is precisely that his plays don’t offer much to stimulate critical thought
and action in response to the problems presented. There are other ele-
ments of his theory that might lie open to challenge: even supposing
empathy were the problem, do we agree that empathy is blocked by the
epic mode? Epics (and their modern counterparts, novels) often give rise
to empathetic responses, so there’s no special reason to think that epic
theatre should prevent empathy. It’s clear, for example, that the rhapsodes
(the reciters of epics) could get their audiences caught up in the action,
doing much of what Brecht seems to want to avoid.^54
Many of the concerns that were discussed in relation to theatre and
politics in general also relate, of course, to Brecht’s views. Unsurprisingly,
he was frequently criticised for didacticism, for using art to communicate
political messages rather than for other, supposedly more lofty ends. His
response came partly from his philosophical views and partly from his views
about art. First of all, he argued, as many politically active artists have
argued, that supposedly‘apolitical’art is, in fact, conservative art. Brecht
never lost sight of the fact that, as we have said, a theatrical performance
is already a political event of some kind. When a group of people are
gathered together, focusing their attention, listening and thinking,
those in charge of what they see and hear (the playwright and company)
are already making a political decision. If they choose not to make an
overt political statement, then this opting-out is a form of conservatism.^55
Second, Brecht sought to defend himself against the claim that didactic
theatre is inferior because it is less entertaining. This is a claim one still hears
today, not always without reason. Again, Brecht’s defence appealed to his
Marxism. The choice between either learning something or enjoying
yourself–the idea that it was strictly one or the other–was, he thought,
a product of a capitalist attitude to education. According to this attitude,
one learns enough to compete on the market; but, once on the market,
learning has a negative association, because needing to learn is equivalent to
not being a competitive product. Compare the company that boasts that its
forthcoming product will have new and exciting safety features with the
company that recalls its current product for safety updates.
This leads us, of course, to a more pressing and central charge: namely,
that many of the Marxist assumptions behind Brecht’s writings have been
shown to be false. There is no doubt that this is the case–at least, by any
reasonable standard. For not only was Brecht a Marxist; his Marxism was
of a particularly utopian kind; his faith in a glorious time soon to come
for the emancipated workers (especially one beginning with the Bolshevik
Revolution) is often enough a cause for embarrassment to the modern
reader, as well as nostalgia for a time when such views were not confined
to a dwindling, fanatic minority. Indeed, Brecht’s views were attacked by
contemporary Marxists at least as vehemently as by non-Marxists.
Collective action 187