A Literary Review of ‘Absurdism’ and ‘Existentialism’ in Franz Kafka’s ‘Metamorphosis’ and ‘The Trial’
Franz Kafka (1883-1924) was a great novelist of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His work concerned the issues of existentialism and absurdism, in which he discussed the absurdity of the human condition and life through his characters. A writer who did not value the intrinsic nature of human life and seemed to lean towards nihilism; unsurprisingly, many described him as anti-social, with a repulsive personality. It is crucial to understand who Kafka was as a man. His attitudes towards others and his insecurity (as he believed himself to be repulsive) could be a source for the angle of his writings. Specifically, ‘Metamorphosis’ may have represented how he viewed himself.
This paper attempts to use the Novella Metamorphosis’, the novel ‘The Trial’, and numerous philosophical theories to interpret the protagonists of each book and how they relate to human life and the world around us.
Absurdism is a literature movement arguing that human life is has no inherent meaning and the universe is chaotic, therefore we must find our own meaning. Life does not come with instructions; therefore, many individuals attempt to find meaning through various sources, such as religion or surrogate activities. Absurdist and existentialist writers discuss the idea that many people do not come to find meaning, specifically in the modern world, due to the lack of religiosity, which helps to provide a sense of belonging. Therefore, they fall into existential nihilism. Authors such as Kafka illustrate the absurd world in which nothing makes sense; there is no why or how, and no answers are provided. Within both ‘Metamorphosis’ and ‘The Trial’, Kafka emphasises the issue of innate human guilt in different forms. Guilt, like all concepts within absurdism, has a very niche definition. Within Metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa feels guilt from a source of inadequacy. The paradox is that his life is meaningless as he spends his days providing for others, leaving little time to pursue his interests and find meaning beyond simply providing for his family. Within the world of the Absurd, there is a significant emphasis on the feeling of shame. Kafka attempts to show that a world without meaning causes people to rely on the opinions of others to provide meaning—a pathological need to be accepted by others. The fear of not meeting said standards becomes a source of shame.
In the Novella Metamorphosis’, Kafka describes a man named Gregor Samsa. Gregor is a hard-working man with a good job that earns him good money despite the gruelling work that he does not enjoy. Gregor is required to work this job as his parents are in debt to the company for which Gregor works, and they do not work themselves. He also seeks to allow his sister to become a musician. Therefore Gregor dedicates his life to providing for his family no matter the cost. However, one day, he wakes up struggling to move. His body in the night had metamorphosed into an insect-like creature with tiny legs, a sizeable cumbersome body and leaching a disgusting fluid from its orifices. Gregor’s new shape brings terror and shame to his family, who do not know what to do in his condition. After living a gruelling life in his new body, living as a shame to his family, he eventually retreats to his room and starves to death. A sad tale, and there are many interpretations of this novel to discuss.[1]
One of the main theories that arise across the literature is the estrangement and alienation of
working people. Another issue to understand through this work is the idea of ‘Shame’. To understand shame in the world of the absurd, it is worthwhile to look at the Sartrean understanding of shame, as famously expressed in his ground-breaking
work ‘Being and Nothingness,’ where he states, ‘I recognise I am, as others see me’. The importance of these ideas, being ‘shame’ and ‘alienation’, is that since the industrial revolution, the working man has been in a crisis of identity. The labour they produce, they do not produce for themselves. Marxian philosophy discusses the idea of alienation of labour. In the capitalist system, a man works to produce a commodity he does not value in exchange for a wage. The problem with this wage is that those above him make more than the worker by extracting ‘surplus value’. Therefore, the working man subconsciously faces a crisis in which he does not value his labour but must dedicate his life to it to provide for his family and himself. Gregor Samsa perfectly encapsulates this man. Despite Gregor having a good job and providing for his entire family, it is not a job he is thrilled to wake up for every morning. The first dialogue from Gregor’s mind regarding his job uses language to indicate his dismay at the work ahead of him. It is written,
“The upset of doing business is much worse than the actual business in the home office, and, besides, I have got the torture of travelling, worrying about changing trains, eating miserable food at all hours, constantly seeing new faces, no relationships that last or get more intimate. To the devil with it all !”[2] (pg 4).
Through Gregor, Kafka is describing the problem with the human condition. What is it we work for? Why do we dedicate our lives to working for something material, and to what end? These are the questions the Absurdist movement in literature tries to help readers understand. Gregor is working to provide for his family; however, why is it solely placed on his shoulders? His mother and father are still of working age today.
Regarding how he is viewed, his family treat him as an asset. Gregor’s purpose is to keep his family afloat, and his identity is now defined by said purpose. Gregor overall can be described as a selfless person who seeks to provide for his family to the best of his ability, regardless of what he loses.
The change Gregor made to becoming a giant insect was sudden. There was not a gradual change, but one day he wakes up and is ‘monstrous vermin’. Gregor does not fully understand his condition as he meets his family at the landing of his room. His family feels terror and panic, and begin retreating in horror as they see what their son has become. Prior to his Metamorphosis, Gregor was taken advantage of by his family. His selflessness and dutiful nature were not valued until he could not provide. His family’s shock towards his condition could be described as a realisation that Gregor can no longer fulfil their needs rather than care for his physical state. His family recognise that this new shape is Gregor, yet they suddenly forget the good he has done for him and now view him as a threat. As Gregor reveals his current state, his father forces Gregor back into his room to be out of sight. Kafka writes, “[Father] Had only the fixed idea that Gregor must return to his room”[3]. This situation is an excellent metaphor for avoiding issues as they arise. Gregor is a son and a provider to his family, yet when faced with his predicament, they shut him off with no regard for his well-being. They instantly forget their connection to him in favour of their feelings. Gregor’s change to an insect could be interpreted as his family being punished for their selfishness and reliance on Gregor without acknowledging his hard work. Perhaps instead of being a message to his family, it was a message to Gregor that his work was never appreciated. He has now physically become a manifestation of how he was valued. Using absurdist ideas, we can apply this situation too many other realms of human endeavour, for example, within the workplace. Many people work extremely hard in gruelling jobs, but to a superior, they may simply still be treated like a number. Therefore, if you are not treated as an individual but rather as a replaceable asset, what is the point of living? Said question is one we can find within Kafka’s work. The answer of course is up for debate.
Gregor lives as a bug for an unknown period. Throughout this time his sister has taken charge of his well-being as she feeds him; however, she limits her contact with him as much as possible. “She did not see him right away, but when she caught sight of him-she, she became so frightened that she lost control of herself and slammed the door shut again” [4]. Interestingly, his sister’s avoidance of her brother’s condition and the reality of the situation could be related to the concept of bad faith from Sartre. By not engaging with reality, the family gives up their freedom. If they chose to, they could abandon Gregor and move on. Instead, they restrict themselves with the false hope that he will return to normal. Paradoxically, they refuse to face his condition, therefore absolving themselves of responsibility if he were to not return to normal.
The Trial by Kafka is, in essence, very different from Metamorphosis. The story is much longer and drawn out, covering vastly more issues than the Novella Metamorphosis. The story follows Josef K, a bank clerk indicted for a crime that the reader does not know. It follows him as he attempts to navigate the legal system, make sense of his case and resolve it. However, throughout the novel, Josef K becomes increasingly paranoid about his case, exploring ideas of isolation. Josef K is eventually led to his execution without any justification for the punishment stated. It is unknown whether Josef K did or did not know the nature of his crimes, and the reader is not told, but fundamentally that does not matter. The novel has been interpreted as a critique of bureaucracy in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in which the authoritarian legal system often takes advantage of the people for financial gain.
An area to be discussed regarding the novel is the critique of the justice system. Josef K is arrested by members of the police force who enter his building residence to question him. However, the officers appear to be using their position above Josef to harass him for their entertainment. Concerning his arrest, the officers refuse to tell him the reason. All Josef K knows is that he is being investigated, and the legal system is after him.
“And why am I under arrest’ K asks. “That is something we are not allowed to tell you. Go into your room and wait there.” Responds one of the officers. [5]
The interaction brings confusion to K. He believes himself to be harassed by the officers. “K. was living in a free country- who was it who dared accost him in his own house”. [6]
Throughout the chapters, K goes to great lengths to learn about his case. Interrogating numerous court members to learn the inner workings in a bid to defend himself. Within his first cross-examination, the Judge attempts to dismiss K. for being late to his proceeding. The Judge, however, mistakes who Josef is. It is written,
“He turned to K. with the tone of someone who knows his facts and said ‘You are a house painter?”. [7]
Within his case, those dealing with his proceedings and having his life in their hands do not even know the basics of Josef’s life. Highlighting the absurdity of such a capricious legal system. The mistakes of the court are disregarded, whereas the mistakes of a defendant are severely scrutinised. K. is portrayed as a representative of the powerless victims of a venal court system that seeks to make an example out of defendants rather than pursue truth. Josef says,
"What has happened to me is not just an isolated case. If it were, it would not be of much importance as it is not of much importance to me, but it is a symptom of proceedings which are carried out against many. It’s on behalf of them I stand here now, not for myself alone”.[8]
Unlike cases in the modern day, it does not appear that Josef is being tightly controlled. He is not under any house arrest; state officers do not follow him; he is free to work and dwell with whomever. There is plenty of opportunity for him to escape. Despite this, Josef K remains attempting to penetrate the court system. This highlights the absurdity of freedom. It would be in K.’s best interest to escape the system rather than engage in it. Instead, he obeys all that is asked of him, hoping he will be seen favourably, despite all the evidence to the contrary and his past treatment. There is an exciting contradiction emphasised. Human beings have the freedom to know what is in their best interest. However, when an authority demands something of them, no matter how corrupt, they will follow blindly.
K. meets with numerous individuals throughout his case. Firstly, he meets his Uncle. Josef’s Uncle appears to have some level of knowledge of the legal system and impresses onto K. the gravity of his situation. His Uncle tells him,
“Do you want to lose your trial? Do you realise what that would mean? That would mean you would simply be destroyed.”.[9]
It could be stated that this is the moment the paranoia for Josef is enhanced. In his mind, he decides that every moment not spent within the court trying to advance his case is a risk to his life. All other interactions with those within the court begin to demonstrate his desperation. Josef meets a woman named Leni. Supposedly, she is a nurse for the lawyer Dr Huld. However, to Josef, she is almost his mistress. Her role within the court is ambiguous, and Josef may be suspicious of her. Despite his suspicions, he often allows her to seduce him (pg 108-109). It could be hypothesised that Leni’s relationship with Josef functions to keep him working in the court. She uses her seductive abilities to draw Josef into spending time in the court, hoping he would see her. Therefore, she may be a trap used by the court to force defendants into self-incrimination. Her stated goal is to have power over Josef as she says, “I’ve taken her place--Now your mine”. This may also explain Josef’s dismissal of her many times after the meeting. Despite her seeming attraction for Josef, Leni often defends the court system and has loyalties to those trying to charge Josef. We know Leni is also in a relationship with Dr Huld,
“You slip off with some dirty little thing who, moreover, is the lawyers beloved”, [10]
to an unknown degree, which may be evidence for the theory that she is trying to ‘honeytrap’ Josef. Leni is also implied to be promiscuous. Regardless of her official role, Leni is indicative of the degeneracy that is found within powerful bureaucracies. Coupled with her relationship with the morally bankrupt Dr Huld, could be interpreted as a critique of the depraved secrets that come from many institutions, especially those which hold power over the people.
Josef K navigates his court case trying to exonerate himself to no avail. Frequently he is given contradictory advice. However, all examples show that the court system will win against him. While his situation may seem like just a man trying to navigate a sizeable overbearing system, there are clear undertones of existentialist philosophy. Josef K displays that he is feeling the terror of what will happen to him if he is to be found guilty. The fixation on his case shows that the consequences of not dedicating his life to his case are severe. “He was no longer able to get the thought of the trial out of his head” (pg 112)[11]. This could be attributed to an aspect of existential dread that some have called ‘premature death’. This factor could be described as
“death that takes place at a certain time rather than at some later time.”[12] Bradley, Ben. “Existential terror.” The Journal of Ethics 19 (2015): 409-418.
Josef K’s condition is worsened because the end of his life now has a set date for him. Once Josef’s life ends, he asks himself a crucial question. He says, “Should I let anyone say, after im gone, that at the start of the proceedings I wanted to end them, and that now that they’ve ended I want to start them again?”[13] (pg 218). Josef is pondering if the moment the police officers entered his domicile; the legal proceedings became the meaning of his life. From the outset, it was predetermined that the beginning of the legal proceedings would eventually lead to the demise of Josef K. Josef wonders whether it would be better to live a life dedicated to fighting a system he cannot beat or die and be free once again.
Franz Kafka is an author who profoundly impacted literature and the absurdist literature movement. His writings, specifically ‘Metamorphosis’ and ‘The Trial’, are ground-breaking because of his surrealist style, which creates a meaningful discussion on the meaning of life. This paper has used numerous philosophical sources, such as existentialism and Marxism, to analyse his stories and to understand their relevance to the lives of conscious human beings. Through ‘Metamorphosis’, existentialism philosophy, and psychoanalysis, we can understand various complexities of human life, such as Guilt and Shame as human emotions. The use of Marxian theories of alienation helped to compare Gregor Samsa to the average working individual, who has lost his identity through his dedication to labour. ‘The Trial’ has allowed for an understanding of the natural corruption that fosters in highly bureaucratic institutions, and how it dehumanises individuals within it. Readers can relate to Josef K's isolation as he attempts to fight for his life to no avail, with those around him accepting him as a dead man walking. Thanks to Franz Kafka’s influential writings, ideas of the complex, bureaucratic and absurd within human life have become known as ‘Kafkaesque’. The identified writings help readers understand that they must strive to find meanings within their own lives that reflect them as people, not to live for others. Kafka’s profound writings are defined by their power to help us understand ourselves more deeply, no matter how harsh.
Word count: 3050
Bibliography:
Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis. United Kingdom: Random House Publishing Group, 2013.
Sartre, J.P., 2015. Being and nothingness. Central works of philosophy: the twentieth century: Moore to popper, 4, p.155.
Rowe, M., 2002. Metamorphosis: Defending the human. Literature and Medicine, 21(2), pp.264-280.
Minar, K.S. and Sutandio, A., 2017. Shame and alienation in Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. Poetika: Jurnal Ilmu Sastra, 5(2), pp.123-133.
Musto, M., 2010. Revisiting Marx's concept of alienation. Socialism and Democracy, 24(3), pp.79-101.
Bradley, Ben. "Existential terror." The Journal of Ethics 19 (2015): 409-418.
Kafka, Franz. The Trial. United States: Simon & Brown, 2010.
[1] Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis. United Kingdom: Random House Publishing Group, 2013.
[2] Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis. United Kingdom: Random House Publishing Group, 2013. (pg 4)
[3] Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis. United Kingdom: Random House Publishing Group, 2013. (pg 15)
[4] Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis. United Kingdom: Random House Publishing Group, 2013. (pg 17)
[5] Kafka, Franz. The Trial. United States: Simon & Brown, 2010. (pg 6)
[6] Kafka, Franz. The Trial. United States: Simon & Brown, 2010. (pg 8)
[7] Kafka, Franz. The Trial. United States: Simon & Brown, 2010. (pg 42)
[8] Kafka, Franz. The Trial. United States: Simon & Brown, 2010. (pg 44)
[9] Kafka, Franz. The Trial. United States: Simon & Brown, 2010. (pg 97)
[10] Kafka, Franz. The Trial. United States: Simon & Brown, 2010. (pg110)
[11] Kafka, Franz. The Trial. United States: Simon & Brown, 2010. (pg112)
[12] Bradley, Ben. “Existential terror.” The Journal of Ethics 19 (2015): 409-418.
[13] Kafka, Franz. The Trial. United States: Simon & Brown, 2010. (pg 218)