grounded in necessity rather than truth. That a priest functions both as an agent of the court and as one of K.’s closest confidants is revealing, as the law in this novel bears striking similarities to Christian theology. From the beginning of the story, K. finds himself arrested and accused of a crime that is never revealed to him (or the reader). K. knows only that he is innocent. Yet K.’s innocence makes no difference at all. The court seems to operate, like the Church, on the assumption of a universal guilt, as evidenced by Titorelli’s assertion that “actual acquittal” is so rare as to be effectively nonexistent. By leaving the accused ignorant of the charges against them, the court renders its victims unable to effectively defend themselves.  In Chapter 4, K. tells the usher’s wife, “it’s in the nature of this judicial system that one is condemned not only in innocence but also in ignorance” (55). Indeed, innocence takes on a dual meaning here: K. is not only innocent in the legal sense (not that it matters) but also in the larger sense of lacking experience. He has not been and will never be initiated into the mysteries that govern his fate.

As the trial progresses, K. becomes increasingly consumed by his feelings of guilt, even though he remains committed to his own innocence of the charges brought against him, whatever they are. His internal struggle leads him to search for answers in what essentially becomes a quest for truth. But this truth remains elusive. As illustrated by the priest’s parable of the doorkeeper, access to the Law is protected by menacing figures who are themselves in some ways victims of deceit. Even the “radiant” Law behind the gate of the parable—the access to which is restricted by the doorkeeper—is not grounded in truth but in necessity, leaving K. to conclude depressingly that in the Law “lies are made into a universal system” (223). Within this universal system, guilt arises not from anything he may have done but from society’s judgment of him. In the novel, then, guilt extends beyond conventional legal guilt (just as the court of the novel is differentiated from the conventional or “normal” court) and acquires existential and psychological dimensions.

The novel also reveals the role of society in perpetuating guilt. K.’s interactions with others demonstrate how societal norms and expectations can foster guilt, whether founded or unfounded. The ever-present gaze of society reinforces the feeling of guilt, intensifying the protagonist’s isolation and alienation from the world around him. Women become one important symbol of K.’s guilt as well as of the role expected of him. It is thus significant, for instance, that it is the face of Fräulein Bürstner—toward whom K. has behaved somewhat inappropriately—that confirms K.’s resolve to meet his death calmly in the final chapter.

Inaccessible Systems of Power

Another central theme of the novel is the individual’s futile struggle against inaccessible systems of power. K. struggles against court in every way he can, but the faceless and impenetrable bureaucracy of the court carries on its lethal work undeterred by his actions. The inaccessibility of this court has an alienating and ultimately dehumanizing effect on K., culminating in his animalistic death.

From the beginning of the novel, K.’s ignorance of his crime and the absence of a clearly defined legal process hinders his attempts to navigate his trial. The inaccessibility of the court becomes more and more obvious—and more and more absurd. K. is first put under arrest, for instance, by two warders who eat his breakfast and do not even carry official identification; K.’s initial inquiry is in a crowded apartment building, while the court offices are in the attic of the same building. It is later revealed that there are court offices in almost every attic. Again and again K. is unable to make himself understood to the court system and fails likewise to understand what is expected of him. As his trial progresses, in fact, K. is repeatedly shown that the figures who would be most helpful to him are also completely inaccessible—this includes the officials of the high court (the only ones who can grant the legendary “actual acquittals” described by Titorelli), the “great lawyers” described by Rudi Block, and the Office of Prosecution mentioned in Fragment 5. If there is a way to beat the system, it is, like everything else about the court, “hidden of course” (254). K. comes to see that the court cannot be swayed by evidence or even any straightforward legal processes, but that court officials (specifically, officials of the lower court) can be influenced, especially by figures peripheral to the court such as the painter Titorelli or the usher’s wife—figures whose relationship to the court is hopelessly obscure.

The inaccessibility of the novel’s systems of power deeply impacts K. as he becomes more and more uncertain of his position. In the later chapters, he is no longer able to concentrate on his work. He becomes obsessed with his trial and with proving his innocence, though as the trial drags on, his feelings of guilt and shame also increase. By the time he is taken into custody for his execution in the final chapter, K. no longer even resists. He gives himself over to them entirely, becoming with them a “unit of the sort seldom formed except by lifeless matter” (226). In other words, the inaccessibility of the courts has robbed K. of his humanity, killing him “Like a dog!” and leaving him to die with the feeling that “the shame was to outlive him” (231).

The Absurdity of Bureaucracy

Kafka’s portrayal of the legal system in The Trial highlights the inherent flaws and arbitrary nature of bureaucratic institutions. The court and its representatives seem completely detached from the citizens they serve, and this detachment, combined with the opacity of the law, contributes to the absurdity of K.’s trial. From the moment K. is arrested at the beginning of the novel, there is a lack of clarity surrounding his trial and the charges against him. In K.’s view, this lack of clarity is evidence of bureaucratic indifference—the court is indifferent to his humanity, and while he is expected to plead his case, it is never clear how or to whom he can do so. The court and the judicial proceedings are depicted as chaotic and nonsensical, with officials coming and going without explanation and with arbitrary rules dominating the proceedings. Even K.’s arrest is counterintuitive: By definition, arrest is an action carried out against one’s physical person, implying a loss of physical freedom. This arrest, though, appears to take place solely in the realm of bureaucracy. K. is “not to be confined in any way,” and the officials, their duty discharged, leave to go about their business and leave K. to go about his.

K. is immediately troubled by the absurdity of the bureaucratic system. At his initial inquiry, he protests against what he sees as an “extensive organization” whose purpose “consists of arresting innocent people and introducing senseless proceedings against them, which for the most part, as in my case, go nowhere” (50). As a consequence of this opacity and pointlessness, K. concludes, it is inevitable that the bureaucracy would become corrupt. Indeed, it is widely acknowledged by other characters connected with the court that court officials can be influenced in any number of ways, though of course the court has no real interest in evidence or true justice.

K.’s descriptions and settings further underscore the absurdity of the court bureaucracy. The courts themselves are chaotic and claustrophobic spaces, reflecting the disorientation and suffocation experienced by individuals victimized by such systems. The nonsensical architecture of the court, located in an apartment building and accessed through labyrinthine corridors, serves as a metaphor for the maze of bureaucratic procedures and regulations that seem designed to confuse and entrap. The impossibility of acquiring an actual acquittal in trials such as K.’s—the best that can be hoped for are temporary “apparent acquittals” or endless protractions—reflects the tendency of bureaucracy to perpetuate itself. In Kafka’s nightmare world, the bureaucracy exists for its own sake, with no regard for the citizens it governs.

Kafka’s representation of bureaucracy in the novel serves as a commentary on the mechanisms of the modern state and their relationship to the individual. Kafka, himself an insurance agent working under the Austro-Hungarian empire, would have been very familiar with bureaucracy. The novel can be interpreted as a critique of the oppressive potential of complex bureaucracies as well as a reflection of the individual’s struggle against the forces of an indifferent and incomprehensible universe. K.’s futile attempts to gain insight into the workings of the court mirror the human quest for meaning and understanding in an inherently absurd world.

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text