Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial introduces personal identity as externally defined (Pyle). For example, Kafka introduces protagonist Josef K. by stating that “someone must have slandered Josef K.,” emphasizing other people’s perceptions of K. instead of his personal characteristics (Kafka 1). Other characters also define K.’s identity throughout the text. Guards Franz and Wilheim inform K. of his identity as a violator of the Law, and even Fräulein Bürstner, who “[does]n’t really know” K., explains his identity to him: “you’d have to be a serious criminal to have a commission of inquiry” (2-3, 21). “Yes,” K. agrees (21). K. accepts each of his externally imposed identities without meaningful protest,1 demonstrating his identity’s dependence on external definition. I find that, through K.’s externally defined identity, Kafka implies that oppressive societies exert control not only over personal behavior but also over individuals’ sense of self.
In the second chapter of her book Dark Matter in Breaking Cyphers, Imani Kai Johnson also presents identity as externally influenced. However, unlike Kafka’s interpretation of identity as molded by oppressive government, Johnson focuses on cultural influences as helpful, meaningful ways for individuals to find their identities. For example, Johnson explains that breaking crews “fortify a group identity and nurture fellowship,” allowing b-boys to move confidently through the “outlaw culture” of the South Bronx (Johnson 79, 64). Furthermore, b-boy Cartoon explains that “‘I didn’t have no identity’” before learning to break: breaking supplies his previously absent sense of self (85). In contrast to K. in The Trial, who has no choice about the external influences on him, b-boys choose to incorporate societal influences into their identities. Since they maintain agency as they borrow from and build upon breaking culture, that culture’s influence grounds their characters instead of consuming them.
- Although K. verbally and mentally rejects his identity as a criminal, he nevertheless observes the Law’s criminality-based restrictions on him, like his summons to weekly “inquiries” and his submission to his ultimate execution (Kafka 25, 180). Therefore, I contend that K. ultimately accepts the Law’s assertion that he is a criminal, rendering his protests to the contrary meaningless. ↩︎
