Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, and the Tragedy of Bureaucracy
Those whom have read Kafka’s The Metamorphosis(1), know that this is a story which hinges on the absurd. More so, I think that statement is a truism if this text is read literally, just as Prestwick House’s unabridged version presents it and this may possibly be the one thing more absurd than the literal text itself.
From the beginning it is apparent that our protagonist, Gregor Samsa, allows his life, as well as the life of his family, to become completely inhibited by his job. Although it is an uncertainty in the text, it appears as though Gregor works to pay back a debt that his family owes. The reader, in a quandary, knows not how this obligation (debt) arose, but rather starts to feel personal admonition for this awkward character. Kafka refers to the father as a“servant of the bank.”
The story begins with Gregor awakening one morning to find that he has been physiologically, and physically changed into a cockroach. A naïve interpretation, and a literal gaze of this text, does lead the reader with the impression that this is absurd. This is not absurd per se, rather, Gregor waking up, finding himself as a cockroach is merely a metaphor of Gregor’s introspective cognizance. The truth of the matter is, Gregor did not wake up as a cockroach, he had been one for as long as his parents pawned him off as the homo faber of his nuclear family. When he awakes, he is not awaking merely from sleep, he is waking up from the slave that he was during his life- a slave to a machine that sold his existence for less than his returns. But note, that by Gregor waking up, it is a milestone towards his demise. Freedom means death in this story.
Gregor begins to analyze his own situation, then immediately starts to worry about his job. This is, as if to say, that his own life is no longer important, rather, the only reason he exists, is to work for others. His priority is not himself, it is his job- the only acceptable means to support his family that unjustifiably refuses to provide for themselves.
Gregors family is in pseudo economic dispair due to what is called “bad business luck.” Though these people are not really casualties to commerce, rather, they are capable of working themselves, but for some reason don’t- and it is this that contributes to the death of their only son.
The reader learns more than the other characters could learn, as in most stories, but notably, the reader is presented with a panoply of Gregor’s fantasy’s about resisting the work-bound life. This is illustrated through angst, and repression- which alludes the reader to personal feelings that Kafka may have had about bureaucracy.
Speculating on why Kafka used, what would be translated as a cockroach, the physical make up of a cockroach exemplifies historical stigmas, and displays characteristics of the ideal worker- Many legs, chitin (hard yetdurable) exoskeleton, and magnificent resilience.
The body, the cockroach, that Gregor was allegedly transformed into, also personifies how man, as an individual, comes to cope with a bureaucratic environment. At one point, Gregor, alludes the reader to the horror, that he can no longer control his body. Kafka is remonstrating this point through literary structuralism. Gregor his lost himself, his experience to an outstanding obligation.
As Gregor fights with his body, there is a sort of, Cartesian Dualism being expressed by Kafka. The lowerpart of his body, the abused, the exploited, and the physical part of his human(res extensia), begs his mind (cogito) not to get on the train so as to be at work on time as he had done everyday in the past- similar to a machine.(2) There are times that the reader may realize throughout the course of the text that when Gregor diverts from the norm, his job, he is unable to function as a regular human.
Gregor’s relationship with his father is, historically, synonymous with Kafka’s alleged relationship with his own father. The fight between Gregor and his father does not culminate because Gregor is a roach, rather, the fight culminates because Gregor is no longer obedient. When Gregor’s father had witnessed Gregor in his unencumbered free-state, Gregor was beaten. This is as if to say – Don’t you dare become something other than what you were conditioned to be…. This is somewhat confusing because in the natural scheme of things, Gregor, pushed to the limit, revolted as a reaction to his day-to-day situation(s).
Choice is a theme that is completely absent in this text. It appears as though every character has some sort of control over some other character. No character is free, except for Gregor. This is illustrated through the control that Gregor’s job had over him, the maid that begs to be released from her duties, the parents control over Gregor’s sister, Grete; the family’s reliance on Gregor, and The three men that appear towards the end of the story whom have control over the family. That is, until, the family breaks free at Gregor’s demise. This is a death that represents the ultimate freedom.
This is not a text about roaches, and family disputes. In its pure form, this is a book about man resisting the antagonisms of being a worker.
Eventually, Gregor, the moribund, protagonist finds himself depending on others, as they once did on him. Everything in this story ends in it’s own opposite. The book begins with the focal point on Gregor, then it transforms to the family. Gregor used to be preferred to his sister, that is no longer the case. And Gregor’s death was the only way that his parents could truly appreciate his sister, their daugher, Grete.
This book is not a horror story. In that it is just about as horrific and sordid as life itself. This is common for early twentieth century existentialists. They present man trying to free himself from his indoctrinated domesticities- attributes that many of us are latently inhibited by. How romantic. Whereas now, we just color our hair, and listen to bands like Millencolin to try and gripe with our growing pains. My, how times change.
_______________________
(1) True Name:“The Transformation”
(2) It should be noted, that the mere use of a train as transportation, is another discouraging factor Kafka may have used to destroy the sense of individualism Gregor may have had, or that we- as readers are used to. Cars, while are not indicative of a bourgeois attitude, do display a sense of individual liberty. “The car supplied both transportation to suburbia and an escape from its domestic disciplinary mode of work, home, and family.” –Kathleen Husler, Visual Browsing: Auto Flaneurs and Roadside Ads in the 1950s.
