Bertolt Brecht’s 'The Caucasian Chalk Circle' as a Marxist Play

Bertolt Brecht is regarded as one of the most important figures of twentieth century. He was born in Bavaria in the year 1898.He brought a great transformation in the traditional literary and theatrical form, through his ‘epic theatre’. He attempted to bring a revolutionary change in the society and introduction of epic theatre and other revolutionary transformations were in real an effort to bring about the advent of Marxist Revolution. He hated Hitler and his dramaturgy centered around Marxism. As a result, his plays were banned in Germany in the 1930s. He writes with the notion that war does good to no one. He never believed in joining any political party in order to contribute as a Marxist.

Brecht’s life is categorized into three distinct phases marked by his forced exile from Germany during the reign of Hitler. He was in Germany from 1898 to 1933, he was in exile from 1933 to 1947 and then he returned to Europe in 1947, primarily to Switzerland and later to Berlin. Since the beginning of his career in literature, he became an enemy of the established bourgeois society. Marxism has been a significant and complex part of Brecht’s life as well as his works. He found his inclination towards Marxism when he returned from Germany after the Second World War. He wrote, “it was only when I read Lenin’s State and Revolution and Marx’s Kapital that I understood, philosophically, where I stood”. He was deeply influenced by many Marxist followers particularly by Karl Korsch whose discussion groups and classes, Brecht always attended. He had spent around fifteen years in exile, out of fear of Nazis and their tactics to eradicate Marxism.

Marxist Ideas

Marxism is a type of economic system given by Karl Marx which examines the effect of capitalism on labor, productivity and economic development, where there is no existence of class. In order to ensure equality, the government can control various resources and their means of production. It works as the contrary of Capitalism. In communism, each and every share is owned collectively and everyone works for and enjoy benefits from the good of the group. Marx felt that capitalism leads to an unfair imbalance between capitalists and the laborers whose work they exploit for their own profit. Thus, as a result this exploitation results into the workers’ view of their employment as nothing more than a means of survival. ‘As a dramatist/philosopher of historical consciousness, Brecht somehow always falls between the cracks of theatre and philosophy, of Marx and the Frankfurt School...’.

Brecht's early works like Baal, Drums in the Night, The Wedding, and The Threepenny Opera, were expositions of bourgeois society. Marxism helped Brecht to develop clear ideas and sensibility in order to critique the bourgeois society. His works clearly showed his discontentment with the bourgeois society and his urge to change it. Primarily he showed his revolt through his choice and experiment with theatre. He made use of songs, dances, lights, instruments etc. in a radical manner. Brecht had been remained unconquerable in his ways of portraying the realistic society. His plays served as actual data for the audience. His attempt to bring a new kind of thinking, through his “epic theatre” provided a space to the audience in order to reach to the conclusions.

Marxism in The Caucasian Chalk Circle

Brecht’s take on property, injustice and class are all presented through his famous play The Caucasian Chalk Circle, first played in the year 1944, which has variety of characters ranging from materialistic nobles and courtiers to lowly servants. It narrates the story of a struggle for possession of a child between its highborn mother, who deserts him, and the servant girl who looks after it. This play finds its source in a Chinese play and challenges the concept of blood ties. This play was written when he was in exile. This postmodern play is a blend of historical events as well as Chinese oral culture. He wanted theatre to be a brilliant blend of intellectual and entertainment. It should force to think and analyze which will lead to social change. He attempted to do this through his art of narration in which smooth flow of play stops through songs etc. His endings are the most remarkable, the abrupt and weird endings help to the underlying message. He also believed that episodic nature too breaks the flow of play. He used dialectical materialism in his plays. Dialectical materialism is a philosophical approach to reality based on the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. For both of them materialism meant that the material world has objective reality free of mind and spirit. They comprehended materialism as contrary to idealism.

Marxism rejects the idea that any supernatural forces shape and provide structure to human lives. Thus, history becomes a struggle between classes for the means of production and distribution of goods. Marx condemned capitalism as it exploited the workers and he wanted to create a fair society. Such exploitation is presented in the play through the characters of Grusha and the other peasants and workers. The elite class i.e. the Governor and his wife contributing nothing to the society. The scene where the Governor’s wife worries for his child, Michael only for the inheritance and not considering any emotional relationship shows the love and inclination of upper class towards materialistic things like her expensive dresses which shows their self-centered nature. She became so oblivious of her own child and left him alone thinking of her own self first. The ruling class appears selfish and worried only for material pleasures. This is also visible through Kazbeki’s conspiracy of execution of his own brother who long for power only and blood relations blindfold the sight of clear vision. While Grusha, despite having no connection with the kid attempted till the end to take care of him at the cost of her own losing relations and character in the society. She did everything to protect him from the mercenary war period of two years until things went normal.

Brecht’s characterization is based on his theory that all the upper class people are evil and lower class people are good. Grusha’s goodness is shown due to her class. In Brechtian plays, there’s no individual conflicts, there are conflicts at the social level. When he talks about characters and desires he shows only incompatibility between individual’s desires and socio economic conditions. Characters in this play do not have a free will rather the external situation i.e. the socio-economic conditions decide their behavior and fate.

The play within a play set a backdrop to present the aftermath of world war II where farmers were debating about the best use of their lands. This play attacked the cornerstone of Nazi ideologies. He emphasized that for a better world, rules must change. Grusha’s character symbolize the working class which has to pay continuously without getting anything back as in the play the child doesn’t even belonged to her. She is the true figure of the proletariat who gets nothing being the producer. As Brecht mentioned that she did not want any sort of justice from Azdak, she simply wants to, “to go on producing, in other words to pay more”. Even Lavrenti is shown spineless and dehumanized as his wife owned the property thus, Brecht presenting the true picture of society where land, luxury and other materialistic objects become source of power. Though following Marxist ideals Brecht presented towards the end that she was accepted by Simon and the new family formed represented a constructed one. Azdak’s judgement helped the child to fall into right hands, who actually loved him and not for any materialistic approach i.e. to Grusha’s. She even got divorced from the sick man and got the right husband and child. Thus working according to the Marxist ideas of justice and economics of rejecting and condemning old traditions with transformations to form a just and fair society. “Bit by bit, by making sacrifices, not least of herself, Grusha becomes transformed into a mother for the child.” According to Marx, things could turn to better for those who make sacrifices. One can bring qualitative change through tiny quantitative changes. And Azdak became that medium in the play. Evident in his choice of stableman over the lady, Ludovica further the judgement of making Abashwili’s garden a recreation park, thus redistributing the resources. His justice and choices resembled a Marxist approach which turns the table from selfish landlords to poor peasants.

Conclusion

Bertold Brecht took Marxist ways to revolutionize his art of writing thus attempting to bring transformations. The prologue too presented the utopian vision of a socialist society. Chaos and turmoil are also prevalent in the play through which he wanted to say that sometimes chaos is not destructive rather regenerative as it developed the beautiful relation between Grusha and Michael. Brecht followed the theory of rationalism and made this play a true representation of Marxist views.