Module: DR4004 Research Methods Assessment 2

Student: Andrew Wilson

Student No: 0720012

Literature Review

Cohen.R. (2004) Role distance: on stage and on the merry-go-round.

Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism, fall 2004

Robert Cohen is currently the Claire Trevor Professor of Drama at the University of

California at Irvine. He has been a resident acting teacher at the Actor’s Centre in New York,

the Shanghai Theatre Academy, Korean National Arts University and the National Theatre

Academies of Hungary, Finland and Estonia. He is also a stage director, playwright and

drama critic.

In addition to Theatre and Theatre: Brief Edition, he is also the author of many theatre books,

including Acting One, Advanced Acting, Acting in Shakespeare, Acting Professionally,

Acting Power, More Power to You, Giraudoux: Three Faces of Destiny, Creative Play

Direction, and two dramatic anthologies. His essays have appeared in Theatre Journal,

Theatre Topics, Theatre Forum, Theatre Survey, Modern Drama, Theater der Zeit. Essays in

Theatre, On Stage Studies, The Drama Review, Contemporary Literature, Contemporary

Literary Criticism, Slavic and East European Performance, Experiment and Innovation, and

Dramatic Theory and Criticism.

In 1999, he received the national Career Achievement award from ATHE - the Association

for Theatre in Higher Education.

My own area of interest lies in the problematizing of Bertolt Brecht as a practitioner and the

implementation of his theories in an educational context. In this respect I wish to look at

1
Brecht in relation to the work of Konstantin Stanislavski. So why do students find Brecht

difficult to grasp? How can this be resolved through practice? Can a marrying of their

performance methodologies produce more understanding of both practitioners and resolve the

issue of polarisation in what we consider ‘real acting’? The aim of this literature review is to

interrogate the polarisation of the dramatic theories of Brecht and Stanislavski and to begin to

see a way of remedying this through practice.

Robert Cohen can only be described as an acting expert who has made a considerable

contribution to the field through his many articles and books, and who continues to teach in

Higher Education in the United States. This article is again about acting but he takes an

illuminating detour via psychosocial behaviour in relation to “Stanislavskian” and

“Brechtian” approaches to performance theory. He posits the contention in his opening

sentence,” No issue in acting theory has been more discussed over the past twenty-five

centuries than whether an actor should simply manifest his or her part through

some sort of technical virtuosity, or experience the role through a process of emotional self-

transportation.” In keeping with the parameter within which contributors to The Journal of

Dramatic Theory and Criticism must conform when submitting manuscripts, Cohen focuses

the article primarily on the work of one author who has contributed to the ‘field’, Erving

Goffman.

Cohen’s opening paragraphs set the scene for the main body of this work and for the “twenty

five centuries”, he cites Plato from around 395BC and a reported dialogue between Socrates

and a certain Ion of Ephesus a sort of ancient performance poet. Socrates asks Ion if, “while

publicly reciting his works, the performer is in his “right mind,” or if his “soul” is rather

transported, “in ecstasy . . . among the persons or the places of which you are speaking?”

2
Ancient origins indeed, for the vexing questions which continue to exercise teachers and

students alike. The answer according to Cohen has resonated down the ages, “Ion answers

that he is indeed in a transported state, but then adds that he also looks down from the stage

at his spectators so as to “behold the various emotions. . . stamped upon their countenances

when I am speaking.” He quotes the Swedish theorist Teddy Brunius who refers to this

response as “Ion’s Hook” and I would certainly agree with the interpretation of this answer

as suggesting that indeed the poet had lost himself in his ‘part’ but also maintained a rational

distancing from that immersion. It starts to sound very familiar with a seeming direct line that

Cohen traces through the ages, from that ancient remark to the 20th Century, when, “Ion’s

hook had re-emerged in the slightly altered form of the seemingly-polarized theories put

forward by the two towering director-theorists of the age: Konstantin Stanislavsky in Russia

and Bertolt Brecht in Germany”. This reinforces my own experience and the general opinion

being that the theories of these two men are polarized and that they have no relation to one

another other than both being in the sphere of acting. Cohen suggests otherwise and we begin

to see where he is taking us.

Having introduced the area of research in his opening paragraphs Cohen comes to the main

focus of his research and identifies relevant connections between acting on the one hand and

ordinary human behaviour and the “role distancing” of the title on the other. This research

certainly seems to have a bearing on our view of Brecht in relation to Stanislavski and vice

versa. The “role distancing” comes from the title of an essay written in 1961 by the pre-

eminent Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman who has written many articles in relation to

human behaviour often describing it in terms of theatrical metaphor. His 1959 work The

Presentation of Self in Everyday Life introduced the idea how we ‘stage-manage’ the images

that we try to convey to others; how we behave in different contexts with different people for

3
different purposes. It was he who coined the word ‘dramaturgy’. Goffman described role-

distance as “actions which effectively convey some disdainful detachment of the [real life]

performer from a role he is performing.”

Cohen cites Goffman’s research and identifies observation as his main methodology for this

study. His subjects are young children playing on a merry-go-round. It does not instantly

strike one as being terribly important or relevant but the explanation of the results of this

observed behaviour certainly made me sit up and take notice. Although Cohen makes no

claim at expertise within the domain of psychosocial behaviourism or sociology he is an

expert on acting and so the use of theatrical metaphor as employed by Goffman, certainly in

these opening observations, makes his work accessible to Cohen and to the reader. If

Stanislavski had been a sociologist he could have written about the three and four year-olds

riding on the merry-go-round, “the rider throws himself into the role in a serious way,

playing it with verve and an admitted engagement of all his faculties.” Goffman concluded

that “doing is being, and what was designed as a ‘playing at’ is stamped with serious

realization… an “embracement” of the performer’s “role.” This kind of role identification

would be familiar to any student who has been exposed to Stanislavski’s ideas.

The research becomes even more interesting, but possibly less accessible, when Cohen

further mines the results of Goffman’s work. According to Goffman the reaction of children

to the merry-go-round changes again at five “To be a merry-go-round horserider is now

apparently not enough, and this fact must be demonstrated out of dutiful regard for one’s

own character.” He explains that the reaction of children suggests that although the child will

play wholeheartedly it will be in such a way as to mock the unreality of the situation that

according to Goffman suggested that the “rider is hence “apologizing,” not for “some minor

4
untoward event that has cropped up during the interaction, but the whole role.” This he

contended, “constitutes a wedge between the individual and his role, between doing and

being,” This is what Goffman concluded was role distancing. Again there is that sense of the

familiar; Brecht anyone? But what does it mean in relation to reconciling this behaviourist

observation to the business of acting whether in a pedagogical or performance sense.

This tendency towards the role-distancing techniques used in our everyday lives from the age

of five through to maturity certainly seems to have some major implications for acting.

Firstly, Goffman’s findings seems to contradict a basic assumption of my own; that it is the

embracement of a role that is the natural order of things and that ‘role-distancing’, certainly

in an acting sense is a learned behaviour/technique. What the research suggests is in fact the

opposite of this contention and that ‘role-distancing’ occurs as part of the maturation process

and is equally the natural order of things. Cohen cites examples from Goffman that would be

familiar to many people such as “The diffident suitor seeking to impress his date at a French

restaurant swirls the sommelier’s wine sample with a mockingly supercilious air, feigning

disdain for a tasting ritual that makes him uncomfortable.” I would not say the French

restaurant but this same type of situation/scenario in a huge variety of settings.

For me, this realisation somewhat muddies the waters as I ask myself, how can something

that would seem to be natural behaviour, that of role-distancing, in terms of acting be very

problematic to convey to students? It is only when presented with the examples like the one

above that one even realises that this is behaviour I myself have employed, and still do

depending upon the circumstance, although it is clear from Goffman’s work that it is

predominant in the maturation process when it manifests itself in wanting to display oneself

as not a child; it is ironic that one has to step back from this to see the truth of it.

5
These findings, however, seem to make more sense for those solely interested in the

Stanislavskian acting model, as “Goffman elaborates the three year-old’s role embracement

in terms that describe the Stanislavskian dramatic ideal: “To embrace a role is to disappear

completely into the virtual self available in the situation, to be fully seen in terms

of the image, and to confirm expressively one’s acceptance of it. To embrace a role

is to be embraced by it.” It is clear from this and descriptions of the role-distancing that

contemporary acting has a sociological foundation that cannot be ignored. The results of

Goffman’s findings make it clear that the purely theatrical differences between Brecht and

Stanislavski have a direct parallel in human behaviour. At least it seems to settle the

contention that embodying the character is the only true dramatic representation of how

humans behave. A Brechtian actor is therefore also performing in a true to life manner when

as Goffman describes “something of [her actual] self lies outside . . . the moment and outside

the role.” It is not too presumptuous to say that whilst there is that ‘self’ that lies outside the

role, part of the behaviour surely lies within the role and involves character identification.

The question then arises of how do we tap into that everyday behaviour to clarify the

Brechtian ‘estrangement’?

As a teacher of acting, and I dare say I am not the only one, I have experienced precisely

what Cohen describes in the rehearsal, or workshop. This is of a young performer asked to

portray a particular role, certainly against type, possibly gender or sexuality, with maybe

exaggerated mannerisms, distinctive vocal characterisation or physicality who is unable to

rise up to the challenge. This, “may throw them into awkwardly-suppressed embarrassment,

which they seek to cover by covertly critiquing the very behaviours they are asked to

embrace, thus showing off “cool” behaviors distinct from the“hotter” ones they have been

6
asked to play.” In other words they refuse to embrace the role fully. Under the circumstances

of rehearsing a naturalistic or realist play, as Cohen points out, this would be considered ‘bad

acting’ and would be a problem. Obviously it would be vital for a performer to keep

disciplined and focused for naturalistic/realist theatre and embrace that role identification.

However, maybe this is precisely the time to, rather than criticise such a dishonest, untruthful

and insincere performance, point out what has occurred; it may be inappropriate for this play

but that was an example of role-distancing and it is genuine human behaviour – Brecht in

action so to speak.

Further to this Cohen highlights the use of role-distancing in a realist theatre context, but why

should this be unusual when as Goffman has shown this is ‘real’ behaviour. One example he

uses is the stage directions that Tennessee Williams wrote for the actor playing Reverend

Tooker in “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” “Tooker appears in the gallery doors, his head slightly,

playfully, fatuously cocked, with a practiced clergyman’s smile, sincere as a birdcall blown

on a hunter’s whistle.” Cohen rightly identifies this as a direct instruction to role-distance

describing it thus: “An actor playing Tooker in a production of this play—whose central

theme is‘mendacity’—is thereby asked to act Reverend Tooker’s self-mocking distance from

the shows of piety his professional role demands. In Cohen’s notes he provides an even more

explicit example with regards to Maggie, the eponymous ‘Cat’ of the title who displays

behaviour that is meant to show that she is not in fact who she is meant to be.

Obviously, this and Brecht’s Verfremdungeffekt are different in that it is the actor who is

distancing him/herself from the character, not the character distancing itself from itself. It

must be emphasized that this does not and should not preclude a genuine portrayal of a

character as I have never believed that Brecht’s characters are mere caricatures, and where

7
this has occurred it is for the distinctive and unequivocal denigration of ‘types’ that Brecht

wants to expose as they are corrupted and worthy of our derision; not so for all his characters

who should be as ‘genuine’ as any other ‘real’ character. The main problem is that although

this role-distancing is something that was once a natural occurrence, it seems to become

something that needs to be relearned while also maintaining Goffman’s “dutiful regard for

one’s own character.” It becomes apparent that while Goffman’s research makes it clear that

as Cohen observes “we already know how to this—we have been doing it since we were

five.” In terms of acting in a Brechtian style, “The only trick is remembering how we did it,

and why, and how it felt.” This becomes vitally important when working with these same

young people who are going through the maturation process and are still experiencing role-

distancing probably on a very regular basis without even being aware that that is what it is. In

terms of acting it is worth reiterating that these episodes when they occur in the

rehearsal/workshop room should be highlighted to students so that they themselves become

aware of it; it can only aid them when it comes to Brechtian practice.

It is clear from Goffman’s findings that Brecht, whilst using estrangement in his work, did

not invent the process, it is natural. However, by his very referencing within this article

Cohen gives a tacit acknowledgement that Brecht recognized role-distancing as a behaviour

that is performative and theorized the action. As Cohen points out, “specifically by mocking

one’s theatrical and hence fictive identity—is also implicit when dramatic characters self-

reference their “actoriality” in any theatrical era”, from Aristophanes to Shakespeare, Shaw

and Beckett. These examples make it clear that role-distancing is a skill that an actor needs as

much as the Stanislavskian role-embracement model.

8
Cohen concludes with an overview of the difficulties involved in actually being able to

develop those skills in the face of the “life-long psychological process of maturation”. In

relation to Stanislavskian role identification, the integration of “childlike role-embracement”

in actor training has been a feature for nearly sixty years to reverse these results. For a

Brechtian actor the picture is not so straightforward and the actor needs to make intentional

choices to develop the discipline required. It also requires an awareness of, in Cohen’s words,

“the largely disguised theoretical issues of social, cultural and age-related identity”.

The surprise is that he seems to have approached this paper with almost transparent

objectivity. He does not contend that he wishes to prove the polarisation one way or another

but in fact embraces both from the beginning. The research he cites makes a coherent and

valuable contribution to understanding psychosocial behaviour in relation to both Brecht and

Stanislavski and in my opinion, brings both practitioners’ work closer together. The results of

the research, and the problems highlighted are very important with regards to acting and raise

fascinating questions about how to resolve them. Role-embracement and how to reverse the

maturation process are very clearly addressed and would be familiar to acting teachers.

However, I would have hoped for more insight into the difficulties presented by role-

distancing/Brechtian acting. Overall, I felt that the article provided some illuminating ideas

but ultimately left me slightly frustrated, only serving to prove that Brechtian estrangement

would be ripe for further research and a fresh approach.