💾 Archived View for gemini.bunburya.eu › notes › Art › Books › Kafka,%20Franz › The%20Trial.gmi captured on 2023-04-26 at 14:12:17. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
At the beginning of the book, K is told that being under arrest, by itself, has no significant consequences for a defendant, and that he is free to continue his life as usual. K himself initially shrugs off the arrest as a mere annoyance. But as the story goes on, despite K's material circumstances not significantly changing (he remains as free as ever to continue his daily life), the case weighs on him more and more and comes to dominate his thoughts. This demonstrates that the simple fact that you are at odds with the law, and the uncertainty associated with not knowing what action (if any) the state will take against you, is itself harmful even if no other consequences flow from it (ie, there is a chilling effect).
It reminds me of the Irish case of *Norris v Attorney General*, where the state argued that Norris lacked standing to challenge a law criminalising homosexuality because he had not in fact been prosecuted under it and was in no apparent danger of prosecution, despite being openly homosexual. The Irish High Court disagreed with the standing argument.
The court system portrayed in *The Trial* is a very unusual one, even leaving aside the fact that the accused is apparently not entitled to know the accusations made against him. It does not have any of the grandeur or majesty that is typically associated with a court. It seems to be a manifestation of pure bureaucracy. The limits of its power in society are highly uncertain. At times it seems like an amateurish and unimportant institution, but at the end we learn that it is capable of imposing the ultimate punishment on K. But even as this punishment is carried out, the disorganisation and lack of professionalism of the system and its actors is evident.
It seems that everyone associated with the court is simply following orders from above, and no one seems to know the overall aims or structure of the court. In this way, it seems that no one individual is responsible for the unfair trial and condemnation of K; on the contrary, many of those who work for the court appear to be victims of it in their own way. However, the merit of this "just following orders" defence is questionable (and it is very similar to the defence that Nazi soldiers would employ, some decades after *The Trial*'s publication). The doorman in the chaplain's story at the end of the book epitomises this aspect of the court. The ambiguous interpretations of the story mirror the questionable moral justifiability of the "just following orders" defence and of each individual's role within the court system more generally.
The administration of justice is portrayed as a series of transactions between self-interested actors. Advocates are required, for the purpose of their business, to gain the favour of court officials, and *vice versa*. This creates various conflicts of interest between advocates, court officials and defendants. K himself describes the case as being a business transaction like the many he has conducted at the bank.
K appears to be extremely concerned with others' perception of him and his status and this is responsible for much of the toll that the trial takes on him. Prior to his execution at the end of the story, K's main complaints are related to the fact that other people (such as his friends and family) have heard that he is being investigated, that his position at the bank is threatened, etc. Even at the very end, he is not so upset that he is being executed, but rather that the unprofessionalism of his executors seems to reduce his own status somehow. His last words, "like a dog", express shame that the manner of his execution has reduced him to the status of an animal. I interpreted the reference to the shame outliving him as meaning that, although his personal torment is at an end, his ruined name will live long after he is gone in the minds of others.