llow the spectator to criticize [a situation] constructively from a social point of view" (Brecht, Street 91). Elsewhere, Brecht continues,
There are writers who simply set down what happened. I'm one
of them. My material is intelligible; I don't first have to
make it so. There are other writers who not only put down
what happened but give a theoretical explanation as a
separate element. And then there is a third way of going
about things, which aims at the mutual fusion of live
material and conceptual analysis. To my mind only the first
approach suits the dramatic form. . . . The production has
got to bring out the material incidents in a perfectly sober
and matter of fact way. Nowadays the play's meaning is
usually blurred by the fact that the actor plays to the
audience's hearts. The figures portrayed are foisted on the
audience and are falsified in the process. Contrary to
present custom they ought to be presented quite coldly,
classically and objectively. For they are not matter for
empathy; they are there to be understood. Feelings are
private and limited. Against that the reason is fairly
comprehensive and to be relied on. . . . Even when a
character behaves by contradictions that's only because
nobody can be identically the same at two unidentical
moments. Changes in his exterior continually lead to an
inner reshuffling. The continuity of the ego is a myth. A
man is an atom that perpetually breaks up and forms anew. We
have to show things as they are. . . . And the confusion
itself only exists because our head is an imperfect
instrument. What's beyond it we call the irrational (Brecht,
The device of unending alienation, breaking apart, resolution, allows Brecht to exploit the power of the dialectic, in which the basi...