Brecht views alienation as being “necessary to all understanding” (71). The important place that the idea of the alienation effect occupies in his approach to theatre appears to be stemming from his philosophical conviction that “[w]hen something seems ‘the most obvious thing in the world’ it means that any attempt to understand the world has been given up” (71). According to this philosophical tenet, one’s psychological closeness to a given reality plays a key role in determining the success of her attempt to understand that reality. Brecht emphasises the need for her to distance herself from the reality in question in order to get a better picture of that reality. This emphasis is predicated on the view that one’s psychological closeness to a given reality has a negative impact on her ability to adopt an objective perspective on that reality. Alienation is presented as the means by which she could (re)acquire this objective perspective that enables her to be critical of what she perceives.
Defining alienation, Brecht argues, “Alienating an event or character ... means first of all stripping the event of its self-evident, familiar, obvious quality and creating a sense of astonishment and curiosity about them” (as qtd. in Brooker, “Key Words” 191). According to this understanding, alienation is primarily about defamiliarising the familiar and estranging the ‘non-strange.’[1] Brecht’s objection to the familiar and the ‘non-strange’ is based on the grounds that the familiar and the ‘non-strange’ always convey the impression that the reality that one finds herself in is fixed and unchanging. Brooker argues, "It becomes quite clear, from the many statements made by Brecht, that the function of the Verfremdungseffekt is to puncture the complacent acceptance of either character, motive, narrative, incident or resolution, as ‘fixed’ and ‘unchanging’, or ‘obvious’ or ‘inevitable’" (Bertolt Brecht: Dialectics, Poetry, Politics 63).
The technique of alienation problematises the sense of universality that one tends to attribute to what she is familiar with, and this problemtisation leads to pushing her to a point where she recognises the essentially context specific nature of what had earlier been viewed as universal. This recognition empowers her to critically assess the reality, which had hitherto been taken for granted. Brooker captures this function of alienation when he argues, “Verfremdung would ... produce a jolt of surprise and illumination, as the familiar and predictable were not only historicised and seen afresh but ‘seen through’; judged with the eyes of a suspicious, quizzically naive spectator” (“Kew Words” 191-192). When the familiar is alienated one becomes conscious of herself being external to the reality in question and that reality as having an existence of its own that is independent of her. This distancing enables her to objectify the reality in question and look at it from the point of view of a stranger.
Brecht’s idea of the alienation effect is fundamental to his conception of theatre as primarily a political phenomenon. Subscribing to the Marxist understanding of reality, Brecht views theatre as part of the ideological superstructure. He argues, “... it is precisely theatre, art and literature which have to form the ‘ideological superstructure’ of a solid, practical rearrangement of our age’s way of life” (23). He views theatre as a force that has the ability to propel social change. Critiquing the theatre of his time for neglecting this capacity of the art form, Brecht argues, “A theatre which makes no contact with public is a nonsense. Our theatre is accordingly a nonsense” (3, emphasis in original). The ‘contact’ between theatre and the public that Brecht envisions is necessarily political in nature. Brooker recognizes the change that Brecht attempted to initiate in the field of theatre by emphasising this contact between theatre and the public as one of revolutionary nature: "Brecht was in fact contemplating no less than a form of revolutionary change; his argument being that a change in the theatre’s audience would lead to a change in the theatre’s social function and thence in its economic basis, and that this would in turn provoke a change in the entire social order" (35).
This conceptualization indicates Brecht’s belief that theatre, which is part of the ideological superstructure, is capable of having a strong impact on the economic base of society, which, according to Marxism, is the engine of change. Given this important place that theatre occupies in Brecht’s approach to society, the significance that he attributes to the alienation effect in his approach to theatre indicates his conviction that alienation as a method plays an important role in social change. Brecht’s argument, “True, profound, active application of alienation effects take it for granted that society considers its condition to be historic and capable of improvement” (277) emphasises this role of alienation as a method of changing society.
The depersonalisation that takes place in Brecht’s approach has much to do with his idea of alienation. He emphasises the need to present characters in such a way that they are understood and not identified with. Brecht argues, “Contrary to present custom they [the characters] ought to be presented quite coldly, classically and objectively. For they are not matter for empathy; they are there to be understood. Feelings are private and limited. Against that the [sic] reason is fairly comprehensive and to be relied on” (15). Implied in this statement is the idea that emotional involvement is a hindrance to true understanding. In order for true understanding to take place a space should be created in which reason overtakes feelings. One of the best ways to create this space is by depersonalising the characters portrayed. This depersonalisation could be seen as “dehumanising” the character to such an extent that it appears to the spectator more as an object for scientific analysis than as a breathing human being whom the spectator would find to be relatable. Explaining the extent to which the idea of depersonalisation defines his approach to theatre, Brecht argues, “I don’t let my feelings intrude in my dramatic work. It’d give a false view of the world” (14).
The depersonalization that the alienation effect brings about should not be understood as a complete rejection of emotions and feelings. In a sense, Brecht could be seen as being primarily about human emotions and feelings because his ultimate goal of improving the human condition entails a true realisation of human emotions and feelings. The sensitivity that he shows towards humanity would not make much sense if he is depicted as someone against emotions and feelings. His approach should be understood as being characterised by a rational attitude towards emotions and feelings. This rational approach emphasises the need to arrive at a true understanding of human emotions and feelings by objectifying them and subjecting them to a scientific understanding.
Brecht recognises traditional Chinese theatre as a context in which this objectification of human emotions and feelings is most observable. Commenting on the traditional Chinese actor’s acting style, Brecht writes, “The Chinese artist’s performance often strikes the Western actor as cold. That does not mean that the Chinese theatre rejects all representation of feelings. The performer portrays incidents of utmost passion, but without his delivery becoming heated” (93). In this theatrical tradition, the actor does not embody the emotions and feelings that the character he gives life to comes across as expressing. In this sense, the emotions and feelings that the character embodies are necessarily alienated from the actor. His acting style is more about ‘informing’ the spectator about what the character is feeling at a given moment than representing it in a realistic manner.
This psychological distance that Brecht emphasises indicates a conscious awareness on the part of the actor that the character that she is depicting is essentially different from her own personality, throughout the performance. This awareness always keeps the spectator reminded of the idea that what she sees on the stage is essentially an object to be understood and not a subject to be identified with. Brecht argues, "The performer’s self-observation, an artful and artistic act of self-alienation, stopped the spectator from losing himself in the character completely, i.e. to the point of giving up his own identity, and lent a splendid remoteness to the events. Yet the spectator’s empathy was not entirely rejected. The audience identifies itself with the actor as being an observer, and accordingly develops his attitude of observing or looking on" (92-93).
This dual personality of the character on the stage that the spectator is kept conscious of does not provide the spectator with a unified ‘other’ that she could identify herself with. The ‘other’ that the spectator witnesses is an essentially fragmented identity, and this fragmentation is brought about by the marked psychological distance between the presenter and the presented. This fragmentary nature of the ‘other’ not only prevents her from giving up herself and becoming one with the character on the stage but also makes her contemplate on what she sees on stage. The realm in which this contemplation takes place is reason and not emotion. This is the context in which Brecht’s statement “Spectator and actor ought not to approach one other but to move apart” (26) needs to be understood.
Brecht’s discussion of the “The Street Scene” provides further insights into the role of alienation in his approach to theatre. In this discussion, Brecht argues that epic theatre, which he promotes as an alternative to what he calls ‘dramatic theatre,’ is based on the principles of a street corner demonstration (121). Describing the principles of a street corner theatre, Brecht argues, "The incident is very clearly very far from what we mean by an artistic one. The demonstrator need not be an artist. The capacities he needs to achieve his aim are in effect universal. Suppose he cannot carry out some particular movement as quickly as the victim he is imitating; all he need do is to explain that he moves three times as fast, and the demonstration neither suffers in essentials nor loses its point. On the contrary it is important that he should not be too perfect. His demonstration would be spoilt if the bystanders’ attention were drawn to his powers of transformation. He has to avoid presenting himself in such a way that someone calls out ‘What a lifelike portrayal of a chauffeur!’ He must not ‘cast a spell’ over anyone. He should not transport people from normality to ‘higher realms’. He need not dispose of any special powers of suggestion" (121-122, emphasis in original).
The principles that underlie ‘the street scene’ highlight that ‘the street scene’ is essentially a representation of a ‘real’ event. Brecht argues that in theatre this representation should essentially be presented as a representation without trying to make what is presented look identical to the ‘real’ event. The idea that the representation of an event should necessarily be distinct from the ‘real’ event appears to be based on the philosophical tenet that art is distinct from ‘real’ life. Attempts to make a representation identical to a ‘real’ event would be to deny art of those characteristics that constitute art as a form of existence of its own. Brecht appears to be of the opinion that if the representation of a ‘real’ event is identical to that event art becomes redundant. The value of art depends on the extent to which the representation of the event comes across first and foremost as a representation. The further away the representation is from the ‘real’ event, the more it becomes a work of art. In this sense, Brecht’s idea of alienation is crucial for ensuring the position of art as a reality that has an existence of its own.
Art’s position as a separate form of existence, which Brecht’s concept of alienation highlights, projects art as a platform from which ‘real’ life could be objectified and subject to scientific study. Brecht’s conception of ‘realism’ shows that Brecht has been conscious of this special position art enjoys. Presenting his conception of realism, Brecht argues, "Our conception of realism needs to be broad and political, free from aesthetic restrictions and independent of convention. Realist means: laying bare society’s causal network / showing up the dominant viewpoint as the viewpoint of the dominators / writing from the standpoint of the class which has prepared the broadest solutions for the most pressing problems afflicting human society / emphasizing the dynamics of development / concrete and so as to encourage abstraction" (109).
Brecht’s conception of realism is not about constructing a realistic representation of specific events but about drawing attention to the real forces that shape and define those specific events. He appears to consider realistic depictions of the manifestations or end products of the real forces and processes in society as being of little interest as far as his ultimate goal of changing society is concerned. Social change could only be achieved by drawing attention to the real causes of the problems at hand. According to this approach, it could be argued that Brecht would consider as realism any form of representation that exposes the inner workings of society. This definition of realism would even include representations that are not ‘realistic’ in the popular sense of the word. The ‘truthful’ representation of life that Brecht refers to in his statement “It is in the interest of the people, the broad working masses, that literature should give them truthful representations of life” (107) refers to a truthful representation of the inner workings of society that define the condition of the lives of the people.
[1]Brooker argues, “The terms ‘defamiliarisation’ or ‘estrangement’, when understood as more than purely formal devices, give a more accurate sense of Brecht’s intentions. A better term still would be ‘de-alienation’” (“Key words” 193).
Works Cited
Brecht, Bertolt. Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic. Trans. John Willett. New York: Hill and Wang, 1992. Print.
Brooker, Peter. Bertolt Brecht: Dialectics, Poetry, Politics. London: Croom Helm, 1988. Print.
Brooker, Peter. “Key Words in Brecht’s Theory and Practice of Theatre” in The Cambridge Companion to Brecht, ed. Peter Thomson and Glendyr Sacks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Print.
Defining alienation, Brecht argues, “Alienating an event or character ... means first of all stripping the event of its self-evident, familiar, obvious quality and creating a sense of astonishment and curiosity about them” (as qtd. in Brooker, “Key Words” 191). According to this understanding, alienation is primarily about defamiliarising the familiar and estranging the ‘non-strange.’[1] Brecht’s objection to the familiar and the ‘non-strange’ is based on the grounds that the familiar and the ‘non-strange’ always convey the impression that the reality that one finds herself in is fixed and unchanging. Brooker argues, "It becomes quite clear, from the many statements made by Brecht, that the function of the Verfremdungseffekt is to puncture the complacent acceptance of either character, motive, narrative, incident or resolution, as ‘fixed’ and ‘unchanging’, or ‘obvious’ or ‘inevitable’" (Bertolt Brecht: Dialectics, Poetry, Politics 63).
The technique of alienation problematises the sense of universality that one tends to attribute to what she is familiar with, and this problemtisation leads to pushing her to a point where she recognises the essentially context specific nature of what had earlier been viewed as universal. This recognition empowers her to critically assess the reality, which had hitherto been taken for granted. Brooker captures this function of alienation when he argues, “Verfremdung would ... produce a jolt of surprise and illumination, as the familiar and predictable were not only historicised and seen afresh but ‘seen through’; judged with the eyes of a suspicious, quizzically naive spectator” (“Kew Words” 191-192). When the familiar is alienated one becomes conscious of herself being external to the reality in question and that reality as having an existence of its own that is independent of her. This distancing enables her to objectify the reality in question and look at it from the point of view of a stranger.
Brecht’s idea of the alienation effect is fundamental to his conception of theatre as primarily a political phenomenon. Subscribing to the Marxist understanding of reality, Brecht views theatre as part of the ideological superstructure. He argues, “... it is precisely theatre, art and literature which have to form the ‘ideological superstructure’ of a solid, practical rearrangement of our age’s way of life” (23). He views theatre as a force that has the ability to propel social change. Critiquing the theatre of his time for neglecting this capacity of the art form, Brecht argues, “A theatre which makes no contact with public is a nonsense. Our theatre is accordingly a nonsense” (3, emphasis in original). The ‘contact’ between theatre and the public that Brecht envisions is necessarily political in nature. Brooker recognizes the change that Brecht attempted to initiate in the field of theatre by emphasising this contact between theatre and the public as one of revolutionary nature: "Brecht was in fact contemplating no less than a form of revolutionary change; his argument being that a change in the theatre’s audience would lead to a change in the theatre’s social function and thence in its economic basis, and that this would in turn provoke a change in the entire social order" (35).
This conceptualization indicates Brecht’s belief that theatre, which is part of the ideological superstructure, is capable of having a strong impact on the economic base of society, which, according to Marxism, is the engine of change. Given this important place that theatre occupies in Brecht’s approach to society, the significance that he attributes to the alienation effect in his approach to theatre indicates his conviction that alienation as a method plays an important role in social change. Brecht’s argument, “True, profound, active application of alienation effects take it for granted that society considers its condition to be historic and capable of improvement” (277) emphasises this role of alienation as a method of changing society.
The depersonalisation that takes place in Brecht’s approach has much to do with his idea of alienation. He emphasises the need to present characters in such a way that they are understood and not identified with. Brecht argues, “Contrary to present custom they [the characters] ought to be presented quite coldly, classically and objectively. For they are not matter for empathy; they are there to be understood. Feelings are private and limited. Against that the [sic] reason is fairly comprehensive and to be relied on” (15). Implied in this statement is the idea that emotional involvement is a hindrance to true understanding. In order for true understanding to take place a space should be created in which reason overtakes feelings. One of the best ways to create this space is by depersonalising the characters portrayed. This depersonalisation could be seen as “dehumanising” the character to such an extent that it appears to the spectator more as an object for scientific analysis than as a breathing human being whom the spectator would find to be relatable. Explaining the extent to which the idea of depersonalisation defines his approach to theatre, Brecht argues, “I don’t let my feelings intrude in my dramatic work. It’d give a false view of the world” (14).
The depersonalization that the alienation effect brings about should not be understood as a complete rejection of emotions and feelings. In a sense, Brecht could be seen as being primarily about human emotions and feelings because his ultimate goal of improving the human condition entails a true realisation of human emotions and feelings. The sensitivity that he shows towards humanity would not make much sense if he is depicted as someone against emotions and feelings. His approach should be understood as being characterised by a rational attitude towards emotions and feelings. This rational approach emphasises the need to arrive at a true understanding of human emotions and feelings by objectifying them and subjecting them to a scientific understanding.
Brecht recognises traditional Chinese theatre as a context in which this objectification of human emotions and feelings is most observable. Commenting on the traditional Chinese actor’s acting style, Brecht writes, “The Chinese artist’s performance often strikes the Western actor as cold. That does not mean that the Chinese theatre rejects all representation of feelings. The performer portrays incidents of utmost passion, but without his delivery becoming heated” (93). In this theatrical tradition, the actor does not embody the emotions and feelings that the character he gives life to comes across as expressing. In this sense, the emotions and feelings that the character embodies are necessarily alienated from the actor. His acting style is more about ‘informing’ the spectator about what the character is feeling at a given moment than representing it in a realistic manner.
This psychological distance that Brecht emphasises indicates a conscious awareness on the part of the actor that the character that she is depicting is essentially different from her own personality, throughout the performance. This awareness always keeps the spectator reminded of the idea that what she sees on the stage is essentially an object to be understood and not a subject to be identified with. Brecht argues, "The performer’s self-observation, an artful and artistic act of self-alienation, stopped the spectator from losing himself in the character completely, i.e. to the point of giving up his own identity, and lent a splendid remoteness to the events. Yet the spectator’s empathy was not entirely rejected. The audience identifies itself with the actor as being an observer, and accordingly develops his attitude of observing or looking on" (92-93).
This dual personality of the character on the stage that the spectator is kept conscious of does not provide the spectator with a unified ‘other’ that she could identify herself with. The ‘other’ that the spectator witnesses is an essentially fragmented identity, and this fragmentation is brought about by the marked psychological distance between the presenter and the presented. This fragmentary nature of the ‘other’ not only prevents her from giving up herself and becoming one with the character on the stage but also makes her contemplate on what she sees on stage. The realm in which this contemplation takes place is reason and not emotion. This is the context in which Brecht’s statement “Spectator and actor ought not to approach one other but to move apart” (26) needs to be understood.
Brecht’s discussion of the “The Street Scene” provides further insights into the role of alienation in his approach to theatre. In this discussion, Brecht argues that epic theatre, which he promotes as an alternative to what he calls ‘dramatic theatre,’ is based on the principles of a street corner demonstration (121). Describing the principles of a street corner theatre, Brecht argues, "The incident is very clearly very far from what we mean by an artistic one. The demonstrator need not be an artist. The capacities he needs to achieve his aim are in effect universal. Suppose he cannot carry out some particular movement as quickly as the victim he is imitating; all he need do is to explain that he moves three times as fast, and the demonstration neither suffers in essentials nor loses its point. On the contrary it is important that he should not be too perfect. His demonstration would be spoilt if the bystanders’ attention were drawn to his powers of transformation. He has to avoid presenting himself in such a way that someone calls out ‘What a lifelike portrayal of a chauffeur!’ He must not ‘cast a spell’ over anyone. He should not transport people from normality to ‘higher realms’. He need not dispose of any special powers of suggestion" (121-122, emphasis in original).
The principles that underlie ‘the street scene’ highlight that ‘the street scene’ is essentially a representation of a ‘real’ event. Brecht argues that in theatre this representation should essentially be presented as a representation without trying to make what is presented look identical to the ‘real’ event. The idea that the representation of an event should necessarily be distinct from the ‘real’ event appears to be based on the philosophical tenet that art is distinct from ‘real’ life. Attempts to make a representation identical to a ‘real’ event would be to deny art of those characteristics that constitute art as a form of existence of its own. Brecht appears to be of the opinion that if the representation of a ‘real’ event is identical to that event art becomes redundant. The value of art depends on the extent to which the representation of the event comes across first and foremost as a representation. The further away the representation is from the ‘real’ event, the more it becomes a work of art. In this sense, Brecht’s idea of alienation is crucial for ensuring the position of art as a reality that has an existence of its own.
Art’s position as a separate form of existence, which Brecht’s concept of alienation highlights, projects art as a platform from which ‘real’ life could be objectified and subject to scientific study. Brecht’s conception of ‘realism’ shows that Brecht has been conscious of this special position art enjoys. Presenting his conception of realism, Brecht argues, "Our conception of realism needs to be broad and political, free from aesthetic restrictions and independent of convention. Realist means: laying bare society’s causal network / showing up the dominant viewpoint as the viewpoint of the dominators / writing from the standpoint of the class which has prepared the broadest solutions for the most pressing problems afflicting human society / emphasizing the dynamics of development / concrete and so as to encourage abstraction" (109).
Brecht’s conception of realism is not about constructing a realistic representation of specific events but about drawing attention to the real forces that shape and define those specific events. He appears to consider realistic depictions of the manifestations or end products of the real forces and processes in society as being of little interest as far as his ultimate goal of changing society is concerned. Social change could only be achieved by drawing attention to the real causes of the problems at hand. According to this approach, it could be argued that Brecht would consider as realism any form of representation that exposes the inner workings of society. This definition of realism would even include representations that are not ‘realistic’ in the popular sense of the word. The ‘truthful’ representation of life that Brecht refers to in his statement “It is in the interest of the people, the broad working masses, that literature should give them truthful representations of life” (107) refers to a truthful representation of the inner workings of society that define the condition of the lives of the people.
[1]Brooker argues, “The terms ‘defamiliarisation’ or ‘estrangement’, when understood as more than purely formal devices, give a more accurate sense of Brecht’s intentions. A better term still would be ‘de-alienation’” (“Key words” 193).
Works Cited
Brecht, Bertolt. Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic. Trans. John Willett. New York: Hill and Wang, 1992. Print.
Brooker, Peter. Bertolt Brecht: Dialectics, Poetry, Politics. London: Croom Helm, 1988. Print.
Brooker, Peter. “Key Words in Brecht’s Theory and Practice of Theatre” in The Cambridge Companion to Brecht, ed. Peter Thomson and Glendyr Sacks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Print.