The true motivation and nature of war are enigmas that cannot be fully understood. However, many historians and philosophers often argue that a strong contributing factor behind the initiation and longevity of wars is economic gain. The German Marxist, theater director, playwright, and poet Bertolt Brecht, during the early twentieth century, argued that war revolved around economic exploitation, especially of the lower class proletariat. Therefore, war both dehumanizes people and brings their inhumanity and corruption more to light. In his epic play on the Thirty Years’ War titled "Mother Courage and her Children," Brecht's argument is conveyed through the outrageous and unbelievable actions of the characters, illustrating the harsh realities of war from below.
Brecht’s genre of epic theater especially helps to communicate Brecht’s polemic and admonition against the economic exploitation that characterizes war. This genre, also known as pedagogical theater, aims not to engage the audience in catharsis or some empathetic experience, but to spur them to action against some flaw in society. Thus, the theater would limit the emotional aspect and relatability that is characteristic of dramatic theater, creating a distinct separation of the characters and the audience and using limited props and low lighting. Brecht’s epic theater depicts purposefully ridiculous characters and events in order to draw out the ridiculousness of actual realities, much like satire but relying more on anger and disbelief drawn from the absurdity, rather than humor. This detached and unbelievable sequence of events (rather than narrative) set recited (rather than acted out) in front of the audience is meant to have a pedantic effect, raising awareness about human flaws and catalyzing action.
One scene in the play that especially develops Brecht’s argument utilizing aspects of his epic theater is Scene Five, which, though it is short, shows the unquenchable hunger for wealth and the inhumanity of several characters in the play. As soon as the scene opens, the greed of these pigs in human clothing is thrown blatantly into the audiences’ faces. Mother Courage starts out arguing with a soldier who recently returned from pillaging a town, insisting that she receive proper pay before giving the soldier a drink. “The general only allowed one hour of looting,” the soldier complains, “one hour for the whole city!” The man whines, speaking of looting as if it is the sole purpose behind his being in the army, as if it is his true job, speaking of it lightly as if it is the norm, and even reasoning that the general must have been bribed to only allow such a “short” amount of time for looting. This punctuates how ironically, money and material wealth appears to be the driving force behind a war that apparently is being fought for religious and ethical purposes. This bickering is then interrupted by an actual problem where human lives are at stake - an injured farmer and his wife are dragged out of a burning house and require medical attention. Adamantly, Mother Courage refuses to hand over the soldiers’ shirts that she has in stock and that are the only available bandaging in the vicinity because that would be a loss of profit for her and she could care less for the injured farmers. To her, her profit is even more important than actual human lives. “I’m giving nothing,” she insists. “They’ll never pay, and here’s why, because they’ve got nothing.” But even the farmers themselves have economic drive behind their actions; the reason why they got into trouble in the first place was because they were trying to protect their farm, their only source of income. “The farm’s everything to farmers,” Mother Courage says, just as her cart and her money is everything to her. It is not until the Chaplain forcibly takes the linens from her that the farmers receive any treatment. And when Mother Courage’s daughter Kattrin, the only compassionate and selfless character in the play, rescues the couple’s infant from the collapsing house, Mother Courage only sees it as a burden. “Oh what luck,” she sarcastically remarks, “who’s found herself another suckling to haul around?” And immediately after, she insists payment from the soldier who has been stealing drinks. The scene abruptly ends with “Someone’s still inside.” The value of human lives in this scene is belittled and monetary value is more prominent. The absurdity of this entire scene, through the mechanics of Brecht’s epic theater, was constructed to astonish the audience and to drive them to action against greed. The pigs in human clothing that are the characters in this play thus serve as exaggerated versions of humanity and display our flaws and the economic exploitation in war more explicitly, reflecting some of Brecht’s Marxist anti-capitalist philosophy. Or perhaps the characters are not completely exaggerated versions of us?