Justice as a Self-Alienated Other

Nicolás Preti 26 July 2012 Justice as a Self-Alienated Other Transfixed by the “innocent boredom” of a young boy “carefully throwing his cap on the floor and then carefully picking it up, and then again, over and over”, Franz Kafka denigrates his own lecture of Heinrich von Kleist‟s Michael Kohlhaas by critiquing that he “Read wildly and badly and carelessly and unintelligibly” (Kafka, 1948). Kafka‟s self-flagellation is consistent with his more profound frustrations on his (and perhaps everyone‟s) inability to effectively communicate ideas, but the motivation for choosing Kleist‟s novella is less obscure. Michael Kohlhaas was, in fact, “one of Kafka‟s favourite pieces of prose”(Brod, 1948), which in combination with its clear, candid, and exciting plot provides him with a vehicle to relate his own epistemic issues. The inter-textual relationship between Kafka and Kleist can be drawn through the prerogative of justice in Michael Kohlhaas, A Country Doctor and Before the Law. These texts treat Justice in a way that leaves the reader (and the authors) deeply frustrated. This frustration arises out of the indefinable nature of Justice, which is exemplified by the mere fact that Justice is never „achieved‟ in these works. Therefore, Justice, while extant as an idea, does not materialize in a way that is in sync with its notion.1 A subject‟s inability to observe Justice directly, thus, poses the question whether Justice itself exists, and if so how does it exist? To answer this question, this essay will employ a framework that treats justice as a perceptual mechanism where its „reality‟ lies in its value as a relative object of thought. This framework permits for an understanding of the paradoxes exhibited by Kafka and Kleist‟s texts because Justice seizes to function as a „real‟ end and instead operates as a metaphysical „other‟.2 1Hegelian idea of Notion (Begriff). “the universal which is thought itself” –Science of Logic 2Post-Structuralists often use this term to describe either 1) what may be structurally referred to as absolute ideals in that they are ‘othered’ by our inability to reach them 2) Ideas or representations that are alien to oneself.  Michael Kohlhaas functions at heart as a philosophical text, which can be readily seen through its literary format. Kleist seems to fuse two literary techniques. On one hand, he uses the figure of an established and recognized myth, that of Hans Kohlhaus, in an effort to focus the reader not on the allure of the story itself (because the story is already known), but on the ideas around which the story revolves (namely, the treatment of Justice). This technique can be most graciously attributed to Greek Tragedies where playwrights, such as Sophocles, invoked older, known myths to dramatize pertinent ethical questions of the polis. On the other hand, Kleist uses an adventurous, action-driven plot where the protagonist experiences a variety of environments through a whimsical and casual narrative. Thus, the tone carries the reader quickly from case to case without any emphasis on description, detail, or eloquence. This technique mimics that of Voltaire‟s Candide where the protagonist is faced with myriad scenarios in order to extract from each one a different truth. Kleist merges these two techniques in an effort to demonstrate the logical development of an ideal – Justice – without the distractions of the pomp and circumstance that usually accompanied the Romantic writing of this period. Therefore, the aim of the work can clearly be read as deeply philosophical, and should be analyzed through such a lens. However, while Kleist clearly isolates Justice as the ideal in question, the resolution of the story leaves the reader in a state of perplexity regarding its final form or notion. As Michael Kohlhaas „happily‟ marches to his own death sentence, Kleist demonstrates a societally perceived sense of Justice. Michael Kohlhaas, the agent of Justice for much of the work, capitulates to authorities under the premise that Justice has been served (his horses are returned to him in the same state that he left them) and he is receiving just punishment for having retaliated against the state. However, Kleist‟s introduction of the paper prophecy and Kohlhaas‟ final retributive act against the Elector, sheds light on the incongruence of this State Justice. By eating the paper prophecy regarding the House of Saxony, Kohlhaas, seemingly by some divine intervention, has the last word. This final act of free will demonstrates that in fact Justice was not achieved by the incumbent system, but instead by divine intervention. This confusing scene depicts Kleist‟s reconciliation of the ongoing paradox of the social contract. This paradox arises out of a basic question in social contract theory: if the state fails in its legal protection of a citizen, does the citizen inexorably owe allegiance to the social contract and by extension the state? Kohlhaas acts, albeit disproportionately, outside of the law, but only because the path of the law failed him. Therefore, it can be argued that Kohlhaas acted legitimately, and perhaps even justly, due to the failure of the social contract. Returning to the final scene, why is Justice perceived to be present by its actors if it has not addressed the failure of the law, and instead is left to divine intervention? Kafka picks up where Kleist ends. By isolating the expression of Justice as a point of conflict in his stories A Country Doctor and Before the Law, Kafka complicates the role of this ideal in our social environment in two ways. First, he foils the character of Michael Kohlhaas with that of the country doctor by exhibiting a lack of action in the face of injustice. So, while Kohlhaas relentlessly pursues the rectification of injustice, and is fundamentally defined by this imperative, the country doctor lacks this quality altogether, and instead permits the realization of blatant injustice. The country doctor has what could be interpreted as a lack of categorical imperative where Kohlhaas effectively embodies this Kantian concept, yet, both characters end in a state of injustice. Kafka here shows that apathy breeds injustice, which points to a necessary correlation between action and „achieving‟ Justice. This point can be related back to proving the legitimacy found Kohlhaas‟ direct action against injustice. Second, Kafka delineates how Justice operates metaphysically in his three-page story Before the Law. In this scenario, “a country man” waits his whole life to be allowed access to the law. The man perceives that the agent of the law, the Gatekeeper, must allow him access to the law. However, after wasting his life waiting for permission to gain access to the law, the man realizes that his inability to access the law is contingent upon a mere illusion. This thought experiment utilizes the gatekeeper as the agent of the law not the Law itself. Kafka‟s use of the Law (capitalized) seems synonymous with our understanding of Justice, which is the aim of the law. Therefore, the man‟s mistake seems to lie in treating the agent of the law as the Law itself, which is an alienation of the ideal (of Justice) and its consequent power (Freedom) into a foreign agent. In a sense, this treatment is a form of what G.W.F. Hegel would call self-alienation because Justice or Law is a product of the mind, and thus an extension of the self. Kafka illustrates this point beautifully at the conclusion of Before the Law when the man vis á vis with death asks the gatekeeper, “All people strive for the Law… How come in these many years no one but me has asked to be let in?” to this the Gatekeeper concludes the story “No one else could be let in here, for this entrance was meant for you alone. Now I am going to go and shut it”. The man‟s life ends with the tragic realization that his self-alienation from the Law was the only inhibiting factor in living a life of freedom. Derrida describes this man‟s position as á-venir or yet-to-come (Derrida, 92). Derrida contends that this state of alienation renders Justice as “Messianic”(Derrida, 92), because Justice takes the form of an unattainable „other.‟ The term Messianic beautifully describes both Kleist and Kafka‟s treatment of Justice as what is unattainable until death. In the case of Michael Kohlhaas Justice only enters, even as a possibility, with the divine intervention. This illustrates that Justice exists only in the form of a final judgment unto god. Whereas, in Before the Law Kafka eludes speaking of religion, but finds that the man can only even understand his relationship to Justice in the face of death. Thus, Justice acts as a relative object of thought that places its subject in a position of á-venir with respect to its own realization. The parallels to this model can be seen in The Country Doctor where the doctor waits for Justice to act instead of acting himself, and in Before the Law where the man is inexorably doomed to a constricted life for his lack will. Thus, much like Judaism‟s wait for a Messiah (or even Christianity‟s return of the Messiah), humanity treats Justice as something that is foreign and acts upon us, rather than assuming the prerogative of action ourselves. Bibliography Kafka, Franz. The diaries of Franz Kafka, ed. by Max Brod. New York: Schocken Books, 1948. Derrida, Jacques. Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority, in Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, ed. Drucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld, and David Gray Carlson. New York: Routledge, 1992. Leiter, Louis. A Problem in Analysis: Franz Kafka's "A Country Doctor".The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Vol. 16, No. 3. Blackwell Publishing, 1958. http://www.jstor.org/stable/427381 Kuhns, Richard. The Strangeness of Justice: Reading Michael Kohlhaas. New Literary History Vol. 15, No. 1, Literature and/as Moral Philosophy. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Autumn, 1983. http://www.jstor.org/stable/468994. Landwehr, Margarete. The Mysterious Gypsy in Kleist's "Michael Kohlhaas": The Disintegration of Legal and Linguistic Boundaries. Vol. 84, No. 4. University of Wisconsin Press Winter, 1992. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30153212. Rodrigues, Wilma. Michael KohlaasRevista de Letras. Vol. 10. UNESP Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho, 1967. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27666029.