The Metamorphosis: Kafka, Sanders and Religion

When Kafka’s The Metamorphosis came to the forefront of literature, there was much debate about the nature of the story and what exactly Kafka means. It is different to any ‘normal’ metamorphosis story. It had no mystic being controlling who changed into what. There was a vagueness to its own morals and parables, particularly compared to the older black and white styles of morality of the usual fairy tales. One of the more prominent critiques of Kafka is Sander Gilman in his dissertation Kafka, the Jewish Patient. However, there are several fundamental points to Gilman’s critique that can be disproven with the text.

This article will compromise of stripping down Gilman’s argument and with close analysis of The Metamorphosis; there will be a progress towards what could be seen as a more considered argument.

In one of the very first claims of Gilman's critique, he says that the model for the story is that of religious conversion and how it cannot be a true conclusion from Metamorphosis. However, from close analysis of the text, it is clear that he is partially correct: the story is cantered around the idea of religious conversion but not as Gilman describes. From looking at the detailed description of Gregor's death scene, there are a number of clear parallels with Jesus's death. In Christian dogma, it is shown that Jesus was Jewish and yet there is a change of attitude after his crucifixion and he can only be described as Christian.

In Gregor's case, much of the details such as 'the rotten apple in his back' (whipping); the end of his life at the strike of three (the time of death in Jesus's case was three pm but it is the number that is important); the preliminary starvation; the way that the corpse is violated (By the charwoman for Gregor and by a Roman soldier for Jesus) and the fact that it happened in late March (the time of year Jesus was executed). To say that this aspect of Metamorphosis is an 'impossible wish' is incorrect.

Another initial claim of Gilman's is that Gregor loses all forms of humanity in his 'transformation'. However, there is a substantial amount of evidence to the contrary. It can be argued on a philosophical basis that Gregor is no longer human and yet, on the same grounds, he still has many key aspects of humanity that still reside in him. One key example of this is Gregor's size. In mythology, the majority of 'metamorphoses' mean that all grounds of size tend towards the natural size of the creature or object that the metamorphosis is imitating. For example, Minthe - a water nymph - had an affair with the Roman God of the Underworld, Pluto. Proserpine, Pluto's wife found out and punished her by turning her into a plant – mint.

The plant would have been of a normal plant-size, not human-sized. Metamorphosis, on the other hand, does not follow this pattern. This is shown when Gregor attempts to hide under his sofa and is sad that 'his body was too broad to be entirely concealed under the sofa'. This idea is repeated in the very beginning when '[Gregor's stomach]...atop which the coverlet perched, forever on the point of slipping off entirely.' If Gregor was to lose this aspect of human epistemology then his plight would have fallen on deaf ears and his parents and work official would have thought Gregor had ran away or had some similar experience and that the remaining insect was just an insect.

A much similar case can be invoked when Gilman talks about how Gregor's perspectives are altered due to his new form, to even the point of 'losing an internal language'. Again, this is an oversimplified view. His tastes are changed and he can no longer see outside his window. However, he still recalls his earlier thoughts and ideas and intentions, such as remembering his wishes to build a conservatory. His 'physical limitations' are actually far greater than his as a human. Apart from the most obvious altercations of his physical form, i.e. being able to 'hang off the ceiling', he has gained some physical prowess over his
human form. This is shown in his pain threshold.

Gregor could easily fall from the ceiling onto his back without much pain whereas in his human form, a small cut on his finger pained him for a month. Although it can be seen that there is less of Gregor's inner thoughts displayed as the story progresses, he is still capable of thought. Even in the death scene, Gregor ‘thought back on his family with devotion and love’. If he had lost an internal language, such thoughts could not be even comprehended or understood on any level.

The most jarring claim by Gilman is that Gilman says that Gregor's transition from human to bug was a parable for Jews becoming 'Germans' as it is as impossible as a human changing into an insect. It is true that at the time, popular science did promote the 'othering' of other races due to the idea of poly-Genesis but for Kafka to promote these ideas would cause him to be a somewhat of a self-hating 'Jew'. There is significant evidence in the text to refute the idea that Gilman is trying to convey. Firstly, is the very opening line shows that Gregor is transformed from no fault or bidding of his own. He started out as a human and was transformed into a 'vermin'.

In order for Gilman's model to work, the process would have to consist of two 'transformations' or imitations. The story is not about a cockroach who wishes to be a human and not about a Jew who wishes 'to be a German'. Also, there is the fact that Gregor's body starts to mould how his mind worked. Gregor's taste changes overnight and he grows to enjoy 'hanging off the ceiling' and crawling all around his room. Gregor does not attempt to live as a human but starts to turn to more 'insectoid' pursuits. It is contrary to Gilman's interpretation.

Overall, there are some points in Gilman's review that I agree with like the basis of the story was of religious conversion and the obvious facts of the historical context. However, there are things I do not agree with. Instead of the rejection of the possibility of religious conversion, Kafka likens Gregor to Jesus where there is a fundamental shift in Jesus's ideology. Despite saying Gregor loses human epistemology and an internal language, there is so much evidence to suggest this is ultimately wrong. Fundamentally, I disagree with Gilman's summary. For Metamorphosis to have been based on the models that Gilman suggests, it would convey that Kafka was self-hating or simply portraying thepopular views of race at the time and it would be disregarding significant parts of the text.