ÅA

This study suggests that the aspect of making

strange in distancing is not sufficiently utilized in

Stig A. Eriksson: Distancing at Close Range

Drama Education. It is more than an artistic device;
it is in itself a tool for understanding and learning.

“Even if the topic of distancing has been identified as

a central concept in Drama Education since the late
1970s, a methodical interrogation of the concept,
in what is currently understood as process drama,
has not been undertaken until now and in this
thesis. For this reason alone this is important work,
for the author has systematically and painstakingly Stig A. Eriksson
uncovered the key thinkers and ideas which have
shaped our understandings of the term. To do this
the author has comprehensively and impressively Distancing at Close Range
canvassed the work of leading philosophers, art Investigating the Significance of Distancing in Drama Education
and literary theorists, artists and theatre makers to
present a detailed and entirely convincing account
of the lineage of this notion called distancing”.
Professor Brad Haseman,
Assistant Dean (Research)
Creative Industries Faculty, QUT
Australia

ISBN 978-952-12-2314-3

2009
Stig A. Eriksson is Associate Professor in Drama at Bergen University College, Norway. He
has served on IDEA’s Executive Committee, and was Project Co-ordinator for IDEA’s 4th
World Congress in 2001 in Bergen. Eriksson was a keynote speaker at IDEA 2007 in Hong
Kong.
Eriksson has been involved in curriculum development, and introducing drama in
schools and higher education. He is an experienced drama teacher and educator, and has lec-
tured and presented workshops at a number of national and international conferences. Eriks-
son’s research interests are the history of the development of drama education, political theatre
and process drama.
In 2003 in Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Eriksson was awarded the international prize
Grozdanin Kikot for his contribution to the building of IDEA, and especially for his work in
establishing the IDEA solidarity fund.

Contact addresses: stig.eriksson@hib.no; s-erikss@online.no

Anyone making a profound study of Brueghel’s pictorial contrasts must realize that he deals in
contradictions. In The Fall of Icarus the catastrophe breaks into the idyll in such a way that it is
clearly set apart from it and valuable insights into the idyll can be gained. He doesn’t allow the
catastrophe to alter the idyll; the latter remains unaltered and survives undestroyed, merely dis-
turbed. / The Fall of Icarus. Tiny scale of this legendary event (you have to hunt for the victim).
Brecht: “Alienation Effects in the Narrative Pictures of the Elder Brueghel”, in Willett
(2001:157).

The painting Landscape with the Fall of Icarus (c. 1558) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is owned by:
The Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Brussels.

Cover: Tove Ahlbäck

DISTANCING AT CLOSE RANGE
 Distancing at Close Range
Investigating the Significance of Distancing
in Drama Education

Stig A. Eriksson

ÅBO 2009
ISBN 978-952-12-2314-3
Oy Arkmedia Ab
Vasa 2009
Abstract
The study is an investigation of distancing as an arts education concept,
focussing particularly on its relevance in drama education. The study takes an
interest in understanding distancing as an aesthetic principle - its ontological
aspect, and its application as a poetic and didactic device in drama pedagogy - its
epistemological aspect. It finds that distancing represents a significant
perspective in the didactics of drama education and that distancing constitutes an
important meaning making factor in drama pedagogy.
The study explores distancing in a historical and a present-day perspective. It has
a particular focus on uses of distancing in the work of two leading
representatives of educational drama/theatre: Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956) and
Dorothy Heathcote (1926 - ). Examples are taken from Brecht’s learning play
theory, mainly his Lehrstück The Measures Taken (1929-30), and from
Heathcote’s drama pedagogy, mainly her process drama Teaching Political
Awareness through Drama (1981-82). The study looks at relevant points of
contact regarding uses of distancing in Brecht’s and Heathcote’s theory and
practice. An example of distancing applied in the researcher’s own practice is
also discussed in the study.
The theory base includes theory and practice reflections by Brecht and
Heathcote, supplied by German learning-play theory and Nordic and Anglo-
American drama education theory. The study also builds on Edward Bullough’s
analysis of distance as an aesthetic principle in art (1912) – and Daphna Ben
Chaim’s discussion of distance in theatre (1984). Bullough’s and Ben Chaim’s
theory contribute to a generic, ontological understanding of the distance concept.
The theory base for the concept of distancing also comprises formalist theory
connected to Viktor Shklovsky’s estrangement concept ostranenie (1916), and
epic theatre theory connected to Brecht’s estrangement concept Verfremdung
(1935). Supplied with rhetoric theory these theoretical strands are applied to
discuss distancing as a central topos in the didactics of process drama.
The investigation is basically a combination of compilation study and
monograph. Aspects of distance/distancing are identified and analysed in an
accompanying text, and through five articles published in the period 2006 –
2008, in relation to theory as well as to exemplary practice. The study is
primarily hermeneutic and has been developed through a variety of research
approaches. Concept analysis, comparative literature study, close reading of
“text”, and analysis of practice based on notes, video transcripts or published
accounts, constitute main ingredients in the research study.
It is an intention of the study to contribute to the theory of drama education, and
the development of the didactics in the field. The study has been conducted in
connection with Project Arts Didactics (2004 – 2008) – a research project
sponsored by Bergen University College and the Research Council of Norway
(FORSKPRO-ID p05000252). The study is also supported by funding from Åbo
Academy University, and is a research project within Arts Education and
Learning at the Faculty of Education, Åbo Academy University (Project
Language and Communication in Times of Tension).
Keywords: Distancing theory, Verfremdung, ostranenie, estrangement,
alienation, drama education, drama pedagogy, arts didactics, Lehrstück, process
drama, Brecht, Heathcote, Shklovsky.
With thanks to:

The Research Council of Norway

Bergen University College
Åbo Academy University
The Project Arts Didactics (Bergen University College)
The Project Language and Communication in Times of Tension (Åbo
Academy University in Vaasa)
The Dorothy Heathcote Archives, Manchester and Birmingham
The Bertolt-Brecht-Archive, Berlin and the Lehrstück-Archive, Hannover
Gesellschaft für Theaterpädagogik e. V.
The Erasmus and Nordplus exchange schemes
The IDEA network (International Drama/theatre and Education
Association)
Colleagues in the Drama Department, Bergen University College
Tarja Grahn-Björkqvist and John Shepherd
Dorothy Heathcote
Anna-Lena Østern
Aslaug Nyrnes
Kari Mjaaland Heggstad
My family,
and with special thanks to VIGDIS
Table of contents

A. Description of the research project. 13

1. Purpose, background and relevance of the study 13

i. Personal background 13
ii. Art pedagogic orientation 14

2. Preunderstanding and objectives 15

3. Problem considerations and research questions 16

i. Research questions 16

4. Research contexts. Five articles 17

5. Methodologies and methods. Theory base 18

i. Methodology perspectives 18
ii. Methods approaches 18
iii. Theory base 21

6. Terminology and concepts 23

i. Drama pedagogy and drama education 23
ii. Learning-play/Lehrstück 23
iii. Process drama 23
iv. Distancing and distance 24
v. Distancing in a broad and narrow meaning 24
vi. Poetics/poetic and didactics/didactic 25
vii. Other terms incorporating distancing 26

7. Limiting the Scope 27

i. Other drama and education models 27

8. Other relevant literature and references 27

9. Footnotes 33

B. Aspects of distancing. 35

1. Distancing as a multifaceted concept 35

i. Distance as protection 36
ii. Conceptions of distancing in process drama literature 36

9
 iii. Distancing as an aesthetic principle in art
- awareness of fiction. 40
iv. Modes of distancing summarized 45

2. The epistemological point of orientation 46

i. Empathy and detachment 46
ii. Epistemological function of distancing
- a way of reflecting and attaining new knowledge 49

3. Making strange as a historic concept of distancing in literature 52

i. The Classic rhetoric starting point - Aristotle 53
ii. Impulses from the Enlightenment - Hegel and Diderot 54
iii. The tradition in Romanticism - Coleridge, Shelley, Novalis 67

4. Summary 73

C. Russian Formalism and de-familiarization. 75

1. Shklovsky and ostranenie as a distancing device 76

2. The politics of Formalism 82

3. Impulses from Russian theatre 89

4. Summary 93

D. Epic theatre and estrangement. 97

1. The epic theatre and Verfremdung 97

2. Brecht’s Verfremdung as manifesto 103

3. Ostranenie versus Verfremdung,

and the first traces of estrangement in Brecht’s texts 110

4. Summary 115

E. Distancing as a making strange device in process drama. 119

1. Heathcote and distance creation (apostasiopoisis) 126

i. Enabling the ordinary to become fabulous 128
ii. Enabling the social event to be seen from a new angle 138

10
 2. Influence from Shklovsky and Brecht
– and other proponents of estrangement 154
3. Politics 162
4. Summary 167

F. Articles 171

1. ”Distance and Awareness of Fiction –

Exploring the Concepts”. 173

2. “Using fabula, syuzhet, forma as Tools of Analysis in Drama

Pedagogy – with Brecht’s The Measures Taken as an example”. 191

3. “Looking at Elements of Distancing in the Work of Dorothy

Heathcote – with a sidelong Glance to Brecht”. 205

4. “Distancing at Close Range.

Making strange devices in Dorothy Heathcotes process drama
Teaching Political Awareness through Drama”. 219

5. “Antigone and Rachel Corrie. The Story of two female Activists.

Reflections on a Process Drama Exploration”. 241

G. Summary and discussion 255

Summary in Norwegian – oppsummering på norsk 265

References 275

Appendices

1. Appendix: Conceptions of distancing in process drama literature

2. Appendix: Conceptions of distancing as a reflective poetic device

11
Table of figures

Figure 1 45
Figure 2 143
Figure 3 146
Figure 4 147
Figure 5 148

12
A. Description of the research project.

1. Purpose, background and relevance of the study

The purpose of the study is to investigate distancing as an arts education
concept, focussing particularly on its importance in drama education. The study
takes an interest in understanding distance as an aesthetic principle in drama
pedagogy - its ontological aspect, and its application as a poetic and didactic
device in drama education - its epistemological aspect. This interest
encompasses exploration of what the phenomenon of distancing is, and how
distancing is conceptualized, substantiated and applied in drama education as a
poetic and didactic device. The investigation examines distancing as a concept
mainly through literature, but it explores its theory and practice in relation to
exemplary practices as well.
Three broad literary and/or dramatic traditions constitute the main background
for the study: The Formalism in literature and theatre associated with Viktor
Borisovich Shklovsky (1893-1984), the Epic Theatre of Bertolt Brecht (1898-
1956), and the Process Drama of Dorothy Heathcote (1926 - ). A fourth source is
the Aesthetic Theory of Edward Bullough (1880-1934). The study takes an
explicit historical interest in the origins and traditions of distancing, aiming at a
deeper understanding of the development of the conception, and a better
fundament for appraising the place and the role of distancing in drama education
today. In that perspective the contributions of Brecht and Heathcote, two central
representatives of educational drama and theatre, will be specially emphasized.

i. Personal background
My interest in a connection between the work of Brecht and Heathcote was first
briefly mentioned in my Master degree dissertation (Eriksson 1979:255)1. One
theme that was presented as deserving further research, was the question of

1
In my files I have found a letter from 1978 addressed to me by John N. McLeod, at that
time Research Officer at the Drama Resource Centre, Education Department, Victoria,
Australia. Amongst other things, McLeod comments on a draft article by Professor
Oliver Fiala and Heathcote, which I had expressed an interest in, particularly with the
similarity/difference aspect between Brecht/Heathcote in mind. Only a year before Fiala
had published an article discussing affinities between the work of Heathcote and Brecht
(Fiala 1977). McLeod admits to the novelty in the conception of potential connections
between these two, but has his doubts whether the article has properly come to terms
with the respective teaching methodologies. He concludes: "I understand Professor
Fiala's article is a preliminary paper to a longer work and because of this the many
subtleties of Dorothy Heathcote’s work are not explored" (“McLeod-letter” 1978). The
joint article by Fiala and Heathcote. "Preparing Teachers to Use Drama: The Caucasian
Chalk Circle", was later printed more or less unchanged from the draft version in the
pamphlet Drama as Context (ed. Myra Barrs), NATE, 1980. See also footnote 22.

13
which influences on drama pedagogy can be attributed to the theatre innovators
of our century, among them Brecht (op.cit.:283).
Over time my experience as a drama educator, writer and researcher has
strengthened my interest in exploring affinities between Brecht and Heathcote,
and particularly the idea that the so-called Verfremdungseffekt in the Brechtian
theatre tradition may also be a significant factor in the interplay between
meaning and form in process drama. My bafflement that the function of the
Verfremdungseffekt has received relatively modest attention in the drama
pedagogic literature provides a motivation for the study. But my interest has also
been stimulated by the study’s potential to examine and improve the
understanding of the significance of distancing to the field today.

ii. Art pedagogic orientation

Theatre and drama traditionally represent different intentions when it comes to
the connections between message/content, experience/learning, target
group/participant group and stage/audience arena; but not always. Brecht’s
learning-play2 and process drama constitute examples of dramatic genres that
exhibit interesting similarities. Both are process genres. Both have educational
goals and an ambition to stimulate to new awareness, based on the elimination of
the division between actor and audience, and being expressed in arenas that
typically are not associated with 'theatre'. The study illuminates these genres
from one and the same concept. Distancing opens up for exploration of central
parallels between them. This may provide a clearer understanding of influence
between them - ideologically, didactically and artistically. Herein are
opportunities for new insights, beneficial to both the drama pedagogic and the
theatre pedagogic fields.
The study is based on the premise that it is part of the nature of art pedagogic
work to stimulate awareness, to entice reflection. In this perspective distancing is
presumed to play a significant role. A classical study of distance as an aesthetic
principle was carried out by Bullough in 1912. But where Bullough considers
distance a psychological factor with relevance to all art experience, Brecht
considers distance a unique and indispensable aesthetic principle for an art that
will provoke debate, challenge attitudes, and promote change. Brecht’s
pedagogical orientation brings his work interestingly close to modern drama
pedagogy.
The interest of the study in epic theatre poetics (Brecht) - of which distancing is
a central category - and its application within drama pedagogic poetics
(Heathcote), elucidates points of contact between theatre arts education and
drama pedagogy rather than discrepancies. Tensions between theatre and
pedagogy have existed for a long time in drama education. Brecht for instance

2
When Brecht in 1935 translated the term Lehrstück, in the article “The German Drama:
pre-Hitler”, he wrote: “[…] for which the nearest English equivalent I can find is the
‘learning-play’” (Brecht 2001b:79).

14
was labelled an austere functionalist when he wanted to teach through his
learning-plays (e.g. Esslin 1971:118), and Heathcote was criticized for lack of
artistic investment, reducing drama to pedagogy (e.g. Hornbrook 1989:14). The
foundation of the study in a theatre form: Lehrstück, and in a renowned
significant aesthetic category: distancing, may contribute to a reduction of the
unproductive tensions of such dichotomies, and lead to an improved discourse
and practice between artistic wills and didactic wills in the field. The study has
an ambition to strengthen the self-reflection of the drama education field and to
further the development of its didactics3. Embedded in this ambition is the idea
of drama pedagogy as an arts education area, encompassing a potential for
theatre renewal itself. That perspective is also part of the background and
relevance of the study.

2. Preunderstanding and objectives

It is the preunderstanding of the study that distancing constitutes a significant
meaning making factor in drama education. Thus it belongs to the
preunderstanding that distancing is a significant topos in the didactics of drama
pedagogy.
An important objective of the study is to contribute to ongoing discussions in the
field pertaining to philosophies, methods and forms by conducting analyses of
conceptions of distancing, and examples of how distancing has been applied in
drama education practices, particularly in the work of the drama education
pioneers Brecht4 and Heathcote. Examples are taken from Brecht’s learning-play
theory, mainly his Lehrstück The Measures Taken (1929-30), and from
Heathcote’s drama pedagogy, mainly her process drama5 Teaching Political
Awareness through Drama (1981-82). Even if some studies related to aspects of

3 Even though didactics is not a common term in English, it is widely used in the Nordic
countries and in many parts of Europe to designate the interplay of theory and practice in
education, i.e. the connection between preparation, selection of content/form and
realization in teaching. In this study the term should not be conceived of as ‘teaching a
moral lesson’ or a designation of drama/theatre forms with an overtly propagandist
message.
4I consider Brecht a drama education pioneer in this context. The theoretical foundations
for his epic theatre, including uses of artistic devices like distancing, were developed
during his work with the learning-plays in the late 1920s/early 1930s (Hecht 1962:118-
121; Benjamin 1998a:8 and b:19-20; Willet 2001:33; Steinweg 2005:15-16). From the
early 1970s and into the 1980s, Brecht’s Lehrstück model was a significant basis for the
theory and practice of German drama/theatre pedagogy (Steinweg 1976b, 2005; Ritter
1978; Ruping 1984; Koch/Steinweg/Vaßen 1984; Koch 1988; Korrespondenzen –
Zeitschrift für Theaterpädagogik: 1985/86, 1988, 1990/91, 1992, 1994, 1995). Lehrstück
is still an object of study for drama education research in Germany (Pinkert 2005).
5 Process drama is not a term used by Heathcote. But process drama is the term which in
today’s drama education is closest to her theory and practice.

15
affinity between Brecht’s and Heathcote’s theory and practice already exist6,
little research attention has been given to possible connecting lines between
Brecht and Heathcote concerning distancing, and the meaning making potential
inscribed in distancing. The study analyses examples of such connecting lines.
An example of distancing applied in my own practice is also included in the
study: Antigone and Rachel Corrie. The Story of two female Activists.
Reflections on a Process Drama Exploration (Eriksson 2007c).
A secondary objective is to elucidate connections between the research fields of
drama education and theatre studies. Illuminating parallels between drama
pedagogy as an art subject, e.g. the process drama genre, and theatre studies as
pedagogy, e.g. the learning-play genre, gives the project a multidisciplinary
aspect that draws on competencies from various fields of research. Expanding on
this, the study is intended to contribute to the rekindling of an interest in the
didactic aspects of theatre.
A supplementary objective is that the study may have relevance as a source to
improved drama education practice, and that it may contribute usefully to the
growing research field within drama pedagogy in Norway and abroad.

3. Problem considerations and research questions

The study is situated at the intersection between art and pedagogy - with an
interest in the relationship between didactics and poetics in an epistemological
perspective. This relationship is for instance emphasized in drama education
through the term ‘double content’: The meaning content of the dramatic activity,
the theme, is one part. Another part is the compositional structure and other form
elements. The interplay between these factors is generally considered a
determining factor in the epistemological quality of the dramatic activity. It
belongs to the pre-understanding of this study that different forms of distancing
and distancing effects can serve as both catalyst and driving force of the
interplay between content and form.
The study has a composite thematic focus. It deliberates how distancing can be
understood as a principle – the ontological theme; it discusses distancing as a
meaning making device in literature and drama – the epistemological theme; and
it identifies and analyses examples of distancing in some selected drama
pedagogical practices – the didactical theme. The following research questions
forms the basis of the investigation:

i. Research questions
a. What is distancing? How is the notion of distancing conceptionalized in
aesthetic theory and in drama education?

6
See my article “Looking at Elements of Distancing in the Work of Dorothy Heathcote –
with a sidelong Glance to Brecht” (2007b:239-243).

16
 b. Which purposes and forms of distancing can be identified in the
literature and in the practice examples of the study, and which are the
functions of distancing in these contexts?
c. Are the historical appearances of distancing in the study in the main
mutually similar or different? How are Brecht’s and Heathcote’s
distancing approaches related to each other and to other distancing
traditions presented in the study?
The following two-sided qualitative hypothesis informs the research questions
and the ongoing discussion throughout the study: (1) Distancing is a
foundational premise for entering and upholding a dramatic fiction, and (2)
distancing is a significant device for facilitating and augmenting processes of
reflection and new understanding. The hypothesis is developed from the above
mentioned preunderstanding that distancing constitutes a noticeable meaning
making dynamic in drama education and plays an important role in the shaping
of the poetics and didactics of the drama education practices represented in the
study.

4. Research contexts. Five articles

The main part of the study consists of five articles. All the research questions are
not focussed in every article. However, in the main the research questions are
considered also through the connecting text constituting the accompanying
chapters. Each one of the articles approach distancing from different angles and
with different foci. Examples of approaches are:
• Applying aesthetic and rhetoric theory pertaining to traditions in which
distancing has been discussed as a phenomenon (Bullough. Shklovsky.
Brecht).
• Applying drama/theatre literature relevant to distancing in theory and
practice (Brecht. Heathcote).
• Identifying, analyzing, and interpreting examples of uses of distancing
in some concrete drama pedagogic contexts (Brecht. Heathcote. My own
practice).
From these materials the articles analyse and discuss the following themes or
categories. The numbering corresponds with the succession of the articles
presented in F:
1. Awareness of fiction. (Distancing as an aesthetic principle in art.
Bullough. Ben Chaim).
2. Dramaturgic and narrative structure. (The Measures Taken. Brecht).
3. Distancing as an element of drama education philosophy. (Heathcote in
the light of Brecht).

17
 4. Distancing as a didactic topos. (Teaching Political Awareness through
Drama. Heathcote).
5. Distancing in social intervention drama. (Antigone and Rachel Corrie.
Own practice example).
The research context comprises three practice examples. They are italicized
above.
Research question a. is mainly considered in article 1.
Research question b. is mainly considered in articles 2, 4 and 5.
Research question c. is mainly considered in article 3.

5. Methodologies and methods. Theory base

i. Methodology perspectives
The research interest is hermeneutic and has primarily abductive research logic
with distancing as the core concept. Abductive reasoning takes advantage of a
variety of perspectives and data to explain the available evidence. In the present
study not all research variables were known in advance, although it was initiated
by the aforementioned general preunderstanding that distancing is a significant
topos in educational drama/theatre and that it holds a potential for facilitating
critical awareness and change. It is a characteristic of qualitative, abductive
research to be generative, in that it is concerned with discovering phenomena,
concepts, strategies and perspectives. In this study an aesthetic philosophical
perspective is applied for explaining the phenomenon of distance, whilst a
literary criticism perspective is utilized for clarifying dramaturgic and narrative
structures in practice examples included in the study, and for interpreting the
conceptional meanings of the term distancing in the literary and dramatic
traditions included in the study. The aesthetic perspective is germane also to the
aspects of poetics in the study; particularly for the literary theory of early
Russian Formalism, as well as for Brecht’s Epic Theatre theory. Supplementary
to this, a rhetoric perspective is applied to elucidate didactic and poetic positions
in practice examples included in the study. But it should be noted that all the
perspectives are not actualized in all the examples. Moreover, a viewpoint from
within the field is actualized via my own general outlook as a practicing drama
teacher and drama teacher educator. An interest in the significance and functions
of distancing constitute the common thematic focus which inform and motivate
the analytic perspectives.

ii. Methods approaches

The study is built on a multi-methods and multi-disciplinary hermeneutical
approach. It has a mapping, descriptive side - and an analytic, interpretive side.
Comparative literature study, including comparison of concepts, and close

18
reading of dramatic and scenic texts, including video transcription and analysis
of own practice, are the main methods components. Interview and letter
correspondence belong to the methods approaches of the study.
In keeping with an approach in Chris Hart’s Doing a Literature Review (1998),
the study compares and contrasts the ideas and concepts of different theorists
through philosophical scrutiny (Hart 1998:137). One angle of concept approach
is analysis of the phenomenon distance. Chapter B.1.iii introduces this aspect,
but it finds its main discussion in the article “Distance and Awareness of Fiction
– Exploring the concepts” (Eriksson 2007a). Another angle of concept approach
is analysis of distancing conceptions encountered in drama education literature
(1st Appendix). This aspect is discussed in chapter B.ii, where didactic uses of
the concept emerge as a main theme. A third angle of concept approach is
analysis of distancing as a poetic-didactic conception, and particularly the
understanding of distancing as a making strange device. Chapter B. 3 introduces
this aspect, and it is a main theme in the chapters C, D, and E. Moreover, it is
discussed in the three practice-oriented articles “Using fabula, syuzhet, forma as
Tools of Analysis in Drama Pedagogy – With Brecht’s The Measures Taken as
an example (Eriksson 2006); “Antigone and Rachel Corrie. The Stories of two
female Activists. Reflections on a Process Drama Exploration” (Eriksson,
2007c); and “Distancing at Close Range. Making-strange devices in Dorothy
Heathcote’s process drama Teaching Political Awareness through Drama”
(Eriksson 2008b)7 – particularly in the latter one. Also, following Hart
(1998:122), the study traces the concept history of making strange, largely in
chapters B.3, C and D, as well as etymological analysis of the concept
(op.cit.:123), mainly in B.3, C.1 and D.2. Distancing in Brecht’s Lehrstück and
in Heathcote’s process drama is dealt with in the chapters D and E respectively,
in addition to in the article “Looking at Elements of Distancing in the Work of
Dorothy Heathcote – with a sidelong Glance to Brecht” (2007b).
Further, the study employs a general comparative literature analysis approach,
broadly adapted from Hart (1998), to analyse and discuss uses of distancing in
Shklovsky’s, Brecht’s and Heathcote’s work. The method is used to capture
poetic-didactic considerations based on the executants’ own descriptions of
distancing in their theory and practice. This is explored in some depth in the
chapters C, D, and E, and in E a particular emphasis is given to a comparison of
Heathcote’s uses of distancing in relation to Brecht’s. Points of entries for my
discussion of Shklovsky’s work are his two articles on estrangement (Sklóvskij
2001 and Shklovsky 1988). For Brecht points of entry for my discussion are
learning-play texts (Brecht 1966a; 1995a) and theory fragments related to his
Lehrstück pedagogy (Brecht 1963c,d,i; 1978a; 2001a,b; 2003b,c). For Heathcote
points of entry for my discussion are video presentations of actual process drama

7 Original title: ”Distansering på nært hold. Underliggjøringsgrep i Dorothy Heathcotes

prosessdrama Teaching Political Awareness through Drama”. In Nyrnes, Aslaug and
Niels Lehmann (red.). Ut frå det konkrete. Bidrag til ein retorisk kunstfagdidaktikk,
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2008(a).

19
sessions (Heathcote [mainly] 1982), and deliberations on these in interviews and
letter communications. In addition, I argue my interpretations from extensive
source materials in the authors’ own publications. (See the chapter References).
Moreover, I compare and interpret from a broad reception of criticism and
research of the work of Shklovsky, Brecht, and Heathcote. Particularly for
Brecht and Heathcote, there already exists a wide array of literature about their
work in the drama education field. What makes the present study special,
however, is the bringing together for the field of drama education, important
aspects of criticism and research related to the common theme of distancing. In
the articles the comparative aspect is treated specifically in “Looking at
Elements of Distancing in the Work of Dorothy Heathcote – with a sidelong
Glance to Brecht” (Eriksson 2007b) and to a degree in “Distancing at Close
Range. Making-strange devices in Dorothy Heathcote’s process drama Teaching
Political Awareness through Drama” (Eriksson 2008b).
Close reading of dramatic text (The Measures Taken), video transcription of a
process drama structure (Teaching Political Awareness through Drama) and my
own workshop manuscript (Antigone and Rachel Corrie), has been used to
identify narrative and dramaturgic distancing structures, and rhetoric making
strange topoi as poetic-didactic devices. The latter perspective is treated and
discussed with most consistency in the article “Distancing at Close Range.
Making-strange devices in Dorothy Heathcote’s process drama Teaching
Political Awareness through Drama” (Eriksson 2008b).
Library and archive research have provided me with a good overview of
available sources. There are Heathcote archives in Birmingham (University of
Central England, now: Birmingham City University) and in Manchester
(Manchester Metropolitan University). Both archives have a collection of video
tapes and Master degree or Ph.D. theses, although most of these materials are
not easily accessible for inter-library loans or for purchase. A range of Heathcote
videotapes are, however, commercially available from the University of
Newcastle upon Tyne (Audio Visual Centre). Archives for the historical
learning-play model8 are located in Hannover (Universität Hannover, Seminar
für deutsche Literatur und Sprache) and in Berlin (Brecht Archives, Brecht
Haus). Only the Brecht archives in Berlin have videotapes (films) of Lehrstück
productions, and very few. The Lehrstück-Archiv Hannover (LAH) has some
unedited video materials of learning-play experiments conducted at the
university in the 1980s, and otherwise books, student reports, theses, etc. related
to learning-play experiments from mainly the 1980s. Extensive documentation
and discussion of learning-play experiments from the archives and other

8 Model should be construed as equivalent to genre, although the term also implies ‘an
experimental praxis and/or exemplary praxis’. The origin of the term in this context
relates partly to Brecht’s own use of Modell to describe and evaluate work and
performance experiences and partly to Reiner Steinweg’s formative influence when he in
his reconstructions of Brecht’s learning-play theory (1971) first coined the concept
Lehrstück Modell (e.g. Steinweg 1976b).

20
contexts have been disseminated from the mid 1980s through the mid-1990s, by
the journal Korrespondenzen – Zeitschrift für Theaterpädagogik (published by
Schibri Verlag for the Gesellschaft für Theaterpädagogik, Bundesverband
Theaterpädagogik, and BAG Spiel + Theater). Visits to these archives, or in the
case with Manchester: correspondence with the archive, have been very helpful
for the collection of materials for this study.
Interviews and conference conversations have been valuable sources of
information. Most of the German Lehrstück-pioneers, for example Reiner
Steinweg, Gerd Koch, Florian Vaßen, Hans Martin Ritter, and others are still
active. During a conference in Lingen, Germany (2005) I had the opportunity to
meet with and hear about the work of a majority of the pioneers. Furthermore, a
collection of interviews with them has been published (Streisand et. al. 2005). A
similar situation exists in the case of Heathcote. I have had the opportunity to
meet with her, and seen her work in practice, at a number of occasions from the
mid 1970s until the present. My latest interview with Heathcote dates from May
2008, when she was invited to speak and workshop at a conference in Tromsø,
Norway.
It has been a support for the study that I have been a participant in numerous
process drama sessions lead by central representatives of process drama (Gavin
Bolton, Cecily O’Neill, John O’Toole, David Davis, Jonothan Neelands, and
others), and personally have led such sessions. Moreover, I have previously
conducted studies and published analyses of, among others, Heathcote’s work
(Eriksson 1979 and 1980), which has been useful in the research. I have written
work descriptions and made a draft video recording of my own practice, which I
have utilized in my workshop analysis. The analysis of my own process drama
appears in the article “Antigone and Rachel Corrie. The Stories of two female
Activists. Reflections on a Process Drama Exploration” (Eriksson 2007c)9.

iii. Theory base

A key theory source for the study of Brecht’s concept of distancing is Brecht’s
Lehrstück theory and his theory of the epic theatre, from his Schriften zum
Theater (Hecht-edition 1963-1964). This edition serves as my chief reference
collection of Brecht’s original writings, supplemented with Brecht-translations
from Peter Haars (1974), Steen Bille (1981), John Willett (2001), and Tom Kuhn
and Steve Giles (2003)10. An important source for the conceptual understanding

9 Additionally, I have observed and made sporadic video recordings of work on

learning-plays in my own practice, conducted in co-operation with my colleague Kari
Mjaaland Heggstad at Bergen University College. But I am not using such recordings in
the present study.
10 I have chosen to reference all Brecht’s essays and notes as distinct entries in the main
text, as well as in the list of references, in order to more easily identify the actual
concrete source. I have also, where the information has been available, referenced the
year of the source’s original publication. I have done the same for Heathcote’s
articles/essays.

21
of poetic distancing in literature and theatre is Hermann Helmers’ Verfremdung
in der Literatur (1984). From this collection of theoretical essays, I have
explored contributions from leading researchers of German Brecht criticism,
such as Reinhold Grimm (1984; 1965; 1972), Werner Mittenzwei (1984), Käthe
Rühlicke-Weiler (1984), Ernst Schumacher (1984; 1955), and Jan Knopf
(1984)11. To German Brecht criticism also belongs Werner Hecht (1962) and
Walter Benjamin (1998a, b; 2007). A central Russian Brecht interpreter used in
the study is Ilja Fradkin (1977). Included in the theory base from the Anglo-
American Brecht criticism are Martin Esslin (1971), John Willett (1977, 1984,
2001), Peter Brooker (1994), and several others.
The key theory source for interpreting the uses of distancing in Heathcote’s
work is her Collected writings on education and drama (Johnson and O’Neill
edition 1984). Additional sources in this respect are Heathcote’s publications
with co-authors, notably Heathcote and Fiala (1980b) and Heathcote and Bolton
(1995; 1999). Auxiliary to these are Heathcote essays printed in other
publications. (See references). These primary sources are supplemented by
theory from both the learning-play criticism, notably German sources, and the
international process drama criticism. The former includes Steinweg
(1974;1976a,b; 1978; 2005), Ritter (1978), Koch/Steinweg/Vaßen (1984), Vaßen
(1987), Koch (1988). The latter includes Fiala (1977), Bolton (1979; 1984;
1992; 1998; 2003), John Carroll (1978; 1980), Norah Morgan and Juliana
Saxton (1987), O’Toole (1992), Sandra Hesten (1994), O’Neill (1995), Chris
Lawrence (1996), Maria Zannetou-Papacosta (2002), and Davis (2005). An
additional process drama interpreter used in the study is Tor-Helge Allern (2002,
2003, 2008).
Furthermore, the study draws on aesthetic theory, particularly Bullough (1912)
and Daphna Ben Chaim (1984). But also rhetoric and formalist theory, e.g. New
Formalist Theory from the journals Reception – tidsskrift for nordisk literatur
(No. 45, 2001) and Poetics Today (No. 4, 2005 and No. 1, 2006) have provided
the study with important foundations. The two latter sources are chiefly
concerned with analyses of Shklovsky’s work. The main authors from the
Shklovsky criticism represented in the study are Svetlana Boym (2005), Tatiana
Smoliarova (2006), Meir Sternberg (2006), and Christina Vatulescu (2006). An
additional Formalism interpreter used in the study is Aage Hansen-Löwe (1978).

11 It is interesting to note that German Brecht criticism is not entirely in agreement on

certain ideological aspects. Representatives from the former DDR, for instance
Mittenzwei, Rühlicke-Weiler, and Schumacher, tend to interpret Brecht’s political
message more dogmatically than representatives from the BRD, such as Hecht, Grimm,
Knopf, Helmers, who are more prone to try to “save” Brecht’s poetry from the reality of
his material-dialectical standpoint and instead give prominence to the more universal,
humanistic traits which can be found in his work.

22
6. Terminology and concepts
i. Drama pedagogy and drama education
The term drama pedagogy is used in the study both in relation to Brecht’s
Lehrstück and Heathcote’s process drama, even if the term theatre pedagogy is a
more common reference in the German drama education field. Theatre pedagogy
frequently connotes ‘learning to play theatre’, whilst drama pedagogy, at least in
the Nordic drama education field, has commonly had a double aim: ‘to learn by
learning to play theatre’ (Kjølner 1991:135). Despite the awareness that a double
aim can be relevant in theatre pedagogy as well (Sting, 2005:348), the term
drama pedagogy will be kept as a reference in this study because of its dominant
usage in the field tradition I belong to. Drama pedagogy refers to the deliberate
application of dramatic means of expression and forms in education contexts to
facilitate aesthetic experiences, knowledge and formation12. The term
encompasses a wide field - from improvised process drama sessions to text
based forms of theatre. An almost synonymous umbrella term is drama
education (Bolton 2006:45ff.). In the study the range for both terms covers
mainly Brecht’s learning-play model and the process drama tradition.

ii. Learning-play/Lehrstück
The Learning-play concept is closely related to Brecht’s Lehrstück and should
be construed as a form of participant based didactic theatre, where a dramatic
text foundation is used to explore, reflect upon and express a social theme.

iii. Process drama

The process drama concept is closely related to, among others, the educational
drama of Heathcote13, Bolton, and O’Neill and should be construed as a form of
participant based improvised drama, where various forms of dramatic

12 It is difficult to find another term in English than formation to signify the idea of
‘education for cultural and personal growth’. In Norwegian a relevant term would be:
dannelse; in German: Bildung.
13 Heathcote does not use the term process drama in her publications or in her work in
general. The term was, in fact, not introduced in the field until the early 1990s, chiefly
through the publications of O’Toole (1992) and O’Neill (1995). Nevertheless, I have
decided to use this, now widespread, term, as a designation for a drama education genre,
which I believe Heathcote has been instrumental in developing, and in which I find my
own practice inscribed. An anecdotal comment in Bolton’s biography about Heathcote
confirms the reality of her pioneering role of this term: ´Let’s try Process Drama’
replaced ‘let’s try the Heathcote method’ – meaning that for followers of Heathcote’s
work it would feel easier to try it “when the label was separated from its owner” (Bolton
2003:176).

23
conventions, including dramatic text, are used to explore, reflect upon and
express a (sometimes) social theme.

iv. Distancing and distance

The concept of distancing should primarily be understood as making strange and
is closely linked to Shklovsky’s concept priem ostranenie (frequently translated
as estrangement or de-familiarization in English) and to Brecht’s concept
Verfremdung (frequently translated as estrangement, alienation or distancing in
English). See also C.1 and D.1. Even if Shklovsky’s and Brecht’s concepts may
possess some differences of emphasis14, the quality of making strange is the
common denominator which lends them an almost synonymous meaning in the
study. The basic meaning is ‘to make something ordinary appear strange’, which
implies ‘to see the familiar with new eyes’ or ‘to look at the known with a
different perspective’. See also v. below, for a qualification of distancing in a
broad versus narrow meaning.
Even if the words distancing and distance are frequently used synonymously,
distancing does not always have in the context of this study the same
connotation as distance. The latter concept in the study is primarily used in
connection with Bullough’s theory of border areas between art and reality
(Bullough 1957a:101), which Ben Chaim characterizes as awareness of fiction
(1984:69). Obviously, the term distance appears occasionally in drama
pedagogical contexts also in its everyday meaning: ‘distance to something’.
The function of distancing in the study is chiefly considered to be a poetic-
didactic structuring principle, and the distancing effect is considered to be an
artistic category, consisting of various devices, figures, conventions. Distancing
is closely related to the interplay of meaning content, structuring, and selection
of form, and is presumed to have a central significance to reflection both in
learning-play and process drama. It also contains a function of protection.
In the field literature, particularly in the process drama criticism, it happens that
distancing is applied almost synonymously with protection, for instance in
Bolton (1984:128-139). The study includes a chart overview, see Appendix 1,
mapping examples of how the terms distancing/protection are used in process
drama literature, giving special attention to the difference between meanings
denoting protection or artistic device.

v. Distancing in a broad and narrow meaning

Helmers makes a distinction between regarding the conception of distancing in a
broad versus narrow meaning (Helmers 1984:1, 26-29). This distinction has
some import in relation to which intentions are being employed regarding

14 Researchers disagree on how much weight should be given to difference in political

stance with regard to Shklovsky’s, and respectively Brecht’s, application of their
concepts. I briefly discuss this issue in section D.2 of the study.

24
distancing within the traditions to be explored in the study. The distinction has
only relevance for the comprehension of distancing as a making strange
device15.
Estrangement in a broad sense denotes all poetic uses of estrangement with an
intention of making the ordinary strange in such a way that the attention of the
recipient is awakened and reflection promoted. This is a definition in good
keeping with the definition of poetic distance/distancing in iv above. It is a well
known poetic device within the tradition of rhetorics with antecedents back to
Aristotle; see B.3.i, Romanticism, B.3.iii and early Russian Formalism, C.1.
Estrangement in a broad meaning essentially includes all the examples of poetic
estrangement discussed in the study.
Estrangement in a narrow sense denotes the poetic uses of estrangement which
have the particular intention of practising social criticism, usually by
demonstrating real contradictions. It is a special form of estrangement,
expressing a dissenting opinion of the existing social conditions. It has
antecedents back to Socrates’ criticism of conventional norms16, see B.3.ii.
Otherwise, Brecht’s concept of Verfremdung stands out as a typical example
aimed at utilizing estrangement in a narrow sense. Estrangement in a narrow
meaning has essentially the same intention as estrangement in a broad sense
(Helmers 1984:1); only in the capacity of its specific aim of social criticism does
estrangement in a narrow meaning employ a greater variety of strategies and
devices to accomplish its intention.
The discrimination between estrangement in a broad versus narrow meaning is
mainly referential in the context of the study. It is not specifically used in
discussion as defining categories when estrangement is explored within the
traditions referenced in the study.

vi. Poetics/poetic and didactics/didactic

The concepts poetics and poetic are prevailing binary terms in relation to the
concepts didactic and didactics in the study. Poetics is understood as that part of
aesthetics which deals with the art of poetry – including drama and theatre art.
Poetics deal with the nature, style and form of dramatic art; its content and
means of production as well. In short, poetics concerns itself with the theory and
practice of the art form. The word poetic is dominantly used as a qualifying
adjective in this same sense, as opposed to the more general usage of the word
with the meaning of something beautiful, imaginative, romantic, or sentimental.

15 Helmers’ general term for making strange in his context is Verfremdung.

16 Helmers points out that Socrates’ criticism of norm is closely associated with the
device of irony, and that irony as a poetic distancing device historically has an element
of social criticism, a feature that was weakened in the later version of romantic irony
(Helmers 1984:27). Irony is not explored as a distancing device in this study.

25
The concepts didactics and didactic are prevailing binary terms in relation to the
concepts poetic and poetics in the study. Didactics17 is understood as that part of
pedagogy which deals with the art of education – including drama and theatre
education. Didactics deal with the nature, style and form of education; its
content and methods as well. In short, didactics concern itself with the theory
and practice of education. The word didactic is dominantly used as a qualifying
adjective in this same sense, as opposed to the more general usage of the word
with the meaning of something instructive, educational, or pedagogic, when such
words are used in the sense of ‘teaching a moral lesson’.
The concept didactics includes pedagogic deliberations about aims, content/form
and realization, and has in this context relevance for both the dramatic work
forms – genres18 – discussed in the study. The concept poetics includes aesthetic
deliberations about aims, content/form and realization, and has in this context
relevance for both the dramatic work forms – genres – discussed in the study.
Thus the ratio between poetics/poetic and its superseding concept aesthetics is
similar to the ratio between didactics/didactic and its superseding concept
pedagogy.
I am aware that I am partly using these concepts against tradition. However,
since I first conceptualized this way of bringing together the aesthetic and
pedagogic dimensions of drama education (Eriksson 1999:12), I have found it
more useful, and more logical, to reserve the terms aesthetics and pedagogics as
superseding theoretical references, and the terms poetics and didactics as
corresponding sub-categories for conceptualizing the praxis of drama education.
In the study I also use the concept-combination poetic-didactic. This is to signify
that drama education is an arts education field, and consequently that the
didactics of drama pedagogy develops on the premise of being an arts subject19.
However, this is a theme which is not central to the main theme of investigating
the significance of distancing in drama education and will not be much further
discussed in the study.

vii. Other terms incorporating distancing

The notion of self-spectatorship seems closely related to the notion of
spectatorship in Augusto Boal. It is activated when participants in a drama are

17
See also footnote 3.
18
Readers interested in the conception of genre in relation to drama education may
consult O’Toole (1992:3). In the study process drama and Lehrstück are considered as
drama education genres, i.e. each as a “living, historical formation, a real category”
(Shukman and L.M. O’Toole 1977:18) with some basic features as defined above, thus
represented as fairly open genre categories allowing a certain flexibility of
determination.
19
A research project conducted at Bergen University College (2004-2008), from which I
am represented with one of the articles in this study (Eriksson 2008b), a common theme
is how the didactics of art subjects can be developed on their own terms and germanely
to the art forms they represent (Nyrnes and Lehmann 2008:7).

26
expected to reflect on their actions from within the framework of the fiction.
“The self-spectator is an internal, reflective, critical capacity that can be
consciously alerted into action”, it is “the on-going conscious reflection during
the event” (Shillingford 1994:115). Bolton calls this kind of spectatorship “the
spectator in the head” (Heathcote and Bolton 1995:120) and points out that it is
vital to all Heathcote’s work. Heathcote herself acknowledges its relevance to
distancing: “[Distancing] is the factor which births the self-spectator, and
therefore the artist is then summoned!” (“Heathcote-letter” 09.02.2005).
The notion of frame is in some sense closely related to the notion of theatre:
“Being the closest to actual living, drama more than any other art has had to
create a special frame. This frame is called theatre” (Heathcote 1984f:130). In
drama education framing has become associated with distancing because it has
come to denote “the perspective from which people are coming to enter the
event” (Heathcote 1984g:163). Such differently framed perspectives represent
different distances to the dramatic event, and each frame represents a context for
dramatic exploration of the event. “It represents the point of view from which
the devised situation is to be viewed” (Hesten 1994:167). The relevance of
distancing to framing is obvious, and demonstrated by the twin concepts of role-
distance (O’Toole 1992:110-111) and frame-distance (Heathcote 1990:52-53).
See the charts presented in E.1.

7. Limiting the Scope

i. Other drama and education models

The scope of the study is primarily focussed on distancing in Brecht’s and

Heathcote’s contributions to drama education. There are obvious connections
between Brecht's learning-play model from 1929/30 and the British Theatre in
Education (TIE) models from the middle of the 1960s (e.g. O’Toole 1976;
Jackson 1980 and 1981). TIE has, in turn, demonstrable connections to process
drama (Bolton 1986b:180), not least through the influence of Heathcote
(Gillham 1997:9; Bolton 2003:178; Davis 2005:169; Heggstad 2008:90).
However, the project will not specifically venture into analysis of distancing as a
phenomenon in TIE. Moreover, the project will not discuss the connections that
exist between Boal’s models for liberating theatre (Boal 1979, 1980, 1998) and
the two drama education traditions encompassed by the study. However, these
phenomena are relevant references and supplemental contextualizations for uses
of distancing in drama pedagogy.

8. Other relevant literature and references

Central theoretical sources of literature for the study have already been referred
to above. In this paragraph those references will be complemented by a brief

27
excursion to other relevant research and subject literature discovered during the
work with this study. The contexts are mainly Lehrstück and process drama
traditions in Germany, Norway and other Nordic countries, and in the
UK/Australia/North America. In the article “Looking at Elements of Distancing
in the Work of Dorothy Heathcote – with a sidelong Glance to Brecht”
(Eriksson, 2007b), some of the same publications reviewed below are presented,
and in some more detail.
For a very general and historical contextualization, in keyword form, of how
distancing is conceptualized in English language drama education publications, I
also refer to Appendix 1.
Among the most central learning-plays are The Learning-play from Baden
(1929), He Who Says Yes/He Who Says No (1929-30), The Exception and the
Rule (1929-30), and The Measures Taken (1929-30). The latter is an example
discussed in the study. In the same way that current drama pedagogy can be
considered a form of applied drama/theatre20, even Brecht’s Lehrstücke, which
he wrote in the period 1929-30, can be considered as a form of applied
drama/theatre. It means that it can be studied and practiced as an educational
genre in arenas other than a school classroom. This was the case with most of
Brecht’s original Versuche with the learning-plays: they were devised and
practiced with workers as well as with school children, and in festival settings as
well as for radio (Haars 1974:8-9).
There exist some notes from the pen of Brecht on the didactics of the Lehrstück,
but this literature is fragmented. Most of the fragments are available in
Norwegian, in a collection by Haars entitled Bertolt Brecht. Lærestykker [Bertolt
Brecht. Learning-Plays] (1974). This publication also contains the above
mentioned learning-play texts. Included in the edition is a formative article by
the German cultural sociologist Steinweg, discussing the learning-play as a
model for socially critical pedagogic theatre (Steinweg, in Haars 1974:164-184).
Both here and in other relevant scientific literature, such as that of the American
cultural critic Fredric Jameson (Jameson 1998:62), the learning-plays are
primarily associated with the classroom and student pedagogy. Jameson devotes
a section of his book Brecht and Method (1998) to a discussion of the learning-
play as a process based drama genre where it is the participant, and not an
external audience, that gets to explore the relationship between action, reflection
and the poetics of the learning-play (1998:58-66). Moreover, Jameson refers to
Steinweg’s standard work Das Lehrstück. Brechts Theorie einer politisch-
ästhetischen Erziehung (1976a) as the most insightful source of analysis of
Brecht’s learning-plays. A Lehrstück bibliography for the period 1968-1983 can
be found in Koch/Steinweg/Vaßen (1984:286). These authors are also important

20 For references to this term, see, for example, Helen Nicholson (2005) and the
electronic journal Applied Theatre Researcher, http://www.griffith.edu.au/arts-
languages-criminology/centre-public-culture-ideas/research/applied-
theatre/publications/issues (downloaded July 7th, 2008).

28
contributors to the German journal Korrespondenzen – Zeitschrift für
Theaterpädagogik and have been active participants in the German theatre
pedagogy community, of which one of the results is a separate Lehrstück theme
issue of Korrespondenzen (Heft 19/20/21, 1994). In that volume an expanded
learning-play biography is included (op.cit.:115-126). The year after,
Korrespondenzen added to the learning-play issue with follow-up articles. In
German theatre pedagogy, the term ‘drama’ is generally not used the way one is
accustomed to in Norwegian and Anglo-American-Australian literature, but, as
already mentioned in part A.6, the term theatre pedagogy encompasses much of
the same as drama pedagogy, within which forms such as Rollenspiel,
Darstellendes Spiel, and Interaktionspädagogik can be included. Ritter has, for
instance, in a stencilled booklet entitled Theater als Lernform (1978) looked
more closely into such practices. Brecht’s learning-play pedagogy occupies an
important part of the booklet. Ritter has also written a concise encyclopaedia
article on the theory and practice of Lehrstück in Brauneck & Schneilin’s
Theaterlexikon (1986), and is one of the contributing writers for
Korrespondenzen and other publications in the field.
The learning-plays have occupied a relatively modest position in theatre studies
research in Norway. An exception is perhaps the theatre historian Jon Nygaard,
who discusses Brecht’s Lehrstück in a historical, but not a practical-pedagogic,
context (Nygaard 1993:122-123). However, in Norwegian drama pedagogic
studies literature references to Brecht do exist, including references to the
perceived Brechtian elements in Heathcote’s work (e.g. Heggstad 1998:87-88;
Braanaas 1999:130, 210, 21221; Gladsø et. al. 2005:131). Similarly, I have not
found evidence that the learning-play model has been of much interest in the
development of drama pedagogy in the Anglo-American-Australian context22.
There is, however, signs of some interest in Brecht’s learning-plays within the
TIE movement, e.g. in the British SCYPT-Journal No. 8/1981, where the TIE
researcher Tony Jackson writes about the didactic theatre of the 1930s as a

21 Braanaas makes a note that Heathcote has not presented a ‘theatre manifesto’
disclosing her views on contemporary theatre, but infers that “the importance she gives
to reflection may indicate having received impulses from Brecht” (my translation). He
also (rightly) makes a note that no references of such influence are given in her
Collected Writings (Johnson and O’Neill 1984). I should like to make the additional note
that there is an exception: in Heathcote’s article “From the particular to the universal” in
this collection, Brecht is mentioned, and a part of his poem “Lied des Stückschreibers”
(The Playwright’s Song) is used by Heathcote and commented on by her from the point
of view of teacher (op.cit.:104, 106, 108-110). See also E.2. Heathcote does not
reference the poem, but I have found it amongst Brecht’s “Poems from the Messingkauf”
(Schriften zum Theater, b. 6, 1963:281-284). The full English translation is printed in
Willet and Manheim (1976:257-260).
22 Perhaps Fiala’s sentiment in a letter to me speaks for a general lack of interest in
Brecht’s Lehrstücke in the drama education field in the 1990s?: “The Lehrstücke of
Brecht represent training in indoctrination and propaganda, maybe a very risky area in
the present educational climate” (“Fiala-letter” 12.11.93).

29
precursor to TIE, and in the Australian NADIE-Journal, where Dianne
Mackenzie in a history of TIE in Great Britain and Australia uses Brecht as a
background reference. Additionally, SCYPT-Journal has produced several issues
that include material about Brecht, e.g. No. 5, 1980 and No. 13, 1984. This will
not be further explored in the study, because the TIE context is not within its
scope.
There is, however, an awareness of Brecht’s work more generally in the drama
education field, beyond the Lehrstück. Particularly an interest in potential
applications of his epic theory, including Verfremdung, can be perceived. A very
early example of this interest, even earlier than Fiala’s, referred to in footnote 1,
was the British drama educator John Hodgson’s collection of articles titled The
Uses of Drama. Sources giving a background to acting as a social and
educational force (1972). The articles, spanning Aristotle to Peter Brook, were
intended for the drama education field. Hodgson found space for both Brecht
and Heathcote, the latter a rather unknown name at the time. Heathcote was
represented with the article “Drama as Challenge” (Hodgson 1972:156-165) 23.
Brecht was represented with two essays, one of which was “A Short Description
of a New Technique of Acting”. The notion of distancing has a central focus in
it, which Hodgson briefly comments on, for example that “[Brecht] sees no
reason why a critical detachment needs result in negative approach” (Hodgson
1972:120). Another early attempt to connect Brecht to drama pedagogy is the
abovementioned article by Fiala (1977) and an ensuing long article together with
Heathcote on the use of Brechtian distancing elements in her work (Heathcote
and Fiala 1980b:25-53)24. In his Heathcote-biography Bolton refers to Fiala’s
interest in Heathcote’s work as “seeing her as a ‘Brecht’ of education” (Bolton
2003:148). Apparently inspired by Fiala, Carroll, in an early paper25, picks up on
the possibility of using Brecht as a source for devising drama education. Carroll
purports to apply Brecht’s term alienation as a “duality of viewpoint […] area of
learning” (Carroll 1978:2), i.e. “where the elements of participant and spectator
are both active” (ibid.). Although Carroll in doing so anticipates Boal’s ‘spect-

23 This is the article in which Heathcote first refers to Kenneth Tynan’s Declaration,
which inspired the later famous Heathcote quote that drama is about “real man in a
mess” (Morgan and Saxton 1987:182; Bolton 2003:58-59). This is takes us forward to a
discussion in E, where I suggest that another famous Heathcote quote which appears in
this article, the notion of ‘living through’, implies a more “Brechtian” quality than
appears at first sight.
24 In 1993 I conducted an interview with Fiala that touched on this theme. He confirmed
his early attentiveness to points that Heathcote has in common with Brecht, but he also
made the point that the old Greek tragedy and comedy forms offer yet another model for
drama teaching with some similar epic, distancing aspects as those found in Brecht’s and
Heathcote’s work (“Fiala-interview” 1993).
25 Carrol’s “Alienation and the role of the spectator in drama in education” is a
university studies paper, not a published monograph. It is registered in the Heathcote
archive in Manchester in 1978. In this paper Carroll refers specifically to the joint article
by Fiala and Heathcote, the then unpublished version from 1978.

30
actor’ (Schutzman and Cohen-Cruz 1994:238)and ‘methexis’26 (Boal 1979:88)
concepts, he is mainly operating with an understanding of alienation as a “once
removed” (op.cit.:18) situation: “By behaving ‘as if’ rather than ‘it is’ the pupils
become sufficiently removed from the situation to reflect on it and sufficiently
involved within it to deepen their understanding of it” (ibid.). This is an
understanding of distancing which has more to do with ‘protection’27 than with
alienation. When Carroll does refer to alienation, as “strange making” (op.cit.:6-
7), he does not follow up the estrangement aspect of the term. See also E.1
regarding Carroll.
After the time when these publications appeared, there has been a growth in
references to the Heathcote/Brecht affinity in the field literature. O’Toole
observes that “drama in education is a very Brechtian medium” (1992:114), for
which he uses the notion of ‘frame distance’ as an example (op.cit.:109-110)28.
An interesting observation is that O’Toole invokes the Lehrstück as a reference
for a ‘theatre for change’, but without referring to the genre, by quoting the
appeal from the prologue of The Exception and the Rule to: “Consider it strange,
although familiar” (op.cit.:152). O’Neill relates Heathcote’s assertion that
“children should not be asked to act in the ‘stage actor sense’, only that they
should take up attitudes and perspectives”, which she finds “close to the
demonstrative and illustrative quality expected of a Brechtian actor” (O’Neill
1995:80).
In addition to the literature referenced above, several other studies have emerged
in the latter years with relevance to the investigation of the present study: in an
essay in Svensklärarföreningens Årsskrift 1985, regarding the influence that
professional theatre has had on drama pedagogy, the Swedish theatre researcher
István Pusztai points out similarities between Heathcote’s and Brecht’s work
(Pusztai 1986). The English drama pedagogues Stephen Lacey and Brian
Woolland do the same in an article in the journal 2-D (Vol.8, No.2, 1989), where
their main focus is a look at DIE as radical theatre practice as viewed from the
standpoint of post-Brechtian modernism traditions in the theatre. In a booklet
based on his Master’s thesis from the University of Central England, Alistair
Muir writes about knowledge and change in Heathcote’s and Brecht’s drama.
Discussing complementary aspects but also differences, Muir sees both
Heathcote and Brecht as radical pedagogues. But whereas Brecht is concerned
with politics with a big P, Heathcote is concerned with enabling people to be
politically active with a small p (Muir 1996). Also in the UK, a discussion of
Heathcote in relation to Brecht is found in a review by the British drama
pedagogue Lawrence (1996). Drawing on Marx and Benjamin, Lawrence places

26 Allern has usefully problematized this term coined by Boal (Allern 2002:77-85).
27 There seems to be a general trend among process drama pedagogues in the
Anglo/American/Australian tradition to equate distancing with protection. See also B.1.i
and B.1.ii, Appendix 1.
28 O’Toole actually calls it role distance. Further to this, see E.1.

31
Heathcote more readily in a radical tradition of education than, for example,
Muir does. Both Muir’s and Lawrence’s contributions are also discussed in E.3.
The Norwegian drama education researcher Bjørn Rasmussen has a short
chapter on Brecht’s significance for drama-pedagogic work in his doctoral
dissertation on the concept of playing (Rasmussen 1991). Another Norwegian
drama education researcher, Allern, in his Ph.D. dissertation on drama and
knowledge, discusses similarities and differences between Heathcote and Brecht
from the points of view of dramaturgy and epistemology, including pedagogic
philosophy, poetics, and distancing. Brecht’s Lehrstück is also included in
Allern’s investigation (Allern 2003).
From approaches somewhat further removed from a strictly drama pedagogic
standpoint, the Brazilian theatre pedagogue Ingrid Dormien Koudela, in an
article in the Australian NADIE-Journal, writes a description of her work on the
learning-plays and improvisational 'theatre games' (Koudela 1992). In Denmark
Marna Thirslund writes a Master’s thesis at the Germanic Institute of University
of Copenhagen about Brecht’s learning-play model applied to and with inmates
at the prison Vestre Fengsel in Copenhagen (Thirslund 1992).
In her Ph.D. thesis Ida Krøgholt of the Department of Dramaturgy at the
University of Århus conducts a study of drama pedagogy as a field that
intersects with performance theatre (Krøgholt 2001), where, e.g. reference to
epic dramaturgy and art and formation manifest important themes that are of
significance to this study. In a related study to Krøgholt’s, the German theatre
pedagogue and researcher Ute Pinkert explores how the learning-play tradition
in Berlin in the 1970s, and the work of the performance group Forced
Entertainment in the UK in the 1990s and early 2000s, interpret and express
through theatre work the dynamics of every day life (Pinkert 2004).
In my own practice around 1989/1990 I have, together with my colleague Kari
Mjaaland Heggstad, worked on the learning-plays: The Yes-Sayer and The No-
Sayer (1929-30), to obtain , among other reasons, a better understanding of
Brecht’s use of distancing, and with an eye to finding didactic and poetic
parallels to process drama work. Although important for my own understanding
of the complexities and dynamics of Lehrstück, these experiences do not have
sufficient bearing on the main focus of the present study and will not be further
discussed.
As demonstrated by the examination of publications, several assertions have
been made by researchers and authors that relations or influences exist from
Brecht to Heathcote. However, in my view most of the observations remain
rudimentary and do not present to a greater degree detailed descriptions or
discussions29. But I find in them enough substance to support the
preunderstanding of the study that distancing is an important topos in drama

29 Allern’s chapters on Heathcote (Allern 2003:ch. 3) and Brecht (op.cit.:ch.8) represent

a noteworthy exception.

32
pedagogy, and that there seems to be agreement in the field that
Heathcote/Brecht affinities are present and can be observed. As most of the
publications referenced above discuss either only a few traits of
compability/incongruence, or do not have an investigation of distancing as the
main focus, the study purports, in keeping with the research questions, to
disclose and discuss in more depth important aspects of what distancing is,
significant purposes, forms and functions of distancing, and what likenesses
exist in Brecht’s and Heathcote’s approaches to distancing.

9. Footnotes
There is an extensive use of footnotes in the study. The footnotes represent
additions and expansions but also excursions and connections. They are thought
of as a kind of hyper-text as well as a form of laboratory30 for the study. I regard
the body of footnotes as an important part of the text. In the research process the
footnotes have facilitated and inspired my reflections, and the body of footnotes
constitutes a supplementary storeroom of ideas and deliberations that can be
used for further research.

30 I am indebted to my colleague Nina Goga for this metaphor (Goga 2007:8).

33
B. Aspects of distancing.
This chapter is composed around some main sections intended to
discuss/explain/elucidate important aspects of distancing. It is not
conceptionalized as a linear presentation, even when historic traditions are in
focus. Excursions are undertaken, across or parallel to the main theme of
distancing, attempting to exhibit relevant nuances in relation to distancing and to
relay that the phenomenon has a history, as well as a dynamic and a current
actuality. Distancing has a dynamic complexity that cannot be captured in a
simple formula or as a single technique or as a particular effect. Footnotes are
applied to assist the intention of the non-linear presentation. The footnotes may
well be regarded as a kind of supplementary, hyper-textual exploration of
aspects of distancing.
The chapter explains different meaning connotations associated with the term
distancing, and introduces basic conceptions of the term, such as protection,
aesthetic principle, and poetic device. The first represents a didactic orientation
to distancing that has to do with creating a protective dramatic fiction. The
second represents an aesthetic-philosophical orientation to distancing that has to
do with distancing as an aesthetic principle in art. The third represents a poetic
orientation to distancing that has to do with artistic devices for exploring and
learning through dramatic fiction. The first orientation is also a theme in chapter
E. The second orientation is mainly discussed in B.1. The third orientation is
introduced in B.1, and is a theme in B.3, and in chapters C, D, and E. Additional
orientations explored in the present chapter are the tension between empathy and
detachment, and the theme of epistemological function of distancing. In the last
part of the chapter the historical origins of the concept ‘making strange’ are
investigated, notably through the philosophies of Aristotle, Hegel, Diderot,
Coleridge, Shelley, and Novalis. References to the articles in chapter F are
integrated in the main text of the chapter.

1. Distancing as a multifaceted concept

Etymologically distance comes from the Latin distāntia: ‘standing apart’, hence
meanings of separation, distance, remoteness, difference, diversity. An Internet
search for meaning interpretations of distancing immediately throws up a
number of possibilities. In daily life experiences people or objects can be ‘placed
at a distance’, ‘made to appear distant’, ‘kept distant from’, or ‘outrun’. In
figurative speech distance expresses degrees of remoteness, as in ‘ideal
disjunction, mental separation’. In interpersonal relations distance signifies
detachment in interaction, ‘keeping and knowing one’s distance’, or simply an
aloof or deferential attitude. In psychology it is a term to designate reactions for
escaping engaging, or a technique used in therapy and special education to help
with building identity and communication through symbols and referential
language. In combat sports distancing is a technical terminus for the appropriate

35
selection of distance between oneself and a combatant throughout an encounter.
In dramatic art distancing may designate an aesthetic principle, delineating the
boundaries of fiction and reality through the mental faculty referred to as
psychic distance (Bullough, Ben Chaim), or it can be a description of a poetics,
including uses of stylistic devices, such as rhetoric figures or distancing effects
(Shklovsky, Brecht, Heathcote).
It is of interest to the study to keep such meaning connotations in mind. The
article “Distance and Awareness of Fiction – Exploring the Concepts” (Eriksson
2007a) explores the complexity of the concept, and particularly the aspects of
protection and awareness of fiction.

i. Distance as protection
A quite common comprehension of distancing in process drama is to value it as
protection, i.e. that participants will feel protected from the ‘real’ consequences
of their actions, attitudes, or expressions in the drama, provided that proper
distancing has been set up: “Distancing is a means of detouring feeling to arrive
at feeling. It is the strategy which allows the students to find meaning in
situations which, by their immediacy, might inhibit exploration” (Morgan and
Saxton 1987:136). Protection by distancing is also utilized to act as a safeguard
from unwanted emotional reactions when a drama is dealing with difficult or
sensitive themes: “It can be a useful method of protecting participants by
distancing them from moments which are potentially too difficult emotionally”
(Fleming 1994:94). Typically, this could be spatial and/or temporal distancing or
a psychologically oriented distancing: “Distancing is possible both through time
and emotional relationship to the main area of exploration” (Bowell and Heap
2001:65). Essentially, the protection takes place through an awareness of being
part of a fiction. Ken Byron succinctly explains how dramatic fiction works for
protection, while at the same time indicates its potential for experiential
learning:
“[W]e have the protection of a fiction in our exploration of issues […] – the
material is distanced and therefore less threatening, because we are looking not
at our attitudes but at theirs (the people whose roles we have adopted). Of
course we are exploring our own responses, but at one (protected) remove”
(Byron 1986:76-77).
The role of distancing in relation to the phenomenon of fiction will be
considered further in paragraph iii. below. First, it is relevant to the focus of the
study to undertake a brief discussion of what I consider to be a conspicuous
trend in familiar drama education literature: equating distancing with the role of
protection.

ii. Conceptions of distancing in process drama literature

During the research process I decided to consult a number of drama education
publications in English to get an impression of the uses of distancing in the field.
The initial background reading for the study had disclosed that whilst in

36
German drama education, the term distancing was generally and widely
associated with the poetic device Verfremdung, English language drama
education frequently regarded distancing as a didactic device concerned with
‘protecting into emotion’ (Bolton 1984:128). It felt expedient to conduct a rough
mapping of how distancing was generally conceived of in the process drama end
of the field. I chose to examine all in all 39 publications from the period 1974 to
2005, with Robert D. Witkin’s The Intelligence of Feeling at one end of the time
spectrum and Nicholson’s Applied Drama. The Gift of Theatre at the other. Even
if not all authors of the 39 publications might agree to belonging to a process
drama tradition, I contend that the chosen titles are representative of the
literature commonly read by practitioners within the broad field of drama
education, recognized by practising improvised, processual, experiential or
explorative work with young people. See Appendix 1.
The investigation of these publications does not purport to be a thoroughly
conducted content analysis approach31. I have recorded the presence of words,
terms, concepts, phrases or themes that seem to have a connection with
distancing or with protection. By phrases and themes I mean statements in the
publications that indicate the notion of distancing or protection even if the term
itself is not distinctly used; for instance, when drama is presented as “a site for a
poetic reconstruction of the social world” (Berry 2000:64), the idea of
reconstructing the social world can be construed as its depiction within the safe
distance of the dramatic fiction. The investigation led to a realization that
distancing and protection are frequently connected to the concepts of dramatic
fiction, the make-believe, the as-if, the pretend, the imagination, and the
relationships of fiction/not-fiction and the not-real/real. Furthermore, phrases
like ‘building belief’, ‘the big lie’ or ‘a willing suspension of disbelief’ become
part of a general picture indicating the existence of a very close connection
between protection and distancing in drama education literature. No
quantification of the presence of words, concepts, phrases, etc. in the
publications were carried out32. Instead, I registered only one-time presences of
concepts, with the page number where I first spotted an example of it in the
text33. I found it expedient to place the findings within a table of four lines for

31 My main reference to the research method Content Analysis is an Internet article by

Mike Palmquist et.al., which I downloaded on December 10th, 2004. When I recently
consulted the page, it was no longer available. So I found another, similar reference, to
the same source: Palmquist, Mike et.al. “Content analysis”. [WWW document]. In
Writing@CSU, Columbia State University, [no date]. This is now the reference used in
the study: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/content.html (downloaded
May 2nd, 2009).
32 A quantification of word/concept/phases distribution could have shown a more precise
and objective picture of the presence of the various terms, but this would have involved
another research method, and preferably a digitalisation of the texts. That would be an
approach outside the focus and parameters of the present study.
33 Thus a reference with page number constitutes just one example of presence.
Frequency is not noted.

37
each publication, each line being represented by a main keyword reference:
fiction, building belief, the real, and protection/distancing. Each keyword
generates variations of meanings associated with the keyword, for example:

fiction imagined space, alternative world, pretend, new reality, metaphor

building belief
commitment, accepted ‘lie’, identification, aesthetic response
the real real world, everyday world, actual situation, real act, ordinary
protection/distancing
distance, safe space, critical remove, aesthetic distance, analogy

Appendix 1 contains in table form the results of the investigation of the 39

publications, i.e. which of the four keyword terms, or thematically similar
variants of the four terms, are found in the publications. Page numbers are
indicated in parenthesis. Clearly, there is a strong element of interpretation
present in the classifications. I am aware that there is a potential overlap in
meaning, and function, between some of the four keywords, and that it can be
debated whether some of the recorded entries may be better placed on another
line. One should be aware, though, that my choices are based on deliberations
from the contexts. Each entry has been recorded in another, more extensive,
table of references, in which the whole text passage containing a given entry is
cited34. The main point is not the actual design of the table or the aptness of the
four keywords, but that the table serves the function of mapping some dominant
uses of terms important to an understanding of what distancing amounts to in a
process drama tradition.
Even if the distribution of terms is not quantified, Appendix 1 nevertheless
provides an impression of the importance given to the respective keyword
concepts in the literature. This impression is supported by, for example, the
allocation of a variety of alternative expressions in a given publication for a
given keyword. See the table above for examples of variation in alternative
expressions.
The literature survey demonstrates that the drama education literature from the
formative years of the 1970s regards the very framework of the dramatic activity
itself – the dramatic fiction - as a matter of course, as something self evidently
‘given’. There seems to have been little need to define what essentially

34 This supplementary table of references constitutes 40 pages, and is too extensive to be

included in the study.

38
conditions the drama/theatre situation, what ‘the nature of drama’ is35. During
the 1980s this shifts to a growing awareness of the importance of contracting or
negotiating a dramatic fiction with the participants, so that “they can more
clearly distinguish between the ‘as if’ (the fiction) and the ‘here and now’ (the
reality)” (Linnell 1982:23). There is now a greater awareness about the
borderline between reality and fiction, and a knowledge of the dynamics of
pretending versus being oneself: ”Where the edges between reality and fiction
become blurred, there is a danger that the emotion felt is first order, that is,
unmediated by abstraction or knowledge of pretence” (Bolton 1984:109). There
is also a greater awareness about ‘the reality’ of the imaginary: “Drama and
make-believe play, unlike other second-order experiences, can look like a real
event because of the concreteness of the medium” (op.cit.:107). During the
1990s the marking of the difference between fiction and not-fiction continues, at
the same time as their complementary relationship is underlined:
“[T]he percipients’ reality – what we know to be real, and what we bring to the
drama in terms of cultural background, experience, and attitudes – is termed the
real context, while the make-believe world of the drama which we have agreed
to believe in together is termed the fictional context. While the drama is
happening, we are operating in both of these contexts, and […] they are
operating on each other” (O’Toole 1992:13).
After the turn of the millennium the frequency in underlining the importance of
fiction awareness seems to subside. Instead, drama pedagogues make references
to terminology from theatre production, where a fiction base is more generally
understood as a given. For instance, Joe Winston uses the idea of a “possible
world” as a “space” for rehearsal (Winston 1998:1). Kathleen Berry repeatedly
uses rehearsal as a concept of fiction, for example in stressing “the dramatic arts
as a means for the rehearsal of possible realities” (Berry 2000:126). This is a
concept that resonates well with Boal’s notion of rehearsing for fighting
oppression (Boal 1985). The idea also creates associations to Janek Szatkowski’s
concept of the theatre rehearsal as a model for drama in education work
(Szatkowski 1991).
References to distancing in the meaning of protection clearly dominate over
references to distancing in the meaning of a poetic device. Words like safe,
secure, safely detached, protect into, controlled distance, etc. are more frequently
used than words like distancing device, Verfremdung, alienation, estrangement,
etc. The apparent minor importance allocated to applying distancing as an
artistic device compared to as a didactic strategy should not be interpreted too

35 Early writers seem to have been more concerned with communicating the importance
of drama/theatre in education for furthering personal, social, expressive development and
learning: “As with progressive education in general, concepts of child development and
play are thought to be essential to the dramatic activity” (McGregor 1976:17).

39
narrowly36. My survey of process drama literature has just been to record
examples of how distancing and protection are generally employed, not to
explore poetic or didactic preferences in the literature. That would belong to a
different research interest and focus. Nevertheless, the survey indicates that the
terms distance/distancing are often conceived of in English language drama
education literature as being chiefly concerned with creating safe spaces for
dramatic exploration. The realization of such protection is closely connected
with aesthetic parameters: “The bracketing and distancing of the aesthetic point
of view allow the spectator access to different degrees of detachment and
involvement” (O’Neill 1995:113). This is true for both the spectator and the
participant in a drama, and is closely dependent on an awareness of fiction.

iii. Distancing as an aesthetic principle in art - awareness of

fiction.
Bullough and Ben Chaim
The article “Distance and Awareness of Fiction – Exploring the Concepts”
(Eriksson 2007a) contains the main discussion of distancing as a generic
principle of art. It entails a conception of distancing as a superstructural,
constituent aesthetic principle in art. This conception means, as I see it, that in
order to have an aesthetic experience through drama, distancing as awareness of
fiction is conceived of as a foundational prerequisite. Furthermore, fiction as a
representation of ‘another’ reality is seen as a conditional category for learning
through drama/theatre to take place: “Part of the learning experience of theatre is
in recognizing and constructing connections between the fiction of the drama
and the real events and experiences the fiction draws on” (Neelands and Goode
2000:104). As mentioned above, the awareness of fiction also conditions the
factors of protection, building belief and related terms.
A decisive impulse to take a closer look at uses of distancing in drama education
came from reading an observation by Ben Chaim, who in her book Distance in
the Theatre: The aesthetics of audience response (1984) observes that “[t]oday it
is rare to find a play with serious ambitions that does not exploit sharp
alterations in distance” (Ben Chaim 1984:80). In her mind “a conscious raising
of the role of distance in modern drama is long overdue” 37 (op.cit.:81), which
also means that a proper discussion of the phenomenon of aesthetic distance is
needed. I wanted to study in more detail the nature of distancing as an aesthetic

36 It is, for instance, quite probable to apply artistic methods and devices as strategies for
creating the safety of a dramatic fiction. It is the planning of it and the underlying
philosophy behind the choices that I term didactic here.
37 Incidentally, Josette Féral makes a similar point: “[T]he notion of alienation effect is
not specific to Brecht, […] it is a permanent characteristic of modern art today and more
specifically of multi-media performance art” (Féral 1987:461). The quote strengthens
my point that distancing should be far more highlighted than it is in the poetics and
didactics of drama education.

40
phenomenon, and found in Ben Chaim and in Bullough’s formative essay
“Psychical Distance as a Factor in Art and an Aesthetic Principle” (1912) two
sources which lent themselves well to undertaking an analysis and discussion of
distancing. The realization that Ben Chaim, too, was using Bullough became an
inspiration for critical analysis rather than an impediment. I refer to my article
for a full analysis (Eriksson 2007a)38. In the following a couple of
supplementary observations pertaining to distancing as an aesthetic principle in
art should be mentioned.
Amongst the leading drama pedagogues in the English speaking world,
references to Bullough have been found in Bolton (1984:115) and in O’Neill
(1995:114). A recent reference has also been found in Shifra Schonman
(2007:592). It was O’Neill who first made me aware of Bullough’s essay, in an
interview related to aspects of distancing (“O’Neill-interview” 1993:1). O’Neill
regards ‘distancing’ and ‘alienation’ “as two very separate aesthetic concepts”
(ibid.), thus apparently placing herself in the tradition discussed in point ii.,
where distancing is primarily regarded as a protection device and alienation as a
poetic device. Referring to an example from a workshop, The Seal Wife, based
on the Irish folk tale, she explains the difference as she sees it39: “[When] I
asked us to be anthropologists making up a folk dance, […], that’s very
distanced, both in time - the kind of chronology of the piece - but it’s also a very
detached stance” (op.cit.:2). The statement discloses the intention of introducing

38 Bullough’s and Ben Chaim’s writings are clearly steeped in the art philosophy of
Modernism. Consequently, their discussion of distancing is disconnected from today’s
discussion of what happens in drama and theatre when the imaginary dramatic universe
is shrinking in the wake of the post dramatic theatre. So are, of course, Shklovsky,
Brecht and Heathcote, and the study itself is contextualized primarily in a modernist
philosophy of art. It should be pointed out, though, that with Heathcote the notion of
‘blurred genre’, which can be interpreted as a reduction of the dichotomy between reality
and fiction, has been noticed and commented on by e.g. Allern (2003:64). He sees in
Heathcote’s ‘blurred genre’ a use of several layers of fiction or fiction types, which
means “a switching between fiction and non-fiction” (ibid.). It should also be noted that
Ulrike Hentschel argues that the as-if dimension cannot be removed without at the same
time destroying the difference between theatre and not-theatre (Hentschel 2006:8).
Moreover, Hans-Thies Lehmann’s questioning of whether aesthetic distance can any
longer “remain the principle of aesthetic action” (Lehmann 2007:138) is relevant to the
concept of blurred genre, and thus to distancing. However, as this opens up a theme
deserving a research focus of its own, it can not be discussed as a separate issue in the
present study.
39 The workshop was conducted at the University of Melbourne, October 2nd and 3rd
1993, with participants from the Australian and international drama education
community, including myself. Amongst the devised elements of the workshop
participants framed as anthropologists were asked “to create a simple folk dance based
on the legend of the seal woman” (Taylor 1995:27). This workshop has been much
debated because of its inherent gender issues. See, for example, Fletcher (1993) and
other responses in NADIE Journal, Vol. 19, No 2., 1993. Description and analysis of the
workshop is published in O’Neill (1995:86-91) and Taylor (op.cit.:15-32).

41
a protective time element, what Bullough calls temporal distance, i.e. the
awareness of remoteness in time (Bullough 1912:93). It also includes “an
insertion of Distance”, in the sense of “a difference of outlook” (op.cit.:94),
which is what I regard Bullough’s concept of distancing amounts to40. Then
O’Neill adds: “It’s not an emotional task; it’s really quite a cognitive task.
You’re reflecting kinaesthetically on the event, but it’s not touching [the heart]”
(O’Neill op.cit.:2). This statement discloses another aspect of the aesthetic
distance, namely the dialectic of empathy versus detachment, which will be
briefly discussed in a following paragraph. O’Neill’s reference to alienation41, in
turn, points to the more specifically poetic conception of distancing, the notion
of estrangement, i.e. the Verfremdungseffekt:
I think alienation for me has the sense that I’m seeing something new; and
O.K., I’m seeing it to be an anthropologist creating a folk dance, I’m seeing it
from a different perspective, but it isn’t necessarily a defamiliarized one.
(Pause). If I asked you to be seals…, now we get a Verfremdungseffekt, I think
(ibid.).
O’Neill’s example illustrates an awareness of both the protection aspect of
distancing and the making strange aspect; and her statements imply that both
aspects can be productively employed in process drama. Whilst the first can be
seen as a step and a prerequisite towards building interest, commitment and
belief in the event, the latter is, according to O’Neill, more liable to breed “a
kind of unease, a disorientation almost, that I think is alienation in the sense that
Brecht wants us to feel” (ibid.). Section B.2 and chapters C and D take a closer
look at the alienation concept.
A central premise in Bolton’s book Drama as Education – an argument for
placing drama at the centre of the curriculum (1984) is the notion that all forms
of enactment “require a special state of consciousness” (1984:147). This state of
consciousness is dependent on the faculty “to hold two worlds in mind at the
same time, [in] an act of imagination” (ibid.). Furthermore, Bolton observes:
“This dual consciousness invites in the role-player both submission and
detachment” (ibid.). In just these brief but significant quotes, there lies an
essential premise, probably the most central topos for exercising drama in
education, as well as arguments for its meaning making potential. It entails Ben
Chaim’s main thesis that in order to create and maintain a virtual world, i.e. the
aesthetic dimension of the not-real, an awareness of fiction is required. Derived
from and dependent on Bullough’s concept of ‘psychical distance’, it also means
that it requires the faculty of distancing.

40 That O’Neill understands Bullough’s concept of distancing, as denoting the distance

between the world of the fiction and the world of the real, is confirmed in her publication
Drama Worlds: “An important part of any aesthetic experience is the knowledge that it is
just that” (O’Neill 1995:113). “It is precisely because the real and imagined worlds are
separated that they can illuminate each other” (op.cit.:114).
41 I shall return to comments on the uses of concepts like alienation, Verfremdung and
other terms in later paragraphs.

42
Bolton’s interest in Bullough is discussed in his article “Psychical Distance in
Acting” (Bolton 1977). In this quite early essay Bolton presents some
considerations on the nature of reflective awareness that involvement in a
dramatic, or symbolic, activity provides. Bullough’s concept of distancing is the
core element in Bolton’s deliberations. Bolton is interested in potential
differences in meaning outcomes “between an artistic and a non-artistic activity”
(Bolton 1977:65). He finds that the metaphor of drama, i.e. a make-believe
activity upheld by a state of ‘aesthetic consciousness’ different from a practical
reality, facilitates an interaction between the levels of “an actual present and a
metaphorical present” (op.cit.:64). This is a theme that Bolton develops in more
detail later in his books – a theme which is essentially about “seeing oneself
from a different angle” (Bolton 1979:64) or, put slightly differently, of
experiencing with “a heightened state of consciousness that holds two worlds in
the mind at the same time” (Bolton 1984:142). Thus, it seems to me that
Bullough’s “classical” concept of a dual aesthetic perception, with its inherent
epistemological potential, and with distancing as the pivot, has left a significant
mark on modern drama pedagogy through formative writers like Bolton and
O’Neill.
Schonman’s interest in Bullough’s conception of distance is similar to that of
Bolton and O’Neill, although neither of the source references above by these two
authors are referenced in Schonman’s article42. Schonman underlines the point
that “[i]n the theater, the aesthetic experience is grounded in aesthetic distance”
(Schonman 2007:593). She also emphasizes Bullough’s view of distancing that
it is upheld in a balance between “excessive (too far from the object) and
insufficient (too close to the object) distance” (ibid.). In figure 1 below I make
an attempt to illustrate this balance as a distance continuum.
Heathcote’s work is in principle founded on the same understanding of the
fundamental operation of the aesthetic distance as “another room” (Heathcote
1984g:129), as with the authors discussed above. The view that learning and
reflection in drama hinge on the operation of a dual perception is most certainly
shared by Heathcote, too. But she uses other ways of explaining her theory. Her
language is more metaphorical, for instance when she alludes to raising a stage
curtain to invite the interplay between reality and imagination: “to take a peep at

42 On the other hand, Schonman refers to three other sources from the field of drama
education as having shown an interest in this particular conception of distance: Klein, J.
(1995). “Performance factors that inhibit empathy and trigger distancing: Crying to
laugh”. Youth Theatre Journal, 9, 53-67; Saldana, J. (1996). “Significant Differences in
child audience response: Assertions from the ASU longitudinal study”, Youth Theatre
Journal, 10, 67-83; and Schonman, S. (2002). “Fictional worlds and the real world in
early childhood drama education. In L. Bresler & C.M. Thompson (eds.), The arts in
children’s lives: Culture, context and curriculum (pp. 139-151), Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers. All sources cited from Schonman (2007:599).

43
the metaphorical stage where the fiction can take place” (Heathcote and Bolton
1995:27). Or she may use a poetic idiom43 to put the idea across:
Throughout the work, no matter what the time,
the children remained always themselves in part.
It is the watcher in supportive role
who must be kept awake, so that when the child enters
the other logic of the art, the mind stays, clearly seeing
the reflector part (Heathcote 1978:22).
This is a very different way of imparting the significance in drama of being
aware of the two worlds of reality and fiction. And at the same time Heathcote
makes the point which is the central theme of the study: that a distancing must
be available, so that the participants can reflect within and outside the fiction;
i.e. to awake self-spectatorship together with belief in the drama. I return to this
aspect in more detail in section E.1.
A final point of influence from Bullough should be kept in mind: the conception
of distancing in the meaning discussed by Bullough and Ben Chaim, that it is
realized by a quality of degrees (Eriksson 2007a:19), can be conceived of as a
kind of continuum. I have noticed that a similar conception has been made by
O’Toole, although with no direct reference to Bullough or Ben Chaim. He
relates the existence of a continuum in art and play between “absorption” and
“alienation” with “consciousness” as a common quality that can move along the
continuum - perhaps an equivalent to distancing (O’Toole 1992:140):

absorption ← consciousness → alienation

During a pre-study for my analysis of Bullough’s degrees of distancing, and

quite independently of O’Toole’s, I made my own chart to illustrate these
concepts’ placement on a continuum (Eriksson 2006:107):

43Here, I perceive a parallel to Brecht, who often conceptualizes his theory in aphorism
or as poem. A prime example is the poem “Über alltägliches Theater”/”On Everyday
Theatre” [1930], which preceded the famous essay “The Street Scene” [1938]. English
translation of the poem in Willett and Manheim (1976:176).

44
Figure 1
In the chart Bullough’s terms ‘under-distanced’ - too real, ‘over-distanced’ - too
abstract, and ‘distance limit’ - beyond which the aesthetic distance is lost
(Eriksson 2007a:13-14) are used to illustrate the quality of degree in relation to
distancing. Admittedly a crude simplification of positions, which is always the
problem with models, the chart has, nonetheless, been helpful to obtain a simple
overview of the dynamics available in drama education traditions and schools of
theatre in relation to what degrees of distancing may amount to. I think it is a
very important point to make about the concept of distance as a generic principle
in art, that it exerts itself, to a lesser or greater degree, in all dramatic contexts;
not only in a Brechtian tradition, but in a Stanislavskyan tradition as well. In
fact, it does not just show positions in drama education history and the history of
theatre – the locations within the chart. If one imagines both arrows of the
charted continuum moving outside the confines of the chart, as in a continuation,
approaching themselves after a circling movement, even blurred genre and the
operations of decreased distancing in the postdramatic theatre traditions are
illustrated. An awareness of the quality of the degree in distancing as an
aesthetic principle has been helpful in the study.

iv. Modes of distancing summarized

To sum up the aspects of distancing so far, the study explores distancing on
broadly two levels: one is what can be termed the ontological level, i.e. distance
as an aesthetic principle, and applied to drama education. The other is the
purposeful use of distancing as an artistic device for obtaining a critical look at
the drama experience. Inscribed in the latter is the reservoir of poetic devices
appropriate for creating various distancing effects and how they are used
didactically in drama pedagogic contexts.

45
The first level of distancing has already been referenced to above under the
heading awareness of fiction. The second distancing level implies the act of
making transparent, or of breaking illusion. Resources for realizing distancing
on this level are ‘distancing devices’. They are artistic means purposely
activated to provide exposure and reflection. The common denominator of this
process of breaking up habitual perception by distancing is the concept of
‘making strange’, i.e. of estrangement or Verfremdung. It is a conception
characterized by the intention of seeing anew, finding new meanings, opening up
novel insights:
[Estrangement is a] process of becoming strange or making strange - in a
narrow sense by artistic procedures - which dissolve the customary contexts of
representation and meaning, opening up new perceptions and possibilities of
cognition44 (Primavesi 2005:377) (my translation).
A main proponent associated with this definition is Brecht, who was able to
productively draw on a number of distancing traditions and gradually subsume
them under one integrative concept: Verfremdung. Another promoter of
distancing is Shklovsky, from whose concept ostranenie Brecht most likely
received impulses for his coinage of the word Verfremdung. These and other
impulses of the concept ‘making strange’ will be further discussed in the chapter
on Russian Formalism and de-familiarization, C and in the chapter on Epic
theatre and estrangement, D. Before looking at making strange in those contexts,
I find it useful to turn to two allegedly opposing dimensions in drama/theatre
work: empathy and detachment. Both are dimensions intimately associated with
distancing.

2. The epistemological point of orientation

i. Empathy and detachment
In popular opinion empathizing and distancing are often regarded as opposites
and therefore non-commensurable dimensions, much in the same way as feeling
and reason. In arts education there have been debates on whether the field is best
served with a view of the arts subjects as forming a generic community, sharing
some common features characterized by a dominance of subjective feeling and
expression, or if it is more relevant to argue that the arts are both affective and
cognitive in nature and exhibiting quite different subject characteristics. David
Best calls the first position ‘subjectivism’ and characterizes it as “radically
confused and educationally disastrous” (Best 1992:2) 45. The second position is

44 ”Prozess des Fremdwerdens oder des Fremdmachens, im engeren Sinne durch

künstlerische Verfahrensweisen, die gewohnte Darstellungs- und
Bedeutungszusammenhänge auflösen, neue Wahrnehmungen und
Erkenntnismöglichkeiten eröffnen“ (Primavesi 2005:377).
45 According to Best, Robert Witkin’s position expounded in The Intelligence of Feeling
(1974) is subjectivist, i.e. grounded in the conviction “that the creation and appreciation

46
what Best advocates under the heading ‘the rationality of feeling’ (Best 1992)46,
stressing that the arts are as fully open to objective reasoning as any other
subject discipline. Best does not deny that the arts are centrally concerned with
feeling. But the premise of Best’s position is that when “artistic feelings are
rational and cognitive in character”, they are not two separate dimensions of
feeling and reason, “but only one, rational/cognitive feeling” (ibid.). I have
found Best’s argument helpful when trying to understand the significance of
artistic reflection in education and art, and the role of distancing here, both in
relation to Heathcote and to Brecht.
Firstly, with a view to the Heathcote tradition, the notion of distancing has
relevance for the reflection process that belongs to the process drama genre. Best
takes an example from Gavin Bolton47: In a passage in Drama as Education –
an argument for placing drama at the centre of the curriculum (1984), Bolton
distinguishes between ‘affective’ and ‘cognitive’ identification and asserts that
“aesthetic meanings are felt rather than comprehended” (Bolton 1984:147).
Criticizing Bolton on this point, Best holds it to be a self-contradictory position;
it is not necessary “to disown understanding while emphasizing feeling”,
because in Best’s view the art experience involves both (Best 1992:6). That is
why drama has the potential of affecting a change in “understanding of the
world” (ibid.). For Bolton, the basic premise for being able to perceive the
dramatic experience as something to be reflected upon, is the requirement of “a
special state of consciousness […] to hold two worlds in mind at the same time”,
the real and the imagined world (Bolton 1984:147). This requirement is the act
of imagination that Ben Chaim and Bullough regard as distancing. However, the
dual consciousness involves another kind of distancing, the reflective one, to
take place: The drama experience, according to Bolton, “invites in the role-
player both submission and detachment” (ibid.). If ‘submission’ is regarded as a
quality of feeling, and ‘detachment’ understood as a premise for cognition,
Bolton’s observation represents a convincing parallel to the combined
experience of feeling and understanding that Best is after.
Secondly, with a view to the epic theatre tradition, Best’s position seems to have
a similar relevance. I contend that it is even for Brecht of prime importance to
activate “thoughts and feelings”48 (Brecht 2001k:190), and for him too,
distancing is the main tool for creating discussion or reflection. But Brecht’s
special use of distancing, ‘the Verfremdung’, which in English received the
unfortunate rendering ‘alienation’, has largely been misunderstood. It has been

of the arts is a matter of subjective feeling, in the sense of a ‘direct’ ‘inner’ subjective
feeling, ‘untainted’ by cognition, understanding or rationality” (Best 1992:3).
46 The so-called ‘generic arts debate’ is reflected in a number of publications from the
late 1980s and early 1990s with Best and Peter Abbs as the most profiled opponents.
47 Being a central proponent of the process drama genre, the example from Bolton’s
theory discussed in this paragraph may serve as a parallel to Heathcote’s thinking in this
respect.
48 “Gedanken und Gefühle“ (Brecht 178:146).

47
accused of being intellectual, cold and distanced, and devoid of emotion, warmth
and empathy; in short, Brecht’s “cognitive realism is radically anti-empathetic”
(Kuhn and Giles 2003:207). However, Brecht asserts, like Best, that “[r]eason
and emotion can’t be divided. Epic theatre isn’t against the emotions; it tries to
examine them, and is not satisfied just to stimulate them”49 (Brecht 2001f:162).
Brecht reflects on the relationship of cognition and feeling, for instance in the
essay “Über rationellen und emotionellen Standpunkt” [1938] and makes it clear
that the alleged non-emotional stance of Epic theatre is not correct: “The
rejection of empathy does not come from a rejection of the emotions and does
not lead to one”50 (Brecht 1963l:25) (my translation). Then Brecht adds the
interesting remark that “precisely the most rational form, the Lehrstück,
demonstrates the most emotional effects”51 (ibid.) (my translation). From the
point of view that Brecht’s learning-plays constitute the basis not only for his
epic theatre but for a theatre for learning as such52, it is, perhaps, not so
surprising that Brecht is concerned with the epistemological dialectic of reason
and emotion. Finally, one more Brecht-comment, from a conversation with
Friedrich Wolff on “Formprobleme des Theaters aus neuem Inhalt”, serves the
purpose of disproving Brecht’s assumed anti-emotional stance:
Bertolt Brecht:
It [epic theatre] in no way renounces emotion. Least of all emotions like the
love of justice, the urge to freedom or justified anger: so little does it renounce
these emotions that it does not rely on their being there, but tries to strengthen
or to evoke them. The “critical attitude” into which it is trying to put its public
cannot be passionate enough”53 (Brecht 1952:254) (translation by Esslin –
1971:148).
The critical attitude that Brecht alludes to here, crucial for his conception of the
epic theatre, he secures through distancing (see D.1). But Brecht’s distancing is
to be realized by detachment from uncritical empathy, not from emotion:
The actor:
Does getting rid of empathy mean getting rid of every emotional element?

49 “Man kann […] Vernunft und Gefühl nicht trennen. Das epische Theater bekämpft
nicht die Emotionen, sondern untersucht sie und macht nicht halt bei ihrer Erzeugung“
(from “Kleine Liste der beliebtesten, landläufigsten und banalsten Irrtümer über das
epische Theater“ [1937/1938]; in Proquest/Chadwyck-Healey/Suhrkamp, Band 6:
Schriften (1999:274).
50 “Die Verwerfung der Einfühlung kommt nicht von einer Verwerfung der Emotionen
und führt nicht zu einer solchen“ (Brecht 1963l:25).
51 “Jedoch zeigt gerade die rationellste Form, das Lehrstück, die emotionellsten
Wirkungen“ (Brecht 1963l:25).
52 See section D.1.
53 “Es [episches Theater] verzichtet in keiner Weise auf Emotionen. Schon gar nicht auf
das Gerechtigkeitsgefühl, den Freiheitsdrang und den gerechten Zorn: es verzichtet so
wenig darauf, daβ es sich sogar nicht auf ihr Vorhandensein verläβt, sondern sie zu
verstärken oder zu schaffen sucht. Die “kritische Haltung“ in die es sein Publikum zu
bringen trachtet, kann ihm nicht leidenschaftlich genug sein“ (Brecht 1952:254).

48
 The philosopher:
No, no. Neither the public nor the actor must be stopped from taking part
emotionally; the representation of emotions must not be hampered, nor must the
actor’s use of emotions be frustrated. Only one out of many possible sources of
emotion needs to be left unused, or at least treated as a subsidiary source –
empathy54 (Brecht 1994:57).
Brecht would not have been alien to the concept alluded to in Best that the
aesthetic experience works from thought and feeling combined. But in order to
realize his theatre for change, he needed to change the theatre of his time. That
theatre was largely based on Aristotelian cathartic empathy. Brecht felt that the
contemporary theatre was too emotionally charged and too locked into the
Aristotelian coercive model of fate. Brecht was more interested in people
making their own destiny, controlling their own future, and making decisions in
their life time, effecting social change. For that he needed to break away from a
purely empathetically charged model, and to bring another dimension, another
rational dimension and angle, to bear on that. Verfremdung, in its proper
meaning of estrangement, helps Brecht break away from habitual theatre and its
conventions and to introduce a theatre with an epistemological intent.

ii. Epistemological function of distancing - a way of reflecting

and attaining new knowledge
The quality that distancing has for breaking habitual perception and procuring
new awareness is in its essence epistemological. It is Brecht’s outspoken aim
that epic theatre, in which Verfremdung is the main agent, must provide
instruction and entertainment. It is succinctly expressed in his well known essay
“Theatre for Pleasure or Theatre for Instruction?” that “[t]heatre remains theatre
even when it is instructive theatre, and in so far as it is good theatre it will
amuse”55 (Brecht 2001c:73).
Brecht’s view on education is, however, much broader in scope than simply a
didactic one, in the narrow sense of the word. For example, when he explains
how the ‘Verfremdungseffekt’ is to be exerted, he uses words like betrachten
(contemplate), begreifen (recognize), entdecken (discover), and alludes to how
the scientist works to discern what is particular in the object of study, which
means “to make it interesting”, implicitly: strange (Brecht 1963u:183). After all,
Brecht’s ideal is to make his theatre available for whatever investigations of life

54“Schauspieler: Bedeutet Ausschaltung der Einfühlung Ausschaltung alles

Gefühlsmäβigen? Philosoph: Nein, nein. Weder soll die gefühlsmäβige Anteilnahme des
Publikums noch die des Schauspielers gehindert werden, weder die Darstellung von
Gefühlen gehindert noch die Verwendung von Gefühlen durch den Schauspieler vereitelt
werden. Nur eine der vielen möglichen Gefühlsquellen, die Einfühlung, soll unbenutzt
oder doch wenigstens zur Nebenquelle gemacht werden (Brecht 1963s:119).
55 “Das Theater bleibt Theater, auch wenn es Lehrtheater ist, und soweit es gutes
Theater ist, ist es amüsant” (Brecht 1963f:58).

49
or society that the “children of a scientific age would like to take up pleasurably”
(Brecht 2001k:185).
Already in 1929 Brecht asserts that a new purpose is needed for art, and that
only the new purpose can make the new art happen: “The new purpose is called:
Pedagogy”56 (Brecht 1963b:227) (my translation). In this process of converting
theatre57 in the direction of education, Brecht proceeds to develop a theatre-
based knowledge-pedagogy by conducting Lehrstück experiments. But the
experiments were interrupted and a comprehensive theory was never completed,
owing to the political happenings in Nazi Germany, which forced Brecht into
exile in 1933 and a continuous moving around for 15 years. Nevertheless,
enough fragments58 exist to evidence that core issues in Brecht’s learning-play
philosophy59 represent appropriate “instrument[s] for inquiry” (Ritter 1986:528).
There is also enough evidence to state that Brecht envisaged the Lehrstück as a
“theatre of the future” (Steinweg 1974:184). The whole development of the
theory and practice of the learning-play, which takes place from about 1929 to
1933 and coincides with ‘Brecht’s road to epic theatre’ (Hecht 1962), is devoted
to the idea of learning, reflecting, understanding, and realizing60. Benjamin calls
this “a theatre that does not merely transmit knowledge but actually engenders
it” (Benjamin 1998a:11). Distancing is a most active ingredient in effecting new
knowledge: “Distancing was for Brecht the condition for cognition”61 (Hecht
1962:104).
Brecht’s Lehrstück project is an epistemological project. The mere term for it:
Lehrstück/ learning-play characterizes this intent quite well. It is also a project of
critical pedagogy – and a pioneering one as such - which formed a basis that
later Augusto Boal (1976) could build on and adapt in his own way. Seen from
the perspective of critical pedagogy, it is reasonable to view Brecht’s ideas of an
‘instructional and entertaining’ theatre of the scientific age as an enlightenment
project: “Brecht placed the theatre in a new enlightenment project not paralleled
since the advancement of the bourgeois theatre of the 1700s” (Gladsø et. al.

56 “Der neue Zweck heiβt: Pädagogik” (Brecht 1963b:227).

57 Often referred to as ‘Funktionswechsel des Theaters’ (for example, in Steinweg
1995:55).
58 It is thanks to Steinweg (1972/1976), who collected, analysed and edited Brecht’s
notes and essays on Lehrstück, that a theory of a certain magnitude exists devoted to this
genre.
59 To my knowledge, few of Brecht’s notes related to his Lehrstück experiments have
been translated into English. Exceptions are “Theory of Pedagogies” (Brecht 2003b),
and “An Example of Pedagogics” (Brecht, 2001a).
60 Brecht’s outline of a didactics of Lehrstück, entitled “On the Theory of the Learning-
play”, was written about 1937/38. Steinweg actually claims that “Brecht’s theoretical
preoccupation with the Lehrstück did not end in 1938, but 1956” (Steinweg 1995:16),
i.e. it continued as long as he lived.
61 ”Eine Distanzierung war für Brecht die Voraussetzung für die Erkenntnis“ (Hecht
1962:104).

50
2005:167). In such a perspective it is very interesting, and important, for the
study to take note of Steinweg’s more recent considerations of the learning-
play’s basic purpose, which are quite contrary to the established opinion of it as
‘propagandist’(Gray 1980:42), ‘utilitarian’ (Esslin 1971:46, 118), or
‘indoctrinating (Fiala-letter 12.11.93): “The Lehrstück contains no ‘doctrine’, it
does not teach ‘Marxism’ or another philosophy/social theory, it teaches to
become more aware of the reality”62 (Steinweg 2005:19).
The most significant dimension in Brecht’s Lehrstück didactics is the novel role
given to the spectator – and it is not least with this aspect that the Lehrstück
resonates with process drama:
We learn from the learning-play by playing it, not by watching it. In principle,
the learning-play needs no audience, although it may, of course, make use of an
audience. The learning-play takes as its basis the expectation that the player can
be socially influenced by practicing certain actions, partake of certain attitudes,
reproduce certain manners of speaking, etc.63 (Brecht 1963i:78) (my
translation).
Compared to being a passive spectator in a traditional theatre setting, in the
active partaking in exploring a theme, issue, or event such as in process drama –
or Lehrstück - the participant, at least potentially, is provided with a broad and
tangible register of learning possibilities. The epistemological dynamics in
drama pedagogy are in particular realized by the activation of participation and
percipience (O’Toole 1992:9)64 within the same learning process, and by the
dual perception phenomenon65 which is believed to take place through psychic

62 ”Das Lehrstück enthält keine ‚Lehre’, es lehrt nicht den ‚Marxismus’ oder eine andere
Philosophie/ Gesellschaftstheorie, sondern es lehrt, die Wirklichkeit genauer
wahrzunehmen“ (Steinweg 2005:19).
63 “Das Lehrstück lehrt dadurch, daβ es gespielt, nicht dadurch, daβ es gesehen wird.
Prinzipiell ist für das Lehrstück kein Zuschauer nötig, jedoch kann er natürlich verwertet
werden. Es liegt dem Lehrstück die Erwartung zugrunde, daβ der Spielende durch die
Durchführung bestimmter Handlungsweisen. Einnahme bestimmter Haltungen,
Wiedergabe bestimmter Reden und so weiter gesellschaftlich beeinfluβt werden kann”
(Brecht 1963i:78).
64 Used by O’Toole do describe the particular feature of the drama education genre, that
there is no audience as such and that several of the ordinary functions of theatre are
combined: “Accordingly, the word ‘participants’ will be used for those who are actively
engaged in making the drama […] while the word ‘percipients’ will be used throughout
to denote all those who take part in a drama, […], who all have their proper perceptions”
(O’Toole 1992:9). See also O’Neill (1995:125), Bolton (1998:199) or Haseman
(2006:202).
65 See B.1.iii. The idea of aesthetic doubling/methexis/holding two worlds in mind at the
same time/seeing oneself from a different angle, or other terms for it, has been one of the
big theoretical issues in drama pedagogy. It has been discussed by Bolton
(1979:64;1984:141-142), Szatkowski (1985:143-144,162), O’Toole (1992:98), O’Neill
(1995:119, 125), and others. One could also add Brecht to this list, although on a
somewhat different premise, based on e.g. § 49 in the “Short Organum for the Theatre”,

51
distancing (Eriksson 2007a). These factors are central to what the field sees as
its force in education.

3. Making strange as a historic concept of distancing in

literature
The opening of section B.1 gave an etymological account66 of meanings
attributed to the word ‘distance[d]’. In the present section attention is directed
towards a kindred sense of this word, that is to say its meanings of ‘coming from
another land’, ‘belonging to a distant place’, ‘being alien’ or ‘a stranger’, ‘being
unfamiliar’, and ‘being distant or unfriendly. Whilst distancing was discussed as
a generic concept above, in this section it will be discussed from its poetic
function of being the device of making strange.
Etymologically, strange comes from the Old French estrange, meaning
‘external’, ‘foreign’, ‘alien’. In Latin it is extraneus, with the additional meaning
‘without’, ‘outside’, ‘who comes from outside’. In Italian the etymological
version of strange is strano, which seems to be a related form to the Russian
strannost’, meaning ‘strangeness’, ‘fremdness’ (Hansen-Löve 1978:89, footnote
194;180, 580)67. This element of foreignness, which seems to be the
etymological dominant, has evident connotations with the Old English word
fremede or fremde and the Old High German word framadi or fremidi – in a later
form fremd - meaning ‘foreign’, ‘strange’ or ‘unfamiliar’, which can also contain
the quality of being unfriendly; hence fremdly becomes ‘strangely’ or
‘unkindly’, and fremdness becomes ‘strangeness’ or ‘coldness’.
According to Ernst Bloch the old meaning of entfremden (to alienate) was
originally used in business and is associated with the Latin word abalienare (to
get rid of something, to sell something) (Bloch 1972:3). This root sense of
entfremden - getting rid of something - has almost disappeared from modern
German. The term entfremdet is used mainly in the sense of negative alienation:
“When we say people are entfremdet […], we mean that their relationship has
cooled” (ibid.). Relying on Grimm, Bloch found that the first use of the word

where he discusses the principle “that the actor appears on the stage in a double role”, or
the last part of § 51, where Brecht specifically invokes the principle of distancing in
understanding the doubleness: “To alienate an individual in this way, as being ‘this
particular individual’ and ‘this particular individual at this particular moment’, is only
possible if there are no illusions that the player is identical with the character and the
performance with the actual event” (Brecht 2001k:194,195).
66 For the etymological references below, and in point 1 above, the online version of the
Oxford English Dictionary is the main source (http://www.oed.com/). Supplementary
sources are Falk & Torp (1994), Steinnes & Vandvik (1989), and Hansen-Löwe
(1978:89) for the Russian strannost’.
67In the three references by Hansen-Löve strannost’ is respectively translated in German
as Fremdheit, Fremdartigkeit and Merkvürdigkeit. Shklovsky’s neologism ostranenie
(‘making strange’) was formed by this word root. (See also section C. 1).

52
verfremden in literature stems from a novel by Berthold Auerbach (New Life)
from 1842. In that context it signifies “being wounded” by feeling left out, not
understood (op.cit.:4). This seems quite different from Brecht’s term
Verfremdung, most likely a coinage of his own (Willett 2001:76, note; 99, note;
Mittenzwei 1984:243), which denotes that something is displaced or moved out
of its usual context, “so that character or action can no longer be perceived as
wholly self-evident” (Bloch 1972:4). I shall return to the concepts
Entfremdung/Verfremdung in connection with a discussion of Hegel’s influence
on Brecht in a subchapter below.
From this range of etymological roots, in fact all of the common terms that are in
use to denote the poetic device of ‘making strange’ have the origin alienation,
estrangement, Verfremdung, de-familiarization, ostranenie, distanciation and
distancing. It is of interest for the study to have a closer look at some historical
uses of strange-making as an artistic category, and some contextualizations of
such uses. The common denominator for the selection of examples is the notion
of making strange with the purpose of evoking amazement and thereby critical
reflection, of challenging the habitual and the familiar, of invoking novel
perspectives and activating a new awareness.

i. The Classic rhetoric starting point - Aristotle

Already Aristotle, in his Poetics and Rhetoric III, calls attention to the effect that
can be attained by the device of making strange. In the latter he discusses the
dichotomy of the unfamiliar and the everyday:
Amongst nouns and verbs it is the prevailing ones that gives speech its clarity,
whilst other words I have mentioned in the Poetics aid us in avoiding the
everyday and to adorn diction. In fact, that which is somewhat different from
the ordinary gives an impression of dignity. Just as people relate differently to
foreigners and to citizens, so they stand towards diction too. For this we should
make our speech foreign [i.e. ‘unfamiliar]. For people are amazed at things
from afar, and amazement is pleasant68 (Aristotle Rhetoric III:207, 2.1404b)
(My translation in combination with Janko).
There are, in fact, several references in his Poetics to the themes of creating the
unfamiliar or to achieve amazement: In chapter 22 he declares: “Diction that
uses unfamiliar names is grand and altered from the everyday. By ´unfamiliar´, I
mean the exotic [name], metaphor, lengthening and everything that is contrary to
what is standard” (Aristotle Poetics:30, xxii.58a20). And in chapter 24 he

68 Although rather speculative as to its importance for the present context, I do find it
interesting to mention that in ancient Greek theatre, which is one context for Aristotle’s
reflections, there was a special convention to show ‘the foreign’. Each of the parodoi,
the two side entrances for the actors or the chorus to enter the orchestra, held a symbolic
meaning: The one to the right meant ‘the way to the town’, i.e. it denoted the local. The
one to the left meant ‘the way into the foreign’, i.e. it denoted the stranger or the
unknown. Cf. Kindermann: “Die rechte [parodos] bedeutete ständig den Weg zur Stadt,
die linke den Weg in die Fremde” (Kindermann 1966:71).

53
advises: “[The poet] should put what is amazing into his tragedies. [/] What is
amazing is pleasant” (op.cit.:35, xxiv.60a15). This also resonates well with his
recommendation of “[p]lots that arouse amazement” (op.cit.:13, ix.52a1).
From Aristotle there is a tradition in literature of using making strange devices
all the way through classic rhetorics, in tropes and figures, via early Russian
formalism, to the renewed interests in rhetorics today. Examples are discussed
later in the study. The analysis in the article, “Distancing at Close Range.
Making strange devices in Dorothy Heathcote's process drama Teaching
Political Awareness through Drama” (Eriksson, 2008)69, is based on rhetoric
theory.

ii. Impulses from the Enlightenment – Hegel and Diderot

Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
A noteworthy link from Antiquity to the Enlightenment in respect of distancing
is a chapter in Hegel’s posthumously published Lectures on the History of
Philosophy70, on Socrates and Socratic irony. Irony is in this context viewed as a
method of making the familiar unfamiliar by way of promoting reflection.
Helmers remarks that “substantially ‘irony’ in Hegel’s application of it to
Socrates and Aristophanes means something very similar to what is in today’s
social criticism called ‘Verfremdung’” 71 (Helmers 1984:5) (my translation). In
fact, Helmers regards Hegel to be the first theoretician to expound the Socratic
irony as a form of Verfremdung (op.cit.:4).
Worth mentioning here is the foundational social criticism inherent in the
Socratic irony which is, mostly, different from the poetic device called Romantic
irony72; because whilst the latter is not primarily a socially committed
conception, the former is a dialectic one with an epistemological intent. It is this

69The original text is: Eriksson, Stig A. “Distansering på nært hold.

Underliggjøringsgrep i Dorothy Heathcotes prosessdrama Teaching Political Awareness
through Drama”, In Nyrnes, Aslaug and Niels Lehmann (red.). Ut frå det konkrete.
Bidrag til ein retorisk kunstfagdidaktikk, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2008.
70 Hegel's History of Philosophy is probably the first systematic history of philosophy
since Aristotle. The lectures were given by Hegel 1805-1806. The first comprehensive
translation of this work in English was E. S. Haldane’s from 1892-1896. I am indebted to
Helmers´ edition Verfremdung in der Literatur (1984) for the idea about this link.
71 …“substantiell bedeutet “Ironie” bei Hegel in der Anwendung auf Socrates und
Aristophanes etwas ganz Ähnliches wie das, was heute in gesellschaftskritischen Sinn
„Verfremdung“ heiβt“ (Helmers 1984:5).
72 Romantic irony is usually a device in which an illusion is created and then
deliberately interrupted. In its playing with a fiction/reality distinction, Romantic irony
can be said to have the quality of a distancing device, but the study does not explore this
device in its own right beyond this brief reference. However, in an ensuing paragraph the
study does refer to a demonstrable pursuit of the making strange concept by some of the
leading Romanticists: Coleridge, Shelley and Novalis.

54
dialectic of Socratic irony that Hegel takes an interest in. He sees as the centre of
Socrates’ method a questioning of the ordinary, a probing of the automated
conceptions in peoples’ lives:
If we proceed from the general account of Socrates’ method to a nearer view, in
the first place its effect is to inspire men with distrust towards their
presuppositions, after faith had become wavering and they were driven to seek
that which is, in themselves (Hegel 2008:B,1,a73).
Socratic irony is based on creating doubt in the validity of the listener’s
preconceived ideas. It is a form of inquiry in which the questioner explores the
implications of others' positions, to stimulate rational thinking and illuminate
ideas; or, as Hegel continues in his description of Socrates’ method above:
[I]n order to bring others to express these [ordinary conceptions], he represents
himself as in ignorance of them, and, with a seeming, ingenuousness, puts
questions to his audience as if they were to instruct him, while he really wished
to draw them out (ibid.).
This well known ‘dialogue method’ of Socrates has been applied in a variety of
contexts. In Nordic drama education literature it is often referred to as ‘the
dialogue model’ (Braanaas, 2008:157; Eriksson, 2009:[unpublished]). The
informed reader may well associate this strategy with the questioning method of
Björn Magnér74 and Heathcote’s strategy of questioning75. What both seem to

73 The reference is from Hegel’s “Socrates” (translated by E. S. Haldane). In Hegel’s

Lectures on the History of Philosophy. Part One: Greek Philosophy. First Period, Second
Division [1805-1806]. There are no page numbers, only sections, chapters and
paragraphs (e.g. B, 1, a),
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpsocrates.htm
(downloaded October 20th, 2008).
74 The Swedish social worker Magnér in the late 1970s developed a questioning method
called ‘How do you know that?’ [‘Hur vet du det?’] using roleplay as a significant
ingredient, and with the aim of facilitating experience-based knowledge. His dialectic
stance was to start from teasing out from the participants examples of preconceived
opinions, “internalized materials” (Magnér 1980:7).
75 The art of questioning in drama seems to have a model in Heathcote’s work. In the
introduction to Teaching Drama (1987), the Canadian drama education pioneers Morgan
and Saxton, acknowledging the international inspiration of Heathcote as a drama
educator, mention the ability “to handle language with significance, to question with
implication, to promote reflection” amongst “the minute particulars of the teacher’s
skills” advocated by Heathcote (Morgan and Saxton 1987:vi). In a special chapter on
questioning there is the following reference to Heathcote: “In drama, the teacher, as
Dorothy Heathcote says, is ‘seldom in the stance of one who knows’. She is most often
asking the question precisely because she does not know the answer and is dependent
upon the student’s answer in order to move the drama on” (op.cit.:70). To me, this
resonates with Hegel’s observation on Socrates: “[H]e himself said that he knew
nothing, and therefore taught nothing. It may actually be said that Socrates knew
nothing, for he did not reach the systematic construction of a philosophy. He was
conscious of this, and it was also not at all his aim to establish a science” (Hegel 2008:B,
1, a).

55
have inherited from Socrates, is to start from concrete issues brought forward by
the interest of the young participants themselves, with the intention of
challenging unreflected “givens”. When, for example, Heathcote speaks about
her teaching stance as being concerned with:
Removing the situation when I could from prejudicial
view,
so as to enable a new view without the burden of an old
label
(Heathcote 1978:21)
she seems to be within a Socratic mode of teaching76. According to Hegel, when
Socrates wished “to awaken the desire for knowledge and independent thought
in the youths whom he attracted to himself, he certainly began by adopting the
ordinary conceptions which they considered to be true” (Hegel:B,1,a). Hegel
points out that it is Socrates’ aim to make the audience realize – with surprise -
that learning can take place by questioning and by creating doubt77, so that “
consciousness is surprised that what it never looked for should be found in
consciousness” (op.cit.:B,1,c). The estranging irony of the method is that
Socrates presents himself as being ignorant of the questions he is asking to his
audience. He invites the partner to instruct him, but involves him in an opposite
process: that of being taught to know that he knows nothing. Hegel explains:
This is the celebrated Socratic irony, which in his case is a particular mode of
carrying on intercourse between one person and another, and is thus only a
subjective form of dialectic, for real dialectic deals with the reasons for things.
What he wished to effect was, that when other people brought forward their
principles, he, from each definite proposition, should deduce as its consequence
the direct opposite of what the proposition stated, or else allow the opposite to
be deduced from their own inner consciousness without maintaining it directly
against their statements (op.cit.:B, 1, a).
The process of teaching through oppositions, which Hegel here terms dialectic in
Socrates, is of course a core position in Hegel’s own philosophical theory. It is
also a significant position in Brecht’s poetic and didactic theory. Within the
particular focus of the present context, this is an aspect of influence between
Hegel and Brecht that can be best understood in relation to Hegel’s term
Entfremdung. In Brecht criticism this term has been an object of much
discussion (Schumacher 1955:192-193; Willett 1984:218-221; Knopf 1984:359-
36), which will be briefly explored below.

76 This comparison between Magnér and Heathcote with Socrates should not be taken
beyond the level of associative similarity, because Socrates is not referenced in either
Magnér’s or Heathcote’s writings.
77 Helmers refers to Hegel’s observation of this stance in Socrates as resting on the old
philosophical precept: de omnibus dubitandum = doubt everything (Helmers, 1984:5), a
stance which, incidentally, was also a motto of Marx. See
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/OPE/archive/0205/0193.html, (downloaded
November 22nd, 2008).

56
A direct port of entrance to the discussion of Entfremdung is found in an essay
by Knopf: “Verfremdungen” ([1974] 1984). First, Knopf contextualizes the term
Entfremdung as semantically, historically and philosophically the same as
Hegel’s Entäusserung (Knopf 1984:360). The term is used to denote alienation
or renunciation, i.e. entailing the same idea that Karl Marx develops in relation
to an alienated situation for wage labourers in a modern industrial society (ibid.).
This is the notion of an individual’s self-alienation vis-à-vis the environment of
which he is a producing agent78. In contemporary society alienation in this sense
means being separated from one’s own self, suffering a lack of self-fulfilment or
self-worth, and experiencing an absence of meaning in existence.
Then Knopf convincingly asserts that this is not the same kind of Entfremdung
expressed by Brecht when he first uses that concept in his famous essay “Theatre
for Pleasure or Theatre for Instruction” from 1936 (ibid.)79. For the focus of my
study this is an interesting observation, because it confirms that Brecht already
before he started to use the special term Verfremdung was concerned with
distancing as a means of creating reflection. Brecht’s use of the terms
Entfremdung/Entfremdungsprozess in this essay I regard chiefly as cognition
markers. Brecht wanted his new theatre to be instructive:
The spectator was no longer in any way allowed to submit to an experience
uncritically (and without practical consequences) by means of simple empathy
with the characters in the play. The production took the subject matter and the
incidents shown and put them through a process of alienation
[Entfremdungsprozess]: the alienation [Entfremdung] that is necessary to all
understanding. When something seems ‘the most obvious thing in the world’ it
means that any attempt to understand the world has been given up (Brecht
2001c:71) 80.

78Allen Wood describes this situation as a deprivation of a fulfilling mode of life

because the workers’ life-activity “is devoid of any sense of communal action or
satisfaction and gives them no ownership over their own lives or their products” (Wood
1995:21-22). Bloch makes the point that when Hegel uses Entfremdung in the sense of
“man’s externalization into his work”, it connotes a “beneficial exchange”, and that it is
Feuerbach who adds “a clearly negative connotation” – that of self-alienation
(Selbstentfremdung) (Bloch 1972:3). “Marx adopted this meaning of alienation”, Bloch
adds (ibid.).
79 ”[D]er Hegelsche Zentralterminus der ’Entäusserung’ alias ‚Entfremdung’ trifft den
Sachverhalt, den Brecht 1936 mit ‚Entfremdung’ beschreibt, nicht“ (Knopf 1984:360).
80 In fact, Brecht uses Entfremdung in the sense of making strange also in a note from
this same period: “Episches Theater, Entfremdung” [1936]. Here it reads: “One was
looking for a kind of presentation, by which the familiar could become conspicuous, the
habitual amazing. Common events should appear strange, and much which seemed
natural, should be recognized as artificial” (my translation). / “Gesucht wurde eine Art
der Darstellung, durch die das Geläufige auffällig, das Gewohnte erstaunlich wurde. Das
allgemein Anzutreffende sollte eigentümlich wirken können, und vieles, was natürlich
schien, sollte als künstlich erkannt werden“ (Brecht, 1963g:196).

57
Brecht’s perception of distancing here is primarily to see ‘alienation’ as a poetic
device - with a particular potential of attaining critical understanding through
making strange - even if expressed by the Hegelian/Marxian term Entfremdung.
Aware of the dominant estrangement orientation in Brecht’s reasoning in the
essay, Willett makes a special comment on the translation problem of the term:
“The term here translated as ‘alienation’ is Entfremdung as used by Hegel and
Marx, and not the Verfremdung which Brecht himself was soon to coin and
make famous” (Willet 2001:76 [note])81.
Knopf also relates other positions in Brecht criticism that I find useful for further
clarification of aspects relevant to the terms Entfremdung/Verfremdung. Still
with reference to the essay, he recounts that Käthe Rülicke-Weiler, too, holds the
view that “alienation is here merely used in the meaning of ‘making strange’ and
has nothing to do with the Marxian term Entfremdung”82 (op.cit.:359) (my
translation), and he informs that Grimm holds a very different view: “he brings
Brecht’s pronouncement in connection with ‘the German Ideology’ of Marx and
Engels”83 (ibid.). I can add that Ernst Schumacher takes a middle position. With
a reference to Brecht’s assertion in A Short Organum for the Theatre, §44, that
the theatre “must amaze its public, [which] can be achieved by a technique of
alienating the familiar” (Brecht 2001k:192), Schumacher agrees that alienation
in this context “evokes the term ‘Entfremdung’ in Marx and Engels in the
German Ideology”84 (Schumacher 1955:192) (my translation). However,
Schumacher also asserts that Brecht invented his Verfremdung precisely to make
this alienated (“entfremdete”) world transparent: “To enable an insight in this
“alienation” and with it the conditions for its dissolution […], is it necessary in

81 Willett, in the capacity of being a Brecht-translator and Brecht-scholar, is very much

aware of the ambiguity attached to the term alienation. The following note is worth
attention in this context:
As for the debatable translation of the term: literally speaking, Alienation comes
about as close to Verfremdung as Verfremdung itself does to Ostrannenie. But it
has some unfortunate overtones even apart from its Marxist-Hegelian use – it
suggests, for instance, the alienating of somebody’s sympathies or affections, or
simply putting-off or ‘off-putting’ – and I myself would have preferred some
less mystifying English term such as ‘detachment’. There is also the accepted
concept of ‘aesthetic distance’ or ‘distancing’; indeed the French often translate
Verfremdung by distanciation. The trouble however was that when I came into
the Brecht business (or Brecht industry as we now call it) ‘alienation’ was so
widely in use as a rendering of Brecht’s term that I felt it would be too
confusing (not to mention laborious) to attempt to change it. I just hope that the
ambiguity doesn’t do any harm (Willett 1984:221).
82 “[daβ] ‚Entfremdung‘ hier lediglich im Sinn von ‚Fremdmachen‘ verwendet sei und
nichts mit dem Marxschen Begriff der Entfremdung zu tun habe“ (in Knopf 1984:359)
83 “[E]r bringt Brechts Äuβerung in Zusammenhang mit der ‚Deutschen Ideologie‘ von
Marx und Engels“ (in Knopf 1984:359).
84 “Dieser Begriff der ‚Verfremdung‘ erinnert an den Begriff der ‚Entfremdung‘ bei Mar
und Engels in der Deutschen Ideologie“ (Schumacher 1955:192).

58
the theatre to help create an “estrangement” of this as self-evident and
unchangeable perceived world” (op.cit.:193) (my translation)85.
Mittenzwei first approaches the notion of Verfremdung from another angle: that
it is primarily a poetic device, and that it finds its antecedents in a literary
tradition of estrangement long before Brecht (Mittenzwei 1984:242).
Incidentally, this is a viewpoint shared also by Fradkin (1977:136), as well as by
Willett (1984:220). This perspective will be further discussed in the next
subchapter on estrangement in the Romantic literary tradition86, but first another
point brought up by Mittenzwei, relevant to Hegel, must be mentioned87:
“Already Hegel has pointed out that the familiar is often not known because it is
familiar”88 (op.cit.:242) (my translation)89. This point, that Hegel relates
understanding to the process of de-familiarization, is shared by Fradkin.
Reformulating Hegel’s phrase as if it was a kind of a “photo negative”: “in order
to be known, the familiarly known must be shown (seen) as unfamiliar”, Fradkin
claims to have formulated “the exact definition of the Brechtian ‘V-effect’”
(op.cit.:137) (my translation)90.
Another example in Hegel’s writings, discovered by Knopf, and related to the
words fremd, fremdartig (unfamiliar) and Entfremdung applied as cognition
indicators, is important for the present context. Knopf has found in a speech by
Hegel a perception of Entfremdung that he claims carries the same meaning as it

85 ”Um eine Einsicht in diese ‚Entfremdung’ zu ermöglichen und damit die

Voraussetzungen für die Aufhebung schaffen zu helfen […], ist auf dem Theater eine
‚Verfremdung’ dieser für selbstverständlich und unveränderbar empfundenen Welt
nötig“ (Schumacher 1955:193).
86 In fact, Helmers looks at Verfremdung as a poetic category per se, and discusses it as
a concept having a firm foundation in the field of literary science (Helmers 1984b).
87 Actually this point, according to Knopf, was first made by Hans Schafer in 1957 as a
contribution to the interpretation of Brecht’s concept of Verfremdung, and then later
brought to the attention for the Brecht-research by Grimm in 1961 (Knopf 1984:361).
See also next footnote.
88 The more precise wording in Hegel goes:
What is "familiarly known" is not properly known, just for the reason that it is
"familiar". When engaged in the process of knowing, it is the commonest form of self-
deception, and a deception of other people as well, to assume something to be familiar,
and give assent to it on that very account” (Hegel.”Preface: On Scientific Knowledge”
(translated by J. B. Baillie). In Hegel’s The Phenomenology of Mind [1807], ch. 9, p. 92,
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel%20Phen/hegel_phen_preface.htm
(downloaded October 21st, 2008).
89 “Schon Hegel hat darauf hingewiesen, daβ das bekannte oft deshalb nicht erkannt
wird, weil es bekannt ist“ (Mittenzwei 1984:242). Both Grimm (1984:187) and Knopf
(1984:361) have made the same point.
90 “’Um erkannt zu werden, muβ das Bekannte als ein Unbekanntes gezeigt (gesehen)
werden’. Und das ist die exakte Definition des Brechtschen ‚V-Effekts’“ (Fradkin
1977:137).

59
does for Brecht when he uses it in 1936 (Knopf 1984:360)91. In this address
Hegel speaks about Entfremdung as a “condition for theoretical learning
[Bildung]”, and he specifically invokes the conception of the unfamiliar as
something that supports thought (op.cit.:360-361). This perception in Hegel that
Entfremdung is a factor of cognition is significant. It is significant for Brecht’s
understanding of its didactic implications and cognitive functions, but it is also
significant for the appreciation of the learning potential of estrangement in the
context of this study, and for the importance of distancing in drama education in
general.
Knopf and other contributors of Brecht criticism mentioned above, who have
concerned themselves with interpretations of Hegel’s term Entfremdung, have
contributed to opening it up to encompass more than ‘alienation’ on one side or
‘estrangement’ on another, towards an understanding of distancing as a dynamic
combination of positions. From the point when Brecht replaces Estrangement
with Verfremdung92, he combines the socio-political dimension inscribed in
Marx interpretation of Hegel’s Entfremdung with the poetic device of creating
reflection inscribed in his term Verfremdung. From now on, Brecht develops
Verfremdung into a dialectical mode of knowing. There is every indication that

91 What Knopf refers to here is the so-called “Gymnasial-Rede vom 29. September
1809”, a speech Hegel gave as rector of the Gymnasium in Nürnberg, two years after his
Phenomenology of Mind (Knopf, 1984:361, 384). In its original the excerpt cited by
Knopf goes as follows:
Um aber zum Gegenstande zu werden, muβ die Substanz der Natur und des Geistes uns
gegenübergetreten seyn, sie muβ die Gestalt von etwas Fremdartigem erhalten haben. –
Unglücklich der, dem seine unmittelbare Welt der Gefühle entfremdet wird; denn dieβ
heiβt nichts anders, als daβ die individuellen Bande, die las Gemüth und den Gedanken
heilig mit dem Leben befreunden, Glauben, Liebe und Vertrauen ihm zerrissen wird! –
Für die Entfremdung, welche Bedingung der theoretischen Bildung ist, fordert diese
nicht den sittlichen Schmerz, nicht das Leiden des Herzens, sondern den leichtern
Schmerz und Anstrengung der Vorstellung, sich mit einem Nicht-Unmittelbaren, einem
Fremdartigen, mit etwas der Erinnerung, dem Gedächtnisse und dem Denken
Angehörigen zu beschäftigen. (Knopf’s reference [1984:384, note 55]: G.W.F.Hegel:
Studienausgabe in drei Bänden. Ausgew. u. eingel. u. m. Anm. vers. von Karl Löwith
und Manfred Riedel. Bd. 1. – Frankfurt und Hamburg 1968, S. 35).
92 The exact time when Brecht takes up Verfremdung as his term for the process of
creating awareness through making strange has been debated by Brecht scholars. There
seems to be an agreement that the change-over from Entfremdung to Verfremdung took
place towards the end of 1936. Knopf ascertains that Verfremdung was theoretically
defined by the end of 1936 “with the significant permutation of ‘Entfremdung’ and
‘Verfremdung’” (Knopf 1984:385, note 62) (my translation). Willet points out that
almost certainly “the first mention in his writings of the term ‘Verfremdungseffekt’”
happens in Brecht’s essay “Alienation Effects in Chinese Acting”, first printed in
English in Life and Letters, London, 1936 (Willett 2001:99, note). Willet points to the
formular likeness with ‘priem ostranenie’ and suggests that it was the influence from
Russian formalism, and particularly Brecht’s visit in Moscow in 1935, that led to his
adoption of Verfremdung in replacement of Entfremdung (ibid.). I shall briefly return to
this famous visit in chapter C and in more detail in section D.3.

60
he does so from a strong influence by the Hegelian and Marxian tradition (Knopf
1984:385, note 62).
Even if there have been attempts in Brecht criticism, and particularly from
researchers in the West93, to tone down Hegel’s (and Marx’s) influence on
Brecht, their impact on his theory and method is broadly recognized in the
Brecht-research. There is no space here to explore this much further, except to
refer to Knopf for additional reading. He represents a rigorous and a most
comprehensive source in the Brecht-research of today94. However, one
supplementary source found in Knopf will be mentioned here to support the
view that Hegel/Marx exerted a significant influence on Brecht: Heinz
Schaefer’s study from 1957, entitled [sic] “Der Hegelianismus der Bert
Brecht’schen Verfremdungstechnik in Abhängigkeit von ihren marxistischen
Grundlagen”95. According to Knopf, Schaefer demonstrates that Brecht’s
concept of Verfremdung is in itself imbued with Hegelian dialectic thinking,
“which dissolves the assured appearance of the known and the familiar,
questions it, and thereby makes it cognizable” 96 (Knopf 1984:365) (my
translation). From this reflection stems Schaefer’s pertinent statement: “The
dialectic of the estrangement of alienation” 97 (in Knopf, ibid.) (my translation).
A similar verbal twist is applied by Fradkin, when explaining how Brecht,
inspired by Hegelian thought, dialectically amalgamates the adjoining, yet not
identical, qualities of the categories Entfremdung and Verfremdung:
“’[E]strangement’ in Brecht is an art device for overcoming ‘alienation’” 98
(Fradkin 1977:138) (my translation).
Fradkin points out that Brecht models the dialectics of knowledge acquisition in
his concept of estrangement after Hegel’s triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis
(ibid.). In a 9-point note entitled “Dialektik und Verfremdung” Brecht presents
point 1in the following formula: “Estrangement as an understanding (understand
– not understand – understand), negation99 of the negation” 100 (Brecht

93 Among them are Esslin and Grimm.

94 It should be mentioned that his article referenced in the present study is taken from a
broader study: Bertolt Brecht. Ein Forschungsbericht. Fragwürdiges in der
Brechtforschung (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1974), and that his editing of a series of 5
handbooks on Brecht (Brecht Handbuch, Stuttgart und Weimar: Verlag J.B. Metzler,
2001-2003) is regarded as a significant and authoritative source in the Brecht-research.
95 Knopf’s publication reference to Schaefer’s study is limited to: Diss. phil. Stuttgart
1957 (Typoskript).
96 ”die den gesicherten Schein des Bekannten und Vertrauten auflöst, ihn in frage stellt
und dadurch erkennbar macht“ (in Knopf 1984:365).
97 ”Dialektik der ’Verfremdung’ der ’Entfremdung’” (in Knopf 1984:365).
98 ”‚Verfremdung’ nach Brecht ist ein Kunstmittel zur Überwindung der ‚Entfremdung’“
(Fradkin 1977:138).
99 Negation of the negation: Hegel uses this expression sometimes, e.g. in paragraph 95,
http://www.hegel.net/en/engels_three_laws_of_dialectic.htm (downloaded December
12th, 2008).

61
1963g:180) (my translation). I find Fradkin’s interpretation of the process of
cognition inscribed in the Brecht-note above illuminating:
1. At first glance the object we are accustomed to appears conformingly known
and understandable (thesis); 2. the ‘estrangement’ shows us the object from a
new, unfamiliar vantage point and takes for a moment away from us the feeling
that we know and understand the object (antithesis); 3. and first when the object
through the prism101 of ‘estrangement’ has reached our consciousness, does it
again appear really known and understandable to us, only this time on a higher
level (synthesis) (Fradkin 1977:138).
Thus the quote makes good sense when compared to Brecht’s statement in A
Short Organum for the Theatre [1948], § 43, about the social aims of the new V-
effects that he attempts to realize: “The new alienations are […] designed to free
socially-conditioned phenomena from that stamp of familiarity which protects
them against our grasp today”102 (Brecht 2001k:192). It seems to make good
sense also in relation to the philosophy inherent in Socratic irony as Hegel has
interpreted it, and to Hegel’s own idea of Entfremdung as a factor of cognition.
Neither does it seem to be in disagreement with Diderot’s main tenet of how the
actor learns from life: “It is the head, not the heart, which works in and for him”
(Diderot 1883:14).

Denis Diderot
Brecht was familiar with the French literary Enlightenment. Mittenzwei records:
“he studied the technique of Voltaire and particularly that of Diderot”
(Mittenzwei 1984:254) and Grimm observes that important impressions on
Brecht’s conception of acting were “the theoretical reflections on theatre by a
Fransisco Riccoboni and Denis Diderot” (Grimm 1984:192-193). Given Brecht’s
commitment to using theatre for reflection, it is not surprising that he invests
interest in Enlightenment reason and rationality. However, according to Fradkin,
Brecht’s engagement with this period is also oriented towards its aesthetics:

100 ”Verfremdung als ein Verstehen (verstehen – nicht verstehen – verstehen), Negation
der Negation” (Brecht 1963t:180).
101 The metaphor prism of estrangement evokes an association with Heathcote. In a
published letter to Heathcote, Bolton refers to her method of working through
indirectness, which he finds much more rewarding for knowledge acquisition and more
liable to acquire authenticity in drama work than by “a directly focussed spotlight […]
[f]or seeing it anew, the spotlight must be beamed through a prism and the consequent
refraction throws up new meanings” (Heathcote and Bolton 1995:189). Here is an
obvious likeness to Fradkin’s metaphor and a clear parallel to the mechanism of
estrangement. A similar parallel is found in Bloch’s mirror-metaphor: “[T]he real
function of estrangement is – and must be – the provision of a shocking and distancing
mirror above the all too familiar reality; the purpose of the mirroring is to arouse both
amazement and concern” (Bloch 1972:10).
102 “Die neuen Verfremdungen sollten […] den gesellschaftlich beeinfluβbaren
Vorgängen den Stempel des Vertrauten wegnehmen, der sich heute vor dem Eingriff
bewahrt“ (Brecht 1978:151).

62
“many theses of his ‘epic theatre’ are, consciously and unconsciously, closely
connected with the aesthetics of the Enlightenment” 103 (Fradkin 1977:337) (my
translation). The fact that the Society for Theatre Science that Brecht envisaged
in 1937, which was to be named after Diderot, shows that Diderot’s reflections
on theatre were important to Brecht104.
In Diderot’s dialogue The Paradox of Acting ([1830]105 1883), in conception
exhibiting a certain likeness to Plato’s Socrates dialogues, not to speak of
Brecht’s own Messingkauf Dialogues ([1939-42] 1994), problems are raised for
discussion in relation to acting and the role of theatre in society. In relation to
the latter, Diderot calls upon, through the words of his character called The First,
the aims of the old Greek dramatists: “it was their object not only to amuse their
fellow-citizens but also to make them better” (Diderot 1883:58). In some later
paragraphs, The First commends a society that is inclined to attach “due
importance, honour, and recompense to the function of speaking to assembled
multitudes who come to be taught, amused, and corrected” (op.cit.:67). Clearly
inspired by statements like this, Brecht makes a note in the essay “On
Experimental Theatre” [1939] that he approves of the Enlightenment period and
the concern of Diderot himself to try to strike a balance between diversion and
edification:
Bourgeois revolutionary aesthetics, founded by such great figures of the
Enlightenment as Diderot and Lessing, defines the theatre as a place of
entertainment and instruction. During the Enlightenment, […], there was no
conflict between these two things. Pure amusement, provoked even by objects
of tragedy, struck men like Diderot as utterly hollow and unworthy unless it
added something to the spectators’ knowledge, while elements of instruction, in
artistic form of course, seemed in no ways to detract from the amusement; in
these men’s view they gave depth to it” (Brecht 2001h:131).
Obviously, this is a well known viewpoint expressed by Brecht in other contexts
as well: indirectly in his Lehrstücke, but very succinctly in “Theatre for Pleasure

103 ”[V]iele Thesen seines ’epischen Theaters’ stehen, bewuβt oder unbewuβt, mit der
Ästhetik der Aufklärung in engem Zusammenhang“ (Fradkin 1977:337).
104 From his exile in Svendborg, Denmark, Brecht in 1937 wrote a draft for setting up a
’Diderot Society’. As his reason for the proposed name, he argues that “this great
encyclopaedian has written about theatre in a very philosophical and material-
philosophical manner” (my translation). “Dieser große Enzyklopädist hat über Theater
sehr philosophisch und materialistisch-philosophisch geschrieben” (Brecht, CD-ROM,
257.1, 1999). In the draft entitled “Die Diderot-Gesellschaft” Brecht lists among the
aims: to systematize the experiences of its members, to develop a terminology, to
investigate scientifically the theatrical conceptions of peoples’ living together. He also
suggests artists’ exchanges and publishing (Brecht 1963k:108-109). The society was also
referred to as ‘The Society for Inductive Theatre” (op.cit.:111). It was never realized, but
amongst the proposed members were Piscator, Eisler, Dudow, Eisenstein, Tretyakov,
Lagerkvist, Grieg, and others (CD-ROM, op.cit.).
105 Diderot’s text Paradoxe sur le Comédien was written between 1770-1778, but not
published until 1830 (Grimm 1984:193).

63
or Theatre for Instruction” (Brecht 2001c:73) and in “The German Drama: pre
Hitler” (Brecht 2001b:80). The dialectics of entertainment and instruction,
realized in the form of the epic theatre, “through a process of alienation: the
alienation that is necessary to all understanding” (Brecht 2001c:71) is a visible
commitment for Brecht in most of his plays and theoretical writings106.
Brecht also finds a source of inspiration in Diderot’s theory of acting: his
emphasis that the actor should play “from thought” (Diderot 1883:9), with a
keen observing eye: “He must have in himself an unmoved and disinterested
onlooker” (op.cit.:7). Diderot’s ideal is actors who draw upon experiences of life
in creating their art: “They dart on everything which strikes their imagination;
they make, as it were, a collection of such things. And from these collections,
made all unconsciously, issue the grandest achievements of their work”
(op.cit.:13). The key word here is not the unconscious, which would more be an
orientation associated with Stanislavsky, but the cool disinterestedness of an
onlooker. Brecht recommends the same to his actors:
You, actor
Must master the art of observation
Before all other arts. [/]
In order to observe
One must learn how to compare. In order to compare
One must have observed. By means of observation
Knowledge is generated; on the other hand knowledge is
needed
For observation
(Willet and Manheim 1976:235/237).
Like Brecht in his time, Diderot also mentions a street accident as a potential
model for artistic enactment, provided it is not too real, like “a passing moment
in Nature” (op.cit.:25)107. Diderot’s point is that a naturalistic replay with all the
dramatics and emotions of the incident will result in chaos. What is needed is an
ordered artistic narration of it, “planned and composed – a work which is built
up by degrees, and which lasts” (ibid.). I have found an interesting parallel even
in Heathcote in relation to reflecting on the use of a street-corner-reality as
material for drama. Like Diderot and Brecht (see the Brecht-footnote to this
paragraph), Heathcote observes the selective detail usefully adapted for

106 The idea of striving for a combining of teaching and amusement, Brecht returns to
for example in The Messingkauf Dialogues: “The Dramaturg Diderot, who was a great
revolutionary dramaturg, said the theatre ought to promote instruction and
entertainment” (Brecht 1993:34).
107 See Brecht’s “The Street Scene. A Basic Model for an Epic Theatre” [1938] (2001g).
According to Willett (2001:128) the essay is an elaboration of the poem “On Everyday
Theatre”, from 1930 (in Willett and Manheim 1976:176). The original poem, “Über
alltägliches Theater“, is included amongst “Gedichte aus dem Messingkauf“ (Schiften
zum Theater, b. 5, 1963r:251).

64
dramatizing such an incident, in which a retelling with the naturalism of the
original situation is not the point:
We retell it [the near accident] because of the pleasure gained and the effect we
have seen it make upon others many times, and in the retelling we embroider,
we fill in detail which perhaps in reality was not there, but fits the story. And
with time we believe in the reality of this detail and the story gradually takes
upon itself an orderliness (Heathcote 1984b:82).
Even though the theme of distancing has not been very explicitly discussed in
the passages above, it has been treated implicitly, because distancing belongs to
that fundamental quality on which the faculty of rational, disinterested
observation and reflection depends. Inherent in this quality of detachment is an
element of what the early Russian formalists termed des-automated perception.
Not wanting to draw a parallel too far, I do think it can be argued from the
examples above that Diderot, Brecht, and Heathcote are all concerned with a
deliberate distancing of dramatic representation from the reality explored.
Before leaving Diderot, the parallel to the formalists just mentioned deserves
some additional attention. In a theme edition of Poetics Today on ‘Estrangement
revisited’ (I - 2005 and II – 2006), Smoliarova discusses “Estrangement in
Diderot and Shklovsky” (Smoliarova 2006:3-33). For the present context
particularly her focus on Shklovsky’s idea of the de-automatization of
perception is of interest. Smoliarova admits that she has not found proof of a
direct influence from Diderot to Shklovsky on this point, but she recounts that
there is a link via Tolstoy - Tolstoy being Shklovsky’s main reference in his
discussion of estrangement in “Art as technique” (1917). Smoliarova also
recounts that Rousseau is “one of the main sources of estrangement in Tolstoy”
(Smoliarova 2006:5), and adds that a prehistory of estrangement in art exists in
Diderot’s heritage as well: “for Diderot, alienation exists not only ‘in practice’,
as a literary device […], but also ‘in theory’, as a distinctly formulated program”
(ibid.). On the grounds of this and the fact that in Formalist circles in the 1920s
there existed an “interest in the legacy of Diderot and the distinctive style
modelled upon him” (op.cit.:6), it is very reasonable to assert the existence of a
clear “typological resemblance of ideas, concepts, and metaphors” (op.cit.:5-6).
An illustrative image for de-automatization of perception used by Smoliarova is
anamorphosis108, or “difficult viewing” (op.cit.:17), defined as “a distorted
image, that appears in natural form under certain conditions, as when viewed at a
raking angle or reflected from a curved mirror” (ibid.). She arrives at this image
by having spent a part of the article discussing the concepts automaton (in
Diderot), automatism (in Bergson), and automatization (in Shklovsky). There is
no space in this context to follow that chain of Smoliarova’s logic in any detail.

108 “Anamorphosis is a distorted projection or perspective requiring the viewer to use

special devices or occupy a specific vantage point to reconstitute the image.
‘Anamorphosis’ comes from the Greek words meaning ‘formed again’”,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphosis (downloaded December 11th, 2008).

65
It must suffice to relate that in the Enlightenment there was an interest in
exploring the automaton as an invention, and that for Diderot, “lhomme-
automate was not an abstract comparison or idea but a very concrete and
material image” (op.cit.:12). When Smoliarova points out that one of the
similarities between Diderot and Shklovsky is for art to create obstacles, i.e. “in
distinguishing illusion from reality” (ibid.), it should be kept in mind that the
image of man-become-automatic is of concern for Diderot, and that in
Shklovsky’s view it belongs to the task of estrangement to de-automatize the
habitualization which “devours works, clothes, furniture, one’s wife, and the fear
of war” (Shklovsky 1988:20).
Another point of similarity between Diderot and Shklovsky, according to
Smoliarova, is their commitment to problematizing the ideal of linear
development: “The two authors aim to destroy the ‘linear’ existence of an
individual, developing over time, and to make it ‘staccato’” (ibid.). Even if
applied in relation to a subject in this quote, Smoliarova applies the concept of
estrangement in the two authors in relation to literature and language as well, for
example by referring to the notions of distortion and impediment, “which
Shklovsky imported into literary critical discourse” (ibid.). In fact, Smoliarova
invokes the device of anamorphosis as a visual counterpart to the device of
estrangement in literature. She elaborates: “Anamorphosis renders the image
barely recognizable and makes the very process of viewing ‘long and laborious’,
thus perfectly fitting Shklovsky’s view of the perceptual process in art”
(op.cit.:18). An association to Heathcote is in place here, because the idea of
distortion is a recurrent theme in her writings, for example when she writes
about the contribution of the arts in understanding the human situation, by which
aesthetic aspects like selection, particularization, encapsulation and distortion
are being employed: “So, in art, you have isolation of the human condition,
particularization, distortion, and forming so that you may contemplate it. It gives
shape to synthesize the importance of distortion” (Heathcote 1984d:114); and:
“We are always concerned with distortion, but drama brings it to notice”
(op.cit.:117). It seems to me that Heathcote’s idea of distortion is very close to
the image of anamorphosis, and that it can be regarded as a device of
estrangement.
A final point should be made in relation to anamorphosis, which also brings me
back to Brecht. Smoliarova observes that “the literary device of estrangement
impels the reader to make a ‘round-trip’, away from the habitual image, only to
bring him or her back later to the same objective reality” (op.cit.:19). A similar
idea is presented in Bloch’s article on estrangement in Brecht:
The roundabout way of estrangement is, after all, the shortest route away from
alienation and to self-confrontation. [/] The way of estrangement is not that
main road which – following its inherent course – needs nothing from outside
and can go on far enough to touch the farthest ultraviolet reaches. But the
estranging – the unexpected which clarifies our sight – can help us to honor the
main road: that is, to interrupt it from time to time and at need by – Tableau!”
(Bloch 1972:10-11).

66
This approach to estrangement as a way of coming closer to the event by a
detour, or as an exploration of the event from an oblique perspective, is also a
well-known strategy in process drama. So too is tableau.
In keeping with the metaphor of detouring, I shall close this chapter (B) by
adding to the complexity of making strange some pursuits of the concept found
in romantic theory.

iii. The tradition in Romanticism - Coleridge, Shelley, Novalis

It was not an obvious choice to turn to the Romantic period, with its interest in
the sublime, the fantastic, the inspirational and the irrational, to look for
occurrences of making strange devices relevant to the context of this study.
However, background reading disclosed that Romanticism’s concern with the
nature of the poetic belongs to the prehistory of estrangement in art. This is
particularly true for contributions by Coleridge, Shelley, and Novalis. All are
exponents of the view that estranging the ordinary from its habitual appearance
is a necessary contrivance in poetry to make the world be seen anew.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge

In Coleridge’s autobiography, Biographia Literaria [1817], he describes as a
characteristic of a true poetic mind, the faculty to feel “the riddle of the world”
and the commitment to “help to unravel it”109 (Coleridge 1817:ch IV:41). For
such a project there is a need for creativity and curiosity, and ability to look at
the world with fresh eyes – like a child – even in a mature age:
To carry on the feelings of childhood into the powers of manhood; to combine
the child's sense of wonder and novelty with the appearances which every day
for perhaps forty years had rendered familiar; […] this is the character and
privilege of genius (ibid.).
What Coleridge refers to here as an indication of penetrating poetic talent, seems
very close to what Shklovsky later terms de-automatization, see chapter C, by
which the familiar is made to appear in a new light in order that fresh
understanding is achieved. In Coleridge’s lingo the ability to accomplish de-
familiarization is a mark of geniality:
And therefore is it the prime merit of genius and its most unequivocal mode of
manifestation, so to represent familiar objects as to awaken in the minds of
others a kindred feeling concerning them, and that freshness of sensation which
is the constant accompaniment of mental, no less than of bodily, convalescence
(ibid.).
Even though Coleridge’s message is shrouded in Romantic terminology of
feeling and sensation, and may suggest that poetry imbues a convalescent

109 In this and the ensuing quotes from Biographia Literaria, Coleridge’s model of the
true Romantic poet, and frequently the direct reference, is his friend and collaborator,
William Wordsworth.

67
therapeutic effect in the reader, it can be perceived to contain an interest in the
epistemological effects of poetry as well. Education was very much a part of the
Romantic project (and so was revolution). The Romantic poets were concerned
with providing alternatives to the dominance of rational reflection in the wake of
the Enlightenment, so the reflective and explorative role of poetry is a significant
one for Coleridge (and Wordsworth). Poetry has the power of breaking the
confinements of the habitual and instigating a new awareness of happenings in
everyday life, through de-familiarization:
to give the charm of novelty to things of every day, and to excite a feeling
analogous to the supernatural, by awakening the mind's attention to the lethargy
of custom, and directing it to the loveliness and the wonders of the world before
us; an inexhaustible treasure, but for which, in consequence of the film of
familiarity and selfish solicitude, we have eyes, yet see not, ears that hear not,
and hearts that neither feel nor understand (Coleridge 1817:ch XIV:145).
To break away from ‘the lethargy of custom’ is a transformative project. For that
kind of project the dominating keyword for Coleridge is imagination, which is
both “a synthetic and magical power” (op.cit.:150). In fact, imagination is for
Coleridge the equivalent of Bullough’s (and Ben Chaim’s) awareness of fiction,
which I discuss in more detail in my article “Distance and awareness of fiction –
exploring the concepts” (Eriksson 2007a:15). A main point here is that “we
voluntarily apply imagination to transgress borders of ‘real’ truth to accept
‘fictional’ truths” (ibid.), which is also Coleridge’s point in his famous definition
of what forms an aesthetic response: “that willing suspension of disbelief for the
moment, which constitutes poetic faith” (Coleridge 1817:ch XIV:145).

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Whilst Coleridge in his autobiography demonstrates an inclusive vision of the
sciences, with a view of philosophy as “the science of BEING altogether”110
(Coleridge 1817: chXII:124), Shelley in “A Defence of Poetry” [1821, first
published 1840] takes on a more confrontational stance against a perceived
dominance of natural science and technology111. Shelley considers poetry and
the arts in general to possess a special quality of divulging the beauty and order
of things in the universe. Like in Coleridge, imagination plays a significant role,
by which, in comparison, reason has a more subordinate position:
Reason is the enumeration of qualities already known; imagination is the
perception of the value of those qualities, both separately and as a whole.
Reason respects the differences and imagination the similitudes of things.

110 Coleridge seems to regard philosophy as a kind of ultimate science combining the
sphere of “reason” (the objective) with the sphere of “morals” (the subjective), and that
“its primary ground can be neither merely speculative nor merely practical, but both in
one. All knowledge rests on the coincidence of an object with a subject” (Coleridge
1817:ch XII:124) .
111 Shelley's "Defence" is a response to Thomas Love Peacock's essay, "Four Ages of
Poetry," in which Peacock satirically devalued the importance of poetry in the time.

68
 Reason is to imagination as the instrument to the agent, as the body to the spirit,
as the shadow to the substance (Shelley 2001:1).
Shelley defines poetry as “the expression of the imagination” (op.cit.:2). It is by
the faculty of creative imagination that man can obtain, absorb and cultivate
knowledge. Without poetic imagination, mankind will fail to appreciate life’s
many wonders, even if technology and science may have provided some useful
knowledge: “We want the creative faculty to imagine that which we know; we
want the generous impulse to act that which we imagine; we want the poetry of
life; our calculations have outrun conception; we have eaten more than we can
digest” (op.cit.:37). In Shelley’s essay the same theme appears, as in Coleridge,
that poetry has the power to make the world come into view in a new light.
Shelley even applies the same metaphors as Coleridge, based on the notion that a
fresh view of the world can be attained by de-habitualization, as Shklovsky
would call it:
It [poetry] reproduces the common universe of which we are portions and
percipients, and it purges from our inward sight the film of familiarity which
obscures from us the wonder of our being. It compels us to feel that which we
perceive, and to imagine that which we know. It creates anew the universe, after
it has been annihilated in our minds by the recurrence of impressions blunted by
reiteration (op.cit.:42).
It is the task of poetry, then, to prepare the mind to be receptive and aware,
which is the condition for imaginative thinking. Poetry does so by estranging the
familiar:
It awakens and enlarges the mind itself by rendering it the receptacle of a
thousand unapprehended combinations of thought. Poetry lifts the veil from the
hidden beauty of the world, and makes familiar objects be as if they were not
familiar (op.cit.:13).
Shelley’s views of imaginative thinking seem to include an argument for
dramatic imagination as well: “A man, to be greatly good, must imagine
intensely and comprehensively; he must put himself in the place of another and
of many others” (ibid.). But besides being a defence of poetry and the power of
imagination, Shelley’s essay is also a defence for the poet as a philosopher, and
a creator and protector of moral and civil laws: “Poets are the unacknowledged
legislators of the world” (op.cit.:48) sounds the final line of his “Defence”.

Novalis (Friedrich von Hardenberg)

The Grand Master of early Romanticism is Novalis. He appears to embody the
image of the romantic universal genius. Novalis is well read in philosophy and
the arts; he is interested in education, mysticism and religion, but has also
studied geology, mathematics, chemistry, biology, law and history. Like Diderot,
Novalis embarks on an encyclopaedic project with an overview on art, religion
and science. He seems to be involved in an all-embracing, continuous creative
process, which stops short at an age of only twenty-nine. Shortly after Novalis´
death (1801), his friends Ludwig Tieck and Friedrich Schlegel, collected his

69
writings, some of which were unfinished, and published a first edition in 1802 as
Novalis Schriften112.
In a similar way to Coleridge and Shelley, Novalis sees philosophy and poetry as
sciences continually related to each other: “Poetry is the hero of philosophy.
Philosophy elevates poetry to maxim; it teaches us to know the value of poetry.
Philosophy is the theory of poetry; it shows us what poetry is; that it is one thing
and everything”113 (Novalis 1837, part 2:222) (my translation). Befitting the
spirit of Romanticism, the theme of the distant and the unfamiliar is often
present in Novalis: “Philosophy rhymes with poetry, because every call in the
distance is vocal. Thus, everything in the distance becomes poetic: distant
mountains, distant people, distant events, etc. (everything becomes romantic)”114
(ibid.) (my translation). The distant and the unfamiliar comprise the materials
from which the scholar can develop new ideas and originality:
To the real scholar nothing is strange and nothing unfamiliar, everything is to
him unfamiliar and strange at the same time. [(…)]. The scholar knows how to
make the familiar strange, and the strange familiar (learning and instructing,
observing and representing, eating and segregating)”115 (op.cit.:201) (my
translation).
Similar to Coleridge and Shelley, Novalis also sees the imagination as a most
significant human faculty: “The power of imagination has come or become

112 For citations from Novalis work I have used a Tieck and Schlegel edition of Novalis
Schriften, part 2, from 1837, and a Tieck and Schlegel edition of part 3 from 1846.
113 “Die Poesie ist der Held der Philosophie. Die Philosophie erhebt die Poesie zum
Grundsatz; sie lehrt uns den Werth der Poesie kennen. Philosophie ist die Theorie der
Poesie; sie zeigt uns, was die Poesie sei; daβ sie Eins und Alles sei” (Novalis 1837,
Zweiter Theil:222).
114 “Philosophie klingt wie Poesie, weil jeder Ruf in der Ferne Vocal wird. So wird alles
in der Entfernung Poesie: ferne Berge, ferne Menschen, ferne Begebenheiten u.s.w.
(alles wird romantisch)” (ibid.).
115 “Für den ächten Gelehrten giebt es nichts Eigentümliches und nichts Fremdes, alles
ist ihm fremd und eigentümlich zugleich. [(…)]. Der Gelehrte weiβ das Fremde sich
zuzueignen, und das Eigne fremd zu machen (Lernen und Lehren, Beobachten und
Darstellen, Essen und Absondern)“ (op.cit.:201). Perhaps a more verbatim translation of
the second sentence would be: “The scholar will know to acquire the unfamiliar and to
make his own unfamiliar”. I have, however, succumbed to using: “to make the familiar
strange and the strange familiar”. I found this phrase in David Chandler (1994), who
claims (but without a reference for the quote) that Novalis is the originator of the phrase,
and that this declaration was originally coined to express what is the essence of
romanticism in literature (Chandler 1994:ch 14). In the latter claim I think Chandler is
mistaken, because Novalis does not discuss Romanticism in the paragraph from where
the quote is taken. However, he does so in the context quoted in the next paragraph,
citation in footnote 122. An additional comment by Chandler is worth noticing regarding
the relevance of Novalis´ expression in today’s society: “The notion ‘to make the
familiar strange, and the strange familiar’ is now a recurrent feature of artistic and
photographic manifestos and of creative ‘brainstorming’ sessions in many fields” (ibid.).

70
easiest and first into the world, reason perhaps last”116 (op.cit.:202) (my
translation), and to its domain belong aesthetics in a similar way as reasoning
belongs to logic (op.cit.:203). But it is poetry which is the gateway to the
spiritual world: “The human world is the communal organ of the gods; poetry
connects them with us”117 (op.cit.:218) (my translation). Novalis sees a close
connection to mysticism in poetry: “The sense of poetry has much in common
with the sense of mysticism; it is the sense of the strange, personal, unfamiliar,
mysterious, of revelation, the necessary-incidental”118 (op.cit.:219) (my
translation). The poet has the capacity to access universal knowledge: “The real
poet is omniscient; he is a real world in miniature”119 (op.cit.:221) (my
translation).
Within this Romantic poetic universe Novalis formulates the significance of
estrangement in art. Here, Verfremdung is allocated a position equivalent to
poetics: “The art of making strange in an engaging way, to make an object
strange and still familiar and attractive, that is the romantic poetics”120
(op.cit.:225) (my translation). In Novalis´ “Fragments”121 (ca. 1798-1800)
another entry on Verfremdung appears, and now in the form of a declaration. As
this fragment is presented in several sources only in abbreviated form, it
deserves a full length presentation here:
The world must be romanticized. In this way its original meaning will be
rediscovered. Romanticization is nothing but a qualitative realization of
potential. The lower self is identified, in this operation, with a better self. As we
are ourselves such a qualitative series of potentials. This operation is as yet
quite unknown. Insofar as I give a higher meaning to what is commonplace, a
mysterious appearance to what is ordinary, the dignity of the unfamiliar to what
is familiar, a semblance of infinity to what is finite, I romanticize it. – The
operation for what is elevated, unfamiliar, mystical, infinite, is the reverse –
these are turned by this combination into logarithms – They receive a familiar
expression”122 (Novalis 1846, part 3:236).

116 ”Die Einbildungskraft ist am leichtesten und ersten zur Welt gekommen oder
geworden, die Vernunft vielleicht zuletzt” (Novalis 1837, Zweiter Theil:202).
117 “Die Menschenwelt ist das gemeinschaftliche Organ der Götter; Poesie vereinigt sie
mit uns” (op.cit.:218).
118 ”Der Sinn für Poesie hat viel mit dem Sinn für Mysticismus gemein; er ist der Sinn
für das Eigentümliche, Personelle, Unbekannte, Geheimnisvolle, zu Offenbare, das
Nothwendig-Zufällige (op.cit.:219).
119 ”Der ächte Dichter ist allwissend; er ist eine wirkliche Welt im Kleinen”
(op.cit.:221).
120 ”Die Kunst auf eine angenehme Art zu befremden, einen Gegenstand fremd zu
machen und doch bekannt und anziehend, das ist die romantische Poetik” (op.cit.:225).
121 Novalis, together with Friedrich Schlegel, developed the fragment as a literary art
genre.
122 “Die Welt muss romantisirt werden. So findet man den ursprünglichen Sinn wieder.
Romantisiren ist nichts, als eine qualitative Potenzirung. Das niedere Selbst wird mit
einem bessern Selbst in dieser Operation identifizirt. So wie wir selbst einer solche

71
In essence, this is about empowerment of the individual to find his better self. It
proclaims that personal development takes place through a reciprocal process of
making the familiar strange and the strange familiar. Novalis terms this process
romantization. Peter Cochran thinks of Novalis’ process of romantization as not
very useful, because it “performs each of two irreconcilable acts: the elevation of
the everyday into an ideal, and the debasement of an ideal into the everyday”
(Cochran 2009:xii). In his view it leads nowhere. It is like an Heracleitan
paradox: “the way up is the way down, the way forward is the way back” (ibid.).
What Cochran seems to miss is the reflective process that takes place through
“romantization”, which is, in my view, similar to the awareness process that
takes place through Brecht’s uses of Verfremdung or Heathcote’s uses of
making strange. Like them, Novalis regards the poetic arts as possessing an
educational potential: “To be sure, with each step up in the formation process the
poetic becomes a more significant tool”123 (Novalis 1837, part 2:226) (my
translation). Novalis also regards the unfamiliar as incitement for acquiring new
knowledge: “The unfamiliar is the attraction of the faculty of knowing. The
familiar does not attract any more. The faculty of knowing is in itself the highest
attraction - the totally unfamiliar”124 (Novalis 1846, part 3:228) (my translation).
In the paragraphs above I have discussed the contributions to the concept of
making strange by Coleridge, Shelley and Novalis primarily in relation to their
own context. However, I have related Romanticism’s thematization of the
strange and the unfamiliar to the specific focus of how estrangement in art is
present in romantic theory, and how this contributes to aesthetic knowing and
education through art. The investigation has led to an appreciation of historic
influences on drama education in general: Romanticism, with its great import on
the progressive education movement, has been a formative force in the
development of the drama education field (Eriksson 1979; Braanaas 2008).
The investigation of historic backgrounds for uses of making strange, discussed
in all the paragraphs of B.3, is not in itself an original research contribution in
the sense that the backdrops of the concept have not been studied before. It can
be mentioned that, for example, in Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie the

qualitative Potenzenreihe sind. Diese Operation ist noch ganz unbekannt. Indem ich dem
Gemeinen einen hohen Sinn, dem Gewöhnlichen ein geheimnisvolles Ansehen, dem
Bekannten die Würde des Unbekannten, dem Endlichen einen unendlichen Schein gebe,
so romantisiere ich es. – Umgekehrt ist die Operation für das Höhere, Unbekannte,
Mystische, Unendliche – dies wird durch diese Verknüpfung logarithmisirt – Es
bekommt einen geläufigen Ausdruck“ (Novalis 1846, Dritter Theil:236). The translation
of this fragment was found in Cochran (2009:xii). I have, however, undertaken a few
moderations in his translation.
123 ”Freilich wird auf jeder höhern Stufe der Bildung die Poetik ein bedeutenderes
Werkzeug” (Novalis 1837, Zweiter Theil:226).
124 ”Das Unbekannte ist der Reiz des Erkenntnisvermögens. Das Bekannte reizt nicht
mehr. Das Erkenntnisvermögen ist sich selbst der höchste Reiz – das absolut
Unbekannte” (Novalis 1846, Dritte Theil:228).

72
referenced operational history of Verfremdung covers many of the same
positions and practices that I have explored here (2001:653-658). It should also
be mentioned that in Brecht criticism several researchers reference many of the
same historical perspectives that I have surveyed in relation to applications of
the term, for example Fradkin (1977:133-139), Helmers (1984:1-4), (Grimm
(1984:187-189), Mittenzwei (1984:241-243), Knopf (1984:353-361), Willett
(1984:220-221), Brown (1973:525-526), Schöttker (1994:54), and Robinson
(2007:126). Nevertheless, such references are often cursory, or the researcher
takes issue with a more limited aspect of a chosen perspective. My intention has
been to conduct both a mapping of some selected historical perceptions of
estrangement, and to discuss their significance to a fuller understanding of the
complexity of the term as a distance category.

4. Summary
The chapter explored distancing as a multifaceted concept, and found that in
drama education distancing operates with basically two functions and one basic
premise: Function (1) is the chiefly didactically oriented purpose to establish a
protective dramatic fiction from which themes and issues can be explored at
‘one remove’ (Byron 1986:68). As evidenced from analyses of drama education
literature (Appendix 1), this function is a common priority in process drama.
Function (2) is the chiefly poetic, or artistic, oriented purpose to employ
dramatic ‘making strange’ devices by which themes and issues can be seen to
appear in a new light, i.e. what Brecht calls ‘estrangement as understanding’
(Brecht 1963g:180). This function is found in drama education literature as well,
but the function is less commonly referred to as ‘distancing’ in English language
drama literature. When the term distancing is used, it seems to be associated
with a specific form of drama, usually the epic theatre tradition and its
Verfremdungseffekte. The latter is the main theme of chapter D. The discussion
of uses of distancing in process drama, seen from the perspective of affinities
with a Brechtian drama tradition, will be conducted in chapter E.
The basic premise mentioned above is the aesthetic distance that makes up the
dramatic fiction. This Bulloughian concept, by which distancing is seen as an
aesthetic principle delineating the boundaries of fiction and reality through the
mental faculty referred to as psychic distance (Bullough 1912), was explained
and discussed. It was argued that awareness of fiction constitutes the
foundational premise for both the protection function and the poetic function to
take place. I presented my visual representation of the aesthetic distance
principle, figure 1 in B.1.iii, attempting to demonstrate that the borderlines for
upholding the dramatic fiction become blurred and dissolve, depending on
whether the dramatic activity becomes too excessive (over-distanced) or too
insufficient (under-distanced). The main drama education traditions were
inscribed in the illustration, along the figure’s distance continuum.

73
Then the chapter discussed awareness of fiction in relation to an epistemological
point of orientation. The notion of the double consciousness was discussed, i.e.
the awareness of one’s own self being as if in “another person’s shoes”
(Courtney 1980:111) or in “another world of experience” (Linnell 1982:19).
This dimension, commonly argued in process drama literature as constituting the
fundamental premise for reflective learning through the medium, was seen as
intimately connected with the aesthetic distance factor. The epistemological
point of orientation was also discussed in relation to the dialectic of what Bolton
terms “both submission and detachment” (Bolton 1984:147). This dialectic is
another well known dimension in process drama literature, regarded as
essentially conducive to reflective learning through the medium. It will be taken
up again later, for instance in connection with Heathcote’s conception of ‘lure’,
i.e. the incitement to engage in the drama experience, in section E.1. Interesting
in the present context was the demonstration that Brecht also regards the
dynamic of “reason and emotion” (Brecht 2001f:162) as conducive to attaining
new understanding through the dramatic medium. The alleged incompatibility of
thought and emotion in Brecht’s work was questioned. Instead, distancing was
seen as a central ingredient in Brecht and in Bolton, in the interplay of the
affective and cognitive domains, by its faculty to exercise (a) a critical
awareness of situation – participation in a dramatic fiction, and theme –
reflecting on the content of the events of the dramatic fiction, and by (b)
employing poetic reflection-creating strategies in the form of estrangement
devices. Further exemplification of the uses of such devices will be presented in
the three following chapters, C, D, and E. Examples are also discussed in my
three practise-oriented articles (Eriksson 2006, 2007b, and 2007c).
The last part of the chapter introduced and discussed main historical uses of
distancing, thematized by the concept estrangement. It was demonstrated that the
idea of making the familiar strange, in order to understand it in a novel way, is a
concept with antecedents in Antiquity, Romanticism and the Enlightenment. A
line of historical development of this making strange tradition is even Russian
Formalism, which is a theme of chapter C. It is a tradition that represents what
Helmers terms “estrangement in the broad meaning” (Helmers 1984:1).
However, it was shown that Brecht received impulses from this tradition, and in
chapter E the question is raised as to what degree Heathcote has received
impulses from the British Romanticists relating to her uses of making strange.

74
C. Russian Formalism and de-familiarization.
Distancing as a poetic device has one of its decisive inspirations in the Russian
avant-garde of the second decade of the 1900s. They are the Modernists that
make themselves visible in the art world under denominations like Formalism,
Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism – to a degree with coinciding ideas or
programmes. As summed up by Richard Stourac and Kathleen McCreery:
“They used the materials and working methods of the newly arrived industrial
age – steel, concrete, cubes and constructions – in painting, sculpture and
architecture. In writing and the theatre they applied the constructivist method by
making montages of different types of literary or dramatic elements. Politically
they embraced a wide spectrum ranging from abstract artists of vaguely
progressive persuasion to those using their artistic ‘constructions’ in an overt
and conscious revolutionary way” (Stourac and McCreery 1986:25).
Within these groupings there is competition, not only artistically but also
politically, for instance between the so-called Proletkult movement, advocating a
view that artistic activity had to emanate from the proletariat, and the more
intellectual avant-gardes of the left, centred around artists like Vladimir
Mayakovsky or Shklovsky. During 1922-1928 Mayakovsky was a prominent
member of the Left Art Front. He edited, along with Sergey Tretyakov and Osip
M. Brik, the journal LEF125. Associated with this latter movement were the
theatre and film innovators Vsevolod Meyerhold, Tretyakov and Sergey
Eisenstein. Tretyakov’s and Meyerhold’s contributions to the development of
distancing in art will be dealt with in some more detail below. First, the
contribution of Shklovsky, the chief representative of the Formalist school of
literature will be introduced - with particular attention to his use of distancing as
ostranenie, the device of ‘making it strange’.
The intention of the present chapter is to contextualise distancing in the literary
theory background of Russian Formalism and relations to the Russian theatre
innovations of the late 1920s and early 1930s. The intent is also to explore
interpretations of the distancing concept ostranenie, along with indications of its
relation to Brecht’s Verfremdung, and to activate and call attention to recent
research interests in the work of Shklovsky and Russian Formalism. The
political happenings in art and society in the Soviet Union during the latter part
of the 1930s, when Formalism was denounced as politically unacceptable and
replaced by Socialist Realist Art, is a background perspective for the chapter and

125 LEF ("ЛЕФ") was the journal of the Left Front of the Arts ("Levyi Front Iskusstv" -
"Левый фронт искусств"), a wide-ranging association of avant-garde writers,
photographers, critics and designers in the Soviet Union. The journal's objective was to
"re-examine the ideology and practices of so-called leftist art, and to abandon
individualism to increase art's value for developing communism",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEF_(Journal), (downloaded September 22nd, 2008).

75
will also be discussed in chapter D in connection with Brecht and his relations to
Formalism.
Helmers sees Russian Formalism as a literary movement belonging to a tradition
of rhetorics, and he regards the uses of distancing in Formalism as ‘estrangement
in a broad meaning’ (Helmers 1984:3). The study takes a general interest in
Formalism as a rhetoric tradition, because the research has disclosed rhetorical
elements in both Brecht’s and Heathcote’s work – chapters D and E. One of the
accompanying articles is composed and argued from a rhetoric perspective
(Eriksson 2008b). Rhetoric theory is not in itself, however, a particular focus in
this chapter, beyond its uses of references to new formalist theory, for instance
to Boym (2005), Smoliarova (2006), Vatulescu (2006), Sternberg (2006), and
others.
A selection of footnotes expands and complements the main text.

1. Shklovsky and ostranenie as a distancing device

The application of various ways of distancing belongs to the important
contributions of Modernism’s break with the traditional art forms of the past.
Shklovsky is one of the starters of this process126. Through the motto of “the

126 Shklovsky belonged to the so-called St. Petersburg Formalists, the OPOYaZ (the
Society for Studying Poetic Language), whilst Roman Jacobson, another influential
name from the early Russian Formalist movement, belonged to the Moscow Formalists.
In the first decade after the revolution, members from the two groups developed
advances in literary theory and criticism, which influenced the methods of literary study
internationally. Russian Formalism was a diverse movement, producing no unified
doctrine, and no consensus amongst its proponents on a central aim to their endeavours.
Therefore, it is more precise to refer to the "Russian Formalists", rather than to use the
more encompassing and abstract term of "Formalism",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_formalism (downloaded September 29th, 2007).
Further developments of Russian Formalism led to Futurism, which can be seen as a line
of development of the work of Shklovsky, and Structuralism, which became the
direction of Jacobson’s work under the inspiration of the teachings of Ferdinand
Saussure. Jacobson left Russia in 1920 and made a name for himself in the West as a
Structuralist and communication scholar. Shklovsky remained in Russia and became
caught up in the political tensions concerning the role of the literary avant-garde in the
development of the Soviet revolution. Allegedly, Shklovsky admitted to having made a
“scientific error” in a self-critical article published 1930 in Literaturnaya Gazeta No. 10,
in which he distanced himself from his previous positions (O’Toole and Shukman
1977:7). However, as pointed out by Boym (2005:596-598), Shklovsky’s denouncement
of the formal method can be read as a merely conditional surrender, a tactical and clever
piece of writing composed to circumvent the growing political oppression directed
against himself and other writers who were not actively showing an interest in
developing Socialist Realism literature. In section B.3 I present an example of a less
pragmatic attitude taken by the theatre director Meyerhold. Neglecting the criticism
launched against his “formalist” productions by state critics during the 1930s, Meyerhold
was eventually arrested and executed. Shklovsky, as well as his fellow Formalists Yuri

76
resurrection of the word”, from the title of Shklovsky’s programmatic article127
in 1914, the Russian formalists considered it a task of the literary avant-garde to
contribute to de-familiarization of habitual perception through art – to resurrect
the faculty of conscious experience of “the world”. The means to realize it was
by applying artistic techniques – to use another axiom from a programmatic
Shklovsky article, “Art as Technique”128 (1917) - to represent well-known
phenomena in new and unaccustomed ways. This is necessary, Shklovsky
asserts, because human perception is susceptible to the lethargic effect of
automatization and routine: “If we start to examine the general laws of
perception, we see that as perception becomes habitual, it becomes automatic”
(Shklovsky, 1917:19). Habitualization of thought and reflection needs
opposition, otherwise life will be filled by inertia and emptiness: “And so life is
reckoned as nothing. Habitualization devours works, clothes, furniture, one's
wife, and the fear of war” (op.cit.:20). Daily life’s way of thinking, as well as
daily life’s practical actions, impair perception in such a way that things are no
longer seen, only recognized; events are registered but not experienced: “phrases
[are left] unfinished and words half expressed” (ibid.). It is like a state of life-
obliteration, or, as Shklovsky expresses it, through a quote from Leo Tolstoy’s
diary from 1897: “[I]f the whole complex lives of many people go on
unconsciously, then such lives are as if they had never been” (ibid.). Shklovsky
finds in poetic language the antidote against automatization of perception. By
disengagement from the prosaic language of everyday life, artistic language
creates a new power of perception, a de-automatization of the habitual, and a

Tynianov and Boris Eichenbaum, survived the Soviet persecutions of the 1930s.
Shklovsky died in 1984 at the age of 91, leaving a legacy of writings about the craft
aspects of art, whilst, Boym asserts, having never substituted craft for art (op.cit.:598):
“Miraculously surviving many campaigns against him, Shklovsky remained a great
theorist-storyteller like Benjamin, one who speaks in elaborate parables, full of self-
contradiction, in a unique style of Formalist baroque” (op.cit.:599).
127 Shklovsky, Viktor Borisovich. “Vokreshenie slova” [“The resurrection of the word”],
Petersburg, 1914 (O’Toole and Shukman 1977:6). I have not found an English
translation of this article. In the study I have used a Danish translation from 2001:
“Ordets genopstandelse”. In Reception - Tidsskrift for nordisk litteratur, No. 45,
http://www.reception.hum.ku.dk/arkiv/nr_45/Ordets_genopstandelse.html (downloaded
November 15th, 2004).
128 “Iskusstvo kak priem” [“Art as Device”/”Art as Technique”]. In O teorii prozy,
Moscow, 1929 [1916] (Edmond, 2006:123). In Edmond’s bibliography the article is
referenced with two different English versions. The version used for the present study is
“Art as Technique”, in Lodge, David (ed.). Modern Criticism and Theory. A reader,
London: Longman, 1988. It may seem that a better translation to use is device instead of
technique; the former seems to be closer to the Russian term priem (procedure) than
technique is. The term device is the dominant denomination used by the contributors in
the two volumes of Poetics Today, largely devoted to Shklovsky and Russian Formalism
under the theme Estrangement Revisited (Vol. 26, No. 4, 2005 and Vol. 26, No. 1,
2006), so for example by Edmond (2006) and Vatulescu (2006). Also in the Norwegian
version of Shklovsky’s article (Kittang, Atle et.al., 1991) priem has been translated as
device [grep]. Shklovsky’s article was written in 1916, published 1917.

77
more sharpened look at the customary – which enables the reliving of the
known. It becomes Shklovsky’s thesis that the task of art is to free perception
from senseless reproduction of objects and events and thus to restore fresh
perception: “[A]rt exists that one may recover the sensation of life; it exists to
make one feel things, to make the stone stony. The purpose of art is to impart the
sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are known” (ibid.). The
key concept to enhance perception poetically is distancing, in the sense of
making strange129.
Shklovsky coined the concept ostranenie - from strannost’ = strange,
strangeness130 - for the realization of his de-familiarization project. In the
glossary of Formalist terms in Michael O’Toole and Anne Shukman, priem is
translated as device and ostranenie as making strange (O’Toole and Shukman,
1977:16). In Shklovsky criticism an understanding of priem ostranenie as the
device of making strange is the most common. But as footnoted above, the word
priem also entails procedure, which gives it a quality of process rather than
technique. In fact, Boym makes the point that Shklovskian estrangement
“focuses on the process rather than on the product” (Boym 2005:586, 601). This
is of interest in relation to how the making strange concept can be used in drama
pedagogic contexts. The same can be said for its exploratory potential: There is a
quality of wondering or curiosity included in the concept, which, for example, in
Norwegian language has been expressed as underliggjørelse131, and in German
as Verseltsamung132, or as in the case of Brecht, as Verfremdung. Hansen-Löve
picks up on this aspect of processual curiosity when he speaks about
Verfremdung as being not just a device but also a principle displaying certain
reflective qualities:
[I]t stands behind all acts of theoretical and practical curiosity, which drive the
human being on like a disturbance in a watch mechanism, and which makes him
again and again discover enforced or voluntarily received forms of perception
and cognition, norms and behaviours, like a pair of spectacles which have been
slipped between the actual, immediate “seeing” and the “real reality”: Having
first discovered the spectacles, one can take them off again and make them an

129 Anticipating a more detailed discussion of influences from Shklovsky in ensuing

paragraphs, I find the following two exemplifications by Brecht of what estrangement
amounts to, strikingly similar to those cited by Shklovsky above. Brecht explains: “To
see one’s mother as a man’s wife one needs an A-effect” and: “If one sees one’s teacher
hounded by the bailiffs an A-effect occurs” (Brecht 2001i:144).
130 See also section B.3.
131 Sjklovskij (1991), translation by Sigurd Fasting.
132 The German translator of Fradkin’s discussion of ‘priom ostranenija’ decides to
“literally translate it roughly as ‘an artistic device of strange-making’” [my translation],
i.e. “in der wörtlichen Übersetzung etwa ‘Kunstmittel der Verseltsamung’” (Fradkin,
1977:406).

78
 object [(…)] of observation and reflection133 (Hansen-Löve 1978:19) (my
translation).
In the articles of the study I have tried to disclose in more exemplary ways how
qualities like disturbing, discovering, observing and reflecting are valid
ingredients when making strange devices in drama pedagogic work are being
applied.
Another point that can be made in relation to the conceptual nuances of the term
ostranenie, which is highly relevant for the study, is that the term is a neologism
coined by Shklovsky, which he applies “to suggest both distancing (dislocating,
dépaysement) and making strange” (Boym 2005:586) 134. By combining stran,
which gives associations to the Russian word for country: strana, and the word
for strange: strannyi or strannost’, Shklovsky manages to create “a wealth of
poetic associations and false etymologies” (ibid.). Boym reports that towards the
end of his life Shklovsky reflected back on his use of the term, wanting to clarify
or dispel possible misconceptions of its use over the years:
There is an old term, ostranenie, that was often written with one ‘n’ even though
the word comes from strannyi. Ostranenie entered life in such a spelling in
1917. When discussed orally, it is often confused with otstranenie, which
means ‘distancing of the world’.
Ostranenie is a form of world wonder, of an acute and heightened
perception of the world. This term presupposes the existence of so-called
‘content’ (soderzhanie) if we understand by ‘content’ deferred, slowed down,
attentive examination of the world” (Shklovsky in 1983, quoted in Boym,
op.cit.:599).
For the drama pedagogue acquainted with the work of Heathcote and Bolton,
terms like ‘heightened awareness’135 and work ‘slowed down’136 create direct
associations to their work. Such terms are employed in process drama very much
in the same sense as the quote by Shklovsky suggests, i.e. reality is perceived,

133 “[S]ie steht hinter allen Akten der theoretischen und praktischen Neugierde, die den
Menschen antreibt wie die Unruhe im Uhrwerk und ihn immer wieder dazu bewegt,
aufgezwungene oder freiwillig angenommene Wahrnehmungs- und Erkenntnisformen,
Normen und Verhaltensweisen als eine Brille zu entdecken, die sich zwischen das
eigentliche, unmittelbare „Sehen“ und die „wirkliche Wirklichkeit“ geschoben hat: Hat
man die Brille entdeckt, kann man sie auch abnehmen und zum Gegenstand [(…)] der
Betrachtung und Reflexion machen“ (Hansen-Löve 1978:19).
134 Also Brecht’s coinage of the term Verfremdung is a neologism created for his
(poetic) purpose.
135 For example in Bolton: “Dramatic activity does not supersede direct experience nor
is it a second-best to direct experience. Its potency lies in ‘metaxis’, a heightened state of
consciousness that holds two worlds in the mind at the same time (Bolton1984:142).
136 For example, in Heathcote: “Most drama that moves forward at seeming-life-rate is
too swift for classes to become absorbed in and committed to. The conventions offered
here all slow down time and enable classes to get a grip on decisions and their own
thinking about matters.” (Heathcote 1984h:166). See also E.1.

79
examined and reflected on through the interplay of the drama world with the
everyday world through processes of artistic distortion137 - estrangement. In this
respect Boym’s description of the central intentions in Shklovsky’s use of
estranged distancing also rings true for the practices of distancing studied in
drama education:
By making things strange, the artist does not simply displace them from an
everyday context into an artistic framework; the artist also helps to ‘return
sensation’ to life itself, to reinvent the world, to experience it anew.
Estrangement is what makes art artistic; but by the same token, it makes life
lively or worth living (op.cit.:586).
Boym’s description of what estrangement generates imparts at the same time a
sense of what symbolic qualities are embedded in the concept of making strange.
The concept, under the captions of ostranenie or Verfremdung, has been
paraphrased into a spectre of semantic meanings, which both independently and
together add to the emblematic character of the conception: for example,
estrangement (Boym 2005; Sternberg 2006), alienation (Esslin 1971), de-
alienation (Brooker 1994), de-familiarization (Sternberg 2006), de-
automatization (Smoliarova 2006), de-banalization (Tchougounnikov 2001), de-
facilitation (Emerson 2005), Entfremdung (Brecht 1963g), detachment (Bolton
1984), distancing (Fleming 1997), distanciation (Willett 1984138), foregrounding
(Féral 1987), apostasiopoisis (Hesten 1994). All the versions embody their own
associative images. Each concept variance has its own ”colouring”, but even so
they contribute to a common ability of disturbing habitual perception, to “restore
to percepts their perceptibility” (Sternberg 2006:138), and to counteract ”hard
skin on the soul” (Sklóvskij 2001) – to use Shklovsky’s own idiom.
The question of how the device of making strange works ‘in practice’, is, at the
end of the day, a matter of interpretation, informed by one’s own basic
understanding of distancing. In the case of the Shklovskian tradition of
estrangement presented above, I have expounded a number of characteristics
identifying it as an artistic – poetic - language device, which calls attention to
itself as something ‘artificial’, something enigmatic, odd or strange: “Ostranenie
is a process or act that endows an object or image with 'strangeness' by removing
it from the network of conventional, formulaic, and stereotypical perceptions
and linguistic expressions” (Benjamin Sher quoted in Vatulescu 2006:39). The
dimension of strangeness can be obtained by delayed or deferred perception, or
by ‘form made difficult’, which means “to increase the difficulty and length of
perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and
must be prolonged” (Shklovsky 1988:20). Even if “art is a way of experiencing
the artfulness of an object” (ibid.), I contend that it is also a way of experiencing
experience, i.e. that distancing as estrangement facilitates a possibility of seeing

137 Distortion is a central “device” in Heathcote’s work; see, for example, Heathcote
(1984d:114,117); Heathcote and Fiala (1980:6). I discuss this term in more depth in E.1.
138 ”[T]he French often translate Verfremdung by distanciation (Willett 1984:221).

80
something in a new light – reflectively. Sternberg puts it this way: “[T]o
estrange or defamiliarize is to unsettle an outworn form, so that the perceiver
will experience the wor(l)d afresh” (Sternberg 2006:126).
Shklovsky himself applies Tolstoy as exemplification. He relates that Tolstoy’s
procedure of de-familiarization consists in not naming the familiar object: “He
describes an object as if he were seeing it for the first time, an event as if it were
happening for the first time. In describing something he avoids the accepted
names of its parts and instead names corresponding parts of other objects”
(Shklovsky 1988:21). Illustrative for the context of the study is the following
example of how Shklovsky uses Tolstoy in explaining de-familiarization. The
object of description is the theatre and the salons, which Tolstoy describes
through the eyes of someone unknown to its conventions:
The middle of the stage consisted of flat boards; by the sides stood painted
pictures representing trees, and at the back a linen cloth was stretched down to
the floor boards. Maidens in red bodices and white skirts sat on the middle of
the stage. One, very fat, in a white silk dress, sat apart on a narrow bench to
which a green pasteboard box was glued from behind. They were all singing
something. When they had finished, the maiden in white approached the
prompter's box. A man in silk with tight-fitting pants on his fat legs approached
her with a plume and began to sing and spread his arms in dismay. The man in
the tight pants finished his song alone; they the girl sang. After that both
remained silent as the music resounded; and the man, obviously waiting to
begin singing his part with her again, began to run his fingers over the hand of
the girl in the white dress. They finished their song together, and everyone in
the theatre began to clap and shout. But the men and women on stage, who
represented lovers, started to bow, smiling and raising their hands. (In
Shklovsky 1988:23)
Tolstoy makes the theatre situation appear in a strange and distanced light. He
inspires in the reader a reflection on what the phenomenon of theatre amounts
to139. At the same time, the example produces a feeling of irony, which is in
itself a literary device in the tradition of distancing. However, being a category
with a tradition of its own, irony will be treated only cursorily in the study.
My understanding of distancing as estrangement is that it finds realizations on
the level of words and expressions, as well as on a broader, structural level. In
accordance with the Formalists’ focus on de-automatization as a reconditioning
departure from linguistic and compository convention, rhetorics appear to be an
applicable tool of analysis on both levels. “The central term de-automatization
formulates precisely an insight into the significance of the rhetoric art

139 A Norwegian reader may find an interesting parallel in Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson’s

novelette The Fisher Girl, in which Bjørnson attains a similar effect as Tolstoy when he
describes the theatre event through the eyes of the main character Petra. The reader
witnesses Petra’s first encounter with theatre, how she spontaneously and naively is
unable to distinguish fiction from reality. Bjørnson’s technique is, however, not
Futuristic; it is Realistic.

81
devices”140 (Linneberg 1993:11) (my translation). Arild Linneberg also
characterizes the making strange device as “the rhetoric modus of art”
(op.cit.:12). I have used rhetoric analysis in the article “Distancing at Close
Range. Making-strange devices in Dorothy Heathcote’s process drama Teaching
Political Awareness through Drama” (Eriksson 2008b). It was initially my
intention to use a more systematic rhetoric analysis in the article “Using fabula,
syuzhet, forma as Tools of Analysis in Drama Pedagogy – With Brecht’s The
Measures Taken as an example (Eriksson 2006), and to identify and discuss
making strange devices in Brecht’s play both as structural poetic devices and as
smaller semantic unities like rhetoric tropes and figures. However, as
unexpected limitations in length were imposed in the editorial process, the latter
aspects alongside a more specific focus on distancing had to be omitted.

2. The politics of Formalism

During the first half of the 1930s the Russian avant-garde came under attack by
Soviet art critics, challenged about paying too much attention to aesthetic
experimentation at the expense of “proper” proletarian literature. The claim was
for a literature of popular accessibility and broad and educational impact, and the
answer to the call was Socialist Realism141 – the “politico-aesthetic doctrine” of
a “universally-applicable creative method”, laid down at the Soviet Writers’
Congress of 1934 (Willett 2001:114; Kuhn and Giles, 2003:230). It is not within
the focus of the study to examine the ensuing Modernism versus Realism debate
from the latter half of the 1930s in any detail. But Brecht takes sides in the
debate, even if his voice is not published when the debate is taking place. So a
brief deliberation of his main views seems relevant for understanding his
aesthetic and ideological position, and may assist in exposing the problem of the
alleged non-political deviations of Formalism from the revolutionary ideals of
the time. The underlying interest is still the aspect of distancing.
A significant voice in criticizing avant-garde art is George Lukács, who
propounds the importance of Volkstümlichkeit – “closeness to the people” – of
all art (Lunn 1984:82). From 1934 to 1937 Lukács is the central agent in a series

140 ”Den sentrale termen desautomatisering formulerer nettopp en innsikt i de retoriske

kunstgrepenes avgjørende betydning”(Linneberg 1993:11).
141 “Key features of Socialist Realism – later described by T. W. Adorno as ‘Boy-meets-
tractor literature’ – included typicality, optimism, and revolutionary romanticism.
Socialist Realism came to be designed as the only artistic style appropriate in a socialist
society” (in Kuhn and Giles 2003:230 – note). Willett has in a note cited Brecht’s own 5-
point definition of Socialist Realism from 1954. It starts: “Socialist Realism means
realistically reproducing men’s life together by artistic means from a socialist point of
view” (Willett 2001:269). For Brecht, the claim for creating literature from dialectic
thinking and to show “characters and events as historical and alterable, and as
contradictory” (Brecht in Willett 2001:269) is unwavering.

82
of attacks against Modernism142, notably in the journals Internationale Literatur
and Das Wort (The Word)143. Brecht was, incidentally, an editorial member in
the latter from 1936-1939144. Concerned with the notion that “the reader must
feel at home in the authentic realist narrative, secure in its illusory projection of
life in all its breadth and wholeness” (Kuhn and Giles, 2003:207), Lukács points
to the classical bourgeois realist literature as a suitable aesthetic ideal or model.
He advocates the narrative methods of authors like Balzac and Tolstoy as
“eminently serviceable for current progressive uses”, even if these authors’ own
tendency is not necessarily fully in tune with the present socialist ideology
(Lunn 1982:85). For the purpose of developing a genuine ‘popular front’
literature accessible for the broad masses of the proletariat, a realist story
narrative is best suited, where characters are experienced “as both unique and
representative manifestations of wider historical currents” (op.cit.:79), and
where humans are portrayed “as both objects and creative subjects of history”
(ibid.). Modernist experiments like Expressionism, Futurism or Formalism with
its “fundamental formal principle of montage” (op.cit.:82), as well as “the
‘formalistic’ obsession with technical experiments” (ibid.), will only lead to the
disintegration of story and narrative and block insights into real social life
experiences.
Resting my argument on Lunn (1982), Lukács’ attack on Brecht was particularly
directed towards the Lehrstück, a genre he found “utterly failing to provide the
basis of socialist realism” (op.cit.:85). Given the absence of representative and
individually drawn characters interacting in a psychologically and socially
motivated conflict, Lukács criticized Brecht’s figures for being “mere
abstracts”, involved in “purely agitational dialogues” and speaking in “a
montage of disembodied argument” (op.cit.:85). Lunn observes that Lukács fails
to see the educational potential in Brecht’s Lehrstück and that Brecht’s idea of
drama as a scientific laboratory for political learning is dismissed by Lukács as
“an unwarranted intrusion of scientific paradigms upon literary work” (ibid.).
Distancing in the form of estrangement devices is in the same manner charged
with being “merely formalistic techniques, artificially imposed upon the
material” (ibid.). I find it noteworthy and surprising that the committed socialist
Brecht should receive such a criticism from “his own”, and that the learning-

142 The more specific modernist target was German Expressionism. See Taylor (2007:11
and 61).
143 According to Hecht, in Brecht, Bertolt. Über Realismus (1971a:176), the so-called
Realism-debate was sparked off by essays on Expressionism by Alfred Kurella and
Klaus Mann in Das Wort (No. 9 1937) (op.cit.:175).
144 Together with Willi Bredel and Lion Feuchtwanger (Willett 2001:112 note and 113).
The journal was published from Moscow and since “none of these writers were on the
spot for very long” (Brecht was in exile and Bredel volunteered for the Spanish Civil
War) the effective control over the journal was held by the journalist Fritz Erpenbeck,
whose views “tallied in all essentials with those of Lukács” (Taylor 2007:11).

83
plays, in which “the teachings of the Classics”145 (Brecht 1995a:11) has such an
important place, would be a central target. This should be kept in mind when
considering similar attacks on the alleged non-political works of the early
Formalists, for instance Meyerhold and Tretyakov, who will be considered
below in C.3 and in D.3.
Brecht’s reaction to Lukács´ attack is verbalized in a series of essays on realism
and formalism during the years 1938-1940. In these, Brecht’s indebtedness to
“anti-illusionist and defamiliarizing artistic techniques of modernism” (Kuhn
and Giles 2003:206) are clearly demonstrated. In the essay “The Expressionism
Debate” [1938], Brecht strikes out against the charge that formalism means
“sacrificing content to form”, and elegantly turns Lukács’ argument around,
charging Lukács’ idea of modelling socialist literature on a form from the
previous century as essentially formalist:
Turning realism into a formal issue, linking it with one, only one form (and an
old form at that) means: sterilising it. Realist writing is not a formal issue. All
formal features that prevent us from getting to the bottom of social causality
must go; all formal features that help us to get to the bottom of social causality
must be welcomed”146 (Brecht 2003d:214).
There is at the same time an argument for the necessity for artistic experiment
inscribed in the above and prescribed below:
Do not proclaim with an expression of infallibility that there is only one true
way to describe a room, do not excommunicate montage, do not put interior
monologue on the Index! Do not strike the young dead with the old names! Do
not permit artistic technique to develop until 1900, but not from then
onwards!147 (Brecht 2003e:217).
Experimentation must be allowed to take place across literary tradition and
genre, argues Brecht, because of “the constantly new demands of the constantly
changing social environment” (ibid.). Anything else will be formalism:

145 The term is frequently used by Brecht to denote the works of Hegel, Marx, Engels,
Lenin and others. As to the political reception of Brecht’s learning-plays in the
revolutionary circles of the time, I am aware that, for instance, also Kurella launched
criticism, like the essay “Et forsøk med ikke helt egnede midler. (Kritikk av
Forholdsregelen. Forsøk av Brecht, Dudow og Eisler)” (Kurella 1974:151-163), which
is a criticism of The Measures Taken.
146 “Den Realismus zu einer Formsache machen, ihn mit einer, nur einer (und zwar einer
alten) Form verknüpfen heiβt: ihn sterilisieren. Realistisches Schreiben ist keine
Formsache. Alles Formale, was uns hindert, der sozialen Kausalität auf den Grund zu
kommen, muβ weg; alles Formale, was uns verhilft, der sozialen Kausalität auf den
Grund zu kommen, muβ her“ (Brecht 1971b:39).
147 “Verkündet nicht mit der Miene der Unfehlbarkeit die alleinseligmachende Art, ein
Zimmer zu beschreiben, exkommuniziert nicht die Montage, setzt nicht den inneren
Monolog auf den Index! Erschlagt die jungen Leute nicht mit den alten Namen! Laβt
nicht bis 1900 eine Entwicklung der Technik in der Kunst zu und ab da nicht mehr!“
(Brecht1971c:41).

84
 Our critics must realise that they are engaging in formalist criticism as long as
they don’t understand the need, or refuse, to deal with formal questions in a way
that takes account of the conditions of our struggle for socialism148 (Brecht
2003f:233).
For Brecht the means needed in the struggle for social change are new forms and
structures in art. His realism is about “displaying the causal structures at work in
society”. He welcomes “any formal devices or techniques that will enable the
writer to achieve that aim” (Kuhn and Giles 2003:209). So he advocates a wider
concept of realism than “the prohibitive narrowness of Lukács’ view of realism”
(Lunn 1982:86). Aesthetic distancing devices are significant tools in Brecht’s
experiments with art and reality, and to him they are legitimate even in realist
terms:
Anybody who does not define realism in purely formal terms (as what was
taken to be realism around the 1890s in the realm of the bourgeois novel) can
make all manner of objections to narrative techniques such as montage, interior
monologue or estrangement, but they can make no objections from the
standpoint of realism. You can, of course have interior monologue that is to be
designated formalist, but you can also have interior monologue that is realist,
and with montage, you can represent the world in a distorted and also in a
correct fashion149 (Brecht 2003g:233).
What matters to Brecht is the “sociological and epistemological dimensions” of
realism (Kuhn and Giles 2003:209). That is Brecht’s strategic perspective on
realism. It conditions his pragmatic stance that any cultural heritage, as well as
any artistic techniques, can be appropriated, as long as they serve his purpose.
Kuhn and Giles observe with a view to estrangement in Brecht:
While he shares the view that making strange is a legitimate aesthetic tactic, he
insists that the process of estranging objects and experiences in order to enable
the audience to ‘see differently’ must be embedded in a special social or
political strategy. ‘Seeing differently’ must be the precursor of ‘seeing
correctly’, just as ostensibly realist depictions must be checked against the
realities they purport to represent” (ibid.).
Seeing reflective and tactical potentials in Formalism does not preclude taking a
critical view of Modernism. Brecht disengages himself from form experiments
being conducted as an end in itself: “We must interrogate reality about literary
forms, not aesthetics, not even the aesthetics of realism. [/] We derive our
aesthetics, like our morality, from the needs of our struggle”150 (Brecht

148 “Unsere Kritiker müssen erkennen, daβ sie so lange formalistische Kritik betreiben,
als sie es nicht verstehen oder es ablehnen, formale Fragen unter Berücksichtigung der
Bedingungen unseres Kampfes um den Sozialismus zu behandeln“ (Brecht 1971:d:135).
149 The original text “Glossen zu einer formalistischen Realismustheorie” [1938] was
not included in the source materials I have had access to.
150 “Über literarische Formen muβ man die Realität befragen, nicht die Ästhetik, auch
nicht die des Realismus. [/] Wir leiten unsere Ästhetik, wie unsere Sittlichkeit, von den
Bedürfnissen unseres Kampfes ab“ (Brecht 1971e:97).

85
2003h:227). Evidently a Modernist in his theory and practice, still “Brecht
considered himself to be a staunch champion and practitioner” of Realism
(Taylor 2007:63).
Brecht’s retaliations against Lukács’ attacks on Modernist literature are, in
Taylor’s view, legitimate and stringent analyses of “the insurmountable
anomalies of his adversary’s recommendations for contemporary art”
(op.cit.:64). From the time perspective of 1977, Taylor reports that Brecht’s
diagnosis has “won very wide assent on the Marxist Left in West Germany”
(ibid.). I find it a strange fact that the many essays Brecht wrote in relation to the
Realism-debate were never published in Brecht’s life time (Taylor 2007:62); and
I have not managed to ascertain in my sources to what extent, or if at all, these
writings reached a readership in Moscow at the time. Taylor states that it is
unclear whether Brecht submitted them to Das Wort in Moscow, where they
might have been rejected, or if Brecht out of tactical considerations never sent
them (ibid.). Evidence exists, though, that Brecht discussed some of the texts
with Benjamin. The following conversation151, recorded by Benjamin on July
29th 1938, is interesting, because it also tells that Brecht is very concerned about
the fate of his Formalist friends and colleagues in Moscow:
Brecht read to me some polemical texts he has written as part of his controversy
with Lukács, studies for an essay which is to be published in Das Wort. He
asked my advice whether to publish them. As, at the same time, he told me that
Lukács’ position ‘over there’ is at the moment very strong, I told him I could
offer no advice. ‘There are questions of power involved. You ought to get the
opinion of somebody from over there. You’ve got friends there, haven’t you?’ –
Brecht: ‘Actually, no, I haven’t. Neither have the Muscovites themselves – like
the dead’ (Benjamin 2007:97).
From other conversations recorded by Benjamin at the time, the theme of the
publications by the party theoreticians Lukács and Kurella is taken up on several
occasions, and worries about the Soviet “purges” (Wizisla 2004:342-344).
“Russia is now under personal rule. Only blockheads can deny this, of course”,
Brecht says to Benjamin on July 21st (op.cit.:95). Among Brecht’s like-minded
theatre artists living in Moscow is his translator and friend, Tretyakov, about
whom Benjamin comments on July 1st: “Yesterday Gretl Steffin expressed the
opinion that Tretyakov was no longer alive” (ibid.)152.
The point I want to make by sketching the political backdrop to the Realism-
debate is that it becomes contextualized within the political reality of artistic
oppression. In two following sections, C.3 and D.3, on the influence on Brecht
by Shklovsky and the Russian theatre innovators, discussion of the “politics” of
the Formalists will be touched on again. This is essentially a discussion evolving

151 The conversation took place at Skovbostrand in Denmark. Benjamin stayed with
Brecht there during summer 1938.
152 Marjorie Hoover (1973/74) gives an informative account of the relationship between
Tretyakov and Brecht. See also C.3 and D.3 below.

86
from the speculation as to whether Formalism is a mere technical ‘art for art’s
sake’ trend, or if it contains a commitment to art reform containing a
sociological and epistemological stance. An argument forwarded by, for
instance, Stanley Mitchell and Brooker, in my source material imparted by
Allern (2003:248), is that there is an ideological difference in attitude between
Russian Formalism (e.g. Shklovsky) and the Futuristic Left (e.g. Mayakovsky,
Eisenstein and Tretyakov), and thus between ostranenie and Verfremdung
(ibid.). Building on this demarcation, Allern acknowledges the political and
artistic affiliation between, for instance, Tretyakov and Brecht, but implies that
there is an ideological distance to Shklovsky153. However, in view of the
politicization of the arts in the years after the revolution, which is the same time
that Shklovsky’s ostranenie was born, it seems not very likely that such aesthetic
innovations would not be valued as social and reflective tools in building the
new socialist society154.
I have found convincing support in Vatulescu for this outlook. In her essay “The
Politics of Estrangement: Tracking Shklovsky’s Device through Literary and
Policing Practices” (2006), Vatulescu calls to account the conception of Russian
Formalism which sees it as an apolitical separation of art from life: “[T]his essay
focuses on the entangled relationship between the aesthetics and politics of
estrangement and argues that an attentive look at the history of estrangement
reveals its deep involvement with revolutionary and police state politics”
(Vatulescu 2006:35). Vatulescu ascertains that one must not only look at
Shklovsky’s early work – he was only twenty when he wrote “Art as technique”
(1917). According to Vatulescu, “in the decade following “Art as Device” 155,
Shklovsky’s estrangement underwent profound transformations that were

153 Vatulescu points to Fredric Jameson as another source for the (erroneous) view that
Brecht’s estrangement is “political”, whilst Shklovsky’s estrangement suffers from
“ahistoricity and essentialism” (Vatulescu 2006:37).
154 Konstantin Rudnitsky makes the interesting point that after the October Revolution
“public interest in the theatre immediately intensified” (1988:41), which leads Shklovsky
in 1920 to exclaim: “All Russia is acting, some kind of elemental process is taking place
where the living fabric of life is being transformed into the theatrical” (Shklovsky in
Rudnitsky 1988:41; originally in Zhisn iskusstva, April 4th, 1920). Another interesting
point made by Rudnitsky is that theatre was given a significant educational role in
building the Socialist state in the crucial years after the Revolution: “[T]he theatre and
only the theatre could serve as primary school and newspaper for the masses thirsting for
‘education, enlightenment and knowledge’. For the light that theatre radiated could reach
everyone. The language of the theatre was comprehensive to everyone” (ibid.).
Obviously, the educational children’s theatre enterprise led by, for instance, Asya Lacis
during these years, can be seen in connection with such sentiments. Lacis, who was
married to Brecht’s friend, the theatre critic Bernhard Reich, and Benjamin’s great love
(Willett, 1984:93), is reported to have spent much time with Brecht in conversation
about education and theatre (“Koch-Interview” 2005 ).
155 Vatulescu calls Shklovsky’s essay “Art as Device”, which seems to be a better choice
of translation.

87
intricately bound with the major political events of his time” (op.cit.:38)156.
Obviously, an exploration of estrangement’s “entanglements with revolutionary
and totalitarian politics” (ibid.) cannot be undertaken beyond some limited
observations in this study. But there is room for a few references underpinning
the political colourings of Shklovsky’s work. First, his interest in Tolstoy should
be mentioned. Shklovsky takes examples of ostranenie from Tolstoy, and, as
Vatulescu points out, many of his themes “appear to be invariably political”
(op.cit.:39). For example, in Tolstoy’s story Kholstomer157, interpreted in “Art
as technique”, the theme is about “the institution of private property” (Shklovsky
1988:21). Other political themes in Tolstoy, identified by Vatulescu, are:
“torture, […], conventional views on marriage, church rituals, bourgeois art, and
war” (op.cit.:40). Then the revolution itself is a theme in Shklovsky. Vatulescu
observes: “The revolution has turned life into art in the same way as the artist
hitherto used to turn material into art – by making it strange and thus capable of
intensifying sensation” (op.cit.:41). Shklovsky himself did not escape trial – he
was one of the accused in the 1922 Socialist Revolutionaries trial – but he
survived it:
I give my deposition. I declare. I lived through the revolution
honestly
(Shklovsky 1923 – cited in Vatulescu 2006:36).
In the essay “Poetics and Politics of Estrangement: Victor Shklovsky and
Hannah Arendt” Boym also seeks to illuminate the political stance in
Shklovsky’s work: “[E]strangement is not regarded as an escape from the
political; instead, it helps us think anew the relationship between aesthetic and
political practices in Stalin’s time” (Boym 2005:581). Like Vatulescu, Boym is
concerned with the context of post-revolution life in the Soviet Union, a life that
for Shklovsky and many of his radical contemporaries seems to have infused
estrangement with more potential than only being an aesthetic factor: “From a
device of art, estrangement became an existential art of everyday survival and a
tactic of dissent in Russia and Eastern Europe” (op.cit.:584). Expounding the
political content inherent in Shklovsky’s writings during the 1920s – particularly
his autobiographical texts158 – Boym convincingly portrays Shklovsky as a
political writer, even though his political message is not so explicit; he is a writer
“caught in the play of literary convention and the unfreedom of […] working
under the dictate of the state” (op.cit.:595). Shklovsky was under the same threat
and oppression as the other Formalist writers, and committed to the socialist

156 Vatulescu mentions as examples of political events the revolution, the civil war, the
ascendancy of the secret police, and the first Soviet trial in 1922 of the Socialist
Revolutionaries.
157 In this story the narrator is a horse; the estrangement is obvious.
158 Boym mentions three: A Sentimental Journey (1923), Zoo; or Letters Not about Love
(1923), and Third Factory (1926) (Boym 2005:590, 592, 593).

88
“cause”159. But he may have been cleverer than others in strategic manoeuvrings
manipulating “the military metaphors frequently used in Soviet public
discourse” (op.cit.:597). In 1930 Shklovsky renounced Formalism in a public
declaration, using his favourite device of ‘paradoxical parallelisms’ (ibid.).
Boym characterizes Shklovsky’s declaration as an “oblique apology” of error,
presenting the Formalists “not as ideological enemies of the Soviet Marxists, but
as absent-minded scientists” (ibid.). The fact that Gorky160, several years after
the official suppression of Formalism in 1934, invites high profiled
(ex)Formalists like Tynianov, Tomashevsky, Eichenbaum, and Shklovsky to
contribute with their literary expertise to the new scheme of education for Soviet
writers (op.cit.:598), seems to evidence that the craft of Formalism was indeed
not regarded as apolitical. By the same token, the Formalist conception of
“laying bare the device, revealing the mechanisms of manipulation, and
renewing the habitual world view“ (ibid.) – all aspects of the ability of the
estrangement device to “develop reflective consciousness” (ibid.) – were not
regarded as apolitical. All four writers declined the offer with the tactical
argument that they did not wish “to substitute craft for art” (ibid.)161.
A central maxim in Boym’s essay is that “ostranenie was never an estrangement
from the world, but estrangement for the sake of the world’s renewal”
(op.cit.:599). That is political in intention; admittedly less explicit than in
Brecht, but still far more political than the notion of ‘art for art’s sake’. The
Formalist aspects developed and refined in Russian theatre are also more than
technical experiments with form. Here, too, they are devices applied in ventures
with a social aim, and distancing is a recurrent contrivance.

3. Impulses from Russian theatre

In this section some impulses to the formation of distancing as a poetic device in
theatre will be discussed. The perspective of uses of distancing in Russian
theatre and the influence from Russian theatre on Brecht is also intended as a
passage to the next chapter D, in which Brecht’s epic theatre and Verfremdung
will be explored. Some reflections on the Russian Formalists’ influence on
Brecht are taken up in D.3.
It is a known fact that Brecht was familiar with the developments in Russian
theatre. He was a friend of the dramatist Tretyakov, whom he met repeatedly in
1931 and 1932 (Esslin, 1971:58). Tretyakov was one of the named writers in

159 Boym presents fascinating sides from Shklovsky’s life as a soldier during the First
World War and the October Revolution, as an exiled Soviet Revolutionary after the trials
in the early 1920s and as a denounced Formalist in the late 1920s.
160 Maxim Gorky, Lev Kamenev and A. A. Zhdanov were among those who took the
responsibility of laying the foundations for Socialist Realism. See Willett (2001:114).
161 Boym quotes Kornei Chukovskii on this incident, reporting that Kamenev responded:
“I cannot put all you guys into a concentration camp”, related “not without a certain grim
sense of black humour” (Boym 2005:599).

89
Brecht’s memo from 1937 to form a Society for Theatrical Science (Willett
1977:177). Braun notes that Tretyakov’s treatment of his play Earth
Rampant/The Earth in Turmoil, produced by Meyerhold in 1923, “closely
resembled what Brecht was later to call ‘Epic’” (Braun 1986:180). In 1934
Tretyakov, under the title Epic Dramas, published a translation of three Brecht
plays162 (op.cit.:180 – footnote). In 1937 Tretyakov wrote an article about
Brecht in the Moscow periodical International Literature (Esslin 1971:167) –
thus being largely responsible for introducing Brecht to the Soviet public.
Brecht, in turn, made an adaptation of Tretyakov’s play Ich will ein Kind haben
(The Pioneers) (op.cit.:330). Brecht was twice in Moscow before the war, in
1932 and 1935. The first occasion was in connection with the premiere of Kuhle
Wampe (Knopf 1984:381, footnote 17), and Tretyakov was among the people he
met there (Helmers 1984:10). On the latter occasion Brecht again met with
Tretyakov, and, among others, Eisenstein and the Chinese actor Mei Lanfang.
Brecht was present at a demonstration lecture by Mei at the Masters of Arts Club
in Moscow (Mei Shaowu 1981:62), where also theatre notables like
Stanislavsky, Meyerhold, Craig, and others seem to have been present
(op.cit.:61). It is from this trip that speculations have arisen as to what influences
Brecht may have received from Shklovsky’s term priem ostranenie, or which
impressions he may have received from the Mei Lanfang event. It can be argued
that Brecht in the famous article “Alienation effects in Chinese acting” [1936]
attempts to combine both influences: He introduces his new term Verfremdung,
which is a very close translation of the Russian term163, and exemplifies it by
expounding the term in relation to the Chinese theatre aesthetic he had seen
demonstrated164. Wordings related to what estrangement in this essay amounts
to are strikingly similar to formulations found in Russian Formalist theory. See,
for instance, the Brecht quotation in D.2, point c.
Brecht was familiar with Meyerhold’s theatre, and “he referred several times to
‘Soviet theatre’” (Hecht 1962:75). Hecht informs that in 1923 the Moscow
Chamber Theatre visited Berlin with Tairov productions, that the Moscow Art
Theatre and the Moscow Jewish Theatre165 came in 1925/26, and that

162 St. Joan of the Stockyards, The Mother, and The Measures Taken (1986:180 –
footnote).
163Willett asserts that “the purpose of ‘Verfremdung’, which Brecht launched
immediately after his Moscow visit of 1935 […], is just that which Shklovsky had given
for his ‘Priem Ostrannenija’ or ‘device of making it strange’ “(1977:207).
164Willett informs that: “A pencilled note on the typescript [Brecht-Archive 332/1] says:
‘This essay arose out of a performance by Mei Lan-fang’s company in Moscow in spring
1935’” (Willett 2001:99).
165 In ”A Short Organum for the Theatre” §72, Brecht actually writes that this company
uses Verfremdung: “At the Jewish Theatre in Moscow King Lear was alienated by a
structure that recalled a medieval theatre” (Brecht 2001k:203) / “Im Moskauer Jüdischen
Theater verfremdete ein an ein mittelalterliches Tabernakel erinnernder Bau den König
Lear” (Brecht 1978b:171). I am aware that Brecht did not write “Short Organum” until

90
Meyerhold’s state theatre toured Germany in 1928 and 1930 (ibid.), on the latter
occasion in Berlin, Breslau and Cologne with a repertoire of four plays166.
Willett finds it probable that Brecht at least saw the production of Roar China!,
written by Tretyakov (Willett 1977:111), and Paul Schmidt goes as far as stating
“[i]t was through Tretiakov that Bertolt Brecht became acquainted with
Meyerhold’s work” (Schmidt 1996:240). I shall return to this subject in section
D.3.
In Braun’s Meyerhold on Theatre (1969) there are many examples of
innovations which are reminiscent of Brecht, for example distancing as stylized
acting: “Let the new actor express the highest point of tragedy just as the grief
and joy of Mary was expressed: with an outward repose, almost coldly, without
shouting or lamentation” (Meyerhold in Braun, 1969:55). Just like Brecht,
Meyerhold speaks about a “new theatre” as a place for re-establishing a more
dynamic, direct relationship with the audience: “We intend the audience not
merely to observe, but to participate in a corporate creative act” (op.cit.:60). The
tool of distancing through stylization lends itself well for establishing this
dynamic relationship:
In the stylized theatre ‘the spectator should not forget for a moment that an
actor is performing before him, and the actor should never forget that he is
performing before an audience, with a stage beneath his feet and a set around
him. When one looks at a painting, one is always aware that it is composed of
paint, canvas and brush strokes, but nonetheless it creates a heightened and
clarified impression of life. Frequently, the more obvious the artifice, the more
powerful the impression of life’ (op.cit.:63).
This is very evocative of Brecht’s:
Leaning back, let the spectator
Notice the busy preparations being so
Ingeniously made for him, a shingle roof
Is carried in; don’t show him too much
But show something. And let him observe
That this is not magic but
Work, my friends
(from the theatre poem “The Curtains”. In Mannheim & Willett 1976:425).
Another reminder of Brecht is Meyerhold’s breaking away from the dramaturgy
of the traditional dramatic theatre and his preference of the episodic with
reference to the theatre of Shakespeare. “Nowadays, we must divide the play
into episodes or scenes as in Shakespeare or in the traditional Spanish theatre. It
was in this way that they overcame the inertia brought about by the pseudo-
classical unities of time and action” (Meyerhold in Braun 1969:254). And he is,
like Brecht, inspired by the possibilities of film and other technical innovations:

1948. But I find it interesting that the performance Brecht refers to was shown in
Moscow in 1935.
166 Roar China!, The Government Inspector, The Forest, and The Magnanimous
Cuckold (Braun 1969:240).

91
 [L]et us carry through the ‘cinefication’ of the theatre to its logical conclusion,
let us equip the theatre with all the technical refinements of the cinema [(…)].
Give us a chance to work in a theatre incorporating modern techniques and
capable of meeting the demands which our conception of the theatrical
spectacle will create, and we shall stage productions which will attract as many
spectators as the cinema (op.cit.:255-256).
Meyerhold was the first Bolshevik director (Braun 1986:162)167. So also in his
view of theatre as a political weapon for the promotion of socialism, Meyerhold
has a resemblance to Brecht – even though Meyerhold was in the end
imprisoned and executed by the Soviet state168. In 1929 he writes about the aims
of the new theatre:
How can we acquaint the manual labourers of socialism with the full magnitude
of the revolution? How can we imbue them with that ‘life-giving force’ (to
quote comrade Stalin) which will carry the masses forward to a world of new
revolutionary creative effort? How indeed, if not through the theatre?”
(op.cit.:270).
Meyerhold, just as Brecht, sees theatre as an educational as well as an
entertaining force. The means he was advocating were the means of the stylized
theatre, including techniques of the theatre of the Far East (Gourfinkel 1975:18),
and the advocacy of spectacle, music, and the devices of the traditional popular
theatre – all elements of the style of the new theatre he was planning (Braun
1969:274). Many of these elements can be recognized as distancing devices. An
interesting observation on Meyerhold in this respect is made in Stourac and
McCreery’s study of workers’ theatre (1986). In referring to Meyerhold’s early
interest in popular spectacle, they mention the appeal he finds in the art of the
grotesque: “everyday occurrences could be made to appear ‘familiar yet
strange’” (Stourac and McCreery, 1986:9)169. And then they note that “[t]he
similarity to the ideas developed by Brecht some twenty or thirty years later is
striking” (ibid). Similarly, Nina Gourfinkel in a comment on Meyerhold’s
Tarelkin’s Death asserts: “The actors conspicuously ‘distance’ themselves from
their parts: They cast glances at the audience, address the audience with passing

167 Rudnitsky informs that Meyerhold was among the very first artists to accept the call
by the Bolsheviks shortly after the Revolution to take an interest “in the future of the
State theatres”(Rudnitsky 1988:41). In 1918 Meyerhold joined the Party and thereby
“unequivocally announced that he would devote his art to the service of the Revolution”
(ibid.). In 1920 the Soviet Commissar of Education, Lunacharsky, appointed Meyerhold
head of its Theatrical Department, TEO (op.cit.:59).
168It was probably Meyerhold’s rejection of the doctrine of Socialist Realism as a theatre
aesthetic, more than the ideas of socialist thought, that brought about Meyerhold’s
downfall. He was arrested in June 1939, and shot in a Moscow prison the following
February (Braun 1986: back cover).
169The actual Meyerhold reference here is from his essay ”The Fairground Booth”
[1911/1912], where Meyerhold exemplifies from the art of the graphic artist Jacques
Callot (Braun 1969:141).

92
remarks and look at each other’s acting. It is Brecht before Brecht” 170

(Gourfinkel 1975:206) (my translation).

There are obvious similarities in Meyerhold’s and Brecht’s theatres. It is clear
from Brecht’s essay “On Experimental Theatre” [1939] that he had knowledge
of Meyerhold’s theatre experiments and other theatre innovators in Moscow in
the 1920s, like Vakhtangov and Okhlopkov (Brecht 2001h:130) 171. Hecht points
out, however, that even if Brecht was aware of such forms, he applied them
differently, and that consequently any talk of an “influence” would “only be
conditional” (Hecht 1962:76)172.
I have not succeeded in finding evidence in my source materials that Meyerhold
references Brecht in publication. On that background it is of interest to register
that Efim Etkind makes the observation that Brecht’s experiments “did not
represent anything foreign to Soviet literature and Soviet theatre”, adding that
“Brecht was the return of our own 1920s” (Etkind 1980:84)173. Etkind regards it
as very important “to consider the influence of Meyerhold on Brecht” (ibid.).
My references above confirm the likeliness of influence from Meyerhold and the
Russian theatre on Brecht’s uses of distancing174. Further exploration of that
perspective falls outside the framework of this study.

4. Summary
The chapter expounded characteristics of the Shklovskian tradition of
estrangement, in which situations or objects are made to appear enigmatic, odd

170 ”Skuespillerne ’distancerer’ sig på iøjnefaldende vis fra deres roller: De kaster blikke
til publikum, henvender sig til publikum med sidebemærkninger og ser på hinandens
spil. Det er Brecht før Brecht”.
171 Willett’s translation of “Über Experimentelles Theater” (Brecht 1963o) omits several
passages where Brecht references various examples of contemporary theatre
experiments. Instead, Willett summarizes the main points of those paragraphs.
172 It should be kept in mind that Hecht, as a former Brecht-director and the main editor
of Brecht’s works in the West in the 1960s, might want to tone down the possible
“formalist” influences on Brecht.
173 Etkin’s article discusses the “rediscovery” of Brecht in the Soviet Union in the mid-
1950s, after having been made obsolete, or invisible, over several decades due to his
alleged formalism. This comment must be seen in the light of that. See also Willett, who
notes that “for the twenty years of the steel-hard Socialist Realist aesthetic Brecht was
neither performed nor discussed [in Russia]” (1977:208). Willett also presents an
account of the situation in Moscow for some of the prominent artist exiles from Berlin
and the (literary) political frictions in connection with the Formalism/Realism debate
(Willett 1984:186-189). The problem of Formalism versus Realism is also briefly treated
in the next chapter, D, on Epic theatre and estrangement.
174 Already in 1972 Gourfinkel makes a note in her introduction to Meyerhold that
“investigations of the strings between Meyerhold, Piscator and Brecht […] have just
begun” (Gourfinkel 1975:18). It is probable that such studies now exist without mine, or
Etkin’s, knowledge of them.

93
or strange - in order to advance a new perception and to enable the seeing of
things in a new light. The making strange device was seen as a “rhetoric modus
of art” (Linneberg 1993:12).
A significant keyword for this modus was ‘fresh perception’. Shklovsky’s
theory sees in poetic language the antidote to automatization of perception. By
disengagement from the prosaic language of everyday life, artistic language
creates a new power of perception, a de-automatization of the habitual, and a
more sharpened look at the customary – which enables reliving the known.
The term ostranenie was introduced as a neologism coined by Shklovsky, a term
he applies “to suggest both distancing (dislocating, dépaysement) and making
strange” (Boym 2005:586). Shklovsky suggested that the word also incorporates
the qualities of ‘heightened perception’ and the work ‘slowed down’ (Boym
2005:599) – both very relevant qualities for explorative work in drama
education, which was referenced in the chapter via Bolton as parallels to process
drama.
A quality of wondering and curiosity was found in the estrangement concept
itself; for instance, the term estrangement in Norwegian is called
underliggjørelse, in German Verseltsamung, and in English making strange – all
terms exhibiting a similar nuance of amazement. Boym showed that Shklovskian
estrangement has a processual function (Boym 2005:586, 601) and Hansen-
Löwe that it has an explorative and reflective function (Hansen-Löve 1978:19).
The explorative and also the reflective are important aspects with respect to
process drama, thus representing noteworthy parallels to the epistemology of this
genre.
The chapter pointed out a variety of symbolic meanings in distancing as
estrangement. The concept, under the captions of ostranenie or Verfremdung,
has been paraphrased into a spectrum of semantic meanings, which both
independently and together add to the emblematic character of the conception:
for example, alienation, de-alienation, de-familiarization, de-automatization, de-
banalization, de-facilitation, detachment, distanciation, foregrounding,
apostasiopoisis. All the versions embody their own associative images. Even so,
they contribute to a common ability to disturb habitual perception, to “restore to
percepts their perceptibility” (Sternberg 2006:138).
In section C.2 the politics of Formalism were discussed against the background
of the so-called Expressionism Debate, through which Formalist art innovations
were condemned by Soviet art critics as too experimental and too little
politically edifying, blocking insights into real social life experiences. In this
debate Brecht argued to the contrary: that the means needed in the struggle for
social change should be new forms and structures in art, and that aesthetic
distancing devices are significant tools in this process, even in so-called Realist
art (Brecht 2003:g). It was argued by Shklovsky interpreters, for instance
Vatulescu (2006:35) and Boym (2005:581, 584), that it is incorrect to regard
Shklovsky and his work as apolitical. Even if he developed estrangement as an

94
aesthetic device, it did not mean an escape from the political into the aesthetic.
With that point in mind, it may still be relevant, as an overall positioning of
Formalism as tradition, to regard its applications of distancing - using Helmers’
terms - as being generally more in keeping with ‘the broad meaning’ than with
the ‘narrow meaning’ of estrangement.
In the final part of the chapter links and parallels were drawn between form
innovations of the Russian avant-garde theatre, notably in Meyerhold and
Tretyakov, and Brecht’s work. Uses of estrangement effects in these theatre
experiments of the 1920s and early 1930s can be seen partly in parallel to Brecht
and partly as possible sources of inspiration for him. Gourfinkel claimed that it
is Brecht before Brecht (1975:206). Brecht’s experiences of the uses of
estrangement in Russian theatre – and in Chinese acting – were discussed, and it
was suggested that influences were most likely taken from both these sources.
That discussion will, however, be continued in D.3.

95
D. Epic theatre and estrangement.
Scattered descriptions and brief discussions of Brecht’s concept of Verfremdung
have appeared in previous parts of the study, partly to introduce the
phenomenology of Verfremdung in relation to similar phenomena, like the
notion of making strange in Romanticism and Russian Formalism, and partly in
relation to the more inclusive term distancing and its connections to drama
education. In the present chapter Brecht’s Verfremdung will be explored in some
more detail and some of its historic antecedents referenced in previous sections
will be brought back into discussion.
In the first part of the chapter the close connection between Verfremdung and
the theory of the epic theatre will be discussed. This connection is seen in the
light of Brecht’s vision of his theatre to be both instructional and entertaining, as
a critical alternative to ‘culinary theatre’, and as a broad societal force of
influence with the aim of creating change. The perspective of this vision
encompasses participants also from outside the strictly professional theatre, such
as school children, students and workers. An attempt will be made to create a
chart visualizing categories of Verfremdung, Appendix 2.
In the middle part of the chapter an inventory of Brecht’s most central
statements on Verfremdung will be presented – as expressions of Verfremdung
as a Brechtian manifest. From observed themes or characteristics of these
statements, lines will be drawn to preceding chapters.
The last part of the chapter will discuss relations between the Formalist making
strange tradition and Brecht’s. Arguments will be put forward to support the
assumption that the connections of influence from the Formalists to Brecht may
be stronger than often accepted.

1. The epic theatre and Verfremdung

Verfremdung is frequently put on a par with epic theatre. An illustrative
example is Brooker’s citation of Brecht’s §70 in “A Short Organum for the
Theatre” (Brecht 2001k:202): “The exposition of the story and its
communication by suitable means of alienation175 constitute the main business
of theatre”. Brooker makes the comment that this is “a statement which usefully

175 I have already in other parts of the study shown the problem of translating the term
‘alienation’ as ‘Verfremdung’. See particularly the paragraph on Hegel’s concept
‘Entfremdung’ in B.3. Similarly, Brooker finds ‘alienation’ to be a problematic term and
makes a decision to keep ‘Verfremdung as a kind of terminus technicus for Brecht’s uses
of the phenomenon, although Brooker would ideally prefer ‘de-alienation’ (Brooker
1994:193).

97
summarises the relation of Verfremdungseffekte176 and ‘epic’” (Brooker
1994:191). Another descriptive example of the close relation between
Verfremdung and epic theatre is Brecht’s entry from 1936, “Episches Theater,
Entfremdung“ (1963g), where the two aspects177 are joined in the title. Brecht
conveys the difference between presenting a situation within a naturalistic
dramatic setting and within a critical epic setting. He makes the point that in
order to relate an everyday occurrence to the audience so that it is understood as
a “socially significant and problematic event” which needs changing, the
situation must be “estranged for the audience in the playing of it” 178 (Brecht
1963g:196) (my translation). The correlation between the terms epic and
Verfremdung is also underlined by Willett, noticing that “‘Verfremdung’ and
‘Episierung’ seem to have been used by him to mean exactly the same thing”
(Willett 1977:177).
Brecht coined the term Verfremdung for his specific theatrical purposes of the
epic theatre (Willett 1977:177; Willett 1984:220). By 1936, in his essay “Theatre
for pleasure or theatre for instruction?”, Brecht envisaged the epic theatre to be
“the broadest and most far-reaching attempt at large-scale modern theatre”, with
intentions of becoming a “vital force” of influence “in the sphere of politics,
philosophy, science and art” (Brecht 2001c:76). In the essay Brecht sees epic
theatre as a theatre of actuality and a theatre of education179: “Whatever was
labelled ‘Zeitstück’ or ‘Piscatorbühne’ or ‘Lehrstück’ belongs to the epic
theatre” (op. cit.:70). He is concerned that his theatre will appeal to a broader
popular audience, different from the chiefly bourgeoisie audience of the
dominant “culinary theatre”180. The application of Verfremdung and
Verfremdungseffekt is a significant ingredient in his anti-culinary theatre.
Brecht was conscious about the fact that there already existed a tradition of
applying estrangement in popular entertainment – using gags, satire, and parody,
and, in parallel, in rhetorics, with irony, metaphor, and allegory (Buck

176 Verfremdungseffekt and Verfremdung are more or less synonymous in meaning in

Brooker’s article.
177 Verfremdung is here synonymous with Entfremdung.
178 The original of my slightly paraphrased translation above is: “Damit der Vorgang als
das gesellschaftlich bedeutende und problematische Ereignis erscheint, daβ er ist, muβ er
dem Publikum entfremdet werden durch die Darstellung” (Brecht 1963g:196).
179 The emphasis on education fused with entertainment is repeated in the essays “The
Street Scene” (Brecht 2001g:127),“On Experimental theatre” (Brecht 2001h:133) and
“The German Drama: pre-Hitler (Brecht 2001b:80). In the former, the combination of
education and entertainment is highlighted: “It has got to be entertaining, it has got to be
instructive” (ibid.).
180 Brecht wanted an ´anti-culinarian‘ (anti-kulinarische) theatre (Hecht 1962:127), i.e.
not a theatre of pleasure or abreacting catharsis, but a theatre of activation, of
‘interventionist thought’ (eingreifendes Denken) (Silberman 2006:4 and note viii; Brecht
2003a:96).

98
1986:1030; Primavesi 2005:378). Primavesi reports that Brecht in the mid-
thirties speaks about
quite different V-effects displaying a spectrum ranging from ‘the manner of
speaking of circus clowns’ via the ceremonial, distanced and ‘self-observant’
manner of acting of the traditional Asian theatre (in the essay “Alienation
Effects in Chinese Acting”) to the ‘cheap’ or ludicrous V-effects of pathos,
comicality and mystification as remainders from the older bourgeois theatre,
from the blending of the comic with the tragic to ‘installation of documentary
film materials in theatre plays’181 (Primavesi 2005:378) (my translation).
In the essay “Über experimentelles Theater”182, originally a lecture from 1939,
Brecht is also attentive to distancing traditions from the history of Western
theatre and from Asian theatre (Brecht 1963o:105)183, as well as from
contemporary popular and experimental theatre184. He is quite open about his
sources and discusses them in the perspective of what constitutes the new basis
of his theatre. The shaping of that basis grew from experiments in his Theater
am Schiffbauerdamm in Berlin. Here, Verfremdung was applied in various ways
on various levels:

181 “ganz unterschiedlichen V-Effekten, wobei das Spektrum von der ‚Sprechweise der
Zirkus-clowns‘ über die zeremonielle, distanzierte und sich selbst ‚beobachtende’
Spielweise des traditionellen asiatischen Theaters (im Aufsatz „Verfremdungseffekte in
der chinesischen Schauspielkunst“) bis zu den ‚billigen’ oder lächerlichen V-Effekten
Pathos, Komik und Mystifizierung als Restbeständen des älteren bürgerlichen Theaters
reicht, von der Vermischung des Komischen mit dem Tragischen bis hin zum ‚Einbau
dokumentarischen Filmmaterials in Theaterstücke‘“ (Primavesi 2005:378).
182 “On Experimental Theatre” (Brecht 2001h:130-135). Willett presents in his
translation only an abridged version of the full article.
183 “[T]he theatre of past periods also, technically speaking, achieved results with
alienation effects, for instance the Chinese theatre, the Spanish classical theatre, the
popular theatre of Breughel’s day and the Elizabethan theatre” (Brecht 2001h:135)
(Willett’s translation). The passage in the original is: “[A]uch das Theater vergangener
Epochen [hat] schon künstlerische Wirkungen mit Verfremdungseffekten erzielt, so das
chinesische Theater, das klassische spanische Theater, das volkstümliche Theater der
Breughelzeit und das elisabethanische Theater” (1963o:105).
184 The theatre experiments of Piscator are mentioned, alongside the Meyerhold school
and the Stanislavsky school, and the experiments conducted by the Vakhtangov and
Okhlopkov’s companies. Of special interest to this study is Brecht’s observation of the
liberating effects an estrangement-oriented theatre has on the actors in contemporary
amateur theatre: workers, students and children. Brecht has written a special essay
dedicated to this theme: “Lohnt es sich, vom Amateurtheater zu reden?” [“Does it pay to
talk about amateur theatre?”], in which the term a ‘playing audience’/‘spielendes
Publikum’ is introduced (Brecht 1963p:59), alongside deliberations on what educational
potential may be involved in playing theatre. To my knowledge, the essay has
importance in German Lehrstück research, referenced in, for example, Koch (1988:324),
Steinweg (2005:178) and Brecht (1978a:179-180).

99
 The most talented of the young actors’ generation took part. […185] The
experiments could not be carried out in the same methodological fashion as was
the case with the groups of Stanislavsky, Meyerhold and Vakhtangov (there was
no state support), so the experiments were instead carried out in a broader field,
not only in the professional theatre. The artists participated in experiments in
schools, worker choirs, amateur groups, etc. From the very start amateurs took
part in the education. The experiments resulted in great simplifications in the
stage apparatus, the acting style and the theme composition186 (op.cit.:103) (my
translation).
It is interesting to note from this citation that the epic theatre experiments in
Berlin were carried out in the field, and that forces were joined in training and
performance between professionals and amateurs. Whilst the field work creates
associations to applied drama/theatre projects of today, see for instance
Nicholson (2005), joint ventures between professionals and amateurs are, to my
knowledge, less common in present day educational drama/theatre schemes.
Also worth noting from the citation above are the innovations made in the three
areas of stage apparatus, acting style and theme composition187. A few
paragraphs earlier in the same essay Brecht refers to the said elements as “the
new techniques of play building, of stage building and the way of acting”188
(op.cit.:100) (my translation). These are the same areas that researchers
generally agree are the main constituents of Verfremdung in Brecht’s theatre.
For instance, Grimm states:
Estrangement is the principle of the epic theatre, as Brecht has created it,
explored it and thought it through. It occurs in three areas: first in the writing of
the play, then in the staging of it (i.e. in the work of the director, the
scenographer, costume- and mask designer) and finally in the playing of the
actors, who should no longer embody their characters, but show them189
(Grimm 1972:13) (my translation).

185 Brecht mentions Helene Weigel, Peter Lorre, Oskar Homolka, Carola Neher and
Ernst Busch.
186 The jüngeren Schauspielergeneration arbeiteten mit. Es handelte sich um die Weigel,
um Peter Lorre, Oskar Homolka, die Neher und Busch. Die Versuche konnten nicht so
methodisch durchgeführt werden wie die (andersgearteten) der Stanislawski-,
Meyerhold- und Wachtangowgruppe (es gab keine staatliche Unterstützung), aber sie
wurden dafür auf breiterem Feld, nicht nur im professionellen Theater, ausgeführt. Die
Künstler beteiligten sich an Versuchen von Schulen, Arbeiterchören, Amateurgruppen
und so weiter. Von Anfang an wurden Amateure mit ausgebildet. Die Versuche führten
zu einer großen Vereinfachung in Apparat, Darstellungsstil und Thematik” (Brecht
1963o:103). This part is omitted in Willett’s version.
187 ”Apparat, Darstellungsstil und Thematik” (Brecht 1963o:103).
188 ”die neue Technik des Dramenbaus, des Bühnenbaus und der Schauspielweise”
(op.cit.:100). Also omitted in Willett.
189 ”Die Verfremdung ist das Prinzip des epischen Theaters, wie Brecht es geschaffen,
erprobt und durchdacht hat. Sie tritt in drei Bereichen auf: einmal beim Schreiben eines
Stückes, dann bei seiner Inszenierung (also bei der Arbeit des Regisseurs, des

100
Grimm’s classification is largely the same in Theo Buck (1986:1031), who adds
music, projections and choreography to the second category, staging, and aligns
language form [Sprachform] and execution of dialogue [Dialogführung] with
play building [Dramenbau], “in the form of a strict authorial commentary in the
play”190 (ibid.), which, in my opinion, can be included in the first of Grimm’s
categories: the writing of the play.
I think it is, in principle, feasible to apply such areas as broad categories for
observing or recording estrangements in educational drama/theatre genres as
well, such as in Lehrstück and process drama. In fact, I have drafted a chart,
Appendix 2, inspired by the classifications above, which may be used for
mapping the uses of distancing in Lehrstück and process drama. In the chart I
have rebuilt Grimm’s and Buck’s three categories to comprise five categories.
One of these additional categories has the purpose of recording estrangement as
narrative structure, or dramaturgy. The other additional category has the purpose
of observing estrangement related to the player/onlooker dimension. The five
estrangement categories in my revised chart are: (1) Drama text, comprising
language, (2) Dramaturgy, comprising fabula and syuzhet, (3) Role and acting
style, including staging, (4) Stage apparatus, including scenography and props,
sound and lights, (5) The stage/audience relationship, or the percipience
relationship of both participating and witnessing (Haseman 2006:202). One can
place the five categories on a horizontal line, representing a global level of
estrangement content, i.e. as “universal” distancing categories, representing
areas in which estrangement occurs in a drama/theatre session. One can also
place situational distancing devices on a vertical line, representing a local level
of estrangement forms, i.e. specific devices that can be recorded in each
drama/theatre education session, relevant to the five general main categories. All
local devices will not fit all global categories, but the chart should be generally
applicable in drama education for mapping uses and occurrences of
estrangement. The chart has not been tested in practice and in all probability
needs adjustments. It is presented here primarily for the purpose of pointing out
an observable relation between contemporary process drama and Brecht’s
Lehrstück with regard to poetic distancing – a connection I have touched on in
several of the articles in this study, notably in “Using fabula, syuzhet, forma as
Tools of Analysis in Drama Pedagogy – With Brecht’s The Measures Taken as
an example” (Eriksson 2006).
The learning-plays191 (Lehrstücke), “theatrical performances meant not so much
for the spectator as for those who were engaged in the performance”192 (Brecht

Bühnenbauers, Kostüm- und Maskenbildners) und schließlich im Spiel der Darsteller,

die ihre Rollen nicht mehr verkörpern, sondern zeigen” (Grimm 1972:13).
190 ”in Gestalt einer strikt auktorial bestimmten Kommentarebene im Stück” (Buck
1986:1031).
191 ‘Learning-play’ is the term Brecht himself found was the nearest English equivalent
for the Lehrstück (Brecht 2001b:79).

101
2001b:80), belong to the effects of the theatre experiments in Berlin. The
Lehrstück is closely related to the development of the epic theatre in its
departure from the established bourgeois “Aristotelian” theatre in the period.
Benjamin asserts: “These plays are the necessary detour via epic theatre which
the play with a thesis must take”193 (Benjamin 1998a:8). The same is confirmed
by Hecht: “The Lehrstück really offered Brecht an opportunity to make a radical
break with the old known theatre apparatus”194 (Hecht 1962:120). Hecht, who in
his book Brecht’s Weg zum Epischen Theater (1962) outlines the main steps in
the development of the epic theatre from1918 to 1933, records that the decisive
steps in the development of Brecht’s theory of epic theatre took place during the
late 1920s and early 1930s. In the exploratory process of developing Brecht’s
theory and practise into epic theatre "the learning-plays [are] an interesting and
important ‘transition’-chapter”195 (op.cit.:121) (my translation). Hecht ascertains
that by “1929 the foundation was built” (op.cit.:105), and by 1933 when Brecht
started his escape from the Nazis, “fundamentally the essentials were now
created”196 (op.cit.:158) (my translation).
Grimm has made a point, with reference to the Lehrstück, that “Brecht seems to
use the terms ‘instructive’ [lehrhaft] and ‘epic’ [episch’] as synonyms” (Grimm
1972:78). In doing so he wants to draw attention to the fact that even if Brecht
has found inspirations for the epic form in previous epochs, he seems to have
forgotten that the Lehrstück too, as a didactic genre, can be seen in the light of
earlier theatre historic events, for instance the School Drama of the Humanists
(ibid.). At the same time, Grimm makes the interesting comment that both
genres make use of “the art device of estrangement”, which is familiar to both
the old and the new genre (ibid.)197. However, Grimm underlines the noticeable
difference which exists in world view between the old and the new form:
Brecht’s learning-plays are about teaching the participants about their situation
in society (ibid.). Brecht himself refers to his work with the learning-plays both
as “didactic (A word of which I, as a man of many years of experience in the
theatre, am not afraid)” (Brecht 2001b:80) and as “pedagogical experiments”

192 “Es handelte sich um theatralische Veranstaltungen, die weniger für die Zuschauer
als für die Mitwirkenden stattfanden“. Willett notes that this quote stems from “a partial
German text, written in the third person, in Schriften zum Theater 3, pp. 16-21” (Willett
2001:81). I found the German text for this footnote there.
193 It is worth noting that Benjamin writes this in 1931, in his first version of the essay
“Was ist das epische Theater?”. Erdmut Wizisla relates that it was written by Benjamin
as a response to unfavourable criticisms of Mann ist Mann in 1931 (Wizisla 2004:164,
184). The manuscript was not published until 1966.
194 “Für Brecht bot sich mit dem Lehrstück tatsächlich die Möglichkeit eines radikalen
Bruch mit dem bisherigen alten Theaterapparat” (Hecht 1962:120).
195 “D]ie Lehrstücke [sind] ein interessantes und wichtiges ”Übergangs”-Kapitel”
(Hecht 1962:121).
196 “Im Grunde war jetzt das Wesentliche geformt” (op.cit.:158).
197 “dem beidemal verwandten Kunstmittel der Verfremdung” (Grimm 1972:78).

102
[pädagogische Versuche]198. He describes the intention of these theatre events as
a trying out “a type of theatrical performance that could influence the thinking of
all the people engaged in it” (Brecht 2001b:80) with the essential task “to show
the world as it changes (and also how it may be changed)” (op.cit.:79). In order
to realize this kind of didactics in Lehrstück, Brecht asserts that the same rules
must be applied as in the epic theatre and with due observation of the principle
of Verfremdung: “[t]he directions of the epic theatre apply to how it will be
played. The study of the V-effect is an essential provision”199 (Brecht 1963i:79)
(my translation).
Thus, by having outlined some decisive steps in the development of the epic
theatre with references to Brecht’s own accounts, and being conscious of the fact
that many of these are well known aspects seen from today’s perspective, I shall
refrain from further explanation of the phenomenon epic theatre as a genre. It is
now useful to take a closer look at Brecht’s own descriptions of the phenomenon
of Verfremdung.

2. Brecht’s Verfremdung as manifesto

Few aspects of Brecht’s work have received more attention in the literature than
Verfremdung. It is a most central concept and a programmatic principle
underpinning Brecht’s entire theory and practice – including the Lehrstück
genre. Grimm is quite adamant in his view that “one thing is common between
Lehrstück and epic theatre: the use of Verfremdung. The more thoroughly one
investigates the language and structure of Brecht’s poetry, the more clearly it
reveals itself as the governing principle”200 (Grimm 1972:72) (my translation).
Fradkin is of a similar opinion. “In Brecht’s art the ‘Verfremdung’ is a device
extraordinarily broadly applied in all areas (dramaturgy, directing etc.), and in a
multitude of forms”201 (Fradkin 1977:130) (my translation). In order to get an
illustrative overview of what this governing principle amounts to, I have found
some representative quotations of how Brecht defines Verfremdung. I would
have preferred estrangement, or just Verfremdung, as the generic denomination

198 Brecht uses the term ‘pedagogical’ in the essay ”Das deutsche Theater der zwanziger
Jahre”, printed in Schriften zum Theater, edited by Hecht, vol.3, 1963:20. As this essay
is a version closely similar to “The German Drama: pre Hitler” (Brecht 2001b), I
reference it in this footnote only.
199”Für die Spielweise gelten Anweisungen des epischen Theaters. Das Studium des V-
effekts ist unerlässlich“ (Brecht 1963i:79).
200 ”Eins […] haben Lehrstück und episches Theaterstück gemeinsam: die Anwendung
der Verfremdung. Je sorgfältiger man die Sprache und Struktur der Brechtschen
Dichtung untersucht, desto deutlicher erweist sie sich als das beherrschende Prinzip”
(Grimm 1972:72).
201”In Brechts Kunst ist die ‚Verfremdung‘ in allen Bereichen (Dramaturgie, Regie
usw.) ein außerordentlich breit und in den mannigfaltigsten Formen angewandtes Mittel“
(Fradkin 1977:130).

103
of Brecht’s term. However, in citations where the English translations are not
my own, the translator’s choice of terminology has been kept, and in some
instances for the purpose of clarification, insertions [.] of Brecht’s original
wording. In the presentation of the quotations I have to the best of my
knowledge tried to follow an historical order of origination. To permit a quickly
accessible overview I have provided each of the citations with a brief
interpretation in keyword form:
a. In “The Major and the Minor Pedagogy” [1930] Brecht introduces the
theme of activating audience attention and reflection by making the
events and the characters strange: “The actors must estrange characters
and events from the spectator so as to attract his attention. The spectator
must take sides, instead of identifying”202 (Brecht 2003b:88).
Keywords: To estrange in order to attract spectator interest,
enabling interventionist thought.

b. In “Episches Theater, Entfremdung” [1936], which I also reference in

B.3 in connection with Hegel’s term Entfremdung, Brecht declares his
search object: “One was looking for a kind of presentation, by which the
familiar could become conspicuous, the habitual amazing. Common
events should appear strange, and much which seemed natural should be
recognized as artificial”203 (Brecht 1963g:196) (my translation).
Keywords: To make the familiar strange, to recognize what is false.

c. In “Alienation Effects in Chinese Acting” [1936] Brecht explains: “The

artist’s object is to appear strange and even surprising to the audience.
He achieves this by looking strangely at himself and his work. As a
result everything put forward by him has a touch of the amazing.
Everyday things are thereby raised above the level of the obvious and
automatic”204 (Brecht 2001d:92).

202 “die schauspieler müssen dem zuschauer figuren und vorgänge entfremden so dass
sie ihm auffallen der zuschauer muβ partei ergreifen statt sich zu identifisieren“ (in
Steinweg 1976a:24).
203 “Gesucht wurde eine Art der Darstellung, durch die das Geläufige auffällig, das
Gewohnte erstaunlich wurde. Das allgemein Anzutreffende sollte eigentümlich wirken
können, und vieles, was natürlich schien, sollte als künstlich erkannt werden“ (Brecht,
1963g:196).
204 “Der Artist wünscht, dem Zuschauer fremd, ja befremdlich zu erscheinen. Er erreicht
das dadurch, daβ er sich selbst und seine Darbietungen mit Fremdheit betrachtet. So
bekommen die Dinge, der er vorführt, etwas Erstaunliches. Alltägliche Dinge werden
durch diese Kunst aus dem Bereich des Selbstverständlichen gehoben“ (Brecht
1963h:169). As mentioned in C.3, the wording in this passage is strikingly similar to
formulations by Shklovsky.

104
 Keywords: To create surprise and wonder, to de-automatize the
habitual.

d. In “The Street Scene” [1938], which Brecht also termed ‘a basic model
for an epic theatre ‘, he describes the foundation of estrangement as a
technique: “What is involved here is, briefly, a technique of taking the
human social incidents to be portrayed and labelling them as something
striking, something that calls for explanation, is not to be taken for
granted, not just natural. The object of this ‘effect’ is to allow the
spectator to criticize constructively from a social point of view”205
(Brecht 2001g:125).
Keywords: To render social structures strange, to question
hegemony and givens.

e. In “Über experimentelles Theater” [1939] Brecht rhetorically poses the

question: “What is Verfremdung?” and immediately gives the answer:
“Alienating an event or a character means first of all stripping the event
of its self-evident, familiar, obvious quality and creating a sense of
astonishment and curiosity about them”206 (Brecht 1963o:101).
Keywords: To de-mask the self-evident of an event, to raise
curiosity.

f. In “The Messingkauf Dialogues” [between 1937-1940] the philosopher

elucidates: “If empathy makes something ordinary of a special event,
alienation makes something special of an ordinary one. The most
hackneyed everyday incidents are stripped of their monotony when
represented as quite special”207 (Brecht 1994:76).

205 ”Es handelt sich hierbei, kurz gesagt, um eine Technik, mit der darzustellenden
Vorgängen zwischen Menschen der Stempel des Auffallenden, des der Erklärung
Bedürftigen, nicht Selbstverständlichen, nicht einfach Natürlichen verliehen werden
kann. Der Zweck des Effekts ist, dem Zuschauer eine fruchtbare Kritik vom
gesellschaftlichen Standpunkt zu ermöglichen” (Brecht 1963n:79).
206 ”Was ist Verfremdung? Einen Vorgang oder einen Charakter verfremden heiβt
zunächst einfach, dem Vorgang oder dem Charakter das Selbstverständliche, Bekannte,
Einleuchtende zu nehmen und über ihn Staunen und Neugierde zu erregen” (Brecht
1963o:101). Also this citation stems from one of Willett’s omitted paragraphs. The
present translation is, however, by Keith Dickson and is referenced in Brooker
(1994:191, footnote 13).
207 ”So wie die Einfühlung das besondere Ereignis alltäglich macht, so macht die
Verfremdung das alltägliche besonders. Die allerallgemeinsten Vorgänge werden ihrer
Langweiligkeit entkleidet, indem sie als ganz besonders dargestellt werden” (Brecht
1963m:155).

105
 Keywords: To discover the special in the ordinary, to activate de-
habitualization.

g. In “Short Description of a New Technique of Acting which Produces an

Alienation Effect” [1940], appendix point 17, Brecht says: “The A-
effect consists in turning the object of which one is to be made aware, to
which one’s attention is to be drawn, from something ordinary, familiar,
immediately accessible, into something peculiar, striking and
unexpected. What is obvious is in a certain sense made
incomprehensible, but this is only in order that it may then be made all
the easier to comprehend. Before familiarity can turn into awareness the
familiar must be stripped of its inconspicuousness”208 (Brecht
2001i:143-144).
Keywords: To create new awareness about the familiar, to
understand the known anew.

h. In “Dialektik und Verfremdung” [n.d.] the process of comprehension is

expressed through the Hegelian dialectic formula: “Estrangement as
understanding (understand – not understand – understand), negation of
the negation”209 (Brecht, 1963s:180) (my translation).
Keywords: To attain new understanding from thinking dialectically.

i. In “A Short Organum for the Theatre” [1947-48] §42 the explanation

goes: “A representation that alienates is one which allows us to
recognize its subject, but at the same time makes it seem unfamiliar”210
(Brecht 2001k:192).
Keywords: To see the familiar as if for the first time.

208 ”Der V-Effekt besteht darin, daβ das Ding, das zum Verständnis gebracht, auf
welches das Augenmerk gelenkt werden soll, aus einem gewöhnlichen, bekannten
unmittelbar vorliegenden Ding zu einem besonderen, auffälligen, unerwarteten Ding
gemacht wird. Das Selbstverständliche wird in gewisser Weise unverständlich gemacht,
das geschieht aber nur, um es dann um so verständlicher zu machen. Damit aus dem
Bekannten etwas Erkanntes werden kann, muβ es aus seiner Unauffälligkeit
herauskommen” (Brecht 1963q:174).
209 ”Verfremdung als ein Verstehen (verstehen – nicht verstehen – verstehen), Negation
der Negation” (Brecht, 1963s:180). See also my discussion of this quote in B.3, in the
section on Hegel.
210 ”Eine verfremdende Abbildung ist eine solche, die den Gegenstand zwar erkennen,
ihn aber doch sogleich fremd erscheinen läβt“ (Brecht 1978b:150).

106
 j. In the following paragraph §43of the Organum this is further qualified in
relation to making strange effects in earlier epochs that tend to pacify
and take the social conditions for granted or unchangeable: “The new
alienations are only designed to free socially-conditioned phenomena
from that stamp of familiarity which protects them against our grasp
today”211 (ibid.).
Keywords: To make social structures transparent, facilitating
interventionist action.

This list of descriptive definitions, declarations, motivations or explanations of

what Verfremdung is in Brecht’s work, and what it amounts to, can be viewed
almost as a mini manifesto, i.e. it can usefully serve as a condensed presentation
of Brecht’s main philosophy of estrangement and a program description. It needs
to be underlined that estrangement/ Verfremdung is a form of distancing. It is
evident from Brecht’s comment about Chinese acting that the phenomenon
estrangement is seen by him specifically as a form of distancing. Brecht reports:
The performer’s self-observation, an artful and artistic act of self-alienation,
stopped the spectator from losing himself in the character completely, i.e. to the
point of giving up his own identity, and lent a splendid remoteness to the events
(Brecht 2001d:93).
In the German original the last part of the last sentence reads: […] “und schafft
eine groβartige Distanz [sic.] zu den Vorgängen” (Brecht 1963h:170). Willett
should, in my opinion, have used ‘distancing’ instead of ‘remoteness’ in his
translation, because that would better qualify Brecht’s point that what the actor
is doing here is applying ‘aesthetic distancing’. Another aspect that needs to be
underlined is the fact that what is special to Brecht’s distancing is its
contextualization in his commitment to effect societal change. Brecht’s artistic
and educational philosophy is unmistakably rooted in Marxist thought, and his
project is political. It seems important, before returning to an analysis of the
themes inherent in the estrangement-inventory above, to underline that Brecht’s
political project is Reconstructionist212. He is “radically engaged with social,
political and cultural processes, convinced that the world needs change, and that
we can change it” (Kuhn and Giles 2003:1). The epic theatre and the device of
Verfremdung are significant ingredients in this process. Distancing is an artistic
means that has been used across the epochs in the history of literature and
theatre, and can be used for varying purposes, which the previous chapters have

211 ”Die neuen Verfremdungen sollten nur den gesellschaftlich beeinfluβbaren

Vorgängen den Stempel des Vertrauten wegnehmen, die sie heute vor dem Eingriff
bewahrt“ (op.cit.:151).
212 In Pinkert’s theatre pedagogical paradigm models, Brecht belongs to the ‘Arbeits-,
Aufklärungs- oder Klassenmodell’, in which he is further classified as belonging to the
‘sozialistische Strömung’ (Pinkert 2007:258). In my own drama education paradigm
model Brecht belongs to the ‘Critical Model’ (Eriksson, 2009:[pro tem unpublished]).

107
documented. Brechtian distancing exhibits many of the same traits explored
there, which I hope will be confirmed in the following paragraphs. In other
words, estrangement is not a means limited to function in relation to specific
doctrines. Having made that point, Mittenzwei’s commentary that Brecht’s
Verfremdung has its own special purpose steeped in his theory of the epic
theatre (Mittenzwei 1984:242), and that this theory draws on dialectic-
materialism (op.cit.:244), should be kept in mind213. From here, attention should
be redirected to the estrangement-inventory introduced above.
The list creates a useful overview from which certain characterizing traits of
Verfremdung have been identified in keyword statements. Certain stances will
be singled out for further commentary below. It does not appear necessary to
interpret each one of the statements in any more detail. Three kinds of
observations have been undertaken as to what themes, thought-processes, and
principles are involved.
The first observation demonstrates that the dominant theme inherent in almost
all the citations in the list is the theme of making strange. This is (1.) a theme of
creating curiosity, wonder and amazement – crucial dimensions for creating art
as well as in conducting science. A reminder of the fact might be that one of
Brecht’s slogans in relation to the function and realization of the epic theatre is
that it be “a theatre of the scientific age”214. It is also (2.) a theme of de-
automatization or de-habitualization, i.e. making familiar things, events and
situations strange is necessary in order to break daily routines215. This is the
precondition for seeing the world with fresh eyes, like a child who discovers it
for the first time. Then it is (3.) a theme of disclosing, unveiling and bringing to
light matters which have clouded the perception. This is the prerequisite for
sharper observation of what is happening to individuals and groups in social
circumstances. Finally, it is (4.) a theme of critical judgement, examining and
questioning. This is a requirement for investigating potential wrongs that need

213 Mittenzwei’s unequivocal reminder is this:

Brecht developed the artistic device Verfremdung from dialectic-materialism;
without a thorough knowledge of this, the poet’s technique of Verfremdung
cannot be understood. All attempts by bourgeois interpreters to eliminate the
dialectical materialism will destroy this technique (op.cit.:244) (my translation).
This is, in itself, an explicit political statement: Mittenzwei was one of Brecht’s closest
collaborators in the GDR after the war. I have chosen to footnote his view for the record.
It is, however, not possible in the context of this study to undertake a full analysis of
Brecht’s Verfremdung-theory based on a dialectic-materialistic reading.
214 Willett recounts: ”When the Short Organum was reprinted in 1953 in Versuche 12, a
covering note called it ´a description of a theatre of the scientific age’” (Willett
2001:205). For references in Brecht, see, for instance, (Brecht 2001g:121; 2001j:161,
point 9; 2001k:196 §56 + 277 §45).
215 The associations to Shklovsky and Russian Formalism are obvious. I shall take up a
special discussion of the Brecht-criticism of the influence(s) between the Soviet art scene
and Brecht in the 1930s, in the following section D.3.

108
amending, hegemonic structures that need breaking up; in short, it is a political
theme of ‘a time for change’.
The second observation indicates that in activating the faculty of making
strange, a whole reservoir of reflective processes are set in motion in the sensory
apparatus and the cognitive domain, and when practiced as drama/theatre, the
physical, kinaesthetic reflective processes are set off as well. Making strange is
essentially a cognition process; it triggers a process of knowing. In Brecht, the
process of knowing is fundamentally a dialectical analytical thought process.
The faculty of making strange has an educative and formative dimension, and
can be used as a device didactically and poetically, ‘for instruction and
entertainment’.
The third observation shows that the condition for a making strange process to
take place is distancing. In all the examples of areas above for putting
Verfremdung in action, distancing is involved. It is a question of creating a
distance to the familiar, distance to the immediate self, distance to the givens in
society. The means are the imagination exercised through an awareness of
reality/fiction, employing ‘sense and sensibility’.
Obviously, these are reflections not developed from empirical observations, and,
therefore, they are speculative. But they are deliberations with a grounding in
theory in the context of this chapter in Brecht’s theory. However, his theory
seems to exhibit interesting points of contact with the theories of estrangement
explored in chapter B, particularly Hegel’s and Novalis’ philosophies in B.3, and
in chapter C, particularly Shklovsky’s philosophy in C.1. I shall return to a
discussion of Shklovsky in relation to Brecht in the present chapter, in D.3. First,
I will just briefly in the following paragraphs recapitulate some of the
connections between Hegel and Brecht, and Novalis and Brecht, from B.3.
In the analysis of Hegel’s contribution to the concept of Verfremdung, his thesis
that ‘the familiar is often not known because it is familiar’ was noted by several
researchers as a likely source of inspiration for Brecht (Mittenzwei 1984:242;
Grimm 1984:187; Knopf 1984:361; Fradkin 1977:137). The actual quote by
Hegel: “What is ‘familiarly known’ is not properly known, just for the reason
that it is ‘familiar’” (Hegel 1807:ch 9:92) is very close to Brecht’s central
themes from the inventory above. So are the uses of the wordings ‘fremd’,
‘fremdartig’, and ‘entfremdet’ – all applied by both Hegel and Brecht in the
same meanings of something ‘strange’, ‘unfamiliar’, and ‘estranged’.
Similar connections can be drawn to the romantic poets. Just as Brecht and
Hegel share the same cultural and linguistic roots, so do Brecht and Novalis -
thus offering a better example of a natural link than, for instance, to the English
poets216. Novalis’ notion of what it means to romanticize demonstrates
comparable associations to Brecht and in fact also to Hegel:

216For the record, I should like to mention that Brecht is familiar with Shelley as well.
For instance, Brecht used Shelley’s “The Mask of Anarchy” as the model for his ballad

109
 Insofar as I give a higher meaning to what is commonplace, a mysterious
appearance to what is ordinary, the dignity of the unfamiliar to what is familiar,
a semblance of infinity to what is finite, I romanticize it (Novalis 1846, part
3:236).
Hegel and Novalis use the words ‘bekannt’ or ‘das Bekannte’ as signifiers of the
reflective and educational potential they see in the making strange device, just
like Brecht. These are words closely related to ‘erkennen’, ‘erkannt’ and
‘Erkenntnis’, for which equivalent English terms are ‘to know’/’understand’,
‘known’/‘recognized’ and ’knowledge’/‘cognition’.
Apart from these few reminders from B.3, in terms of the more general
relevance of chapter B to the theme of distancing and to its specific bearing on
Brecht’s estrangement theory, I refer to the argument in the context of the
chapter itself.

3. Ostranenie versus Verfremdung, and the first traces of

estrangement in Brecht’s texts
A significant part of the discussion in the Brecht-criticism about the origin of
Brecht’s concept of Verfremdung is centred on events before and after the year
1935, when on a visit to Moscow Brecht saw a demonstration of Chinese acting
presented by one of the leading Chinese performers of the time, Mei Lanfang217.
There seems to be a general agreement that Mei’s demonstration made a strong
impression on Brecht and that this impression impacted on his further
development of Verfremdung, as evidenced in Brecht’s famous essay
“Alienation Effects in Chinese Acting” [1936] (2001d). There has been a debate,
however, as to whether Brecht may have misinterpreted some of the parameters
inherent in classical Chinese acting. This will not be an important focus for my
investigation218. More relevant to the theme of the study is to introduce the

“Freiheit und Democracy” (Willett 2001:114). Also, Brecht used Shelley’s poem in his
essay “Breadth and Variety of the Realist Mode of Writing” (Brecht 2003h:221-226).
217
I am using the spelling from the book Peking Opera and Mei Lanfang. A Guide to
China’s Traditional Theatre And the Art of Its Great Master (1981), by Wu Zugang,
Huang Zuolin and Mei Shaowu; the latter is a son of Mei Lanfang.
218
For the record, I should still like to mention some important sources in relation to
Brecht’s understanding of Chinese acting – in addition to the one already mentioned
above on Peking Opera and Mei Lanfang. Carol Martin’s article “Brecht, Feminism, and
Chinese Theatre” (2000) is partly a critical interpretation of “Brecht’s reading of Chinese
acting” as a display of alienation (2000:229), partly a discussion of new developments in
Chinese theatre and the place of women as actors in this development, and partly
reflections on the importance of Brecht’s innovation in the development of Western
feminist theatre. Min Tian’s article “Alienation-Effekt” for Whom? Brecht’s
(Mis)interpretation of the Classical Chinese Theatre” (1997) is, as the title suggests, a
critical settlement of Brecht’s misconceptions regarding the tradition, concluding that
Brecht was “considerably off base” (1997:200). In my opinion the article is flawed by
avoiding a discussion of what productive effects Brecht’s reflections on distancing –

110
debate which has arisen as to whether or not the coining and shaping of Brecht’s
term Verfremdung can be linked to impulses received from Russian formalism
during Brecht’s Moscow-visit in 1935. In winding up the main threads in this
discussion, the intention is not to arrive at a conclusive answer, which is
probably not possible. But in looking at various contributions to the theory of
origin of Verfremdung in Brecht, I hope to disclose aspects which can further
contribute to the understanding of his term and, likewise, Shklovsky’s term
ostranenie’s bearing on Brecht’s concept. There is the expectation that such an
historical excursion will contribute to the understanding of the generic concept
of distancing as an aesthetic principle as well.
A Ph.D. study in the drama education field, which has picked up on this
discussion, is Allern’s Drama and Knowing (2003)219. Using notably
British/American sources, Allern “sides” with those researchers who do not find
a convincing direct influence from Shklovsky to Brecht (Allern 2003:246-249);
for instance, Brooker (1994:192), and Stanley Mitchell and Tony Bennett, who
both argue that ostranenie or de-familiarization are purely aesthetic concepts,
without an ideological base and with no transformative social aim (in Allern
op.cit.:247). Because of the alleged non-political stance in Russian formalism,
Brecht is assumed not to have received much of an influence from them, or at
best, which is Allern’s conclusion, that “Verfremdung […] can be viewed as a
politicized version of ostranenie” (op.cit.:248)220. However, as demonstrated in
section C.2, this is a “fact” that needs modifying. Building on Boym (2005) in
particular, I found arguments that the Formalist school had a political
commitment alongside their dedication to being an innovative force in shaping
the new literature and theatre. Thus, Brecht may have found an inspiration in
Shklovsky’s ostranenie not only as an aesthetic device but also in its application
within a society in change. In this sense, and in the sense of the strikingly close
points of connection between Shklovsky’s ostranenie and Brecht’s
Verfremdung, I find it more likely than not that Shklovsky and his associates did
influence Brecht and his version of the estrangement-device. The “political”
aspect will be briefly touched upon below, in connection with a discussion of
different renderings in Russian of the ‘making strange’ concept. But first of all it

inspired from watching Mei – has, in fact, given the field in the West. Douglas
Robinson’s article “The Spatiotemporal Dialectic of Estrangement” (2007) is a reflective
analysis of Brecht’s experience and theoretical stimulus received after the encounter
with Mei in 1935. Aware of both Chinese criticisms and Martin’s reflections, Robinson
is concerned with the phenomenon of estrangement as it moves between cultures and in
time. Robinson also brings in an in-depth analysis of Shklovsky’s theorization of
estrangement and Brecht’s, finding “clear parallels between them” (2007:126).
219 The original title is: Drama og erkjennelse. En undersøkelse av forholdet mellom
dramaturgi og epistemologi i drama og dramapedagogikk, Trondheim, NTNU, 2003.
220 Another point made by Allern, and one that I agree with, is the importance of
disclosing ideological distinctions inherent in various variants of ‘distancing’ (ibid.).
This is particularly important when looking at Heathcote’s uses of distancing in chapter
E.

111
seems that the Moscow event is a significant meeting point in time of ideas.
These are the ideas Brecht had already developed in his theory and practice of
the epic theatre and Lehrstück, the ideas connected with the Russian theatre
experiments and Shklovsky’s ostranenie-device, and the ideas Brecht received
from his encounter with the Chinese theatre artist Mei Lanfang and Brecht’s
own knowledge at that time about Asian and Western developments in theatre.
According to Willett, Brecht coined his neologism Verfremdung shortly after his
visit to Moscow in 1935 in the essay "Alienation Effects in Chinese Acting"
[1936]221 (Willett 2001d:99) and this visit represents an important final step in
the process of coining the term. Willett is aware that “Brecht had already been
feeling his way towards some such formula [which] can be seen from his use of
the term ‘Entfremdung’” (ibid.). In B.3 I discussed that aspect in accordance
with Willet’s supposition, and demonstrated that the device of making strange
has a long history in the literature – a history that Brecht in all probability was
well acquainted with. There is interesting evidence indicating that Brecht’s
concern with the “formula” started much earlier than 1935. An important source
for this is Fradkin (1977).
First, Fradkin points out that both Willet and Grimm have accepted the thesis
that “Brecht’s ‘Verfremdung’ goes back to Shklovsky’s ‘Priem
Ostranennija’”222 (Fradkin 1977:133), a thesis which seems at least partly
correct. In 1964 Shklovsky acknowledges the existence of a fairly direct link
from his own theory to Brecht via Tretyakov223: “I [have] invented something
that I called ‘strange-making’: the necessity to show the objects as if seen for the
first time. Via Sergey Tretyakov – a great man – it came to Brecht”224
(op.cit.:134) (my translation). A note in Bernhard Reich’s biography adds to this
bridging function represented by Tretyakov225. Even if it is somewhat anecdotal
in nature, the whole paragraph is worth quoting:

221 The essay was first published in German in 1949, but it appeared in an anthology in
Life and Letters, London, 1936 (Willett 2001:99). This first version was entitled
“Bemerkungen über die chinesische Schauspielkunst” (Hoover 1973/74:47).
222”Brechts ’Verfremdungseffekt’ gehe auf Schklowskis ’Priem Ostrannenija‘ zurück“
(Fradkin 1977:133).
223 See also section C.3 about Tretyakov.
224 Ich [habe] etwas erfunden, was ich ’Verseltsamung’ nannte: die Notwendigkeit, die
Gegenstände so zu zeigen, als sähe man sie zum erstenmal. Über Sergej Tretjakow – ein
großartiger Mann – kam es zu Brecht, der es ‚Verfremdung nannte“ (Fradkin 1977:134).
The quote is from Vladimir Pozner, interviewed in 1964 (Fradkin 1977:407, note 26).
225 Both Tretyakov and Reich were close friends of Brecht, as was also Reich’s wife
Lacis. All three were arrested during the Stalinist persecutions in the late 1930s. Lacis
and Reich survived and were active again from the early 1950s, but Tretyakov was
executed, falsely convicted as a spy.

112
Thus again I see myself transferred to So sehe ich mich aufs neue in eines
Tretyakov’s dark room in the der dunklen Zimmer Tretjakows in der
Spiridonowka. I was sitting there with Spiridonowka versetzt. Ich saß dort
zusammen mit Tretjakow und Brecht,
Tretyakov and Brecht, who lodged
der hier logierte. Wir sprachen über
there. We were speaking about an eine ganz außergewöhnliche
exceptional theatre achievement… I Theaterleistung… Ich bezog mich auf
referred to a detail in the production, ein Aufführungsdetail, als Tretjakow
when Tretyakov stated more precisely: präzisierte: “Ja, das ist eine
“Yes that is a Verfremdung”, and with Verfremdung”, und dabei warf er
that he darted a conspiratorial glance Brecht einen Verschwörerblick zu.
at Brecht. Brecht nodded. It was the Brecht nickte. Das war das erste Mal,
first time that I got to know the word daβ ich die Vokabel “Verfremdung“
“Verfremdung”. So I have to assume kennenlernte. Ich muβ also annehmen,
that Tretyakov carried this term to daβ Tretjakow Brecht diese
Brecht; I think that Tretyakov Terminologie zutrug; ich denke, daβ
Tretjakow die schon von Schklowski
somewhat remoulded the terminology
formulierte Terminologie
already formulated by Shklovsky: ‘ottschuschdenie‘, ‘distanzieren‘,
‘ottschuschdenie‘, ‘distancing‘, ‘abstoßen‘, etwas umbildete (in
‘alienate‘(my translation). Brown 1973:527).
[Brown’s reference is: Bernhard Reich, Im Wettlauf mit der Zeit (Berlin: Henschelverlag,
1970), p. 371f.].
The quote makes it quite probable that Brecht at this point, in 1935, is already
well acquainted with a Verfremdung-concept. For one thing he is at the time
familiar with the Russian theatre experiments of the Formal school, notably
Meyerhold’s and Tretyakov’s, both operating with very similar techniques as
Brecht is using in his epic theatre. For another, one must remember that Brecht
has already met Tretyakov during Tretyakov’s visit in Berlin in 1931, where he
sees a performance of The Measures Taken and becomes acquainted with Eisler
(Steinweg 1976a:38). Also one must remember that Brecht visits Moscow and
meets with Tretyakov in 1932, and that Tretyakov by 1934 has translated 3 of
Brecht’s ‘epic plays’. The word otchuzhdenie used by Reich means, according to
Hoover (1973/74:44) ‘Entfremdung’, which is the term Brecht first applies in the
Hegelian sense discussed in B.3. In my opinion, Reich hardly uses it to signal a
stance directed against Shklovsky’s formal method and his term ostranenie226.
See also C.1 in relation to interpretations of the word.

226 Some writers have argued that there is a difference in nuance between ostranenie and
otchuzhdenie that is political in nature. According to Hoover, the latter term was used by
Fradkin to distinguish Brecht from the Formalists (Hoover 1973/74:44), whilst Robinson
asserts, for the same reason, that otchuzhdenie was “the term Brecht’s Russian
translators Nedelin and Yakovenko […] chose for the Verfremdungseffekt” (Robinson
2007:126). Boym informs: “Marxist critics in the Soviet tradition distinguished between
the Brechtian concept, translated as otchuzhdenie, and that of Shklovsky” (Boym
2005:582, footnote 1 and 586). With irony, Edkin narrates that “had we written
ostranenie, Brecht simply would have been forbidden. […] So we had to translate the

113
Second, Fradkin directs attention to uses of the idea of estrangement in other
epochs. In that respect it is interesting to return to Shklovsky’s interview in
1964, where he comments on his own sources for the concept of making strange:
“But as for myself, I can say that I found it later in Novalis. Furthermore I found
it in Tolstoy”227 (in Fradkin1977:134). Just like Brecht, Shklovsky was well read
and found impulses in Romanticism as well as in the Enlightenment. I have
found no evidence that Brecht has actually read Shklovsky, but in “Über
experimentelles Theater” Brecht demonstrates acquaintance with Tolstoy when,
reflecting on uses of empathy and suggestion in theatre, he remarks that “Tolstoy
has offered excellent comments on that” (Brecht 1963o:99). It shows that both
Shklovsky and Brecht are familiar with the idea of estrangement independently
of their respective coinings of the terms ostranenie and Verfremdung. Fradkin
points out that with Brecht’s broad reading background – and literary education
– it is unlikely that he is not aware of Novalis and other users of the literary
device estrangement. Fradkin quotes Walter Muschg to back up that hypothesis.
Muschg asserts that Brecht’s ‘Verfremdung’ is “nothing else but a modern
version of the romantic irony”228 (in Fradkin 1977:136). Additionally, Fradkin
also points out Brecht’s indebtedness to Hegel (op.cit.:137), and reminds the
reader of the many other writers and artists that Brecht draws on in his
theoretical writings:
He found and demonstrated the most different ‘estrangement-effects’ in
Antiquity and Asian theatre, in the paintings of Breughel Snr. and Cézanne, in
the works of Shakespeare, Goethe, Feuchtwanger, Joyce, and others”229
(op.cit.:139).
Fradkin even draws attention to distancing as an aesthetic principle in art,
although not specifically to Bullough, and to rhetorics, indicating that
“[e]strangement is a condition sine qua non of every trope, every metaphor,
every comparison”230 (ibid.). Some of these aspects are treated in articles in the
study (Eriksson 2007 a, b).

word differently; we chose to translate it otchuzhdenie, which is precisely the same

thing; the words are synonyms. Thus ostranenie became Verfremdung, which in turn
became otchuzhdenie; and today when one reads Russian translations of Brecht, one will
never find ostranenie, only the other word. The other word is not considered Formalist,
because it is a Brechtian word […]. We had to do this in order to recover Brecht” (Edkin
1980:84).
227 ”Aber was mich angeht, so kann ich sagen, daβ ich das später bei Novalis gefunden
habe. Außerdem fand ich es bei Tolstoi“(Fradkin 1977:134).
228 ”nichts anderes als eine moderne Fassung der romantischen Ironie” (Walter Muschg:
“von Trakl zu Brecht“, München 1961:349) in Fradkin (1977:136, 407 – footnote 35).
229 ”Er fand und zeigte die verschiedenartigsten ’Verfremdungseffekte’ im antiken und
asiatischen Theater, in der Malerei von Breughel d.Ä. und Cézanne, im Schaffen von
Shakespeare, Goethe, Feuchtwanger, Joyce u.a.“ (Fradkin 1977:139).
230 ”’Verfremdung’ ist eine conditio sine qua non jeder Trope, jeder Metapher, jedes
Vergleichs“ (Fradkin 1977:139).

114
A final source that Fradkin has inspired me to look into in relation to the history
of origin of the Verfremdung-concept is a close reading of some pre-1935 texts
of Brecht. In particular, two texts are illustrative: “The Major and the Minor
Pedagogy” from 1930 and the Lehrstück The Exception and the Rule from the
same year. Both can be taken as evidence that Brecht already by 1930 actively
uses the concept of making strange. In the first of these texts I have
demonstrated already in the inventory of Verfremdung-definitions, D.2, that
Brecht uses the term estrange [entfremden] “so as to attract attention” [so dass
sie ihm auffallen] (Brecht 2003:88). Similarly, in the other text the fremd-
concept is used to entice interest. The audience is asked to take special notice of
how the characters interact:

Examine carefully the behaviour of Betrachtet genau das Verhalten dieser

these people: Leute:
Find it surprising, though not unusual Findet es befremdend, wenn auch
nicht fremd
Inexplicable, though normal
Unerklärlich, wenn auch nicht
Incomprehensible, though it is the gewöhnlich
rule Unverständlich, wenn auch die Regel
(Brecht 1995:37). (Brecht 1966:51).
The effect Brecht is reaching for in both texts is to invite reflection by
discovering the strange in the habitual. This is precisely within the same
tradition as the previously discussed uses of estrangement in literature and
philosophy of the past. Thus, it seems fair to say, Brecht receives important
impulses in Moscow in 1935 from representatives of the Formal school, like
Tretyakov or Meyerhold, and by the acting demonstration by Mei Lanfang.
These impressions may have strengthened and refined Brecht’s own conception
of estrangement, so that his own special version – Verfremdung - is now ready
to be launched. But the artistic and didactic idea behind it Brecht has already put
into practice several years before231.

4. Summary
The chapter demonstrated that Brecht saw the notions of Verfremdung and the
epic theatre as complementary conceptions, and that his vision of using theatre

231 For the record, Fradkin speculates that Brecht’s essay ”Zur Theorie des Lehrstücks”
belongs amongst the pre-1935 texts in which Brecht uses the estrangement concept,
pointing out Brecht’s demand for the players in Lehrstück “to study the V-effect”
(Fradkin 1977:135). Fradkin finds it probable that this text was written in 1934 or early
in 1935. However, Steinweg is quite firm in his dating of the text to 1937 (Steinweg
1976a:50-51). His authority outweighs Fradkin in this case. It is interesting also to bring
Willett’s note to attention, that it is in Brecht’s remarks on Die Rundköpfe und die
Spitzköpfe for the performance of the play in Copenhagen in 1936, that Brecht first
applies “the theory of ‘Verfremdung’ to his own work” (Willett 2001:103).

115
for change was conceptionalized through an emphasis on education fused with
entertainment. The Lehrstück was seen as an important building block in the
development of this vision, and it was evidenced that Verfremdung was first
developed in the theatrical experiments with the learning-play genre. Moreover,
it was a theatre experiment involving professionals and amateurs working
together in arenas outside the conventional theatre building, thus creating
associations to the term ‘applied drama/theatre’ in today’s drama education
work. Lehrstück was also seen in a wider historical context of didactic theatre. It
is interesting to note that the antecedents of the learning-play in the Humanist
School Drama tradition shares historical roots with the process drama tradition
as well. But an important difference from the School Drama genre was
emphasized: Brecht’s learning-plays are about teaching the participants about
their situation in society (Grimm 1972:78), dealing with the essential task of
showing “the world as it changes (and also how it may be changed)” (Brecht
2001b:79). It was underlined that, according to Brecht’s Lehrstück theory, the
accomplishment of this task must be carried out by using the principles of epic
theatre, including the provisions of the V-effect.
Two forms of overview of Brecht’s uses and conceptions of Verfremdung were
presented. The first was an attempt by the present author to develop a visual
chart, encompassing five categories or areas for using estrangement, inspired by
Brecht’s theory of Verfremdung: (1) Drama text, including language, (2)
Dramaturgy, including fabula and syuzhet, (3) Role and acting style, including
principles of staging, (4) Stage apparatus, including scenography and props, and
sound and lights, (5) The stage/audience relationship; or the percipience
relationship of both participating and witnessing (Haseman 2006:202). The chart
is shown in Appendix 2. Even if the categories are developed from
understandings of Brechtian categories, accommodating the Lehrstück form, as
shown, for instance, by the fifth category, I envisaged the chart to be also
applicable to the process drama genre.
The second form of overview was an inventory of statements by Brecht about
the nature of Verfremdung, presented as an en bloc engendering of
proclamations making up a mini manifesto. The list represents an overview from
which certain characterizing traits of Verfremdung were identified in keyword
statements, thus serving as a condensed presentation of Brecht’s main
philosophy of estrangement and a program description. It was demonstrated that
the dominant theme inherent in almost all the citations in the list was the notion
of making strange. It was seen as (1.) a theme of creating curiosity, wonder and
amazement. It was also seen as (2.) a theme of de-automatization or de-
habitualization, i.e. of making familiar things, events and situations strange in
order to break daily routines. Then it was perceived as (3.) a theme of disclosing,
unveiling and bringing to light matters which have clouded the perception.
Finally, it was perceived as (4.) a theme of critical judgement, examining and
questioning. In the analysis of the inventory, making strange was considered as a
cognition process, and fundamentally as a dialectical analytical thought process.

116
It was also observed that the condition for a reflective making strange process to
take place is distancing - through an awareness of the reality/fiction dimension.
In all the examples of areas discussed in D.2 for putting Verfremdung in action,
distancing was involved: distance to the familiar, distance to the immediate self,
and distance to the givens in society.
The chapter emphasized that Brecht’s political educational project was
Reconstructionist. What is special to Brecht’s distancing is its foundation in his
commitment to effect societal change. Thus, according to Helmers’ division,
Brecht’s estrangement belongs unambiguously in ‘the narrow meaning’ of the
term – even if his philosophical orientation encompassed uses of estrangement in
the ‘broad meaning’ of the term as well, through his reading of, for instance,
Hegel, Novalis and Shelley. In other words, it should be noted that estrangement
is not a means limited to function in relation to specific doctrines. This is a
relevant point for the reading of Heathcote as a practitioner of estrangement, in
the next chapter E.
The present chapter was ended by going back to Shklovsky’s notion of
estrangement and its point of contact with Brecht. The focus was particularly on
Brecht’s visit to Moscow in 1935, and it was established as very probable that
the Moscow event was a significant meeting point in terms of ideas, and
particularly in respect of the device of making strange, which was in current use
in literature as well as in the theatre. It was found that Brecht coined his
neologism Verfremdung shortly after his visit to Moscow, even if he in all
probability was familiar with “the formula” long before 1935 (Willett 2001d:99).
Relevant to the pre-history of the concept, it was suggested as quite probable
that both Shklovsky and Brecht were familiar with the idea of estrangement
independently of their respective coinings of the terms ostranenie and
Verfremdung.
As to the politics of Formalist estrangement, discussed in the previous section
C.3, where it was suggested that the LEF innovators were not less committed to
the ideals of the Revolution than the artists following the aesthetics propounded
by the Soviet authorities, the present chapter showed that Brecht may have found
inspiration in Shklovsky’s ostranenie not only as an aesthetic device but in its
application within a society in change as well. In this sense, and in the sense of
the strikingly close points of connection between Shklovsky’s ostranenie and
Brecht’s Verfremdung, I found it probable that Shklovsky and his associates did
influence Brecht and his version of the estrangement-device.

117
E. Distancing as a making strange device in process
drama.
Distancing in process drama is not based on a defined concept, like Shklovsky’s
ostranenie or Brecht’s Verfremdung. This makes the presentation and discussion
of the distancing phenomenon more difficult, at least different, from the course
of action undertaken in the previous chapters B, C and D. Here, distancing was
explored as a particular aspect in relation to given theoretical positions or
practices inside defined means of expression: literature and theatre. Investigating
distancing in process drama is more complex because it realizes itself on various
levels. Distancing in process drama is understood partly as an aesthetic principle
defining the borderline between not-fiction and fiction. This is the Bulloughian,
or Ben Chaimian, ‘awareness of fiction’, which is a dramatic ‘as if’ dimension.
See B.1.iii. Distancing in process drama is also partly understood as a poetic
device providing a different, fresh perspective on the world. This is the
Brechtian, or Shklovskian, distancing from habitual circumstance, which is a
making strange dimension – although in process drama not necessarily with an
outspoken critical political investment as in Brecht. See C.1 and D.2.Then there
seems to be a kind of mid-position for distancing, often encountered in the
process drama literature under the denomination of protection. See B.1.i. All
these positions will be touched upon in this chapter, but approached differently
and with varying emphasis.
Starting in the next paragraph, the opening part of this chapter introduces some
important characteristics relevant to the process drama genre, and at the same
time it makes visible some of the main authors from the Heathcote-criticism. In
this part Heathcote’s background is contextualized, and references are made to
her main publications and other contributions to the drama education field. Then
in E.1 distancing in Heathcote’s work is thematized through the Greek concept
apostasiopoisis, after an idea by Hesten (1994). In this part I venture to identify
distancing in Heathcote from two points of orientation: (1) The perspective of
making strange, into which I include Heathcote’s notions of distortion,
depiction, and convention; and (2) the perspective of seeing from a new angle,
into which I include framing and frame distance, and the idea of the self-
spectator. E.2 is an attempt to connect Heathcote’s work to some of the
proponents of distancing discussed in preceding chapters. E.3 takes up the
discussion of where Heathcote belongs “politically” in her poetic-didactic
philosophy. Just as in the preceding chapters, footnotes offer extended
perspectives and detours, in addition to supplementary explanatory information.
Process drama is a processual genre, involving constant alternation between
participating and observing, a position that is occasionally referred to as
‘percipience’ in process drama criticism (O’Toole 1992:9; O’Neill 1995:125;
Bolton 1998:266; Haseman 2004:202). Process drama is also characterized by
constant alternation between keeping the drama going and stopping the drama,

119
and sometimes the boundaries between real life in the classroom and life in the
classroom drama are blurred.
Zannetou-Papacosta, in her doctoral study Dorothy Heathcote’s Use of Drama
for Education: In Search of a System (2002), refers to the real in the ordinary
classroom versus in the classroom drama as the dimensions of the Actual and the
Virtual Immediacy. She defines Actual Immediacy as “the dynamic that exists in
classrooms between the participants in their professional roles as teacher and
learners. They relate not only to each other in the situation but also to the other
components of the lesson” (2002:82). Virtual Immediacy is defined as “the
dynamic that exists between the participants and the Structural Elements of the
Lesson but in a fictional situation” (op.cit.:83). Immediacy is defined as “the
dynamic that is contained within a lesson and which is necessary for the
teaching/learning process to take place” (op.cit.:78). Immediacy is a dynamic of
motivation, the getting ready for something beyond an ordinary classroom
routine. Thus, Actual Immediacy suggests something similar to what Szatkowski
has called, somewhat paradoxically, fiction layer 0, or the ‘theatre frame’: “We
are in the theatre to watch some actors play [something]” (Szatkowski 1989:60).
The theatre frame is the context one is in before it starts, when having agreed in
the ‘now’ to accept another ‘now’ as something “real”. Similarly, in process
drama there is the classroom frame of the Actual Immediacy, which is a ‘now’
condition for preparing and accepting the start of a fictional ‘now’: The Virtual
Immediacy. In process drama these ‘nows’ coexist: “[T]he Actual and Virtual
Immediacy coexist, feeding off each other by providing opportunities for
reflection upon the fictional experience as a formative process rather than a
summative conclusion” (Zannetou-Papacosta 2002:390). This coexisting
dynamic is an important reason behind “the current view of drama as a
knowledge centred subject” (ibid.).
Paradoxical as it sounds, distancing from the real is a prerequisite for aesthetic
distancing and learning about the real in process drama, and is a defining
parameter for the genre:
Drama […] enables us to work on and examine our life experience at one
remove, in an ‘as if’ or fictional context, in order to understand it a little better
(Byron 1986:68).
[T]he drama process is generally perceived as beginning with a special act of
the imagination which involves a willingness to behave in an imagined context
as though it were real (Burton 1991:10).
[The] experience of managing the real dimension from within the symbolic
dimension is central to the learning experience of improvisational forms of
drama (Neelands and Goode 2000:61).
[B]y its nature, drama is make-believe, a fiction, and therefore could be viewed
as an escape from reality rather than the reverse [which is] […] using dramatic
play to practise life (Bowell and Heap 2001:2).
In process drama this precondition of accepting a shared fiction is commonly
realized through a process of negotiation – tellingly illustrated in O’Toole’s title

120
The Process of Drama. Negotiating Art and Meaning (1992). Such a premise is
presumably different in drama work today than it was for Brecht’s work in
Lehrstück. There was probably no need in Brecht’s work to define the activity
theatre as a world of fiction. That was implicitly understood232. In today’s
process drama the taking part in a negotiated ‘drama world’ (O’Toole 1992;
O’Neill 1995) is determined by the aesthetic distance that the participants have
agreed exists between their own reality and the world of the play; and, as briefly
mentioned above, the aesthetic distance also has a function as a safety net, i.e. as
protection:
An important part of any aesthetic experience is the knowledge that it is just
that, and that the parentheses of form are safely in place. The bracketing and
distancing of the aesthetic point of view allows […] access to different degrees
of detachment and involvement (O’Neill 1995:113).
Distancing as protection decides the degree of “intellectual and emotional
depth” (ibid.) that participants are willing to engage in a process drama233. In
fact, as demonstrated in B.1.ii, in the process drama literature protection is the
dominant view of what distancing means and amounts to. This conception of
distancing has the central function of protecting the participants into the drama
experience (Bolton 1984:128-130; 1998:200; Bowell and Heap 2001:64; Byron
1986:76-77; Fleming 1994:94; Heathcote and Bolton 1995:83-85; Kempe
1997:187; Morgan and Saxton 1987:136; Nicholson 2005:96; O’Neill 1995:113;
O’Toole 1992:113; Winston and Miles 1998:vii).
Zannetou-Papacosta observes that Heathcote’s emphasis on protection is not that
of “simply complying with the legal requirements of health and safety in the
classroom” (Zannetou-Papacosta 2002:389), as would be the case with an
ordinary school teacher, but a part of a teaching philosophy involving “authentic
power sharing” in the classroom (ibid.). That entails a very wide conception of
protection and involves a number of strategies, including distancing as
awareness of fiction and distancing devices. However, it involves other safety
building strategies as well, such as respect, trust, empowerment, authenticity,
dialogue, sensitive management. These are all well-known ingredients in
Heathcote’s philosophy of teaching, but they are not distancing devices in their
own right. Protection in process drama is a worthwhile theme of study in its own
right, but an extended outlook of protection is not a theme in the present study.
One difficulty involved in researching Heathcote is “that she has never kept a
diary or written an autobiography” (Hesten 1994:3). To an extent this absence of

232 When looking at drama education literature from before the mid-1960s, it seems that
the first pioneers also regarded the presence of a dramatic fiction as something quite self
evidently “given”. There seems to have been little need to define what it is that
essentially conditions the drama/theatre situation, i.e. what ‘the nature of drama’
amounts to. The need to define the dramatic fiction as a prerequisite for drama proper
seems to have arisen in the 1980s, after the period of ‘creative drama’ during the 1970s.
233 See also section B.2.i on ‘empathy and detachment’ about this point.

121
personal background materials has been compensated by Hesten’s research in
her doctoral thesis The Dorothy Heathcote Archive (1994), and through
Bolton’s account Dorothy Heathcote’s Story. Biography of a remarkable drama
teacher (2003). In the latter publication Heathcote’s voice has been given
considerable space through conversations with Bolton, who has been a close
collaborator with Heathcote over a long time span234. Moreover, there is a
certain scarcity of scholarly or artistic literary production from Heathcote’s pen;
“Heathcote has never written ‘academic’ text books on her methodology”
(Hesten 1994:3). However, this seems to be a statement lacking in consideration
of the substantial production of visual works by Heathcote, materials that
Zannetou-Papacosta utilizes to a great extent in her research, references to which
there is a footnote in a paragraph below. Bolton’s allusion to Heathcote as being
“an erudite scholar” is worth noticing (Bolton 2003:139). He is using scholar in
the sense of “someone who is seeking knowledge” (ibid.). Searching seems to
have been a constant drive in Heathcote’s development of an educational
philosophy and didactic strategy. She is well read, and seems to have assimilated
a wealth of historic as well as contemporary sources relevant for her praxis,
although it is rare to find references in her writings in a traditional academic
fashion to other scholars and writers. Nevertheless, referencing Kathy Berry's235
impression of Heathcote, Bolton holds that she “somehow brought the printed
page of avant-guarde academic knowledge into physical existence” (ibid.). In
addition, Bolton, who is a considerably more traditional academic when it comes
to referencing than Heathcote, and an expert on her work, informs that
many of the giants of educational literature, such as Dewey, Hall, Freire, Bruner
and Polanyi, along with ground breakers in related disciplines such as Freud,
Mead, Buber, Richards, Jung, Rugg, Bales, De Bono and Hudson have provided
her with ideas from which she has drawn selectively and sometimes
idiosyncratically (ibid.).
From the field of literature and theatre Bolton supplies:

234 Bolton comments that “[w]e became affectionately known as the ‘Laurel and Hardy’
of the drama world”, and modestly sees himself as the learner: “[E]specially in respect of
her consummate skill in planning learning across the curriculum, [my relationship to
Dorothy] has been that of master/apprentice” (Bolton 2003:x). Heathcote uses another
metaphor to characterize their relationship: "He flies over like an eagle [whereas] I
march on like a mole" (Hesten 1994:12 note 19). Clearly sharing many views on the
philosophy and practice of drama education, and being co-authors of two books
(Heathcote and Bolton 1995 and 1999), it is important to read and critique Bolton and
Heathcote on their own merits, too. I regard it as not entirely adequate, as some authors
do, to look at them as belonging to one and the same ‘school’, for instance “the
Newcastle school” of drama teaching (Braanaas 2008:255). See also Allern (2008:322).
235 Berry’s book The Dramatic Arts and Cultural Studies. Acting against the Grain
(2000) is in many ways inspired and informed by Heathcote’s praxis. Berry took
Heathcote’s summer school course in Evanston, USA, in 1983. Heathcote has written an
introduction to the book.

122
 To literary geniuses from William Blake to Doris Lessing she turns for wisdom;
from visionaries such as Robert Pirsig and Alvin Toffler she seeks inspiration;
and from the theatre Stanislavski, Brecht, Grotowski, Tynan and Brook she
gains references for her analysis of practice (op.cit.:140).
It can be assumed that knowledge of both Romanticism and Modernism is
potentially included in this broad list of theoretical landmarks as far as
Heathcote is concerned.
Hesten explains the alleged paucity of own writings in Heathcote “partly
because of a belief in a master/apprentice tradition” (Hesten 1994:3), a stance
that Hesten regards is akin to “the great oral traditions” which is “reflected in the
style of [her] writing” (ibid.). Heathcote has, indeed, over a very long time
period disseminated her thinking and methodology "live" through classroom
practice. An exemplary orientation has marked Heathcote’s work from the start
of her teaching in the University of Newcastle in 1950 up to the time of her
retirement in 1986 – and beyond236. It may be explained as a result of the
practical emphasis of her professional training background as well as being an
acquired and preferred philosophy of teaching steeped in practical teaching
experience237. The effect has been that over the years a great number of students,
school teachers and interested scholars, myself included, have had an
opportunity to watch and learn from hands-on experiences of Heathcote’s work,
both in the UK and internationally238. Dissemination of her work has also to a

236 Heathcote has never managed to put a full stop to teaching. After her retirement from
the University of Newcastle she has been “eagerly sought after to contribute to courses
and conferences” (Zannetou-Papacosta 2002:3), for instance for The National
Association for the Teaching of Drama (NATD). From 1991-1993 she was a visiting
professor at the University of Central England (UCE) in Birmingham. Even from the
present point of time in 2009, at the age of 83, Heathcote keeps being invited to
international conferences to present keynote addresses and/or practical workshops, for
instance to Athens, Greece and Tromsø, Norway in 2008.
237 Heathcote got her position as a university lecturer at the age of 24. Her background
was a 3-year training at the Northern Theatre School, at Bradford Civic Theatre, where
she was taught by dramatic arts pioneers like Esmé Church and Rudolph Laban. The two
first years were theatre training. “The course was entirely practical with no theoretical
element of any kind” (Bolton 2003:22). The third year was a teacher course build-on.
The school gave emphasis to children’s theatre and facilitated training for adults
involved in amateur theatre societies in the area. Heathcote became involved in this part
of the theatre school’s activities. Her teaching experiences here earned her a teacher
qualification certificate from the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire
(op.cit.:26). With her background from the Northern Theatre School, Heathcote also
took the external examination of the Royal Academy of Music in London (L.R.A.M.).
238 “Heathcote [has] lectured extensively both at home and abroad, undertaking major
tours every year between 1967 and 1991. Invitations to lecture abroad came from the
British Council, British Army Schools Overseas, various Universities and Institutes of
Higher Education, Drama Teachers Associations and TIE groups, etc.” (Hesten
1994:16). To this can be added that Heathcote has earned herself a famous reputation for
quality work with the mentally handicapped; she has worked with young delinquents,

123
noticeable extent taken place through media like the BBC239, and a sizable
amount of videos/DVDs have been produced of her work at the University of
Newcastle, at the University of Central England in Birmingham240 and
elsewhere241. A Dorothy Heathcote Archive has been in operation at Manchester
Metropolitan University since the mid-1990s, and Heathcote materials in the
form of videos and theses are also available from the library at the UCE/BCU in
Birmingham. The Heathcote-criticism has to a significant extent used the
resources available from these three universities.
Like Hesten, Zannetou-Papacosta also makes a comment pertaining to what is
considered a limited scholarly research output in Heathcote:
It is remarkable that for someone with such considerable reputation and whose
exposure to public scrutiny through demonstration lessons, television
programmes and books and articles written about her, should not have been
persuaded to write manuals or to become engaged upon formal research
(Zannetou-Papacosta 2002:29).
I do not wish to speculate upon the reasons for this, apart from pointing to
Heathcote’s significant output of video/DVD-work and other commitments
mentioned above, and that such production work is very time consuming.
During the 1990s Heathcote dedicated more time to disseminating her work in
writing. Together with Bolton she published Drama for Learning. Dorothy
Heathcote’s Mantle of the Expert Approach to Education 242(1995) and So You

she has trained employees in business industries, like British Gas, National Trust,
Volkswagen Ltd., and conducted work for medical schools, museums, the Armed
Services and education authorities (Hesten 1994:16-19; Zannetou-Papacosta 2002:3).
239Hesten mentions the BBC School and Further Education TV, its Omnibus
programme, the Open University Programme, the North East programme, and the BBC
Radio Series World of Work (Hesten 1994:16-18).
240 It has now changed its name to Birmingham City University (BCU).
241 Zannetou-Papacosta reports that there is an extensive video collection of Heathcote’s
work in the University of Central England Archives in Birmingham, totalling 320 hours
of videotapes (Zannetou-Papacosta 2002:xii and 53), from the early 1970s to the late
1990s (op.cit.:317ff). It can be added that "The Dorothy Heathcote Video Archive at
UCE" was set up by David Davis when he was the leader of the International centre for
Drama education at the UCE, now BCU, but the centre has now been closed down. It
can also be added that there is an extensive video and DVD collection of Heathcote’s
work at The University of Newcastle, the Audio Visual Centre, as well. Here is housed a
collection of 50 hours of edited materials (op.cit.:32). Most of these tapes impart a
balance of theory and practice. During the early 1990s the University of Newcastle
issued a series of tapes called Making Drama Work, which are mainly theoretical in
conception. It should be noted that Zannetou-Papacosta distinguishes between ’practical
tapes’ and ’theoretical tapes’, acknowledging that each category also contains elements
from the other (op.cit.:53).
242 In the book the authors explore a cross-curricular drama approach in which the pupils
are engaged in classroom work as if they were experts on the theme of investigation.
“The mantle of the expert approach is grounded in the principle that young people learn

124
Want to Use Role-play? A new approach in how to plan243 (1999). Heathcote
has, after all, produced a significant number of articles, lectures and notes in
which she explains essential aspects of her educational philosophy and practice.
The publication Dorothy Heathcote. Collected writings on education and drama,
with a foreword by Bolton, contains a majority of the articles written up to 1984
when the book was first published244. In the introduction the editors245
characterize Heathcote as a teacher/artist and that her writings, like her teaching
is dedicated to “challenge, shatter, and reform ideas” (Johnson and O’Neill
1984:13). I see a seed of a Brechtian motif in that statement.
Over the years a considerable output of research on Heathcote’s work has been
conducted in the UK and abroad, which is understandable given the fact that so
many of the central terms belonging to the genre of process drama stem from her
theory and practice; for instance Teacher in Role (e.g. Wagner 1979:128ff.;
Ackroyd 2004), Living Through Drama (Heathcote1984b:80-84, Bolton
1998:217ff., Davis 2005:167-171, 176), Frame Distance (Heathcote 1989:52-53;
O’Toole 1992:109ff.), The Conventions Approach (Heathcote 1984h:165;
Neelands and Goode 2000), Mantle of the Expert (Heathcote and Bolton 1995),
Rolling Role (Heathcote 2000:36-39), The Commission Model (Heathcote
2000:39ff.). Although inherently present in several of these forms and
denominations, distancing is only specifically detectable as a term in writing in
relation to frame distance. In the following, I shall identify and convey relevant
examples of distancing across some of the above mentioned denominations and

best when their relationship to learning and teaching is more like that of experts than that
of pupils in most schools” (Edmiston [undated]:2).
243 Acknowledging the fact that role-play has become a popular training method across
many educational institutions, human resource centres or management training
businesses, the authors offer a process drama based alternative to conventional role-play
methods, applicable to all kinds of interactive contexts.
244 Since 1984 more articles and addresses by Heathcote have appeared in diverse
publications, for instance in the American TIP-journal Theory into Practice, edited by
Patrick Verriour (No. 3, 1985); the journal of the National Association for the Teaching
of Drama – NATD Broadsheet, edited by Tony Goode (1982), Ken Byron (1989),
Alistair Muir (1992), and the NATD-publication ‘A Head Taller’. Developing a
Humanising Curriculum Through Drama, edited by Tony Grady and Carmel O’Sullivan
(1998); in the National Drama Publications Voices for Change, edited by Chris
Lawrence (1993) and Drama Research, edited by Lawrence (No.1, 2000); or in the
Norwegian journal Drama – Nordisk dramapedagogisk tidsskrift, edited by Hedda
Fredly (No. 4, 2008). Heathcote can be found on the Internet as well, for instance on the
Mantle of the Expert.Com: http://www.mantleoftheexpert.com/.
245 The chief editor is O’Neill, who in her own training is greatly influenced by Bolton
as well as Heathcote. O’Neill is an internationally renowned drama education scholar
and practitioner and has been instrumental, possibly alongside O’Toole (1992), in
developing the term process drama (O’Neill 1995). Bolton asserts that “Heathcote’s
living through drama [was] re-designated by Cecily O’Neill as Process Drama” (Bolton
2003:177).

125
forms, even if distancing is not specifically highlighted as a characterizing factor
in the work by Heathcote herself or her interpreters.

1. Heathcote and distance creation (apostasiopoisis)

The terms distance creation, and apostasiopoisis, do not appear in Heathcote’s
own writings. They are introduced by Hesten to mean distancing in quite a
Brechtian sense. Hesten asserts: “Heathcote built apostasiopoisis into her later
lessons through a ‘critical thought provoking process’ which was similar to
Brecht’s Epic Theatre process” (1994:175). In a letter to the present author
Hesten explains:
I decided to use this as a heading for chapter 8.2.5. after a discussion on
Brecht’s Verfremdungseffekt with a Greek friend of mine. [T]he joint
recollections of our discussions are as follows:
Both of us were unhappy with the English translation Alienation, which seemed
too basic and limiting (e.g. the association with estrangement and isolation).
The French translation [distanciation] seemed much better and [my friend]
thought it was translated directly from the Greek. [He] defined the holistic
Greek concept of Apostasiopoisis as distance creation, whereas Alienation
suggested distance making (Hesten-letter 2006).
I have explored this term further246. Jenny Karaviti confirms that The Greek
word αποστασιοποίησις (apostasiopoiisis)247, is a term of the 20th century which
translates in Greek Brecht’s term Verfremdung and that the term has the
meanings “making / creating distance” (Karaviti-letter 2008), “usually in order
to avoid emotional involvement or identification to a situation or person, so that
one can make judgment of the person or the situation, with a clear and objective
look of it” (Tsarouchi-letter 2006). Apostasiopoiisis consists of a derivation from
the feminine noun απόστασις (apóstasis=distance) and the suffix (ο)ποίησις
(poiesis = creation)248. Since the word apostasiopoiisis (αποστασιοποίησις) is
found in texts only in the 20th century, it is obvious that it is a neologism.
Drawing on Greek reference works, Karaviti explains that this modern term has
come into being as a translational loan from Verfremdung introduced by
Brecht249. The form adopted by Hesten may not be 100% in tune with Modern

246 I am indebted to two Greek colleagues, Kalliope Tsarouchi and Jenny Karaviti, for
their investigation into the etymology of apostasiopoisis.
247 The correct spelling and pronunciation is apostasiopoiisis (or apostasiopoiēsis in
Erasmic pronunciation): Greek αποστασιοποίησις (οι=i, η=i) (Karaviti-letter 2008).
248 The suffix –poiisis (Greek -ποίησις, pron. –piisis) comes from the ancient Greek verb
poiō (ποιῶ) ‘to make’, ‘to create’, infinitive poiein (ποιεῖν). This suffix is very common
in Ancient, Medieval and Modern Greek composition, meaning ‘making’ or ‘creating’.
The Greek suffix –(o)poiisis is the equivalent of the Latin –(i)ficatio (derives from the
Latin verb facio ‘to make’), Engl. -(i)fication, etc. (Karaviti-letter 2008).
249 According to: a) Babiniotis, G. Dictionary of Modern Greek Language, Athens:
Lexicology Centre Ltd., 2006; and b) Triantafillidis Foundation. Dictionary of Common

126
Greek wording and pronunciation, but Hesten’s version of it will be kept within
the context of this study.
Hesten’s investigation of Heathcote’s work is not focussed on distancing as a
theme in itself.250 Nevertheless, I have given Hesten’s understanding of distance
creation some attention, because it is used as a keyword251 in her research:
“Apostasiopoisis […] encapsulated the essence of chapter 8.2.5. in a single word
which reflected the value of using a keyword approach in analysing material
from the archive” (Hesten-letter 2006). Apostasiopoisis denotes distance
creation in several ways. I have found it expedient to group them in two enabling
dimensions, inspired by Hesten’s interpretations of areas where the notion of
distance creation can expectedly be observed. The term enabling is chosen to
indicate that the concept of distance creation in Heathcote may have less
theoretical or philosophical underpinning than in Shklovsky and Brecht, and that
her position is primarily one of facilitating learning from within the art form.
One of Heathcote’s central aims for her work is “to encourage children to think
for themselves” (Heathcote 1984j:209). In the following, strategies and terms
pertaining to distance creation/apostasiopoisis within the two enabling
dimensions will be discussed: (a) enabling the ordinary to become fabulous (cf.
Hesten 1994:176), and (b) enabling the social event to be seen from a new angle
(ibid.). Whilst the first one is a very broad category, incorporating estrangement
devices like distortion, the familiar in new form, analogy and depiction, the

Modern Greek, Thessaloniki: Institute for Modern Greek Studies, 2007 (References from
Karaviti-letter 2008). Some additional comments may be of interest for the
understanding of the etymology of the concept: the ancient Greek apóstasis had various
meanings, such as ‘causing to revolt’, ‘departure from’, or ‘distance’. Karaviti explains
that the word apostasía is a late form of the older word apóstasis, both having almost the
same meanings in Antiquity. During the past 23 centuries, these two words have
undergone a semantic restriction / narrowness, resulting in two semantically distinct
words: apóstasis meaning only ‘distance’, and apostasía meaning only ‘defection,
revolt, desertion, apostasy’. Thus, it is clear, Karaviti asserts, that “the modern term
apostasiopoiisi(s) or apostasiopoiēsis ‘making/creating distance from’ could not have
the word apostasía as its 1st compound” (Karaviti-letter 2008).
250 The aim of Hesten’s research is directed towards finding parameters for setting up an
archive that can assist in mapping “the philosophical, epistemological and
methodological issues relating to Heathcote’s drama in education approach” (Hesten
1994:2).
251 A part of Hesten’s thesis consists of a Keyword Index Database. Even if
Hesten’s thesis can be accessed as a WWW-document
(http://www.partnership.mmu.ac.uk/dha/hcheston.asp), and is searchable within the
parameters of a Pdf-file, the online keyword database has its limitations. The Thesaurus
of Keywords in the appendices (Hesten 1994:35-208) helpfully assists in finding
published archive materials, but does not in itself operate as a thesaurus, an
encyclopaedia or an index with, for instance, direct references to Heathcote’s own
works. Such functions would not at all be possible to accommodate within the
parameters of a doctoral thesis, but could greatly enhance the archive’s functions in a
future upgrading of its possibilities.

127
second category is more contained and related to the concepts of framing and
role distance, which are two sides of the same coin, and the self-spectator
concept. Inscribed in the two main categories are also two other distancing
dimensions mentioned by Hesten: “being in ‘another room’, i.e. being distanced
from the material” (ibid.), and signalling when being “‘in’ or ‘out’ of role”
(ibid.)252. Because the latter two seem to get continually woven into the fabric of
the work described in the main enabling categories, I shall not discuss them as
separate dimensions. But it is pertinent to an understanding of what distance
creation amounts to in Heathcote to regard strategies for stepping back from the
fiction, and strategies for moving in and out of role, as strategies of distancing.
Furthermore, in practice there will be a degree of overlapping between
dimensions and strategies within and across the categories. As evidenced in the
two doctoral theses I have used as reference points for Heathcote’s work, Hesten
(1994) and Zannetou-Papacosta (2002), overlapping cannot be avoided.

i. Enabling the ordinary to become fabulous

The word pair ‘the ordinary and the fabulous’ evince associations to the broad
theme of estrangement discussed in the chapters on Coleridge, Shelley and
Novalis, as well as in connection with Shklovsky and with Brecht. Hesten has a
section on the “Philosophy of the Ordinary and the Fabulous” (op.cit.:94ff.). But
in that context she is taking a somewhat different route, discussing not how the
ordinary can be estranged through the intervention of the extraordinary, but
rather how “the most ordinary objects, thoughts and actions [… can] be
transformed through an act of the imagination into the most fabulous symbols,
myths and rituals” (op.cit.:94). Not dismissing the significance in drama, and in
Heathcote’s work, of using the imagination for transformation, I shall not follow
that track here. Instead, I shall in this part, which is the broadest and most
general of the two selected enabling categories, throw into relief examples of
estrangement qualities in Heathcote’s work akin to Shklovsky and Brecht.
Although, in my opinion, there is an estrangement dimension regularly present
in her practice, this dimension is not frequently highlighted in the Heathcote-
criticism; not by Heathcote herself for that matter. Hesten seems to have a hold
on this aspect when she likens Heathcote to Brecht in the paragraphs on
apostasiopoisis, explaining that “Brecht also wanted to surprise people into
seeing new truths which enabled the ordinary to become extraordinary”
(op.cit.:176), implying that it is central to the idea of distance creation to
estrange the familiar by an unfamiliar twist. Heathcote exemplifies how such a
twist can be employed in the following note:

252 This latter dimension incorporates ‘stopping for reflection’. Hesten does not invoke
this quality specifically here, but spends a paragraph on “reflection and implication” in
another part of the thesis (Hesten 1994:90). Similarly, Zannetou-Papacosta writes about
“ongoing reflection” (2002:236-238) and mentions the device “stopping the time” as a
structural element in Heathcote’s work (2002:280).

128
 One of the ways I use often is to create a bizarre/noticeable procreation so that
no one can miss it – it can ‘intrude’ on their vision/their space. A gentle
invasion, capable of constant development (Heathcote 1984i:154) 253.
For instance, in the video Seeds of a new life (1977), a group of mentally
handicapped are challenged by Heathcote to try to rescue a baby, represented by
wrapped-up bundle of cloth, caught in the branches of a huge living tree,
represented by a number of Heathcote’s students, using their arms and fingers as
branches and twigs. And the tree can hiss… In another situation the participants
meet a big brown dog with a red velvet ear, enacted by an adult student in
animal clothing: “big enough to ride on, tough enough to fight with if you want
to get rough, and timid when required, if you are ready to learn about caring and
tenderness” (Heathcote 1984e:149). To be sure, these are examples from work
with mentally handicapped people, in which there is often a need for making
strange with a particular strong visual signing, so that it makes an impact.
However, that does not invalidate the typicality of the strategy. Wagner has
made the point that “Heathcote’s approach to handicapped students is not
different in kind from the way she works with any class” (Wagner 1979:210).
So, a making strange strategy in the form of a noticeable procreation seems
like a very Heathcotian approach254. She uses a basically similar strategy in
several video-documented process dramas, like What is Happening Here (1980)
where Heathcote makes the pioneering aviatrix Amy Johnson, one of her
students in role, crash-land her aeroplane in a lady’s rose garden: an infant
school classroom. Another example is The Treatment of Doctor Lister (1980)255,
in which the medical revolutionary Doctor Lister, demonstrated by one of
Heathcote’s students256, questions the children in role about the changes in
medicine since his discovery of antiseptics and the introduction of sterile

253 “Considerations when working with mentally handicapped people” is a collection of

undated notes, published in O’Neill and Johnson (1984). I have in my own files an
unpublished version of these notes, dated 1977.
254 Heathcote’s formulation ‘noticeable procreation’ that I have chosen as a making
strange label for the strategy of creating interest, i.e. the lure, seems to be the equivalent
of what Hesten refers to as keying: “Keying often takes the form of a theatrical sign
which lures the class into the drama. It arouses curiosity, awakens energy and creates the
need for active experimentation” (Hesten 1994:171). Zannetou-Papacosta also refers to
keying in a similar sense as Hesten, but with a much more toned down interpretation of
the theatrical lure element of it: “Keying is the indirect informing of the learner of the
nature or circumstance of a learning encounter. It rather indicates a relationship between
previously unrelated occurrences which allows the learner to draw an inference that
enlightens him/her with new knowledge” (Zannetou-Papacosta 2002:252). Hesten and
Zannetou-Papacosta both reference Erving Goffman’s theory about keying as a model
for Heathcote’s use of it. Within the context of the study I think that ‘noticeable
procreation’ signals better than ‘keying’ the estranging quality of the term.
255 For more about this drama, see the article “Material for significance” (Heathcote
1984g).
256 John Carroll, who has later become a well-known scholar in the field of drama
education.

129
surgery. Yet another example is the work with ‘the Ozymandias Saga’, based on
Shelley’s poem “Ozymandias”. Framed in role as archaeologists – the idea of a
common role being an estrangement device in itself – the children encounter 9
effigies portrayed by teachers in their school – another estrangement of the
familiar - each representing Ozymandias, King of Kings257. The children are
sitting in the classroom listening to the poem and afterwards trying as
archaeologists to read it as evidence of a dig not yet excavated,
Nine Ozymandiases quietly manifested themselves around them. No one
moved, but the teachers who sat around had placed upon their chins rope beards
normally arranged and highly stylized. Each beard had woven into it a number
of black beads, perfectly round, ranging through one to nine, and before the feet
of each one there was a piece of writing (later to be known as the tablets of
stone).
[…]
The children in groups had the awe of the occasion, and yet the confidence to
deal as archaeologists. This made their protection (Heathcote and Hovda
1980a:9).
As indicated above, estrangement is observed on various levels: The ordinary
classroom becomes an extraordinary site, the usual learning role becomes an
unusual role of expertise, the familiar teachers become unfamiliar figures
representing an ancient past, the actual immediacy and the virtual immediacy
merge and a depiction ‘stops time’258, the estranged tablets of stone are depicted
from “paper glued upon thick card” (ibid.). Furthermore, the awareness of
fiction protects the children. To sum up, general distancing has been established
and a protection realized, “allowing for a measure of personal detachment within
[the] experience” (Zannetou-Papacosta 2002:230), and estrangement devices
operate as ‘noticeable procreations’ or ‘lures’ for creating interest and
commitment in the drama. Role in the sense of ‘another’, not behavioural
‘function’, which is the normal understanding of the term in schools, is the
carrying estranging element in all the examples mentioned above. As evidenced,
role can be used in different ways. Heathcote informs that when you use a role
you gain:
A person for the class to respond to.
A life-style which comes into the room.
A holding-device which lures interest.
Something to inquire into, which acts as a focus.
A specific example of emotional/intelligent life and attitudes to challenge.
A pressure exactly where you want it
(Heathcote 1984i:205).

257 “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works ye mighty and
despair!”, from Shelley’s poem, cited in Heathcote and Hovda (1980a:8).
258 Under the heading “real depicted time” Hesten refers to Heathcote’s switching
between depicted time (“not real life-rate time”) and now time (“the here and now”) in
section 3.4.5 (Hesten 1994:79).

130
There is a teaching philosophy inscribed in that statement, alongside a
complexity of poetic possibilities. A meeting with a role in a school classroom is
indeed an event of de-familiarization. If one adds to that perspective the many
different ways role can structure a drama event, and take into consideration the
generous register of role conventions available to the teacher ‘in role’, it is
evident that the mere subject of ‘role’ throws up ample material for examining
aspects of distancing259. Even though role, just like protection, clearly contains
distancing elements, the terms are not sufficiently relevant as separate areas to
the main focus of the study. In this study role will not be specifically examined
beyond its contextual relevance to other forms, events or terms where distancing
is discussed260.

259In her study on teacher-in-role, Role reconsidered. A re-evaluation of the relationship

between teacher-in-role and acting (2004), Judith Ackroyd investigates various views
and practises in the field of drama education concerning the relationship between acting
and non-acting in teacher-in-role (TiR). The study concludes that the commonly held
view in Heathcote criticism that TiR is not a form of acting is no longer sustainable. It
indicates that “no sharp distinction [can] be made between teacher-in-role and acting”
(Ackroyd 2004:163). Although it investigates an important form in process drama, it is
of limited use for the present study. For one, and the most important reason, role is not a
particular consideration in my context. For another, Ackroyd’s study does not raise or
discuss per se the pertinent question of whether there are schools or traditions of acting
that lend themselves particularly well to exploring reflection and learning through role.
My own bias is, which has been a more or less explicit theme throughout this study, that
the epic theatre and its uses of Verfremdung is a particularly expedient tradition to that
effect, and that Heathcote’s process drama tradition exhibits significant traits from that
tradition. My study supplements Ackroyd’s in the sense that it shares her ambition to
make a contribution “to the new paradigm which seeks to align drama in education with
theatre” (op.cit.:167). It is, in addition, interesting to note Lawrence’s opinion on TiR:
“[B]ased on what Brecht wrote in explanation of his commonly called Alienation or
Distancing Effect, compared with what DH wrote and said (and my own experience of
the form) about Teacher-in-Role, [I would say] that TiR could be viewed as Brechtian
acting” (“Lawrence-letter” 26.01.2006). Also from my own experience with the form, I
second Lawrence’s view.
260 Referring to a study by Peter McLaren, “The Liminal Servant and the Ritual Roots of
Critical Pedagogy” from 1988, O’Neill calls attention to the possibilities the drama
teacher has through role work “to lead the students across the threshold into the
imagined world of drama, […] where the rules and relationships of classroom life are
suspended” (O’Neill 1995:66). The concept of liminality, from the Latin līmen =
threshold, is borrowed from Victor Turner. Turner’s theory of liminality, which is “a
temporal interface” (Turner 1982:41) or a status ‘betwixt and between’, is another way
of explaining entering the no-penalty area of dramatic fiction. The significant point is
that the drama teacher, “as a potential ‘liminal servant’” (O’Neill 1995:66), within the
fictional context and role, can disturb commonplace perceptions, which is precisely what
de-familiarization amounts to. In Turner’s idiom, “people ’play’ with the elements of the
familiar and defamiliarize them” in liminality (Turner 1982:27). O’Neill points out that
this is also what both Shklovsky and Brecht do in their art forms when they defamiliarize
“to see anew, to promote novel perspectives on the world” (O’ Neill 1995:66).

131
Before leaving this broadly oriented subchapter on estranging the ordinary, I
purport to exemplify from a close reading of Heathcote-texts, how distance
creation/apostasiopoisis can be seen as a significant element in Heathcote’s
work. In the enclosed article “Distancing at Close Range. Making strange
devices in Dorothy Heathcote's process drama Teaching Political Awareness
through Drama” (2008b), I explore this theme from a video example. In the
present chapter I intend to consolidate my contention, from supplementary
examples, that Heathcote’s method is, indeed, characterized by the employment
of poetic and didactic estrangement. An element not identified earlier to that
effect is distortion.
• Distortion. “The theatre […] shows life in action, how people fill the spaces
between themselves and others – it can do what is the reality of life but
seems to be the opportunity of art, distort the view productively” (Heathcote
1984i:202).
In Heathcote’s idiom distortion is an often used dimension:
You have to accept that you will be involved with distortion. You cannot
examine all aspects of everything simultaneously. […] We are always
concerned with distortion, but drama brings it to notice (Heathcote 1984d:117).
I regard this everyday-like observation of Heathcote’s as being comparable to a
similarly mundane description by Brecht of what Verfremdung is: “It is just a
method by which the interest is concentrated on the object we will describe, in
order to make it interesting”261 (Brecht 1963u:183) (my translation), so by
implication: to bring it to notice. Distortion is in itself, like
Verfremdung/apostasiopoisis, a de-familiarization concept.
I understand distortion as a fundament for using all the dramatic conventions
associated with her work, like ‘slow down time’ conventions (Heathcote
1984h:166-167), various role conventions (Hesten 1994:181-185; Zannetou-
Papacosta 2002:186-200), or diverse rhetoric conventions (Eriksson 2008:135-
153)262. Heathcote asserts: “I use distortion in order to examine, and I seek for
form, so that in the examining I may create reflective force to consider what I
am learning” (Heathcote 1984d:117). Heathcote’s connecting of distortion to
form and knowledge helps in qualifying the term as something different from the
negative connotation attached to it in normal discourse263. Thus, it may more

261 “Es ist lediglich eine Methode, das Interesse auf das zu Beschreibende zu
konzentrieren, es interessant zu machen” (Brecht 1963u:183).
262 The different categories of conventions referenced here are not as clear-cut as it may
seem, and there are several overlaps between the cited authors’ categories.
263 Hesten notices the negative meaning of the word (1994:180). However, by
considering the Latin meaning of distortion: ’to twist different ways’, from distorquēre
(Oxford English Dictionary [WWW document]) in its figurative meaning: ‘to give a
twist (to the mind, thoughts, views)’ (ibid.), the dynamic deconstructivist meaning that
Heathcote has assigned to it becomes apparent: for instance, to give an idea a different

132
accurately be thought of as poetic distortion, which clearly is Heathcote’s
intention: “The arts are metaphoric and analogous, and we can be spectators of
ourselves in ways often denied in a life situation, because we can distort time to
give opportunity for reflection to be encountered” (Heathcote and Hovda
1980a:5). The underlying premise here is that distortion has a quality of
distancing. It is this quality that allows the poetic world to distort the real world
in order that it becomes possible to see it in a different light, to wonder about it
and to think about it anew; “we distort into understanding” (Heathcote 1976:8).
Heathcote’s way of effecting reflection and understanding is by selectivity: “We
take the human condition, and we isolate a factor to bring it under our view, and
therefore we must distort. We have pulled something out of its general shape so
that we can become aware of it” (op.cit.:8-9). This sounds strikingly similar to
the kind of consciousness-raising that both Shklovsky and Brecht aim for when
purporting to present the world from unusual angles through an act of de-
familiarization.
• Old familiar matter in new form. “The new element. Old familiar matter
in new form to ‘shock’ into awareness” (Heathcote 1984i:203).
The new element is what Heathcote introduces after having first created the
participants’ interest in a problem to be looked at. “A problem must be seen in
action” and it must “seem to employ their prejudice” (ibid.), i.e. their interest.
The wording itself makes strange; moreover, it is understood that prejudice
contains a dynamic in which a dialectic is set up between the familiar and its
estrangement for creating new understanding:
Removing the situation when I could from prejudicial
view,
so as to enable a new view without the burden of an old
label
which prevents re-view”
(Heathcote 1978:21).
Heathcote’s dialectics are not formulated in Marxist terms, but they are not of
the kind for which the teacher has the right solution either:
Let us not suppose the prejudice to be gone.
That is not my business.
It seems my business to open, by any means I
can ,
another door, alongside their own opinion (or that of
parental telling)
that might be worth a view
(op.cit.:25).

sense, or an alteration to create new consciousness; http://www.oed.com (downloaded

April 6th, 2009).

133
This seems to me a quite Brechtian stance of teaching, and quite a progressive
one for the classroom264.
• Analogy. “Analogy is the best way of making something fresh and worthy
of consideration when it has become too cliché-ridden, too familiar, too full
of prejudice because of memory and past weariness. It provides a new face
for old material” (Heathcote 1984i:207).
Analogy is a frequently used device in Heathcote – and in Brecht265. I have
discussed analogy as a rhetoric topos and shown examples of its application in
the Minamata-workshop described in my article “Distancing at close range”
(Eriksson 2008b). The way that Heathcote describes analogy in the quotation
contains an element of estranging the prejudice just described above. But for
Heathcote, analogy is also in itself a type of drama, “where one problem, a real
one, is revealed by an exact parallel to it” (op.cit.:205):
As the German officer, seeking to “help” a group of young
delinquent boys
who have chosen to be taken prisoner, “gain” their captivity
with honor
and no loss of face, in order to examine with them the
matter of their lives --
the implications of being taken prisoner – for that is what they
really are
“Raus, raus, give up your rifles!”
at which demand they are prone to argue.
In my role I can promote this argument
but more important still than that, I can inject a reflective
note
immediately without changing tempo or pace
or asking them “to think about it”—the strategy so often
employed—
by saying, “I shall remember you,” in a certain warning way”
(Heathcote 1978:11).
This is a poetic reflection on a ‘problem’ Heathcote explored in her drama Three
Looms Waiting (1971). In role as a war-time German officer, she uses the

264 The Heathcote-quotations in verse form above, and further below, are from an
extensive poetic essay that Heathcote wrote in 1978: “Of These Seeds Becoming”. The
editor, R. Baird Shuman, comments: “This essay is drastically different from anything
that she has thus far produced. It is the product of a great deal of hard and penetrating
thought about drama as a learning medium. [/] Although the Heathcote essay has a
strong theoretical framework, it details specific, practical strategies for using drama as a
system of teaching” (Shuman 1978:xii). Agreeing with that, I must add that I have
included parts of this poetic essay because it is not widely known in Heathcote criticism,
and because it contains a Brechtian quality in idea and form, although no such allusion to
Brecht is expressed by Heathcote.
265 “Brecht frequently estranges a represented phenomenon through analogy”/”Brecht
‘verfremdet’ oft eine dargestellte Erscheinung durch Analogie” (Fradkin 1977:324).

134
analogy of an imagined prisoner-of-war camp to examine the values and
attitudes of real inmates in a real remand centre for young offenders. The way I
see it, Heathcote in this session demonstrates uses of estrangement, in form
(analogy and teacher-in-role), language (realistic, yet stylized), imagined scenery
and props (and no costumes), and injection of a reflective stimulus. Reflection,
which is at the heart of all Heathcote’s work, is normally both “built into the
experience” (op.cit.:17) and realized in stop-drama-time, which involves a
“standing back from the action to review present conceptualizations” (Heathcote
1984i:203). Both types of reflection are distancing strategies and are
recognized, for instance, in Brecht’s Lehrstück model.
• Depiction. “The whole school’s curriculum is founded on the idea that
depictions are respectable. Drama is also a depiction; of living in social
situations” (Heathcote 1984g:127).
Depiction is another strange making Heathcotian term that immediately activates
in my mind a wondering abut what this conception amounts to in her work. In
making the statement that depicting is a respectable activity in education,
reminding the reader that “all the curriculum of schools is based upon
depictions” (ibid.), Heathcote puts drama in line with depictions like writing,
literature, maps, drawing, geometry, etc. In doing so there is, of course, an
intention to legitimize drama as “serious business” (ibid.). But more interesting
for the present context is the point she makes that depictions are representations,
not the actual thing or event (ibid.), and that depiction in drama must represent
“messages of meaning used in real living”266 (op.cit.:131). When asserting that
“[d]rama depicts life” (op.cit:128), Heathcote is not expressing a Romantic
vision about dramatic representation as a feeling and experiencing activity. She
is concerned that in working with dramatic representations of living in social
situations, one must select and examine. The context for such examination
means to create “another room” (op.cit.:129), which is “the no-penalty area of
dramatization” (op.cit.:131). In the protective context of the dramatic fiction
“constructs of reality” in dramatic form(s) are “available for examination by the
spectator which exists in each participant” (op.cit.:130). In this last sentence
there is a reference to what Heathcote in other texts has termed ‘the self-
spectator’, which I shall return to in the second enabling category below.
It belongs to Heathcote’s view of dramatic depiction that if it is used for
exploration, scrutiny and learning, it must be realized in synchronic, co-existent

266 I am aware that in the term ‘representation’ a potentially much bigger discussion is
inscribed, related, for instance, to the Aristotelian concept of mimesis, the main acting
traditions in the history of the theatre, or new forms and aesthetics in the tradition of the
postdramatic theatre. The focus and scope of the study does not allow for such
excursions; but I can refer to Ackroyd’s analysis of ‘representation’ in process drama
and acting in teacher-in-role, for a discussion of terms like ‘representation’ and
‘presentation’ (Ackroyd 2004:59). See also Bolton’s distinctions of ‘describing’ and
‘becoming’ in the light of such a discussion (Heathcote and Bolton 1995:188).

135
time, and not in diachronic, (hi)story oriented time. This means a devaluation of
story-drama and a prioritizing of episodic drama:
There is a tendency for people to think that the materials of drama will be
stories, because they seem like events in which people will have to act. Stories
suggest diachronic time, and seem to follow in a logical way, so teachers are
lured into a false situation by stories. Let you be warned! Learning through
drama demands synchronic time; the web of interaction within the frame of a
selected environment and event (ibid.).
The epic theatre of Brecht contains a similar logic, but with a different
theoretical underpinning. Heathcote seems with respect to diachrony versus
synchrony to be influenced by linguistics and semiotics rather than literary
theory; and there is no reference to Brecht in the text. Still, there is a very
Brechtian streak in her assertion that “stories must be broken into episodes and
each episode made to yield the learning experience the teacher requires”
(op.cit.:131). The episodic structure breaks up the temptation to be absorbed in a
story line. The episodes need not follow a linear development one after the other,
but each one carries its own importance and interest. Just like Brecht’s
commentator, the teacher in a Heathcote drama can interact with the material as
well as with the participants – and the action can be interrupted, interrogated,
discussed.
If depiction so far has been conceived of as a metaphor for the drama per se, it is
also used by Heathcote to denote smaller units within the drama, for instance
tableau, freeze frame, portrait, effigy or waxworks. These are all “slow down
time” conventions devised to “enable classes to get a grip on decisions and their
own thinking about matters. They all function as ‘other’, but in relation to
people” (Heathcote 1984h:166)267. What this means is that each type of
convention functions as a Verfremdungseffekt. It demonstrates and represents, it
breaks the action, it serves as an object for discussion, it functions as ‘this way,
but another way is also possible’, it invites interrogation, and symbolizes ‘what
was’ but also ‘what is’ and ‘what may become’. I have already imparted
impressions of effigy from the Ozymandias Saga, an example of convention
used as noticeable procreation. Another example which follows below is how
convention used as a slow down time device can illustrate layers of:
detachment/empathy, reflection/criticism, experience/protection. The example is
from a drama Heathcote developed with a class of American school children in
1975, based on the Watergate scandal:
Critical thought of true kind—where balance can prevail—
is hard when strong prejudice is present
and strong feelings are aroused.
To create the one remove, and reflective element in the

267Conventions are also presented and discussed in Heathcote and Bolton (1995:157,
163, 179ff.).

136
 action,
I suggested a wax museum to inform all future American
children
of the facts and evidence of the time.
And somewhat of the emotions abroad just then.
Watergate is complex at the best of times.
Sorting and arranging of figures—the watching teachers—
allowed time for seeing that under each event lies much
torment.
The rational ordering of the pattern of events
led to some consideration of the feeling of each event
(Heathcote 1978:24).
The protective fiction is usefully expressed as ‘the one remove’, a term that
makes sense in relation to the distance continuum discussed in section B.1.iii.
In closing this part, I should mention a final relevant aspect. In my article
“Looking at Elements of Distancing in the Work of Dorothy Heathcote – with a
sidelong Glance to Brecht”, I discuss Heathcote conventions in relation to
Brecht’s concept of Gestus (Eriksson 2007b:235ff). I shall not repeat the
argument here; just reiterate my contention that both convention and Gestus can
be considered as estrangement devices, sharing several central characteristics of
distancing.
To sum up: the headline of this part was ‘enabling the ordinary to become
fabulous’, inspired by a category of distance creation/apostasiopoisis created by
Hesten (1994:175-176). Even though Hesten’s wording of the category is not a
totally appropriate description of what estrangement in the
Brechtian/Shklovskian sense amounts to, where making strange entails
surprising people into seeing new truths in the familiar order of things, the
intention in Hesten’s phrasing is comparable to that of Brecht and Shklovsky. I
have tried to demonstrate and exemplify in this part that the same intention
applies to very central poetic and didactic elements in Heathcote’s theory and
practise. This intention is essentially underlined in Heathcote’s reflection that a
reason why dramatic work is undervalued in schools is “because in the present
age the conventionally acceptable view of situations seems more stable and less
disturbing” (Heathcote 1984g:127). It is this element of disturbance that is
needed to promote change and that element is found in art: “Art experiences
insist upon a restructuring of ordinary perceptions of reality so that we end by
seeing the world instead of numbly recognizing it” (ibid.). That is a truly
Shklovskian statement268.

268In fact, Heathcote’s formulation here is directly influenced by Shklovsky, whom she
quotes in a preceding paragraph. I shall briefly return to this reference in E2.

137
 ii. Enabling the social event to be seen from a new angle
The other main enabling category inspired by Hesten’s observations of qualities
in distance creation – or apostasiopoisis – is seeing “from a new angle and at a
distance” (Hesten 1994:176). However, even if Hesten connects the aspect of
shifting perspective to the Verfremdungseffekt (ibid.), she also treats this aspect
under the separate headings frame (op.cit.:167) and frame distance (op.cit.:173).
Zannetou-Papacosta discusses frame distance, too, but distancing as a poetic
device is not a topic in her research269. Frame and frame distance are dimensions
deserving a more specific research focus than can be accommodated in this
study. Moreover, the theme of distancing becomes within the theory and practise
of framing less focussed as a particular phenomenon. Nevertheless, because
aspects of distancing do seem inherently present in Heathcote’s frame theory, a
discussion of distancing within the second enabling category is relevant for the
study. Furthermore, it seems appropriate to discuss Heathcote’s concept of the
self-spectator within this category.
A useful starting point to overview the main function of the category: to see the
social event from a new angle, is to build on Hesten’s idea of optical metaphors.
Optical objects like “prism, lens, mirror” (op.cit.:163ff.) can refract and reflect
“a spectrum of new perspectives/vistas” (ibid.), containing an epistemological
and theatrical orientation (op.cit.:167). The prism/lens/mirror metaphor is used
by Fradkin, Brecht and Bolton to purvey the potentials of distancing employed
in dramatic work to provoke new understanding:
[…] when the object, estranged by the prism of “Verfremdung”, has reached
our consciousness, it becomes […] really familiar and comprehensible”
(Fradkin 1977:138)
If art reflects life it does so with special mirrors (Brecht 2001k:204).
For seeing it anew, the spotlight must be beamed through a prism and the
consequent refraction throws up new meanings (Bolton in Heathcote and Bolton
1995:189).
Frame can also be an optical metaphor with some of the same properties as
mirror and prism, for instance when used as lens. In addition, frame can hold a
portrait or a view; it can select, focus, and show different angles of the same
object. It can also be a containing structure. The etymological roots of the term

269 Distancing is not registered as a specific element in any of Zannetou-Papacosta’s

core categories of Heathcote’s system: the ‘structural elements’ (op.cit.:75ff.), the ‘key
features’ (op.cit.:223ff.), or the ‘enabling skills’ (op.cit.:241). The exception is in
relation to the structural element role, where distancing appears in the form of ‘role
perspective’/ ‘frame distance’ (op.cit.:189-198) in relation to the key feature protection
(op.cit.:228-230), and to a degree in relation to the enabling skill ‘demonstrator’
(op.cit.:253-257). In the latter, the term distance or distancing is not mentioned. For
Zannetou-Papacosta, distancing is first and foremost a protection device. As pointed out
earlier, this she has in common with many other writers in process drama criticism
including Heathcote herself. See B.1.ii and Appendix 1.

138
are the Old Norse frame: ‘furtherance, advancement’, Old English fram:
‘forward’ and its cognate verb form in Old English fręmman: ‘to further,
execute, perform. From the roots other meanings have developed, for instance:
‘to furnish or adorn’, ‘to direct one’s thoughts to a certain purpose’, ‘to make or
construct’, ‘to devise, contrive, invent, fabricate’, ‘to set in a frame’, or ‘to
concoct a false charge or accusation against’ – consequently ‘framing’: ‘that
serves like a frame’, exhibits the same connotations as above270. Heggstad, in an
article on framing in Theatre-in-Education work, also observes the temporality
aspect inscribed in the etymology of the term: “Frame is something moveable –
a process in transformation” (Heggstad 2008:91). That is a useful observation in
the context of process drama, where the idea of changing the perspective from
where a social event is seen, is central271.

• Frame
Heathcote acknowledges Goffman as the source of her frame/framing theory:
“Erving Goffman says it ‘is that arrangement which transforms an individual
into a performer; the latter, in turn, being an object that can be looked at in the
round and at length without offence, and looked to for engaging behaviour, by
persons in an audience role’” (Heathcote 1984g:130)272. Hesten, in turn,

270 All the references are from Oxford English Dictionary, [WWW document], Oxford
University Press (downloaded April 10th, 2009).
271 The conception of frame and framing has been employed in films in some similar
ways as will be discussed in the next paragraphs. An illustrative example is Peter
Greenaway’s film The Draughtsman (1982). The director is using frame as both a
filming device – pertaining to artistic choices of the film’s composition and structuring, a
drawing device - pertaining to the content and story of the film, and a tension device –
pertaining to the film’s action and plot. The film is about seeing and knowing. The
draughtsman is, scene by scene and action by action, being 'framed'. The subject matter
of the film, to frame somebody, i.e. to put them up as a victim of a conspiracy of some
description, is also relative to the way in which the film itself is very self-consciously
framed, by which the form and the content is brought closely together. Another example
is Akira Kurosawa’s film Rashomon (1950). The film narrates the story of a rape
through four differing witnesses’ accounts, thus adopting distancing devices like
perspective shifts, frame distance, flashback, and flashback within a flashback.
272 This Goffman citation should be noted. It may well be the source of Heathcote’s
frequently expressed concern that participants in drama need to be protected from the
burden of being stared at, before any serious work can take place, and that it is the
collective building of belief in, and acceptance of, the dramatic fiction that constitutes
the no-penalty zone for that work’s realization. Heathcote does not in this context
reference the exact Goffman source. However, I have discovered that Bolton has made
the same observation regarding Heathcote’s ‘permission to stare’. In doing so, he
actually uses the same Goffman quotation cited by Heathcote above, although without
making the connection to Heathcote’s use of it (Bolton 1998:281-282, note 24). Bolton
confirms that the main source for Heathcote’s frame/framing theory is Goffman,
“particularly his Frame Analysis” (op.cit.:192). Furthermore, in Heathcote’s article about
the Ozymandias Saga, there is another reference to frame and framing, and the cited
source here is in fact: “Goffman, Frame Analysis […]. Pub. Peregrine Books, 1975”

139
appreciating Heathcote’s “prismatic structure” (Hesten 1994:167)273, and
building on her analysis of Heathcote’s uses of framing, presents the following
definition of frame/framing:
Frame represents the context, the perpetual vanishing point of the drama. It
represents the point of view from which the devised situation is to be viewed.
Framing is the angle of perspective which is superimposed on the social event
and every frame both limits and opens up possibilities for learning (op.cit.:167).
The quotation shows that frame in Heathcote’s work is regarded as a synonym
for the dramatic context274 and thus as a representation of the boundary, i.e. the
vanishing point, of the dramatic fiction. By implication, frame constitutes the
borderline between being in or out of fiction or being in or out of role. The
demarcation of these two states of being is distancing - in the sense of the term
that I discuss in the enclosed article on awareness of fiction (Eriksson 2007a).
The ‘perpetual vanishing point of the drama’ evokes associations to the distance
continuum discussed in section B.1.iii, and the difficult area of blurred limits, or
distance, between being ‘another’ and ‘oneself’. This latter aspect, from the
perspective of teacher-in-role, is aptly described by Heathcote:
The teacher [is] frequently engaged in hopping deftly, sliding elliptically.
Switching abruptly, or even bestriding the two worlds of fiction and reality. It
may be just a matter of seconds that a role is held and then dropped – and then
assumed again (Heathcote and Bolton 1995:30).
It does not mean, though, that the frame is constantly being dissolved. The
chosen angle of perspective can still be upheld even when a movement along the
distance continuum – or complete breaks with it – are taking place. The
switching seems to affect neither the motivation nor the belief: “It is […]
something of a paradox that the in-role usage breeds a healthy teacher/student
relationship, whereas out of-role talk and actions foreshadow the adventure and
power of the drama. Both are essential” (ibid.). The underlying premise of
working within a given frame is that the “students are not to be characters in the
psychological sense that a playwright and an audience would expect, but rather
as a collective, CHARACTERizing expertise, a group of people committed to a
world view of responsibility” (op.cit.:28)275.

(Heathcote and Hovda 1980a:8). Heathcote repeats the same source in her article “From
the particular to the universal” (Heathcote 1984f:104). The fact that O’Toole points to an
additional connection pertaining to frame theory, namely Gregory Bateson, will not be
pursued here (O’Toole 1992:25,109).
273 See also Heathcote and Bolton (1995:112). Here, the term used is “prismatic
illumination”.
274 In fact, Heathcote has defined drama as “a special frame. This frame is called theatre.
Theatre is life depicted in a no-penalty zone” (Heathcote 1984g:130).
275 The above quotations are taken from the drama form Heathcote refers to as the
Mantle of the Expert Approach to Education (Heathcote and Bolton 1995). See also my
enclosed article on Heathcote and Brecht (Eriksson 2007b). The principles described in
the quotations are not, however, irrelevant to her other work.

140
I see some clear parallels to Brecht in such descriptions, particularly the working
parameters reminiscent of the epic theatre style, such as episodic structure,
distanced style of acting, and commitment to investigating a cause276. However,
I also see some decisive differences between Heathcote’s process drama and
Brecht’s Lehrstück: for instance, that there is a much stronger element of
improvisation in Heathcote’s work, and by implication less text orientation, and
most importantly the collective role element. It is the collective role that the
students acquire within the frame that is its characterizing feature277. Heathcote
defines frame as “the perspective from which people are coming to enter the
event” (Heathcote 1984h:163). This will always be a perspective the participants
are aware of, otherwise they will not be able “to think from inside the
responsibility of a situation” (Heathcote and Hovda 1980a:9). It is not possible
to accomplish the required reflection within this kind of drama frame without
distancing being operative.

• Frame distance
Frame distance involves taking the optical idea of a new angle one step further,
recognizing the possibility of looking at an object from various distances:
“[Frame distance] represents the distance the participant-observer is from
viewing the angle of perspective superimposed on the social event” (Hesten
1994:173). Hesten uses the legend of Robin Hood as an illustration of how
frame distance may work:
For example, in a drama about Robin Hood, the child might be framed as a
Robin Hood forester, or slightly more distantly, as a Nottinghamshire citizen
living under the sheriff’s rule. A different time perspective could be created by
framing the child as a twentieth century historian or a film maker researching
Robin Hood (op.cit.:173-174).
From Heathcote’s own practice a famous example of using frame distance is the
Biblical story of the Good Samaritan. It is recorded and discussed in the video
“Framing Different Points of View” (Heathcote and Draper 1991:tape 8 in the
series Making Drama Work), produced by the University of Newcastle. The
example contains nine points of view, frames, each representing a degree of
distance to the event. The example has been written up and presented on the
website Teachers’ Forum (British Council Poland). I include it here as a concrete
exemplary reference:

276See my enclosed article on process drama and Lehrstück (Eriksson 2006).

277However, by comparison to Brecht, it might be said that, for instance, the control
chorus in Brecht’s The Measures Taken is a type of collective role operating in frame.

141
 1. Participant: students enact the whole story or particular episodes.

2. Guide: events are related by an eye-witness. Students are shepherds who saw
the mugging and the teacher is a wife asking them why they came home so late.

3. Agent: students are asked to re-live events or explain them. In a modern TV

programme about courage a crippled businessman (the teacher-in-role) explains
how he had been mugged by robbers 20 years before and how a teenager with a
Mohican hairstyle saved his life. Students are actors who attempt to recreate the
events according to the businessman’s description.

4. Authority: reconstructing events from the position of power. The results of

such a reconstruction are important, e.g. the law can be changed. Students as
High Priests of the Temple want to know who tells bad stories about priests and
Levites who didn’t help though they should. High Priests summon witnesses.

5. Recorder: reconstructing facts. Students help the teacher (in the role of a
Roman Consul stationed in Jerusalem) to write a report to Rome about the
incident. Students have to find out background information about ordinary life
of the Romans.

6. Press: providing a biased commentary on the event. For some reason, the
incident is considered important enough to focus on. Students scrutinize the
style of three different British newspapers (The Independent, Daily Mirror and
The Guardian) and then try to put the Good Samaritan story into the style of
one of these newspapers.

7. Researcher: students are Consultants hired by the Good Samaritan Hospice*

to produce a logo, a brochure, and a TV programme about the hospice. *A
hospice is where the terminally ill who would otherwise be in hospital are
looked after in the short period before their death.

8. Critic: students are asked to compare the event with other events. An
example is not given.

9. Artist: expressing the story in an artistic form. Students are asked to design
stained-glass windows for the Good Samaritan Inn at the end of the Channel
Tunnel.

http://elt.britcoun.org.pl/elt/forum/tctd.htm (downloaded April 14th,

2009).

142
In a diagram originated in 1980, Heathcote has made the following illustration of
these 9 role perspectives (Heathcote 1990:53):

Figure 2

In principle, the strategy is little different from the well-known device in literary
theory of ‘shifting point of view’. O’Toole puts the observation a little more
cautiously: “This metaphor of framing is not unconnected with the concept
familiar in literary theory of ‘narrative viewpoint’” (O’Toole 1992:109). The
difference exists in the concrete action levels that the drama mode sets in

143
motion. Another way of explaining the model is to express it through a first
person singular task perspective, for instance:
o participant (I am in the event)
o commentator (I am telling you what happened)
o guide (I was there and I am recalling it for you)
o investigator (I have the official authority to find out what happened)
o recorder (I am recording the event for all times)
o critic (I critique or interpret the event as an event)
o artist (I change the form of the event and remake it)
(cf. Heathcote and Bolton 1999:64).
Other such role/task possibilities mentioned by Heathcote are “designers,
historians, observers, enquirers, explorers, storytellers, onlookers, inventors,
reporters, witnesses, summarisers, editors, directors, commentators, writers of
memoirs” (ibid.). Obviously, within each frame the chosen role will have a
status, a style of language, certain accessories or materials pertinent to the role
and probably a communication hierarchy – and each frame will imply a different
kind of responsibility - the task - but confined to what is a logical behaviour or
culture within the given frame. Thus, frame distance involves two distancing
dimensions: a) “distance from the actual event”, and/or b) a role distance
“authority in connection with the event” (op.cit.:65). The first dimension creates
a spatial/temporal distance. The second dimension creates gradations of
detachment/empathy in relation to role. Detachment in role execution, as
opposed to deep belief in character, is activated via the given responsibility the
framing requires. In both dimensions there is a protection element strengthened
by the collectivistic nature of the framing. However, as pointed out by O’Toole,
the use of role distance implies in itself “a protective function for the
audience/participants” (O’Toole 1992:112). Carroll makes the same point: “The
Dramatic Frame acts as a border separating the images and events inside the
frame from those outside. [/] It is the ‘as if’ device which provides the dramatic
role protection which enables students to enter the drama” (Carroll 1986:5).
It is tempting to relate the various frame distances to my distance continuum in
B.1.iii. It means that the different detachment qualities within the spectrum of
frames may be understood as degrees of distancing moving along the distance
continuum, with the participant frame as an example moving towards
underdistancing and the artist frame as an example moving towards
overdistancing. Such a view, that there is a progressive distance between each
frame, seems to be in accordance with Zannetou-Papacosta: “The frames
[represent] in the order they have been set out, successfully a greater distancing
from the event” (Zannetou-Papacosta 2002:196). Furthermore, it is in
concordance with Carroll’s view on frame distance: “The less naturalistic the
drama is, the more obvious the dramatic frame becomes”, and “[s]tudents often

144
feel more protected and work with more conviction if they are framed at some
distance from the naturalistic form. The role distance is often too close and
blurred with their real world to sustain belief” (Carroll 1986:5). In a Bulloughian
sense, the loss of belief in the drama frame owing to a blurring of the enacted
event with a real life situation would be a result of underdistancing.
This may appear less abstract when seen in relation to versions of Heathcote’s
original illustration presented above. In the following, three adaptations of
Heathcote’s nine frame distances, or role perspectives, or role distances, are
presented:
1. Zannetou-Papacosta’s diagram “Role perspective” (Zannetou-Papacosta
2002:197), Figure 3.
2. Carroll’s diagram “Role-distance” (Carroll 1986:6 and O’Toole
1992:110), Figure 4.
3. Carroll et. al.’s diagram “The Performance Laptop” of role distance and
role protection (Carroll et.al. 2006:131), Figure 5.
All three figures are essentially the same in theory and content.

145
 Guide

Recorder

Researcher

Artist

I have inserted four textboxes in the diagram to improve the print clarity.

Figure 3

146
Figure 4

147
Figure 5

In Zannetou-Papacosta’s illustration (figure 3) the frame distances are called role

perspectives: “Role perspective is the distance of the child or the teacher through
the adoption of role in order to promote understanding of it and to seek for
meaningful in human experience” (op.cit.:189). The epistemological potential
inscribed in the frame is in place in Zannetou-Papacosta’s definition, but in
general it is the idea of perspective shift more than the possible effect of
distancing that concerns Zannetou-Papacosta the most. Neither distancing nor
making strange are themes in their own right in Zannetou-Papacosta’s research,
except in connection with her role perspective chart, which is an original
contribution. Here, Zannetou-Papacosta usefully defines each one of the nine
frames and identifies exemplary uses of them within her empirical material for
the research278. Zannetou-Papacosta’s diagram falls in line with the other
attempts to visualize frame distance. One important dimension in her chart is,
however, different: The diagram has a pyramid-like shape, indicating that even if
the actual event to be studied would normally in education be seen as the
meaning making centre, degrees of distancing from it paradoxically engender a
widening of possible meanings inscribed in the event. The base of the pyramid
symbolizes this meaning making expansion: “Though familiarity with the

278Zannetou-Papacosta exemplifies mainly from the following two series of video tapes:
Mr. Wallbank’s Story from 1994 (Zannetou-Papacosta 2002:A47-A53) and the Mary
Morgan Cross Curricular Primary Drama from 1991 (op.cit.:A59-A63). Both series
stem from the UCE/BCU-archive in Birmingham. Zannetou-Papacosta mainly uses
Heathcote’s work in Birmingham schools. It is beyond the scope of my study to expound
Zannetou-Papacosta’s role perspective examples.

148
moment of an event becomes successively less with each frame, paradoxically
understanding of meaning, through distance becomes greater” (op.cit.:196)279.
Carroll’s chart (figure 4) was first published in an article in The NADIE Journal
(March 1986, Vol. 10, No.2:6), then later reproduced in O’Toole (1992:110)
with a simplified addition underneath, “devised for use in schools” (op.cit.:109).
O’Toole claims that the first diagram is “derived jointly by Heathcote and her
collaborator Dr John Carroll” (ibid.)280. A particular feature of this diagram is
the incorporation of role conventions in the chart. There is a direct reference to
Heathcote’s slow down time conventions from the essay “Signs and Portents”
(Heathcote 1984h:166-167) discussed above in relation to distortion. Carroll’s
view supports my contention that the poetic use of distancing, as I indicated in
the previous paragraph in relation to role, is just as relevant in framing as the
protection element that is so commonly stressed in process drama criticism281.
Carroll asserts that “[a]ll varieties of role distance is equally dramatic. […] The
dramatic enactment of role taking occurs whatever type of role distance is used”
(Carroll 1986:5). If this is actually the case, which I am prone to agree with,
greater variations in uses of estrangement effects can productively be introduced
in framing. Employing conventions more deliberately as Verfremdungseffekte,
i.e. as poetic devices in a Brechtian sense, may productively enhance the
epistemological effects of role distancing. O’Toole, in underlining the point that
“[p]ercipients constantly oscillate between the fictional context, the context of
the medium and the context of the setting” (O’Toole 1992:114) may have in
mind both the estrangement potential and the episodic structure in process drama
when asserting that “drama in education is a very Brechtian medium” (ibid.).

279 Another observation that Zannetou-Papacosta makes here is that each frame employs
its own representational form and thus “different ways of learning: some are inductive,
some deductive; some analytic and some synthetic” (Zannetou-Papacosta 2002:196).
Interesting as it may be to investigate that further, it cannot be done in the present study.
280 I have asked Carroll about the origin of the chart: “Dorothy and I refined this concept
when I was in Newcastle doing my Grad Dip/Masters (around 1979-80). I would always
give the credit to evolving the concept to Dorothy. She and I developed different
versions of it around the same time. It was also part of our collaboration when we used
versions of role distance in the different teaching techniques in ‘The Treatment of Dr
Lister’" (“Carroll-letter” 2009). With regard to the Dr. Lister drama, I can add that
Carroll has published a booklet accompanying the video (Carroll 1980).
281 It is neither my meaning nor my intention to disagree with the significance of
protection. I just want to underline the importance of seeing the poetic potentials in
distancing, i.e. that the conventions are seen as both artistic means of expression and
meaning making devices. For the record, Carroll, too, is very concerned with underlining
the protection element. But he does include both dimensions within his concept of frame:
convention is seen as “theatrical form” and protection as “role distance” (Carroll
1986:5). In his latest frame model, called “the performance frame”, convention is
described as “role form”, whilst protection is still “role distance” (Carroll et. al.
2006:131).

149
Carroll’s latest version of the frame distance diagram (figure 5) was first
published in the article “Playing the Game, Role Distance and Digital
Performance” in The Applied Theatre Researcher (No. 6, 2005, Article No.
11:6)282, co-written with David Cameron. In this context the frame distance
diagram is used in a comparison between process drama and video games. A
year later the article became part of a chapter in the publication Real Players?
Drama, technology and education (2006), with Michael Anderson as additional
co-writer. The “dramatic frame” from 1986 has now become “the performance
frame” (Carroll, Anderson and Cameron 2006:131), which the authors see fit to
be used “for both video games and process drama” (ibid.). Within the
performance frame model the protection element of role distance “allows the
adoption of a new identity within the penalty-free area of the dramatic frame”
(ibid.). The conventions, here called “role forms”, are presented as creative form
elements to enable “non-naturalistic ways of presenting material and adapting
roles within the performance frame” (ibid.). This shift towards creative playing
with forms, likely a result of the mediation of the frame distance model, may
indicate a step back regarding conventions applied as meaning making devices,
even if the authors acknowledge the importance of such an orientation in process
drama:
Within process drama, this [the creative forms] covers a range of positions
including attitudinal role283, signed role and character performance, as well as
more abstract forms such as effigy, portrait, statue and narrative voice (ibid.).
There are seeds of an important pedagogic discussion of the conventions
approach embedded in the above, but it cannot be taken up in any detail in the
present context. It is worth mentioning, though, that Davis has launched strong
criticism of “the conventions approach”. This now widespread approach in the
UK has resulted in drama work, according to Davis, that “focuses on
performance and is skills-based”, leaving out the “complex ‘living through’
drama” associated with Heathcote’s pioneering work (Davis 2005:165)284.

282 [WWW document]:

http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/54945/playing-game.pdf
(downloaded April 14th, 2009).
283 This is a concept coined by Carroll: “The concept I would claim as my original
contribution to naming is ‘attitudinal role’. This is one of the most simple forms of role.
It only requires the participant to talk ‘as if ‘ they are the character. It is indicated by a
shift in voice tone and lexical choice but does not require any other form of signing.[/]
Many teachers when working in role in classrooms by themselves use this technique to
build belief” (“Carroll-letter” 2009). See also an additional comment to Attitudinal Role
further below in the paragraph.
284
Heathcote’s ‘living through’ drama is central to her foundational theory and practice.
More visibly than in her later developments like the Mantle of the Expert Approach,
Rolling Role and the Commission Model, ‘living through’ drama is concerned with the
so-called ‘man-in-a-mess’ orientation, in which there is widespread use of teacher-in-
role and a primary intention to re-examine with the students “fundamentally held values
by which they lived” (Davis 2005:167). The interest and the focus of the present study

150
In the 1986 context Carroll makes the point that “[o]nce you have the frame, you
can keep swopping the pictures around until you have the one that suits your
purpose” (Carroll 1986:5). Twenty years later he says: “The Role Distance
chosen is always variable, and the player can toggle between levels of
involvement in a video game through changes of camera perspective” (Carroll
et. al. 2006:133). One should be careful to draw comparisons too far, but it
seems to me that this corresponds with the epic theatre techniques episode and
fragment, reminding of Brecht’s formulation in one of the appendices to the
Short Organum:
The story does not just correspond to an incident from men’s life together as it
might actually have taken place, but is composed of episodes rearranged so as
to allow the story-teller’s ideas about men’s life to find expression (Brecht
2001l:278, §64).
If story is aligned with event/game and story-teller with player, also the next two
lines from Brecht make an interesting parallel to what happens in dramatic
frame:
In the same way the characters are not simply portraits of living people, but are
rearranged and formed in accordance with ideas (ibid.)285.

has ‘living through’ drama as its main reference, and finds the connections to Brecht
most visibly present there. It has not been possible within the focus of the study to
conduct an analysis of the genre variations in Heathcote’s work. But the notion of ‘living
through’ was briefly discussed in my article on Heathcote and Brecht (Eriksson
2007b:237-238). It is my contention that ‘living through’ drama has often been
misconstrued in Heathcote criticism to mean something synonymous with Bolton’s
“existential” dramatic playing mode (Bolton 1992:17). This misconception, which I
think may already stem from Bolton’s first book (1979:158), seems to arise from a
failure to see ‘living through’ akin to a demonstrative, representational acting tradition,
reminiscent of Brecht. Admittedly, the term ‘living through’ is misleading, because it
emits an impression of an essentially expressive kind of drama that it is not. Heathcote
seems to have first used it to describe the ancient Greek audience’s experience of, and
education by, their national myths (Heathcote 1967:30; 1984b:83). My own
understanding of Heathcote’s ‘living through’ drama is that its main concern is to deal
with essentially human matters significant to the people involved in it, like what
Aristotle would call “serious” action (Aristotle 1987:7) and along the lines of
Kaufmann’s view of dramatic representation in the ancient theatre: that “[the poet]
reflects on what might happen and thus rises to the contemplation of universals”
(Kaufmann 1992:42). Rather than experiencing something intensely in the now, ‘living
through’ means understanding through re-experiencing something already known. In
fact, in the article Heathcote presents a conception of drama for social understanding
which gives associations to Brecht’s famous “The Street Scene” (Brecht 2001g:121-
128), when she says: “We all dramatize after the event, / [t]he near accident, the
operation, the embarrassing or frightening situation. / [A]nd in the retelling we
embroider, we fill in detail which perhaps in reality was not there, but fits the story. /We
tell it with anticipation, we almost act it” (Heathcote 1984b:82).
285 “Die Fabel entspricht nicht einfach einem Ablauf aus dem Zusammenleben der
Menschen, wie er sich in der Wirklichkeit abgespielt haben könnte, sondern es sind
zurechtgemachte Vorgänge, in denen die Ideen des Fabelerfinders über das

151
Like Zannetou-Papacosta, Carroll agrees that a role position closest to the event
is most vulnerable, i.e. is in “the most emotionally exposed position” (Carroll
et.al. 2006:133). This position is referred to as Full Role – First Person in the
chart. The position with the most distance to the action is called Attitudinal Role
– Operation of Character, requiring only “the agreement of the player to take on
an attitude of a character in the drama” (ibid.)286. Then he has a position “closer
to the action”, where the player can take on a Signed Role – Central Character
function287. The signing implies use of “costume, name, career path or some
other attribute” (ibid.). Also in agreement with Zannetou-Papacosta, Carroll
notes that often participants “work with more conviction if they are framed at
some distance from the moment of real-time enactment” (op.cit.:134). Here is
again an observation that creates associations with Brecht. Distancing creates
another kind of engagement with the dramatic event than empathy. The question
remains, however, as to whether the practical application of distancing in a video
game context necessarily facilitates a critical seeing anew, for instance from a
social reconstruction perspective. In this sense, Davis’ criticism of the
conventions approach may have some relevance to the mediated conventions
approach, too. There is likely little disagreement in the field that “[p]rocess
drama’s appeal in the educational setting is its ability to provide a protected
means of experiencing and curriculum learning from an experiential position”
(Carroll et. al. 2006:139). But it may be an issue how much of this dynamic in
the medium will be engendered as a critical counter-power in education. Carroll
et.al. have picked up on uses of distancing and framing from a tradition of drama
pedagogy and educational theatre, aiming at contributing to “the developing
forms of digital ‘interactive drama’” (op.cit.:138). From the perspective of the
estrangement tradition, it can be discussed to what extent its critical perspective
is being kept visible in drama education today. Carroll et. al. are aware that “the
ability to manipulate or ‘edit’ identity is a concept already assimilated into the
digital world-view of many young learners” (op.cit.:139). They are concerned
that the potential for experiencing and learning through dramatic media will be
continually discussed, advocating particularly the significance of incorporating
“artistic notions of role distance and role protection in their development”
(ibid.). Paying more attention to the artistic may importantly enhance the
meaning making potency of process drama. In respect to what impulses from
Brecht are still viable, it should be pointed out that distancing in the

Zusammenleben der Menschen zum Ausdruck kommen. So sind die Figuren nicht
einfach Abbilder lebender Leute, sondern zurechtgemacht und nach Ideen geformt“
(Brecht 1999d:628).
286 Brecht, too, puts a focus on attitude in his Lehrstück model (Eriksson 2007b:235).
Vaβen claims that to reproduce attitudes in the Lehrstück-practice “means producing
own attitudes as well” (Vaβen 1987:2).
287 This function seems to be an equivalent to Heathcote’s teacher-in-role version,
sometimes referred to as person-in-role (Wagner 1979:134). See also Ackroyd
(2004:51).

152
estrangement tradition of Shklovsky and Brecht has mostly been artistic, only
secondarily pedagogic.
• The self-spectator. “I can’t agree more that distancing matters – it is the
factor which births the self-spectator and therefore the artist is then
summoned!” (“Heathcote-letter” 09.02.2005).
Carroll is one of the first to analyse Heathcote’s notion of the self-spectator and
to attempt seeing it in relation to Brecht’s estrangement. In an unpublished paper
from 1978 Carroll relates that in educational drama pupils are expected to be
able “to reflect on their own involvement in the ongoing situation”, i.e. to
become “spectators of their own actions as they are occurring within the drama”
(Carroll 1978:1). One could say that Carroll here expresses an early parallel to
Boal’s later idea of the spect-actor, described by O’Neill as: “The double stance
of the participant-observer, […] recognized in educational drama by Bolton’s
term percipient” (O’Neill 1995:125)288. Raising the question as to whether
“drama in education [can] develop into an area where ‘author, players and
audience’ are one?”, Carroll explores the theme of his paper “Alienation and the
role of the spectator in drama in education” (1978), by drawing on Brecht,
Heathcote, James Britton, Goffman, and others. In this paper Carroll argues
convincingly that “the spectator becomes the evaluator that is awakened within
the participant during the activity” (op.cit.:9). Using the term “duality of
viewpoint”, i.e. the ability of the students to operate “simultaneously, in their
roles as spectators of the drama as well as participants in it”, Carroll shows that
the students are capable of both “evaluating their experiences and drawing
conclusions from them as they happen” (op.cit.:17). A similar understanding of
self-spectatorship is noted by Muir (1996), who interprets the term to mean “that
a participant in the drama is simultaneously making things happen and is aware
of how they are making things happen” (Muir 1996:40). Both Carroll and Muir
find a parallel with Brecht in this kind of dual perception, articulated by Muir as
a combination of “involvement and detachment”, exposing “why things are
happening” and why there is a “possibility that they could be different” (ibid.). I
agree with this observed parallel to distancing in Brecht, that he advises his
actors “to show how a character behaves while retaining a critical relationship to
the character” (ibid.). I have registered, however, that more often than not in the
process drama literature the idea of a dual perception is not understood as a
Brechtian estranged play behaviour but valued as the special kind of heightened
perception that Boal has coined metaxis289.

288 O’Neill discusses the relevance of Boal’s term in relation to process drama and
distancing, including Heathcote’s work (1995:119-120, 125, 128). There is no need to
discuss Boal’s concept here, beyond noting the similarity to being an actor-participant
and an audience-participant in process drama. “The spect-actor does not remain merely
an extra nor an additional protagonist, but becomes an amalgam of playwright,
participant, and adjudicator” (O’Neill 1995:120).
289 See, for instance, Eriksson (2007b:20, note 26) or Eriksson (2007a:15). A critique of
Boal’s metaxis-concept has been carried out by Allern (2002:77-85).

153
Heathcote often uses the expression “awakening the self-spectator” (Heathcote
and Bolton 1995:18, 55, 106). It indicates that there is a strong cognitive element
involved in the concept – in fact, Bolton refers to it as “the spectator in the head”
(op.cit.:120). This reflective element needs to be alerted and not clouded in
empathy, as Brecht might have called it. Alerting takes place as (1) “pressure
from the fiction: ‘our work is always subject to examination’”, (2) “pressure
from setting one’s own standards”, i.e. self-monitoring, and 3) “enjoying
watching oneself creating fiction” (Heathcote and Bolton 1995:120-121). The
significance of distancing in relation to the self-spectator concept is rarely
expressed as explicitly as in Heathcote’s note to the present author above, but
clearly it is a condition: “The fiction must never become true for the participants
in the real-life sense, but it must be truthful – the spectator in the head guards
against confusion” (op.cit.:121). Again, an association with Brecht is arguable.

2. Influence from Shklovsky and Brecht – and other

proponents of estrangement
Throughout the study, associations and references have been made to similarities
observed between practices of making strange in the history of literature and
theatre, and Heathcote’s work. The motivation has been an interest in identifying
inspirations in Heathcote from the work of Shklovsky and Brecht and other
executants of estrangement. In the following, some such references will be
recalled and an attempt will be made to discover more examples of influence on
Heathcote from such contributions. In this process the composite dimensions in
Heathcote’s work, pertaining to aspects of distancing, need to be kept in mind.
It has been demonstrated that Heathcote’s theory and practice clearly involves
strategies of making strange in order to facilitate new awareness and
understanding of the social world. It was evidenced through Heathcote’s poetic
uses of estrangement effects, particularly her frequent applications of poetic
distortion, her regular use of a rhetorical device like analogy, and her recurrent
employment of non-naturalistic conventions, or depictions. All these are
distancing devices akin to the long tradition of making strange known from the
Romantics, from Shklovsky and from Brecht. It has also been demonstrated that
Heathcote’s didactic strategy of using perspective shifts and focus variations
through framing offers a supplementary way of estranging the familiar to
explore the social world. It was noted that the framing strategy involves a
particular protected incentive for investigation, drawing on a theory of
distancing associated with awareness of fiction, which activates another aspect
of distancing than the Verfremdungseffekt from Brecht, namely the possibility to
operate on a distancing continuum, although still retaining possibilities of
applying poetic estrangement devices.
This complexity in Heathcote’s work makes it difficult to place her within
specific traditions, and at times she seems to operate across traditions. The
theoretical orientations that inspire Heathcote, for example Goffman’s frame

154
theory, are not relevant in relation to Shklovsky and Brecht; and the need to
establish a penalty-free zone at “one remove from actuality” to explore the social
world (Heathcote and Bolton 1995:24) is not an expressed necessity in Brecht’s
educational theatre. As to concrete references to Shklovsky and Brecht, or other
predecessors relevant to the theme of distancing, only very few are found in
Heathcote’s production. Some must be inferred indirectly, from interpretations
of her writings and her practice. To an extent this has been done in some of the
articles. This chapter continues this work in some more depth.
In the chapter on the tradition of making strange in Romanticism, B.3.iii,
Coleridge’s famous definition of what forms an aesthetic response: “that willing
suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith”
(Coleridge 1817:ch XIV:145) was called to mind. In the present context it is of
interest to recall Coleridge’s project of making a break with ‘the lethargy of
custom’, and that it entails a transformative intent. For Coleridge, the
empowering ingredient is imagination, and imagination is activated in the
process of suspending disbelief. In a similar way, Heathcote uses the notion of
“a willing suspension of disbelief” as a central ingredient in her well-known
definition of drama from the 1971-article “Subject or System?” (Heathcote
1984a:61). The willing suspension of disbelief is seen as one of the “natural laws
of the medium” (ibid.). In fact, Heathcote draws on this law already in her article
from 1967, “Improvisation” (Heathcote 1967:29), and then again in 1973 in
“Drama as Challenge” (Heathcote 1984b:82). It is Heathcote’s way of
underlining the importance of being aware of the fiction, or as she also puts it:
“to win belief in the big lie, the Art Form, the agreement to pretend” (Heathcote
1984j:208). So she uses Coleridge’s idiom to explain that for drama to take place
a distance must be created to the real. This is the aesthetic distance that Bullough
speaks about, only in Heathcote the basic underlying stipulation is “to learn from
the events” (op.cit.:83), which is also what Brecht speaks about290. Thus, it is
tempting, at least indirectly, to relate Coleridge’s project of challenging apathy
and listlessness by making the familiar strange, to a similar interest in Heathcote:

290 Admittedly, the notion of suspending disbelief is a difficult one, because it can also
be interpreted as something escapist or fanciful. For instance, in the same paragraph that
the present citation comes from, Heathcote talks about waiting “for the story of the play
to take control of our imaginations” (Heathcote 1984b:83), and of “sharing the emotions
conjured up by the author” (ibid.). This kind of idiom creates ambiguity and uncertainty
as to where Heathcote belongs, say in relation to a dramatic or to an epic tradition.
Similarly, as already mentioned, the concept of ‘living through’ can easily be interpreted
as an essentially cathartic or existentialistic dimension. However, seen in connection
with Heathcote’s main tenets expounded in the study at large, that drama is about
learning and understanding man in social situations, and that ‘living through’ is
essentially about seeing the familiar anew, to make a re-acquaintance with it from a new
perspective (ibid.), it seems clear to me that Heathcote first and foremost has a
foundational epistemological interest similar to Brecht’s, and that she frequently
employs similar strategies.

155
her commitment to revitalize education291. It is also tempting to call attention to
Heathcote’s inspiration in Shelley, as demonstrated in her drama “The
Ozymandias Saga” above. She is not distinctly using theoretical aspects in
Shelley, but she is applying Shelley’s poem in various estranging ways. Thus,
some select impulses from Romanticism can be said to have found response in
Heathcote. That does not make her a drama pedagogue of the Romantic
tradition, though. She is a long way away from the drama pedagogical tradition
associated with free creative expression and personal development, as illustrated
in Brian Way’s development circle (Way 1967:13). The development model is
concerned with fostering individual growth, freedom, originality, and creativity.
“It argues the right of the child to self-activity, with limited interference in the
educational process by the teacher” (Eriksson 2009:[pro tem unpublished]).
Heathcote’s stance is of a different kind. She belongs more in a Socratic
dialogue model tradition. (See B.3.ii). In a drama education context this is a
model primarily concerned with exploring new knowledge, with an orientation
more to the matter than to the person.
As far as I can ascertain, Heathcote has only one direct reference to Shklovsky,
but a significant one. In the article “Material for significance” from 1980,
Heathcote strikes out against conventional schooling with its dominant dummy-
run orientation:
What I’m trying to do here is to shake the reader out of the conventional view
of the curriculum, by using the principle of ‘ostranenie’ defined by Viktor
Shklovsky as being ‘that of making strange’. We very readily cease to ‘see’ the
world we live in and become anaesthetized to its distinctive features. The arts
permit us ‘to reverse that process and to creatively deform the usual, the
normal, and so to inculcate a new, childlike, non-jaded vision in us’”
(Heathcote 1984g:127).
It is interesting to note that not only is Shklovsky cited as a source of inspiration
but also his vital making strange idea ostranenie is highlighted. Furthermore, the
significant notion of de-habitualization is clearly expressed, and poetic distortion
is put forward as a suitable device for creating a new, fresh vision. These are all
dimensions already exemplified and discussed in this chapter. Making strange in
Heathcote’s work with references to Shklovsky and Brecht is also discussed in
my article “Distancing at Close Range” (Eriksson 2008b). Bolton seems to have
only a faint interest in the quality of making strange as a potentially significant
element in Heathcote’s theory and practice. In a brief mention of the Shklovsky
reference cited above, he implies that it is not central to Heathcote’s work:
Very occasionally, she has fallen into an academic trap of inserting a quotation
that is not going anywhere. For instance she tells us in one article that she is

291 Again, when asked directly if she has read Coleridge on making strange, Heathcote
expresses uncertainty, although finding the information about his using this conception
highly interesting (“Heathcote Interview” 2008:4). In the interview Heathcote
immediately acknowledges the reference to Coleridge’s “the willing suspension of
disbelief” as one of her applied notions (ibid.).

156
 ‘…using the principle of ostranenie defined by Viktor Shklovsky as being that
of making strange’ – but ostranenie never appears again” (Bolton 2003:139).
This seems a not very accurate observation. Even if Bolton is right that
Shklovsky’s term ostranenie is not in regular use by Heathcote, I have
demonstrated in this study that making strange is indeed a very significant
dimension in Heathcote’s work. Admittedly, as already mentioned, her source
referencing is limited, so the estrangement dimensions must be identified in her
practice. That is the case with Heathcote’s impulses, or likenesses, to Brecht as
well.
It is already a fairly well established impression in Heathcote criticism that an
affinity exists between Heathcote and Brecht. The first to notice this likeness is
Fiala, in his article "An artistic affinity. Notes on Dorothy Heathcote's and
Bertolt Brecht's Modes of Work", from 1977. Fiala sees Heathcote “as a ‘Brecht’
of education” (Bolton 2003:148), thus making it clear that he regards her drama
work as belonging to a different tradition than the current development drama of
the mid-1970s. Fiala places, for instance, the Stanislavsky-method of creating a
character, the working for empathy and the audience orientation in this tradition
as something alien to Heathcote:
Dorothy Heathcote is not primarily after illusion, nor empathy culminating in
catharsis nor a psychologically justified realism of presentation. Her mode of
working leads to emphasis on the rational and reflective aspects of drama so
that what is observed as an event, can be assessed and an objective conclusion
reached” (Fiala 1977:29).
‘Audience’ is of secondary importance. The participants (including the teacher)
are the role-takers and audience at the same time (op.cit.:30).
Fiala also makes the point, which I have touched on in footnotes above in
relation to Heathcote’s ‘living-through’ approach, that ‘living through’ drama is
not a form meant for engaging participants in deeply emotional experiences. On
the contrary, the form is meant to balance “emotional engagement and
detachment” (Bolton 1998:218)292, so that the participants do not lose
themselves uncritically in the experience. Fiala makes it clear that in this form
the participant “assumes an attitude and ‘lives through’ the problem, (not the
character), in order to reflect upon it” (ibid.). As referenced earlier in the study,
and in my article on Heathcote and Brecht (Eriksson 2007b:235), the attitude
element is also vital in Brecht’s theory of learning in Lehrstück: “Central to
Lehrstück are not characters but attitudes” (Steinweg 2005:61)293.

292 See Bolton’s self-critical re-assessment of his presentation of ‘living through’ drama
(Bolton 1998:217ff). In my opinion, Bolton and many other Heathcote supporters may
have underestimated the detachment element inscribed in this Heathcotian form.
293 “Im Zentrum des Lehrstücks stehen nicht Gestalten, sondern Haltungen“(Steinweg
2005:61). In a chapter entitled “Am Nervpunkt: Arbeit an Haltungen”, Steinweg
discusses attitude in Lehrstück work in relation to gesture and Gestus, awareness, and
behaviour (op.cit.:61-73).

157
Heathcote’s direct references to Brecht are few. The most obvious ones stem
from her cooperation project with Fiala in “Preparing Teachers to Use Drama:
The Caucasian Chalk Circle” (1980b). I shall not follow that path here. Muir
(1996) has already based much of his analysis of Brechtian knowledge and form
in Heathcote on that project. I shall, therefore, direct my attention further below
to Fiala’s reflections on the Heathcote/Brecht affinity via his article from 1977.
In Heathcote’s own articles I have found only one reference to Brecht, in “From
the particular to the universal”, from 1980. Heathcote writes: “It is the nature of
my teaching to create reflective elements within the existence of reality. Brecht
calls this ‘visiting another room’” (Heathcote 1984f:104). Heathcote ascertains
that this is the room of the ‘as if’ world, in which exploration of life actions can
be realized, protected by the dramatic fiction. The room contains:

1. The freedom to experiment without the burden of future repercussions.

2. The absence of the ‘chance element’ of real life.
(ibid.).
Having no difficulty in accepting the protection argument in this quotation, it is
less easy to locate a direct connection to a Brecht-formulation about visiting
another room. Heathcote employs the alleged Brechtian metaphor of the other
room first in connection with Goffman’s frame theory, the idea that “we move
from being a participant in, to a spectator of, an event” (op.cit.:105). Perspective
shifts enabled by the concept of the other room “allow us to see […] the ‘degree
of selectivity’ which different occasions require of us” (op.cit.:106). Then she
brings up, in connection with Goffman’s concept of role, the conception that
different occasions require different roles. Heathcote’s concern is how to deal
with the different roles the leader of a drama education session is confronted
with: is the teacher “functioning as a director, as a playwright or as a
counsellor?” (op.cit.:108). Without giving an answer, she turns to Brecht, by
quoting the first half of his poem “The Playwright’s Song” 294, in which Brecht
expresses the playwright’s choice to show “how humanity is traded” (ibid.). That
can be interpreted as a choice available to the drama teacher as well. The other
room metaphor is used in the fifth line:
I am a playwright. I show
What I have seen. In the man markets
I have seen how men are traded. That

294 In Heathcote’s article the poem is untitled. But in an article by Nicholas Wright, in
which he criticizes Heathcote’s concept of the universal, it is revealed that the poem is
“The Playwright’s Song”. Brecht wrote it in1935. The complete version is printed in
Willett and Manheim (1976:257-258). Wright’s brief analysis of the poem is useful for
the context: “It describes the social conditions of life in a certain country at a certain
time, and it does so from a Marxist point of view. Men’s lives are traded like
commodities; people who can’t be bribed are brutally attacked; people’s most basic
functions – eating, making love – are tainted with greed and violence. It is the poet’s job
to expose these things” (Wright 1980:100-101).

158
 I show, I, the playwright.
How they step into each other’s rooms with schemes
Or rubber truncheons, or with cash
How they stand in the streets and wait
How they lay traps for one another
Full of hope
(Heathcote 1984f:108; Brecht in Willett and Manheim 1976:257-258).
I do not find the metaphor of visiting another room to be very clear in the
context; neither do I find any references in Brecht’s writings to this as a
theoretical concept. Heathcote’s intention must be sought in her accompanying
comments to Brecht’s poem. The visitor to the other room seems to be “the
spectator in me, the sociologist who perceives the manifestations of people and
their concerns” (Heathcote 1984f:108). This is an aspect of distancing, but with
a stance of cool detachment. Distancing as defamiliarizing the familiar is more
estrangingly expressed, by both Brecht and in Heathcote’s interpretative
commentary, in the following sequence:

But the snowstorms have hats on.
The earthquakes have money in their
wallet,
The mountains came in a conveyance
And the headlong rivers control the
police.
That I reveal
(Brecht in Willett and Manheim
1976:258)295.
The artist/teacher translates and transforms
easily from the seeming ordinary to the new
view
– the awesomeness of a new look, a new
outer form for a universal inner meaning.
(Heathcote 1984f:109).

Here, Brecht makes use of rhetorical estrangement (see Eriksson 2008b), using
the device of personification296, and Heathcote is quite clearly operating within
an estrangement paradigm, flagging the facilitation of a new view as the
teacher/artist’s ultimate aim. The social theme of studying people and their
concerns, which is manifest in Brecht’s work as a playwright, is also discernable
in Heathcote’s work as a drama teacher/ playwright/director/counsellor.

295 I have cited these lines as they are printed in Willett and Manheim. In the version
printed in Heathcote’s article the 3rd line goes: “The mountains have arrived by motor”
(Heathcote 1984f:109). The fifth line is omitted in this latter version.
296 Greek prosopopiía; Latin prosopopeia = ’person creation‘ (Eide 2004:116). See also
Muir (1996:42).

159
In my article “Distancing at Close Range” (2008b) I impart a direct reference to
Brecht from Heathcote’s parable work in Teaching Political Awareness through
Drama. Here, Heathcote professes to use “a Brechtian style (i.e. a
demonstration) drama exposition of the Minamata mercury poison problem”
(Eriksson 2008b:4; Heathcote 1981:4). Also, I have located Heathcote
referencing Brecht in three different interview contexts. The first is from an
interview with Hesten in 1983:
I am constantly looking for those Brechtian ways of alienating the children from
having to express emotion and creating instead the circumstances in which they
may share and understand what might be an emotional feeling. […] [T]he act of
making the circumstances in which appreciation and understanding of emotion
can be brought about is fundamental, I believe, to the teacher’s task. This
means, therefore, that basically speaking, I am always choosing a frame of
reference from which the children will operate - that brings them close to the
emotion, rather than to live through it (Hesten 1994:178).
What I find particularly interesting in this quotation is that Heathcote
unequivocally argues from the basis of Brecht’s Verfremdung that emotional
involvement must be kept in check, but not dissolved, in order to learn from the
social circumstance exposed by the dramatic event. In an interview conducted by
myself in 1994, Heathcote expresses this idea in a similar way and adds to it the
possibilities she sees in Brecht for historification and for protection:
I didn't believe that children should be asked to go through all the high skill
element of acting. And the Brechtian element removes all that to free them to
penetrate the meaning. So all this - like setting it back in time, setting it forward
in time - all protect people by deliberately using the Brechtian, if we want to
call it that. Certainly he's the playwright I think of when I think of it happening
with actors. By removing from them the need to be skilful, in the expressive
mode, you leave them free to penetrate extremely deeply (“Heathcote and
Bolton Interview” 1994:2).
The statement about skills-reduction in the expressive mode sparks an
association to Brecht’s assertion about skills-demands for acting in Lehrstück:
“The aesthetic standards for character performance in the stage plays should be
disregarded in the learning-plays”297 (Brecht 1963i:78) (my translation).Then, in
a more recent interview from 2008, Heathcote confirms that she is acquainted
with Brecht’s basic model for the epic theatre, “The Street Scene” (“Heathcote
Interview” 2008:9). Here, she confirms that her own basic requirement for
drama behaviour of “not acting it, [but] demonstrating it”, is a kind of
distancing, similar to what Brecht talks about in “The Street Scene” (op.cit.:8-9).
Thus, having demonstrated that Heathcote acknowledges connections to Brecht,
even if she has “never read him” or seen “a real Brechtian production”298

297 “Ästhetische Maßstäbe für die Gestaltung von Personen, die für die Schaustücke
gelten, sind beim Lehrstück außer Funktion gesetzt“ (Brecht 1963i:78).
298 In 1994 I asked Heathcote a direct question pertaining to her background in Brecht:
“Is it true, Dorothy, that you have said that you didn't know Brecht? Was that before or

160
(Hornbrook 1989:17), I shall return to Fiala’s analysis of Heathcote’s affinity to
Brecht.
I have discussed Fiala’s main inputs to understanding Heathcote’s affinity to
Brecht in the article on Heathcote and Brecht (Eriksson 2007b). In the same
article I have referenced other authors concerned with this theme, for instance
Carroll (1978) and Muir (1996). As a conclusion of the present section, Fiala’s
many references to Brechtian dimensions in Heathcote’s work will serve as a
form of inventory which will also summarize the bulk of Brechtian – and
Shklovskian299 – elements that I have identified and commented on in the study
at large. The inventory is cited completely from Fiala’s 1977-article and includes
the following entries: “distortion of viewpoint” (Fiala 1977:30), “re-living or
representation of living” (op.cit.:31), “the ordinary lifted into awe” (ibid.),
demonstration of “how the world works, to the end that the world may be
changed” (ibid.), “absence of ‘acting’ in the traditional sense, […] action is
demonstrated or indicated so that it [can] be reflected upon and an opinion […]
formed” (ibid.), demonstration regarded as “reconstruction and does not pretend
to be the actual event” (ibid.), demonstration exhibiting “a ‘socially practical
significance’ and a definite didactic intention” (ibid.), “the demonstrator must
not transform himself fully into the person demonstrated”300 (ibid.), “to make
the simple and ordinary , suddenly, extraordinary”301 (ibid.), “direct change from
representation to commentary” (op.cit.:32), “the use of narration” (ibid.),
“episodic quality” (ibid.), “historification […] and analogy” (ibid.) – the latter
two named as “protection devices” (ibid.). Finally, yet another dimension must
be mentioned that sometimes creates confusion, regarding whether Heathcote’s
approach is essentially epic theatre orientated or if it belongs fundamentally to a
dramatic orientation302. In several articles Heathcote makes a reference to the
ancient Greek theatre, invoking the Aristotelian terms catharsis and anagnorisis:
These things I have come to realize—
that all my teaching life, whether planning to teach,
or teaching, I have sought to marry closely two things in
closest fashion.
The catharsis and anagnorisis of the Greek naming:
The experience possible in any learning journey

after the Fiala [cooperation]? Dorothy: I knew his plays. And I just instinctively knew
that's what you do. I didn't know any of his exercises (laughs), I came upon them later”
(“Heathcote and Bolton Interview” 1994:4).
299 Some of the dimensions that will be presented here are relevant to a Shklovskian
paradigm as well, but Fiala does not reference Shklovsky.
300 This is what it means when Heathcote talks about ‘stepping into someone else’s
shoes’ (Fiala 1977:31).
301 In Heathcote’s idiom this would be ‘shocking the participants into a new awareness
in order to make the implicit explicit through reflection and shared communication’
(Fiala 1977: 31-32).
302 See Allern’s article on Bolton’s and Heathcote’s dramaturgies (Allern 2008:321-
335).

161
 and the reflection upon that experience at the very moment
or as close to it as possible.
All my teaching lures, strategies and skills seek this marriage
(Heathcote 1978:10).
In Heathcote’s concept of drama education catharsis denotes the experiencing,
whilst anagnorisis denotes the understanding of it. These are the two main
pressures Heathcote employs in her teaching. Fiala perceives in Heathcote’s
work
a similarity between this didactic, artistic intention and the 5th C. Greek concept
of drama as a balance between affective (emotional) elements leading to
catharsis and the cognitive elements leading to anagnorisis (recognition through
reflection) (Fiala 1977:32).
At first glance this may seem to be non-concurrent with the affinity to Brecht
that I have attempted to establish in this section. But even if Brecht is known for
his anti-Aristotelian poetics, it does not mean that he was blind to seeing
possibilities even in the paragons of the ancient Greek theatre (Mittenzwei
1984:253). In my article “Using fabula, syuzhet, forma as Tools of Analysis in
Drama Pedagogy”, I observe that Brecht, when it serves his purpose, employs a
similar combination of Aristotelian empathy and recognition as detected by Fiala
in Heathcote above (Eriksson 2006:65, footnote 7). Correspondingly, although
from an opposite alignment, Hesten recognizes a Brechtian practice in
Heathcote’s reference to the ancient idea of anagnorisis: “Heathcote created
anagnorisis through apostasiopoisis” (Hesten 1994:178). Similarly, Bolton
acknowledges a Brechtian feature in Heathcote’s combination of experiencing
and reflecting: “Indeed, in the way she now persists in working for detachment,
she has been likened to Bertolt Brecht in the theatre” (Bolton 1984:142). Fiala,
who is the source that Bolton has in mind here, concludes: “Dorothy Heathcote
through her art brings this balance into her teaching just as Bertolt Brecht
brought it into his theatre” (Fiala 1977:32).

3. Politics
One of the conclusions in Muir’s analysis of Heathcote versus Brecht is that,
although “both Brecht and Heathcote’s views of knowledge are radical” (Muir
1996:37), they do not share the same political ideology: “Brecht’s conception of
knowledge is Materialist and dynamic (dialectical materialism) – and he speaks
of class struggle and theatre which tries not just to represent (interpret) but to
change the world” (ibid.). Brecht’s stance is manifestly steeped in ideology.
Mittenzwei makes it unequivocally clear that Brecht’s creation cannot be
properly understood detached from his base in historical-dialectical Materialism:
“To regard Brecht’s literature uncoupled from his world view and his artistic

162
method means denying the ground from where it grew”303 (Mittenzwei
1984:253) (my translation).
Heathcote’s stance is not to be politically labelled or drawn into party politics:
I am not into party politics. […] I don’t understand politics, I am just using
common sense, that in the long run you have to be able to do the social good, if
you can, to as many as you can. And help those you can’t do the good for
(“Heathcote Interview” 2005a:9).
The statement demonstrates, though, the presence of a social commitment in
Heathcote’s work, which has been a recurring theme throughout the chapter and
in other parts of the study. One could say that whilst Brecht interrogates social
issues in Lehrstück with young people or workers outside the context of the
school, Heathcote interrogates social issues in the classroom with children.
However, her ideological stance is of a different kind than Brecht’s. Her
background is clearly working class, coming from a worker’s community and
having worked in the mills in Yorkshire from a young age. But apart from the
social themes often present in her dramas, I have found no references in her
writings to Marxist theory, neither have I found any such references in
Heathcote criticism. On the other hand, there are references to Freire, who is a
Marxist Humanist and one of the most influential theorists of critical pedagogy
(Hesten 1994:15, 65, 110-111, 120-121; Zannetou-Papacosta 2002:25;
Heathcote 1990:33-34, 45-47, 50, 59), and to Erich Fromm, another Marxist
Humanist, concerned with the growing alienation between individuals in a
technological society and proponent of a humanistic socialism. Lawrence asserts
that Fromm is “one of Dorothy Heathcote’s favourite authors” (1996:3), and
Lawrence sees Heathcote’s educational view to be “profoundly humanistic”
(op.cit.:4), a stance, however, that he also ascribes to Brecht. Lawrence
characterizes Heathcote’s humanism as a commitment to help release a “genuine
empowerment of human beings via a developing sense of enactive
responsibility” (op.cit.:2). For Lawrence, this represents an “unambiguous
political dimension” (op.cit.:4). For Bolton, who is often wary of using political
idiom as reference, Heathcote’s endeavour is seen more in ethical terms, at least
when viewed from the perspective of the enterprise model of the Mantle of the
Expert approach:
This is more than a matter of taste: For Dorothy this is a moral choice. She
wants our children to have a fulfilling experience, however briefly, of creating a
fictional society that cooperates, takes responsibilities, sets high standards of

303 “Brecht’s Dichtung losgelöst von seiner Weltanschauung und seiner künstlerischen
Methode betrachten heiβt den Boden leugnen, auf dem sie wuchs“ (Mittenzwei
1984:253). However, Mittenzwei acknowledges the historical antecedents of
estrangement (ibid. and 241-242) and thus, by implication, that distancing devices can be
used poetically and didactically in less political contexts than the ones campaigned for
by Brecht (op.cit.:255-257). My historical exploration of the estrangement concept in the
preceding chapters of the study demonstrates this, and that Brecht himself was well
aware that he was not the inventor of the Verfremdungseffekt.

163
 achievement, brings out the best in everyone through committed endeavour.
The enterprise world within a world offers them a vision of the possible (Bolton
in Heathcote and Bolton 1995:170.
Perhaps it is interpretations like that, where Heathcote’s position is
conceptualized as a primarily humanistic or didactic endeavour, which leads
critics of Heathcote’s work to overlook the social purpose inscribed in her work.
For instance, Hornbook, an ardent critic of her work in the mid-1980s, sees
Heathcote’s contribution to the drama education field as essentially infused by
subjective response theory, and that the “subjective response, however
‘authentic’, is entirely random, as likely to lead us to the trenches, or to Dachau,
as it is to the Oxfam collection tin” (Hornbrook 1985:10)304. Hornbrook finds
Heathcote’s approach apolitical:
When Heathcote uses a drama about a refuse collectors’ strike as ‘an effective
tool for gaining insight into the patterns and tensions of community life’,
complex political and moral statements become muffled in the simple
humanising message of tolerance and reconciliation” (Hornbrook 1989:73).
However, there is no evidence in the literature and the videos examined in the
study that Heathcote’s drama work is centred on releasing subjective individual
feelings, like in the Romantic model of developmental drama. Neither does it
seem concerned with passing on given truths or specified knowledge, as in the
“traditional, mediating forms of pedagogy” (Allern 2008:324)305. It is nearly
always about something real that needs to be understood, faced, negotiated,
acted on or changed – even if the enactment happens within a fictional context.
In examining Heathcote and Bolton’s Drama for Learning (1995), Lawrence
accentuates change as an important parallel between Brecht’s work in Lehrstück
and The Mantle of the Expert Approach. He cites Brecht’s characterization of

304 An interesting parallel to Hornbrook’s denigration of Heathcote’s work seems to be

Kate Katafiasz’ criticism of Brecht’s Verfremdungseffekt, which, inspired by a citation
of Edward Bond, she provocatively formulates in the short and apt wording that
“alienation is the ‘Theatre of Auschwitz’” (Katafiasz 2005:25). In the present context
neither of these assertions can be followed up.
305 Allern claims that Heathcote operates within different dramaturgical models,
sometimes within a classical Aristotelian one, which leads her to a concern with
‘universals’ associated with an essentialist knowledge paradigm, and other times within
an epic dramaturgy, “where topics are presented and examined by emphasizing contrasts
and contradictions, with the intention of contributing to change” (Allern 2008:324). My
study clearly indicates that Heathcote belongs more in the latter: the critical and epic
tradition associated with Brecht, than in a traditional Aristotelian or an expressive
Romantic paradigm. This is not the right context for challenging Allern’s analyses of
Heathcote. It must suffice to suggest that by trying to analyze Heathcote’s work from
within a closed framework of epistemological and dramaturgical models, with a limited
space for looking at concretely employed devices, structures and themes in context,
Allern runs the risk of missing the empowering and socially transformative effects that
has, for instance, been revealed in this study by looking at Heathcote’s work from the
perspective of uses of distancing.

164
the learning-play from text “The German Drama: pre Hitler”: “The learning-play
is essentially dynamic; its task is to show the world as it changes, and also how it
may be changed”306 (Brecht in Lawrence 1996:7). At the same time, Lawrence
calls attention to the respect for the individual within the collective that he
observes both in Brecht’s and in Heathcote’s didactic dramas (ibid.).
Sympathizing with Lawrence’s contention, I find the quotations below
noteworthy. The first is by Brecht, developing his characterization of the
learning-play from above a little further:
The latter theatre [the learning-play307] holds that the audience is a collection of
individuals, capable of thinking and reasoning, of making judgements even in
the theatre; it treats it as individuals of mental and emotional maturity, and
believes it wishes to be so regarded (Brecht 2001b:79).
The second is by Heathcote, characterizing central aspects of The Mantle of the
Expert drama:
I consider the mantle of the expert work becomes deep social (and sometimes
personal) play because (a) students know they are contracting into fiction, (b)
they understand the power they have within the fiction to direct, decide, and
function, (c) the “spectator” in them must be awakened so that they perceive
and enjoy the world of action and responsibility even as they function in it, and
(d) they grow in expertise through the amazing range of conventions that must
be harnessed” (Heathcote in Heathcote and Bolton 1995:18).
Even when keeping in mind that these quotations lie 60 years apart in time,
culture, circumstance, and political developments, I find it possible – and
reasonable within the context of the present study – to regard these
considerations as being similar in aims and philosophy. Interestingly, Benjamin
makes an observation that also puts the theme of experts in a comparative
perspective: “His [Brecht’s] effort to make the audience interested in the theatre
as experts – not at all for cultural reasons – is an expression of his political
purpose” (Benjamin 1998b:16)308. The theme of political purpose, however, is
hardly comparable in Brecht and Heathcote, even though Lawrence, from his
understanding of Heathcote’s work, and Brecht’s, contends that both have
“similar, transformative, ‘revolutionary implications’” (op.cit.:7). Muir makes
the point that where class analysis underpins Brecht’s view of knowledge
acquisition and dissemination, no equivalent references are found in Heathcote’s
writings; so he refers to the differences in politics between Brecht and Heathcote
as one of degrees:

306See also Willett 2001b:79.

307 In this context: seen in opposition to the Aristotelian play.
308 I am indebted to Lawrence for making me aware of Benjamin’s comment. In
checking the references, I found that Brecht’s educational ambition to interest the masses
in theatre as experts is brought up by Benjamin twice, and that in his first version of
“What is Epic Theatre?” he also cites Brecht’s own enthusiasm about the idea: “In this
way we could very soon have a theatre full of experts, as we have sports stadiums full of
experts” (Benjamin 1998a:4).

165
 The difference is significant in that it points up how for Brecht Politics, with a
capital ‘P’ and knowledge overlap, whereas for Heathcote, knowledge may be
political, with a small ‘p’ but there is no overt ideological alignment” (Muir
1996:38).
In Heathcote’s Teaching Political Awareness through Drama309, which is the
object of analysis in my article “Distancing at Close Range (Eriksson 2008b),
politics is a discrete theme pervading all the sequences and permeating all the
choices made by the participants. However, it belongs to Heathcote’s politics to
come close to the theme obliquely, i.e. distanced: “That seems to me to be the
very nub of politics: Who, by culture, allows that person to say ‘I choose this
way’” (“Heathcote Interview” 2005b:4). In the political awareness drama
Heathcote wants the children “to think politics” (op.cit.:13), rather than being
taught about it. She enrols the children in various frame distances, representing
different perspectives from where to experience, consider and reflect on what
political power amounts to. This involves distancing, both in relation to politics
as a term, and in structuring of frames and episodes, within which a wide range
of estrangement devices are employed (Eriksson2008b).
To conclude, it is not possible to align Heathcote with one clear political or
philosophical paradigm. I have already cited Socrates’ dialogue pedagogy as one
source model for Heathcote, and in relation to drama teaching paradigms I place
her within the so-called Dialogue Model (Eriksson 2009:[pro tem
unpublished])310. Lawrence regards Heathcote to be “socially revolutionary”
(“Lawrence-letter” 27.01. 2006). Muir launches “a whole new beginning” as an
emblem for Heathcote’s praxis (Muir 1996:1). Berry characterizes Heathcote as
“a postmodern, poststructuralist, and postcolonial thinker” (Berry 2000:xiii).
Bolton points out that Heathcote favours a more “anthropological than
sociological acting behaviour” (Bolton 1998:196). Bolton also asserts that
“[l]eading left-wing figures in the theatre and drama education […] remained
devotees of her work, although kinship with their political stance is not
something she ever acknowledged” (Bolton 2003:141). Granting the fact that
Bolton knows Heathcote’s work better than most, his voice carries weight. Still,
even if Bolton’s opinion is right, that cannot diminish its legitimate usefulness

309 For the record, this Heathcote drama is also used by Muir in his analysis, alongside
the work she did with Fiala on Brecht’s The Caucasian Chalk Circle, discussed in
Heathcote and Fiala 1980b. See Muir 1996:28-35, 44-45. Limiting my focus to the
theme of distancing, I primarily use the latter source as a point of reference in my study.
It should be very clear, though, that the analyses jointly made by Fiala and Heathcote,
convincingly demonstrate that: “The pattern of Dorothy Heathcote’s approach has a
distinct likeness to the way Brecht worked in theatre” (Heathcote and Fiala 1980b:41).
This contention is well circumstantiated through the accounts and commentaries
presented in the article.
310 In a keynote address at the World Congress for drama/theatre and education, IDEA
2007, in Hong Kong, I related drama education practices to four model paradigms: The
Transmission Model, the Development Model, the Dialogue Model, and the Critical
Model. I placed Brecht in the Critical Model (Eriksson 2009).

166
for political purpose, particularly so when drama/theatre practitioners have
found significant political potency in Heathcote’s work311. As far as my study
shows, this potency is evidenced in the tradition of both Shklovsky and Brecht.
It is a tradition that can be summarized as endorsement for change, a concept
that Heathcote has broadly formulated for the field of drama education in the
following manner:
In drama the form has to include the possibility of change. Change must be seen
to happen. […] Now there are all […] kinds of changes and there’s also the
interaction of forces, whether they are forces of man against man, or man
against nature, or elements of nature against other elements” (Heathcote
1976:9).
She could also have put in man against the gods, which, according to Morgan
and Saxton belongs to her declaration that “drama is about ‘real man in a mess’”
(Morgan and Saxton 1987:182) – the latter being in itself a potentially political
statement.

4. Summary
In the introductory part to this chapter, Zannetou-Papacosta’s reflections on ‘the
real’, inside and outside the dramatic fiction, served as a basis for seeing
distancing both as a generic aesthetic factor defining the borderline between
fiction and non-fiction, and distancing as a poetic and didactic device for
instigating estrangement. Protection was discussed as a dominant distance
conception in drama education literature; its prime function seeming to be a pre-
requisite for entering the dramatic fiction, i.e. to serve as a safety net for
exploration in drama at one-remove from the real world.
In presenting Heathcote’s biographical and academic background, the
observation was made that the concept of estrangement is not a term widely
associated with Heathcote’s work and that the term distance is only specifically
used in her work in connection with frame theory. It was necessary, therefore, to
approach the available source materials with a particular keen eye for locating

311 For the record, Heathcote has worked with several of the so-called political left TIE
companies. In a letter, Hesten informed me that “DH worked with Warwick Dobson and
the TIE group from The Duke’s Playhouse, Lancaster. One of the projects was
performed at Helmshore Mill in Rossendale, Lancashire and had a strong political angle”
(“Hesten-letter” 2006). Hesten also suggests that the SCYPT archive at Leeds University
Library, Bretton Hall College, might include TIE work with DH (ibid.). Also, in relation
to Bolton’s remark cited above, I should like to add here that Bolton’s own theory and
practice may have preferences more in a classic, traditionalist paradigm than in a
Brechtian one. Bolton’s position is not a particular focus of my study, but Brecht does
not figure as a dominant reference in Bolton’s work. Furthermore, there is evidence in
Heathcote/Bolton criticism that differences exist in their work. See, for instance,
Lawrence (1996), Allern (2003 and 2008) and Davis (2005).

167
uses of distancing devices, even if such a denomination was not normally used
in relation to Heathcote’s theory and practice.
Two doctoral theses served as important background sources: Hesten (1994) and
Zannetou-Papacosta (2002). To my knowledge, these are the two most
comprehensive recent studies of Heathcote’s work. Other contributors to
Heathcote research, notably Bolton (1998, 2003), supplemented these authors,
whilst Fiala (1977), Carroll (1978, 1986) and Muir (1996) were used as
references in relation to the focus on distancing in a Brechtian sense. However,
the main sources throughout the chapter were Heathcote’s own writings.
In E.1 a new term for estrangement was introduced: apostasiopoisis, meaning
distance creation in Greek. The main reason for this was that apostasiopoisis was
given a key-word function in Hesten (1994), which I then could extend to
comprise all the various forms of distancing I was able to identify in that
context. A subsidiary reason was the idea of using three different language
conceptions of distancing: ostranenie, Verfremdung, apostasiopoisis, thus
creating a linguistic theme line, each representing a certain version of poetic
distancing.
Distancing was discussed in relation to two broad distance enabling categories:
(1) Enabling the ordinary to become fabulous, and (2) enabling the social event
to be seen from a new angle. Within the first category I identified and discussed
devices like ‘noticeable procreation’, ‘unusual role’, ‘poetic distortion’, ‘old
familiar matter in new form’/’estranging the prejudice’, ‘analogy’, and
‘depiction’ – including conventions work and forms, i.e. various ways of
‘slowing down drama time’ for enabling reflection. Within the second category
the conceptions ‘frame’ and ‘frame distance’, viewed as optical metaphors
enabling seeing from different angles or perspectives, were discussed. The
discussion involved the notion of frame as a demarcation conception for ‘role’ or
‘fiction’, and that frame is essentially regarded as the perspective from where a
situation is explored. Frame distance, then, was seen to denote the relative
distance from where the participants explore the dramatic event. Frame distance
was displayed in three diagrams, each one representing a version of how frame
distance can be visualized and how meaning making can be attained by the
various distance perspectives. It was suggested that the meaning making
potential may be enhanced by paying more attention to using ‘conventions’ as
poetic devices in connection with frame distance, and that conventions have
much in common with Brecht’s Verfremdungseffekte. Then the notion of ‘the
self-spectator’ was seen as both containing the seeds of artistic expression in a
Brechtian mode and, in agreement with this tradition, incorporating a reflective
and evaluative stance. The perception released through self-spectatorship
combines experience and reflection.
In E.2 an attempt was made to make plausible, partly by interpreting
foundational statements about drama expressed by Heathcote, for instance in
definition form, and partly from tangible written evidence on the part of

168
Heathcote referencing Shklovsky and Brecht, coupled with the circumstantial
support uncovered in the preceding parts of the study, that distancing is
employed in Heathcote’s didactics and poetics in very similar ways and with
many similar aims, as demonstrated in the work of Shklovsky and Brecht.
In E.3 the politics underpinning the work of Heathcote and Brecht was
considered. The point was made that although Heathcote cannot be associated
with a particular political stance, her concern with exploring social situations
and problems, using estrangement devices with the intention of creating new
awareness, involves a political stance – even if it entails ‘politics’ with a smaller
‘p’ than politics represents for Brecht.
Although Heathcote does not use estrangement as a term herself, neither the
Greek word nor Brecht’s idiom, she has used the Russian version of it. I have
demonstrated that the conception of teaching through making strange belongs to
Heathcote’s theory and practice, and thus that she is a part of a literary
epistemological tradition going back at least to the Romanticists.

169
F. Articles
The study comprises the following five articles. All five articles have been
published in academic publications during the period 2006-2008. One of the
articles, no. 4 on the list, was originally printed in Norwegian. The version
included in the study is an English translation312.
1. ”Distance and Awareness of Fiction — Exploring the Concepts”. In
Drama Australia - NADIE Journal (ISSN 1445-2294), Vol. 31, No. 1,
2007 (pp. 5-22)
2. “Using fabula, syuzhet, forma as Tools of Analysis in Drama Pedagogy
— with Brecht’s The Measures Taken as an example”. In Balfour,
Michael and Somers, John (eds.). Drama as Social Intervention (ISBN
1-55322-134-6), Concord, ON: Captus University Publications, 2006
(pp. 58-71)
3. “Looking at Elements of Distancing in the Work of Dorothy Heathcote –
with a sidelong Glance to Brecht”. In Streisand, Marianne; Giehse,
Nadine; Kraus, Tom; Ruping; Bernd (eds.). "Talkin’ `bout my
Generation". Archäologie der Theaterpädagogik II (ISBN 978-3-
937895-68-0), Berlin: Schibri-Verlag, 2007 (pp. 232-245)
4. “Distancing at Close Range. Making strange devices in Dorothy
Heathcotes process drama Teaching Political Awareness through
Drama”. (Unpublished translation by Torkil Heggstad 2008). Original
Norwegian version published: In Nyrnes, Aslaug and Lehmann, Niels
(eds.). Ut frå det konkrete. Bidrag til ein retorisk kunstfagdidaktikk
(ISBN 978-82-15-01348-0), Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2008 (pp. 135-
153 + end notes 222-226)
5. “Antigone and Rachel Corrie. The Story of two female Activists.
Reflections on a Process Drama Exploration”. In Streisand, Marianne;
Giehse, Nadine; Kraus, Tom; Ruping, Bernd (eds.). "Talkin’ `bout my
Generation". Archäologie der Theaterpädagogik II (ISBN 978-3-
937895-68-0), Berlin: Schibri-Verlag, 2007 (pp. 134-146)
Each one of the articles approaches distancing from different angles and with
different foci. Examples of approaches are:
• Applying aesthetic and rhetoric theory pertaining to traditions in
which distancing has been discussed as a phenomenon (Bullough.
Shklovsky. Brecht).
• Applying drama/theatre literature relevant to distancing in theory
and practice (Brecht. Heathcote).

312 The translation was done by a professional company in New York, 2008.

171
 • Identifying, analyzing, and interpreting examples of uses of
distancing in some concrete drama pedagogic contexts (Brecht.
Heathcote. My own practice).
From these approaches the articles analyse and discuss the following themes or
categories. The numbering corresponds with the succession of articles presented
above. The three practice examples discussed in the study are italicized:
1. Awareness of fiction. (Distancing as an aesthetic principle in art.
Bullough. Ben Chaim).
2. Dramaturgic and narrative structure. (The Measures Taken. Brecht).
3. Distancing as a factor in drama education philosophy. (Heathcote in the
light of Brecht).
4. Distancing as a didactic topos. (Teaching Political Awareness through
Drama. Heathcote).
5. Distancing in social intervention drama. (Antigone and Rachel Corrie.
Own practice example).
The themes are informed by the research questions of the study, which are:
a. What is distancing? How is the notion of distancing conceptionalized in
aesthetic theory and in drama education?
b. Which purposes and forms of distancing can be identified in the
literature and in the practice examples of the study, and what are the
functions of distancing in these contexts?
c. Are the historical appearances of distancing in the study in the main
mutually similar or different? How are Brecht’s and Heathcote’s
distancing approaches related to each other and to other distancing
traditions presented in the study?
Not all the research questions are focussed on in every article; also there is a
certain overlap in how the research questions are focussed in relation to the
articles. This has been difficult to avoid, as the research logic has tried to take
advantage of a variety of perspectives and data to understand and explain the
complex phenomenon of distancing. Taking this overlap into account, the
general approach angle has been:
Research question a. is mainly considered in article 1.
Research question b. is mainly considered in articles 2, 4 and 5.
Research question c. is mainly considered in article 3.
In the main, the research questions are also considered through the connecting
text constituting the accompanying chapters. I refer to chapter G, Summary and
discussion, for a concluding consideration of the research questions.

172
1. ”Distance and Awareness of Fiction — Exploring the
Concepts”. In Drama Australia - NADIE Journal (ISSN
1445-2294), Vol. 31, No. 1, 2007 (pp. 5-22)

173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
2. “Using fabula, syuzhet, forma as Tools of Analysis in Drama
Pedagogy — with Brecht’s The Measures Taken as an
example”. In Balfour, Michael and Somers, John (eds.).
Drama as Social Intervention (ISBN 1-55322-134-6),
Concord, ON: Captus University Publications, 2006 (pp. 58-
71)

191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
3. “Looking at Elements of Distancing in the Work of Dorothy
Heathcote – with a sidelong Glance to Brecht”. In Streisand,
Marianne; Giehse, Nadine; Kraus, Tom; Ruping, Bernd
(eds.). "Talkin’ `bout my Generation". Archäologie
derTheaterpädagogik II (ISBN 978-3-937895-68-0), Berlin:
Schibri-Verlag, 2007 (pp. 232-245)

205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
4. “Distancing at Close Range. Making strange devices in
Dorothy Heathcotes process drama Teaching Political
Awareness through Drama”. (Unpublished translation by
Torkil Heggstad 2008). Original Norwegian version
published: In Nyrnes, Aslaug and Lehmann, Niels (eds.). Ut
frå det konkrete. Bidrag til ein retorisk kunstfagdidaktikk
(ISBN 978-82-15-01348-0), Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2008
(pp. 135-153 + endnotes 222-226)

219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
5. “Antigone and Rachel Corrie. The Story of two female
Activists. Reflections on a Process Drama Exploration”. In
Streisand, Marianne; Giehse, Nadine; Kraus, Tom; Ruping,
Bernd (eds.). "Talkin’ `bout my Generation". Archäologie
derTheaterpädagogik II (ISBN 978-3-937895-68-0), Berlin:
Schibri-Verlag, 2007 (pp. 134-146)

241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
G. Summary and discussion
The study represents an investigation of distancing at close range. This means
that the study has kept a particular focus on the concept of distancing and looked
at it from different perspectives, different theories, different historic traditions,
different terms, and from the work of different executants of distancing. The
study has explored distancing as a general principle and as a specific device, and
it has attempted to disclose an epistemological quality inherent in the concept
that finds a realization artistically as well as educationally. The contexts for the
study have been quite different, comprising the world of literature, the world of
theatre, and the world of schooling. A main area of interest for the study has
been drama education, involving Lehrstück and process drama. These genres
have been looked at from a theory perspective, but also from practice. The
investigation is a compilation study, encompassing five articles (F) that in
different ways explore concepts, theories and practices of distancing, thus
interacting with and supplementing the corresponding materials in the
connecting text (B, C, D, E). In all the different contexts the investigation has
been focussed on distancing.
A two-sided qualitative hypothesis formed a basis for the study: (a) distancing is
a foundational premise for entering and upholding a dramatic fiction, and (b)
distancing is a significant device for facilitating and augmenting processes of
reflection and new understanding. This became the main underlying premise for
the investigation, formulated as three research questions:
a. What is distancing? How is the notion of distancing conceptionalized in
aesthetic theory and in drama education?
b. Which purposes and forms of distancing can be identified in the
literature and in the practice examples of the study, and what are the
functions of distancing in these contexts?
c. Are the historical appearances of distancing in the study in the main
mutually similar or different? How are Brecht’s and Heathcote’s
distancing approaches related to each other and to other distancing
traditions presented in the study?
The summaries from each of the preceding chapters B, C, D, and E and the
concluding comments from articles 1. (Eriksson 2007a), 3. (Eriksson 2007b),
and 4. (Eriksson 2008b) already support the main trust of the hypothesis. I refer
to those summaries for recapitulation of the main findings and pointers to the
discussion relevant to each context. In the present chapter it should suffice to
provide answers to the research questions:
a. What is distancing? How is the notion of distancing conceptionalized in
aesthetic theory and in drama education?

255
The answer to this question was first and foremost found in the investigation and
discussion of the concept of psychic distance, propounded by Bullough (1912)
and Ben Chaim (1984). Distancing was considered as an aesthetic principle and
conceived of as a fiction creation dimension. It involved awareness of fiction as
another dimension than so-called reality and denoted the borderline between the
aesthetic: here the imagined room, and the ordinary and real: here the non-
imaginary room. On this level, distancing was seen as a distance from the real.
Bullough called it aesthetic distance, and found it to be an inherent factor in all
art forms. Distancing on this level was seen not as a static dimension; it could
move along a distance continuum to points where the borderline between the
aesthetic world and the real world become blurred, and eventually the loss of
distancing from reality dissolves the imaginary.
In drama education distancing on this level was dominantly conceived of as a
protection dimension. The awareness of operating within the ‘as-if’, the acting
within a one-remove from the real, was seen as a strategy commonly used in
drama ‘to protect into emotion’, i.e. to protect participants from the potentially
real repercussions of actions during the ‘make-believe’, or from experiences
becoming too emotionally close to their real selves, whilst at the same time
keeping up a felt engagement in the imagined world.
The study also perceived estrangement as form, a special artistic device
conceptualized from the notion of making strange. A characteristic of making
strange was the quality of de-familiarization and de-automatization, the
conscious effort to renew perception by waking up the drowsing mind, in order
to attain a new seeing of an object or a situation, or to correct one’s attitude
towards the surrounding world. Estrangement was found to contain an element
of the amazing and an impetus to provoke curiosity. Metaphors found to be
associative stimulants for an understanding of distancing as estrangement were
riddle, distortion, crooked road, oblique, strange. A complementary
characteristic of distancing was the idea of the unusual route, the uncommon
strategy. This was an observation that could lead to the next question:
b. Which purposes and forms of distancing can be identified in the literature
and in the practice examples of the study, and what are the functions of
distancing in these contexts?
The answer to this question must be seen in connection with the statement in the
introduction, A. 3, that the study would be developed in the intersection of art
and pedagogy – with an interest in the relationship between didactics and poetics
in an epistemological perspective. Even when distancing was investigated as a
predominantly literary device, as in the historical sections B.3 and C.1, it was
found that estrangement was employed not only to create an estranging effect,
for the purpose of attracting the receiver’s attention, but also to instigate a
reflection process in the receiver. It was not an expressed aim in the literary
practice of Antiquity, the Enlightenment and Romanticism to educate, but it
belonged to the purpose of the executants to employ estrangement to inculcate a

256
new vision or understanding of the world. This was seen as an epistemological
orientation. A similar orientation was found in Russian Formalism, only here
with a supplementary intention of contributing to the development of the
Revolution. Distancing as estrangement for seeing anew was found to be a
dominant trait in the Russian theatre innovations, and theatre was seen as an
important element in educating a largely illiterate population. Again, a similar
orientation was found in epic theatre theory, here with an outspoken intention of
applying estrangement to facilitate societal change. Estrangement was seen both
as a method of analyzing dichotomies in society and as a model for
demonstrating alternatives. Distancing was used in the professional theatre as
well as in theatre for and with amateurs. The general intention in using
estrangement was seen to educate and to entertain – both dimensions being
informed by an underlying epistemological orientation. Finally, the investigation
found uses of estrangement in process drama. Here, in a clear-cut educational
context, the epistemological orientation was self-evident. The focus in this latter
part of the study was shifted to investigate if uses of estrangement could be
identified in process drama and how estrangement was applied with an
epistemological orientation. However, because of the genre characteristics of
process drama, the conception estrangement/distancing became more complex
than in the preceding contexts. During the investigation of process drama it was
felt that a more adequate focal denomination would be distancing, with
estrangement as a supplementary term, almost synonymous, except when it was
necessary to denote the reality/fiction dimension. With this in mind, it was found
that distancing was operating on at least two levels in process drama: (1) the
level of protection into drama, and (2) the level of keeping the drama engaging.
Whilst the first level, as protection, would predominantly activate distancing as a
didactic strategy, the second level would employ distancing/estrangement as a
poetic device. However, it was suggested that the poetic dimension would often
entail the didactic dimension, too. Protection as a didactic device was primarily
associated with the process drama genre. Distancing as protection was not found
to be highlighted in the same way in Lehrstück. The reason why protective
distancing was found more widely in process drama than in Lehrstück was
assumed to be a consequence of the improvisational nature of process drama.
Different from the safety of a textual starting point, the participants in process
drama were seen as vulnerable to spontaneous contributions or reactions. It
could be from the pressure of anticipated inventiveness, from having to deal with
themes not properly distanced by time, space and character, or from feeling
exposed without the safety of a text body or another fixed unity to create from.
To be sure, an element of protective distancing could also be found in Lehrstück,
for example when the theme was distanced in time, space and character, but this
is distancing already contained in the textual framework and by the convention
of the theatrical form. In addition, it belonged to the established convention in
Lehrstück to distance by employing poetic distancing devices. It was recorded,
though, that such devices as, for instance, analogy and parable, perspective shift
and parallelism, slow down time conventions, ritual, symbolic props, play-in-

257
the-play, etc. were found in both genres. In such devices the element of
protection was less important than the potency of inculcating reflection, a new
understanding, a vision, an impetus for starting a process of change. The potency
for creating change was predominantly linked to the poetic dimension of
distancing, i.e. the form of distancing associated with the notion of making
strange, and expressed by terms like ostranenie, Verfremdung, apostasiopoisis.
The basic meanings of these three terms were seen in the study as more or less
synonymously expressing the notion of estrangement, even though Verfremdung
with its connotations with a Brechtian approach contains a social reconstruction
orientation. As mentioned in (a) above, the essential idea of estrangement was
found to make the familiar unfamiliar in order to understand it anew. Distancing
as an aesthetic principle, the general framework of the dramatic fiction, was the
prerequisite for the operation of estrangement as a didactic and a poetic device.
It was demonstrated, for instance in the practice oriented articles, that the
phenomenon of estrangement works not only within the dramatic fiction, but
also by commenting on the fiction and by breaking the fiction. The investigation
found that estrangement could be identified in different categories. I suggested
five: (1) the dramatic text - including language, (2) the narrative
structure/dramaturgy – including fabula and syuzhet, (3) role creation and acting
style – including staging, (4) scenography and props – including technical
devices, (5) the stage/audience relationship – including the idea of
participant/percipient. I also suggested that the same categories could be used for
mapping estrangement and estrangement effects in both Lehrstück and process
drama. I should add here that this would be the case irrespective of what
terminology was used. It is common knowledge that the term
Verfremdungseffekt is mostly associated with Brecht’s Lehrstück or other epic
theatre forms. I found it noteworthy that the investigation disclosed uses of very
similar poetic devices in the process drama tradition, only realized by other
denominations, for instance ‘distortion’, or ‘the conventions approach’, or
‘frame distance’. It was found that in process drama such devices were not
commonly referred to as distancing devices or estrangement devices, but that
they exhibit such features and functions.
The distancing functions didactic strategy and poetic device were not
investigated under separate captions in the study. It was not perceived as
eminently conducive for an understanding of distancing and distancing functions
to elucidate it from within separate pre-established categories like poetics or
didactics. Moreover, it was felt that the poetic and the didactic functions must
not be conceptualized as hierarchies. Mainly they were conceived of as just
different dimensions, possibly with the protection dimension as mid-ground of
being both pre-requisite and active strategy for the dramatic event to evolve.
From the investigation of the practices integrated in the study, in the articles as
well as from practice descriptions explored in the connecting text, it became
evident that the didactic and the poetic functions often merged, or rather: that the
main function of the one dimension would become coloured by the other. For

258
instance, when using convention as poetic estrangement device, at the same time
it activated a didactic function. The didactic function could well be perceived as
estranging, too. Thus it was found that distancing in drama education might be
adequately described as representing a poetic-didactic function. It was
considered to be an apt concept in the subject area drama/theatre: the term poetic
underlining its affiliation in the arts, and the word didactic underlining its
affiliation in arts education. Such considerations, particularly relevant to the
process drama genre and its contextualization in education, would for a start
seem alien to the other contexts of the study. So it was pertinent to look for
potential differences or similarities in the traditions investigated in the study.
c. Are the historical appearances of distancing in the study in the main
mutually similar or different? How are Brecht’s and Heathcote’s
distancing approaches related to each other and to other distancing
traditions presented in the study?
The investigation involved in the main three traditions was related to the work of
three pioneers: Shklovsky and Russian Formalism, Brecht and epic theatre,
Heathcote and process drama. Also three terms were discussed: Ostranenie,
Verfremdung, and Apostasiopoisis. To answer the last research question, I
decided to start from the three terms, letting a recapitulation of the meaning
content of terms be the conceptional framework for delineating the main
similarities and differences of the traditions and their historic appearances. It
was found that the three terms essentially designated the same meaning: that of
making the familiar strange in order to facilitate reflection. The first concept
ostranenie was coined by Shklovsky to indicate the notion of ‘laying bare the
device’, i.e. to consciously apply the device of making strange to reveal
mechanisms of manipulation and to develop reflective consciousness. It was
shown that although it became a literary criticism term closely associated with
Russian Formalism, ostranenie was not just a device confined to form-
experimentation and form-oriented innovations in literature and theatre; the
movement also displayed a political commitment. The second concept,
Verfremdung, was coined by Brecht to indicate a difference from the concept
‘estrangement’ and its allusion to alienation, and to evoke the quality of making
strange in the tradition of rhetoric estrangement found in literature. For the
record, this latter inspiration was also a historical point of orientation for
Shklovsky. The investigation showed that Brecht in all probability also received
influences for the coining of the concept, and for its subsequent matter of
content, from Shklovsky’s term and from experiences related to Chinese acting.
Brecht politicized his term with more purpose and consequence than both
Shklovsky and Heathcote, this being a very clear point of difference between
them. The investigation suggested, though, that both Shklovsky and Heathcote
were not apolitical in their approaches (see also the subsequent paragraph). The
question of using the device for political purposes is, however, one that does not
easily invite comparison, particularly not in relation to Heathcote vis-à-vis
Shklovsky and Brecht. Heathcote’s situation was very different in terms of

259
institutional context and with respect to political climate. However, Heathcote’s
work was compared to Shklovsky and Brecht in E.2 with particular focus on her
application of the device. Just as in Shklovsky and Brecht, it was found that
Heathcote’s work displayed many apparent similarities with, particularly, the
work of Brecht, but also demonstrably evident similarities with Shklovsky’s
orientation as well. The term apostasiopoisis, meaning distance creation,
designated basically the same connotations as Verfremdung used by Brecht. In
fact, it was explained that apostasiopoisis is the term used for referencing
Brecht’s theory and practice of estrangement in the Greek language.
Apostasiopoisis was not coined by Heathcote, but introduced by Hesten in order
to make a supplementary terminology connection from Brecht to Heathcote. The
investigation showed notable similarities in the uses of the estrangement device
in Heathcote’s work vis-à-vis Brecht’s, in theory as well as in practice, but slim
evidence that Heathcote was significantly influenced by Brecht through his
writings or productions. It was not discussed in the relevant chapter, but in this
reflective summary the question could be raised as to whether Heathcote may
intuitively have tapped into the eminent source for dramatic reflection that
distancing/estrangement represents.
The investigation disclosed that distancing as estrangement occurred in relation
to historical appearances with a broad meaning and a narrow meaning register,
the latter being included in the former with the same foundational intention as
the former - to affect defamiliarization. Estrangement in the narrow sense
differed from estrangement in the wider sense by exhibiting a more specific
intention of creating social change. Estrangement in the wide sense included all
forms of making strange devices for creating wonder and amazement that invoke
the recipients’ attention. Estrangement within this meaning register included
rhetoric uses of distancing and the estrangement tradition in Romanticism;
generally speaking, also the use of estrangement in Russian Formalism and the
contemporary tradition of process drama belonged within this wider meaning
register. Estrangement in the narrow sense included the former, but took a
particular interest in social criticism by exploring real contradictions and
dilemmas. In the study the term estrangement was partly used synonymously
with Verfremdung, because the terms were taken to mean essentially the same.
However, when wanting to express more succinctly the notion of estranged
distancing in the narrow meaning, Verfremdung was thought to be the most
appropriate. In keeping with this distinction, the theory and practice of epic
theatre represented the clearest example from the investigation of estrangement
used in the narrow meaning. However, it was suggested that both Shklovsky’s
and Heathcote’s work displayed examples of using estrangement in a more
narrow meaning, and conversely that examples of estrangement in Brecht’s
work could be found to fit within the broad meaning register.
At the beginning of this chapter I asserted that throughout the study the
following underlying two-sided hypothesis has formed a basis for the research
and created a focus for deliberation of the findings: (a) Distancing is a

260
foundational premise for entering and upholding a dramatic fiction, and (b)
distancing is a significant device for facilitating and augmenting processes of
reflection and new understanding. Whilst the first part of the hypothesis was
found to be a general premise for an activity to be termed dramatic in the first
place, the second part contended that distancing contains an epistemological
quality. Moreover, the second part of the hypothesis was found to be operational
in various historical traditions, in literature as well as in the theatre, and it was
found to occupy a noticeable position in pioneering drama education practices,
for instance in the work of Brecht and the work of Heathcote. In this latter
context it was found to comprise both poetic and didactic uses of distancing.
Thus, the second part of the hypothesis could be reformulated as a question to
approach the study’s concluding discussion:
Are there good reasons to assert that distancing forms a foundation for
meaning making in drama education and that distancing plays an
important role in the poetics and didactics of practices exemplified in the
study?
Informed by the answers to the research questions above, but also qualified by
the ongoing analysis and discussion throughout the whole study, the answer to
the question is, not unexpectedly, affirmative. The investigation found ample
evidence, exemplified in Lehrstück and in process drama, that distancing is a
significant topos in drama education. Moreover, a noteworthy dimension in this
respect is that distancing operates in the poetic as well as in the didactic domain,
which indicates that art and education can productively interlace. In fact, an
important implication of interweaving the artistic and the didactic means that if
one of the parts were to be removed, it would diminish the meaning potential
that is engendered by the combination. Too much focus on the educational
dimension would lead to instrumentalism. But, conversely, too much focus on
the art dimension might lead to existentialism. Brecht saw the potency in
combining art and education already in 1935, when he formulated his estranging
statements that theatre should become a place for philosophers, that the stage
should begin to be didactic and that learning should be entertaining (Brecht
2001b:80). Correspondingly, Heathcote formulated an enticing teaching
philosophy of marrying the truth of the art and the truth of the teacher, to find
the material for art in the human condition, and to teach by distorting
productively (Heathcote 1984d:114).
I regard this study to be a useful contribution to the drama education field today.
Even if the investigation has a marked historical orientation, it has been
consistently motivated by an interest in exploring uses of distancing in such a
way that its relevance and importance for today’s drama teaching can be
realized. As a researcher and practitioner in the field, I have found it inspiring to
investigate concepts of distancing at close range. I have realized that the
distancing device offers not just protection, but an opportunity to select,
perspectivize, distort, reflect, engage – and empathize with - a surprisingly rich
reservoir of tools and structures at hand. Each in their own way, Brecht’s and

261
Heathcote’s theories and methods, as they emerged from the research, gave me a
new understanding of what distancing amounts to and a confirmation of its
poetic-didactic significance in drama teaching. By looking at Heathcote’s
teaching strategies and the many devices developed by her in the light of
Brecht’s strategies and devices, as displayed and discussed in the study, new
combinations opened up and an extensive arsenal of poetic-didactic approaches
became available.
I am well aware that few of the realizations disclosed by the present research are
in themselves ‘new’. But what I have attempted to accomplish is to relate the
different criticisms and traditions investigated in the study to each other in ways
that are new to the drama education field. I hope that the relating of theory and
practice from German Lehrstück tradition with the Anglo/American/Australian
process drama tradition will offer new ground for exploration. Perhaps
Lehrstück and process drama may appear as not so different as traditionally
perceived? I also hope that the supplementary rhetoric and formalism research
will prove conducive for further exploration of forms and philosophies.
In my view, drama education will markedly benefit from reflecting through a
poetic-didactic orientation, defining itself from a perspective in which the
poetics of the subject area is developed in consideration of the didactics of the
subject area. It goes without saying that I regard an awareness of distancing –
and its uses – as a significant means for improving and developing drama/theatre
in arts education.
Today’s schooling seems increasingly focussed on expedience and delivering,
and less concerned with exploration, reflection and encouragement for
facilitating change. By refocusing traditions preoccupied with stimulating
critical reflection through amazement, curiosity and surprise, which was in
Brecht’s time, and is still today, a mark of scientific performance, I would like to
see the study contribute to a search for alternative teaching methods and forms.
In the context of drama education, I would like to see the study as a contribution
to the rekindling of more socially oriented drama teaching. I would also like to
see the study as a contribution to improved teacher reflection in the field, and
hope that the figures and charts that I developed for the study can assist such
improvement. From the traditions, methods, and forms explored in this study,
there is ample support for an assertion that distancing provides parameters
within which themes and issues can be safely explored artistically, critically and
educationally, and with a commitment for change.
The historic orientation of the study does not exclude an interest in present day
developments in the field. The current growth in applied drama/theatre, the
challenges and opportunities presented by the Internet and new media, the
relationship and interaction between drama education and performance arts, the
concept of being ‘betwixt and between’, the idea of the postdramatic theatre –
these are all extended perspectives through which distancing can be applied. The

262
possibilities of such applications have been briefly referenced313 in the study,
but not actively focussed on. I can envisage that a move towards such
perspectives may open up a range of stimulating concepts and principles with a
potential for extending the notions of distance explored in this study. Although
they are fascinating possibilities, these directions were not explored here.
However, they represent fruitful directions for further research

313 For example, on page 32 (Krøgholt and Pinkert); page 40, footnote 37 (Féral); page
41, footnote 38 (Hentschel and Lehmann), page 45 (postdramatic theatre). Postdramatic
theatre shares a number of aesthetic principles with process drama as it seeks to become
“more presence than representation, more shared than communicated experience, more
process than product, more manifestation than signification, […] (Lehmann 2007:85).
On page 131, footnote 260, Turner’s concepts ‘liminality’ and ‘betwixt and between’ are
briefly referenced; in fact, the latter concept was the congress motif of IDEA 2001 in
Bergen, for which I acted as the Project Co-ordinator.

263
Summary in Norwegian – oppsummering på norsk

Distansering på nært hold. En undersøkelse av hvilken

betydning distansering har i dramaundervisning.

Abstrakt
Studien er en undersøkelse av distansering som et kunstpedagogisk begrep med
et særlig fokus på dets relevans for dramapedagogikken. Studien interesserer seg
for distansering både som et generisk estetisk prinsipp og som et poetisk-
didaktisk grep. Den viser at distansering representerer et betydningsfullt faglig
perspektiv i dramadidaktikk og at distansering utgjør en viktig meningsskapende
faktor i dramapedagogikk.
Studien beskjeftiger seg med distansering i både et historisk og aktuelt
perspektiv. En særlig oppmerksomhet vies bruken av distansering i det
drama/teaterpedagogiske pionerarbeidet som Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956) og
Dorothy Heathcote (1926-) representerer. Eksempler hentes fra Brechts
lærestykketeori, særlig lærestykket Die Maβnahme (1929-30) og Heathcotes
dramapedagogikk, særlig prosessdramaet Teaching Political Awareness through
Drama (1981-82). Studien ser på aktuelle berøringspunkter mellom Brechts og
Heathcotes bruk av distansering, både i teori og praksis. Et eksempel fra
forskerens egen praksis på anvendelse av slike berøringspunkter er også
inkludert i studien.
Studiens teoribase inkluderer teori- og praksisrefleksjoner av Brecht og
Heathcote, supplert med tysk lærestykketeori, samt nordisk og angloamerikansk
dramapedagogisk teori. I teoribasen inngår også Edward Bulloughs analyse av
distanse som et estetisk prinsipp i kunst (1912) – og Daphna Ben Chaims
diskusjon av distanse i teater (1984). Bulloughs and Ben Chaims teori bidrar til
en generisk, ontologisk forståelse av distanseringsbegrepet. Videre omfatter
teoribasen litteraturteori knyttet til Viktor Sjklovskijs (1893-1984)
underliggjøringsbegrep ostranenie (1916), og teaterteori forbundet med Brechts
underliggjøringsbegrep Verfremdung (1935). Supplert med retorisk teori
anvendes disse teoretiske trådene til å drøfte distansering som en sentral topos i
dramapedagogisk arbeid.
Studien er i utgangspunktet et artikkelbasert arbeid: Distanse/distansering er
studert og drøftet gjennom fem artikler som er publisert i perioden 2006-2008.
Men studiens kappe har også fått noe av monografiens preg.
Distanseringsaspektene som undersøkes gjennom studiens artikler bestemmes og
analyseres i relasjon til teori så vel som til eksemplifiserende praksis. Studien er
grunnleggende hermeneutisk og gjør bruk av ulike forskningsmetodiske
tilnærminger. Begreps- og innholdsanalyse, sammenlignende litteraturstudium,
nærlesing av “tekst”, og praksisanalyse basert på notater, videotranskripsjon
eller publiserte redegjørelser utgjør viktige ingredienser i forskningsstudien.

265
Studien har som intensjon å bidra til dramapedagogikkens teori og til utvikling
av fagdidaktikken på feltet. Den er utført som et delprosjekt innenfor Prosjekt
kunstfagdidaktikk, Høgskolen i Bergen 2004-2008, med finansiell støtte
gjennom høgskolen og Norges forskningsråd. Se FORSKPRO-ID p05000252.
Studien er også et forskningsprosjekt innenfor Arts Education and Learning ved
Åbo Akademis pedagogiske fakultet - delprosjekt innen Språk och
kommunikation i brytningstid – med økonomisk tilskudd fra Åbo akademi.
Nedenfor redegjøres punktvis for studiens ulike deler.

Beskrivelse av forskningsprosjektet (A)

I dette introduksjonskapitlet presenteres først studiens intensjon, bakgrunn og
betydning. Det slås fast at intensjonen er å undersøke begrepet distansering som
fenomen, og som poetisk og didaktisk grep i drama/teaterpedagogisk teori og
praksis. Det vises til at det teoretiske bakteppet for undersøkelsen består av tre
tradisjoner: Russisk formalisme i litteratur og teater forbundet med Sjklovskij fra
ca. 1914-1930-årene, Brechts episke teaterteori i Tyskland fra ca. 1928-1930-
årene og britisk prosessdrama via Heathcotes arbeid fra ca. 1968-1990-årene.
Bakteppet består også av Bulloughs estetiske teori fra 1912 om distanse som et
prinsipp i all kunst og Ben Chaims oppfølging av dette i 1984 knyttet til teater.
Interessen for å forstå distanseringsbegrepet ut fra både en historisk og en aktuell
kontekst markeres, samt interessen for å undersøke betydningen av å anvende
distansering på det dramapedagogiske feltet i dag.
Undersøkelsen har en kunstpedagogisk orientering. En iboende premiss er at det
ligger i kunstpedagogikkens vesen å stimulere til refleksjon for å oppnå ny
bevissthet. I dette perspektivet antas distansering å spille en betydningsfull rolle.
En bærende idé i studien er da å belyse sentrale retninger innenfor
drama/teaterpedagogikk ut fra distanseringsbegrepets vesen og funksjon, og slik
at det fokuseres mer på å avdekke likheter og paralleller enn forskjeller mellom
tradisjoner og genrer. For eksempel har studien interesse av å se etter mulige
likhetspunkter mellom Heathcotes prosessdramapedagogikk og Brechts
lærestykkepedagogikk gjennom en undersøkelse av hvordan distansering brukes
hos Brecht og Heathcote. Inkludert i denne interessen ligger et ønske om å bidra
til brobygging mellom det teatervitenskapelige forskningsfeltet og det
dramapedagogiske forskningsfeltet, og om mulig til å oppdage potensialer til
fornyelse både i teaterpedagogisk og dramapedagogisk arbeid. I dette ligger også
et ønske om å bidra til ny interesse for teatrets didaktiske muligheter.
Kapittelet etablerer studien i et skjæringspunkt mellom kunst og pedagogikk.
Dette innebærer utforsking av samspill mellom poetikk og didaktikk - med
interesse for dette samspillets epistemologiske muligheter. Distansering er da en
dimensjon som antas å ivareta både poetiske og didaktiske aspekter. Dermed
hviler studien i en forforståelse om at distansering er en betydningsfull
meningsskapende faktor og derfor en betydningsfull topos – et sentralt faglig

266
perspektiv – i teater- og dramaarbeid. Følgende forskningsspørsmål utgjør
grunnlaget for undersøkelsen:
a. Hva er distansering? Hvordan forstås idéen om distansering i estetisk
teori og i dramapedagogikk?
b. Hvilke formål og former for distansering kan identifiseres i litteraturen
og i praksiseksemplene som inngår i studien, og hva er
distanseringsfunksjonene i disse kontekstene?
c. Er de historiske forekomstene av distansering i studien hovedsakelig
likeartede eller forskjellige? På hvilken måte er Brechts og Heathcotes
bruk av distansering beslektet med hverandre og med andre
distanseringstradisjoner som presenteres i studien?
Følgende tosidige kvalitative hypotese gir innhold til forskningsspørsmålene og
den fortløpende drøftingen gjennom studien: (1) Distansering er en
grunnleggende premiss for etablering og opprettholdelse av dramatisk fiksjon,
og (2) distansering er et betydningsfullt grep til å fremme og forsterke
refleksjonsprosesser og ny forståelse. Hypotesen er utviklet fra den nevnte
forforståelsen at distansering representerer en viktig meningsskapingsdynamikk i
dramapedagogikk og spiller en viktig rolle i utformingen av poetikken og
didaktikken i de dramapedagogiske praksisene som studien omfatter.
Videre skisserer kapittelet kort hovedtematikken i de fem artiklene som inngår i
studien:
1. Bevissthet om fiksjon. (Distansering som et estetisk prinsipp i kunst.
Bullough. Ben Chaim).
2. Dramaturgisk og narrativ struktur. (Die Maβnahme. Brecht).
3. Distansering som en faktor i dramapedagogisk tenkning. (Heathcote i
lys av Brecht).
4. Distansering som en didaktisk topos. (Teaching Political Awareness
through Drama. Heathcote).
5. Distansering og sosial intervensjon. (Antigone and Rachel Corrie. Eget
praksiseksempel).
Siste del av kapitlet behandler metode, terminologi og tidligere forskning som
berører tematikk fra studien. Undersøkelsen benytter seg av en abduktiv
tilnærming, dvs. at det benyttes ulike teoriinnganger og perspektiver til å
forklare distansering. Ett perspektiv er estetisk teori (bl.a. Bullough), et annet er
litteraturteori (bl.a. Sjklovskij), et tredje er teaterteori (bl.a. Brecht) og et fjerde
er dramapedagogikk (bl.a. Heathcote). Disse suppleres med retorisk, narrativt
eller dramaturgisk perspektiv, samt et erfaringsbasert perspektiv fra egen praksis
som dramapedagog og forsker. Perspektivene benyttes dels beskrivende
(kartleggende), og dels analytisk (tolkende). Fremgangsmåter for innsamling og
analyse av data består av sammenlignende litteraturstudier og nærlesing av ulike

267
typer tekster, inkludert skuespilltekst, workshoptekst og videotekst. Intervju og
korrespondanse inngår i studiens metodebruk, samt arkivstudier. Analysene i
studien benytter seg av tidligere forskning både innenfor Sjklovskij-resepsjonen,
Brecht-resepsjonen og Heathcote-resepsjonen.
Studien betrakter både Brechts arbeid med lærestykkene og Heathcotes impulser
til prosessdramagenren som eksempler på dramapedagogikk i vid forstand.
Videre betraktes poetikk og didaktikk som komplementære epistemologiske
aspekter som forholder seg til henholdsvis estetikk og pedagogikk som
begrepsmessige overbygninger. Når begrepet distansering anvendes som et
poetisk-didaktisk grep, har det både en vid betydning (som omfatter all bruk av
distansering som underliggjøringsgrep) og en trang betydning (som betegner
anvendelse av distanseringsgrep med en samfunnsendrende målsetning).
Det foreligger flere studier som inneholder undersøkelse av fenomenet
distansering og anvendelser av distansering, men jeg er ikke kjent med studier av
distansering som spesifikt knytter an til dramapedagogisk arbeid og på tvers av
det tyskspråklige og det engelskspråklige dramapedagogikkfeltet. Selv om det
allerede foreligger studier som påviser berøringspunkter mellom Brecht og
Heathcotes teori og praksis, har ikke de mulige forbindelseslinjene som finnes
mellom dem i lys av distansering fått stor forskningsmessig oppmerksomhet.
Slike forbindelseslinjer blir belyst i studien og kapittelet introduserer viktige
eksempler på litteratur som tangerer dette interessefeltet.

Distanseringsaspekter (B)
Første del av kapittelet er viet til en gjennomgang av noen aspekter det er verd å
merke seg i forbindelse med begrepet distansering, for eksempel distansering i
hverdagslig språkbruk, distansering som beskyttelse (protection), distansering
som et estetisk prinsipp, forholdet mellom distansering og innlevelse, og
distansering som refleksjon og kunnskapsbygging. I kapittelet inngår også en
gjennomgang av ulike oppfatninger av distansering i prosessdramalitteraturen
(appendiks 1). Distansering i betydningen beskyttelse synes å være en
dominerende didaktisk funksjon i prosessdramaresepsjonen, et forhold som
henger nært sammen med en helt annen bestemmelse og funksjon av
distansering, nemlig dets betydning for bygging og opprettholdelse av fiksjon314.
I denne forbindelsen presenterer kapittelet en visualisering av distansering som
fiksjonsbestemmende begrep hvor det realiserer seg langs en kontinuitetslinje
med underdistansering og overdistansering som ytterpunkter (figur 1). En siste
funksjon av distansering som kapittelet introduserer er distansering anvendt som
et kunstnerisk grep. Denne funksjonen har lange historiske aner som drøftes i
siste del av kapittelet, men som tas opp igjen i større dybde i forbindelse med
Sjklovskij (kapittel C), Brecht (kapittel D), og til slutt Heathcote (kapittel E).

314 Dette behandler jeg for øvrig også i en egen artikkel på norsk som ikke inngår i
studien: ”Distanse og bevissthet om fiksjon” (Eriksson 2006).

268
Det historiske grunnlaget for begrepet distansering, slik det har utviklet seg i
teaterteori, litteraturteori og filosofi, ses først og fremst i lys av
hovedbetydningen underliggjøring, dvs. å anvende distansering som et
kunstnerisk grep for å skape undring og ettertanke, gjennom å la det kjente
fremstå som fremmed for at det på ny kan bli kjent. Her drøftes begrepet brukt
hos Aristoteles, Hegel, Diderot, Coleridge, Shelley og Novalis. Hovedtrekk av
en retorisk og romantisk tradisjon hvor underliggjøring er brukt som
kunstmiddel trekkes opp – tradisjoner som både Brecht og Sjklovskij kjente til.
Videre diskuteres distanseringsbegrepets utforming hos Hegel og dets
påvirkning på Brechts utforming av Verfremdungsbegrepet.
Kapittelets innhold fremstilles ikke lineært, men gjennom ekskursjoner “på
tvers”. Det forsøkes vist at distansering er et komplekst fenomen og samtidig at
det har en historikk så vel som en aktuell dynamikk som ikke kan reduseres til
en enkel formel eller en avgrenset teknikk. Fotnoter brukes i utstrakt grad for å
støtte intensjonen om en ikke-lineær presentasjon. Fotnotene kan godt oppfattes
som en slags supplerende hypertekstutforsking av distanseringsaspekter.

Russisk formalisme og underliggjøring (C)

Intensjonen med dette kapittelet er å kontekstualisere distansering i fremveksten
av tidlig russisk formalisme, som ble initiert av Sjklovskij ca. 1914 med
artikkelen “Ordets gjenoppstandelse” (Sklóvskij 1914) og artikkelen ”Kunsten
som grep” (1916). I forlengelsen av dette behandler kapittelet også distansering
som et formelement i russisk teaterinnovasjon fra 1920-årene og tidlig i 1930-
årene. Her trekkes bl.a. frem den rollen Tretiakov kan ha spilt som formidler av
impulser til Brecht. De politiske hendelsene i kunsten og samfunnet i
Sovjetsamfunnet i siste halvdel av 1930-årene, hvor formalismen blir erklært
politisk uakseptabel og erstattes av sosialrealismen, diskuteres som et
bakgrunnsperspektiv i kapitlet. Dette perspektivet drøftes i lys av Brechts
forhold til realismedebatten og som en overgang til undersøkelsen av Brechts
forhold til Sjklovskijs ostraneniebegrep, en påvirkning som drøftes videre i
kapittel D.
Sjklovskijs begrep ostranenie introduseres i betydningen underliggjøring (de-
familiarization) og relateres til en rekke varianter av begrepet med samme
grunnbetydning, så som fremmedgjøring (estrangement/alienation),
avstandsskaping (distancing/distanciation/apostasiopoisis), uvanliggjøring (de-
habitualization), objektivering (detachment), oppmerksomgjøring
(foregrounding), o.a. Sjklovskijs bruk av ostranenie som et kunstgrep som skal
få mottakeren til å se mennesker, ting og hendelser i et nytt lys, for å få ny
innsikt, belyses ut fra denne grunnbetydningen. Kapittelet tar også opp den
politiske dimensjonen i Sjklovskijs formalisme gjennom referanser til nyere
litteratur- og retorikkforskning.
Kapittelet peker på at formalismens bruk av distansering også kan forstås i lys av
en retorisk tradisjon, noe som undersøkelsen også viser i kapitlene D og E. Både

269
Brecht og Heathcote benytter seg av retoriske distanseringselementer når de
skaper underliggjøring. Kapittelet viser for øvrig til at en av artiklene i studien
(Eriksson 2008b) analyserer et eksempel fra Heathcotes praksis fra et retorisk
perspektiv.

Episk teater og underliggjøring (D)

Kapittelet undersøker Brechts underliggjøringsbegrep Verfremdung og trekker
inn igjen i diskusjonen også det historiske grunnlaget som ble gjennomgått i
kapitlene B og C.
I første del av kapittelet påvises den tette forbindelsen som eksisterer mellom
Verfremdung og det episke teaterets teori og praksis. Denne forbindelsen ses i
lys av Brechts visjon om at teater skal være både (be)lærende og underholdende,
dvs. å være et kritisk alternativ til det etablerte borgerlige teateret, som han
karakteriserer som ’kulinarisk’ forbruksteater. Brechts intensjon om å lage teater
med bred appell, men med samfunnskritisk brodd og med samfunnsendring som
mål, understrekes. Kapittelet viser at denne intensjonen omfatter deltakergrupper
også utenfor det egentlige profesjonelle teateret, for eksempel skoleelever,
studenter og arbeidere. Kapittelet viser også at lærestykketeorien var en viktig
byggestein i Brechts utvikling av det episke teateret og at idéen om
Verfremdung ble først anvendt og utviklet i Brechts lærestykker. Et utkast til
skjema (appendiks 2) for kartlegging av ulike former for Verfremdung i
drama/teaterpedagogisk arbeid presenteres i kapittelet.
En fortegnelse over Brechts mest sentrale utsagn om Verfremdung utgjør en
viktig del av kapittelet. Til sammen utgjør utsagnene en form for
distanseringsmanifest. Fellesnevneren i utsagnene er idéen om å gjengi en
situasjon slik at den kjennes igjen, men samtidig at den fremstår som fremmed
eller underlig; altså slik at man ledes til å reflektere over situasjonen og betrakte
den med et nytt blikk, som i neste omgang kan gi en ny forståelse eller innsikt.
Distanseringens endringspotensialer er hele tiden det sentrale temaet hos Brecht.
Gjennom en drøfting av de ulike nyansene som kommer frem gjennom listen av
utsagn trekkes også linjer til de foregående kapitlene.
Siste del av kapittelet diskuterer forbindelser mellom den russiske formalismens
underliggjøringstradisjon og Brechts. Her behandles for eksempel Brechts
berømte besøk i Moskva i 1935, da han møtte både russiske kolleger og fikk et
betydningsfullt møte med kinesisk skuespillkunst. Gjennom referanser til
Sjklovskij-resepsjonen blir det argumentert for at påvirkningen fra russisk
formalisme, og likheten mellom ostranenie og Verfremdung, er større enn hva
forskningen har vært tilbøyelig til å akseptere.
Kapittelet understreker at distansering i den brechtske tradisjonen innebærer
anvendelse av begrepet i en trang betydning, dvs. at det ligger en uttalt
samfunnsendrende målsetning i Brechts bruk av distansering. Begrepet brukes i
en videre betydning i prosessdrama.

270
Distansering som et underliggjøringsgrep i prosessdrama (E)
Distansering som begrep har en noe annerledes plass i prosessdrama-resepsjonen
enn hos Sjklovskij og Brecht. Som vist i kapittel B, forbindes distansering i
prosessdrama oftere med idéen om å beskytte deltakerne inn i en fiksjon, som
protection, enn det forbindes med et kunstgrep, som Verfremdung. Men som det
understrekes i kapittelet så gjenfinnes begge bruksmåtene i
prosessdramalitteraturen, selv om det er den første som dominerer. Det
understrekes også at når distansering brukes som et kunstgrep i prosessdrama,
har det gjerne en mindre uttalt samfunnskritisk målsetning enn hos Brecht.
Etter en kontekstualisering av Heathcotes teori og praksis, bl.a. gjennom drøfting
av doktorgradsavhandlinger som analyserer Heathcotes arbeid, anvender
kapittelet Heathcotes egne publikasjoner som utgangspunkt for en undersøkelse
av hvordan distansering kan påvises og forstås hos Heathcote. To
orienteringspunkt etableres: (1) Perspektivet underliggjøring (making strange),
som innbefatter Heathcote-begreper som estetisk fordreining (distortion),
avbildning (depiction) og konvensjon (convention). Dette perspektivet uttrykkes
også tematisk som ”det å gjøre det ordinære ekstraordinært”. (2) Perspektivet å
se fra en ny synsvinkel, som innbefatter Heathcote-begreper som rammesetting
(framing), rammedistanse (frame distance) og idéen om å være sin egen tilskuer
(self-spectator). Dette perspektivet uttrykkes også tematisk som ”det å se den
sosiale hendelsen på en ny måte”. Begge orienteringspunktene innordnes et
overbyggende begrep fra nygresk: apostasiopoisis, som betyr det å skape
distanse. Dette begrepet, som er hentet fra Hestens avhandling om Heathcote
(Hesten 1994), brukes da som en slags parallell til de to andre konstruksjonene
ostranenie og Verfremdung.
Kapittelet drøfter hele tiden begrepsbruken og perspektivene i forhold til
praksiseksempler fra Heathcote selv eller fra Heathcote-resepsjonen. Retoriske
distanseringsgrep påvises og tre illustrasjoner som representerer variasjoner av
Heathcotes rammedistansemodell presenteres og kommenteres (figurene 2, 3, 4
og 5).
Selv om studien gjennomgående foretar ekskursjoner på tvers av kapitlene og
forsøker å påvise likheter og forskjeller mellom de ulike
distanseringstradisjonene ”under veis”, foretar kapittelet også en mer spesifikk
relatering og drøfting av Heathcotes arbeid til det historiske grunnlaget, og da
spesielt til Brecht. Det påvises at Heathcote er kjent med Sjklovskijs
underliggjøringsbegrep og at hun også har en viss innsikt i Brecht. Men
kapittelet antyder også med sannsynlighet at mange av de likhetspunkter som
studien påviser mellom Brecht og Heathcote, kan være likheter som er utviklet
på et mer tilfeldig grunnlag, altså at det ikke foreligger særlig belegg for at
Heathcote har utviklet sin teori og praksis gjennom studier av Brecht.
I siste del av kapitlet behandles Heathcotes arbeid ut fra temaet ”politikk”.
Likheter og forskjeller til Brechts samfunnskritiske dramadidaktikk diskuteres

271
med grunnlag i Heathcote-resepsjonen. Et poeng som trekkes frem er at selv om
Heathcote ikke på samme måte som for eksempel Brecht kan forbindes med et
spesifikt ideologisk ståsted, er hennes arbeid likevel i så stor grad opptatt av
sosiale og samfunnsmessige problemstillinger at hun ikke kan avskrives som en
”rekonstruksjonistisk” dramapedagog. Kapittelet påviser at Heathcote
gjennomgående, på lignende måte som både Sjklovskij og Brecht, anvender
underliggjøring for å skape ny bevissthet og innsikt hos mottakerne/deltakerne.
Dette forsvarer den karakteristikken som Muir (1994) gir av Heathcotes arbeid,
at mens Brecht representerer politikk med stor ’P’, representerer Heathcote
politikk med liten ’p’.

Artikler (F)
Studien omfatter følgende fem artikler. Alle artiklene er utgitt i vitenskapelige
publikasjoner i perioden 2006-2008. En av artiklene, nr. 4 på listen, er publisert
på norsk, men oversatt til engelsk for studiens kontekst.
1. ”Distance and Awareness of Fiction — Exploring the Concepts”. I
Drama Australia - NADIE Journal (ISSN 1445-2294), Vol. 31, No. 1,
2007 (s. 5-22)
2. “Using fabula, syuzhet, forma as Tools of Analysis in Drama Pedagogy
— with Brecht’s The Measures Taken as an example”. I Balfour,
Michael and Somers, John (eds.). Drama as Social Intervention (ISBN
1-55322-134-6), Concord, ON: Captus University Publications, 2006 (s.
58-71)
3. “Looking at Elements of Distancing in the Work of Dorothy Heathcote –
with a sidelong Glance to Brecht”. I Streisand, Marianne; Giehse,
Nadine; Kraus, Tom; Ruping; Bernd (eds.). "Talkin’ `bout my
Generation". Archäologie der Theaterpädagogik II (ISBN 978-3-
937895-68-0), Berlin: Schibri-Verlag, 2007 (s. 232-245)
4. “Distancing at Close Range. Making strange devices in Dorothy
Heathcotes process drama Teaching Political Awareness through
Drama”. (Upublisert oversettelse av Torkil Heggstad 2008). Originalen
er publisert i: Nyrnes, Aslaug and Lehmann, Niels (red.). Ut frå det
konkrete. Bidrag til ein retorisk kunstfagdidaktikk (ISBN 978-82-15-
01348-0), Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2008 (s. 135-153)
5. “Antigone and Rachel Corrie. The Story of two female Activists.
Reflections on a Process Drama Exploration”. In Streisand, Marianne;
Giehse, Nadine; Kraus, Tom; Ruping, Bernd (eds.). "Talkin’ `bout my
Generation". Archäologie der Theaterpädagogik II (ISBN 978-3-
937895-68-0), Berlin: Schibri-Verlag, 2007 (s. 134-146)

272
Hver av artiklene behandler distansering fra ulike vinkler og med ulikt fokus.
Følgende temaer eller kategorier diskuteres i artiklene. Nummereringen
korresponderer med artiklenes rekkefølge:
1. Bevissthet om fiksjon. (Distansering som et estetisk prinsipp i kunst.
Bullough. Ben Chaim).
2. Dramaturgi og narrativ struktur. (Die Maβnahme. Brecht).
3. Distansering som en faktor i dramapedagogisk tenkning. (Heathcote i
lys av Brecht).
4. Distansering som didaktisk topos. (Teaching Political Awareness
through Drama. Heathcote).
5. Distansering og sosial intervensjon. (Antigone and Rachel Corrie. Egen
praksis).
Kursiveringen markerer de tre praksiseksemplene som diskuteres i studien.

Oppsummering og diskusjon (G)

Avslutningen rekapitulerer studiens intensjon om å undersøke distansering på
nært hold gjennom å studere begrepet fra ulike perspektiver, fra ulike teorier, fra
ulike historiske tradisjoner og termer, og fra ulike utøveres arbeid. I dette ligger
også idéen om å utforske distansering både som et generelt prinsipp og som et
spesielt grep, og at den har forsøkt å avdekke iboende epistemologiske kvaliteter
i distansering som kan realiseres både kunstnerisk og didaktisk. Det minnes om
at kontekstene for undersøkelsen har vært ganske forskjellige - litteratur, teater
og undervisning – men at hovedinteressen har vært dramapedagogikk, som har
relatert seg til lærestykke og prosessdrama. Artiklene gjenspeiler denne
interessen.
Kapittelet rekapitulerer også studiens tre forskningsspørsmål, drøfter og besvarer
dem hver for seg. Drøftingen leder tilbake til studiens tosidige kvalitative
hypotese at (a) distansering utgjør en grunnleggende premiss for å skape og
opprettholde en dramatisk fiksjon, og at (b) distansering representerer et
betydningsfullt grep til å fremme og forsterke refleksjonsprosesser og ny
forståelse. Hypotesen reformuleres til et avsluttende spørsmål: Er der god grunn
til å hevde at distansering danner et grunnlag for meningsskaping i
dramapedagogikk og at distansering spiller en viktig rolle, poetisk og didaktisk, i
de praksisene som studien har eksemplifisert? Informert av drøftingen og
svarene på forskningsspørsmålene, samt av studiens gjennomgående analyser,
gis det et bekreftende svar på dette avslutningsspørsmålet. Undersøkelsen finner
også godt belegg gjennom praksiseksemplene fra lærestykketradisjonen og i
prosessdrama at distansering danner et betydningsfullt faglig perspektiv i
dramapedagogikk. I tillegg er det her verd å merke seg at distansering opererer
både som poetikk og didaktikk og at dette indikerer at kunst og pedagogikk kan
virke produktivt sammen. Det kan faktisk også være slik at dersom den ene

273
komponenten fjernes, så reduseres det meningspotensialet som er skapt gjennom
kombinasjonen.
Helt til slutt i kapittelet reflekteres det kort om hvilken betydning undersøkelsen
kan ha for feltet. Det uttrykkes en bevissthet om at noen av de innsiktene studien
har fremskaffet ikke er ”nye” i seg selv, men at det er forsøkt skapt noen nye
relasjoner og en økt bevissthet om hva distansering er. Studien har hentet frem
og kombinert fagtradisjoner og resepsjoner som sett i lys av distansering kan
tilføre dramapedagogikken nye perspektiver og forbedret praksis. Et perspektiv
som ligger forfatteren på hjertet er om studien kan bidra til ny interesse for
samfunnskritisk dramaundervisning og videre utforsking av dramapedagogiske
metoder som kan stimulere til kritisk refleksjon og handling - i skole, utdanning
og innenfor andre felt hvor drama anvendes i et moderne samfunn.

274
References

Ackroyd, Judith Role Reconsidered. A re-evaluation of the relationship

between teacher-in-role and acting, Stoke on Trent:
Trentham Books, 2004
Allern, Tor-Helge. “Drama and Aesthetic Knowing in (Late) Modernity”.
In Miller, Carole and Saxton, Juliana (eds.). Drama and
Theatre in Education. International Conversations,
Victoria, B.C.: IDIERI/American Educational Research
Association, 1999 (pp. 196-203)
Allern, Tor-Helge “Myth and Metaxy, and the Myth of ‘Metaxis’”. In
Rasmussen, Bjørn and Østern, Anna-Lena (eds.).
Playing Betwixt and Between, Bergen: IDEA
Publications/IDEA World Congress, 2002 (pp. 77-85)
Allern, Tor-Helge Drama og erkjennelse. En undersøkelse av forholdet
mellom dramaturgi og epistemologi i drama og
dramapedagogikk, Trondheim: NTNU - Dr. art. -
avhandling, 2003
Allern, Tor-Helge ”A comparative analysis of the relationship between
dramaturgy and epistemology in the praxis of Gavin
Bolton and Dorothy Heathcote”. In Research in Drama
Education, Vol. 13, No. 3, November 2008 (pp. 321-
335)
Andersen, Nina Møller
"Ytringens teoretiker. M.M. Bachtin mellem formalisme
og metalingvistikk". [WWW document]. In Reception -
Tidsskrift for nordisk litteratur, 45/2001
http://www.reception.hum.ku.dk/arkiv/nr_45/Ytringens_
teoretiker.html (downloaded November 15th, 2004)
Aristotle Poetics (translated by Richard Janko), Indianapolis,
Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1987
Aristoteles Retorikk (translated to Norwegian by Tormod Eide),
Oslo: Vidarforlaget, 2006
Bates, Brian The Way of the Actor. A Path to Knowledge & Power,
Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1987
Ben Chaim, Daphna Distance in the Theatre. The Aesthetics of Audience
Response, Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press (Theatre and
Dramatic Studies, No. 17),1984
Benjamin, Walter “Kunstverket i reproduksjonsalderen“. In Benjamin,
Walter. Kunstverket i reproduksjonsalderen og andre
essays (translated by Torodd Karlsten), Oslo: Gyldendal
Norsk Forlag, [1936] 1975 (pp. 35-64)

275
Benjamin, Walter “What is Epic Theatre?“ [First version]. In Benjamin,
Walter. Understanding Brecht (translated by Anna
Bostock), London: Verso, [1931]1998a (pp. 1-13)
Benjamin, Walter “What is Epic Theatre?“ [Second version]. In Benjamin,
Walter. Understanding Brecht (translated by Anna
Bostock), London: Verso, [1939]1998b (pp. 15-22).
Benjamin, Walter “Conversations with Brecht”. In Taylor, Ronald (ed.).
Aesthetics and Politics. Debates between Theodor
Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Bertolt Brecht,
Georg Lukács, Verso: London, 2007 (pp. 86-99)
Berry, Kathleen S. The Dramatic Arts and Cultural Studies. Acting against
the Grain, New York: Falmer press, 2000
Best, David The Rationality of Feeling. Understanding the Arts in
Education, London: The Falmer Press, 1992
Bloch, Ernst “Entfremdung, Verfremdung: Alienation, Estrangement“
[1965] (translated by Anne Halley and Darko Suvin). In
Munk, Erika. Brecht, New York, N.Y.: 1972 (3-11)
Bille, Steen ”Lærestykkernes metode”. In Bille, Steen (ed.). Brechts
lærestykker. Teater for fremtiden, Gråsten: Drama, 1981
(pp. 6-10)
Boal, Augusto De förtrycktas teater (translated by Marianne Eyre og
Loreta Valadares from Teatro do oprimido, 1976),
Södertälje: Gidlunds, 1979
Boal, Augusto Förtrollad, förvandlad, förstenad. Teater för alla
(translated by Marianne Eyre from Stop! É mágico,
1980), Södertälje: Gidlunds, 1980
Boal, Augusto Games for Actors and Non-Actors (translated by Adrian
Jackson), New York: Routledge, 1992
Boal, Augusto Theatre of the Oppressed (translated by Charles A. &
Maria-Odilia Leal McBride), New York: Theatre
Communications Group, 1985
Boal, Augusto Legislative theatre (translated by Adrian Jackson), New
York: Routledge, 1998
Bolton, Gavin ”Psychical Distancing in Acting”. In The British journal
of aesthetics, Vol. 17, No. 1 (London: Oxford University
Press), 1977 (pp. 63-67)
Bolton, Gavin Towards a Theory of Drama in Education, London:
Longman, 1979
Bolton, Gavin Drama as Education. An argument for placing drama at
the centre of the curriculum, Harlow: Longman, 1984
Bolton, Gavin "Drama in education - a reappraisal". Gavin Bolton.
Selected Writings on drama in education (Davies, David
and Lawrence, Chris, eds.), London: Longman, 1986a
(pp. 254-269)
Bolton, Gavin "Drama in education and TIE – a comparison". In Davis,
David and Lawrence, Chris (eds.). Gavin Bolton.

276
 Selected Writings on drama in education, London:
Longman, 1986b (pp. 180-189)
Bolton, Gavin New Perspectives on Classroom Drama, Herts: Simon
& Schuster Education, 1992
Bolton, Gavin Acting in Classroom Drama. A Critical Analysis, Stoke
on Trent: Trentham Books/University of Central
England, 1998
Bolton, Gavin Dorothy Heathcote’s Story. Biography of a remarkable
drama teacher, Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books, 2003
Bolton, Gavin “A History of Drama Education – a Search for
Substance”. In Bresler, Liora (ed.). International
Handbook of Research in Arts Education, Dordrecht:
Springer, 2007 (pp. 45-61)
Bowell, Pamela and
Heap, Brian S. Planning Process Drama. London: David Fulton, 2001
Boym, Svetlana “Poetics and Politics of Estrangement: Victor Shklovsky
and Hannah Arendt“. In Poetics Today. Estrangement
Revisited (I), Vol. 26, No. 4, Winter 2005 (pp: 581-611)
Braun, Edward Meyerhold on Theatre (translated and edited with a
critical commentary by Edward Braun), New York: Hill
and Wang, 1969
Braun, Edward The Theatre of Meyerhold. Revolution on the Modern
Stage, London: Methuen, [1976] 1989
Brauneck, Manfred and
Schneilin, Gérard (eds.)
Theaterlexikon. Begriffe und Epochen, Bühnen und
Ensembles, Hamburg: Rowohlts Enzyklopädie, 1986
Brecht, Bertolt ”Formprobleme des Theaters aus neuem Inhalt”. In
Berliner Ensemble – Helene Weigel (ed.). Theaterarbeit
– 6 Aufführungen des Berliner Ensembles. Dresden:
VVV Dresdner Verlag, 1952 (pp. 253-255)
Brecht, Bertolt Om Tidens Teater. En ikke-aristotelisk dramatik
(translated to Danish by Harald Engberg from Schriften
zum Theater [1957, Suhrkampf Verlag, Frankfurt a.M.,
ed. by Sigfried Unseld]), København: Gyldendals
Uglebøger, 1963a
Brecht, Bertolt “Über Stoffe und Form“. In Schriften zum Theater, b. 1,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [1929] 1963b
(pp. 224-227)
Brecht, Bertolt “Anmerkungen zur ‚Maßnahme‘“. In Schriften zum
Theater, b. 2, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [ca.
1931] 1963c (pp. 132-139)
Brecht, Bertolt “Zu ‚Die Horatier und die Kuriatier‘. Anweisung für die
Spieler“. In Schriften zum Theater, b. 4, Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [1935] 1963d (pp. 83-85)

277
Brecht, Bertolt “(Über den Gestus)“. In Schriften zum Theater, b. 4,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [ca. 1935] 1963e
(pp. 31-32)
Brecht, Bertolt “Vergnügungstheater oder Lehrtheater?“. In Schriften
zum Theater, b. 3, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
Verlag, [1936] 1963f (pp. 51-65)
Brecht, Bertolt “Episches Theater, Entfremdung“. In Schriften zum
Theater, b. 3, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag,
[1936] 1963g (pp. 196-197)
Brecht, Bertolt ”Verfremdungseffekte in der chinesischen
Schauspielkunst“. In Schriften zum Theater, b. 5,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [1936] 1963h
(pp. 166-182)
Brecht, Bertolt “Zur Theorie des Lehrstücks“. In Schriften zum
Theater, b. 4, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag,
[1937]1963i (pp. 78-80)
Brecht, Bertolt “Über gestische Musik“. In Schriften zum Theater, b. 3,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [1937]1963j (pp.
281-285)
Brecht, Bertolt “Die Diderot-Gesellschaft“. In Schriften zum Theater, b.
3, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [1937]1963k
(pp. 106-111)
Brecht, Bertolt “Über rationellen und emotionellen Standpunkt“. In
Schriften zum Theater, b. 3, Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp Verlag, [1938]1963l (pp. 25-27)
Brecht, Bertolt “Bruchstücke zur dritten Nacht. Der V-Effekt“. In
Schriften zum Theater, b. 5, Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp Verlag, [1938]1963m (pp. 155-166)
Brecht, Bertolt “Die Strassenszene. Grundmodell einer Szene des
epischen Theaters“. In Schriften zum Theater, b. 5,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [1938]1963n (pp.
69-86)
Brecht, Bertolt “Über experimentelles Theater“. In Schriften zum
Theater, b. 3, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag,
[1939]1963o (pp. 79-106)
Brecht, Bertolt “Lohnt es sich, vom Amateurtheater zu reden?“. In
Schriften zum Theater, b. 4, Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp Verlag, [1939/40]1963p (pp. 59-68)
Brecht, Bertolt ”Kurze Beschreibung einer neuen Technik der
Schauspielkunst, die einen Verfremdungseffekt
hervorbringt”. In Schriften zum Theater, b. 3, Frankfurt
am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [1940] 1963q (pp. 155-
164)
Brecht, Bertolt “Über alltägliches Theater“, from “Gedichte aus dem
Messingkauf“. In Schriften zum Theater, b. 5, Frankfurt
am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [mostly 1937-40]1963r
(pp. 251-255)

278
Brecht, Bertolt “Abbau der Illusion und der Einfühlung“. Der
Messingkauf. Die zweite Nacht, [1939-42]. In Schriften
zum Theater, b. 5, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
Verlag, 1963s (pp. 111-119)
Brecht, Bertolt “Dialektik und Verfremdung“. In Schriften zum Theater,
b. 3, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [?] 1963t
Brecht, Bertolt “Der V-Effekt“. In Schriften zum Theater, b. 3,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [?] 1963u (pp.
182-183)
Brecht, Bertolt ”Blot-til-lyst-teater eller belærende teater?“ (translated
to Danish by Harald Engberg). In Brecht, Bertolt. Om
Tidens Teater. En ikke-aristotelisk dramatik,
København: Gyldendals Uglebøger, [1936] 1963v (pp.
53-63)
Brecht, Bertolt ”Om gestisk musik“ (translated to Danish by Harald
Engberg). In Brecht, Bertolt. Om Tidens Teater. En ikke-
aristotelisk dramatik, København: Gyldendals
Uglebøger, [1937] 1963w (pp. 212-215)
Brecht, Bertolt ”Gadescenen“ (translated to Danish by Harald Engberg).
In Brecht, Bertolt. Om Tidens Teater. En ikke-
aristotelisk dramatik, København: Gyldendals
Uglebøger, [1940] 1963x (pp. 77-89)
Brecht, Bertolt “Über den Gestus“. In Schriften zum Theater, b. 6,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, [?] 1964 (pp.
214-215)
Brecht, Bertolt Lehrstücke, Frankfurt am Main: Rowohlt, 1966a
Brecht, Bertolt Die Ausnahme und die Regel. In Brecht, Bertolt.
Lehrstücke, Frankfurt am Main: Rowohlt, 1966b
Brecht, Bertolt Über Realismus (edited by Werner Hecht), Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1971a
Brecht Bertolt ”Die Expressionismusdebatte“ [1938]. In Brecht,
Bertolt. Über Realismus (edited by Werner Hecht),
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1971b (pp. 38-
39)
Brecht Bertolt ”Praktisches zur Expressionismusdebatte“ [1938]. In
Brecht, Bertolt. Über Realismus (edited by Werner
Hecht), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1971c
(pp. 40-43)
Brecht Bertolt ”Über sozialistischen Realismus“ [1938]. In Brecht,
Bertolt. Über Realismus (edited by Werner Hecht),
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1971d (pp. 133-
135)
Brecht Bertolt ”Weite und Vielfalt der realistischen Schreibweise“
[1938]. In Brecht, Bertolt. Über Realismus (edited by
Werner Hecht), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag,
1971e (pp. 88-97)

279
Brecht, Bertolt Lærestykker (translations by Espen Haavardsholm,
Georg Johannesen, Per Kjelling), Haars, Peter ed., Oslo:
Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, 1974a
Brecht, Bertolt Forholdsregelen. In Bertolt Brecht. Lærestykker
(translation by Per Kjelling), Haars, Peter ed., Oslo:
Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, [1929-30] 1974b (pp. 61-88)
Brecht, Bertolt Unntagelsen og regelen. In Bertolt Brecht. Lærestykker
(translation by Georg Johannesen), Haars, Peter ed.,
Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, [1929-30] 1974c (pp. 89-
113)
Brecht, Bertolt ”Pedagogisk teori” (translated by Per Kjelling). In
Bertolt Brecht. Lærestykker, Haars, Peter ed., Oslo:
Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, [ca. 1930] 1974d (p. 117)
Brecht, Bertolt ”Den store og den lille pedagogikk” (translated by Per
Kjelling). In Bertolt Brecht. Lærestykker, Haars, Peter
ed., Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, [1930] 1974e (p.
128)
Brecht, Bertolt ”Om lærestykkets teori” (translated by Per Kjelling). In
Bertolt Brecht. Lærestykker, Haars, Peter ed., Oslo:
Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, [1930] 1974f (pp. 118-119)
Brecht, Bertolt ”Anmerkninger til ’Forholdsregelen’“ (translated by Per
Kjelling). In Bertolt Brecht. Lærestykker, Haars, Peter
ed., Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, [1931] 1974g (pp.
122-126)
Brecht, Bertolt ”Samtale om ’Forholdsregelen’“ (translated by Per
Kjelling). In Bertolt Brecht. Lærestykker, Haars, Peter
ed., Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, [1956] 1974h (p.
129)
Brecht, Bertolt Über den Beruf des Schauspielers, Hecht, Werner ed.,
Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1975
Brecht, Bertolt Arbeitsjournal 1938-1955, Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag, 1977
Brecht, Bertolt Über Kunst und Politik (edited by Werner Hecht),
Leipzig: Verlag Philipp Reclam jun., 1977
Brecht, Bertolt Die Lehrstücke (edited by B. K. Tragelehn), Leipzig:
Verlag Philipp Reclam, 1978a
Brecht, Bertolt ”Kleines Organon für das Theater“. In Brecht, Bertolt.
Schriften zum Theater, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
Verlag, [1948] 1978b (pp. 128-173)
Brecht, Bertolt Historier om hr. Keuner (translated to Danish by Hans
Christian Fink), Haslev: Samlerens Bogklub, 1980
Brecht, Bertolt ”Til ‘Horatierne og Kuriatierne’. Anvisning for
spillerne” (translated to Danish by Steen Bille and
Erling Weise). In Brechts lærestykker. Teater for
fremtiden, Bille, Steen ed., Gråsten: Drama, [1935] 1981
(pp. 198-200)
Brecht, Bertolt The Caucasian Chalk Circle. With commentary and
notes, London: Methuen Student Editions, 1984

280
Brecht, Bertolt Einakter und Fragmente, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
Verlag, 1984
Brecht, Bertolt Me-Ti. Vendingernes Bog (translated by Ivan
Malinowski), København: Rhodos, 1986
Brecht, Bertolt The Messingkauf Dialogues (translated by John Willett
from Dialoge aus dem Messingkauf [1963, Suhrkamp
Verlag, Frankfurt a.M.]), London: Methuen Drama,
1994
Brecht, Bertolt The Measures Taken and other Lehrstücke (translations
by Carl R. Mueller, Ralph Manheim and Wolfgang
Sauerlander), London: Methuen Drama [1977], 1995a
Brecht, Bertolt The Exception and the Rule (translated by Ralph
Manheim). In Brecht, Bertolt. The Measures Taken and
other Lehrstücke (translations by Carl R. Mueller, Ralph
Manheim and Wolfgang Sauerlander), London:
Methuen Drama [1977], 1995b (pp. 35-60)
Brecht, Bertolt “Wer braucht eine Weltanschauung?“ CD-ROM. Bertolt
Brecht. Ausgewählte Werke in sechs Bänden.
Jubiläumsausgabe zum 100. Geburtstag. Band 6
Schriften. Proquest/Chadwyck-Healey/Suhrkamp
Verlag, [1930] 1999a
Brecht, Bertolt “Kleine Liste der beliebtesten, landläufigsten und
banalsten Irrtümer über das epische Theater“. CD-ROM.
Bertolt Brecht. Ausgewählte Werke in sechs Bänden.
Jubiläumsausgabe zum 100.Geburtstag. Band 6
Schriften. Proquest/Chadwyck-Healey/Suhrkamp
Verlag, [1937/1938] 1999b
Brecht, Bertolt “Über Fortschritte“. CD-ROM. Bertolt Brecht.
Ausgewählte Werke in sechs Bänden. Jubiläumsausgabe
zum 100.Geburtstag. Band 6 Schriften.
Proquest/Chadwyck-Healey/Suhrkamp Verlag, [1939]
1999c
Brecht, Bertolt “Nachträge zum ‚Kleinen Organon‘“. CD-ROM. Bertolt
Brecht. Ausgewählte Werke in sechs Bänden.
Jubiläumsausgabe zum 100.Geburtstag. Band 6
Schriften. Proquest/Chadwyck-Healey/Suhrkamp
Verlag, [1954/1955] 1999d
Brecht, Bertolt “An Example of Pedagogics. Notes to Der Flug der
Lindbergs” (translated by John Willett). In Willett, John.
Brecht on Theatre. The Development of an Aesthetic,
London: Methuen Publishing Ltd., [1935] 2001a (pp.
31-32)
Brecht, Bertolt “The German Drama: pre-Hitler” (translated by John
Willett). In Willett, John. Brecht on Theatre. The
Development of an Aesthetic, London: Methuen
Publishing Ltd., [1935] 2001b (pp. 77-80)

281
Brecht, Bertolt “Theatre for Pleasure or Theatre for Instruction”
(translated by John Willett). In Willett, John. Brecht on
Theatre. The Development of an Aesthetic, London:
Methuen Publishing Ltd., [1936] 2001c (pp. 69-76)
Brecht, Bertolt “Alienation Effects in Chinese Acting” (translated by
John Willett). In Willett, John. Brecht on Theatre. The
Development of an Aesthetic, London: Methuen
Publishing Ltd., [1936] 2001d (pp. 91-99)
Brecht, Bertolt “On gestic music” (translated by John Willett). In
Willett, John. Brecht on Theatre. The Development of an
Aesthetic, London: Methuen Publishing Ltd., [1937]
2001e (pp. 104-106)
Brecht, Bertolt “Short List of the most Frequent, Common and Boring
Misconceptions about the Epic Theatre” (translated by
John Willett). In Willett, John. Brecht on Theatre. The
Development of an Aesthetic, London: Methuen
Publishing Ltd., [1937/1938] 2001f (pp. 162-163)
Brecht, Bertolt “The Street Scene” (translated by John Willett). In
Willett, John. Brecht on Theatre. The Development of an
Aesthetic, London: Methuen Publishing Ltd., [1938]
2001g (pp. 121-129)
Brecht, Bertolt “On Experimental Theatre” (translated and edited by
John Willett). In Willett, John. Brecht on Theatre. The
Development of an Aesthetic, London: Methuen
Publishing Ltd., [1939] 2001h (pp. 130-135)
Brecht Bertolt “Short Description of a New Technique of Acting which
Produces an Alienation Effect” (translated by John
Willett). In Willett, John. Brecht on Theatre. The
Development of an Aesthetic, London: Methuen
Publishing Ltd., [1940] 2001i (pp. 136-147)
Brecht, Bertolt “A Little Private Tuition for my Friend Max Gorelik”
(translated by John Willett). In Willett, John. Brecht on
Theatre. The Development of an Aesthetic, London:
Methuen Publishing Ltd., [1944] 2001j (pp. 159-162)
Brecht, Bertolt “A Short Organum for the Theatre” (translated by John
Willett). In Willett, John. Brecht on Theatre. The
Development of an Aesthetic, London: Methuen
Publishing Ltd., [1948] 2001k (pp. 179-205)
Brecht, Bertolt “Appendices to the Short Organum” (translated by John
Willett). In Willett, John. Brecht on Theatre. The
Development of an Aesthetic, London: Methuen
Publishing Ltd., [1954/1955] 2001l (pp. 276-281)
Brecht, Bertolt “Who Needs a World-View?”. In Kuhn, Tom and Steve
Giles. Brecht on Art & Politics, London: Methuen,
[1930] 2003a (pp. 95-99)

282
Brecht, Bertolt “The Major and the Minor Pedagogy”. In Kuhn, Tom
and Steve Giles. Brecht on Art & Politics, London:
Methuen, [1930] 2003b (p.88)
Brecht, Bertolt “Theory of Pedagogies”. In Kuhn, Tom and Steve Giles.
Brecht on Art & Politics, London: Methuen, [1930]
2003c (p. 89)
Brecht, Bertolt “The Expressionism Debate”. In Kuhn, Tom and Steve
Giles. Brecht on Art & Politics, London: Methuen,
[1938] 2003d (213-215)
Brecht, Bertolt “Practical Thoughts on the Expressionism Debate”. In
Kuhn, Tom and Steve Giles. Brecht on Art & Politics,
London: Methuen, [1938] 2003e (pp. 215-219)
Brecht, Bertolt “On Socialist Realism”. In Kuhn, Tom and Steve Giles.
Brecht on Art & Politics, London: Methuen, [1938]
2003f (pp. 231-233)
Brecht, Bertolt “Glosses on a Formalist Theory of Realism”. In Kuhn,
Tom and Steve Giles. Brecht on Art & Politics, London:
Methuen, [1938] 2003g (pp. 233-234)
Brecht, Bertolt “Breadth and Variety of the Realist Mode of Writing”.
In Kuhn, Tom and Steve Giles. Brecht on Art & Politics,
London: Methuen, [1938] 2003h (pp. 220-228)
Brooker, Peter “Key words in Brecht’s theory and practice”. In
Thomson, Peter & Sacks, Glendyr (eds.). The
Cambridge Companion to Brecht, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994 (pp. 185-200)
Brooks, Peter Reading for the Plot. Design and intention in narrative,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press [1984], (5th
printing) 1998
Brown, Thomas K. “‘Verfremdung’ in action at the Berliner Ensemble”. In
The German Quarterly, Appleton, WIS: The American
Association of Teachers of German, Vol. 46, No. 4,
1973 (pp.525-539)
Bruner, Jerome "Life as Narrative". In Social Research, Vol. 54, No. 1,
Spring 1987 (pp. 11-32)
Brunsgaard, Martin H. ”Sklóvskij : Malinowski. Entfleischung und damit
unkenntlichmachung”. [WWW document]. In Reception
- Tidsskrift for nordisk litteratur, 45/2001
http://www.reception.hum.ku.dk/arkiv/nr_45/Sklovskij_
Malinowski.html (downloaded November 15th, 2004)
Braanaas, Nils Dramapedagogisk historie og teori. Det 20. århundre,
Trondheim: Tapir Forlag, [1985, 1999] 2008
Buck, Theo “Verfremdung, Verfremdungseffekt (V-Effekt)“. In
Brauneck, Manfred and Schneilin, Gérard (eds.).
Theaterlexikon. Begriffe und Epochen, Bühnen und
Ensembles, Hamburg: Rowohlts Enzyklopädie, 1986
(pp. 1030-1032)

283
Bullough, Edward “‘Psychical Distance’ as a Factor in Art and an Aesthetic
Principle”. In Wilkinson Elizabeth M. (ed.). Edward
Bullough. Aesthetics. Lectures and Essays, London:
Bowes & Bowes, [1912] 1957a (pp. 91-130)
Bullough, Edward “The Modern Conception of Aesthetics”. In Wilkinson
Elizabeth M. (ed.). Edward Bullough. Aesthetics.
Lectures and Essays, London: Bowes & Bowes, [1907]
1957b (pp. 1-89)
Bullough, Edward “Mind and Medium in Art”. In Wilkinson Elizabeth M.
(ed.). Edward Bullough. Aesthetics. Lectures and other
Essays, London: Bowes & Bowes, [1920] 1957c (pp.
131-158)
Burton, Bruce The Act of Learning. The Drama-Theatre Continuum in
the Classroom, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1991
Byron, Ken Drama in the English Classroom, London: Methuen,
1986
Byron, Ken (ed.) The Fight for Drama – The fight for Education. Keynote
speeches by Edward Bond & Dorothy Heathcote,
Newcastle: NATD – National Association for the
Teaching of Drama, 1990
Cawley, A. C. Everyman and the Miracle Plays, London: J. M. Dent &
Sons Ltd., [1974] 1977
Carroll, John “Alienation and the role of the spectator in drama
education”, unpublished paper – in part submission for
the degree of M.Ed, School of Education, Newcastle
University, 1978-1980. In the Dorothy Heathcote
Archive No. CA008, Manchester Metropolitan
University, 1978 (pp. 1-70)
Carroll, John The Treatment of Dr. Lister, Bathurst, NSW: Mitchell
College of Advanced Education, 1980
Carroll, John “Framing Drama: Some classroom strategies”. In The
NADIE Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, March 1986 (pp. 5-7)
Carroll, John and
Cameron, David “Playing the Game, Role Distance and Digital
Performance”. [WWW document]. In The Applied
Theatre Researcher, Article No. 11, No. 6, 2005 (pp. 1-
11)
http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/5
4945/playing-game.pdf (downloaded April 14th, 2009)
Carroll, John;
Anderson, Michael;
Cameron, David Real Players? Drama, technology and education, Stoke
on Trent: Trentham Books, 2006
Chandler, David “Criticisms of Semiotic Analysis”. In Chandler, David.
Semiotics for Beginners [WWW document], 1994
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.
html (downloaded February 17th, 2009)

284
Cochran, Peter “Introduction”. [WWW document]. In Cochran, Peter.
„Romanticism“ and Byron, Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009
http://www.c-s-p.org/Flyers/978-1-4438-0113-3-
sample.pdf (downloaded January 31st, 2009)
Coleridge, Samuel
Taylor Biographia Literaria; or Biographical Sketches of My
Literary Life and Opinions, London: William Clowes
and Sons, Ltd., 1817 [Original text as WWW document]
http://www.archive.org/stream/biographialitera00coleuo
ft (downloaded February 17th, 2009)
[Other WWW document: Chapter IV. Published by the
Web Development Group, Information Technology
Services, University of Toronto Libraries, 2005]
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/html/1807/4350/display
prose6013.html?prosenum=19&subfile=coleridge_bio_0
4.html (downloaded February 16th, 2009)
[Other WWW document: Chapter XIV. From Engell, J.
and Bate, W.J. (eds.). The Collected Works of Samuel
Taylor Coleridge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1983]
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/biograph
ia.html (downloaded February 16th, 2009)
Courtney, Richard Play, Drama & Thought. The Intellectual Background to
Drama in Education, London: Cassel & Co. [1968],
Third Edition 1974
Courtney, Richard The Dramatic Curriculum. London: Heinemann, 1980
Davis, David and
Lawrence, Chris Gavin Bolton: Selected Writings, London: Longman,
1986
Davis, David “Edward Bond and Drama in Education”. In Davis,
David (ed.). Edward Bond and the Dramatic Child:
Edward Bond's Plays for Young People, Stoke on Trent:
Trentham Books, 2005 (pp. 163-180)
Dévényi, Jutka Metonymy and Drama. Essays on Language and
Dramatic Strategy, Lewisburg: Bucknell University
Press/Associated University Presses, 1996
Diderot, Denis The Paradox Of Acting (translated by Walter Herries
Pollock), London: Chatto & Windus, Picadilly, 1883.
Diderot, Denis Paradoks om skuespilleren (oversatt av Solveig Schult
Ulriksen), Oslo: Solum Forlag A/S, [1830] 1976
Dmitriev, Alexander "Russisk formalisme. Teoretisk baggrund, interne
positioner, vestlig reception". [WWW document]. In
Reception - Tidsskrift for nordisk litteratur, 45/2001
http://www.reception.hum.ku.dk/arkiv/nr_45/Russisk_fo
rmalisme.html (downloaded November 15th, 2004)

285
Eco, Umberto Seks turer i fortellingenes skoger. Oslo: Tiden Norsk
Forlag, 1994
Edmiston, Brian “The ‘Mantle of the Expert’ approach to education”.
[WWW document]. Unpublished and undated paper.
http://www.mantleoftheexpert.com/about-moe/articles/
(downloaded March 24th, 2009)
Edmond, Jacob ”Lyn Hejinian and Russian Estrangement”. In Poetics
Today. Estrangement Revisited (II), Vol. 27, No. 1,
Spring 2006; Duke University Press (pp: 97-124)
Elf, N. Frydensbjerg
and Jelsbak, Torben "Virtuell formalisme". Enquete. [WWW document]. In
Reception - Tidsskrift for nordisk literatur, 45/2001
http://www.reception.hum.ku.dk/arkiv/nr_45/Virtuel_for
malisme.html (downloaded November 15th, 2004)
Emerson, Caryl ”Shklovsky’s ostranenie, Bakhtin’s vnenakhodimost’.
(How Distance Serves an Aesthetics of Arousal
Differently from an Aesthetics Based on Pain)”. In
Poetics Today. Estrangement Revisited (I), Vol. 26, No.
4, Spring 2005; Duke University Press (pp: 637-664)
Engelstad, Arne Poetikk og politikk. Augusto Boal og de undertryktes
teater, Doctoral thesis – Ped. Fak. Åbo Akademi Vasa,
Åbo: Åbo Akademis förlag, 2004
Eriksson, Stig A. Drama as Education. A descriptive study of its
development in education and theatre with particular
relevance to the U.S.A. and England, Calgary: The
University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1979
Eriksson, Stig A. "Dorothy Heathcote. Et forsøk på beskrivelse av
elementer i hennes arbeide", Drama – Nordisk
dramapedagogisk tidsskrift, 2/1980 (pp. 11-14)
Eriksson, Stig A. ”Drama as Education. A historical analysis of its
development in Norway from the beginning to 1980 –
with a sidelong glance to Denmark and Sweden”, First
draft edition – unpublished, 1995 (1-111)
Eriksson, Stig A. “Theatre Accessing Through Drama-in-Education”. In
Stage of the Art, Volume 11, Number 1, Fall 1999 (pp.
8-13)
Eriksson, Stig A. “Using fabula, syuzhet, forma as Tools of Analysis in
Drama Pedagogy – With Brecht’s The Measures Taken
as an example”. In Balfour, Michael and Somers, John
(eds.). Drama as Social Intervention, Concord, ON:
Captus University Publications, 2006 (pp. 58-71)
Eriksson, Stig A. “Distanse og bevissthet om fiksjon”. In Rasmussen,
Bjørn (ed.). Drama Boreale 2006. Aktuell forskning i
drama og teater, Trondheim: Tapir, 2006 (pp. 97-108)
Eriksson, Stig A. “Distance and Awareness of Fiction – Exploring the
Concepts”. In NADIE Journal - Drama Australia
Journal, Volume 31, Number 1, 2007a (pp. 5-22)

286
Eriksson, Stig A. “Looking at Elements of Distancing in the Work of
Dorothy Heathcote – with a sidelong Glance to Brecht”.
In Streisand, Marianne; Giehse, Nadine; Kraus, Tom;
Ruping, Bernd (eds). „Talkin’ ´bout my Generation“.
Archäologie der Theaterpädagogik II, Konferenzband.
Berlin: Schibri-Verlag, 2007b (pp. 232-245)
Eriksson, Stig A. “Antigone and Rachel Corrie. The Story of two female
Activists. Reflections on a Process Drama Exploration”.
In Streisand, Marianne; Giehse, Nadine; Kraus, Tom;
Ruping, Bernd (eds). „Talkin’ ´bout my Generation“.
Archäologie der Theaterpädagogik II, Konferenzband.
Berlin: Schibri-Verlag, 2007c (pp. 134-146)
Eriksson, Stig A. “Distansering på nært hold. Underliggjøringsgrep i
Dorothy Heathcotes prosessdrama Teaching Political
Awareness through Drama”. In Nyrnes, Aslaug and
Lehmann, Niels (eds.). Ut frå det konkrete. Bidrag til ein
retorisk kunstfagdidaktikk, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget,
2008a (pp. 135-153)
Eriksson, Stig A. “Distancing at Close Range. Making strange devices in
Dorothy Heathcote's process drama Teaching Political
Awareness through Drama”, unpublished translation of
the preceding article. Translation by Torkil Heggstad,
2008b (pp. 1-21)
Eriksson, Stig A. “Looking at the past for stepping into the future.
Background reflections for drama in the curriculum of
the 21st century”. In Shu, Jack & Chan, Phoebe (eds.).
Planting Ideas for Global Vision in Local Knowledge:
IDEA 2007 Congress Dialogues. Hong Kong: TEFO
and IATC, 2009 (scheduled)
Eriksson, Stig A. and
Jantzen, Claus "Still Pictures: Aesthetic Images". In NADIE Journal –
Drama Australia, Vol. 15, No. 3, Winter 1991 (pp. 13-
16)
Esslin, Martin Brecht: The Man and His Work, New York: Anchor
Books edition, [1959], 1971
Esslin, Martin The Field of Drama. How the signs of drama create
meaning on stage & screen, London: Methuen, 1987
Etkind, Efim “Brecht and the Soviet Theatre”. In Weber, Betty Nance
and Heinen, Hubert (eds.). Bertolt Brecht. Political
Theory and Literary Practice, Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1980 (pp. 81-87)
Féral, Josette “Alienation Theory in Multi-Media Performance”
(translated from French by Ron Bermingham). In
Theatre Journal. Distancing Brecht, Vol. 39, No. 4,
December 1987; John Hopkins University Press (pp.
461-472)

287
Fiala, Oliver "An artistic affinity. Notes on Dorothy Heathcote's and
Bertolt Brecht's Modes of Work". In National
Association of Drama in Education Journal, Vol. II, No.
1, August 1977 (pp. 29-32)
Fleming, Michael Starting Drama Teaching. London: David Fulton, 1994
Fleming, Michael The Art of Drama Teaching. London: David Fulton,
1997
Fletcher, Helen "Retrieving the mother / other from the myths and
margins of O'Neill's Seal Wife Drama". In NADIE
Journal – Drama Australia, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1993 (pp.
25-38)
Fradkin, Ilja Bertolt Brecht. Weg und Methode (translated from
Russian by Oskar Törne), Leipzig: Verlag Philipp
Reclam jun., 1977
Genette, Gérard “Figurar”. In Kittang, Atle; Linneberg, Arild; Melberg,
Arne; Skei, Hans H. (eds.). Moderne litteraturteori. En
antologi, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget AS, 1991(pp. 171-
183)
Gillham, Geoff ”What Life is For. An analysis of Dorothy Heathcote’s
‘Levels’ of Explanation”. In SCYPT Journal, Number
34, Autumn 1997 (pp. 31-38)
Gladsø, Svein;
Gjervan, Ellen K.;
Hovik, Lise;
Skagen, Annabella Dramaturgi. Forestillinger om teater, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, 2005
Goga, Nina Kunnskap og kuriosa. Merkverdige lesninger av tre
norske tekstmontasjer for barn og unge, Ph.D. thesis,
Bergen: University of Bergen, 2007
Gourfinkel, Nina (ed.)Vsevolod Meyerhold. Det teatralske teater (translated
from Russian by Troels Andersen and Eli Christiansen.
French texts translated by Martin Berg), TTT 23,
Holstebro: Odin Teatrets Forlag, 1975
Gray, Ronald Brecht the dramatist [1976], New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1980
Grepstad, Ottar Det litterære skattkammer. Sakprosaens teori og
retorikk, Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget, 1997
Grimm, Reinhold “Ideologische Tragödie und Tragödie der Ideologi.
Versuch über ein Lehrstück von Brecht”. In Schillemeit,
Jost (ed.). Deutsche Dramen von Gryphius bis Brecht,
Band II, Hamburg: Fischer Bücherei, 1965 (pp. 309-
339)
Grimm, Reinhold Bertolt Brecht. Die Struktur seines Werkes [1959],
Nürnberg: Verlag Hans Carl, 1972
Grimm, Reinhold ”Verfremdung. Beiträge zu Wesen und Ursprung eines
Begriffs” [1961]. In Helmers, Hermann (ed.).

288
 Verfremdung in der Literatur, Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984 (pp. 183-215)
Gulliver, Ken “Political Awareness through Drama. Operational draft
only. An Evaluation of a First Year Project in Blakelaw
School, Newcastle upon Tyne”, Pamphlet. In Dorothy
Heathcote Archives, Manchester Metropolitan Archives,
1981, AA051 (pp. 1-21)
Gundersen, Karin Allegorier. Innganger til litteraturens rom, Oslo:
Aschehoug, 1999
Haars, Peter "The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating. En innføring
i Bertolt Brechts lærestykker". In Haars, Peter (ed.).
Bertolt Brecht. Lærestykker, Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk
Forlag, 1974 (pp. 7-18)
Hansen-Löwe, Aage Der russische Formalismus. Methodologische
Rekonstruktion seiner Entwicklung aus dem Prinzip der
Verfremdung, Wien: Der österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1978
Hart, Chris Doing a Literature Review. Releasing the Social Science
Research Imagination, London: Sage Publications, 1998
Haseman, Brad ”The Poetics of Process: Process Drama Online”. In
McCammon, Laura A. and McLauchlan, Debra (eds.).
Universal Mosaic of Drama and Theatre: The IDEA
2004 Dialogues, Ottawa, ON: IDEA Publications and
IDEA 2004 World Congress, 2006 (pp. 201-211)
Heathcote, Dorothy "Improvisation". In English in Education, Vol. I, No. 3,
1967 (pp. 26-30)
Heathcote, Dorothy "How does Drama Serve Thinking, Talking, and
Writing?" In Elementary English, Vol. 47, No. 8,
December 1970 (pp.1077-1081)
Heathcote, Dorothy "Drama as Education. What is It? Why Isn't It
Happening?", New Destinations - The Arts in
Education, Cockpit Lectures, 1976 (pp. 8-14)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Of These Seeds Becoming”. In Shuman, R. Baird (ed.).
Educational Drama for Today’s Schools, Metuchen,
N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1978 (pp. 1-40)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Drama as Education”. In McCaslin, Nellie (ed.).
Children and Drama, New York: Longman, 1981 (pp.
78-90)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Materiale for meningsskapende drama”. Oversettelse:
Stig A. Eriksson. In Drama – Nordisk dramapedagogisk
tidsskrift, 2/1980 (pp. 3-11)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Blakelaw Project in Politics”. Notes (January 1981). In
Dorothy Heathcote Archives, AA051, Manchester
Metropolitan University, 1981(pp. 1-4)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Lecture”. Keynote address at NATD’s first Annual
Lecture. In Goode, Tony (ed.). Heathcote at the
National. Drama teacher, a facilitator or manipulator?,

289
 Banbury: NATD and Kemble Press Ltd., 1992 (pp. 11-
25)
Heathcote, Dorothy. ”Subject or System?”. In Johnson, Liz and O’Neill,
Cecily (eds.). Dorothy Heathcote: Collected writings on
education and drama, London: Hutchinson & Co.,
[1971] 1984a (pp. 61-79)
Heathcote, Dorothy. ”Drama as challenge”. In Johnson, Liz and O’Neill,
Cecily (eds.). Dorothy Heathcote: Collected writings on
education and drama, London: Hutchinson & Co.,
[1972] 1984b (pp. 80-89)
Heathcote, Dorothy. “Drama and learning”. In Johnson, Liz and O’Neill,
Cecily (eds.). Dorothy Heathcote: Collected writings on
education and drama, London: Hutchinson & Co.,
[1975] 1984c (pp. 90-102)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Drama as a process for change”. In Johnson, Liz and
O’Neill, Cecily (eds.). Dorothy Heathcote: Collected
writings on education and drama, London: Hutchinson
& Co., [1976] 1984d (pp. 114-125)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Drama and the mentally handicapped”. In Johnson, Liz
and O’Neill, Cecily (eds.). Dorothy Heathcote:
Collected writings on education and drama, London:
Hutchinson & Co., [1978] 1984e (pp. 148-153)
Heathcote, Dorothy “From the particular to the universal”. In Johnson, Liz
and O’Neill, Cecily (eds.). Dorothy Heathcote.
Collected writings on education and drama, London:
Hutchinson, [1980a] 1984f (pp. 103-110)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Material for significance”. In Johnson, Liz and O’Neill,
Cecily (eds.). Dorothy Heathcote. Collected writings on
education and drama, London: Hutchinson, [1980b]
1984g (pp. 126-137)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Signs and portents”. In Johnson, Liz and O’Neill,
Cecily (eds.). Dorothy Heathcote. Collected writings on
education and drama, London: Hutchinson, [1980c]
1984h (pp. 160-169)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Considerations when working with mentally
handicapped people”. In Johnson, Liz and O’Neill,
Cecily (eds.). Dorothy Heathcote. Collected writings on
education and drama, London: Hutchinson, [no date]
1984i (pp. 154-155)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Dorothy Heathcote’s notes”. In Johnson, Liz and
O’Neill, Cecily (eds.). Dorothy Heathcote. Collected
writings on education and drama, London: Hutchinson,
[no date] 1984j (pp. 202-210)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Commentary on Geoff Gillham’s Article”. In 2D, Vol.
8, No. 2, Summer 1989 (p. 39)
Heathcote, Dorothy “The Fight for Drama – The Fight for Education”,
keynote address at NATD Conference 1989. In Byron,

290
 Ken (ed.). The Fight for Drama – The Fight for
Education, Newcastle upon Tyne: NATD, 1990 (pp. 22-
63)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Stewardship – A Paradigm for Education”, keynote
address at NATD Conference 1992. In NATD
Broadsheet, Vol. 9, Issue 3, 1992 (pp. 5-28)
Heathcote, Dorothy “The Responsibility of Stewardship”. In Lawrence,
Chris (ed.). Voices for Change, Newcastle upon Tyne:
National Drama Publications, 1993
(pp. 33-44)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Like Sisyphus We Keep Pushing at the Mountain”,
keynote address at NATD Conference 1997. In Grady,
Tony and O’Sullivan, Carmel (eds.). ‘A Head Taller’.
Developing a Humanising Curriculum Through Drama,
Birmingham: NATD, 1998 (pp.1-13)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Contexts for active learning. Four models to forge links
between schooling and society”. In Lawrence, Chris
(ed.). Drama Research. The Research Journal of
National Drama, London: National Drama Publications,
Vol. 1, April 2000 (pp. 31-45)
Heathcote, Dorothy “Norway. Opening Address Notes”. In Drama – nordisk
dramapedagogisk tidsskrift, no. 3-4, 2008 (pp. 48-51)
Heathcote, Dorothy
and Bolton, Gavin Drama for Learning. Dorothy Heathcote’s Mantle of the
Expert Approach to Education, Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann, 1995
Heathcote, Dorothy
and Bolton, Gavin So You Want to Use Role-play? A new approach in how
to plan, Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books, 1999
Heathcote, Dorothy
and Hovda, Ric “Drama as Context for Talking and Writing: 'The
Ozymandias Saga' at Broadwood Junior School,
Newcastle upon Tyne”. In Barrs, Myra (ed.), Drama as
Context. Dorothy Heathcote, NATE Papers in Education
(Aberdeen University Press), 1980a (pp. 4-24)
Heathcote, Dorothy
and Fiala, Oliver "Preparing Teachers to Use Drama: The Caucasian
Chalk Circle". In Barrs, Myra (ed.), Drama as Context.
Dorothy Heathcote, NATE Papers in Education
(Aberdeen University Press), 1980b (pp. 25-53)
Heathcote, Dorothy
and Herbert, Phyl “A Drama of Learning: Mantle of the Expert”. In
Verriour, Patrick (guest ed.), Theory into Practice,
The Ohio State University, Vol. XXIV, No. 3,
Summer 1985 (pp. 173-180)

291
Hecht, Werner Brechts Weg zum Epischen Theater. Beitrag zur
Entwicklung des Epischen Theaters 1918 bis 1933,
Berlin: Henschelverlag Kunst und Gesellschaft, 1962
Hecht, Werner (ed) alles was Brecht ist... Fakten – Kommentare –
Meinungen – Bilder, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
Verlag [1997], Zweite Auflage 1998
Hegel, Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich ”Socrates” (translated by E. S. Haldane). [WWW
document]. In Hegel’s Lectures on the History of
Philosophy. Part One: Greek Philosophy. First Period,
Second Division [1805-1806],
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/
hp/hpsocrates.htm (downloaded October 20th, 2008)
Hegel, Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich ”Preface: On Scientific Knowledge” (translated by J. B.
Baillie). [WWW document]. In Hegel’s The
Phenomenology of Mind [1807],
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel%20
Phen/hegel_phen_preface.htm (downloaded October
21st, 2008)
Heggstad, Kari
Mjaaland 7 veier til drama. Grunnbok i dramapedagogikk for
lærere i barnehage og småskole, Bergen:
Fagbokforlaget, 1998.
Heggstad, Kari
Mjaaland “Prosperos nyve og den sokratiske orden. En
undersøkelse av en TIU-praksis via begrepet ’framing’”.
In Nyrnes, Aslaug and Lehmann, Niels (eds.). Ut frå det
konkrete. Bidrag til ein retorisk kunstfagdidaktikk, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, 2008 (pp. 89-115)
Helmers,
Hermann (ed.) Verfremdung in der Literatur. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984a
Helmers, Hermann “Verfremdung als poetische Kategorie”. In Helmers,
Hermann (ed.). Verfremdung in der Literatur,
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984b
(pp. 281-301)
Hentschel, Ulrike "The So Called Real. Playing with Reality And Theatre
Pedagogy", Paper given at the University of Bergen,
March 17th 2006 (pp.1-9)
Hesten, Sandra The Dorothy Heathcote Archive, Volume 1 and 2,
Ph.D. thesis. [WWW document]. Manchester
Metropolitan University, 1994
http://www.partnership.mmu.ac.uk/dha/hcheston.asp
(downloaded February 1st, 2006)
[Full original title of the thesis: The Construction of
an Archive and the Presentation of Philosophical,

292
 Epistemological and Methodological Issues relating
to Dorothy Heathcote’s Drama in Education
Approach. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University
of Lancaster, 1994]
Hinze, Vicki (2003) “Psychic distance”. [WWW document], 2003
http://groups.msn.com/romancewritingtips/articles.msn
w?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=1018
&LastModified=4675504220585140129 (downloaded
October 2nd, 2005)
Hodgson, John (ed.) The Uses of Drama. Sources giving a background to
acting as a social and educational force, London: Eyre
Methuen Ltd., 1972
Hoover, Marjorie L. “Brecht’s Soviet Connection: Tretiakov. In Jahrbuch
der Internationalen Brecht-Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am
Main: Athenaum – Brecht-Jahrbuch, Vol. 3, 1973/74
(pp. 39-56)
Hornbrook, David “Privatising the Arts. Ross and Witkin re-visited”. In
Drama Broadsheet, Vol. 3, No. 2, Spring 1985 (pp. 10-
11)
Hornbrook, David Education and Dramatic Art. Oxford: Blackwell
Education, 1989
Hornbrook, David Education in Drama. Casting the Dramatic Curriculum,
London: The Falmer Press, 1991
Jackson, Tony "Didactic Theatre in the '30s - some precedents for TIE".
In SCYPT-Journal, No. 8, 1981 (pp. 3-12)
Jackson, Tony (ed.) Learning through theatre. Essays and casebooks on
Theatre in Education, Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1980
Jameson, Fredric Brecht and Method, London: Verso, 1998
Janko, Richard ”Notes to Poetics I”. In Aristotle. Poetics with the
Tractatus Coislinianus, reconstruction of Poetics II, and
the fragments of the On Poets, Indianapolis, Indiana:
Hackett Publishing Company, 1987 (pp. 66-158)
Jelsbak, Tormod "Teori til tælling. Positioner i ny dansk formalisme".
[WWW document]. In Reception - Tidsskrift for nordisk
litteratur, 45/2001
http://www.reception.hum.ku.dk/arkiv/nr_45/Teori_til_t
aelling.html (downloaded November 15th, 2004)
Johnson, Liz and
O’Neill, Cecily Dorothy Heathcote. Collected writings on education and
drama, London: Hutchinson & Co., 1984
Jonsson, Inge Idéer och teorier om ordens konst, Lund: CWK Gleerup,
1971
Katafiasz, Kate “Alienation is the ‘Theatre of Auschwitz’: an
exploration of form in Edward Bond’s theatre”. In David
Davis (ed.). Edward Bond and the Dramatic Child:

293
 Edward Bond's Plays for Young People, Stoke on Trent:
Trentham Books, 2005 (pp. 25-48)
Kaufmann, Walter Tragedy and Philosophy, Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, [1968] 1992
Kayser, Wolfgang Das sprachliche Kunstwerk. Eine Einführung in die
Literaturwissenschaft, Bern: Francke Verlag [1948], (9.
Aufl.) 1963
Kempe, Andy The GCSE Drama Coursebook. Second Edition.
Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes, 1997
Kesting, Marianne Das Epische Theater, Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer,
[1959]1989, (8. Aufl.)
Kindermann, Heinz Theatergeschichte Europas, 1. Band, Salzburg: Otto
Müller Verlag, [1957], 1966 (2. Aufl.)
Kittang, Atle; Linneberg,
Arild; Melberg, Arne;
Skei, Hans H. (eds.) Moderne litteraturteori. En antologi. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, 1991
Kjølner, Torunn ”Dramapedagogikk“. In Arntzen, Knut Ove; Svendsen,
Trond Olav; Moi, Morten (eds.). Teater- og filmleksikon,
Oslo: Kunnskapsforlaget 1991 (pp. 135-136)
Knopf, Jan ”Verfremdungen“ [1974]. In Helmers, Hermann (ed.).
Verfremdung in der Literatur, Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984 (pp. 352-392)
Koch, Gerd; Steinweg,
Reiner; Vaßen, Florian
(eds.) Assoziales Theater. Spielversuche und Anstiftung zur
Praxis, Köln: Prometh Verlag, 1984
Koch, Gerd Lernen mit Bert Brecht. Bertolt Brechts politisch-
kulturelle Pädagogik, Frankfurt am Main: Brandes &
Apsel Verlag, 1988
Korrespondenzen – Zeitschrift für Theaterpädagogik, Lehrstück – Theater –
Pädagogik, Heft 1, 1985/86
Korrespondenzen – Zeitschrift für Theaterpädagogik, Lehrstück – Theater –
Pädagogik, Heft 3/4, 1988
Korrespondenzen – Zeitschrift für Theaterpädagogik, Lehrstück – Theater –
Pädagogik, Heft 5, 1988
Korrespondenzen – Zeitschrift für Theaterpädagogik, Lehrstück – Theater –
Pädagogik, Heft 7/8, 1990/91
Korrespondenzen – Zeitschrift für Theaterpädagogik, Lehrstück – Theater –
Pädagogik, Heft 9/10, 1991
Korrespondenzen – Zeitschrift für Theaterpädagogik, Lehrstück – Theater –
Pädagogik, Heft 11/12/13, 1992
Korrespondenzen – Zeitschrift für Theaterpädagogik, Lehrstück – Theater –
Pädagogik, Heft 14, 1992
Korrespondenzen – Zeitschrift für Theaterpädagogik, Brecht – Lehrstücke, Heft
19/20/21, 1994
Korrespondenzen – Zeitschrift für Theaterpädagogik, Soziales Lernen und

294
 ästhetische Erfahrung, Heft 23/24/25, 1995
Koudela, Ingrid D. "Brecht's Learning-play". In NADIE Journal – Drama
Australia, Vol.16/No.4, 1992 (pp. 26-27)
Krøgholt, Ida Performance og Dramapædagogik – et krydsfelt, Århus:
Institut for Dramaturgi, Aktuelle teaterproblemer 47,
2001
Krøgholt, Ida Risiko eller fare. Åbning og lukning av teaterprocesser,
Århus: Institut for Dramaturgi, Aktuelle teaterproblemer
48, 2002
Kuba, Alexander “Geste/Gestus”. In Fischer-Lichte, Erika, Doris Kolesch
und Matthias Warstat (ed). Metzler Lexikon
Theatertheorie, Stuttgart: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 2005
(pp.129-136)
Kuhn, Tom and
Giles, Steve (eds.) Brecht on Art and Politics, London: Methuen, 2003
Kurella, Alfred "Et forsøk med ikke helt egnede midler. (Kritikk av
Forholdsregelen. Forsøk av Brecht, Dudlow og Eisler)".
In Haars, Peter (ed.). Bertolt Brecht. Lærestykker, Oslo:
Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, 1974 (pp. 151-163)
Lacey, Stephen and
Woolland, Brian "Drama in Education - A Radical Theatre Form". In 2D,
Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer 1989 (pp. 4-15)
Lacey, Stephen and
Woolland, Brian "Educational Drama and Radical Theatre Practice". In
New Theatre Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 8, Feb 1992 (pp.
81-91)
Lawrence, Chris “Re-viewing Heathcote and Bolton”. In Drama – One
Forum Many Voices, Vol. 4, No. 2, Spring 1996 (pp. 2-
8)
Lehmann,
Hans-Thies Postdramatic Theatre (translated by Karen Jürs-
Munby), London: Routledge, [1999] 2007
Lindström, Göran Att läsa dramatik, Falköping: Gleerup, 1969
Linneberg, Arild “Formalisme og strukturalisme”. In Kittang, Atle;
Linneberg, Arild; Melberg, Arne; Skei, Hans H. (eds.).
Moderne litteraturteori. En innføring, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, 1993 (pp.11-18)
Linnell, Rosemary Approaching Classroom Drama, London: Edward
Arnold, 1982.
Lothe, Jakob Fiksjon og film. Narrativ teori og analyse, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, 2003 [1994]
Louisville, Timmy “Distanciation – What Is It?” [WWW document].
September 13, 2006
http://provocationsandpantings.blogspot.com/2006/09/di
stanciation-what-is-it.html (downloaded May 6th, 2008)

295
Lunn, Eugene Marxism & Modernism; An Historical Study of Lukács,
Brecht, Benjamin, and Adorno, Berkeley/Los Angeles,
CA: University of California Press, 1984
Långbacka, Ralf Bland annat om Brecht. Texter om teater, Ekenäs:
Söderström & Co. Förlags AB, 1981
Magnér, Björn Hur vet du det? Socioanalys i praktiken, Göteborg:
Esselte Studium – Akademiförlaget, 1980
Martin, Carol “Brecht, Feminism, and Chinese Theatre”. In Martin,
Carol and Bial, Henry (eds.). Brecht Sourcebook,
London: Routledge, 2000 (pp. 77-85)
Mei, Shaowu “Mei Lanfang as seen by his foreign audiences and
critics”. In Wu Zuguang, Huang Zuolin and Mei
Shaowu (eds.). Peking Opera And Mei Lanfang. A
Guide to China’s Traditional Theatre And the Art of Its
Great Master, Beijing: New World Press, 1981 (pp. 46-
65)
Min, Tian “Alienation-Effekt” for Whom? Brecht’s
(Mis)interpretation of the Classical Chinese Theatre”. In
Asian Theatre Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, Autumn 1997
(pp. 200-222)
Mackenzie, Dianne "Theatre-in-Education". In NADIE Journal – Drama
Australia, Vol.17/No.1, 1992 (pp. 40-50)
McGregor, Lynn Developments in Drama Teaching. London: Open
Books, 1976
McGregor, Lynn,
Tate, Maggie,
Robinson, Ken Learning Through Drama. Schools Council Drama
Teaching Project (10-16). London: Heinemann, [1977]
1980
McLeod, John N. "Towards an Appraisal of Building Belief". In Drama
Resource Centre Publication, Carlton, Victoria:
Education Department of Victoria, August 1977a (pp.
1-15)
McLeod, John N. "An Introduction to the Teaching Methodology of
Dorothy Heathcote". In Drama Resource Centre
Publication, Carlton, Victoria: Education Department
of Victoria, July 1977b (pp. 1-4)
Mittenzwei, Werner ”Verfremdung – eine dialektische Methode zum Aufbau
einer Figur” [1964/1969]. In Helmers, Hermann (ed.).
Verfremdung in der Literatur, Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984 (pp. 241-262)
Morgan, Norah and
Saxton, Juliana Teaching Drama. A mind of many wonders, London:
Hutchinson, 1987
Muir, Alistair New Beginnings. Knowledge and form in the drama of
Bertolt Brecht and Dorothy Heathcote, Stoke-on-Trent:

296
 Trentham Books/University of Central England, Faculty
of Education, Issues in Education series: No. 1, 1996
Naversen, Ronald “Scenographic Distance”. [WWW document]. 2001
http://www.ronaldnaversen.com/distance.pdf
(downloaded January 7th, 2008)
Neelands, Jonothan
and Goode, Tony Structuring Drama Work. A handbook of available
forms in theatre and drama, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, [1990] 2000
Neelands, Jonothan ”In the hands of living people”. In Drama Research. The
Research Journal of National Drama, Vol. 1, April 2000
(pp. 47-59)
Nicholson, Helen Applied Drama. The Gift of Theatre, Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2005
Novalis Novalis Schriften, Zweiter Theil. [WWW document].
Edited by Tieck, Ludwig and Schlegel, Fr., Berlin:
Verlag von G. Reimer, 1837
Novalis Novalis Schriften, Dritter Theil. [WWW document].
Edited by Tieck, Ludwig and Schlegel, Fr., Berlin:
Verlag von G. Reimer, 1846
http://books.google.com/books?id=358oAAAAYAAJ&
dq=novalis+schriften&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&
ots=wjkEsY4qR5&sig=WsjPgu5tMgNTA1uKEHVsQ8
hP1Rk&hl=nn&ei=KYCcSc--HI660AWC-
uTcBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
(downloaded February 17th, 2009)
Nygaard, Jon Teatrets historie i Europa. Del 3: Teatret i vårt århundre.
Teater og samfunn, Oslo: Spillerom, 1993
Nygaard, Jon Teatrets historie i Europa. Register teaterleksikon, Oslo:
Spillerom, 1993
Nyrnes, Aslaug Det didaktiske rommet. Didaktisk topologi i Ludvig
Holbergs Moralske Tanker, Bergen: Avh. dr. art., Det
historisk-filosofiske fakultet, Universitetet i Bergen,
2002
O’Neill, Cecily Drama Worlds. A framework for process drama,
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1995
O'Toole, John Theatre in Education. New objectives for theatre - new
techniques in education, London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1976
O'Toole, John The Process of Drama. Negotiating art and meaning,
London: Routledge, 1992
O’Toole, L. Michael
and Shukman, Ann Russian Poetics in Translation, Volume 4 Formalist
Theory, Oxford: University of Essex, 1977
Palmquist, Mike et.al. “Content analysis”. [WWW document]. In
Writing@CSU, Columbia State University, [no date]

297
 http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/conte
nt.html (downloaded May 2nd , 2009)
Peer, Willie van and
Hakemulder, Frank “Foregrounding“. [WWW document].
http://www.redes.de/foregrounding/about.htm
(downloaded, October 3rd, 2008)
Pinkert Ute Transformationen des Alltags. Theaterprojekte der
Berliner Lehrstückpraxis und Live Art bei Forced
Entertainment. Modelle, Konzepte und Verfahren
kultureller Bildung, [Doctoral thesis], Berlin: Schibri
Verlag, 2005
Pinkert, Ute “Theater machen! Welches Theater? Überlegungen zum
Theaterbegriff in der Theaterpädagogik”. In Streisand,
Marianne; Giehse, Nadine; Kraus, Tom; Ruping, Bernd
(eds). „Talkin’ ´bout my Generation“. Archäologie der
Theaterpädagogik II, Konferenzband. Berlin: Schibri-
Verlag, 2007 [A conference edition of this article stems
from 2005] (pp. 252-267)
Piscator, Erwin Det politiske teater, Holstebro: Odin Teatrets Forlag,
[1929] 1970
Platz-Waury, Elke Drama og Teater. En innføring, Oslo: Ad Notam forlag,
1992
Priest, Helena; Roberts,
Paula; Woods, Leslie "An overview of three different approaches to the
interpretation of qualitative data. Part 1: theoretical
issues", In Nurse Researcher, Vol. 10/No. 1, 2002
Primavesi, Patrick “Verfremdung”. In Fischer-Lichte, Erika; Kolesch,
Doris; Warstat, Matthias (eds.). Metzler Lexikon
Theatertheorie, Stuttgart: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 2005
(s.377-379)
Pusztai, Istvan "Den profesjonella teaterns inflytande på pedagogiskt
drama". In Drama - Nordisk dramapedagogisk tidsskrift,
nr. 1, 1986 (pp. 4-10)
Pusztai, Istvan Stanislavskij-variasjoner. Skodespelarövningar som
didaktiska instrument i pedagogiskt drama, Edsbruk:
Akademitryck/Stockholms Universitet, 2000
Rasmussen, Bjørn "Å være eller late som om...". Forståelse av dramatisk
spill i det tyvende århundre. Et dramapedagogisk
utredningsarbeid, Trondheim: MIMESIS 1991:1
Rasmusson, Viveka Drama – konst eller pedagogikk? Kampen om ämnet
speglad i den nordiska tidsskriften Drama 1965-1995,
Malmö: Drama Boreale, 2000
Ritter, Hans Martin Darstellendes Spiel – Interaktionspädagogik – Theater
als Lernform (1). Panorama und Perspektiven von Spiel
und Theaterarbeit in der Schule, Berlin: PHB/Fach
Schulspiel, 1978

298
Ritter, Hans Martin ”Das Lehrstück Bertolt Brechts. Ein Vorschlag für ein
Theater mit Schülern aus der Weimarer Zeit”. In H. M.
Ritter. Darstellendes Spiel – Interaktionspädagogik –
Theater als Lernform (1). Panorama und Perspektiven
von Spiel und Theaterarbeit in der Schule, Berlin:
PHB/Fach Schulspiel, 1978 (pp. 1-58)
Robinson, Douglas ”The Spatiotemporal Dialectic of Estrangement“. In
TDR: the drama review, Vol. 51, No. 4, 2007; the MIT
Press (pp: 121-132)
Rudnitsky,
Konstantin Russian and Soviet Theatre. Tradition and the Avant-
Garde (translated from Russian by Roxane Permar,
edited by Dr. Lesley Milne), London: Thames and
Hudson Ltd., 1988
Rühlicke-Weiler,
Käthe ”Verfremdung als Kunstmittel der materialistischen
Dialektik: Parteilichkeit als Ausgangspunkt der
Verfremdung“ [1966/1968]. In Helmers, Hermann (ed.).
Verfremdung in der Literatur, Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984 (pp. 302-320)
Ruping, Bernt Material und Methode. Zur Theorie und Praxis des
Brechtschen Lehrstücks, Münster: Lit Verlag, 1984
Schmidt, Paul (ed.) Meyerhold at work. New York: Applause Books, 1996
Schneilin, Gérard “Episches Theater”. In Brauneck, Manfred and
Schneilin, Gérard (eds.). Theaterlexikon. Begriffe und
Epochen, Bühnen und Ensembles, Hamburg: Rowohlts
Enzyklopädie, 1986 (pp. 307-309)
Schonman, Shifra ”The weakest link in drama/theatre education“. In
Bresler, Liora (ed.). International Handbook of
Research in Arts Education, Dordrecht: Springer, 2007
(pp. 587-599)
Schöttker, Detlev “Vereinfachung und Verfremdung. Zum Status
poetischer Grundprinzipien im Werk Brechts”. In Der
Deutschunterricht, Stuttgart: Klett/Friedrich Verlag,
Vol.46, No.6, 1994 (pp. 53-64)
Schumacher, Ernst Die dramatischen Versuche Bertolt Brechts 1918-1933,
Berlin: Rütten & Loening, 1955
Schumacher, Ernst “Verfremdung durch Historisierung“ [1965/1968]. In
Helmers, Hermann (ed.). Verfremdung in der Literatur,
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984
(pp. 263-280)
Schutzman, Mady
and Cohen-Cruz, Jan “Glossary“. In Schutzman, Mady and Cohen-Cruz, Jan
(eds.). Playing Boal. Theatre, therapy, activism, New
York, N.Y.: Routledge, 1994 (pp.236-238)
Shelley, Percy Bysshe “A Defence of Poetry”. In Eliot, Charles W. The
Harvard Classics – The Shelves of Fiction, XXVII.

299
 English Essays: Sidney to Macauly. [WWW document].
New York: Bartleby.com, 2001
http://www.bartleby.com/27/23.html (downloaded
February 14th, 2009)
Shillingford, Lyn An Explanation of the Self-Spectator Construct, M.A.
dissertation, University of Central England, 1994
Shklovsky, Victor “Art as technique” [1917] (translated by Lee T. Lemon
and Marion J. Reis). In Lodge, David (ed.). Modern
Criticism and Theory. A reader, London: Longman,
1988 (pp. 16-30)
Shuman, R. Baird “Introduction”. In Educational Drama for Today’s
Schools, Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1978
(pp. ix-xviii)
Silberman, Marc “Brecht Today”. In Logos, 5.3, Fall 2006
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.3/silberman.htm
(downloaded June 28th, 2008)
Sjklovskij, Viktor B. "Kunsten som grep" [1916] (translated by Sigurd
Fasting). In Kittang, Atle et. al. (eds.). Moderne
litteraturteori. En antologi, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget,
1991(pp. 11-25)
Sklóvskij, Viktor B. "Ordets genopstandelse" [1914]. [WWW document]. In
Reception - Tidsskrift for nordisk litteratur, No. 45,
2001
http://www.reception.hum.ku.dk/arkiv/nr_45/Ordets_ge
nopstandelse.html (downloaded November 15th, 2004)
Smoliarova, Tatiana “Distortion and Theatricality: Estrangement in Diderot
and Shklovsky“. In Poetics Today. Estrangement
Revisited (II), Vol. 27, No. 1, Spring 2006; Duke
University Press (pp: 3-33)
Steinweg, Reiner "Lærestykket - en modell for det sosialistiske teater.
Brechts lærestykketeori" (translated by Aksel Bull Njå
and Helge Vold). In Haars, Peter (ed.). Bertolt Brecht.
Lærestykker, Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk
Forlag, 1974 (pp. 164-184)
Steinweg, Reiner Das Lehrstück. Brechts Theorie einer politisch-
ästhetischen Erziehung, Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, [1972] 1976a
Steinweg, Reiner (ed.) Brechts Modell der Lehrstücke. Zeugnisse, Diskussion,
Erfahrungen, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag,
1976b
Steinweg, Reiner (ed.) Auf Anregung Bertolt Brechts: Lehrstücke mit Schülern,
Arbeitern, Theaterleuten, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
Verlag, 1978
Steinweg, Reiner Lehrstück und episches Theater. Brechts Theorie und
die theaterpädagogische Praxis, Frankfurt am Main:
Brandes & Apsel, [1995], 2005

300
Sternberg, Meir “Telling in Time (III): Chronology, Estrangement, and
Stories of Literary History”. In Poetics Today,
Estrangement Revisited (II), Vol. 27, No. 1, Spring
2006; Duke University Press (pp. 125-235)
Sting, Wolfgang “Theaterpädagogik/Theatertherapie”. In Fischer-Lichte,
Erika; Kolesch, Doris; Warstat, Matthias (eds.). Metzler
Lexikon Theatertheorie, Stuttgart: Verlag J. B. Metzler,
2005 (pp. 348-351)
Stourac, Richard and
McCreery, Kathleen Theatre as a Weapon. Workers’ Theatre in the Soviet
Union, Germany & Britain 1917-1934, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986
Streisand, Marianne,
Hentschel, Ulrike,
Poppe, Andreas and
Ruping, Bernd (eds.) Generationen im Gespräch. Archäologie der
Theaterpädagogik I, Lingener Beiträge zur
Theaterpädagogik, Band IV, Berlin: Schibri Verlag,
2005
Streisand, Marianne,
Giese, Nadine,
Kraus, Tom and
Ruping, Bernd (eds.) Talkin‘‘bout my Generation. Archäologie der
Theaterpädagogik II, Lingener Beiträge zur
Theaterpädagogik, Band VI, Berlin: Schibri Verlag,
2007
Styan, J.L. The Dramatic Experience. A Guide to the reading of
plays, Cambridge University Press [1965], 1975
Szatkowski, Janek ”Når kunst kan bruges... - Om dramapædagogik og
æstetik”. In Jensen, Christian and Szatkowski, Janek
(eds.). Dramapædagogik i nordisk perspektiv 2, Gråsten:
Drama, 1985 (pp. 136-182)
Szatkowski, Janek ”Dramaturgiske modeller – om dramaturgisk
tekstanalyse”. In Christoffersen, Erik Exe; Kjølner,
Torunn; Szatkowski, Janek. Dramaturgisk anayse. En
antologi, Århus: Institut for dramaturgi, 1989 (pp. 9-90)
Szatkowski, Janek ”Det åbne teater. Teaterprøven som model – et rids af en
dramapædagogisk praksis”. In Drama – Nordisk
dramapedagogisk tidsskrift, No. 2, 1991 (pp. 18-26)
Tatlow, Antony Shakespeare, Brecht and the Intercultural Sign, Durham
& London: Duke University Press, 2001
Taylor, Philip (ed.) Pre-text and Storydrama: The Artistry of Cecily O’Neill
& David Booth, Brisbane: National Association
for Drama in Education, 1995
Taylor, Ronald (ed.) Aesthetics and Politics. Debates between Theodor
Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Bertolt Brecht,
Georg Lukács, Verso: London, 2007

301
Tchougounnikov,
Sergui "Lyserød som elefanten. En historie om russisk
formalisme". [WWW document]. In Reception -
Tidsskrift for nordisk litteratur, 45/2001
http://www.reception.hum.ku.dk/arkiv/nr_45/Lyseroed_
som_elefanten.html (downloaded November 15th, 2004)
Thirslund, Marna Brecht indsat og udsat. Bertolt Brechts lærestykker i
teori og praksis, Speciale ved Københavns universitet,
Germansk institut, 1992
Towler-Evans, Iona “What’s in Store in Harlow“? [WWW document], not
dated
http://www.mantleoftheexpert.com/studying/articles/ITE
%20-%20Whats%20in%20Store.pdf (downloaded
March 19th, 2009)
Turner, Victor From Ritual to Theatre. The Human Seriousness of
Play, New York, N.Y.: PAJ Publications, 1982
Vaßen, Florian “Alles Neue ist Schmerzhafer als das Alte”. Bertolt
Brechts Lehrstück “Die Maßnahme”, Hannover:
Korrespondenzen Extra, Schriftenreihe “Theater –
Lehrstück – Pädagogik”, Heft I, 1987
Vatulescu, Christina “The politics of Estrangement: Tracking Shklovsky’s
device through Literary and Policing Practices“. In
Poetics Today. Estrangement Revisited (II), Vol. 27, No.
1, Spring 2006; Duke University Press (pp: 35-66)
Vinje, Eiliv Tekst og tolking. Innføring i litterær analyse. Oslo: Ad
Notam Gyldendal, 1993
Wagner, Betty Jane Dorothy Heathcote. Drama as a Learning Medium,
London: Hutchinson & Co., [NEAU 1976] 1979
Way, Brian Development through Drama, London: Longmans, 1967
Wellek, René and
Warren, Austin Litteraturteori, København: Munksgaard, 1967 [1964]
Wilkinson,
Elizabeth M. “Introduction”. In Wilkinson, Elizabeth M. (ed.).
Edward Bullough. Aesthetics. Lectures and other
Essays, London: Bowes & Bowes, 1957 (pp. xvii-xliii)
Willett, John and
Manheim, Ralph (eds.) Bertolt Brecht. Poems, 1913-1956, Methuen: New York,
1976
Willett, John The Theatre of Bertolt Brecht. A study from eight
aspects, London: Methuen, [1959] 1977
Willett, John Brecht on Theatre. The Development of an aesthetic,
London: Methuen, 2001 [1964]
Willett, John Brecht in Context. Comparative Approaches, London:
Methuen, 1984
Winston, Joe Drama, Narrative and Education, London: Falmer
Press, 1998
Winston, Joe and

302
Tandy, Miles Beginning Drama 4-11.London: David Fulton,1998
Wirth, Andrzej “Über die stereometrische Struktur der Brechtschen
Stücke“. In Sinn und Form. Beiträge der Literatur,
Zweites Sonderheft Bertolt Brecht, Berlin: Rütten &
Loening/Deutschen Akademie der Künste, 1957 (pp.
346-387)
Wirth, Andrzej “The Lehrstück As Performance“ (translated by Marta
Ulvaeus). In TDR: the drama review, the MIT Press,
Vol. 43, No. 4, 1999 (pp: 113-121)
Witkin, Robert W. The Intelligence of Feeling, London: Heinemann
Educational Books, 1974
Wizisla, Erdmut Benjamin und Brecht. Die Geschichte einer
Freundschaft, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag,
2004
Wood, Allen “Alienation”. In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford
Companion to Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995 (pp. 21-22)
Wright, Elisabeth Postmodern Brecht. A Re-Presentation, London:
Routledge, 1989
Wright, Nicholas “From the Universal to the Particular”. In Robinson,
Ken (ed.). Exploring Theatre & Education, London:
Heinmann, 1980 (pp. 88-104)
Wu Zugang, Huang
Zuolin, Mei Shaowu
(eds.) Peking Opera and Mei lanfang. A Guide to China’s
Traditional Theatre And the Art of Its Great Master,
Beijing: New World Press, 1981
Zannetou-Papacosta,
Maria Dorothy Heathcote’s Use of Drama for Education: In
Search of a System, Birmingham: University of Central
England, 2002
Aarseth, Asbjørn Episke strukturer. Innføring i anvendt fortellingsteori,
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, [1976]1994
Aaslestad, Petter Narratologi. En innføring i anvendt fortelleteori, Oslo:
LNU/Cappelen Akademisk Forlag, 1999
Østern, Anna-Lena and
Heikkinen, Hannu ”The Aesthetic Doubling”. In Rasmussen, Bjørn;
Kjølner, Torunn; Rasmusson, Viveka; Heikkinen,
Hannu (eds.). Nordic Voices In Drama, Theatre and
Education, Bergen: IDEA Publications/IDEA 2001
World Congress, 2001 (pp. 110-123)

303
Specialist dictionaries

Eide, Tormod Retorisk leksikon, Oslo: Spartacus Forlag AS, [1999]

2004
Hartnoll, Phyllis (ed.) Oxford Companion to the Theatre, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1995 [1983]
Falk, Hjalmar and
Torp, Alf Etymologisk ordbok over det norske og det danske sprog
[1903-1906], Oslo: Bjørn Ringstrøms Antikvariat, 1994
Oxford English
Dictionary [WWW document]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://www.oed.com/ (Multiple downloads from Bergen
University College, Library Subscription)
Ritter, Joachim;
Gründer, Karlfried;
Gabriel, Gottfried Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Basel:
Schwabe & Co AG, 2001
Shipley, Joseph T. (ed.)
Dictionary of World Literature, New Jersey: Littlefield,
Adams & Co., 1964
Steinnes, Asgaut and
Vandvik, Eirik (eds.) Latinsk ordbok, Oslo: Det norske samlaget 1989 (3rd
edition)
Wilpert, Gero von Sachwörterbuch der Literatur, Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner
Verlag, 1964 (4th edition)

CD-ROM

Bertolt Brechts Werke. Jubiläumsausgabe auf CD-ROM. Ausgewählte Werke in

sechs Bänden. Proquest/Chadwyck-Healey/Suhrkamp
Verlag, 1999

Videos

Heathcote, Dorothy Seeds of a new life. Video. Produced by BBC, Omnibus

Series, 1977
Heathcote, Dorothy What is Happening Here? Video. Produced by ISS –
Television Services, University of Newcastle upon
Tyne, 1980
Heathcote, Dorothy Dr. Lister. Video. Produced by ISS – Television
Services, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1981
Heathcote, Dorothy Teaching Political Awareness. Video. Produced by ISS
– Television Services, University of Newcastle upon
Tyne, 1982

304
Heathcote, Dorothy
and Draper, Ian “Framing Different Points of View”. In the series
Making Drama Work. Curriculum Matters. Video Tape
8. Produced by Audio Visual Centre, University of
Newcastle upon Tyne, 1991

Interviews

“Fiala Interview”. Stig A. Eriksson interviews Oliver Fiala 13th September

1993, Exeter, Australia, 1993
“O’Neill Interview”. Stig A. Eriksson interviews Cecily O’Neill 5th October
1993, Melbourne, Australia, 1993 “Heathcote and
“Bolton Interview”. Stig A. Eriksson interviews Dorothy Heathcote and
Gavin Bolton 3rd February, 1994, Newcastle upon Tyne,
1994
“Heathcote Interview”. Adam Bethlenfalvy interviews Dorothy Heathcote 22nd
January 2005, West House, Derby, 2005a (pp. 1-28)
“Heathcote Interview”. Stig A. Eriksson interviews Dorothy Heathcote 17th
April 2005, West House, Derby, 2005b (pp. 1-20)
“Koch-Interview” Stig A. Eriksson interviews Gerd Koch 29th November
2005, Berlin, Germany, 2005
“Heathcote Interview”. Stig A. Eriksson and Tor-Helge Allern interview
Dorothy Heathcote 23rd May 2008, Tromsø, Norway,
2008 (pp. 1-12)

Letters

”McLeod-letter” 16.02.1978 (John N. McLeod, Carlton, VIC, AUS)

“Fiala-letter” 12.11.1993 (Oliver Fiala, Exeter, NSW, AUS)
”Heathcote-letter” 17.01.2004 (Dorothy Heathcote, Derby, UK)
”Heathcote-letter” 09.02.2005
”Heathcote-letter” 18.04.2005
“Tsarouchi-letter” 01.02.2006 (Kalliope Tsarouchi, Athens, GR)
“Lawrence-letter” 26.01.2006 (Chris Lawrence, London, UK)
“Lawrence-letter” 27.01.2006
“Hesten-letter” 17.02.2006 (Sandra Hesten, Whiworth, Lancashire,
UK)
”Heathcote-letter” 24.02.2006 (Dorothy Heathcote, Derby, UK)
”Heathcote-letter” 01.04.2006
”Heathcote-letter” 20.10.2006
”Heathcote-letter” 03.01.2007
“Karaviti-letter” 17.04.2008 (Jenny Karaviti, Athens, GR)
“Carroll-letter” 15.04.2009 (John Carroll, Bathurst, NSW, AUS)

305
Appendices

1. Appendix: Conceptions of distancing in process drama

literature
Publication Keyword references (with page number)
(Alphabetical order) Lines: 1. Fiction, 2. Building belief, 3. The real, 4.
Protection/distancing
Ackroyd, Judith. fiction (36), fictional context (8), fictional time (70),
Role Reconsidered. A re- imagined space (70), as if (36), feigned context (36), unreal
evaluation of the relationship (14), pretence (21), the pretend (63), identification (63),
between teacher-in-role and someone other than (70), dual relevance (63).
acting.
Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books,
real (36), ‘real lives’ (63).
2004
‘critical remove’ (63), deconstructive representation (63),
distance between the role and the role player (110).
Allen, John. imaginative projection (57), imaginative context (68),
Drama in Schools. Its Theory and symbolic form (69).
Practice.
London: Heinemann,
real life (51), reality (69).
1979

Berry, Kathleen S. ludic imagination (8), alternative world (39), imaginative

The Dramatic Arts and Cultural world (56), fictional world of drama (67), symbolic
Studies. Acting against the Grain. representation (31), “play” environment (47), world of
New York: The Falmer Press, dramatic play (132), illusionary world of drama (127),
2000 fantasy (60), rehearsal of possible realities (126).
willingness to live in the ludic imagination (132), build
commitment (121).
reality (31), real (39), actual life (56), our world (68), social
world (64), modern life (8).
safe site (39), security of “play” element (47), V effect (57),
poetic reconstruction (64), distancing as safe space (131).
Bolton, Gavin. fictitious context (111), fictitious level (126), fictitious
Towards a Theory of Drama in element (158), drama context (126), make believe (23),
Education. make believe context (25), two contexts (158), metaphor
London: Longman, (128).
1979 belief in the make-believe (59), willingly suppress (108).

reality (108), actual context (25), in actuality (58), the actual

Bolton, Gavin.
Drama as Education. An
argument for placing drama at
the centre of the curriculum.
London: Longman,
1984
situation (74), the actual and the fictitious context (111).
working artificially and safely (121), analogy as means of
[protective] distancing (157).
fiction (107), fictitious world (142), make believe (32),
make believe world (107), as if (156), imaginary event (32),
symbolic representation (51), dramatic event (165), pretence
(51), two worlds (142), metaxis (162), dual affect (106),
second order (104).
belief in the fiction (107), ‘non-belief’ (107).
 actually present (32), real world (107), in reality (162),
direct experience (51), reality and fiction (109), concrete
action (145), everyday living (145), first order (109).
protection (128 ff.), detachment (56), secure (107), analogy
(130).
Bolton, Gavin. fiction (38), fictitious event (7), fictitious world (11),
New Perspectives on Classroom fictitious context (33), make believe (11), symbolic medium
Drama, (33), dual perception (11), dual awareness (18), metaxis
Herts: Simon & Schuster (11), the ‘real’ and the ‘fictitious’ worlds (18).
Education, building belief (2).
1992
real context (7), real life (2), real life situation (11),
everyday life (35), ‘the world’ (111), the world out there
(13).
protection (69), safe in the role (68), detachment (117),
decentring (117).
Bolton, Gavin. fiction (183, 253), fictitious world (182), fictitious space
Acting in Classroom Drama. A (182), fictitious context (272), make believe (56), new
critical analysis. reality (183), metaphorical space (183), pretending (273),
Birmingham: Trentham two worlds (183), imagination (61).
Books/UCE, identification (252).
1998
real world (252).
protect into (200), safely detached (200), defamiliarise
(181).
Bolton, Gavin and Heathcote, fiction (x, 33, 57, 70, 176), fictitious enterprise (68,123), as
Dorothy. if (57), fictional role (117, 123, 128), supposing it was thus
So you want to use role-play? A (68), [not] pretending to be (177).
new approach in how to plan. Agree to behave as if (s. 115), agree that (177).
Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books,
1999 real world (x), actual event (65), in actuality (68), real
level/cultural role (117, 128), social role (123, 128), real
(177).
protection (58), protective (69), to ‘protect’ into fiction
(117), distance (65), distancing (162), within the safety of
the role-play (179).
Bowell, Pamela and Heap, Brian fiction (2), fictional circumstance (29), make believe (2), not
S. actually present (3), imaginary situation (3), imagination (3).
Planning Process Drama. suspension of disbelief (3), dramatic irony (45).
London: David Fulton,
2001 reality (2), ‘real’ (28), life experience (9), in actuality (45),
fantasy and reality (3).
protecting (64), distancing (64).
Burton, Bruce. fiction (31), fictitious (10), imagination/ imagined context
The Act of Learning. The Drama- (10), imagined environment (12), imagined experience (12),
Theatre Continuum in the as if (12), metaxis (7).
Classroom. identification (18).
Melbourne: Longman Cheshire,
1991 real (10), actuality and the fictitious (10), real and imagined
role models (17), reality and fiction (31), reality and
imagination (119).
Verfremdung/alienation (117), distance and estrangement
(118)
Byron, Ken. fiction (22), fictional context (68), fictional world (126), as
Drama in the English Classroom. if (68), as if context (126), as if world (126), pretend (22),
London: Methuen, dual viewpoint (22), in other shoes (67), not real (126), first
1986 order abstraction (74), representation of (78).

Courtney, Richard.
The Dramatic Curriculum.
London: Heinemann,
1980
Davies, Geoff.
Practical Primary Drama.
London: Heinemann,
1983
Day, Christopher.
Drama for Middle and Upper
Schools.
London: B. T. Batsford, 1975
Fleming, Michael.
Starting Drama Teaching.
London: David Fulton,
1994
Fleming, Michael.
The Art of Drama Teaching.
London: David Fulton,
1997
Grady, Sharon.
Drama and Diversity. A
pluralistic perspective for
educational drama.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,
2000
Heathcote, Dorothy and Bolton,
Gavin.
Drama for Learning. Dorothy
Heathcote’s Mantle of the Expert
Approach to Education.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,
1995
agreement to (22), building belief (24), identification (67),
suspend (102).
real experience (78), real context (125), actually happening
(126), life-like (78).
protection (76, 147-152), protection device (147), one
remove (68), distance protection (148-149), frame protection
(149).
‘as if’ thinking (33), ‘as if’ action (33), symbolic action (33),
imagining (1), in someone else's place (11), in another
person’s shoes (111).
identification (33).
life (78).
safety (78).
pretending (10), real in the mind (24), imaginary world (53).
agree to (53).
real life (62).
fictitious relationship (1), fantasy (1), drama is never life
(146).
suspension of disbelief (67).
real relationship (1), real (1).
security of the drama class (146).
fictitious context (40).
protection (40), safety of the 'mask' (40), distancing device
(98).
fiction (116), make believe (116), ‘unreal’ (4).
real life (4), reality (4), ‘real’ time (4).
distance (22), element of distancing (103), distancing effect
(116), ‘alienation’ (4), analogy (17).
fictional world (xiv), ludic (13), imagine and rehearse (156),
identity (156).
suspend ordinary physics (156).
“real” world (xiv), ordinary experience (156).
fictional “time out” (156).
fiction (153-154), fictional dimension (55), make believe
(83), invented world (55), accepted lie (153).
pretending (113), accepted “lie” (153), “truthful” (153),
agreement to withhold (154), suspend (154), sustain (158),
authentically “signed” (160, 177).
reality (55), real life (83, 121, 156), truthfulness (121, 156),
world within a world (179).
protection (84), protection devices (92), safety (83),
distancing (83, 187), one remove (83), no-penalty zone
(113), alienation technique (147), role within a role (149,
188), distance (174).
Kempe, Andy.
The GCSE Drama Coursebook.
Second Edition.
Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes,
1997
Linnell, Rosemary.
Approaching Classroom Drama.
London: Edward Arnold,
1982
McGregor, Lynn.
Developments in Drama
Teaching.
London: Open Books,
1976
McGregor, Lynn /
Tate, Maggie / Robinson, Ken.
Learning Through Drama.
Schools Council Drama Teaching
Project (10-16).
London: Heinemann,
[1977] 1980
Morgan, Norah and Saxton,
Juliana.
Teaching Drama. A mind of many
wonders.
London: Hutchinson,
1987
Neelands, Jonothan and Goode,
Tony.
Structuring Drama Work. A
handbook of available forms in
theatre and drama,
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, [1990] 2000
Neelands, Jonothan.
Beginning Drama 11-14.
London: David Fulton,
[1997] 1998
Nicholson, Helen.
Applied Drama. The Gift of
Theatre.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan,
2005
fiction (160), fictitious (175), fictitious world (176),
fictitious situation (226), pretending (175), imagination
(viii), be someone else (226).
belief (175), suspend disbelief (175),
real one (176), life experience (viii), everyday world (x),
own life (79),
distance (187), Verfremdungseffekt (160), A-effect (160).
fictional or imagined situation (2), fictional occupation (18),
pretence, pretend situation (3), imagination (4), another
world (19), unreality (4), 'big lie' (5).
suspension of disbelief (2), building belief (42).
real, real life (2), real world (4).
sense of security (21).
make believe (1), as if (14), pretend (79), pretence (96),
imagination (14), in someone else's shoes (1).
suspend belief (79).
present circumstance (79).
imagined situation (10), as if (23).
identification (12), agreement to suspend (12).
actual situation (11).
distance (23), safety of one remove (23).
imagined situation (23), as if (23), make believe situation
(30)
identification (23), willing suspension of disbelief (23).
real life (131).
Distancing as [protective] strategy (131), distancing as a
means of detouring feeling (136), analogy (138).
fiction (104), fictional circumstances (94), imagined uses
(107), metaphor (104), symbolic dimension (96).
agreeing to suspend disbelief (107), identification (113).
reality (104), real events (104), real dimension (96), actual
experience (104).
protected (7), controlled (7), risk / feeling threatened (111).
‘drama world’ (9), virtual ‘reality’ (9), imagine (5),
imagined situation (66), as if (5).
other than (5).
actual context (9).
contracting protects (56).
fiction (66), fictional world (45), the imaginative (45),
dramatic metaphor (66), world of the story (72), two worlds
(45), metaxis (72).
identification (72).
the real and the fictional (35), fiction and reality (66).

O’Neill, Cecily and Lambert,
Alan.
Drama Structures. A practical
handbook for teachers.
London: Hutchinson,
1982
O’Neill, Cecily.
Drama Worlds. A framework for
process drama.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,
1995
O’Toole, John and Haseman,
Brad.
Dramawise. An introduction to
GCSE Drama.
London: Heinemann,
1988
O'Toole, John.
The Process of Drama.
Negotiating Art and Meaning.
London: Routledge,
1992
O’Toole, John and
Dunn, Julie.
Pretending to learn: helping
children learn through drama.
Frenchs Forest – NSW: Pearson
Education Australia/Longman,
2002
Owens, Allan &
Barber, Keith.
Dramaworks.
Carlisle: Carel Press,
1997
Stabler, Tom.
Drama in Primary Schools.
Schools Council Drama 5-11
Project.
protect (96), safe space (66), aesthetic distance (96).
make believe world (11), make believe situation (13),
imagined (11), in another’s shoes (13), adopted role (149).
identification (11), belief and commitment (13).
real world (11).
protect (149), safety (149), safe framework (13), distancing
material (149), analogy (149).
fictional world (12), dramatic “elsewhere” (12), dramatic
world (59), make believe world (59), make believe situation
(59), virtual world (60), imagined world (66), world of the
play (113), "world" (113), alternative reality (67).
identity (144), suspension of (66).
reality (66), real life (59), actual situation (59), real context
(59), world (67), the real and the fictional (119), “metaxis
phenomenon” (119).
‘alienation effect’ (66), protection (113), aesthetic distance
(113), psychical distance (113), loss of distance (114),
protection and distance (113), parenthesis of form (113),
bracketing and distancing (113), detachment (113),
disengagement (113).
fiction (4), imagined world (3), imaginary world (3), world
of the drama (31).
identify (4), shared commitment (137).
real world (3), real life (5).
fictional world (13), fictional context (13), pretend world
(13), make believe world (13), dramatic make believe (25),
metaphorical (25), 'not-meant' (25), 'not-real' (26), dual
affect (166), metaxis (30).
suspension of disbelief (13), agreement to the big lie (26).
reality (26), real (26), real context (26), real behaviour (25),
actual (25), the real and the fiction (166).
protection (25), protective function (112), alienation (26),
Verfremdungseffekt (26), role distance (112), distancing
(113), detachment (113).
fiction (3), fictional situation (2), fictional context (3),
pretend/pretence (3), in role (167), imaginable (3), world
beyond (3), dual affect (4).
suspension of disbelief (4), agreeing to pretend (3), identify
(166).
real (3), real life (3), real world (4).
safe (3), distance (165).
fiction (9)
building belief (9).
reality (9).
protection (10).
make believe environment (12), imagination (12), own
[dramatic play] world (12), dramatic play situation (12).
belief (203), commitment (203), suspension of disbelief
(203).
London: Macmillan Education,
1978
Taylor, Philip.
Redcoats and Patriots. Reflective
Practice in Drama and Social
Studies.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,
1998
Taylor, Philip.
The Drama Classroom. Action,
Reflection, Transformation.
New York: Routledge Falmer,
[2000] 2002
Winston, Joe.
Drama, Narrative and Moral
Education.
London: The Falmer Press,
1998
Winston, Joe and Tandy, Miles.
Beginning Drama 4-11.
London: David Fulton,
1998
Witkin, Robert W.
The Intelligence of Feeling.
London: Heinemann,
[1974] 1981
Woolland, Brian
The Teaching of Drama in the
Primary School.
London: Longman [1993] 1995
past experiences (12).
free from present constraints (12).
imagined world (14), imaginary event (17), dramatic world
(74), another world (37), possible world (53), role context
(54), in someone else’s shoes (14).
commitment to belief (53), aesthetic response (54).
quality of life (75).
protecting into drama (49).
fiction (45), fictitious world (2), fictitious platform (11),
imagined role, character, situation (2), imaginary world (11),
imagination (57).
reality (45), ordinary (57).
[Brechtian] distancing strategies (84), distance (90),
distancing device (126).
fiction (158), the fictional level (163), fictional act (163),
symbolic act (163), fictionally represented (68), fictional
context (116), dramatic fiction (166), fictionally practice
(176), imagined images (158), possible world (117),
dramatic form (140), metaphor (77), metaxis (163).
generate commitment (157), create a shared feeling (157).
real act (163), historical accuracy (166)
distancing (158), participate safely (140).
fiction (vii).
distance (vii), secure (vii).
real social situation (40).
control (40), safety (40).
dramatic fiction (7), fictional world (11), imagined world
(11), as if (8), what if (69), pretence (11), make believe (11),
other situation (89).
building belief (66-67) .
real (66), reality (11), real world (11), real life (89), actual
world (11).
distance (89), detached (67).
2. Appendix: Conceptions of distancing as a reflective poetic
device
Stig A. Eriksson is Associate Professor in Drama at Bergen University College, Norway. He
has served on IDEA’s Executive Committee, and was Project Co-ordinator for IDEA’s 4th
World Congress in 2001 in Bergen. Eriksson was a keynote speaker at IDEA 2007 in Hong
Kong.
Eriksson has been involved in curriculum development, and introducing drama in
schools and higher education. He is an experienced drama teacher and educator, and has lec-
tured and presented workshops at a number of national and international conferences. Eriks-
son’s research interests are the history of the development of drama education, political theatre
and process drama.
In 2003 in Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Eriksson was awarded the international prize
Grozdanin Kikot for his contribution to the building of IDEA, and especially for his work in
establishing the IDEA solidarity fund.

Contact addresses: stig.eriksson@hib.no; s-erikss@online.no

Anyone making a profound study of Brueghel’s pictorial contrasts must realize that he deals in
contradictions. In The Fall of Icarus the catastrophe breaks into the idyll in such a way that it is
clearly set apart from it and valuable insights into the idyll can be gained. He doesn’t allow the
catastrophe to alter the idyll; the latter remains unaltered and survives undestroyed, merely dis-
turbed. / The Fall of Icarus. Tiny scale of this legendary event (you have to hunt for the victim).
Brecht: “Alienation Effects in the Narrative Pictures of the Elder Brueghel”, in Willett
(2001:157).

The painting Landscape with the Fall of Icarus (c. 1558) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is owned by:
The Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Brussels.

Cover: Tove Ahlbäck

 ÅA
This study suggests that the aspect of making
strange in distancing is not sufficiently utilized in

Stig A. Eriksson: Distancing at Close Range

Drama Education. It is more than an artistic device;
it is in itself a tool for understanding and learning.

“Even if the topic of distancing has been identified as

a central concept in Drama Education since the late
1970s, a methodical interrogation of the concept,
in what is currently understood as process drama,
has not been undertaken until now and in this
thesis. For this reason alone this is important work,
for the author has systematically and painstakingly Stig A. Eriksson
uncovered the key thinkers and ideas which have
shaped our understandings of the term. To do this
the author has comprehensively and impressively Distancing at Close Range
canvassed the work of leading philosophers, art Investigating the Significance of Distancing in Drama Education
and literary theorists, artists and theatre makers to
present a detailed and entirely convincing account
of the lineage of this notion called distancing”.
Professor Brad Haseman,
Assistant Dean (Research)
Creative Industries Faculty, QUT
Australia

ISBN 978-952-12-2314-3

2009