Chapter 1

Brecht’s Learning Plays

Bertolt Brecht’s use of the term Lehrstück or “learning play” was originally coined in the July 1929 production of “Das Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis”. This performance, conceived by Brecht and put to music by Paul Hindemith, was the impetus behind an original theatrical genre. It marked the initiatory phase of some of Brecht’s most famous works. The phrase Lehrstück is identifiable as a means of directly involving the listening audience with the on-stage performance.[1] Brecht stresses the importance of theater forming a union with its spectators as well as providing educational entertainment. His learning plays were intended primarily for younger theatergoers and were also meant to be performed within schools. This attitude of combining audience and actor stands apart from his later “Alienation” techniques where he used devices to remind the audience that they were in a theater and that the action on stage was not real-life.[2] However, Brecht further states that a theater “without contact to the public is nonsense” (ein Theater “ohne Kontakt mit dem Publikum ist ein Nonsens”).[3] In effect, Brecht’s learning plays were intended to both draw the audience in as a means of instruction while reminding them the action on stage was artificial. Those works of Brecht’s categorized as “learning plays” were written from the late 1920s until the early 1930s.

Brecht’s focus on instruction by means of stage and radio encouraged a socialization and democratization of theater and music.[4] The term Lehrstück has since expanded to a variety of meanings and genre descriptions, encompassing political and economic events to pedagogical discourses.[5] The word Lehrstück is perhaps more closely linked to Brecht than any other term, outside of his famous Verfremdungs Effekte. Throughout his life he remained active in staging various theatrical performances and in educating the populace by means of stage, even more so with his own theater, the Berliner Ensemble, upon his return to Germany after the Second World War.

To better understand how the cooperative nature of open source is analogous to the plays Brecht wrote during the later 1920s and the early 1930s before his exile, we must first examine how Brecht intended to use those plays that are classified as Lehrstücke, while examining those attributes that typify learning plays and what they meant to the theater of his time. This chapter’s primary focus then is to consider how theater, particularly Brecht’s Lehrstücke, serves a didactical function. Brecht’s use of new technologies such as radio and cinema within his plays are characteristic components of his Lehrstücke. This chapter briefly examines those plays categorized by Jan Knopf as “learning plays”[6] and the history behind each. It also looks at Brecht’s pedagogical intention for these theatrical works and how they were meant to instruct. It examines how Brecht’s ideology and use of experimental techniques for pedagogical purposes have resurfaced and found similar functions today. It next considers how elements of his experimental works relate to current trends in open source computing. The emergence of open source software as a powerful new educational and collaborative format can be seen as a resurgence of Brechtian didactics. It can even be said that open source software today has similarities to Brecht’s own literary and pedagogical efforts. Both exploit collaborative ideas to enhance their own works. The input Brecht received from his fellow writers, actors and even audience members, for example, all went back into the development and performance of each piece. Both Brecht’s Lehrstücke and open source software utilize feedback from contributing co-authors to enhance the content and make it more attractive to viewers and users.

The History of Brecht’s Lehrstücke

The era of Brecht’s early pedagogical theater, which includes his Lehrstücke, begins in 1928 and lasts until the end of 1932. When the National Socialists came to power in 1933, Brecht went into voluntary exile where he spent the next 15 years writing works for post-War production and preparing for his eventual return to Germany. During these early years and before his exile many of the political and social crises of his day served as impetus for many of his works. Fellow artists Hanns Eisler, Paul Hindemith, and Kurt Weill, with whom Brecht would collaborate on several of his Lehrstücke, used theater and music as vehicles to motivate the population to political activity. Schools, workers’ organizations and political parties became the most receptive arenas for Brecht’s learning plays while he continued to write other works intended for major theatrical productions.[7]

According to Frederic Ewen, these “didactic plays” of Brecht’s were coupled with the new musical fusion of Lutheran chorales, popular folksongs and jazz by Kurt Weill which grew out of the political unrest and financial turmoil of the day. Their focus on the actors and actresses within the play as well as on the audience marked the beginning of a new stage in Brecht’s development.[8] The origins of the Lehrstück can be traced back to the Jesuit and humanist drama of instruction. The impetus behind the creation of this theatrical form came from the Neue Musik movement of Donaueschingen and Baden-Baden in 1929, where contributors sought “to build community sentiment through community performing activities”, theater being the most active means of participation.[9] Through theater Brecht and his collaborators aimed to awaken a “collective consciousness” and to motivate attendees to learn, or as Brecht put it, “lernend zu lehren” (“in learning, to teach”). In other words, Brecht’s aim was to make instruction and entertainment indistinguishable.[10]

It was during this period of writing that Brecht became aware of the Japanese Nō or Noh theater, a classical drama form once reserved for the elite. Elisabeth Hauptmann’s translations from the English versions were read by Brecht, who quickly identified with the methodology and established style of performance in these Japanese plays. The fact that Noh theater was originally intended for only upper class society did not hinder Brecht from restructuring it for the working class. The verbal and concise concrete imagery of these translations acted as a lifelong stimulus for Brecht’s later plays.[11] The absence of stage props and the stylized method of acting presented a unique instructional method. The connection between dance, performance and music were also significant in Brecht’s opinion, as was the way in which the Noh actor addressed the audience directly and was interrupted by the chorus in a ritualistic manner. Brecht interpreted these elements of acting as serving a distinct didactic function. He adopted this form of theatrical presentation as his own and supplanted the Buddhist ideology with a Marxist undertone.[12]

At the same time he incorporated into his productions many of the technological advances of his time and made them part of the theatrical work itself. This included the use of radio as a means of embellishing his works, through which he both distanced and captivated the audience. They were intended not to offer “pleasure” on account of the performers’ skills, but “instruction” based on the play’s content and form of presentation. The success of the Lehrstück was judged by the ability of the participants to become both active and reflective beings. Brecht sought to encourage the “collective practice of art”. He also saw the advent of film and visual projections as key factors to be incorporated within the stage performance. The advances in air flight, shipping and personal transportation were also crucial elements to Brecht’s vision. He used other distancing techniques that removed the audience from on-stage action, such as placards that described the scenes taking place during the presentation. In several of his stage productions he would flash pictures above the performers’ heads depicting corresponding scenes. These were intended to better explain the drama unfolding or present tangential references to related meanings.

Many of Brecht’s methods for distancing or separating the audience from the performance while also instructing them are evident in other fields of study. A common practice among software engineers is to “distance” the user from the actual code in software development. This is done by compiling the readable text into binary or machine language. This renders the original text to a cryptic format. This also ensures that commercial code remains secure and is not stolen by other vendors. Normally, the authors of commercial software do not share the actual code with other users and never with competitors. In other words, the programs simply work and no knowledge of the underlying format or code is required.

This practice among commercial vendors adheres partly to Brecht’s own ideals, to distance the viewers from the actual text or to remove any connection between the actor and the audience. This is similar to Brecht’s concept where all the “magic” is removed from a performance, or “daß Bühne und Zuschauerraum von allem “Magischen” gesäubert werden”.[13] All that is left is the plain performance or in the case of software, a sanitized computer application that simply functions. It is devoid of any mystical source code which is modifiable to suit. However, this is just a small portion of Brecht’s overall attitude since the performance itself should be directed at those in attendance, or in Brecht’s words, “Prinzipiell ist es für die Schauspieler unter diesen Ümständen möglich, sich direct an das Publikum zu wenden”.[14]

In contrast to Brecht’s alienation techniques and commercial programmers’ distancing of code from users, the open source community looks instead to embrace the average software user and draw them in as a contributing developer. They take an entirely “open” stance, that any user should be able to see, manipulate and modify all software code. By doing so, programmers better understand its use and can better implement related programs. More importantly, they become contributing members of the community.

Works in Progress

Brecht never considered his works fixed in stone, especially when it came to his learning plays. To him all staging and dialogue remained in a state of flux; he considered no theatrical work of his ever completely finished.[15] Brecht would often continue to rewrite the actors’ or actresses’ dialogue up until the day of the dress rehearsal. His rewrites of material included already published works and translations. On one occasion Brecht, in collaboration with Ferdinand Reyher, spent several weeks reworking the entire English version of Galileo. Charles Laughton, who had originally solicited the work, already considered this translation of the German play complete.[16] But, as was often the case with Brecht, by asking another’s opinion he opened himself to revisiting the finalized work and redoing what was considered complete. More importantly, Brecht was open to the criticism and input of his performers, collaborators, and critics. Based on their critique he would sometimes rewrite entire portions of the play in order to better appeal to all involved. This was sometimes justified as better serving a didactical function.

Brecht’s play Der Jasager (The Yes-Sayer) from the spring of 1930 is a classic example of Brecht’s willingness to modify and even alter outright the final outcome of a play, particularly when it was a learning play. The learning was intended as much for the actors and for himself as it was for the audience. As was typical for this and Brecht’s other learning plays, the combination of recitation, singing and music were designed for instructional purposes. According to Jan Knopf, it was intended to create a new listening audience, or “den neuen Hörertypus darstellen, das heißt den Hörenden als Lernenden und Sich-Schulenden vorführen”.[17]

This particular play, like many of Brecht’s others, was based on a translation of a foreign work. In Der Jasager Brecht used a translation of the Japanese dramatic piece Taniko, or The Valley Hurling. Der Jasager was based on a translation of Elisabeth Hauptmann’s. His final ending became a source of debate and critique. When Brecht brought Der Jasager to the students of the Karl-Marx-Schule in Berlin-Neuköln he modified the play’s outcome to accommodate those involved in its production and presentation. Accounts of that incident have been well documented by Brecht scholars.[18] The students questioned whether the Opfertod or sacrificial death of the pupil was necessary and whether there could have been another solution to the problem, rather than have the boy sacrifice himself in accordance with the “Great Custom”. Some even vehemently opposed the final outcome of the play. In the issue of Brecht’s Versuche that includes the text of the play, he includes comments by the students themselves. One class was opposed to the play’s ending as the main character was too cold-blooded and they feared their school might be equated with the play, “…Das Stück ist night geeignet für unsere Schule, da der Lehrer des Spieles sehr kaltblütig ist und damit unsere Schule verglichen werden kann…”[19] Brecht modified the ending to appease the students and transformed the Jasager into the Der Jasager und Der Neinsager (The Yes-Sayer and the No-Sayer).

Though rarely performed together, Brecht requested both versions of the play with their alternative endings be performed mutually, hence the dual title.[20] According to Brecht, “Die zwei kleinen Stücke sollten womöglich nicht eins ohne das andere aufgeführt werden”. (“These two small plays should not be performed, if possible, the one without the other.”)[21] Brecht realized both versions of the original play were instructional as shown by the students’ contributions. The importance of participation and collaboration between actors and audience reverberates in many of Brecht’s works. He continues to use performer and co-author input to improve upon the text and execution of his works.

Examples of Learning Plays

Brecht’s first learning play was written in 1928-1929 and was inspired by Charles Lindbergh’s solo trans-Atlantic crossing. Brecht based his radio play on Lindbergh’s own account of his flight found in Wir Zwei. Im Flugzeug über den Atlantik, the German printing of Lindbergh’s book, which in 1927 provided the inspiration for Brecht’s radio presentation.[22] Originally, in 1928 Brecht referred to the name of the production as Der Lindberghflug (The Lindbergh Flight). The name was later changed to Der Flug der Lindberghs (The Flight of the Lindberghs) in his publication Versuche.[23] However, later printings of his Versuche show this title crossed out and replaced with the title of the play as we now know it, Der Ozeanflug. The plural form of the original title was adopted to underscore the communal nature of the accomplishment.

In the performance, the pilot or Flieger acknowledges the efforts of those who helped build his plane and credits them in his achievement. Brecht’s transition from Neue Sachlichkeit or “New Objectivity” to Socialism along with his fascination with new technology remains a common theme throughout this work. Brecht saw mankind’s triumph over the air as the symbolic union of man and machine in a grand, cooperative effort. The recognition awarded Charles Lindbergh was also not lost on Brecht. Throughout the play Brecht idealized Lindbergh as a champion of man’s collaboration with technology. Brecht later changed the name of the play to Der Ozeanflug when it was clear that Lindbergh’s political leanings were to the extreme right and were sympathetic to the Nazi movement. Brecht marked out all references to Charles Lindbergh in subsequent Versuche publications. Brecht’s purpose behind these changes was to emphasize mankind’s triumph over natural elements rather than singling out a lone individual and granting him more laudations.

Der Lindberghflug was performed at Baden-Baden with a score written by Paul Hindemith and Kurt Weill. The staging was a unique event in that technology played a central role and was a conduit through which various voices and characterizations acted. It was also a realization of Brecht’s own efforts to combine technology with art. In his thesis, “Kleines Organon für das Theater” Brecht expresses this same concept. “Es treffen sich aber Wissenschaft und Kunst darin, daß beide das Leben der Menschen zu erleichtern sind, die eine beschäftigt mit ihrem Unterhalt, die andere mit ihrer Unterhaltung”.[24] The presentation was also austere in its performance, much like the Noh drama with which Brecht had familiarized himself. The text and music were clear and concise. Chapter 2 expounds further upon this play and clarifies additional points as they refer to Brecht’s style of Lehrstück.

The next learning play Brecht wrote drew heavily upon the material of Der Ozeanflug. Das Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis resembled his previous piece, Der Ozeanflug, in that it also deals with men and technology, emphasizing the importance of the individual versus the collective. In this play, Brecht recounts what happens to four airmen, the Captain and three mechanics, who crash while attempting to cross the Atlantic. The question arises as to whether the community will save them or whether they will remain forgotten. According to Brecht, the final result is that “man does not help man” and the airmen accept the fatalistic nature of the outcome, even though the choruses call for those participating to rise above the situation and change the world. This aquiesence or acceptance of fate is a turning point in the play. Acknowledgement or Einverständnis of destiny becomes the precursor to an eventual transformation through active consenting and understanding.

Brecht’s willingness to modify his plays to suit his audience, as demonstrated by the play Der Jasager und Der Neinsager, is a further indication of Brecht’s continued interest in educating youth through the use of a “school opera” or Schuloper, as this work is also identified. The play Der Jasager relates the tale of a youth accompanying a teacher who is searching for counsel and medical aid to combat a plague. When the boy falls by the side, himself sick with the plague, he consents to be left behind, or to sacrifice himself according to the “Great Custom”. Similar to other learning plays, these works share a conviction of Einverständnis or acceptance of fate. Brecht turns these principles back on the audience to charge them with a desire to affect the final outcome. This is where the learning associated with the play happens. Brecht’s pedagogical intent manifests itself in the audience’s reaction and subsequent motivation.

Brecht uses this same motivational force to encourage passive audience participation in his next learning play, Die Maßnahme. This is perhaps Brecht’s most controversial production, which according to Frederic Ewen was also Brecht’s last play to deal with the problem of individual and community.[25] As was typically the case for Brecht, who built upon the success of previous works, his play Die Maßnahme also deals with the issue of humanity’s treatment of fellow men. Three party workers arrive in China and are working covertly to help forward the Communist effort. They embody the collective effort. The young comrade undermines their mission by attempting to start a rebellion. When he reveals his true identity by removing his mask, the others take the necessary measures to ensure the success of the movement, by eliminating the junior member, thus placing the interests of the party above those of the individual.

Brecht’s final production that falls under the learning play category is Die Ausnahme und die Regel. Brecht juxtaposes the worst characteristics of man against his most altruistic qualities by describing a merchant, accompanied by a native guide and laborer, racing across an Asian desert. While the merchant is deceptively cruel and arrogant, his laborer is unselfish and offers the merchant his own water when the supply runs short. The merchant kills him and is later exonerated by a judge who concludes that the accused acted in a justifiable manner. In this Lehrstück Brecht calls into question man’s inhumanity to man. Its message is to both instruct and warn.

Resolving Learning Plays with Open Source

This final play of Brecht’s and those before it exhibit uncanny similarities to the computer developer community today. Within a closed-source community and using a proprietary business model nearly everything is justified and motivated by financial rewards. Though software may be touted as being “freeware” or free (“as in beer”,[26] as coined by the open source advocate Richard M. Stallman), it is not “free” in its most true sense. “Free software” according to these advocates is a matter of liberty, not price. According to Richard Stallman, “free software is a matter of the users’ personal freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve (the code)”.[27] More precisely, Stallman refers to four kinds of freedom for software users; the freedom to run the program for any purpose, to study how a program works and adapt it to one’s needs, to redistribute copies to help others, and finally, to improve the program and release improvements to the public, so that the entire community benefits.[28]

These freedoms of access to the writings of others are similar preconditions Brecht insisted upon when he wrote his plays and which he stressed within his writings. Though he was not discussing software, his addressing of human issues is equally valid to this new genre of open source within the programming community. As Frederic Ewen remarked regarding Brecht’s drama Die Maßnahme, “is not the self-sacrifice of the individual in the name of the communal good or in the name of some great religious, social, political or ethical ideal taken for granted in our society and eulogized as a high ‘moral’ imperative?”[29] In an ideal society where self-interest is no longer the norm and all work is altruistic, then Brecht’s literary efforts would be accepted as the norm. However, that is not always the case. The self-centered man as depicted in Brecht’s play Baal, best represents the closed source business model where self-centered earnings and exploitation are commonplace. On the other hand, the open source community can possibly typify the learning plays of Brecht where selfless acts are intended for the educational enlightenment of those writing, using and taking part in the use of code.

Brecht’s purpose for introducing new theatrical formats by means of his Lehrstücke and through the later use of his Verfremdungs Effekte and was to neutralize the tendencies of regular theatrical productions, or those that try, in his words, “das Publikum in Trance zu versetzen und ihm die Illusion zu geben, es wohne einem natürlichen, uneinstudierten Vorgang bei”.[30] Rather than actually attempting to educate the audience or awaken their senses to something new, theaters were considered purely an entertainment industry. They used traditional and well-liked plays to ensure continued attendance. The state of apathy induced in the theater consumer guarantees more revenue to the production company.

A similar approach is used in the computer software field through the marketing of substandard products. They appear useful and a good value, but due to proprietary restrictions only lock the consumer into a financial and support dependency, forcing them to pay ever increasing costs for upgrades. To share the source or cause the consumer to think otherwise would break down the barriers imposed on them. Much like Brecht’s attempts to remove the so-called “fourth wall”, open source opens consumers’ eyes to new possibilities and opportunities for enhancing a product. Once a developer has viewed the source and knows its inherent flaws and failings, he or she can then customize the code to his or her satisfaction. All former illusions regarding the usefulness or inherent need of a software product are also removed. As Brecht states, “Die Vorstellung von einer vierten Wand, die fiktiv die Bühne gegen das Publikum abschließt, wodurch die Illusion entsteht, der Bühnenvorgang finde in der Wirklichkeit, ohne Publikum statt, muß natürlich fallen gelassen werden”.[31] In other words, more interaction between the actors and the audience is required to modify and remake the theatrical performance. The same applies to developers and audience members who must bridge their own divide and jointly improve their product without limitations.

The tactic of subverting user confidence in order to sell a manufactured good or idea is not a new one. Theaters in Brecht’s day catered to the skills of their performers and their inherent entertainment value. This appeal is also applicable to software marketing. Any proprietary business, company or distributor using closed-source software has a hidden agenda. If the company can get enough people “hooked” on their product or software program, they end up paying for needed upgrades or security patches. Eric S. Raymond originally referred to this model as “giving out the razor, selling the blades”, but later modified it to read, “giving away the recipe, opening the restaurant”.[32] This means that by giving away the code and encouraging its use, consumers are reliant upon any future releases or contributing versions. The inherent “value” of the product makes the consumer dependent on the company for future upgrades. Manufacturers expect users to become so reliant on the product that they are willing to pay the cost to meet expected and promised performance increases. In other words, the price a consumer will pay for commercial software is based on the “expected future value of vendor service”.[33] This service includes software updates, enhancements, security patches and access to future products. When the manufacturer’s ability to create these services or meet expectations diminishes, no matter how good the product, the expected value also weakens. Consumers are locked into a vicious cycle with vendors. Because businesses are inherently exploitative of consumers and attempt to extract as much from the customer in as short a time as possible, they sell as much of their product at an inflated rate before customer expectation fades. The consumer, likewise, wants only to extract as much perceived use out of the product before he or she is forced to upgrade or re-purchase, yet again.[34]

This same relationship between manufacturers and consumers is exactly what developers in the open source community want to avoid. The spirit of cooperation is a higher ideal since in the long run each participant stands only to gain from the efforts of all others, including him or herself. Open source developers want only to bring the consumers into their circle of use and allow them voice in what should and should not be made part of the developing process. Brecht’s ideology shared a similar view, in that the actors and actresses also could and ought to provide input to the performance.

Even in the open source community and among proponents of open software greed and avarice take their toll. One case in point is the recent legal action taken by former Linux developer, SCO (Santa Cruz Operations), against software giant IBM. The former claims that code it owned was incorporated into the Linux kernel or core system now being distributed openly by IBM in their software releases. SCO’s demand for financial compensation from every business using Linux even down to the individual user has been met with strong opposition on all sides. The fact that SCO is unwilling to openly show the offending code it states is being used without proper licensing casts further doubt on the validity of their claims. The open source community meanwhile demands proof of SCO’s accusations and are more than willing to remove any copyrighted code it can prove exists. This, however, would invalidate all of SCO’s assertions and all basis for further litigation. The fact that SCO had once marketed and sold the very programs against which they now take issue further nullifies any legal precedent they may have had.

How this battle between the closed and open source communities plays out can be considered a modern variation on Brecht’s own use of other literary works and the continued favor shown his plays while the originals have been lost in time or fallen into disfavor. Similar to the merchant in Brecht’s Die Ausnahme und die Regel who killed his servant for water in a fit of selfish mistrust, SCO is looking to kill off the very component that once supported it, namely open source itself. Their hope to be exonerated in court is much like the merchant’s own testimony that it was the nature of the man to have wanted to kill him first. Likewise, the entire open source community is waiting the outcome of pending litigation in the hopes that they do not suffer the same loss as that of the merchant’s servant.