my paper

The majority of dominant religious institutions found in the modern world have little in common with what they were originally intended to be.  Ironically enough, nearly all of these modifications made over time were influenced by corruption from the followers themselves.  This concept extends far beyond just religious tradition, however.  After meaningful examination, one can see that there is actually a plethora of incongruity between several aspects of human nature, surpassing those that deal strictly with religion.

Twentieth century German author Franz Kafka was considerably familiar with this theme and utilized the idea in several of his novels.  One of his narratives in particular, The Trial, bares quite a repertoire of his thoughts that illustrate what happens when the institutions of church, society, and state cross paths.  Kafka understood this idea so clearly that he passionately criticizes divine authority and human imitation for conflicting each other on several accounts.  In The Trial specifically, examples of his understanding are abundantly found within the thoughts and actions of the outstandingly ordinary main character, Joseph K.  Kafka’s choice to utilize a main character that holds an average occupation and a run of the mill lifestyle enables the book to be universally applicable.  His use of a broadly germane main character also implies his thoughts regarding society as a whole; he felt that society is nearly incapable of seeing all of these major incongruities of human existence, and if one does understand (specifically in case of Joseph K.), it is almost always too late in the process to rescue oneself.

Kafka’s primary route for showing the inconsistencies in human existence deal with governmental procedures and the paradoxes that transpire when compared to the basis upon which they were built.  Joseph K., who is simply referred to as “K.” throughout the novel, is charged, put on trial, convicted, and eventually sentenced to death, all for reasons never revealed to him.  K. is initially skeptical and plans to battle in court with his lawyer of an uncle, but after extensive discouragement from almost everyone he encounters, he loses hope.  One character in particular, Titorelli the painter, dejects K. so much so that he causes him to rethink his whole case.  The painter tells him:

Judges on the lowest level, and those are the only ones I know, don’t have the power to grant a final acquittal, that power resides only in the highest court, which is totally inaccessible to you and me and everyone else.  We don’t want to know what things look like up there, and incidentally, we don’t want to know.  (Kafka, 167)

Not long after his discussion with Titorelli, K. wholeheartedly entrusts his life in the hands of authority, convinced he has actually done something to deserve his conviction.  He no longer attempts to fight his court-ordered sentence and relinquishes his life. 

His willingness to allow the government to do whatever they please with his inalienable rights as a human being – and, had the novel taken place in the United States, his Sixth Amendment rights as well – seems to parallel a man who is surrendering his life on behalf of a greater being; a man who is leaving his life in the hands of God.  Incongruously, however, the hands in which he leaves his life are in no way holy or mighty; he instead leaves his life in the hands of corruption and distortion.

The outstanding irony here is basically that the government’s job is to create and enforce just and appropriate laws.  If they fail to do so, it is up to the people of that region to take the necessary action to appeal those laws or to even overthrow that government if the case calls for it.  Though it claims to be working with the interest of God at its core – “In God We Trust”, the authority in The Trial is in no way carrying out any divine duties.  The government in this novel shows no mercy or compliance to even listen to the testimony of one of its citizens, going along with typical procedure of countries today.

K.’s death sentence is another illustration of this idea.  Though it is still an aspect of many cultures throughout plenty of countries including the United States of America, ironically it is completely against the religious and moralistic foundations of practically all current establishments.  And even as citizens of most nations are increasingly voicing opinions in objection to this fateful sentence, it seems to stand the test of time and continues to be a means of punishment in various civilizations, including the once-Catholic Germany, where the book originated.

Another interesting paradox lies physically within the words themselves.  Each time Kafka refers to the law, he capitalizes the L to write “Law”.  This is similar to the fact that the Bible receives a capital letter; both fall under the category of important legislation for human guidance.  Additionally, as seen above, Titorelli the painter even refers to the location of the higher courts as being “up there”, corresponding to Heaven.  Kafka uses both of these techniques in efforts to depict a broadly significant issue people face today: national authorities constantly overstepping their boundaries and acting in an all-encompassing manner, almost as though they can do whatever they please.

Kafka shows the reader several struggles where a helpless man is fighting against an unspecified law and an unjust government, and naturally the reader feels irritation or maybe as though the book is entirely fiction.  Sadly, though, this sort of thing happens all the time in the real world.  Millions of people have unjustly died in the past, domestic examples including the Salem Witch Trials during the seventeenth century and the McCarthy Trials that occurred a mere sixty years ago.  It was years after both of those instances that the American people finally realized the severity of the injustice that took place.  These cases will not cease as humans continue to avoid taking action against the injustice that is happening in their respective governments, and Kafka strongly recognizes that fact in this profound novel.

Kafka draws further contrast in The Trial relating to this theme of incongruity within the human society when he discusses the two institutions of society and the state.  Rather than design a society where average citizens can achieve the same status in court and equality in general, the reader initially feels as though Kafka has created a society of inequality.  The fact of the matter is, however, that these situations are actually incredibly realistic; Kafka did not make it up.  Though everyone is supposed to be equally represented in court, rarely does this occur.  If K. had held a more lucrative stance in society, the outcome of his trial would be entirely different – most definitely to the point where K. would not be sentenced to death.

Kafka also criticizes society for its constant modernization that resultantly seems to ignore the middle class, and by utilizing a universally applicable main character, the majority of readers can relate to his words.  He also shows the reader, however, that the majority of the people that are taken advantage of do not care to notice the inequality that truly exists between the classes.  One character that illustrates this idea particularly well is Frau Gruber, Joseph K.’s landlady.  When K. informs her of his situation, she responds by saying:

You’re under arrest all right, but not the way a thief would be.  If you’re arrested like a thief, that’s bad, but this arrest – no.  It seems like something scholarly, I’m sorry if that sounds stupid, but it seems like something scholarly that I don’t understand, but that I don’t need to understand either. (Kafka, 47)

Frau Gruber fills the position of the textbook stereotype of a lower-class citizen who pays no attention to the injustice that takes place in her government.  She makes absolutely no attempt to understand, declaring that the case is above her level of knowledge, and clearly has already decided that, like many, she has faith in the government.  K., on the other hand, is the complete opposite.  He contests all the way throughout the novel to right before the end to comprehend his case and find answers.  By showing two extremes of society, one could say that Kafka’s intent is to show the depressingly inactive, lackadaisical, and apathetic medium of the always modernizing society.

Throughout his lifetime, this author made it a point to enlighten as many uninformed people as he could about the injustices that occur on a day-to-day basis.  His novel, The Trial, is his primary route for doing so.  These patterns of incongruity continue throughout the entire novel, where Kafka also makes minor references to contradictions between the institutions of religion and society.  He makes even more of a mention concerning the seemingly large increase of totalitarianism in governments that are authority in the present day.  In opposition to what many critics have claimed in the past, The Trial does not only refer to Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Communist Soviet Union; it was designed to pass judgment on all of the governments in existence.

The original text, entitled Der Prozess, presages both “trial” as well as “process”.  This creates a sort of feeling of lunacy for the reader, especially when he finds that the inevitable is inescapable for Joseph K.  Kafka’s aptitude for creating a lasting impression – one that describes a positively unbeatable authority – in addition to his skill for slowly releasing information to the reader makes the outcome that much more interesting.  He creates such an internal frenzy in the mind of Joseph K. that it makes the reader start to examine the rest of the institutions of his own life, realizing especially the injustices that essentially occur on a day-by-day basis.