Chapter 7

WHAT lies Ahead

Summary

Those plays of Brecht’s that are produced today are in a constant revision and reinterpretation process, particularly in regards to the ideology and methodology of theatrical performances. It can be conjectured that the pedagogical processes that so typify Brecht’s works will be revisited in many different forms over the course of the next few years. While the basic format and text of Brecht’s plays may remain the same, the underlying theme and how they are altered to fit the climate and culture of the people producing the play continues to change.

Open source software is also undergoing constant change. Original ideas are put forth daily by users, new projects develop while more mature applications are folded into the ever growing mix of open software. Meanwhile, the community finds itself under attack by opponents seeking to stifle the creativity and economic growth of the Linux operating system. Competitors in the software and operating system market such as Microsoft and Sun Microsystems are quickly becoming aware of the loss in revenue in their respective markets caused by open source. The only alternatives are to either join in the open source revolution or continue to fight against a rapidly growing movement.

This chapter sets forth some basic ideas as to how Brecht’s plays may develop in the next while and offers some suggestions for soliciting renewed interest in Brechtian works. It also examines how Brechtian theater may better appeal to all theatergoers by using some of the lessons learned by open source. In conclusion, this chapter summarizes all previous sections and the ideas set forth in this dissertation.

Best Intentions

The entertainment appeal of Brecht’s works sometimes overpowers the message being delivered to the audience. According to Ernest Bornemann, it is the ultimate paradox that Brecht’s theater was a source of entertainment for those on whom Brecht focused his criticism.[1] James Roose-Evans accounts how it became obvious after one of the performances of Die Dreigroschenoper the message Brecht was attempting to impart on the audience was lost as they left the theater whistling Kurt Weill’s tunes and identifying with Polly Peachum.[2] Brecht’s theatrical style along with the music and storyline overshadowed the play’s original intent.

Roose-Evans also states that every device Brecht used to destroy the “magic” of the theater of his time became magic in Brecht’s hands.[3] The exposed stage lights communicated Brecht’s fascination and interest in the theater. Even the rhythm of interruption within the performance took on a poetic note and destroyed the purpose for which it had been intended, “…he gained the admiration and respect of those whom he professed to despise - the poets, the intellectuals, the West”.[4] In the end, Brecht’s passion for the theater was the cause for his eventual notoriety.

Like Brecht’s theater which adapted over time, open source software also remains in a state of flux. It was originally conceived as a response to the crass commercialism of businesses in the early 1970s, as many companies exploited the skills of the first generation of programmers.[5] They felt stifled and limited in what they could program after being forced to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), effectively prohibiting them from sharing any of their labors with fellow coders. Many of the first GNU tools to be supported by Richard M. Stallman were intended as an artistic outlet for the professional programmer. Unlike Brecht they did not initially want to start something revolutionary and innovative, rather they wanted to share their accomplishments with others and allow all to benefit from their skills. It was a forum in which they could showcase their achievements without being limited by contractual stipulations. As the GNU and open source movements grew and took on personalities of their own, including the widespread adoption of GNU/Linux as the flagship operating system for the movement, it was the businessmen and corporations that took notice. Once open source began gaining momentum, the developers discovered they held the reigns of powers and could make changes to the industry. Like Brecht, they soon began to attract those they had formerly disdained and opposed.

As companies begin replacing their proprietary systems with open source and as other businesses consider open source and Linux as a new revenue stream, this adoption by the very groups that incited the creation of open source is not to be without repercussions. Because the business world found value in open source and in some cases tried to incorporate it into their marketing schemes, a sense of discontent and negative feedback grew among programmers and open source advocates. They found the commercialization of programs intended mainly for themselves and other computer users opposed their own values. Similar to Brecht’s own experiences, they found themselves back in company with the very organization from whom they had wanted to separate themselves.

The movement to bring open source to the average user has both positive and negative effects. As more people become aware of open source a greater knowledge base will be added to it. However, there remain those requiring additional assistance and who will necessitate the need for a “dumbing-down” of the manageability of open source. These are they who demand a simplification of the GUI interface, command-line tools and a homogenization of the overall look and feel of open source tools. In other words, they will require that open source resembles closed proprietary applications. This stipulation might also translate into commercial support and a closure of source. As more users adopt GNU and open software, it cannot help but become more mainstream, resembling the very thing it is attempting to replace.

Larger corporations such as IBM and Sun Microsystems are encouraging others to adopt Linux as an alternative to the grossly underpowered and inadequate Microsoft operating system. The very people who so readily adopted and contributed to the initial development of Linux are taking a second look at the direction their creation is heading. In an all-out effort to topple the predominant software superpower, corporations are making this hybrid creation into a replacement for the current powerhouse, Microsoft. In recent months, many of the original contributors to the Red Hat Linux project have begun rethinking their alliances. Red Hat Linux, being only one case in point, is taking measures to start charging users ever-increasing amounts for “support” and licensing issues in an effort to recoup much of the revenue lost to research and development. These charges are reminiscent of Microsoft’s own failed strategy to subject users to a blanket licensing fee which backfired on them during the late months of 2001 and all of 2002. Red Hat has also abandoned shipping a boxed version of its source to distributors. Now they encourage all to purchase their “enterprise” version which locks users into an expensive price structure. The repercussions of this is that users are creating their own modified Linux versions and are attempting to roll back development away from the companies and back into the hands of the developers themselves. Linux and open source software are fast becoming the new models for many emerging businesses and are evolving into the very thing which it intended to contest. Both Brecht and Linux stand opposed to monopoly capitalism; both contesting the practices of their day from within their fields of specialty.

How the development of open source will fare over the next few years among GNU free coders and other open source users and advocates remains to be seen. Many argue that Red Hat Linux has already begun bullying other smaller Linux distributions off the playing field. Red Hat currently accounts for over 50% of the Linux server market in the United States alone while managing nearly 70% of all web sites.[6] However, when viewed in a global perspective, other distributions such as SuSE, Connectiva, Turbolinux and the newly formed United Linux account for a large portion of Linux desktops and servers worldwide. When seen on a global perspective rather than a national, the balance of power remains still with localized and home-grown distributions. The prospect of any one distribution dominating the rest or edging out competition to become a monopoly of the likes of Microsoft remains remote. Primarily open source advocates detest an amalgamation of power in one entity. If one Linux distribution were ever to become more powerful than others, programmers would likely abandon it in favor of a “home-brewed” variety. This would account for the recent rise of popularity of the Linux Gentoo distribution in the U.S., which addresses the weaknesses seen in Red Hat and others. Also, due to the nature of the GPL, no one distribution could ever restrict access to their latest advances without also sharing the source code with others. That means another distribution could just as easily spring up in place of a monopolistic Linux distribution and offer the exact same format for much less. This already happens with various Linux distributions. There are many shipping companies that repackage Red Hat and other distributions on inexpensive CDs and sell them for a fraction of the cost of the originals. Users need not fear that any one Linux flavor will dominate all others.

How Brecht’s plays are produced in the future may depend on lessons learned from the open source community today. If theaters must strictly adhere to the original verbatim text then there may not be room for adjustment to attract future theatergoers. It may only be the smaller, independent theaters who will have the freedom to interpret Brecht’s works for modern situations. In a 1996 interview with James Lyon, Barbara Brecht-Schall provided some insight regarding her father’s theatrical legacy.[7] She was willing to address many of the topics presented to her by Lyon. However, some of her comments were either not covered directly in the interview or were left out due to written length constraints. In a conversation with James Lyon, I asked how Barbara Brecht felt regarding the continued production of Brecht’s works in different theaters. I asked if the Brecht estate were actively exercising any power over current theatrical productions of Brecht’s plays. Lyon informed me that Barbara does allow smaller theaters to perform her father’s works with little or no financial compensation to the Brecht estate. Only the smaller theaters are allowed to make changes to the original Brecht text. Large theaters, however, are under an obligation to pay a fee for the right to use Brecht’s works and are expected to keep the body of Brecht’s works exactly as they are. They cannot modify the texts in any manner. Whether or not this admonition is actually practiced by all theaters throughout the world cannot be said. But the fact that she was adamant about larger theaters keeping her father’s works unadulterated is very telling. It would appear that those productions catering to large audiences could use only pure Brechtian text. As shown several times throughout this work, Brecht himself would oftentimes modify the text of his plays right up to the day of the dress rehearsal. In his eyes nothing was static. In an effort to keep Brecht’s plays pure, even his own advocates are contradicting and misinterpreting that which Brecht found important.

The future of the computer software industry remains in the hands of private developers in spite of the move by corporations to adopt open source as a business model. In a similar vein, the days of proprietary software appear numbered. Restrictions imposed by manufacturers of closed source software regarding modifications to the body of software code can have unintended effects. To limit what types of changes users can make stifles innovation in the eyes of open source advocates. Users exercise the greatest influence on how software develops and evolves. Though the analogy is not always perfect, just as performers of Brecht’s play make a profound impact via their interpretations and through their own cultural enhancements, so, too, do open source users worldwide affect the quality of the code by modifying it to their own needs. The future of open source appears then to depend on the users’ freedom to manipulate the code for the best possible outcome. The future of Brechtian theater can also be said to rest with smaller theaters and performers who are allowed to modify the original text. Only then can the import of Brecht’s message be adjusted for the time and place of the performance. All evidence presented in the previous chapters indicates that only by opening up the code or text of any author’s work can there be any serious innovation.

If Brecht’s plays will continue to see any form of acclaim among theatergoers, performers must be allowed to make changes to interpret the play in their own manner or modify the text to include contemporary terminology and local dialects. This does not mean a revisionist’s approach to changing the basic message or import of the play, but rather an alteration to Brecht’s words so they continue to be as influential now as they were when he wrote them. Performers must be allowed to make minor editing changes. To undermine the actors’ freedom to interpret Brecht’s works today is to stifle the basic message of Brecht’s plays and alienate the intended audience.

Reviewing the Chapters

The aim of this dissertation has been to explain the correspondence of Brecht’s works, specifically his learning plays, as achievements in pedagogical theatrical performance as they relate to open source as a new form of creative expression in the field of computer software. Open source software and Brechtian Theater share many analogous traits when it comes to providing pedagogical instruction. The previous chapters have all attempted to outline the similar attributes of both Brechtian Theater and open source software.

Chapter 1 examined the roots of Brecht’s Lehrstücke. It also reviewed the main texts that fall under this categorization and how these works were influential from a pedagogical stance. Brecht’s learning plays were designed to instruct the youth. They were partially intended as a means for the younger generation to better understand theater and contribute to its development. These plays were also structured as a means of showcasing emerging technologies. The use of radio, film and advances in electronics were all used to redefine the theater genre for a new age.

Chapter 2 carried this idea even further and looked at Brecht’s use of technology as a vehicle for furthering his ideology and strengthening his argument against the current theatrical practices of his time. This chapter used Brecht’s play, Der Ozeanflug as an example of his learning plays. In it he uses many of the elements he would later employ in his other Lehrstücke. Brecht employs radio as a means of establishing a dialogue between the performer and the audience. He also utilizes musical arrangements to underscore the drama of the work. This initial collaborative effort with Kurt Weill, Paul Hindemith and Hanns Eisler proves beneficial to both Brecht and others as they create the foundation for Brecht’s Epic Theater.

Chapter 3 lays the groundwork for understanding open source software, its beginnings and the influence it has made and continues to make in the field of computer programming. It has rewritten conventional ideology regarding software marketing and has proven to be a competitor to even the most powerful commercial software distributors. This chapter spells out some of the parallels between open source code and Brecht’s learning plays. How open source operates and develops among users is similar to how Brecht employed his collaborators and utilized their expertise to better his plays. The analogy between open source and Brecht is notable when one considers how open source project leaders must manage the efforts of their co-authors while still remaining the guiding force behind development. This chapter examines how a sample open source project develops based on existing works and how it is comparable to Brecht’s own borrowing of existing text or works by other authors. In fact, his entire attitude towards the availability of existing texts and their use within the Public Domain is analogous to that of the mind-set of many open source advocates.

Chapter 4 refers once more to Brecht’s learning plays as a teaching tool for performers and theatergoers. Brecht’s attitude towards instruction by means of theater is to establish a dialogue between actor and audience member rather than use conventional performance techniques. His works engage the audience and cause those in attendance to rethink preconceived notions regarding the function of theater. Brecht wanted to essentially reinvent theater’s form and function. It was not enough to simply change the audience’s attitude to theater, but to engage them intellectually and motivate them to action. This was the general purpose behind his learning plays. It is also one of the core components behind open source. Helping others improve their programming skills and better understand and operate source code is a major theme behind opening up code for others to view and manipulate. It is also how programmers solicit help from other parties to make their own code more viable and attractive to others. Brecht also accomplished this same function with his stage performers.

This same appeal to the general populace is what constitutes the framework of Chapter 5. Here the general reasoning behind opening works to the public is examined. In basic terms, it simply makes sense to share code and text with others since it is in this manner that the author gains the greatest input and critical feedback. Brecht’s view of proprietary text is dismissive. He frequently and liberally borrowed from others’ works. This same attitude is prevalent among open source coders, who share the same opinion that as long as some form of recognition is given to the original author, all work is freely available for use and re-use. The economics behind both Brecht’s and the open source community’s efforts resembles that of a gift culture. They affix value to their goods in exchange for recognition and esteem among peers. Once this need is met and recognition given, then financial compensation follows and is welcomed.

Chapter 6 examines the appeal of Brecht’s plays and open source software on a global scale. Brecht’s plays and open source enjoy continued popularity among many nations, especially in Third World countries, on account of their adaptability to the local culture and their inexpensive production costs. Africa, India and Brazil are examples of how many of Brecht’s plays including his Lehrstücke enjoy continued production and are well liked among the populace. His appeal to the average as well as working-class individual along with the play’s structure allows it to be easily adopted into the local cultural clime. One might characterize a similar adaptability of open source software. Its rise in use among Third World nations is easily attributable to its low cost, and also to the fact that it can be easily redefined as a local creation. In the case of China’s Red Flag Linux it is even more appealing to locals who are reluctant to continually import American or foreign products.

The focus of each of these chapters was to stress the analogy of Brecht’s writings, particularly his learning plays, and open source software. The concepts behind both are based on entirely different genres of thought, but these similarities can sometimes transcend boundaries and common elements can be found not here but also in many other fields of thought and study. The basing of work built upon the writings or research of others is shared by both Brecht and open source coders. It is a common practice becoming popular among other advocates in other fields of study. As mentioned earlier, the field of mathematics, as well as the fields of science, already stress the sharing of advancements among fellow researchers. This practice is not only encouraged, but many studies would be unable to move forward without a methodology of information dispersal. This information may remain proprietary, but is shared for the benefit of all. Not only does the concept of open source continue to make sense, but it is also the most prudent method for ensuring continued advancements.

Forecasting the Future

What does this all mean for future productions of Brecht’s works and for open source code? There will always be a demand for entertainment and Brecht’s plays have been proven to be a great source of theatrical enjoyment. The same applies to open source software. So long as there are computer programmers there will always be software applications addressing individuals’ needs and that offer the source code for users to download and install. However, whether or not these plays or source code will be part of the mainstream and become a fixture in the cultural landscape depends upon how users view their capability to access the source. Brecht’s plays must be available to all to modify and reinterpret. Only by making the text available and open will producers worldwide be able to adjust the content to satisfy local audiences. The same applies to open source code. As soon as portions of code become off limits or proprietary, users will look to other sources for their code. A body of open source code will always remain in existence, but whether or not individual applications remain true to the mandate set by those who initiated this movement depends on the code’s viability and popularity. This same lesson can be applied to Brecht’s works. The popularity is determined by the degree in which users have access to the text and to which they can modify it to their own use.

Both open source code and Brecht’s plays stand to gain much in the way of growth among users. They must simply realize the source of their innovation, that of the individual user or performer. Brecht understood this concept and attempted to appeal to both his audience and performers, for it is they who determine what works continue to be classics and which are to be consigned to obscurity. Both Brechtian theater and open source software should be careful not to become “classic theater” or “big business”. Their origins can be traced back to reactions against the very concepts they originally opposed and now are in danger of becoming. Yet, both stand to gain much if they remain open to their audience and receptive to feedback. This does not mean appeasing all who wish to use their code and/or text, but it does mean that they should remain flexible enough to adapt to the changing climate and cultural landscape.