The Issue of Bureaucracy in Franz Kafka’s “The Trial”

Introduction to Bureaucracy in "The Trial"

Written at the beginning of the 20th century “The Trial” depicts “the rise of bureaucracy, the power of law, and the atomization of the individual”, which are allegorically reflected in a story about Joseph K., a bank employee who is accused of unspecified crimes. This rather surreal and pessimistic narrative begins when two guards show up on K.’s 30th birthday and put him under arrest. Even though K. is allowed to continue living his life “normally”, he is trying to make sense of his trial until being executed without any progress or clarity in his case. K.’s death, perhaps, was the only way for him to escape the bureaucracy web he found himself caught up in. There is no single interpretation of “The Trial”, however, the essay will only focus on the mindless bureaucratic processes the protagonist has to face. Franz Kafka himself was, in a sense, a member of the bureaucratic world as his official profession was a lawyer; presumably, his writings were inspired by his formal day job. “The Trial” lets a reader to have a deep look into the chaotic, senseless and confusing hierarchical chain of the bureaucracy, which imprisons its victims in often unreasonbale circle of formalities and businesses.

The Judicial System's Complexity and Instability

From the beginning of the novel it is strongly felt how bureaucracy interferes with people’s lives making them meaninglessly complicated and what a multilayered and unstable phenomenon is judicial system. The moment official guards showed up, the usual order of K.’s life was interrupted and bound to change. His daily routine was disturbed and it was one of the first signs of the anxiety, tension and misunderstandings he was about to face in the future. The information about the arrest, which no reason or explanation was given for, was immediately followed by a couple of other events that only confirmed the shadiness and dirtiness of the court: the officers made it quite clear (almost insisted) that bribing is welcome (even though it would not benefit K. in any way), besides, the men who were sent by the court to arrest K. were junior officers who admitted themselves they were non-professionals and “hardly know one end of an ID card from another”. The officers were only taking the authorities’ orders without any knowledge about the situation – in the court‘s eyes the accused people are not important enough to deserve direct communication with the authorities; such attitude only declares how distant is the judicial system from any personal relation with an accused individual and confirms bureaucracy being some kind of hierarchical web where the closest possible contact with the court is a touch of “the lower orders who cannot take ultimate responsibility for anything they do”. This is a reflection of how the whole system works – a lot of officially necessary but fruitless formalities which only get one as close to the end as a labyrinth without an exit. The officers who came for K. are described as “significantly bigger”. In the novel it is some kind of pattern – people directly related to the court actually were (or at least K. felt they were, or a visual illusion was created) physically bigger. For instance, during one of his meetings with a lawyer, Joseph K. gets to see a portrait of a judge, who “has himself painted in this awe-inspiring manner because he is as vain as everybody connected to the court”. Although the picture clearly demonstrates the court’s tendency to self-aggrandisement, Leni’s deconstruction of its representational illusion is of little concrete help to K.” and at work kazkokie random vyrai neprisimenu). This shows the difference in status and power of K. (+other people in similar situation). They are more powerful, and their decisions are significant, and K. was helpless against them (and the system as well as those officials were sistemos atstovai).

The Hierarchical Web of Bureaucracy

Very important episodes of the novel are K.’s conversations with a painter Titorelli, who paints portraits for the court, and a lawyer Dr. Huld, who was introduced to K. by his uncle. They both revealed a lot of details of how the court works, which were really illustrative. For example, the lawyer told K. how important the first submitted documents were, even though, the court might not even read them (jei isvis nepameta). To put it briefly, submitting documents is important but usually they do not have any impact at all. Besides, the accused and his defence are not allowed to get any information about the court records, therefore, the actual process remains unknown to them. Even the conditions of the courthouse could be interpreted as a symbol of all the bureaucratic proceedings – there is always a risk to get trapped, “In the floor of this room - to give yet another example of the conditions there - there is a hole that's been there for more than a year, it's not so big that a man could fall through, but it is big enough for your foot to disappear through it.” (Kafka, 1925). It is also learnt from the conversation with the lawyer about the importance of personal connections. It is one more proof the system is corrupted. “This is where most lawyers will push their way in, this is where bribes are paid and information extracted, there have even, in earlier times at least, been incidents where documents have been stolen. The only things of real value are honest personal contacts, contacts with higher officials, albeit higher officials of the lower grades, you understand. That is the only way the progress of the trial can be influenced,” heuhfefheoh (Kafka, 1925). Also, personal disagreements with court officials might, and usually will, have a bad impact on the proceedings – profession and personal life are not separate sections. It could be stated that the trial is more of a business than a tool to empower justice. K. buys some paintings from Titorelli, which also have a quite symbolic meaning. First, he buys 3 paintings of the same landscape, what shows that no matter how much you do, you are still in the same place. The landscape painted is moorland – again trap in which you eventually will drown. “By flaunting their inauthenticity and non-mimetic techniques, all these pictures suggest what K. has been fearing all along. There may indeed be no substance, no legal justice or moral truth behind the court’s pitifully self-important representatives and their (pseudo-)legal, endlessly proliferating arguments.”

The Textualized Labyrinth of the Court

“If for Benjamin Paris resembled a vast book to be read, a multilayered assemblage of signs which the flaneur ˆ ’s sympathetic eye read as expressions of rich cultural traditions, reminiscences, and historical echoes, the machinery of the court presents itself to K. as a textualised labyrinth. He can only accuse it of corruption, immorality, and illegal persecution. The soiled, pornographic books that K. finds on the examining magistrate’s desk in chapter 3 reflect in his eyesthe overwhelming moral depravity of the court’s hierarchy.”

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

The Endless Process of the Trial

In the novel it is not clear how much progress had K. done by the time he was executed but a lot of information about never ending processes is learnt from another encounter whom K. met at the lawyer’s house – businessman Block. His trial has already been going for 5 years and it seems he is stuck between documents, hearings, lawyers etc. Block reveals that “it's only very rare that you see any progress in these proceedings at all.” (this statement basically summarizes how the court works and predicts K.’s future). “Justice must be considered a fundamental and inescapable form of force. Justice (as force) is distinct from violence (as force). Justice attracts and coheres rather than repelling and dividing. Indeed, justice is the remedy to violence. Force does respond to force; but the qualities of justice and violence as force are by no means equivalent. Justice as force seeks to recognize the realities and limitations of our being with others:violence seeks to close down this commonality in difference. In this sense, legislating that is motivated by, and seeks to, establish justice can be seen as a force against force — but not necessarily a violence against violence.” However, K. does not experience this kind of behavior from the lawyer which could probably be explain again by contacts etc because K.’s uncle is the lawyer’s friend.

Conclusion: The Absurdity of Bureaucracy

“K. never has a formal trial, yet the novel is called The Trial: evidently, K.'s fruitless effort to learn what he is accused of is his trial. “ It is worth to discuss the title of the novel as well. The German title “Der Prozeß” has the meaning of both “trial” and “process”. K. has to go through a lot of investigations and legal work which makes the arrest of K. and his trial the whole journey through bureaucratic formalities (pokalbiai su painteriu ir advokatu), which in the end seem to have no point; the word ‘process’ does imply a multilayer, dynamic event but does not declare is it regress or progress (it is easily associated with progress but as it is seen in the novel – it is more like regress or at least stagnation). “K. never has a formal trial, yet the novel is called The Trial: evidently, K.'s fruitless effort to learn what he is accused of is his trial.

“ The process of the trial sort of controls K.’s life and is so niekur nevedantis, that K.’s mind was always occupied with it, it made him to rethink his life, he even considers to hand in to the court a written defence in which he explains his life and choices to the court. “While being considered guilty K. protests that he is not — and yet, K. cannot protest that he is innocent, because he does not know that of which he is innocent.”

It is important to pay attention to the way the book was written – the language is ironic, satirical, there are many situations which make no sense, and that makes the depicted absurdity even more clear and strengthens the idea of bureaucracy being pointless.