Forbes on Benjamin on Brecht

Relaxed Learning?

Epic theatre is a style of theatrical performance, most famously developed and unified by Bertolt Brecht, from the early to mid-twentieth century. Walter Benjamin, a critic and friend of Brecht, wrote, “What is Epic Theatre?” which outlines the style through eight categories. Benjamin describes how actors in Brecht’s plays perform on a dais (a low platform rather than a high stage) and are meant to demonstrate a character rather than become a character. Benjamin also illustrates how Brecht’s style purges sensation from the plot and exploits gestures in order to interrupt the action. Each element works together to create a didactic experience, yet the audience is meant to be relaxed at the same time. Using a didactic performance to obtain a relaxed audience is where epic theatre becomes obscure. In regards to a play with the intention of teaching, specifically morally or ideologically, one must really examine how a relaxed audience is maintained because learning is an active process.

A method epic theatre uses to teach is distance yet the audience—as a collective—is meant to recognize themselves and then learn how to be aware of the separation between theater and real life through the separation of the audience and the actors (Budel, 72). Distance is used to prevent over-emotion—to promote the audience to think about themselves in relation to the situations rather than to feel for the actor. The audience becomes aware of the plot’s mechanical revelation and establishment of the real, so they are forced to make decisions about their own lives. In a modern world, many will affirm that when a person recognizes their own actions there are two ways s/he reacts: positively to a positive and denial to a negative. Benjamin says, “This reaction, according to Brecht, ought to be a well-considered and therefore a relaxed one—in short the reaction of people who have an interest in the matter” (Illuminations, 147). Reactions, in and of themselves, are not relaxed. Epic theater is meant to be that of thought not of emotion; therefore, one must question if/why the two do not share the same capacity of energy within the audience.

Back up for a moment to “reaction of people who have an interest in the matter” (147); one should question who the ones with interest actually are. Fradkin says, “[Brecht found a] means for forming public opinion at the disposal of the ruling classes…which as a result lowered to the level of the bourgeois banality and triteness” (102). Basically, theater became the method in which to manipulate people into following the specific politics of the playwright, or the person funding the playwright. There is a reason why the words instructive, enlightening, teacher and political are often synonymous with epic theatre. It’s because Brecht wanted the audience to be influenced and moved to action by what was seen on stage and in order to do that they must not become emotionally involved, rather they must be moved to thinking about the why and how things are the way they are. Brecht became popular in a very tumultuous time in history and it’s only obvious that his motive was to create change.

“The word ‘alienation’ does not appear before 1936 in a Brecht text” (Holthusen, 108). In epic theatre, the audience is meant to feel the unreal, feel isolated, feel a lack of sympathy but alienation also describes a feeling of being controlled. There lies the contradiction of epic theatre. The audience is forced into feeling nothing through a relaxed state; however, relaxing isn’t possible if one is meant to react, to really think. With epic theatre, Brecht tried to create an unemotional scientific spectator yet it’s human nature to be emotional when reacting. In order for one to identify with anything, emotion must play a role, so the negation of emotion in epic theatre is the only quandary. One can’t have a relaxed audience if the audience is also asked to learn at a heightened state.

Epic theatre is essentially the interaction between actor and audience. The actor is meant to cause the audience to reawaken to life by acting out what they observe in front of the humans they’re reenacting” (Holthusen, 107). What does that create? A mirror. Is it relaxing to look in a mirror if you have flaws? No, that’s why epic theatre cannot relax its audience while attempting to teach. In order to point out the illusion of the performance—to send the message—Brecht flooded the stage with harsh light, exposed the stage lamps, and used minimal props (Encyclopedia Britannica). Brecht wanted to make the theatergoers experts of judgment while also rejecting the critic. Is that to say he wanted to common person to replace the bourgeois? Maybe, but when the contradictions are looked at, one can easily think Brecht just liked to get people riled up and that Benjamin placated by promoting him because they were friends. He tried to create emotion by attempting to deny it, tried to shock the bourgeoisie by demanding their attention (Fuegi, 15). In the end, Brecht wasn’t trying to entertain the masses; he was trying to create sustenance in a time of disenchantment by pointing at it.

Work Cited/Researched

1. Benjamin, Walter. “Studies for a Theory of Epic Theatre.” Understanding Brecht. London. Versuche uber Brecht. 1973.
2. Benjamin, Walter. “What is Epic Theater?” Illuminations. New York. Schocken Books. 1968.
3. Benjamin, Walter. “What is Epic Theater? First Version.” Understanding Brecht. London. Versuche uber Brecht. 1973.
4. Budel, Oscar. “Contemporary Theater and Aesthetic Distance.” Ed. Peter Demetz. Brecht. Englewood Cliffs, NY. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1962.
5. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. 1995. Search: Bertolt Brecht
6. Fuegi, John. “Chapter 1: The Rise and Fall of the Epic Theater.” The Essential Brecht. Los Angeles. Hennessey and Ingalls, Inc. 1972.
7. Fradkin, I. “On the Artistic Orignality of Bertolt Brecht’s Drama.” Ed. Peter Demetz. Brecht. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1962.
8. Holthusen, Hans Egon. “Brecht’s Dramatic Theory.” Ed. Peter Demetz. Brecht. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1962.

The Fall and Man’s Loss of Language

A theme that both underlines and rises to the surface in a number of philosophies of language is loss. The essay, “On Language as Such and on the Language of Man” by Walter Benjamin is no different. He begins by expounding on language through its materiality and metaphysical traits while exploring language’s mystical and magical qualities but he explicates greatly on creationism as language’s epistemology, which is where the concept of loss appears. Benjamin implies this loss on page 326, “The paradisiac language of man must have been one of perfect knowledge; whereas later all knowledge…was indeed forced to differentiate itself on a lower level.” The Fall removed man from the level of name language—the creative word—and the “human word” originated with the judgment of good and evil. Benjamin states that the composition of language comes from a three-part consequence of the Fall: language as a means—a mere sign that results in plurality; the magic of judgment; and the origin of abstraction.

The first part is the ramification of the paradisiac language of naming. Man, having lost his purity, over-named things so language became signs pointing to things as a means to communicate. “Language is in every case not only communication of the communicable but also, at the same time, a symbol of the noncommunicable” (Benjamin, 331). This communicating function of language is formed by the symbolic limits and the signs in which man extends through all of nature. According to Benjamin, over-naming through this communication of symbols and signs is a reflection of God. He says, “God gives each beast in turn a sign, whereupon they step before man to be named…the linguistic community of mute creation with God is thus conveyed in the image of the sign” (326). Multiplicity of languages resulted from the naming word falling short of the creative word of God. Man translated the signs into his own image because the Fall soiled the purity of name; with that Fall, man came into the “uncreated imitation of the creative word” (Benjamin, 327), the nameless knowledge of good and evil.

Part two of the Fall is the magic of judgment. Man did not name the judging word; rather, man sensed the judgment and identified good and evil with the Fall. “The tree of knowledge did not stand in the garden of God in order to dispense information on good and evil, but as an emblem of judgment over the questioner” (Benjamin, 328). Benjamin explains that Adam and Eve aroused the judging word when they were expelled from paradise thus originating the mythical form of law. Not only law though, this was where the idea of man having free will formed, which resulted in linguistic confusion. Man’s free will shook the foundation of signs because he contemplated the Fall and discovered guilt. The consequence of the Fall and judging words is multiplicity because the definition of good and evil transformed and translated. Judgment is rooted in double meaning so when Benjamin says, “The abstract elements in language…are rooted in judgment” (328) one can see how abstraction is the final stage of language resulting from the Fall.

In man’s attempt to expel abstraction from language an element of specific word formed. Benjamin recalls the melancholy of the linguistic being and it’s relation to language: “The overprecision that obtains in the tragic relationship between the languages of human speakers” (330). What happened is man used over-naming to define the self and in doing that defined all else in his own liking. When Benjamin speaks of the language of the arts (sculpture, painting, poetry), does he mean the language associated with the action of these arts or of the language that envelops the essence of these arts? He opens up the concept of spheres of language, which it self is abstract. Man attempted to grasp artistic forms and functions through the language of specificity but that essentially removed art from its nature and its own communication with the world of thought.

Benjamin says, “Man communicates himself to God through name” (331) but man named the nameless again and again until the meaning of the things have been divided and have become incommunicable. Does Benjamin bring to light his notion that language is incomplete and inexpressible because of man’s Fall from pure knowledge so the reader is merely aware of this state of loss, or is his reflection an attempt to further boost the spirituality of language? One could argue either but the result would most likely be that the two reasons coexistent.