KushalHaran

12/17/15
LiteratureasTrial
FindingDerridaThroughKafka
Inthemathematicaldisciplineofdifferentialequations,thereisanotionofa
wellposedproblem.Thatis,onecanhaveadifferentialequationtosolve,butwhatisalso
neededisanumberofconditionsontheproblemtoaccompanyitfortheproblemtobe
consideredatall.Otherwisethefinalsolutionwilllikelybenonsense.Anillposeddifferential
equationsquestionislikeaskingwhatis5+?.Onecouldassumethatthismeans5+0and
answer5butitisclear,dependingonwhatoneassumes,theanswerscouldvarycompletely.
Thisiswherewefindthequestionofwhatjusticeis.Atthecoreofthetopicofjusticeliesthe
questionofhowtomakeajudgementthatiscorrectbysomevaluation,whetherthatbeethicsor
awhollydifferentconceptaltogether.However,forDerrida,thisquestionisnotsowellposed
andtherefore,hisessayForceofLawisanexaminationofthequestionsoastosetupthe
conditionstomaketheproblemwellposed.Indoingso,DerridasetsuptheconditionofAporia
inJustice,onethatpreventsitfrombeingimmediatelyknown.Nevertheless,Derridatakesthis
furtherandevenprovidesthetheoryofthesolution,thatbeingDeconstruction.Still,the
structureofthesolutionisilldefined,enterKafka.Kafka'smultiplestoriescanbereadas
manifestationsofDerrida'sargumentsaboutjusticeandlaw.IfreadwithDerridainmind,
KafkasstoriesprovideanaloguestoDerridasconditionsandconsequently,providesome
luciditytohissolution.InthisprocessKafka'sliteraturebecomesthedeconstructionthat
DerridaaffirmsinForceofLaw.

WebeginwithananalysisofInthePenalColonybyKafka.InthePenalColonysets
upthefoundationsofDerridasargumentsaboutlawandjusticeinmuchthesamewaythat
DerridadoesinForceofLaw,though,withmoreofaneyetowardstheactualpraxisoflaw
andbureaucracyratherthanthetheoryofjusticethatDerridaputsforth.Nonetheless,thisshort
storyestablishesasimilarnotionofthecapriciousgroundfromwhichlawspringsandalso
parallelsDerridasanalysisofthisoriginationbyusingthemotifofviolence.Thisviolenceisa
recurringthemeinDerridasanalysisinsofaraseventhetitleofhisessayistheForceofLaw
becauseitistheenforceabilityofthelawthatDerridabeginshisquestioning.Infactfor
Derridathereisnosuchthingaslaw(droit)thatdoesnotimplyinitself,intheanalytic
structureofitsconcept,thepossibilityofbeing'enforced',appliedbyforce(Derrida232)
meaningviolenceandlawareintrinsictooneanother,andthusinevitablyentangled,whichisa
pointthatisembeddedintothestructureandnarrativeofInthePenalColony.
JustasDerridasForceofLawbeginswithanexpositionontheconflictingnatureof
theoriginationoflaw,KafkasInthePenalColonystartsbydrawingattentiontothe
incongruencieswiththebeginningofalegalsystem,albeitmoreimplicitly.ForDerrida,the
questionheposesnearthebeginningisHowarewetodistinguishbetweentheforceoflawofa
legitimatepowerandthesupposedlyoriginaryviolencethatmusthaveestablishedthisauthority
andcouldnotitselfhavebeenauthorizedbyanyanteriorlegitimacysothat,inthisinitial
moment,itisneitherlegalnorillegalor,otherswouldquicklysay,neitherjustnorunjust?"
(Derrida233).Thatis,howdowejudgeactionsusingalegalsystemgiventheestablishmentof
thislegalsystemwascontingentuponlackinganyanteriorlegitimacythatwouldhave
preventedthesystemfrombeingsetupinthefirstplace.Essentially,thedistinctionbetweenthe

violentactthatsetupthelegalsystem,andtheviolentactsthesystemcriminalizesiswholly
fabricated,orattheveryleastarbitrary.UnlikeDerrida,Kafkadoesnotposethequestionso
blatantly,butratherhastheOfficerinthestoryexplainthatOursentencedoesnotsound
severe.ThelawwhichacondemnedmanhasviolatedisinscribedonhisbodywiththeHarrow
(PenalColony3).ItisperhapsnotimmediatelyobviousthatDerridaspointcanbefoundhere.
However,oneneedonlycontemplatetheeffectofthissentencetoarriveatthesameconclusion
thatDerridadoes.Firstly,thesentencingisbynomeansconventionaltoanyreadersofKafka,if
fornothingelse,itisjustnotthewaytheWesternworldpunished/punishescriminals.However,
forthisofficer,thesentenceofliterallycarvingtheoffenseintothecriminalsbodydoesnot
soundsevere.Fortheofficer,andforthemajorityofthenationuntilrecentrebellion,this
sentencewasentirelynormal,evenbanalasinterestintheexecutionwasnotveryhighevenin
thepenalcolonyitself(PenalColony1).Thereasonisthesentencinghasbeennormalizedto
thecolony.PerhapstheconnectionbetweenKafkaandDerridaisbetterunderstoodifweread
KafkasstoryasanexampleofDerridasargument.If,forexample,thissentencingsystemwere
setupinAmericanow,thenitwouldimmediatelybestruckdowninthenameoftheLawthat
hasalreadybeensetup.Itisforthisreasonthataconventionalreactiontothispieceisoneof
disgust,oratleastsurprise,withrespecttotheapparatus.But,thereisnodisgustorsurprisefor
theofficerorformostofthepenalcolonybecausetherewasnoanteriorlegitimacyto
authorizeorforbidsuchanapparatus.Itisinthisway,KafkagivesaglimpseintoDerridas
argumentoperatingatalevelwheretheaudiencecanseethefulleffectofthearbitrarynatureof
theoriginaryviolencethatcreatestheLaw.Itisnotrandomthattheapparatusissoviolent,

becausethisinandofitselfrepresentstheviolencewithwhichtheLawscreationiscontingent
upon.
ThisnotionofviolenceissocentraltothedevelopmentofKafkasstory,atleastinsofar
asitisthemotifthatinevitablymotivatesfurtheranalysisoftheapparatusinmuchthesameway
violenceistherecurringthemethatDerridaanalyzeswithrespecttojustice.Asquotedabove,
accordingtoDerrida,hereisnosuchthingaslaw(droit)thatdoesnotimplyinitselfmeaning
lawisinherentlyviolentandimposing.Thatis,thelawushersitselfin,itforcesthroughthedoor
ofundecidabilityandestablishesajudgement.Whilethisismetaphoricalforthemostpart,it
operatesinmuchthesamewayinKafkasstory.ForDerrida,thelawisnotestablished,and
justicecannotbedonewithoutsomeviolenceorforce,itisherethattheanalyticstructureofthe
conceptoflawimpliesitsenforceability.Similartohowthelawcannotbeexecutedwithout
somenotionofviolenceorforcebeingintertwinedwithit,theOfficerrecounts
weallabsorbed
thelookoftransfigurationonthefaceofthatsufferer,webathedourcheeksintheradianceof
thatjustice,achievedatlast,andfadingsoquickly(PenalColony22).Fortheofficer,andthe
oldsetofpeopleatthecolony,thetransfigurationofthesuffereristheradianceof
justice.Thisnecessarilyimpliesthatjusticecannotbedonewithouttheforceorviolenceofthe
punishment.Thispointismadeallthemoreclearlywiththeachievedatlasttheclause
precludesjusticefromeverbeingachievedwithoutthisovertforceofinscriptionand
transfiguration.Theatlastmeansthereisawaitingfortheviolencetobedoneforanyclosure
toachievedwithrespecttothelaw,whichislargelywhatDerridaaffirmsthroughouttheForce
ofLaw:theoperationthatamountstofounding,inauguration,justifyinglaw(droit),making
law,wouldconsistofacoupdeforce,ofaperformativeandthereforeinterpretiveviolencethat

initselfisneitherjustnorunjust(Derrida13).ForDerrida,justifyinglawliterallyconsistsof
performativeand...interpretiveviolencethatisindependentfromanyjudgementitselfbecause
thatviolenceisdonewithalackofananteriorlegitimacy.Thisisexactlythesituationinthe
penalcolonyastheinscriptionandtransfigurationisthisperformativeviolenceandwithit,
itbringstheinterpretiveviolencethatistheradianceofjustice.Thelackofjudgementon
thisperformativeviolencethattheapparatusinflictsissubtlymadeclearbyKafkathroughout
theshortstory,notablyrightinthefirstline:Itsapeculiarapparatus,saidtheOfficertothe
Traveller(Kafka1).Theapparatusisnotviolent,orbad,orgood,oranything,justpeculiar
accordingtotheOfficer.TheOfficerisentirelyunphasedbythegruesome,torturousaspectsof
thisapparatus,itismerelypeculiar.Thisisevidenceofthefactthatthisapparatus,the
punishmentmechanismitself,andtheinterpretiveviolenceitdoesbycreatingguiltymembersof
society,arenottobejudgedbutmerelyobserved,muchthesamewayanylegalsystemworks.
However,unlikeinDerridasprose,Kafkasliteraryexampleexposestheintricaciesofthis
interpretiveandperformativeviolenceinafarmorelucidwaybecausethereadergetsto
viewtheeffectoftheseviolencesinasocietytheyarenotalreadyaccustomedto.However,
Derridawouldseemtoaskthereadertotakeaviewfromnowhereandjudgethesocietythey
havealreadybeennormalizedinto.
WhileInthePenalColonysetsupthefoundationsofDerridasargumentsthatwould
bethestartingpointformuchoftheobservationsintherestofForceofLaw,Beforethe
LawexplicatesthemostsubstantiveaspectsofDerridasexaminationofJustice,thatisnotjust
theoriginationofLawandJustice,butthemechanismofthetwoaswell.Besidesthedirect
referencestoBeforetheLawinDerridasessay,eventhetitleBeforetheLawgetsrightto

thecruxofDerridasessaybecauseunlikemostanalysesofthelegalsystem(likeinlawreviews
orpoliticaljournals),Derridapositionshimself,andthereader,oranyarbitrarysubjectas
beforethelawandapproachingit,asifitisinfactthemetaphoricalgatethatKafkasetsup.It
isexactlyhere,whereKafkascharacterismadetobesharplyawareofthedistance,both
spatiallyandtemporally,fromtheLawandjustice,andinthiswaygetstotheheartof
DerridasargumentthatJusticeinitself,ifsuchathingexists,outsideorbeyondlaw,isnot
deconstructible...Itispossibleasanexperienceoftheimpossible,therewhere,evenifitdoes
notexist(ordoesnotyetexist,orneverdoesexist),thereisjustice,whetheronecanreplace,
translate,determinethexofjustice(Derrida245).AccordingtoDerrida,theWesterntradition
ofphilosophyislogocentricandthusalwaysprivilegeswhatistermedtheMetaphysicsof
Presencethatessentiallycallsforaclosureofmeaninginthehereandnow.Appliedtojustice,
thismeansthattheWesterntraditioncallsforaconclusiononwhatisjustandwhatisnotinthe
hereandnow,andwithoutthecapabilityofbeingabletodoso,onecannotcallasystemoneof
Justice.However,BeforetheLawisarefutation,orawhatiftoanswerbackthistradition
andcallattentiontowhatitmaymeanforonetoactuallylookatJusticeasnotjustinthehere
andnow.Note,whatiscalledtheLawinBeforetheLawshouldratherbereadasa
referencetoJusticeratherthandroitthroughoutthisfollowingsection.
BeforetheLawsfundamentalpremiseofatravellerdesiringandthuswaitingfor
admittanceintotheLaw(theunderstandingofJustice)butalwaysbeingdeferredforlonger
andlonger,notbyanycertainthreatorconcretereason,butmerelybyimplicitconditions,
parallelstheexactclaimofDerridathattheWesterntraditionsearchesfortheclosureofJustice,
onlytobedeferredindefinitely,finallyculminatinginnotrueconclusionforthequestionof

Justice.ItisforthisreasonthatBeforetheLawsimplicationthatthetravellershouldrather
acceptheisinthewrongtimemirrorsDerridasclaimthatJusticeshouldbeseenasan
experienceoftheimpossible.Rightfromthebeginningoftheparable,thedilemmaofdeferral
ismentionedasthefollowingexchangeisrecounted:thedoorkeepersaysthathecannotadmit
themanatthemoment.Theman,onreflection,asksifhewillbeallowed,then,toenterlater.'It
ispossible,'answersthedoorkeeper,'butnotatthismoment.'(BeforetheLaw1).Thisisnota
mererejectionofthemanintotheLaw,(themanunderstandingJustice),butadeferralasit
directlyreferstothepossibilitytoenterlater.ThisistheconditionofJusticethatDerrida
specificallyobserves,atnotimecanonesaypresentlythatadecisionisjustinsteadofjust,
onecansaylegalorlegitimate(Derrida252).Theideaofjustcannotexistsinthehereand
nowforDerridabecauseeachjudgement,eachestablishmentofanactionasjust,reconstitutes
thelawsoastoincludethejustactionasmerelyacorollaryofthelaw,andnolongeroneofthe
considerationofJustice.Thisisexactlythepositionofthetraveller.HegetstostandBeforethe
LawandlookatthegatewiththethoughtthathemayevengettoenterlaterintotheLawand
understandjustice,butinreality,thisisjustaconstantdeferral,eachpreviousmomentbeing
swallowedupasanothermomentinwhichhejuststandsbeforetheLaw.Inthisanalogue,
standingbeforetheLawmeanswitnessingdroitratherthanhavingaccesstotheLaw(Justice).
ThisargumentissolidifiedbythefactthatbeforetheLawisagatekeeperwhichisanexact
manifestationofdroitasheistheenforceabilityofthelaw,andrepresentsthebarrierthatdroit
setsupbetweenthesubjectandJustice.Thereaderbearswitness,overtheentireparable,tothe
consequenceofnotembracingthedeferralthroughthedemiseofthetravellerwhosofervently
desirestograsptheLawbyenteringit.Kafkawrites,finallyhiseyesgrowdimandhedoesnot

knowwhethertheworldisreallydarkeningaroundhimorwhetherhiseyesareonlydeceiving
him.Butinthedarknesshecannowperceivearadiancethatstreamsimmortallyfromthedoor
oftheLaw.Nowhislifeisdrawingtoaclose(BeforetheLaw2)Themanisdecrepitandlikely
seniletosomeextentashecannottelltheworldreallydarkeningorhiseyesdeceivinghim.
HehaswaitedhisentirelifetoentertheLawtonoavail,withtheonlyrecompensebeingthis
perceivedradiancethatstreamsimmortallyfromthegate.Thisisthefateofalogocentric
obsessionwithJustice.Aninevitabledeathtoquestioning,followedby,perhapsatbestcase
scenario,afinalacceptancethatthisdeferralisnotpreventingJusticebutispartoftheJustice
itself.Thisistheexactsituationthetravellerfindshimselfin.Athisdeathbed,nowthatthereis
nooption,nofurthertime,inwhichhemaybeadmittedhecanglanceatthisseemingly
transcendentradianceofJusticebecausenowhisonlyoptionistoembracethisdeferral.Still,
thisdoesnotmeananembracegainshimentry,buthecanatleastseeinthedistance(perhaps
spatiallyinthestorybutbothspatiallyandtemporallyforDerrida)animmortallightof
Justice.ForDerrida,thisistheonlyrecourseofactionthattheWesterntraditionoflogocentrism
willfinditselfwithforametaphysicsofpresencewillprecludeanyclosureandwillonlyleave
thesubjectwaitingbythedoorkeeperpesteringhimtillthesubjectsdemise.
Oneshouldnotethatthisnotionofdeferralcompoundedwiththeinterpretiveviolence
mentionedinInthePenalColonyformsthefirstoftheAporiasthatDerridadiscussesin
ForceofLaw.TheseaporiasconstitutetheaporeticconditionofJusticewhichisperhapsthe
mostunifieddescriptionofJusticeintheessayasDerridaclaimsAporiaisanonpath.Fromthis
pointofview,justicewouldbetheexperienceofwhatweareunabletoexperience,Justiceis
anexperienceoftheimpossibleawill,adesire,ademandforjusticethestructureofwhich

wouldnotbeanexperienceofaporia...thereisonlyoneaporeticpotentialthatinfinitely
distributesitself(Derrida246250).ForDerrida,Justiceisthisseeminglyindescribable
experienceonthenonexperiencethatisAporia.ThistiesdirectlyintoDerridadisavowinga
metaphysicsofpresenceasheclaimsjustice[is]theexperienceofwhatweareunableto
experiencebuttheactualizationofthisexperience/nonexperienceiswhatDerridaiscallingthe
aporeticpotential.Insomesense,thisaporeticpotentialisthebridgebetweenournatural
inclinationtoametaphysicsofpresencewithrespecttoJusticeandtheactualexperienceof
Justicethatisbeyondcomprehensioninthatitisnonexperientialandthusdistinctlyparadoxical.
However,thisaporeticpotentialmanifestsinaninfinitenumberofwaysandinForceofLaw,
Derridanamesthree,thefirstbeingtheEpokheoftheLawwhichisdetailedinthelast
paragraph.Nevertheless,thisconceptofaninfiniteredistributionofaporiaisbriefly
encapsulatedbyBeyondtheLawasKafkawritesofthefleas:hehaslearnedtoknoweventhe
fleasinthedoorkeepersfurcollar,hebegstheveryfleastohelphimandtopersuadethe
doorkeepertochangehismind(BeforetheLaw1).Whilethisisperhapsnotdirectly
isomorphictotheconceptofaporiaredistributingitselfinfinitelywithrespecttoJustice,thereis
anotionofaninfinitywithrespecttoaporiainBeforetheLaw.Inacertainsense,Kafkazooms
downtothelevelofthefleaandthetravellerhasanewgatekeeper(theflea)toenablehimto
entertheLawornot,muchthesameway,byrecalibratingaframeofreferencewithrespectto
Justice,anotherdeferralarises,oranotherinstancearisesinwhichJusticecannotbeknownin
thehereandnowyetagain.Whilethereisonlyoneinstanceofzoomingin,inthisshortstory,it
nodoubthintstowardsamultitudeofwaysinwhichthetravellerhasagatekeeperpreventing

himfromenteringtheLaw,eachofthesegatekeepersrepresentingaspecificmanifestationofthe
aporeticpotentialitythatDerridadiscusses.
ThisleadsdirectlyintothetheoryofimmanencewithrespecttoJustice.GivenJusticeis
entangledwiththeinfinitelyrepeatingprocessofredistributionoftheaporeticpotentiality,it
followsthatJusticeisnecessarilyimmanentandnotuniversalized.Whatthismeansisthat
Justice,andthelawforthatmatter,cannotbedefinedentirelyuniversally,eveninasgeneral
termsastheaporeticpotentiality.Instead,Justicehasto,atsomelevelbedefinedsituationally
andrelationally,meaningwithrespecttootherconceptssurroundingit.Wehavealreadyseen
howthishappenswithrespecttothelaw.Thelawisthecalculatedsystemtojudgeactionsand
events,whereasJusticecomesintoplaywhenthecalculationisnotsoeasywithrespecttothe
law.Butaswasseen,thisgivesrisetoaparadoxwithrespecttoJusticebecausethesecondthe
judgementismade,the
just
judgement,itissubsumedbythenewLawthathasalreadyengulfed
the
just
judgementturningthejudgmentintomerecalculation.So,inturnDerridaasksHowto
reconciletheactofjusticethatmustalwaysconcernsingularity,individuals,groups,
irreplaceableexistences,theotherormyselfasother,inauniquesituation,withrule,norm,
value,ortheimperativeofjusticethatnecessarilyhaveageneralform,evenifthisgenerality
prescribesasingularapplicationineachcase?(Derrida248)DerridasquestionsetsupJustice
asalwaysbeingasingularitycontingentonallothersinvolveddisqualifyingitfromhavea
generalform.Thereasonitcannothaveageneralformisthegeneralityprescribesasingular
applicationineachcasewhichiscontradictorytotheideathatJusticetrulyisasingularity.In
thisway,Justiceisimmanentlydefinedbecauseitdoesnothaveageneralforminavacuumbut
isalwaysbecomingJusticewithrespecttotheothersinvolvedinthespecificinstanceofthis

Justice.KafkaarticulatesthesamepointattheendofBeforetheLawastheTravellerinquires
aboutthedoorwithhisdyingbreathandthegatekeeperresponds,Noonebutyoucouldgain
admittancethroughthisdoor,sincethisdoorwasintendedonlyforyou.Iamnowgoingtoshut
it.(BeforetheLaw2).ThespecificinstanceoftheLaw(Justice)forthetravellerwas
particularizedjustforhimasthedoorwasintendedonlyforhimandnooneelse.Thisisin
muchthesamewaythatJusticeisalwaysasingularity.Alltheaporeticpotentiality,theinfinite
redistributions,allthedeferralsandtransitionsfrompotentialjusticetocalculatedlawwere
particularizedanddefinedonlyfortheTravellerandnooneelseanditisforthisreasonthatno
onebut[he]couldgainadmittancethroughtotheLawbecausetheLawwasimmanently
definedwithrespecttotheTraveller.Whilenotexplicitlymentioned,thetoneofthiscomment
almostimpliesthatsuchadoorwillexistforanytravellerwhichisexactlywhythetraveller
remainsnamelesswithoutcharacteristicbecauseitcouldbeanyarbitrarytraveller.The
differenceis,itwouldnotbethesamedoor,butagain,aparticularizedoneintendedonlyfor
thatTraveller.ThisisexactlyhowJusticeisasingularity,veryliterallythedoorbeingthat
singularity.Takingthisonestepfarther,perhapsthisisthereasonthereissucharadiance
emanatingfromthedoorbecauseatthecenteroftheparadoxicalblackholethatisJustice
emanatesalightthatistheoriginofthesingularitywhichonecanpositionalwaysonthehorizon
asthesubstanceofJusticeitself.
WhileBeforetheLawgetstothemostmetalevelanalysisofJusticethatDerrida
engagesinforthemajorityofhistext,theJudgementconciselyconveysthelastexamplesof
themanifestationsofAporiathatDerridadocumentsinhisessay.TheJudgement,whilefor
themostpartmundane,andnotnecessarilyfilledwitheventsthatarejoltingorperturbing

culminatesinajudgement,sentencing,andpromptsuicideinamatterofafewparagraphs,that
getsatbothanexampleofthelastaporiaDerridamentionsaswellastheabsurdity,andthus
trulyaporeticnatureofthisaporiaitself.
InthestoryoftheJudgementweasreadersarefacedwithwatchingthetense,and
somewhatawkwardconflictbetweenGeorg,amanabouttobemarried,andhisfatherwho
seemstoharbordeepcontemptforGeorg.Thetwobicker,primarilythefatherdeprecating
Georg,forthemajorityofthestoryafterGeorghaswrittenalettertoafriendofhisinRussia.
Thisfinallyculminatesinthefatherpassing
judgement
onGeorgexclaimingIsentenceyou
nowtodeathbydrowning!(Judgement14)andwithinthreeparagraphsHeswunghimself
over...andlethimselfdrop(Judgement15)tohisdemise.Perhapsthefirstglaringobservation
tobemadeistheinsanitythatisengrainedintoboththefinalexchangeofGeorgandhisfather
andGeorgspromptsuicidefollowingthesentencing.Thisisexactlywherethethesisfor
Derridasfinalaporiastarts.Derridasfinalaporiaconcernstheimmediacyrequiredinaction
withrespecttoJustice.Thereisaninfiniteamountofinformation,andaninfinitenumberof
contingenciesandexigenciesthatimmanentlysurroundany
Just
decision,yetaction,evenifitis
inaction,stillneedstobetakenanditisevidentthisinfinitycannotbecalculated.Itisforthis
reasonthatDerridaaffirmsKierkegaardsclaimthatTheinstantofDecisionismadness
becausethedecisiontoactinanycertainway,evenifitisasupposedJustactionwillneverhave
accountedforallpossibilitiesandcalculationsthatcouldhavebeenmade.Thisisexactlythe
thirdaporia,oneofimmediacy.InfactDerridaspecificallywritesJusticedoesnotwaitTo
bedirect,simple,andbrief,letussaythis,ajustdecisionisalwaysrequiredimmediately,right
away,asquicklyaspossible.Itcannotprovideitselfwiththeinfiniteinformationandthe

unlimitedknowledgeofconditions,rulesorhypotheticalimperativesthatcouldjustifyit
(Derrida255).WhileKafkasstorymakesnoattempttoexplainwhythisisinfactthecase,
primarilybecauseitisseeminglyapparentgivenhoweachindividuallivestheirlives,itdoes
demonstratethisAporiawithrespecttoJusticeandfurtherillustratesitsperhapsunstable,orat
leastparadoxicalnature.
ThestorypositsasituationinwhichitisquiteclearGeorgfeelsguiltytosomeextent,for
example,inresponsetotheallegationsofhisfather,GeorgcriesSoyouvebeenlyinginwait
forme(Judgement14)thecryitself,andtheretortgiveoffanoveralltonethatGeorgfeelshe
haslostorshouldfeelsadandthereasonhewouldfeelsuchawayisexactlythathefeelsheis
guilty.ThefatherthenliterallysentencestheboytodeathandGeorg,withoutanyrational
calculationorcontemplationacceptsthissentencingandimmediatelyexecutesonitasheraced
downthestepsasifitwereaninclinedplane[and]surprisedhiscleaningwoman(Judgement
14).Georgsoquicklymakesdueonhisdecisionthathesurprisesanythatcomeincontact
withhim,likehiscleaningwomanbecauseofhowfastheisgoingabouthisbusiness.This
necessarilymeanshedoesnotcontemplatethehypotheticalimperativesthatcouldjustifythe
sentencingorhisactionbuthejustacts.Thisconcludesinhimplungingtohisdeath.Thereader
isnodoubtsurprisedbothwithGeorgssentencingandhisdecisiontocommitsuicidebutalso
astoundedbythe
immediacy
withwhichGeorgcommitstothedecision.ThereasonKafkas
illustrationofthisaporiaissoilluminatingisthattheaporeticaspectofthisargumentbyDerrida
isnotimmediatelyobviousbasedonhowanyrandompersonlivestheirlife.Thisislikely
becauseofthecontinuitywithwhichlifeoperates.Sotheimmediacyofadecision,andthe
irrationalitythatinheresineachoftheseactionsandjudgementsgetscloudedbythecontinuum

withinwhichtheyalloccur.However,here,wenoteexactlyhowinsaneandthusaporetica
just
actionis.Nonetheless,thisnotionofcontinuityisnotforgotteninKafkasstoryasattheendhe
writesAtthatmomentanalmostunendingstreamoftrafficwasgoingoverthebridge
(Judgement15).Inthissense,theworldcontinuestogoonasifthedecisionwasjustanother
oneintheendlessstreamofJusticeandsothereisnomomenttocontemplatethiseventasitis
infinitesimalinscope.
ForDerrida,thetrueunificationofalloftheseconceptsandtheoriesthatworktogether,
theconceptthatencapsulates,compactifies,andenablestobeexpandedtheelusiveJusticeis
Deconstruction.Specifically,DerridasaysButtheparadoxthatI'dliketosubmitfordiscussion
isthefollowing:itisthisdeconstructiblestructureoflaw(droit),orifyoupreferjusticeasdroit,
thatalsoinsuresthepossibilityofdeconstruction.Justiceinitself,ifsuchathingexists,outside
orbeyondlaw,isnotdeconstructible.Nomorethandeconstructionitself,ifsuchathingexists.
Deconstructionisjustice(Derrida250).TheclaimthatDeconstructionisjusticeisnottobe
takenlightlyasitisoneofthefewinstancesinwhichDerridaclaimssomethingissomething.
However,thisbegsthequestionofhowweare,asanaudience,supposedtograsporapproach
thisconceptofdeconstructionasitisthefoundationessentiallyfortheentiretyofhisForceof
LawandotheressaysonJustice.ItisherethattheDerrideanreadingofKafkaisperhapsmost
productivebecauseKafkasstoriescaninandofthemselvesbeconsideredtheDeconstruction
thatDerridaparades.
TheliteratureofKafkacanveryeasilybeseentoreveal,oratleastopenupquestioning
tocertainaspectsofdroitinmuchthesamewaythatdeconstructiondoes,ashasbeenevidenced
throughoutthisessay.Thatistosay,ForceofLawoperatesasasortofbeginningofa

deconstructionofdroitwhich,asillustratedbythisessay,isexpoundeduponbyreadingKafkas
essays.Sothequestionthenbecomes,howdoesKafkasstoriescarryforwarda
deconstructionistvibethatdoesnotmerelyendattheendofthisessay.AccordingtoGriffiths
literaturehascometooccupyapositionthatisalwaysopentoakindofsubversive
juridicity...Undertheseconditionsliteraturecanplaythelaw...Inthefleetingmomentwhenit
playsthelaw,aliteraturepassesliterature.Itisonbothsidesofthelinethatseparateslawfrom
outlaw,itsplitsthebeingbeforethelaw(Griffiths36).Thisisnothingbutaclaimtoliterature
asdeconstruction.Claimingliteraturepassesliteratureintosomethingelse,andfurtheringit
withwordslikeseparatesandsplitsonlycementthenotionthatliteraturethatplaywith
lawdeconstructssomethingandthatsomethingisnodoubtdroit.Ashasbeenrecapitulated
throughoutthisessay,Kafkasstoriescanopenupdroittoexplorationinmuchthesameway
Derridasessaydoes.Forexample,inInthePenalColony,weasanaudienceareopenedupboth
theviolencethatinheresindroitaswellasthestructureoftheoriginaryactofviolencethat
ushersinalegalsystem.Inthissense,Kafkasstoriesserveasasortofpraxistocomplement
DerridastheoryandthusinconjunctionwithDerridaformsadeconstructionthatopensupthe
subversivejuridicitythatGriffithsaddressesinhisessay.
TwoissuesareperhapsofimmediateconcernwhenconsideringKafkasliteratureasthe
deconstructionistperspectiveDerridaavows.First,howcanKafkasliteraturebeconsidered
JusticeasdeconstructionisJustice?Andsecondly,givenwecanevenconsideritsomeformof
Justice,howdoesitprovideanydecisionoranactualcontemplationthatliesinthesameplaneas
Justiceaswethinkofit?Essentially,thetwospheres,KafkasliteratureandDerridasJustice
seemdisjointsothequestionishowcantheirintersectionbeoneandthesame.Thefirstisquite

easilyansweredbyDerridahimselfasDerridawritesbetweenlawandjustice,deconstruction
findsitsprivilegedsiteDeconstructionisgenerallypracticedintwowaysortwostyles...the
otherseemstoproceedthroughreadingsoftexts,meticulousinterpretationsandgenealogies
(Derrida249250).ADerrideanreadingofKafkasstoriesisexactlytheDeconstructionDerrida
describes,thatbeingaprocessionthroughtexts,withamultitudeofinterpretationsandtracings.
Evenfurther,itisexactlyinthisDerrideanreadingofKafkasstoriesthatonefindsthat
interregnumbetweenlawandjustice,whetheritisinthereadingoftheTravellersstationing
exactlybetweenthetwopolesortheintervaloftimeittakestoreadthetransitionfromGeorgs
sentencingtoGeorgsimmediatedecisiontocommitsuicide.Thisisexactlyhowliterature
passesliteratureandseparateslawfromoutlawthusbecomingadeconstruction.Now,this
leavesthefactthatifthisliteratureisjustice,howisonetorealizeitasjustice.Perhapsthis
shouldbephrasedashowshouldoneusethisjustice.However,itisinthisimpossibilitytodoso
thatDerridasclaimresonatesallthemoresoandthattheliteraturetrulyassumesitsroleas
justiceinsofarasdeconstructiondoes.Toaskthisquestionofusingthisjusticeistoinevitably
askforsomesenseofclosurefromthisjusticewhichplaysintothemetaphysicsofpresencethat
DerridaessentiallycriticizesfortheentiretyoftheForceofLaw.Theliterature,and
deconstructionwritlarge,likelyneveroffersthesolutionoranswertojusticebutratherisan
openingup,anexperimentalproddingofsorts,thatopensthewaynotforaJusticeinthenow
butasaJusticetocomealwaysonthehorizon,inthedistancelikethelighttheTravellerseesat
theendofhislife.
WhetheraDerrideanreadingofKafkaleavesuswithasolutiontothedifferential
equationofJusticeisstillupintheair.Afterall,amathematicalmetaphoronlygoessofar.

However,whatitdoesofferisperhapsaformofDerridasavoweddeconstruction,oratleastan
openingtothefutureofjustice.Becauseofthenatureoftheproblemitself,justiceis
incontrovertiblyaproblemtobedeferred.However,whatDerridaclaimsthenisnotasolutionto
Justice,butasolutiontohowweapproachtheproblemofjustice.Itisnotaboutfiguringout
whatjusticeis,butratherabouthowwethinkabouttheproblem.Whichisexactlywhythis
DerrideanreadingofKafka,andthusrepresentationofKafkasworksasthedeconstructionitself
issoindispensableforitgivesonethetoolstoactuallyembraceandopenuptothedeferralthat
istheproblemofJusticeenablingonetowaitfortheJusticetocome.

WorksCited
Derrida,Jacques,andGilAnidjar.
ActsofReligion
.NewYork:Routledge,2002.Print.

"FranzKafkaOnline."
BeforetheLawbyFranzKafka
.N.p.,n.d.Web.19Dec.2015.

Kafka,Franz,WillaMuir,EdwinMuir,andMichaelHafftka.
InthePenalColony
.NewYork:Limited
EditionsClub,1987.Print.

Kafka,Franz,MalcolmPasley,andFranzKafka.
TheJudgementAnd,InthePenalColony
.New
York:Penguin,1995.Print.