technology. And if theatre doesn’t explore and represent those relations,
then it risks becoming obsolete or irrelevant.^52
The notions of the‘scientific’theatre and the‘epic’theatre thus point
us in the direction of different features of Brechtian practice. His theatre
is‘epic’in the sense that actors, to some degree, are‘telling’the story, not
being the story; thus spectators (Brecht suggests) are less likely to get
caught up in the action and go under the spell of the theatre. His theatre
is scientific in relation to his political philosophy (the Marxist science of
human relations) and his aesthetic practice (making use of technology).
The use of technology in the scientific theatre is meant to count against
another of the objectionable features of the Aristotelian drama: namely,
the reduction of complex social situations to simple, individual, emo-
tional conflicts. By reminding the audience of new scientific facts, and
also reminding them that so much scientific progress has been made,
Brecht tries to prevent them from coming to universal (and false) con-
clusions about what it is to be human. Finally, of course, by commu-
nicating certain Marxist ideas to the spectators–notably about labour
relations in capitalist societies–Brecht opens the way for the spectators
to criticise what they see and suffer from outside the theatre, instead of
passively accepting it as part of the human condition into which they
have (via empathy) been drawn.^53
In examining the implications of Brecht’s terms–the epic theatre and
the theatre for the scientific age–we have seen how he tries to challenge
what he takes to be the objectionable features of the Aristotelian drama.
Brecht’s theatre (in theory, at least) does not reduce complex social sce-
narios to simplistic emotional conflict; it does not claim to communicate
universal truths for all people at all time; it does not rely on empathy; it
does not require a passive, respectful audience, half-dreaming under the
spell of illusion.
Challenges to Brecht
Many of the claims that Brecht makes about the effects of Aristotelian
versus epic theatre are open to debate. I have already highlighted one area
of concern for Brecht’s view: namely, the way he wants to connect
empathy with the resigned acceptance of universal truths. There doesn’t
seem to be a strong enough link established between feeling what a certain
character feels and concluding, in resignation, that what is happening to
her is inevitable and a necessary feature of human existence. Theflip-side
of this criticism relates to Brecht’s own work: if it’s not the empathy that
leads to uncritical acceptance of supposed universal truths, then why
think that, by blocking empathy, the epic theatre will make its audiences
more critical? Indeed, a common and not unreasonable criticism of Brecht
186 From the Stage to the World