Theatre of the Oppressed Section 3

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal

© 1974 © 1979 English Translation

Translation by Charles A. & Maria-Odilia Leal McBride

Section 3: Hegel and Brecht: The Character as Subject or the Character as Object?

            This section of Theatre of the Oppressed provides details of the differences of Hegel’s rationale of theater and Bertold Brecht’s position on theater as a catalyst for societal change.  Boal offers connections to what he has already presented as groundwork to lead to his analysis of how theater can function as a tool of liberation.

The “Epic” Concept

            The concept of something being epic traditionally follows an Aristotelian notion that through verse, epic includes duration of the action and imitates the exploits of characters of a superior type.  Hegel expands this belief and determines that epic is means to an end.  Theater will take spectators to that end because the “spirit is liberated from matter” (p. 84).  Theater is a truly cathartic medium.

            Brecht, on the other hand, considers epic as a contraposition to Hegel’s view in that theater is not cathartic and should not provide resolution.  Theater should present a means to inspire revolution and change within society.  

Types of Poetry in Hegel; Characteristics of Dramatic Poetry; Freedom of the Character-Subject

            In the next three sub-sections of his work, Boal details the specifics of Hegel’s theories of epic poetry as the basis for theater.  For Hegel, epic poetry presents a complete world in which action attains the form of objective which then creates an event.  The facts of such events are the main focus of the presentation of the material, with subjectivity being minimized.

            Lyric poetry, according to Hegel, is contrary to epic poetry in that it is subjective and dwells within ourselves.  It contains the emotional life of soul and supports “self-expression as its unique and indeed final end” (p. 87).

            Dramatic poetry is a combination of epic (objective) and lyric (subjective) nature, and presents its action in the moment the spectators witness it.  The action of epic poetry is recalling the past for the audience, where dramatic poetry transports the audience to the time and place of the action in order for the reliving of that action.  Because of this realization of dramatic poetry, the character, according to Hegel, is the complete subject of his actions.

            Boal continues by describing Hegel’s belief that for a character to be a subject, he must be truly free, with no limitations placed upon his actions.  There are three clarifications describing this theme of freedom:

1.      Animals are entirely reliant on their environment and are therefore not free. Man is not free in so much as he is an animal.  For man to exercise his freedom, he must overcome external limitations and this creates good material for drama.

2.      Members of a highly civilized society do not make good dramatic characters in that they are not free.  They are encumbered by many types of laws, customs, and traditions that do not allow them to express their freedom.

3.      Freedom is not a concept only in the physical sense, but also in the emotional realm of human behavior.

These types of characteristics are important in the creation of dramatic work in that the freedom of the character should demonstrate universal, rational, and significant events for human life.  Dramatic poetry should utilize concrete realities not abstract concepts, because theater deals with individuals and universalities.  Because of this, the “individual will of a character is the concretion of a moral value or of an ethical option” (p. 91).  Lastly, Boal reports that according to Hegel, for true tragedy to occur, the outcome pursued by the characters must be irreconcilable, otherwise the work is not tragedy but only a drama.

A Word Poorly Chosen; Does Thought Determine Being (or Vice Versa)?; Conflict of Wills of Contradiction of Needs?

            Bertolt Brecht regards theater in a very different context.  He sees character as the object that responds to social or economic forces rather than a subject guided by internal actions.  For Hegel, the subjectivity of theater produces the objectivity.  For Brecht, it is the opposite.

            Brecht’s poetics are squarely Marxist.  Boal states that for Marxist poetics (his term for Brecht’s position), social being conditions social thought, thus a “character’s social relations create the dramatic action” (p. 93).  Brecht’s work reflects this in that some of his writings are lyrical, some epic, and some dramatic.  Boal provides a listing of the differences (p. 95) of Brecht’s work and that of idealistic poetics.  Some of those differences include:

v     Thought determines being. (Idealistic) Social being determines thought. (Marxist)

v     The conflict of free will compels the dramatic action. (Idealistic)  Contradictions

of economic, social, or political forces propel the dramatic action. (Marxist)

v     Emotion. (Idealistic) Reason (Marxist)

v     At the end catharsis satisfies the spectator. (Idealistic) With knowledge gained, the spectator is driven to action. (Marxist)

v     Arousal of feelings. (Idealistic)  Demands decisions and action. (Marxist)

Boal continues with some examples of Brecht’s work which support his position on how and why characters behave the way they do.  He offers that due to the fact that people (thus characters) are social beings, they determine social thought.  Boal also submits that Hegel insists that conflict is a necessity of a moral nature, whereas Brecht states conflict is a social or economic obligation.  Brecht does not mean to say that an individual will not ever intervene in a situation, only that they are “never the determining factor of the fundamental dramatic action” (p. 101).

Empathy or What? Emotion or Reason?

            For Aristotle, empathy is the emotional relationship between characters and audience.  Through this relationship, the spectator can experience, vicariously, events which otherwise may be overwhelming.  With this connection, theater becomes a cathartic endeavor for the audience.

            Brecht, on the other hand, views the emotional connection as a means to offer understanding of the dianoia—the character’s thoughts and the spectator’s thoughts.  From this position, theater can assist in interpreting the world and exercise its responsibility of showing how the world can be transformed, thus provoking spectators to act.  What Brecht does not want is for “spectators to continue to leave their brains with their hats upon entering the theater” (p. 104).

Catharsis and Repose, or Knowledge and Action?

            Boal asserts that both Aristotle and Hegel see theater as a system that creates tumult from human passions and actions.  The process of pacifying the conflict created on stage purges the tragic flaw and equilibrium is re-established.  Brecht, however, views theater as a Marxist and therefore cannot agree that a work should end in repose.  It must demonstrate how society loses its equilibrium and how to quicken the transition.

            Brecht maintains that the actors must move from their “downtown stages” and venture into the neighborhoods where the people who can and are interested in changing society are.  Actors should exhibit images of social life that must be changed and provoke spectators to not accept repose but to act.  The belief is that once the information becomes knowledge, action for change can occur.