Sophie Bennett
‘Kafka’s work is both a symptom and analysis of masculine insecurity.’ Discuss with reference
to Das Schloss.
All of Kafka’s works can be readily explored through the lens of being a problematisation of
masculinity. Inasmuch as there is a typical pattern across off all of Kafka’s texts, this could be
summarised as a depiction of a male protagonist who is a bachelor who finds himself in a
precarious position, which often relates to his inability to understand or be accepted by the
society in which he lives. These two ideas are obviously related and have obvious parallels to
Kafka’s own experience as a bachelor and a German-speaking Jew in Prague. In Das Schloss in
particular, however, Kafka presents a protagonist who is in many ways striving for the ideals of
masculinity as they exist within the bizarre social order of the village and the castle, and it is in
this state of endless striving that he embodies masculine insecurity, which in turn could be
readily interpreted as a way for Kafka to represent his own insecurities.
Although there is a certain degree of constancy and universality to the ideal of masculinity, it
must first be acknowledged that Jewish masculinity was seen to be somewhat feminine by the
dominant cultures in European countries. On an autobiographical level, therefore, Das Schloss
and its protagonist K should primarily be analysed through the lens of the ideals of Jewish
masculinity, with the acknowledgment that there was a certain level of disrespect levied
against this ideal, rendering the state of masculine insecurity twofold. The ideal of Jewish
masculinity was associated strongly with matrimony and leading a household, which a rabbi
would embody, and this is the expectation which Kafka and his protagonists are unable to fulfil.
Despite his engagement to Frieda, K remains a bachelor throughout the novel, and his heritage
and family are not mentioned by the narrator; like Josef K in Der Prozess he lacks a surname
and is referred to only by K throughout the novel, and even lacks a first name. This establishes
him as a complete outsider who is disconnected from both his community and any familial
loyalties or responsibilities, which is antithetical to the ideal of a rabbi serving his community
and family. This is acknowledged early in the novel by the landlady, who tells K “Sie sind nicht
aus dem Schloß, Sie sind nicht aus dem Dorfe, Sie sind nichts”, as if K’s lack of familial
connections and history in the village or castle renders him “nichts”, which appears to hold
weight in the context of the novel. In light of these factors, K is presented as being completely
unfit for marriage, yet he pursues it anyway, which is perhaps the most obvious reflection of
his masculine insecurity and feelings of inferiority in such an environment. Thus, although
Kafka’s relationship to Judaism was complex, it nevertheless had a great impact on his selfperception, and it is therefore fitting that his protagonist is an antithesis to these ideals of
Jewish masculinity.
In the absence of marriage, a meaningful job becomes an important manifestation of
masculine dignity, and Kafka’s protagonists are typically hard-working, with respectable albeit
difficult and unfulfilling jobs which reflect the working conditions of middle-class contemporary
men, like Kafka himself. K, however, lacks a meaningful job; even if his summons as a
“Landvermesser” were legitimate, which Kafka repeatedly encourages us to question, K is the
most unsuitable figure for a land surveyor; he understands nothing of the castle and very little
of the village and its customs. The task itself is also diametrically opposed to the way in which
the castle asserts itself, as a self-governing authority shrouded in secrecy. As he is lacking in
any tasks to complete, he takes on the job of the school janitor in the village. The necessity for
his work is repeatedly called into question, however, and with it, the necessity for K to be in
the village in the first place. The teacher remarks:. “. Ich wies daraufhin, daß bisher kein
Schuldiener nötig gewesen sei;“1. From the beginning then, the work which K undertakes is
presented as being superfluous and meaningless, and this extends to his very existence, as the
landlady remarks: “Leider aber sind Sie doch etwas, ein Fremder, einer, der überzählig und
überall im Weg ist“2 In the final chapter, the landlady asks him directly:
“»Was bist du denn eigentlich?« - » Landvermesser.« - »Was ist denn das?« K. erklärte es, die
Erklärung machte sie gähnen. »Du sagst nicht die Wahrheit. Warum sagst du denn nicht die
Wahrheit?« - » Auch du sagst sie nicht.«“3
Kafka, F., & Brod, M. (1983). Das Schloss : Roman (Ungekürzte Ausg. ed., Kafka, Franz, 18831924. Works. 1982). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. p. 86
2
Ibid p. 50
3
Ibid p. 296
1
This reflects her lack of respect for a man whose job she cannot understand, and K does not
even defend himself from accusations of lying, reflecting his own lack of interest in the role he
is supposed to be playing. Through the portrayal of K’s work as completely superfluous and
meaningless, therefore, Kafka explores the significance of meaningful labour for men, as
ultimately K’s feelings of inadequacy and otherization in the village are justified.
The most obvious manifestation of K’s insecurity, however, is his passive subservience to
Klamm and his authority, which is an all-male representation of masculine force. As a male
figure in the village, he is unique in this respect. This striving towards the male authority figures
in the castle has undertones of sexual submission, as, K aligns himself with the women, who
are granted access to the authority figures of the castle for sexual gratification. K, however,
would never be granted the same privileges as them; his submissiveness is futile, and thus even
more pathetic. Klamm is presented as an all-powerful male figure who never appears, yet K
seems to display a sort of admiration for him, which is nevertheless rooted in his own feelings
of inadequacy. He explains to the landlady: “ich vor Klamm ein Nichts bin”4. The use of the
noun “Nichts” reflects his complete subservience and lack of self-respect, and this is rendered
ironic as it is in fact the elusive figure of Klamm, who never appears in the narrative and is not
described in any meaningful way, who could be described more accurately as “ein Nichts”. In
this way, by setting his protagonist apart from Klamm who never appears, Kafka establishes K
as a bastion of male insecurity, who embodies a feminine sexual submissiveness.
K’s subservience to Klamm becomes more explicitly sexual through his relationship with Frieda,
his former mistress, which further cements K as a figure who is incapable of embodying the
masculine ideal. His bold pursuit of her, however, initially seems to reflect a masculine sexual
prowess, with the villagers lamenting how K has “verführt” 5 her. Upon closer inspection,
however, this seems to be more indicative of the strict social mores imposed on the villagers
by the castle and by each other, rather than a recognition of K’s active role in pursuing Frieda
4
5
Ibid p. 51
Ibid p.
out of lust. This is evidenced by Kafka’s first description of Frieda, evidently from the
perspective of K, before he realises her relationship to Klamm:, “Ein unscheinbares, kleines,
blondes Mädchen mit traurigen Augen und mageren Wangen“6. This description does not
suggest any initial sexual attraction, which is significant considering how quickly Frieda and K
become lovers and then become engaged, and instead suggests that K views Frieda as pitiful.
As soon as she admits that she knows Klamm “sehr gut”7, the description immediately becomes
more sexual, and she seems to take on a greater autonomy, at least from the perspective of K:
“Sie lehnte neben K. und ordnete spielerisch, wie K. jetzt erst auffiel, ihre leichte,
ausgeschnittene, cremefarbige Bluse, die wie fremd auf ihrem armen Körper lag, das aber
durch ihren Blick überraschte, einen Blick von besonderer Überlegenheit. Als dieser Blick auf
K. fiel, schien es ihm, daß dieser Blick schon K. betreffende Dinge erledigt hatte, von deren
Vorhandensein er selbst noch gar nicht wußte, von deren Vorhandensein aber der Blick ihn
überzeugte“8
In this way, Frieda functions almost as a proxy for Klamm, and on a sexual level this is true to a
certain extent. This emphasises, then, the degree to which K’s sexuality, and his supposed
dominant role as a male partner are beholden to or corrupted by Klamm’s influence, reflecting
an instability in his masculine identity.
K’s inability to fulfil the masculine role that is expected of him is physically represented by the
two assistants, who are present, unbeknownst to K, during his first sexual experience with
Frieda:
“Sieh aber, wie die zwei lachen.« - »Wer?« fragte K. und wandte sich um. Auf dem Pult saßen
seine beiden Gehilfen, ein wenig übernächtig, aber fröhlich; es war die Fröhlichkeit, welche
treue Pflichterfüllung gibt.“ 9
6
Ibid p. 38
7
Ibid p.39
8
Ibid
Ibid p.44
9
Kafka frequently utilises pairs of characters for comic effect, and in this case, the descriptions
of their voyeuristic laughter and happiness is grotesque and is a further reflection of the
castle’s all-powerful influence over K’s sexuality. When he finally succeeds in sending the
assistants away, however, the description of the sexual encounter between K and Frieda is
described in a way that is even more grotesque:
“Dort lagen sie, aber nicht so hingegeben wie damals in der Nacht. Sie suchte etwas, und er
suchte etwas, wütend, Grimassen schneidend, sich mit dem Kopf einbohrend in der Brust des
anderen, suchten sie, und ihre Umarmungen und ihre sich aufwerfenden Körper machten sie
nicht vergessen, sondern erinnerten sie an die Pflicht, zu suchen; wie Hunde verzweifelt im
Boden scharren, so scharrten sie an ihren Körpern; und hilflos, enttäuscht, um noch letztes
Glück zu holen, fuhren manchmal ihre Zungen breit über des anderen Gesicht.“ 10
Without the presence of the assistants, his sexual relations become animalistic, and he seems
unable to fulfil the expectations of masculinity in their absence, even though he rejects them.
The illusion of a genuine connection between them is obscured, which is emphasised as they
are both described as “suchen etwas”, but without the representatives from the castle present
they are unable to focus, reflecting how the relationship is a construction of K’s aspirations
rather than a genuine sexual interest in her specifically. It is fitting then, that Frieda eventually
breaks off her engagement with K in favour of Jeremiah, as these assistants symbolically
enabled her relationship with K. It is particularly significant that she chooses Jeremiah, the
assistant whose humanity K is not even able to recognise: “»Es ist ja gleichgültig«, sagte K., »ich
werde euch beide Artur nennen.“11 K’s initial superiority over Jeremiah is shattered, as this
engagement is broken off, as Kafka’s own were, and with it any hope of obtaining any power
or influence which would help him get to Klamm. His ill-fated love affair with Frieda, then,
functions as a concretisation of his own sense of inadequacy as a man, highlighted by his lack
of autonomy over his own sexuality.
Kafka sets K apart from his other protagonists in other ways, the most significant of which is
that he does not die at the end, in the way that his other protagonists such as Gregor in Die
10
Ibid p. 47
11
Ibid p. 23
Verwandlung and Josef K in the trial eventually succumb to the male power of their father and
the court respectively. This is partly due to the fact that Das Schloss was left unfinished by
Kafka, which provides a fitting metaphor for the unsatisfying state of K’s existence, as he is
fated to strive endlessly towards the castle with no hope of ever finding answers or speaking
to Klamm. According to Kafka’s editor Max Brod, Kafka had intended for K to die at the end,
receiving notice on his deathbed that while his claim to live in the village was not valid, he was
permitted to live there due to his circumstances. This hypothetical ending to the novel, while
more finite, still does not take away from the fact that K would have lived out his entire life in
passivity and ineffectiveness, with this ending ultimately merely prolonging the state of
existence K has already found himself in during the course of the novel. K is so far removed
from the culture of the castle that it is as if he is not worthy of encountering its force directly,
and yet he is in denial of this. This state of existence, then, reflects a psychological
imprisonment in the village, as he endlessly strives towards Klamm and the castle, although
this is futile, and is thus complicit in his emasculation through this process.
Thus, through the character of K, Kafka presents a figure who functions as a caricature of the
societal emasculation of men on many levels. In this way, he functions as a vehicle for Kafka’s
own insecurities regarding masculinity, and by extension those of his contemporaries,
particularly as a German-speaking Jewish bachelor. Although in comparison to other
protagonists in Kafka’s works, his fate is ostensibly not so obviously humiliating and
emasculating, as he never physically suffers at the hands of the castle, he is instead
psychologically beholden and subservient to it, which is ultimately a more realistic reflection
of the manifestation of masculine inferiority.