Brecht's Criticisms of Aristotle's Aesthetics of Tragedy

Brecht's Criticisms of Aristotle's Aesthetics of Tragedy
Author(s): Angela Curran

Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Spring, 2001), pp. 167-
184
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/432222
Accessed: 16-04-2017 06:11 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/432222?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The American Society for Aesthetics, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 06:11:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ANGELA CURRAN
Brecht's Criticisms of Aristotle's Aesthetics of

Tragedy
An ancient debate in aesthetics centers on icism from those who argue that Brecht mis-
the role of art and the emotions in moral and takenly assumes that emotion and reason
intellectual education.1 Does emotional en- cannot both be part of an integrated aes-
gagement with the characters in drama help thetic response.4 I believe these criticisms of
or hinder our critical intellectual reflections Brecht miss the essential points of Brecht's
on the characters and situations represented critique of Aristotelian aesthetics.5 In what
by the work? Plato is famous for his sugges- follows I argue that Brecht is correct to find
tion in Republic X that the emotions tragedy fault with Aristotelian aesthetics, for critical
evokes in the audience members makes thinking in relation to drama and an account
them intellectually disabled and leads them of the role of the emotions in a critical ap-
morally astray. This criticism of an emotional proach to drama are essentially not ac-
response to tragedy is not shared by Plato's counted for in Aristotle's discussion. While
most famous pupil, who values tragedy pre- critical of Aristotle's aesthetics, I note a key
cisely because it elicits emotions that oper- legacy of Aristotelian aesthetics: the impor-
ate in conjunction with a cognitive under- tant role that emotions play in our identifica-
standing of ourselves and the world. This is tions with characters and situations depicted
the interpretation of Aristotelian aesthetics in art.
recently presented by scholars Martha Brecht's critique of Aristotle's aesthetics
Nussbaum and Stephen Halliwell.2 Both in- will be stronger if we can locate Brecht's
dependently suggest that tragedy, on Aris- complaints more specifically in Aristotle's
totle's view, engages both the understanding text, something that Brecht himself failed to
and the emotions through representations do. So I shall reconstruct Brecht's critique as
that call for genuine, independent reflection criticisms aimed at a plausible interpretation
on our related possibilities. of Aristotle's text. My interpretation of Aris-
This interpretation of Aristotle is striking totle focuses on a rather neglected aspect of
when compared with the criticism of Aristo- his theory: his requirement for preferred
telian "dramatic theater" offered a number tragic plot patterns and character. I focus on
of years ago by the German playwright two aspects of Aristotle's account: (1) his
Bertolt Brecht. Brecht criticizes the aesthetic view that plots must feature the individual
tradition initiated by Aristotle for its prefer- error (or hamartia) of a morally admirable
ence for dramatic narratives that please but protagonist, and (2) his view that engaging
do not instruct or provide real learning with the thoughts and feelings of the tragic
about the source of human suffering. Brecht protagonist is central to responding to trag-
attacks Aristotelian catharsis as a kind of edy. I argue that these practices, as Aristotle
"opium of the masses," arguing that empa- describes them, do not permit drama that is
thizing with characters prevents viewers socially critical unless a playwright supple-
from reflecting critically on the social causes ments them with other devices that link the
of human suffering.3 action of the protagonist with a larger social
Brechtian aesthetics is itself receiving crit- nexus. These supplemental devices are the
The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59:2 Spring 2001
168 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
kinds of dramatic practices that Brecht him- son suffers misfortunes that are undeserved.
self recommends. So we will see that Brecht's Fear involves the judgment that a person
recommendations for drama are useful for "like [ourselves]" (1453a50) suffers a painful
supplementing the failings in Aristotle's pre- or evil disturbance.
ferred dramatic practices. This account of the emotions forms the
This paper has two main parts. In Part I, I basis for Nussbaum's view that for Aristotle
present an overview of Aristotle's aesthetics the pleasures of tragic catharsis involve gen-
of tragedy and then examine in more detail uine learning or understanding. To feel pity
his recommendations for tragic plots and and fear in response to tragedy, the spectator
protagonists in Poetics 13 and 14. In Part II, I must feel some kind of affinity between her-
discuss Brecht's critique of Aristotelian dra- self or himself and the agent who acts and
matic practices, then reply to objections to suffers. In order to feel pity and fear for
Brecht's critique and to the practices favored Oedipus, for example, we must judge that we
by his "epic theatre." In my conclusion, I dis- (the audience) could experience a reversal
cuss what Aristotelians can learn from of fortune of the kind that Oedipus experi-
Brecht's critique, and I also suggest what ences. So, Nussbaum argues, by attending to
Brechtians can learn from Aristotelian aes- our emotional responses to tragic characters,
thetics. we learn about and "clarify" our judgments
about our related possibilities. Stephen
I. ARISTOTLE'S AESTHETICS OF TRAGEDY Halliwell also offers a cognitivist account of
the learning Aristotle thinks is involved in
In the Poetics Aristotle says that tragedy has our emotional responses to tragic represen-
a final purpose or end (telos) to be an imita- tations. Halliwell goes so far as to say that
tion or representation (mimesis) of action tragedy's representations can even get view-
and life. This representation should have a ers to question and criticize the assumptions
characteristic pleasure: experiencing the re- they use to make sense of tragic representa-
lief from pity and fear (1449b25).6 The evo- tions.8
cation of pity and fear effects a catharsis (lit- The issue of whether the text of the Poetics
erally "purification") of these emotions supports a cognitivist account of catharsis or
(1453bl2). There is the further suggestion in a noncognitivist interpretation of tragic plea-
Poetics 4 and 11 that a response to works of sure is the subject of much debate. Jonathan
imitation involves the pleasure of some kind Lear, for example, proposes instead that for
of learning (1448bl5-17). Thus, on Aris- Aristotle the pleasure of catharsis is not the
totle's view, tragic catharsis involves a cer- pleasure of learning or of education. Rather,
tain kind of emotional and/or intellectual it is pleasurable emotional reinforcement of
learning. basic truths accepted by the audience.9 For-
The Poetics, or what remains of this text, tunately, it is not necessary to settle the dis-
says very little about what catharsis involves. pute over the meaning of "catharsis" in Aris-
Any adequate interpretation will therefore totle's text in order to assess Brecht's
have to go beyond Aristotle's actual text to criticisms. We will see, however, that Brecht's
supply an interpretation of the significance criticisms suggest that Aristotle's account of
of catharsis in Aristotle's aesthetics of trag- tragic response omits the aspect of critical
edy. Martha Nussbaum develops an interest- and independent thought that the cognitivist
ing account using the Rhetoric, arguing that interpreters attribute to him. So my discus-
Aristotelian catharsis involves emotional ed- sion will highlight an aspect of the cognitivist
ucation and intellectual "clarification" con- interpretation of catharsis that is in need of
cerning who we are and what we value.7 As further defense.
Nussbaum reads Aristotle, catharsis involves The debate over catharsis has centered for
not just feeling, but also making the appro- the most part on Poetics 4 and 7. One text
priate intellectual judgments about the situa- that is usually neglected in this discussion is
tions represented in tragedy's narratives. Poetics 13 and 14. In these chapters Aristotle
Pity requires the judgment that a good per- lays down his requirements on plot and char-
Curran Brecht's Criticisms of Aristotle 169
acter, using this criteria to give his evaluationit affects us (the audience) appeals to a uni-
of the plots of some ancient Greek tragedies. versal "essence" of human nature, for
We need to look closely at Aristotle's discus- Aristotle assumes that the depiction of cer-
sion in these texts, for there is a connection tain events will elicit a response of pity and
between Aristotle's views on the "essence" fear in anyone who witnesses these dramati-
(horon tes ousias, 1449b20) of tragedy and zations. This assumes an idealized spectator
his recommendations for plot construction. whose response of pity and fear is grounded
Aristotle says that he is providing an account in her or his nature or essence as a human
of tragedy's essential being or nature being who is capable of identifying with the
(1449b20). Tragedy is a human-made artifact character's misfortune.
with natural causes and is the realization of a Aristotle's essentialist approach to trag-
final end or telos (1449al5). On the analogy edy therefore has two aspects: an account of
with biological organisms, Aristotle says that plot as the inherent nature of tragedy, and a
tragedy has an inner nature, or basic princi- view of a universal or idealized spectator
ple, which is its plot (1450a38-39). Plot- who will respond with pity and fear when
which is the representation of action-is said witnessing the appropriately depicted suffer-
to be the goal of tragedy and is, as it were, the ings of the tragic agent.
heart and soul of tragedy (1450b3). On Aris- In Poetics 13 and 14 Aristotle tells us what
totle's view then, tragedy has an inner na- sorts of plot structures elicit pity and fear
ture, defined by a set of necessary features from the audience. Aristotle's methodology
that a tragedy must have if it is to be a repre- in these chapters is both normative and de-
sentation of certain kinds of actions and pas- scriptive. As he does elsewhere, Aristotle
sions. employs in the Poetics what we can call a
For an action to be tragic, it must incorpo- "norm-defect" methodology.10 One kind of
rate features capable of eliciting pity and tragedy from the ancient Greek corpus is se-
fear to effect a catharsis of these emotions in lected to stand as the norm or ideal tragedy
the audience. Aristotle's views on plot con- based on its plot structure. This norm identi-
struction are based on his assessment of fies the "essence" or quasi-soul of tragedy,
which plot patterns will evoke the emotions articulating plot structures and characters
of pity and fear, the characteristic emotions that a playwright must use to effect a cathar-
he associates with the genre of tragedy. sis of pity and fear. These requirements also
Hence, in telling us what plot patterns a trag- serve as guidelines for literary critics to use
edy should have, Aristotle is doing more in interpreting and evaluating tragedy.1"
than just providing recommendations for Chapter 13 introduces the idea of the
plot construction. He is stating his views on tragic character's hamartia or error as a way
what plot patterns are necessary for produc- of explaining the tragic character's fall to
ing a representation that is truly tragic, based misfortune.12 Chapter 14 states require-
on his view of what the essential goal of trag- ments on the appropriate intentions and ac-
edy should be. tions of the protagonist. The best tragic plots
We should consider the significance of Ar- show harm occurring (or about to occur) to
istotle's identification of pity and fear as the kin or loved ones (philia) due to the tragic
dominant emotions aroused by tragedy. The character's ignorance of what he is doing.
emotions of pity and fear call for a recogni- The tragic character's responsibility for the
tion of some kind of affinity between the au- misfortune is therefore excusable in that his
dience and the characters who act and suffer. hamartia provides a causal link between his
To feel pity and fear for a character, the audi- actions and the subsequent misfortune. But
ence members must suppose that they also it does not explain the misfortune in terms of
could be vulnerable to a reversal of fortune. the character's evil intent or motives.
The sufferings of the tragic protagonist must, From this brief summary, these necessary
in other words, touch the audience's sense of features of Aristotle's best tragedy emerge.13
its common humanity with him. This means Chapters 13 and 14 tell us that in a paradig-
that Aristotle's account of tragedy and why matic example of tragedy, a person "interme-
diate in virtue" goes from good fortune to "epic theatre" presents suffering as some-
bad (or the turn to bad fortune is threatened, thing that can be changed through the social
but is at the last minute averted, as in Euripi- transformation of political institutions.
des's Iphigenia in Tauris). Chapter 13 em- "Non-aristotelian drama would at all costs
phasizes that the turn to misfortune is avoid bundling together the events por-
brought about through the individual error trayed and presenting them as an inexorable
(hamartia) of the tragic protagonist. Chapter fate, to which the human being is handed
14 stresses that while individual error may over helpless despite the beauty and signifi-
contribute to misfortune, the protagonist cance of his reactions; on the contrary, it is
acts in ignorance of what he is doing. Aris- precisely this fate that it would study closely,
totle's ideal tragedy, then, is one in which the showing it up as of human contriving."'6
ideal tragic character is a basically good per- Second, Brecht critiques the response he
son who brings about (or threatens to bring associates with Aristotelian tragedy in which
about) his own misfortune and those of his the audience identifies with the dramatic
kin, but who acts in ignorance of what he is character and takes on his emotional states
doing. This means that Aristotle has a nar- ("I weep when they weep; I laugh when they
row view of what counts as ideal tragedy. laugh"). Brecht's theater aims to prevent
Many tragedies in the Greek corpus count as what he calls "empathy" (Einflihiung) or
defective in relation to Aristotle's para- "feeling with" a character, as well as the re-
digms: Sophocles's Oedipus Rex and Euripi- sponse of "feeling for" a character (what
des's Iphigenia in Tauris.14 could be called "sympathy"). Brecht argues
that these modes of response are barriers to
II. BRECHT'S CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE critical reflection on the social dimension of
tragedy, for the viewer sees the action of the
Brecht's contrast between the sort of drama play from the point of view of the central
Aristotle recommends and Brecht's theater character, and hence loses a broader view-
can be seen in the following passage: point from which to analyze the social
themes represented in the play. Brecht's the-
The dramatic theatre's spectator says: Yes, I have ater employed "alienation effects": dramatic
felt like that too-Just like me-It's only natu- devices Brecht designed as barriers to empa-
ral-It'll never change-The sufferings of this thy and the noncritical modes of engage-
man appal me, because they are inescap- ment he associated with Aristotelian drama.
able-That's great art; it all seems the most obvi- Brechtian performance techniques also were
ous thing in the world-I weep when they weep, I used to "distance" the actor from empathy
laugh when they laugh. with the character: "his feelings must not at
The epic theatre's spectator says: I'd never have bottom be those of the character, so that the
thought it-That's not the way-That's extraordi- audience's may not at bottom be those of the
nary, hardly believable-It's got to stop-The suf- character either. The audience must have
ferings of this man appal me, because they are un- complete freedom here."''7
necessary-That's great art; nothing obvious in We should specify a bit more precisely
it-I laugh when they weep, I weep when they what Brecht intends by "empathy." Here
laugh.15 Paul Woodruff's study of Brecht is very in-
structive.18 Brecht's concern, Woodruff says,
Here Brecht contrasts two types of theaters: is not with banishing emotion altogether
the tradition Aristotle initiates and the from the theater. Rather, Brecht is centrally
model Brecht uses in his own theater and in concerned with a certain kind of "mode of
his writings on theater. Brecht presents two engagement" with characters in drama,
problems with the drama Aristotle prefers. which Brecht associates with an empathy
First, Brecht argues that Aristotelian dra- with characters. As Woodruff suggests, by
matic practices lead the viewer to conclude "empathy" with a character in drama, Brecht
that human suffering is an "inescapable" means a range of phenomena, from the audi-
part of the human condition. In contrast, ence feeling sympathy for ("feeling for") a
character to sharing feelings with ("feeling members find to be "like them," even if it is
with") a character. But in its core meaning, also true that Aristotelian drama does not
by "empathy with" a character, Brecht aim to evoke an exact congruence of feelings
means some kind of identification and between the tragic character and the audi-
shared feeling between the spectator and the ence.
character. Aristotelian dramatic theater en- Second, what exactly is the intended target
gages the viewer through this mechanism of of Brecht's critique? In places, Brecht
affinity with a central protagonist's sounds like he is raising criticisms against the
Before we go further, several points of particular plays Aristotle's theater endorses:
clarification on Brecht's critique are in order. "The theatre as we know it shows the struc-
First, it could be replied that Brecht's critique ture of society (represented on the stage) as
of Aristotle misses its mark from the start, for incapable of being influenced by society (in
Aristotle does not recommend drama that the auditorium). Oedipus, who offended
aims to evoke in the viewer the same feelings against certain principles underlying the so-
as those of the protagonist, as Brecht's quote ciety of his time, is executed: the gods see to
above ("I weep when they weep") seems to that; they are beyond criticism."22 Brecht's
assume.20 According to Aristotle, we fear for worry is that Oedipus Rex presents the suf-
Oedipus as he attempts to track down the fering of its protagonist as "inevitable" and
murderer of the King of Thebes, and we feel therefore does not leave room for the kind
pity for him when he discovers the true na- of critical social reflection leading to social
ture of his identity and actions. But our emo- change that Brecht sees as central to theater.
tions are not congruent to what Oedipus Here, then, is at least one place where Brecht
feels, nor does Aristotle suppose that this is raises a worry about the specific plays that
so. So Brecht's critique may seem to go Aristotle endorses.
wrong because of inaccuracy in representing I believe, however, Brecht's central target
Aristotle's account of the relationship be- to be the specific narrative conventions Aris-
tween the viewer and the character. totle recommends, rather than the specific
We can restate Brecht's point here, how- plays that end up on Aristotle's list of ideal
ever, so that it is an accurate reflection of Ar- tragedies. Brecht's aesthetics emphasizes the
istotle's view. Brecht is suggesting that in ways in which staging and performance prac-
Aristotelian drama there is a central protag- tices are central for conveying a certain mes-
onist whose thoughts and feelings serve as a sage in a play. In discussing Sophocles's
focal point and guide to the action of the Antigone, for example, Brecht says that dif-
play. Aristotle expresses this idea in saying ferent performance and acting techniques
that fear is felt for a person whom the audi- will bring out different themes implicit in the
ence members believe to be "like them- play's text.23 This means there could be ways
selves" (1453a5). Further, Aristotle says in of staging Aristotle's favorite plays that
the Rhetoric that people "pity those like made salient the social themes implicit in
themselves in age, in character, in habits, in these dramatic texts. So Brecht's complaint
rank, in birth; for in all these cases something is not with Oedipus Rex or Iphigenia in
seems more to apply to the self . .. people Tauris; it is aimed at the dramatic practices
pity things happening to others in so far as Aristotle highlights in praising them as para-
they fear for themselves."21 This account of digmatic tragedies. This reading of Brecht is
pity and fear, as noted, forms the basis for also consistent with the idea that Brecht rec-
Nussbaum's argument that in feeling pity ognized some affinities between ancient
and fear for the protagonist, the viewer takes Greek tragedy as a dramatic form and his
the character as a model for her or his own own "epic theatre" (hence the use of the
life's possibilities. term "epic"). Brecht, in fact, borrowed some
Brecht is correct, therefore, that on Aris- of classical theater's dramatic devices, in-
totle's account, the audience is introduced to cluding the Chorus, for his "epic theatre." So
the action of the play from the viewpoint of a it is more accurate to reconstruct Brecht's
central protagonist, whom the audience critique as aimed at the dramatic practices
Aristotle recommends, including plot lines hamartia, which instead directs the audi-
and character representations, and the dra- ence's attention to the individual causes of
matic effects Aristotle believes tragedy tragic misfortune. Brecht's point is that
should achieve. drama that is socially critical should repre-
Brecht's objections to Aristotelian theater sent error leading to misfortune as part of a
can now be summarized as follows: larger social context that influences the
agent. As Brecht explained it, "The concern
(1) Plots that represent the protagonist's
of the epic theatre is thus eminently practi-
error as central to his misfortune do not
cal. Human behaviour is shown as alterable;
enable the playwright to write a play
man himself as dependent on certain politi-
that is socially critical, for the focus is on
cal and economic factors and at the same
the representation of misfortune due to
time as capable of altering them."25
individual error, rather than the "er-
We can illustrate this idea by considering
rors" in the social and political structure
Brecht's play Mother Courage and Her
that make for needless misfortune.
Children (1939). This play follows twelve
(2) Dramatic practices that feature empa-
years of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648)
thy with characters (some kind of affin-
in twelve episodes that show the horror and
ity with the tragic protagonist and
loss of the people who lived through it. The
shared feeling as a result of this connec-
story follows the wanderings of Mother
tion) impede the adoption of a critical
Courage, a woman who makes her living fol-
perspective on the social dimension of
lowing the armies and selling goods to sol-
the character's situation.
diers during the time of war. Although
(3) Aristotelian theater utilizes a mode of
Mother Courage has many admirable quali-
engagement that provides the viewer
ties, she experiences a great loss as a result of
with pleasure but not instruction or gen-
her economic dependence on the war. Each
uine learning.
of her three children gets caught up in the
Now let us consider Brecht's argument for horror of the war and dies a violent death,
each of these claims. First, Brecht argues leaving Mother Courage alone at the end of
that, using Aristotle's recommendations, a the play. The play features many techniques
playwright cannot write a play that prompts of "epic theatre," including the use of music,
reflection on the social causes of human suf- contrast, and contradiction. The action of the
fering, for it is the tragic protagonist's error play is set in a time far removed from Ger-
or hamartia that provides a causal link be- many in the 1940s to "alienate" or instill in
tween his actions and his subsequent misfor- both actors and the audience a distinction
tune, rather than the "error" or failure of between the world of the drama and the con-
faulty social arrangements. text from which they view the action of the
Brecht's point here can be made clearer play. The story is not held together by a tra-
by contrasting Aristotle's focus on hamartia ditional narrative line, but consists of a series
with the dramatic devices favored by of contrasting episodes separated in time.
Brecht's "epic theatre." The essence of This play certainly could be called a trag-
Brecht's theater is "gest": gestures, words, edy, for it makes vivid the suffering and loss
and actions that show the emotions and of those caught up in the war. But the
ideas of the characters as part of a larger drama's focus is on the social relations
context of specific social situations. Brecht among Mother Courage, her children, and
was especially interested in what he calls those they come into contact with during the
"social gest." Brecht tells us that "the social course of participating in the war effort. A
gest is the gest relevant to society, the gest leading theme of the play is that war is an ex-
that allows conclusions to be drawn about tension of the business of peace and hence is
the social circumstances."24 The key idea is essentially a capitalist enterprise. The action
that a gest reveals the social context as cru- of the play reveals that as a businesswoman,
cial for understanding the action of the play. Mother Courage views every social relation,
The analogue in Aristotle's aesthetics is even those involving her children, in terms of
the cost and benefit to her business. Through the success of her business clouds her judg-
this focus on Mother Courage's social role ment about its benefits for her and her
and the kinds of relations with family and family. Through these representations of
others this occupation entails, the story Mother Courage, the play enables the audi-
prompts reflection on what social relations ence to reflect on Mother Courage's own
must be like, during war and peacetime, in a role in bringing about her loss and the ways
society structured around a system of private her loss could have been prevented. When,
profit and individual gain. Through the inter- in Scene Four, Mother Courage sings to a
actions of Mother Courage with her children young soldier, "Sell out, it is what God wants
and with her business associates in the war from you,"26 the audience is prompted to
effort, the play suggests that in the context of consider what the other options are, not just
capitalism, even family relations come to be for Mother Courage and the soldier, even
understood not in human terms, but as either though at no point during the course of the
an obstacle or a vehicle for the goal of mak- action of the play does a character explicitly
ing money. set out "solutions" to the problems of war
The play does represent the individual suf- and capitalism the play examines.
fering and loss Mother Courage experiences It is well known that Brecht rewrote the
from the death of her children in the war. character of Mother Courage to make her a
But this loss is presented so that the relation- less sympathetic character.27 Brecht's repre-
ship between Mother Courage's individual sentation of Mother Courage, nonetheless,
loss and her occupation as a businesswoman does allow the audience to sympathize with
whose livelihood depends on the war is Mother Courage, and revealing her thoughts
made clear. Rather than suggesting that and feelings is an important aspect of the
Mother Courage's experience is a universal play. But Brecht uses this feeling of sympa-
one, the action of the play prompts the audi- thy and empathy with Mother Courage as a
ence to consider how her loss arises from means for the audience to reflect further on
very specific social and historical circum- the specific social and economic factors that
stances. In particular, the play emphasizes brought about this loss and what might be
the relevance of entrepreneurial capitalism done to change it.
to understanding her loss and her interac- Two points emerge from this illustration.
tions with those around her. At the begin- First, that Brechtian theater employs prac-
ning of the play, Mother Courage curses the tices that situate the actions of the protago-
war, and her hope is just that she, her daugh- nists as part of a larger social nexus. Second,
ter, and her two sons who have joined the that Brecht uses the representations of the
Army will survive through the war's end. protagonist's error and loss for very different
Then, in a turnaround, business is flourish- purposes than does Aristotle, using them as a
ing, and she defends the war, worrying that it way of making clear the social dimension of
might end. Significantly, she loses each child human suffering and the ways this suffering
to the war when she is away bartering over might be changed.
money, showing the folly in thinking that she Here we must consider an objection to
could reap the economic benefits of war but Brecht's criticisms of plots with agent error
not suffer its losses. at the center of the drama. It might seem that
The play does not attempt, however, to di- Brecht's criticism, as I have reconstructed it,
minish Mother Courage's loss as due to relies on a faulty premise: if a play focuses on
forces beyond her control, making her a vic- tragedy due to individual error, it cannot
tim, not an agent. Instead, the play reveals a prompt reflection on the social causes of
complex relationship in which the business human suffering.28 But this is false, because a
environment influences Mother Courage's play can be socially critical even if the plot
choices and relationships, and Mother Cour- meets the requirement of misfortune due to
age manipulates her social environment to individual error of the protagonist himself. A
survive by means of the war. We see that in play might focus, for example, on the tragedy
spite of her earlier denunciation of the war, that ensues when a benevolent king unwit-
tingly enacts economic policies that ruin the sure, rather than paving the way for further
economy. This play represents suffering critical reflection. Brecht's central concern
brought about by the king's unintentional about empathy is that by identifying with the
error, thereby meeting Aristotle's require- protagonist and sharing his feelings, the
ments on plot. Yet we could also learn much viewer is locked into the perspective of the
from such a play about what sort of eco- character. He argues that use of empathy as
nomic policies are beneficial, the problems the dominant mode of engaging with charac-
with governance by a monarchy, and so on. ters does not provide the spectator the "free-
So, following Aristotle's guidelines, it is pos- dom to consider" everything relevant to un-
sible to construct a play that is socially criti- derstanding the character's situation.30
cal, contrary to Brecht's claim otherwise. However, Brecht does not crudely dismiss
How can Brecht reply? We can see from empathy and the emotions from the theater
Mother Courage that drama that shows the on the basis of untenable dualism between
mistakes made by individuals can also reason and the emotions, as some critics
prompt reflection on the social causes of charge.31 It is more accurate to understand
human suffering. But Brecht would resist the Brecht as criticizing a certain mode of en-
idea that drama should represent the causes gagement that limits the audience to sharing
of human suffering as reducible to human the feelings and thoughts of the protagonist,
error, but should instead reveal the ways in rather than encouraging spectators to reflect
which the protagonist's social role and social critically on the broader social dimensions of
relations are relevant to understanding the the drama.
tragedy that ensues from the character's ac- Given this understanding of Brecht's cri-
tions. To achieve this kind of drama, there tique of empathy, we can now relate Brecht's
needs to be some mechanism analogous to criticisms to Aristotelian tragedy, more spe-
Brecht's "social gest" that enables the audi- cifically to Aristotle's discussion of ideal
ence to see the relation between the individ- tragic protagonists. Recall that in Aristotle's
ual and the social. In the case of Mother ideal tragedy, the tragic protagonist is a basi-
Courage, the play locates Mother Courage's cally good person (a person "intermediate in
loss in the context of her role as a business- virtue" [1453a5-10]) who errs and suffers as
woman supporting the war and the kind of a result. But his suffering is far greater than
social relations she has in virtue of this occu- any error the character might have commit-
pation. But there are no dramatic devices in ted, allowing us to feel pity and fear for him.
Aristotelian drama that link the individual In addition, the tragic protagonist must be
and the social. It follows concerning our "like us," for pity and fear are felt for some-
counterexample that Aristotelian aesthetic one like ourselves.
practices, by themselves, are not sufficient to Further, Aristotle has very specific ideas
prompt reflections on the social dimensions about which characters and situations are
of the king's error. To enable this kind of re- worthy of pity. Characters like Medea, who
flection Aristotle's aesthetic practices need perform morally questionable actions, are
to be supplemented by Brechtian-like de- not worthy of pity. Hence, these types of pro-
vices that prompt reflection on the larger so- tagonists are eliminated from Aristotelian
cial context in which the individual error is drama. A character like Hecuba, whose
enacted. character erodes owing to the harsh circum-
Perhaps the most controversial parts of stances in which she is placed, also fails to be
Brecht's criticisms of Aristotelian theater an appropriate protagonist for evoking our
are his critique of empathy and his more pity and fear, according to Aristotle.32 In
general views about the role of the emotions Chapter 15, Aristotle draws on the class and
in theater. Brecht's views on empathy in the- gender hierarchies of the Politics in stating
ater changed throughout the course of his his requirements on tragic characters: the
career.29 What remains constant, however, is goodness of a woman should be represented
the argument that empathy with characters as inferior; the sufferings of a slave are not
in drama leads to a kind of emotional clo- even worthy of representation (1454a20).33
This suggests that in Aristotelian drama, the boat. Aristotle's account focuses on the
protagonists should be appropriate role scenes of recognition and reversal, which are
models for the audience in that they perform key on his view to a good plot structure, and
actions that are morally admirable from an on Iphigenia's error or hamartia in failing to
Aristotelian perspective.34 recognize her long-lost brother. Aristotle's
What are Brecht's objections to this use of focus on these aspects of the play and his em-
characters in drama? phasis on the play as a family drama ignore
Brecht, as noted, is not opposed to the en- the social and political themes lurking just
gagement of the emotions of the audience below the surface of the action of the play. If
with a character. But he argues that to effect we consider Iphigenia's action more broadly
social reflection, this kind of engagement construed as the action of someone who
should be used in conjunction with dramatic does not realize that in harming a "for-
devices that reveal the connection between eigner" she is harming herself and her own
individual action and social context. Brecht's human "kin," we can then see how the play
essential criticism of Aristotelian engage- could be performed as a social commentary
ment with characters is that the formal/nar- on the blind way in which people go about
rative devices essential for going from empa- killing their human "brothers and sisters" in
thy with characters to reflection on the social war.35
context in which the characters operate are To effect this kind of production of
not available within Aristotelian aesthetic Iphigenia, the drama needs to introduce dra-
practices. matic practices that enable the audience to
Therefore, Brecht's objections regarding understand the protagonist's ignorance as
empathy in Aristotelian drama come down part of a broader social context of xenopho-
to the argument that (1) to facilitate a critical bia. This production of Iphigenia as a social
perspective on the social relations repre- critique of xenophobia is logically compati-
sented in drama, drama should go beyond ble with an Aristotelian aesthetic frame-
revealing the thoughts and feelings of the work; that is, nothing in Aristotelian aes-
protagonist to consider the larger social net- thetic practices is inconsistent with going
work in which the protagonist operates; (2) beyond the dramatic focus on immediate
Aristotelian aesthetic practices do not en- family relationships and loss to reflect on the
able the viewer to move from the individual wider social dimensions of the drama. But
perspective to the social perspective; (3) reflection on the broader social implications
therefore, Aristotelian theater's use of em- of the protagonist's action is detachable from
pathy does not enable the audience to en- the basic elements of an Aristotelian aes-
gage in reflection on the social relations rep- thetic framework, and the practices of Aris-
resented in the drama. totelian drama do not support this type of
To see why this criticism holds, consider critical reflection in the audience without
the dramatic practices Aristotle focuses on being supplemented by dramatic devices
in his praise of Iphigenia in Tauris. This play that prompt this sort of wider reflection on
is about a young woman, Iphigenia, daughter the play's significance.36
of Clytemnestra and Agamemnon, who is Now let us consider the most important
transported from her home to Tauris to offi- aspect of Brecht's critique. The central ad-
ciate as the high priestess for foreign visitors vantage that Brecht claims for his theater
to Tauris who are captured and prepared for over Aristotelian theater is that it allows the
sacrifice. Iphigenia's long-lost brother and audience to engage in critical reflection,
his friend come to the island and are cap- what Brecht refers to as "freedom of
tured. Not aware of their true identities, thought." As Brecht says, in his plays, "the
Iphigenia prepares to help with their sacri- object of performance is to make it easier to
fice. Brother and sister eventually recognize give an opinion."37 His objections to the use
each other at the last minute before the sac- of empathy in drama are connected to the
rifice. Iphigenia manages a ruse to save her goal of prompting freedom of thought in the
brother and his friend, and they escape in a audience. Brecht makes this point, as already
noted, in advocating the "anti-method-act- causes of human suffering. For this is a con-
ing": [the actor's] feelings must not at bot- cern not limited to Marxist aesthetics. Why
tom be those of the character, so that the au- think that Aristotelian drama falls short of
dience's may not at bottom be those of the this more general goal? My discussion fo-
character either. The audience must have cuses on three aspects of Aristotle's theory:
complete freedom here."38 (1) Aristotle's restriction on the content and
Critical thinking in relation to dramatic characters appropriate for tragedy; (2) the
representations has several aspects, accord- role that narrative plays in structuring audi-
ing to Brecht.39 First, there is a cognitive as- ence response; (3) Aristotle's view that
pect to critical thinking: The spectator must tragic response involves the recognition of
reach her or his own independently justified universal truths about life and conduct.
conclusions. Drama should, in other words, First, consider again Aristotle's require-
enable the spectator to "give an opinion" ments for plots and characters. Aristotle has
through a process that provides independent very specific ideas about who and what kind
justification for the conclusion reached. of suffering is worthy of pity. If a plot shows a
Rather than holding back and not thinking, person of decent character going from good
the goal of Brecht's theater was to "force the luck to bad through no fault of her or his
spectator to make a decision"40 in relation to own, the effect, Aristotle says, is "shocking"
the depicted dramatic events. Active, inde- (miaron), not pitiable, and similarly for a
pendent thinking in relation to characters plot that shows a protagonist deliberately
and events in drama was an essential goal for bringing harm to kin, as does Medea.41 Aris-
Brecht's plays. totelian drama eliminates scenarios that
Second, as a Marxist, Brecht saw around might throw the spectator into what Aris-
him the signs that people took for granted totle supposes is moral confusion or "shock"
certain basic precepts-e.g., that society is a (miaron). Aristotelian drama functions,
meritocracy in which individuals rise or fall therefore, as a set of positive images that se-
economically depending on how clever they lects the sort of situations and characters the
are or how hard they work-adherence to audience should be contemplating. One con-
which supported the political status quo, in sequence is that following Aristotle's guide-
Brecht's time capitalism and Fascism. Brecht lines, a playwright cannot show the effects of
wanted to get people to question what they a faulty social environment on an individ-
saw so that they would then be ready to go ual's character, something that Aristotle ex-
from the theater to work to change their sit- plores in his ethical and political writings, but
uation in society. This means that for Brecht, is curiously absent in his recommendations
critical thinking in relation to drama has an for drama.42 A playwright also cannot show
important social and political aspect-it is how people sometimes suffer through no
thinking that aims to understand the specifi- fault of their own, as in The Trojan Women.43
cally social and political nature of human life Because of its restrictions on characters and
and the viewer's role in supporting and situations represented, Brecht is right to con-
changing social hierarchies. clude that Aristotelian theater does not
It is clear why Brecht thinks that Aristote- allow the viewer to consider the "entire
lian drama, with its focus on individual error range of human behavior" essential for the
and character identification, is not suited to independence of thought Brecht aimed for
effect critical thinking that is specifically with his own theater.
aimed at examining social hierarchies and Second, Aristotelian aesthetics empha-
the social causes of suffering. But it could be sizes the important role that formal elements
a more damaging criticism, from a such as narrative have in structuring an audi-
non-Marxist perspective, if it could be estab- ence response. Aristotle's description of
lished that Brecht was right in thinking Aris- tragedy does mention elements in the con-
totelian drama does not encourage critical, text of performance and production, e.g., the
independent reflection whose content is not activity of the poet, acting, and the response
specifically limited to examining the social of the audience. But Aristotle generally
downgrades these elements in favor of an assumption regarding the spectator, for this
emphasis on narrative as key to effecting ca- means that the spectator drops out of the
tharsis.44 Aristotle's discussion also focuses picture as an active, variable element in ef-
on other formal elements pertaining to nar- fecting a response to the characters and situ-
rative structures-the unity of a plot line, its ations represented.
formal organization of beginning, middle, Third, Aristotle's account of tragedy in-
and end-as the key determinants of a dra- cludes his view that tragedy represents uni-
matic text's effect. versal or probabilistic generalizations re-
Aristotle's emphasis on narrative in ef- garding the connection between various
fecting catharsis suggests a model in which incidents in human life and conduct. In
pity and fear are triggered through the ap- Poetics 4, Aristotle says we learn from trag-
propriate use of plot and character, rather edy through the recognition of these gener-
than arrived at in conjunction with the alizations. When we clarify this idea, we see
viewer's own independent reflection on the that this account of how and what we learn
characters and situations represented. In from tragedy falls short of what Brecht re-
contrast, Brecht's aesthetics emphasizes that gards as critical thinking in relation to
formal devices should be used to aid the drama.
viewer in deliberately observing the action In Poetics 7, Aristotle extends the sugges-
and drawing her or his own conclusions from tion in Chapter 4 that tragedy's imitations of
the characters and events represented. To action and life impart pleasure because they
this end, Brecht employed devices such as promote learning (1448bl5-17). Poetry, of
montage to break up the story line and allow which tragedy is a subcategory, stands be-
room for the spectator to construct the sig- tween history and philosophy. It is closer to
nificance of the drama using her or his own philosophy than to history, because it deals
observations on the represented events as in universals rather than particulars, where a
her or his guide. Aristotle's omission of the universal is "the sort of thing[s] a certain
spectator's active contribution in effecting a kind of person happens to do or say accord-
response to the characters and depicted ing to likelihood or necessity" (1451b8-11).
events is a crucial one if Aristotelian aesthet- Plot, which is a representation of human ac-
ics is to show how drama can encourage gen- tion, must proceed according to probability,
uine independent critical reflection in the showing the probable or necessary connec-
spectator.45 tions in its incidents (1451a37). Hence po-
We can surmise the reason that Aristotle etry, and therefore tragedy, as a subgenre of
omits discussion of the importance of the in- poetry, is based on knowledge of human ac-
dividual spectator's contribution to an aes- tions and their connections. Pity and fear for
thetic response. To react with a catharsis to the characters involves the recognition of
the depicted events, spectators must make these universal or probabilistic connections
various judgments concerning the moral between human actions. Hence the pleasures
character and worthiness of the characters of tragedy, on Aristotle's account, involve
represented. Aristotle's account relies on a some kind of pleasurable learning.
view of human nature such that any human There is a scholarly debate regarding
being would find just the characters and situ- what, if anything, Aristotle supposes we
ations worthy of pity and fear that Aristotle learn from tragedy. Some attribute to Aris-
outlines in his discussion of plot patterns. It is totle the view that tragic response involves
understandable that Aristotle would fail to the recognition and "clarification" of univer-
mention the spectator's role in effecting ca- sal moral truths concerning human life and
tharsis of pity and fear, for Aristotle assumes conduct (call this the "stronger thesis"). Oth-
a spectator with a fixed human nature, whose ers suggest another view: The viewer's mind
responses to the characters are scripted in is not numb in response to a tragedy. She or
virtue of the spectator's ability as a human he must actively follow the plot and make
being to be moved by the suffering repre- connections among its various elements. But
sented. Brecht would fault Aristotle for this the viewer does not "learn" or come to un-
derstand moral truths as a result of watching this as part of a critical reflection on the
the represented events (call this the "weaker characters in the drama. Nussbaum's de-
thesis").46 Could either of these interpreta- scription of catharsis suggests that we take
tions, if true, show that critical thinking is in- our emotional responses to characters in
cluded in our response to tragedy's narra- tragedy at face value and then use them to
tives on Aristotle's view? I do not think so. "clarify" what it is we value.48 In contrast,
It should be obvious why the weaker the- Brecht argues that critical thinking in re-
sis does not support this view of critical sponse to characters in drama requires that
thinking as central to aesthetic response, for we must subject our emotional responses to
the presence of cognitive activity in relation characters in drama to the same kind of scru-
to tragedy's narratives (the weaker thesis) tiny we give to our judgments and convic-
does not suggest a critical attitude on the tions-something Brecht gets at when he
part of the viewer to the events she or he wit- says that the spectator must learn to "adopt
nesses on stage. More needs to be said, how- a critical approach to his emotions, just as
ever, to show why the stronger reading of [he] does to his ideas."49 This suggests that
Aristotle does not imply critical thinking on the stronger reading of catharsis as clarifica-
the part of the spectator. tion, even if correct as an interpretation of
First, there is a problem of reconciling the Aristotle, falls short of Brecht's goal of ex-
stronger interpretation of Aristotelian ca- plaining how to incorporate the emotions as
tharsis as clarification with Aristotle's re- part of our critical reflections to characters
strictions on the plots and characters appro- in drama.
priate for tragedy. Nussbaum's own readings In this section, I have identified three as-
of ancient Greek tragedy suggest that we pects of Aristotle's account of tragedy-his
learn from tragedy because it stimulates us restrictions on content, his emphasis on pro-
to a general independent reflection on im- ducing a structured response through narra-
portant moral and political questions. Aris- tive, and his idea of how we learn from trag-
totle's recommendations for plot and char- edy-that suggest that Aristotelian drama
acter, however, suggest another view-that falls short of encouraging independent, criti-
tragedy should direct the viewer's attention cal reflection in the viewer. It is clear why, as
to a much narrower set of issues and charac- a Marxist playwright and critic, Brecht
ters, the ones that Aristotle finds appropriate would assign a central role to critical viewing
to eliciting pity and fear in the audience.47 in his aesthetics of drama. For critical think-
This means, I believe, that Aristotle's text ing in relation to drama can be a valuable
does not support the reading of catharsis tool in challenging the status quo. As a
Nussbaum gives in her reconstruction of Ar- Marxist playwright, Brecht's drama may it-
istotelian aesthetics. self be criticized as political dogma that does
Second, Nussbaum's account of catharsis not leave the spectator "free to think" what-
as clarification emphasizes the role of the ever she or he wants. It is this objection to
emotions in "getting clear" on important Brecht's aesthetics that I turn to in the last
moral and political issues. But for the emo- section.
tions of pity and fear to be incorporated as The argument of this paper has been that
part of a critical reflective response to char- Brecht is essentially right to criticize Aristo-
acters in tragedy, these responses must be telian aesthetics for ignoring the importance
subject to further critical scrutiny-in just of the viewer's critical response to the events
the way that our intellectual judgments and characters represented in tragedy.
about those characters should be subjected Brecht himself would put this point by say-
to the same scrutiny. If Euripides moves me ing that Aristotle emphasizes an emotional
to pity Medea, for example, he can thereby response to tragedy over a critical, intellec-
enable me to revise my view about who and tual response. This way of criticizing Aris-
what is worthy of pity. But this response of totle, however, leaves Brecht open to the
pity must itself be subject to further reflec- charge that he has failed to understand how
tion and justification if the spectator can use the emotions can be part of a critical re-
sponse to drama, something that Brecht him- that critical viewing involves the "freedom
self did not explicate clearly enough. Re- of thought" Brecht claims to value in his dra-
phrasing Brecht, we can say that Aristotle's matic productions.54 Put otherwise, Brecht-
account fails to show how drama can engage ian theater cannot "prompt" or encourage
the viewer's critical faculties, where these critical viewing in the spectator through the
faculties are understood to involve both cog- use of "epic theatre's" dramatic practices, for
nitive and affective states of the viewer. this makes the critical viewer a mere product
Even if this is acknowledged as a weakness of these practices, contradicting Brecht's
in Aristotle's aesthetics, it might be argued claim that critical viewing requires "freedom
that Brecht's aesthetics fails to provide an of thought."
account of critical viewing as well. Of course, it is true that Brecht wants his
First, it might be charged that Brecht's drama to prompt critical reflection and chal-
overt political agenda for drama is incom- lenge the viewer's acceptance of many things
patible with the "freedom of thought" that she or he takes for granted. This means he
Brecht claims to value in response to constructed his drama with the goal of en-
drama.50 Brecht does argue that drama gendering this type of response in the audi-
should aim to "arouse or to reinforce" the ence. But Brecht aimed to do this in a way
"sense of justice, the urge to freedom, and that requires the viewer's own active contri-
righteous anger."'51 This aim is not incompat-bution in coming to these conclusions. Hence
ible, however, with his goal of complete free- his aim of eliciting critical thinking in the au-
dom of thought for the audience. Brecht dience is not incompatible with giving the
does confirm in conversation with play- audience "freedom of thought." More tech-
wright Friedrich Wolf that his goal is to nically, we can say that Brechtian dramatic
arouse "the audience to a clear recognition practices enable critical viewing, but these
of the relationships in actual and possible sit- dramatic practices do not cause the viewer to
uations (social conditions), and so lead it to adopt a specific stance toward the events
correct conclusions and decisions."52 But represented.55
these conclusions are among many possible We can draw on some work by Noel
ones that the viewer may draw, and Brecht's Carroll to help elucidate this distinction.
goal (to be elaborated below) is not to dic- Carroll notes that narrative films convey
tate but merely to suggest and to leave for "ideology," or a distorted belief that is false
the viewer's further justification which re- and epistemically faulty, by cuing viewers to
sponses are appropriate to the injustices she supply missing premises to make sense of
or he has seen dramatized. Some critics won- gaps in the narrative.S6 Using this idea, we
dered, for example, why Brecht ends Mother can say that an audience is caused to have a
Courage with the tragedy of Mother Cour- certain response, "p," when, in virtue of the
age losing her children without suggesting narrative structure of a drama, the audience
some positive direction for change.53 A more cannot make sense of the action of the
didactic sort of playwright would have given drama without concluding that "p." This is
Mother Courage or another character in the what happens in D. W. Griffith's classic film,
play the effective critique of war and capital- The Birth of a Nation (1915). The film effects
ism that Brecht hoped to engender in the au- the affirmation in the spectator of the ideol-
dience. Brecht stops short of this sort of mo- ogy that miscegenation, i.e., interracial sex-
rality play, showing that his goal is to ual union, is wrong. Its narrative culminates
challenge the audience to think, not to make in the dramatic suicide of a young white girl
the audience draw the "correct" conclusions. to avoid the sexual advances of an evil
Second, it might be objected that Brecht's "mixed race" man, Gus. The African-Ameri-
aesthetics makes the critical viewer an effect can slaves are represented as "faithful souls"
of the dramatic or film text and/or elements who are content with their roles as slaves; the
of its performance: understanding the viewer "mulatto" mixed race characters are repre-
as "produced" through the dramatic sented as evil agitators for social unrest. To
text/performance contradicts Brecht's idea make sense of the story, the spectator is
prompted to supply the missing premise, odds with the way the scene truly unfolds.
"miscegenation is evil," to account for why This prompts the viewer to consider the ways
bad things happen as a result of the workings in which history, as traditionally told, omits
of the "mixed race" characters. Of course, the material details of the lives of those who
viewers can "resist" accepting the film's ide- suffer, without explicitly presenting this cri-
ology. But viewers who engage in this type of tique. Mother Courage does curse the war at
response produce a meaning that is contrary the end of Scene 4, and she expresses a dis-
to that presented in the film's narrative. Grif- dain for those running the war who profit
fith uses the film's narrative devices as a way while the small people suffer. But in the
to promote his own views on race relations, opening of the next scene, another viewpoint
based on racist stereotypes of African is presented when she says she is doing well
Americans. We can see, then, that causing a and that things are going well with the war
response in an audience is, in effect, a way of and her business. With the two viewpoints
manipulating the audience into accepting an presented, the viewer must consider the rele-
ideology, or a distorted viewpoint. vance of the background conditions for
In contrast, Brecht wanted to set the spec- Mother Courage's change of heart.
tator's thought in motion through drama Brecht sets up the basic contradictions
that appeals to the capacity of the audience that he wishes the viewer to consider: can
to make critical comparisons. Brecht was es- one be a "mother-merchant" and use busi-
pecially concerned to challenge the audience ness as a means but not the purpose of sur-
in its acceptance of commonplace morality vival in a society structured around greed
and faith in a capitalistic economy. Rather and individual profit? In places the drama
than forcing conclusions on the spectator the points to possible solutions or alternatives to
way Griffith's film does, Brecht gives the au- accepting the status quo, without directly
dience the basic elements that can be used to spelling this out. In Scene 4, Mother Cour-
construct these critiques in a way that re- age's "The Song of Great Capitulation"
quires independent thought from the audi- points to the use of "great anger" as a way to
ence. More technically, we can say that find a life beyond social oppression, but
Brechtian drama enables or encourages a re- achieves this effect by having Mother Cour-
sponse, "p," from the audience when the age state the opposite viewpoint, that it is
basic premises for drawing the conclusion, better to settle for a "small anger" and give
", are presented as elements in the drama's in. At the same time, the song challenges the
story, but the conclusion, "p," is not required viewpoint of the petty bourgeoisie that many
to make sense of the action of the play. In audience members are inclined to accept un-
this way, Brechtian devices for enabling or critically by undermining the ideology that
encouraging a response are consistent with "where there is a will there is a way." The
independence of thought, for this response is song suggests instead that no one in fact be-
not guaranteed as a condition of making lieves this, but rather thinks it is better just to
sense of the narrative, but must be reached quit and "give in." This is a challenge both to
through the viewer's own process of inde- the philosophy of capitalism as a meritoc-
pendent reasoning. racy, as well as to the viewer's inclination to
Mother Courage is a good example of a think that political action cannot effect a
drama that encourages the spectator to be change for the better.
critical of war, capitalism, and commonsense In this way, Brecht gets the viewer to chal-
morality, but does not manipulate the specta- lenge her or his own acceptance of "capitula-
tor into accepting Brecht's own views on tion" as a strategy for survival, and to con-
these topics. Comparisons and contradic- sider what the other options are without
tions are set up to encourage the spectator's spelling them out. Brecht's insight was to
critical reflections on these issues. Each recognize that effective drama can never in-
scene is preceded by a "table of contents" struct by forcing specific conclusions on the
that provides a hackneyed or overly general viewer. But Brecht brings a different per-
summary of the scene, which is frequently atspective to critical spectatorship than that of
cultural studies, which for the most part sug- Brecht, his primary concern is with a particu-
gests that dramatic forms such as film and lar use of empathy that locks the viewer into
theater can be critical if the viewer takes the perspective of the character and does not
them to be.57 Brecht recognizes instead that enable her or him to consider the action
critical viewing is something that playwrights from a wider social perspective. Brecht's
can encourage or enable through the use of own works show that engaging with charac-
techniques that challenge the viewer to re- ters can be useful for reflecting on the social
think the basic assumptions she or he uses to causes of suffering. Yet if Aristotelian drama
make sense of the drama. is to be used for this purpose, it needs to be
supplemented with other dramatic devices
III. CONCLUSION that enable the viewer to consider the char-
acter's actions and thoughts as part of a
What, then, can we learn from Brecht's criti- larger social nexus.
cisms of Aristotle? First, Brecht's criticisms All three of these criticisms are related to
suggest that Aristotelian drama instructs the adequacy of Aristotle's conceptualiza-
through the examples of sympathetic role tion of tragedy itself. So in conclusion, let me
models, but does not challenge the viewer to briefly reflect on what Brecht's criticisms
provide independent justification for the show about this. Some might find fault with
conclusions she or he draws from the charac- Aristotle's metaphysical assumption that
ter's situation. Aristotle's analysis of aes- tragedy has an essence and a goal as a liter-
thetic response and catharsis reveals that he ary genre. This route would not be open to
understands the ways in which drama can Brecht, however, for Brecht in his own way
engage both the emotions and cognition. But offers an essentialist account of drama, pro-
there is an important distinction, pointed out posing that drama should and does have a
by Brecht's critique, between the exercise of certain social and pragmatic function, i.e., to
our cognitive faculties in response to drama effect social criticism and political change.
and genuine, critical reflection as a response On the other hand, Aristotle's account of
to the characters and situations in the drama. the essence of tragedy involves his views that
We learn from Brecht how Aristotle's aes- tragedy must be a representation of certain
thetics fails to incorporate critical thinking in kinds of actions and passions. These ideas
relation to characters as an important way in are presented in his specific recommenda-
which we learn from tragedy. This lesson is tions for plot construction and for the repre-
valuable for anyone who is interested in un- sentation of characters. We have seen that
derstanding how drama and art can enlarge these recommendations essentially ignored
the viewer's understanding of the world.58 ways in which ancient Greek tragedy can
Second, from Brecht we learn how Aris- function as social critique. Further, we can-
totle's focus on individual error and identifi- not use an Aristotelian aesthetics as an inter-
cation with a tragic figure does not enable pretive framework for making salient the so-
the viewer to see the broader social issues at cial and political themes implicitly present in
stake, even when these themes lie just below many ancient Greek tragedies. This means
the surface of the drama. Brecht's criticisms that if we are interested in seeing how trag-
point to the importance of dramatic prac- edy can function as social criticism, we need
tices that permit the viewer to relate the ac- to supplement the practices of Aristotle's
tion of the protagonist to a larger social con- aesthetic framework with those recom-
text, rather than directing the viewer's mended by Brecht, who proposes useful dra-
attention to individual error as the cause of matic devices for revealing the relationship
tragic misfortune for the characters. between the individual protagonist and the
Third, Brecht's criticisms of empathy social environment in which she or he acts.
make us consider whether Aristotle's use of Therefore, we need not necessarily fault
empathy with characters can be an effective Aristotle for supposing that tragedy has an
way of encouraging reflection on the social essence; however, we can criticize his specific
causes of human misfortune. As I read account of the essence of tragedy for failing
to consider tragedy as a socially grounded special thanks to an anonymous referee for this journal
for detailed and constructive critical remarks that
civic production that explores a number of
helped me improve the argument of the paper.
pressing political and social issues, including 2. Martha C. Nussbaum, "Tragedy and Self-Suffi-
the relationship between civic and family ciency: Plato and Aristotle on Fear and Pity," and Ste-
life, gender roles in a Greek patriarchy, and phen Halliwell, "Pleasure, Understanding, and Emotion
the role of the aristocracy in a society mov- in Aristotle's Poetics," both in Essays on Aristotle's
Poetics, ed. Amelie Oskenberg Rorty (Princeton Uni-
ing toward democracy. Somewhat paradoxi-
versity Press, 1992), pp.261-290 and pp.241-260, respec-
cally, if we wish to see how tragedy can func- tively.
tion as social criticism, we might do better to 3. See his essay, "A Short Organum for the Theatre,"
turn to Brecht's own ideas on drama as a in Brecht on Theatre, ed. and trans. John Willett (New
York: Hill and Wang, 1964), p. 181, as well as his essay,
model for this function of tragedy.
"The Modern Theatre Is the Dramatic Theatre (Notes
Brecht's account of critical thinking in re-
to the opera Aufstiegund Fall der Stadt Mahagonny)," in
lation to drama is an especially useful correc- Brecht on Theatre.
tive to Aristotelian aesthetics' neglect of this 4. See the table on page 37 in Willett, ed., Brecht on
subject. Aristotle's legacy is an account of Theatre, where Brecht contrasts theater that emphasizes
emotion (Aristotelian "dramatic" theater) with Brecht's
aesthetic response to drama as structured by
"epic theatre," which is said to emphasize reason over
narrative, leaving little room for an active, feeling. Note, however, that Brecht suggests the contrast
socially and historically situated spectator to between reason and emotion is a question of emphasis,
construct a response deliberately and inde- not an absolute distinction or dichotomy.
pendently to what she or he sees. On the 5. See Murray Smith, "The Logic and Legacy of
Brechtianism," in Post- Theory: Reconstructing Film
other hand, in Aristotle we find a more so-
Studies, ed. David Bordwell and Noel Carroll (Univer-
phisticated account of the emotions as con- sity of Wisconsin Press, 1997), pp. 130-148; and Carl
stituted by judgments. This enables us to see Plantinga, "Notes on Spectator Emotion and Ideologi-
how our emotions can be subject to the same cal Film Criticism," in Film Theory and Philosophy, ed.
kind of critical scrutiny as our judgments, Murray Smith and Richard Allen (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1997), pp. 372-393. Although both Smith and
something that is central to understanding
Plantinga are critical of Brechtian aesthetics, I find that
the role that emotions play in our critical re- Plantinga's critique is more measured. Plantinga pays
flections about characters in art. By combin- closer attention to Brecht's remarks in a wider range of
ing these different aspects of Brechtian and places and is more cautious in his conclusions. For ex-
ample, he suggests that in Brecht's "better moments"
Aristotelian aesthetic frameworks, we can
Brecht recognizes that a dichotomy between reason and
begin to develop a new framework for un-
the emotions is "superficial" (p. 374). Plantinga notes
derstanding how engaging with characters in that Brecht's goal was to encourage the spectator to
drama can engender a critical perspective on "adopt a critical approach to his emotions, just as [he]
the world.59 does to his ideas" (p. 374), but suggests that Brecht fails
to describe this critical approach in any detail. I disagree
with this last claim, and in what follows I reconstruct the
ANGELA CURRAN theory of critical viewing implicit in Brecht's writings on
Department of Philosophy theater and in his plays.
Mount Holyoke College 6. All references to the Poetics are from Richard
Janko, trans., Poetics I/Aristotle (Indianapolis: Hackett
South Hadley, Massachusetts 01075
Publishing Company, 1987) unless otherwise noted, and
further references will be cited in the text.
INTERNET acurran@mhc.mtholyoke.edu 7. See Nussbaum, "Tragedy and Self-Sufficiency," in
Rorty, ed., Essays on Aristotle's Poetics; and The Fragil-
1. An earlier version of this paper was read at the ity of Goodness (Cambridge: Cambridge University
American Society for Aesthetics, October 1997; the Press, 1986), esp. pp. 388-390.
American Philosophical Association, December 1997; 8. See Halliwell, "Pleasure, Understanding, and Emo-
and at Mount Holyoke College. My thanks to the partic- tion in Aristotle's Poetics," in Rorty, ed., Essays on Aris-
ipants at these presentations for their valuable com- totle's Poetics.
ments and questions. I am especially grateful for very 9. See Jonathan Lear, "Katharsis," in Rorty, ed., Es-
helpful comments presented at the APA session by says on Aristotle's Poetics, pp. 315-340.
Noel Carroll and Daniel Jacobson. I also thank Horst 10. I borrow the terminology "norm-defect" from
Lange and Tom Wartenberg for valuable discussions on Gareth Matthews. See his "Gender and Essence in Aris-
Aristotle and Brecht, and Cynthia Freeland for prompt- totle," Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (1986):
ing me to delve into the Brecht-Aristotle debate and for 16-25.
her help in sorting out my ideas on this topic. Finally, my 11. Although Aristotle's aesthetics is presented as a
poetics, that is, as a set of recommendations for how to 20. Thanks to Noel Carroll for posing this objection.
construct tragedy, it has also been widely interpreted as 21. Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Dis-
a hermeneutics, that is, a framework for how to go about course, trans. George A. Kennedy (New York: Oxford
interpreting and evaluating Greek tragedy. See, for ex- University Press, 1991), 1386a13.
ample, Martha C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness. 22. Willett, ed., Brecht on Theatre, p. 189.
12. For a different account of this section, see 23. See his discussion of the different performance
Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness, p. 388, arguing techniques involved in his production of Antigone, 1948.
that the tragic character's hamartia does not explain his Brecht even recognized that the device of the Chorus,
fall to misfortune, but is instead a means to enhance employed in Greek dramaturgy, could function as an an-
identification with the tragic protagonist. alogue to his "alienation techniques," serving to provide
The meaning of hamartia has been the subject of hot the audience with a critical distance on the action of the
debate among scholars. Commentators have suggested drama. See Willett, ed., Brecht on Theatre, p. 210.
that by "hamartia," Aristotle means "character flaw," 24. Ibid., pp. 104-105.
"mistake of fact," or a range of error that includes moral 25. Ibid., p. 86.
failure as well as mistake of fact. For the purposes of un- 26. Bertolt Brecht, Mother Courage and Her
derstanding Brecht's criticisms, it does not matter Children, ed. David Hare (New York: Arcade Pub-
whether hamartia is read broadly, so as to include moral lishing, 1996), p. 49.
failure as well as mistake of fact, or whether it is under- 27. Willett, ed., Brecht on Theatre, pp. 220-221.
stood to have a more restricted meaning. 28. Thanks to Noel Carroll for raising this objection.
13. Note here I am claiming that the requirements on 29. In his earlier writings, he suggests that empathy
plot serve as necessary conditions for a play to be truly should have no place in the theater (Willett, ed., Brecht
tragic, rather than merely "recommendations" or pref- on Theatre, p. 15) and that his theater emphasizes rea-
erences. For another suggestion that these requirements son, not feeling (ibid., p.37). In his later writings on the-
on plot are necessary conditions on tragedy, see Cynthia ater, Brecht modifies his views to allow for a restricted
A. Freeland, "Plot Imitates Action: Aesthetic Evalua- use of emotion and empathy in theater (ibid., p. 271).
tion and Moral Realism in Aristotle's Poetics," in Rorty, Brecht's drama also reflected his changing views on em-
ed., Essays on Aristotle's Poetics, pp. 111-132; and Jona- pathy, with an early work such as The Threepenny
than Lear, Open Minded: Working Out the Logic of the Opera rejecting the use of empathy with characters in
Soul (Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 183. favor of a representation of the social relations among
14. The Trojan Women meets the first plot structure people, and later works such as Galileo presenting char-
noted in Chapter 13: good people going from good to acters with whom the audience could at least partially
bad fortune through no fault of their own. Aristotle tells empathize.
us that tragedies with this plot structure are neither 30. Willett, ed., Brecht on Theatre, pp. 193-194.
"fearful nor pitiful but repulsive" (1452b35-37), sug- 31. For this argument, see Murray Smith, "The Logic
gesting that because this kind of plot fails to elicit the and Legacy of Brechtianism," in Bordwell and Carroll,
appropriate response of effecting a catharsis of pity and eds., Post- Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies.
fear, it should not count as a tragedy, on the basis of the 32. See note 14.
criteria for ideal plot structure set out in Chapter 13. In 33. See Elizabeth V. Spelman, "Slavery and Tragedy,"
Chapter 14 Aristotle says that a plot in which the tragic in Radical Philosophy: Tradition, Counter-tradition, Pol-
protagonist, in full knowledge, is on the point of bring- itics, ed. Roger S. Gottlieb (Temple University Press,
ing harm to a loved one yet fails to do so is morally re- 1993), pp. 223-244, for the significance of Aristotle's ex-
pulsive (miaron), not pitiable (1454al-5). The plot clusion of the suffering of slaves from tragedy's repre-
structure for Medea, in which Medea knowingly brings sentations.
harms to her loved ones (philia), also fails to evoke pity 34. For more discussion of the ethical aspect of Aris-
and fear for its central protagonist, since Medea's act of totle's discussion of plot and character, see Freeland,
killing her children is repulsive, not pitiable, on Aris- "Plot Imitates Action," in Rorty, ed., Essays on Aris-
totle's view. totle's Poetics.
15. Brecht's target is "dramatic theatre," which he 35. For an interesting discussion of the political impli-
takes to be the dramatic tradition initiated by Aris- cations of Aristotle's stress on recognition in tragedy's
totle's Poetics and continuing on through the drama as- narratives, see Barbara Koziak, "Tragedy, Citizens, and
sociated with the Wagnerian operas used by the Nazis as Strangers: The Configuration of Aristotelian Political
part of their propaganda campaign in Germany in the Emotion," in Feminist Interpretations of Aristotle, ed.
1930s and 1940s. See Willett, ed., Brecht on Theatre, p. Cynthia A. Freeland (Pennsylvania State University
71. Press, 1998), pp. 260-288. I believe, however, that Aris-
16. Ibid., p. 87. totle's discussion of dramatic practices omits consider-
17. Ibid., pp. 193-194. Thanks to Daniel Jacobson for ation of the political implications of tragedy that Koziak
drawing my attention to this passage. wishes to highlight in her reading of Iphigenia.
18. Paul Woodruff, "Engaging Emotion in Theatre: A 36. A further piece of evidence for this conclusion
Brechtian Model in Theater History," The Monist 71 comes from considering Aristotle's remarks on the
(1988): 235-257. Woodruffs study of Brecht has been Chorus. Aristotle does not address as significant the
very valuable for aiding my understanding of Brecht's thought of the Chorus at all. Instead, when he does dis-
theory. cuss the Chorus, he considers it only under the heading
19. Willett, ed., Brecht on Theatre, pp. 19,28, and 182. "musical composition," which he says is "the greatest of
the sensuous attractions" (1450b16). See Gerald F. Else, 48. "For Aristotle, pity and fear will be sources of il-
Aristotle's Poetics: The Argument (University of Michi- lumination or clarification, as the agent, responding and
gan Press, 1978), pp. 105-106. attending to his or her responses, develops a richer
37. Willett, ed., Brecht on Theatre, p. 128. self-understanding, concerning the attachments and val-
38. Ibid., pp. 193-194. ues that support these responses," Nussbaum, The Fra-
39. Thanks to Daniel Jacobson for stressing that I gility of Goodness, p. 388.
need to separate these two different aspects of critical 49. Willett, ed., Brecht on Theatre, p. 101. Quoted by
thinking in Brecht. Carl Plantinga, "Notes on Spectator Emotion and Ideo-
40. Willett, ed., Brecht on Theater, p. 37. logical Film Criticism," in Smith and Allen, eds., Film
41. Here it might be said that Aristotle's criteria for Theory and Philosophy, p. 374.
plots are based on his assessment of what sorts of char- 50. I owe this objection to Daniel Jacobson.
acters and situations the Greek audience would, as a 51. Willett, ed., Brecht on Theatre, p. 227.
matter of fact, find pitiable. As Bernard Knox has dis- 52. Ibid.
cussed, however, ancient Greek audiences could find 53. See the exchange between Friedrich Wolf and
Medea worthy of pity and admiration. See his "The Brecht on this point. Ibid., pp. 228-229.
Medea of Euripides," in Word and Action: Essays on the 54. Of all the objections Murray Smith poses to
Ancient Theater (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), Brecht, this is the most intriguing. Murray Smith, "The
pp. 295-322. So in ranking plots and characters, Aris- Logic and Legacy of Brechtianism," in Bordwell and
totle must be outlining what sorts of situations and char- Carroll, eds., Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies,
acters the audience should find worthy of pity. p. 139.
42. Here I have in mind in particular Aristotle's dis- 55. Thanks to the suggestion by an anonymous reader
cussion in Nichomachaen Ethics I of the necessity of ex- that I elaborate on this distinction.
ternal goods for the active development and mainte- 56. Noel Carroll, "Film, Rhetoric and Ideology," in his
nance of virtue, and his stress in the Politics on the Theorizing the Moving Image (Cambridge: Cambridge
importance of community for moral development and University Press, 1996), pp. 275-289.
human flourishing. 57. This approach is called "reading against the
43. For a discussion of this point, see Freeland, "Plot grain" and is a dominant trend in film studies. See, for
Imitates Action," in Rorty, ed., Essays on Aristotle's example, bell hooks, "The Oppositional Gaze: Black Fe-
Poetics. male Spectators," in Black American Cinema, ed.
44. "Now it is possible for the fearful or pathetic ef- Manthia Diawara (New York: Routledge, 1993), pp.
fect to come from the actor's appearance, but it is also 288-302. While this approach is valuable, its adoption
possible for it to arise from the very structure of the can also lead critics to ignore the ways in which formal
events, and this is closer to the mark and characteristic and contextual elements are both important in produc-
of a better poet. Namely the plot must be so structured, ing an interpretation of a work.
even without benefit of any visual effect, that the one 58. I believe that Brecht's criticisms of Aristotelian
who is hearing the events unroll shudders with fear and aesthetics can also be brought to bear to show that cur-
pity at what happens: which is what one would experi- rent discussions of the cognitive value of art and film
ence on hearing the plot of the Oedipus" (1453bl). frequently omit consideration of the role of critical
45. Willett, ed., Brecht on Theatre, pp. 37-38. thinking in aesthetic response, but this is the subject for
46. For the assertion of the stronger thesis, see another discussion.
Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness, pp. 378-390; for 59. For the presentation of a feminist aesthetic frame-
the weaker thesis, see Andrew Ford, "Katharsis: The work for reading ancient Greek tragedy that combines
Ancient Problem," in Performativity and Performance, aspects of Aristotle's and Brecht's aesthetics, see my
ed. Andrew Parker and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (New "Feminism and the Narrative Structures of the Poetics,"
York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 109-132. in Freeland, ed., Feminist Interpretations of Aristotle, pp.
47. For this account of Aristotle's Poetics, see 289-326.
Freeland, "Plot Imitates Action," in Rorty, ed., Essays
on Aristotle's Poetics.

Brecht's Criticisms of Aristotle's Aesthetics of Tragedy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brecht's Criticisms of Aristotle's Aesthetics of Tragedy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brecht's Criticisms of Aristotle's Aesthetics of Tragedy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brecht's Criticisms of Aristotle's Aesthetics of Tragedy

Author(s): Angela Curran

Brecht's Criticisms of Aristotle's Aesthetics of

The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59:2 Spring 2001

You might also like