MacarenaAndrewsBarrazaPerfomer,DramaturgeandPlaywright

www.dramaturgistadelcuerpo.blogspot.com

Catharsis, a dramaturgical tool to construct a new

frameinsocialpolitics

Thepresentcriticalessayhastheintentiontodiscussthemeaningandpurpose

of the concept of catharsis, in the works of Aristotle, and Bertolt Brecht.

Therefore this paper has the aim to establish catharsis as a political tool to

construct the internal vision of a nation or culture by using the audience

engagementinthedramaticform.

UnderthisoutlineIwillreviewAristotle’sperspectiveonemotionsandhismoral

vision of the politics, and the aesthetical perspective in Brecht’s artistic

developmentofEpicTheatre.

AristotleandCatharsis

PHAEDRA:Manyatimeinnight’slongemptyspaces

Ihaveponderedonthecausesofalife’sshipwreck.

Ithinkthatourlivesareworsethanthemind’squality

wouldwarrant.Therearemanywhoknowvirtue.

Weknowthegood,weapprehenditclearly.

Butwecan’tbringittoachievement.(…)i

InordertovaluetheconceptofcatharsisestablishedbyAristotleinhisPoetics,it

isnecessarytodeveloptheideaofwhatheunderstoodasthemainambitionof

artandhowhevisualizedtheinternaldramaturgyoftragedy.Inconsequencewe

willbeabletorecognizewhichwastheimportanceofarousingemotionsinthe

culturalandpoliticalframeofGreeksociety.

Aristotle’sreferstocatharsiswhenheestablishes:“Tragedyistheimitationofan

actionwhichisserious,completeandsubstantial.(…)Itisdrama(thatis,itshows

peopleperformingactions)andnotnarration.Byevokingpityandterroritbrings

aboutthepurgation(catharsis)ofthoseemotions.“ii

2

The possibility of understanding exactly what catharsis means seems to be

reasonablydifficultsinceAristotlehimselfdidnotofferadefinitionperseinhis

Poetics;whatweknowaboutcatharsis (purgation) is its finality,what itshould

produce,althoughuntilthispointitseemsuncertainwhatthemainreasontoset

catharsisastheultimatepurposeofawell‐constructedtragedywas.

According to Aristotle “art creates a merely simulacrum” of the ideal created

fromGod;andithasto“encouragetheemotionalresponse,farfromtherational

andconsideredstanceofgenuineseekeraftertruth.”iii

Therefore, for Aristotle the purpose of tragedy as amajor form of art was to

constructasimileofreality,whichwouldengagetheaudienceinadeepmoving

experience. According toW.W. Fortenbaugh in his bookAristotle on Emotion,

“Aristotle’s analysis of emotion made clear the relationship of emotion to

reasonedargumentation.Byconstructingthoughtorbeliefastheefficientcause

of emotion, Aristotle showed that emotional response is intelligent behaviour

opentoreasonedpersuasion.”iv

Hence, emotionswere an essential element of Aristotle’s vision of reason and

consequently of truth; especially those that he considered cognitive, that is

emotionswhichmadeconscioustheabilityofthinking:

OnceAristotle focusedon thecognitive sideofemotional responseand

madeclearthatanemotioncanbealteredbyargumentbecausebeliefs

can be altered in this way, it was possible to adopt a positive attitude

towardsemotionalappeal.v

In this sense, emotions were an effective manner to call for the audience’s

attention inorder toaccomplishan intelligent readingof the theatricalevents.

Aristotle’sresearchledhimtorealizetheimportanceofemotionalknowledgein

theperceptionofrealityandthefurthercomplexmentalprocessinspiredbyit.

3

Since,inAristotle’sperspective:“Theword‘reason’includesalltheeffectswhich

canbeproducedbylanguage:prooforrefutationofanargument,thearousalof

emotionslikepity,terror,angerandtheothers,thecapacitytoexaggerateand

understate.”vi

Ergo, Aristotle’s new perspective to confront the benefits of theatre and

fundamentally tragedy was extremely revolutionary; especially when we

consider the formal perspective introduced by Plato in the visualization of

theatre.PlatoasseveratedastrongcriticonGreekplaywrights“forplayingupon

feelings that are unintelligent and destructive of man’s reasoning capacity.”vii

Aristotle, who saw an important benefit in the emotional appeal with the

purpose of stimulating reflection, challenged Plato’s demeaning conception of

theatre.

Asaresult,thesingleemotionalstatususuallyattributedtocatharsis,opensnow

anewperspectiveofanalysis.Pityandterrorwerecognitiveemotionsselected

forveryparticularmotivesbyAristotle,with theaimtobuildaproper tragedy

and produce the final state of purgation. Regarding this aspect, Fortenbaugh

declares:“Tragedywasassociatedwithtwoemotionswhichwererecognisednot

only as intelligent and reasonable responses but also as important controls in

determiningthekindsofactionsdepictedintragicpoetry.”viii

Now,Ibelievedthatwecancomprehendbetterwhythefinalpurposeoftragedy

was anemotional one.WhenAristotle referred to theactionsof a tragedyas:

“serious,complete,andsubstantial”ix;hewasrequestinganemotionalessence,

thatpityandterrormustbringintothetragicscheme.Thisisthemainreasonfor

Aristotletodemandoftragediesnottoshow:

“avirtuousmanmovingfromgoodtobadfortune[which] is,according

[tohim],neitherfearfulnorpitiablebutrathershockingorrevoltinganda

vicious man changing from bad to good fortune appeals neither to

ordinaryhumansympathynortopityandfear.”x

4

Accordinglytothis,then,itisavalidinquirytoask:whatdidpityandterroroffer

from the Aristotle’s reasonable perception into the Greek tragedy? In

Fortenbaugh’sinterpretation,Aristotle’sanalysesaccomplishedtoperceivethat

“fear was shown to be not simply a shuddering but also and essentially an

expectationofdestructiveorpainfulevilandwhenpitywasreferrednotonlyto

the thoughtofunmerited sufferingbutalso toeducatedmenwhoalso reason

well(…).”xi

Once established the core purposes of fear and pity, it is translucent to

understandhowAristotleconsideredcatharsisasabasicelementofhis“theory

of benefit through purgation.”xii Then, the sensible person was the one who

managedtofeelempathyforhumanbeingsinvolvedinunfaireventsbecauseof

damaging energies. Thus, these individuals were educated through tragedy to

reinforceamoralperspective in theirworld‐vision,whichwas forAristotle the

definitivemethodtoconstructastrongpoliticsandthereforeabettersociety.

James Jerome Walsh in his text Aristotle’s Conception of Moral Weakness

declaresthatfortheGreekphilosopher:“themoralstrongmanhastherightrule

or reason but the wrong desires, and he conquers his desires.”xiii,

consequentially,headds:“(…)thedesiresofthetemperatemanaresuchthathe

is immune to temptation.”xiv Nevertheless, the moral person was not the

characterdepicted inGreektragedies,evenwhenitsheroes“shouldbepeople

ofhighdegreeandreputation.”xvFromAristotle’soutlook,themaincharactersin

tragediesusuallycommittedtheactof:

Harmatia (‘error’, which) is the failing in understanding of moral

characterwhich leads someone to disastrous choice of action: a choice

which arouses our pity because it is both catastrophic and made

deliberately but notoutofwickedness, and arousesour terror because

weidentifywithbothinnocenceandthehelplessnessofthepersonwho

makesthechoice.xvi

5

Thence,thedramaturgicalconfigurationoftheGreektragedywasnotconceived

toexposetheperfectionofamoralcharacter,but itwasenvisagedtoprovoke

the critical thinking regarding intricate human actions in order to awake the

desire of higher perfection in personal moral grounds. In consequence,

temperance was a virtue expected to be develop in each Greek individual in

order to built up a stronger moral community and society; which was

encouragedbytheeducative‐emotional‐reasonablestructureoftragedy.

Regarding themoral characterand thevirtue’saim involved in it, Fortenbaugh

settlesthatAristotlesays:

Asaperfectionofman’semotionalside,moralvirtuesmakescorrectthe

judgmentsandgoalsinvolvedinemotionalresponse.Acourageousman,

forexample,becomesfrightenedanddesiressafetyonlywhenit isright

todo so.When the situation calls for endurance, heperceives this and

respondsboldlybecauseitisnobletodoso.(…)Whatmoralvirtuedoes

notmakecorrectisthemeans‐enddeliberationoccasionedbyemotional

response.(…)Moralvirtuemakesthegoalcorrect,butitcannotmakethe

deliberationcorrect.xvii

Therefore, tragedy, as a simulacrum of reality, is composed to confront the

spectator with plausible circumstances, in order to arise purgation of those

emotions that may escort us into mistaken considerations of facts, which is

exactlywhenharmatiatakesplace.

InEuripides’tragediessuchasMedeaandHippolytus,wecanperceivehowboth

Phaedra and Medea suffer from the unreliable nature of their reasons. Their

goals ownmoral virtues, but their means are erroneous, since they have not

beenabletoeducatethemselvesintheperceptionofempathy.

FromwhatAristotleexplains intheEthicaNicomachea, this isduetothat:“for

eachpersonwhat iswished iswhat seems (good tohim);butdifferent things,

6

andindeedcontrarythings[couldbewishedfor], if itturnsoutthatway,[they

will]appeargoodtodifferentpeople.”xviii

Thisexpectationofmoralrealizationsubsequenttotheattendancetoatragedy

conformed an important part in the political vision of Aristotle for the Greek

society.Since,herecognizedtheconvoluteddispositionofwishingandtherefore

thethreatexistentinitforthewelfareofpeople.

According to Andrés Rosler in his text Political Authority and Obligation in

Aristotle:“Heismoreconcernedwiththecommunityasawholethanwiththe

fateofaparticularindividual.”xixInconsequence,thedevelopingofmoralvirtues

in each human being was a strong strategy to insurance the correct moral

attitude in the lawgiversand ineverycitizen to“enable themtoperformtheir

constitutionalroleaspolitical,legalandjudicialdecision‐makers.”xx

Hence, Rosler concludes: “he is far from assuming that subjects are faceless

pawnswithoutanyworthwhomtherulespushaboutonthechessboard.Onthe

contrary, on Aristotle’s view, the subjects are actors of their own political

drama.xxi

BertoltBrechtandAstonishment,ortheCatharsisofIdeas

PELAGEA VLASSOVA: Itwasn’t reason thatmademeweep. Butwhen I

stopped, reason had something to do with that. What Pavel did was

right.xxii

TheGermandirector,playwright,poet,anddramaturgeBertoltBrechthasbeen

deeplyrecognized in thetheatricalpractice forhis revolutionaryvisionofwhat

hasbeenknownastheEpicTheatre.Then,theEpicTheatrehasbeenbuiltupas

aconceptinpermanentoppositionwiththetheatricalconceptiondevelopedby

Aristotle, in such a manner that a dialectical conversation between both

dramaturgeshasbeenascertainedfordecades.

7

Thisantagonismwas,aboveall,centredinBrecht’sattitudetorefusecatharsis:

“thepurgingofemotionsthroughidentificationwiththedestinywhichrulesthe

hero’slife.”xxiiiSince,heexpressedregarding“feelings[thatthey]areprivateand

limited.Againstthatthereasonisfairlycomprehensiveandtoberelied‐on.”xxiv

Therefore, from these initial statements,we can sense that Bertolt Brecht did

not recognize the cognitive capacity of emotions related with reason that

Aristotleattributed to them,and thathewasconfident in thebenefitsofpure

materialistic reason in order to construct his dramaturgy and world political

conception.

Nevertheless, in order to start analyzing these provocative declarations in the

properartisticcontext,itisnecessarytocomprehendwhatBrechtunderstoodas

thepurposeofart.Topicthatheconfrontedwhenheasked:“Whyshouldn’tart

try, by its ownmeans of course, to further the great social task ofmastering

life?”xxv

‘Mastering life’ in Brecht’s conception had two different although

complementary implications: first, a philosophical one, since he believed that

wasthefutureoftheatre,andsecond,asocial‐politicalone,giventhathesaid:

“If any theatre is capableof goingaheadof itspublic insteadof runningafter,

thenitisatheatreoftheworkingclass.”xxvi

Thus, this social‐political‐philosophical task took the aesthetic and discursive

shape of the Epic Theatre, which he described as essentially dynamic, with a

pedagogical and entertainment objective, not interested in the ‘identification’

processof thespectatorwiththecharactersportrayedonthestageand, itdid

nothavecatharsisasthemainobjectofitsdramaturgy.xxvii

Consequently, if catharsis was rejected as the main goal of his dramaturgical

structure:whatwasthefinalstateofhistheatricalconstruction?Inthewordsof

WalterBenjamin,inhisbookUnderstandingBrecht:

8

The art of epic theatre consists in arousing astonishment rather than

empathy.Toputitasformula,insteadofidentifyingitselfwiththehero,

the audience is called upon to learn to be astonished at the

circumstanceswithwhichhehashisbeing.xxviii

Hence, thepurpose toproduce the stateof astonishment, forBrecht,was the

opportunity to start an intellectual dialogue between the spectator and the

conditions exposed on theatre. For this reason the level of shock that epic

theatrehadthemissiontoproduce in theaudiencecommencedan interesting

correspondencewiththeideaofcatharsisintheAristotelianview.

Catharsiswaspossible ifpityandterrorwererevealedbythesolidstructureof

tragedy. Accordingly Brecht spoke of two main concepts that helped in the

developmentofastonishment:VerfremdungandGestus.

Laura Bradley in her textBrecht and Political Theatre definesVerfremdung as

“‘estrangement’or ‘defamiliarization’”,which isan interestingconceptionsince

most of the times has been translated as ‘alienation’. In her opinion the

“Verfremdungseffekt(estrangementeffect)isthusanothermethodofprovoking

critical reflection andpromoting spectator to questionphenomenawhich they

usually take for granted. As such, it is an important tool for promoting critical

consciousness.”xxix

Thus, thisprocessofdetachment createdbyBrecht through theestrangement

effectwasmeanttoeducatethespectatorsregardingtheproperscientificnew

attitudedemandedbytheartist:

These spectators were prepared to mobilise their entire experience,

intelligenceandfightingspirit,toacknowledgeobjectivesandhandicaps,

tomakecomparisonsandobjections,andtocriticisetheconductofthe

characters or to generalise so as to apply it to their own situation and

learnfromit.xxx

9

InconsequenceBrechtdidnotexpectfromhisaudiencetofeelempathyforthe

events or the characters illustrated on the stage. He waited for them to

recognize thedistance, and therefore, tohave themental space to realize the

context and political frame of the social circumstances. According to this,

Benjaminsaid: “Epic theatre, then,doesnot reproduceconditions,but, rather,

revealsthem.Thisuncoveringofconditionsisbroughtaboutthroughtheprocess

beinginterrupted.”xxxi

Brecht stressed thepointofexposingconditions, sincehebelieved that“every

actcomesfromarealization.There’sreallynosuchthingasactingon impulse.

There again the intellect is lurking in the background.”xxxii In Bertolt Brecht’s

perspectivetherealpossibilityofchangeexistedonlyinthereasonableprocess

ofunderstandingwhyarewe in thesituation thatwe findourselves.Once the

conditions of a certain position came into acknowledge, people will have the

powertodecideandtransformthemselvesandtheirreality.

In order to expose the conditions for the rational understanding, Brechtmade

useoftheconceptGestus,whichisexplainedbyBenjamininthefollowingway:

Theepictheatreisgestural.(…)First,thegestureisfalsifiableonlyuptoa

point;infact,themoreinconspicuousandhabitualitis,themoredifficult

it is to falsify. Second, unlike people’s actions and endeavours, it has a

definablebeginninganddefinableend(…)Hence,the interruptionofan

actionisoneoftheprincipalconcernsoftheepictheatre.xxxiii

Therefore,Gestus is present in the performance of his plays as in the internal

configurationof thewrittentext.Thedetentionof thehumanactionsdepicted

on the stage allows the space to recognize the diverse stations that make

possiblethesocialcontext.

ForBrecht:“TheprincipleofEpicTheatre:[is]onethingafteranother.”xxxivAnd

this statement is set as the finalmethodologyof constructinganexperimental

10

world in the theatre piece. The pauses and detentions in his dramaturgy

intendedtomakethedistancenecessary torecognize thesteps in thepolitical

frame.Thence,timeandstructurewereprimaryelements intherecognitionof

factors in a historical perspective, since it was essential for the pedagogical

purposeinBrecht’sdramaturgy.

Brecht understands the world by cause and effects laws.xxxv The connections

established through history in our social‐political circumstances were

indispensable to awake in the spectator the feeling ofwatching something he

alreadyknewbutfromanewperspective.

For Bertolt Brecht: “There is a decision carried out and call for spectator

acquiescence.”xxxviThence,hisspectatorsafterattendinghisplayshadadecision

tomakeregardinghissocialsituation.Thisimperativeofbeingincontrolofyour

ownexistencewaspossiblebecauseoftheacknowledgmentacquiredduringthe

interpretation by Gestus and the distance to reflect delivered by the

estrangementeffect.Thistwofactorallowedtheaudiencetoenterinastateof

astonishmentandexperiencethecatharsisofideastochangetheworld.

Finalremarks

After analyzing the concept of catharsis in Aristotle and Brecht dramaturgical

vision of theatre. It seems evident that in the history ofwestern theatre. The

stateofenlightenstimulatedbycatharsishasbeenapermanentsearchfromthe

Greeksintothepresenttimes.

Theatre cannot avoid the dramatic motivation of catharsis; it is in its very

essencetofunctioninstructures,whichwillarousethespectatorintoadifferent

frameofreflection.InAristotle’sunderstandingthisarousinghadthepurposeto

assistthemoraleducationintheindividual,inordertobuildabettersociety.In

theotherhand,Brechtthoughtthathistheatreshouldarousetheideasandthe

mentalprocessofthinkingintheaudience.

11

Hus,itispossibletorealizethatAristotleandBrechtwerenotsodistanceinhis

dramaturgicalandpoliticalagendas.Intermsoftheobjectivespursued.Bothat

the endwanted a better world according to his conception. Aristotle amoral

world,andBrechtapolitical‐intelligentworld.

Therefore, we can conclude Catharsis has been a dramaturgical device to

accomplish political agendas in different periods across history. The

manipulationof the spectator both intellectual and emotional at the end; it is

oneofthebasicassesoftheatre.

Theatre because of its nature literally and performative encounters multiple

possibilities to reach the audience and educate them in different purpose.

Theatre,thus,itisopenscenerytodiscussthepolitical‐philosophicalimagethat

wevisualizeforoursociety.

Nevertheless,itisimportanttokeepinmind,norAristotleorBrechtwereableto

seehisvisionof theatrecompletely realized in theircontemporary’ssituations.

Aristotle saw moments of what he thought catharsis should do and how to

accomplishit.Brechtexperiencedsuccessfulinstantsinhisplays,wherehesaw

aspossibletoeducatethespectatos.

Although, Brecht in several occasions discussed the problematic situation of

people,whowerenotabletofollowtherightattitude,whentheyareinfrotof

andepictheatrepiece.Inthesameway,asAristotlesettledthatsometragedies

andsomemomentsonthemtrulyaccomplishedthemajorgoalsofthiselevated

formofart.

Aristotle and Brechtwere strong and lucid dramaturges; although the cultural

and theatrical environment were they put out their thoughts did not follow

completely theirartisticandpoliticalagendas.Onceagaintheconflictbetween

theory and practice in theatre has been present. It seems that the distance

betweenwhatwe think shoulddo theatreandwhat in factmakes is stilldeep

12

andcryptic.Perhapsnotallthetheatrepractitionersareabletonoticethemajor

power existent in the theatrical structure, which can be use to discuss and

approachtopeoplethatmaketheworldgo.

i Euripides. Cited by James Jerome Walsh, Aristotle’s Conception of Moral Weakness(UnitedStatesofAmerica:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1963)16‐17.iiAristotle.Translatedand introducedbyKennethMcLeish,Poetics. (London:DramaticContexts.NHB,2008)9.iiiMcLeish,vii.ivW.W.Fortenbaugh,AristotleonEmotion(GreatBritain:Duckworth,2002)17.vFortenbaugh,18.viMcLeish,27.viiFortenbaugh,18.viiiFortenbaugh,19.ixMcLeish,9.xFortenbaugh,19‐20.xiFortenbaugh,19.xii Fortenbaugh,18. It seems relevant toadd to theconceptof cognitiveemotions thefollowing quote: “Perhaps we can say that Aristotle understood the way in whichemotionalresponsevariesaccordingtobodilyconditionandusedthisunderstandingtodevelopahomoeopathictheoryofpurgation. Inwatchingandrespondingtoatragedythespectatorisnotonlystimulatedintellectually.Heisalsopurgedinsofarashisbodilycondition is altered. He undergoes a quasi‐medical treatment which improves hisdispositioninregardtotheeverydayemotionsoffearandpity.(22)xiiiWalsh,92‐93.xivWalsh,93.xvMcLeish,17.xviMcLeish,17.xviiFortenbaugh,75‐76.xviii AndrésRosler,PoliticalAuthority andObligation inAristotle (United States:OxfordUniversityPress,2005)24.xixRosler,13.xxRosler,18.xxiRosler,18.xxiiBertoltBrecht.CitedbyJohnWilletandRalphManheim.BertoltBrecht:Plays,PoetryandProse.TheCollectedPlaysVolumeIIIPartII(London:EyreMethuen,1997)140.xxiiiWalterBenjamin,UnderstandingBrecht(London:Verso,1998)18.xxiv Bertolt Brecht. Edited and Translated by John Willet, Brecht on Theatre. Thedevelopmentofanaesthetic(GreatBritain:MethuenDrama,1964)15.xxvWillet,Brechtontheatre,96.xxviWillet,Brechtontheatre,81.xxviiWillet,Brechtontheatre.

13

xxviiiBenjamin,18.xxixLauraBradley,BrechtandPoliticalTheatre:TheMotheronStage(UnitedStates:OxfordUniversityPress,2006)6‐7.xxxWillet,BertoltBrecht:Plays,PoetryandProse,244.xxxiBenjamin,4‐5.xxxiiWillet,16.xxxiiiBenjamin,3.xxxivBertoltBrecht.EditedbyJohnWilletandRalphManheim,BertoltBrecht.CollectedPlays.Volume5PartII(London:EyreMethuen,1980)107.35Willet,Brechtontheatre.36Willet,Brechtontheatre,28.

14

Bibliography

Benjamin,Walter.UnderstandingBrecht.London:Verso,1998.

Bradley,Laura.BrechtandPoliticalTheatre:TheMotheronStage.UnitedStates:

OxfordUniversityPress,2006.

Brecht,Bertolt.EditedbyJohnWilletandRalphManheim.BertoltBrecht:Plays,

PoetryandProse.TheCollectedPlaysVolumeIIIPartII.London:EyreMethuen,

1997.

Brecht,Bertolt.EditedbyJohnWilletandRalphManheim.BertoltBrecht.

CollectedPlays.Volume5PartII.London:EyreMethuen,1980.

Brecht,Bertolt.EditedandTranslatedbyJohnWillet.BrechtonTheatre.The

developmentofanaesthetic.GreatBritain:MethuenDrama,1964.

FortenbaughW.W.AristotleonEmotion.GreatBritain:Duckworth,2002.

Rosler,Andrés.PoliticalAuthorityandObligationinAristotle.UnitedStates:

OxfordUniversityPress,2005.

Walsh,JamesJerome.Aristotle’sConceptionofMoralWeakness.UnitedStates

ofAmerica:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1963.