The Impact of Cross-Dressing and Gender Performativities as Parts of Gestus

Considering the play’s Marxist and non-moralist narrative, the plot seems to reflect mostly on
material relations. The play shows us how the exploiter and exploited can actually be embodied in the
same body as it is done with Mother Courage by representing her both as a victim and promoter of
war. These dialectics and dualities are mostly founded on the contrast between the exploiter and
exploited, and the perpetrator and victim. However, these dualities are dependent on materialistic
determinism, mostly ignore cultural determinism and consequently, the gender roles. For instance,
while the women are empowered by being depicted as economically independent, their function
during the plots and contribution to the development of the message in many respects promotes
patriarchy. Especially, the dichotomy underlain in Shen Te’s cross-dressing is highly striking. The
sharp difference between Shen Te and Shui Ta is much more than a difference in their positions
within the relations to the means of production or the contrast between the exploited and exploiter.
What adds more to this dichotomy is the fact that Brecht is playing with these stereotypes such that
these two contrasting masquerades raise the ideas of not only a “good person” and “bad pers 51 It is
true that these plays’ main concern was based on class discussion. Shen Te’s highly quoted lines also
clarify this point: “A rumbling stomach is no respecter of persons”. Thus, it might be disputed
whether the gender questions were attempted to be discussed in this play regarding to or regardless of
class. Similarly, the complications that would arise from the manipulation of gender roles and cross-
dressing seem to be neglected. However, what we know with certainty is that gestus was used as an
important indicator to predict the material circumstances of the characters, not their cultural
background or gender roles. In order to clarify this point and illustrate Brechtian gestus, one might
refer to the prologue scene where Wang is speculating about who the gods might be based on the
appearances of the people passing by: It cannot be those men –he studies some workmen passing by-
they are coming away from work. Their shoulders are bent by the burdens they have to carry. That
fellow is no god either, he has inky fingers. At most he may be some kind of clerk in a cement works.
I would not take these gentlemen –two gentlemen walk past- for gods even: they have the brutal faces
of men who beat people, and the gods find that unnecessary. But look at these three! They seem very
different. They are well nourished, show no evidence of any kind of employment, and have dust on
their shoes, so they must have travelled far. It is them! (Brecht, 1965, p. 3) The scene perfectly sums
up the Brechtian gestus. The gods in this scene are defined according to their wealth, type of
(non)employment and physical appearances. The divinity, religious connotations and cultural
significations are removed from the picture. By drawing the attention to the gods’ economic
circumstances, the authoritative power that they have originated from the religious myths is
deconstructed. Therefore, the audience is alienated from the mainstream definition of gods over their
religious and cultural power. In a very similar way, while defining a woman, a man or a cross-dressed
character, the depiction of their socio-economical background is prioritized. However, the gender
stereotypes are usually left untouched, meaning that the socially constructed gender norms and
standards in most cases are not subjected to criticism. In other words the deconstructing criticism,
which is created through alienation effects, is directed to material relations not to the very norms that
create the gender roles. Consequently, Brechtian gestus -even if unintentionally- reproduces what
Butler calls “gender performativities” on the stage in a non-deconstructive way without addressing
substantial criticism to them. 52 Butler argues that repeated acts and socially constructed
performances are a huge part of gender identities. In other words, acts and gestures as products of
corporeal significations, which are produced on the surface of the body are considered performative:
Such acts, gestures, enactments generally construed, are performative in the sense that the essence or
identity that they otherwise purport to express are fabrications manufactured and sustained through
corporeal signs and other discursive means. (Butler, 1999, p. 173) These actions, gestures, words, and
behavioral patterns externally, through discursive means, and internally, through the process of
internalization, create the gendered body. These identities are subject to a constant policing and
recording both by the self and by society. The notion of being watched or policed should be noted
here since the existence of such a condition renders these actions as performances. However,
considering how these performances occur as results of the cooperation between both internal and
external dynamics of the dictated performativities, these actions should not be reduced to the results
of violent or abusive means. Although in some contexts, one’s failure to perform might result in
violent consequences, mostly performativities are habitualized, and internalized, and not questioned.
They are usually produced with the implicit consent of the individual. These identities that are
expressed and embodied by means of specific performativities are entirely socially constructed. At
this point, Butler qualifies these identities as myths. She concludes that gender identities are
arbitrarily constructed throughout the history, as results of illusions and idealizations of both men and
women; therefore, there cannot be a “true” gender or “false” gender. Butler argues that gendered
bodies revolve around three dimensions of corporeality: anatomical sex, gender identity, and gender
performance. In order to distort this cycle with a deconstructive example, Butler elaborates on the
corporeality of drag. On the one hand, a drag’s gender performance and anatomical sex are apparently
different from each other. On the other hand, his/her gender identity is out of question. Drag only
imitates the “ideal man/woman” performances. Within this imitative structure in which gender
performances are continuously reproduced, drag by overtly revealing the process of imitation poses an
alienation to this gender parody. Elin Diamond says that “if an identity is different from itself it can
no longer be an identity” (1988, p. 85). If the 53 identities are recognized, repeated and reproduced
through performances, then the discrepancy among anatomy, performances and the identity disproves
the validity of gender identities. Such invalidation and alienation reformulate the gender identities as
no more than an illusion. The similarity of Brechtian gestus and Butler’s approach to performativity is
conspicuous. Actually, within the context of epic theatre, Brecht makes use of these gender identities
as a part of character’s gestus. However, using especially the stereotypical performances and
approaching them solely from an economic perspective reproduces the gender identities without
constituting any alienation from them. Especially for the case of The Good Person of Szechwan using
Butler’s theory and her example of drag as tools of interpretation in construing gender issues and their
manipulation through characters’ gestus throughout the play is of capital importance for many
reasons. The most self-evident reason that necessitates a further examination is that the fact that the
protagonist is a cross-dresser. Analyzing the dynamics of both of the protagonists’ personas, the
differences between them and the connotations of these differences offer us a broader understanding
of Brecht’s approach to gender issues. One significant problem of the play is the lack of criticism
towards gender performativities while handling a cross-dresser. As a result of the lack of criticism,
normative/discursive gender identities are reproduced for the sake of bringing class issues and
social/material relations into view. The main reason that Shen Te decides to cross-dress is to rid
herself of her kind and naive personality, which always subjects her to exploitation. This way she
could get rid of the responsibility of being good all the time and defend her economic profits. Still,
she complains about the impossibility of being a good person without being exploited: The good
Cannot remain good for long in our country Where cupboards are bare, housewives start to squabble.
Oh, the divine commandments Are not much use against hunger. (Brecht, 1965, p. 48). The extreme
state of poverty and misery of Szechwan certainly overrides humane feelings such as helping others
and solidarity when people’s survival is at stake. The only person left with such feelings is Shen Te,
however, she also needs to survive and it 54 is not possible with her exceedingly generous behavior.
Hence, the first question that might be asked here is that why she does not change her own attitude if
she is tired of being exploited? Why does she fell the necessity to masquerade? She could just as well
give up doling out the poor and act the same way as Shui. The main reason that constrains Shen Te
from acting freely is the money that she receives from the gods in exchange for being a good person,
which she uses as the capital of her tobacco shop. In a part when she lacks enough money to repay
carpenter’s debt, which is actually owed by the former shop owner, she says, “What will the Gods
say?” She feels responsible and guilty for a debt that does not belong to her. During the play we also
encounter many scenes during which the gods are checking on Shen Te in order to make sure that she
still behaves in good manner. The gods keep checking on Shen Te and her good behavior by using
Wong as their agent. This control mechanism and the anxiety of Shen Te to fulfill the expectations of
gods who appears as male characters also have some symbolic significance. The policing by the gods
is very much similar to Butler’s sense of the success and failure of performativity. The subject is
constantly being reminded, disciplined and forced to perform the necessary imitative actions. In
Butler’s sense these actions constitute illusionary gender identities while in Brecht’s case these moral
decisions and actions illustrate the character’s social and material conditions. Given her circumstances
Shen Te’s decision of masquerading makes sense. However, the point when she decides to
masquerade as a male raises the question: why? What is the reason behind Shen Te’s choice of cross-
dressing and what are this act’s possible consequences? The social realities of time and place might be
considered as an explanation for Shen Te’s choice of cross-dressing. The patriarchal structure of the
society might have forced her to make this decision. Disguising as a man might grant her male
privilege that would keep her good in the eyes of the society. However, in the play we encounter
women characters who are single, independent and implacable at the same time. Mrs. Mi Tzu, who is
the proprietress of Shen Te’s tobacco shop, might stand as a solid example. At the beginning of the
play she becomes very upset seeing the poor people in her property and is very much worried about
the poor people Shen Te accommodates in the shop. Mrs. Mi Tzu has no pity for the people in need as
well as for Shen Te if she delays the rent payment. In a way, Mi Tzu appears to be a female Shui Ta.
Thus, it 55 would not be wrong to suggest that the social context of the play does not constitute a
significant obstacle for Shen Te to maintain her business in disguise of another women. The aim of
Brecht for such a dramaturgical choice then might be to highlight the difference between the two
different faces of Shen Te, since the change of gender would make the divergence even deeper.
Although the cross-dressing involves extreme changes of attitude towards material relations, Brecht
does not specifically defines a considerable change in gender performances in the text. The actor
working on the role by all means might work on differences in postures, gestures, mimics and bodily
significations; however, Brecht himself does not define such “male” or “female” gestus in the text.
Instead, the gestus he assigns to Shui Ta manifests the differences between the gestus of exploiter and
exploited. As a result, Shen Te’s choice to appear as a male persona brings about connotations that
link the type of behavior to one’s gender identity. Correspondingly, the lack of visible gender
performances and the surfacing of complicating connotations distinctly differentiate Shen Te from
Butler’s drag; therefore, an alienation from gender identities is not attained. Shen Te is depicted as
very self-sacrificing, helpful, compassionate and warm-hearted. She loves helping the poor even if she
is very poor just like the rest of the town. She is also so honest that she does not want to take the
money from the gods at the first place saying that “I am not good. I have an admission to make: when
Wang asked me if I could shelter you I had hesitations” However, the gods insist on her to take the
money pointing out her good personality and how she has overcome these hesitations. The extreme
goodness, honesty and naivety of Shen Te, on the other hand, in some cases make her appear easy to
fool and much less intelligent. Her relationship with Yang Sun is the most suitable illustration for
such argument. Yang Sun might be qualified as a typical misogynist who throws insults to women,
and humiliates them, but his function in the play reveals how Shen Te internalizes these kinds of
treatments towards women and prostitutes. Shen Te meets Sun in the park while he attempts to hang
himself. She tries to approach him and dissuade him. Yang knows that Shen Te is a prostitute and
replies her saying that “You can’t do business with me. Besides, you’re too ugly, Bandy legs”
(Brecht, 1965, p. 10). While Shen Te insists on talking him into changing his mind, she learns that
Sun is a pilot without a job, and tries to persuade him that he could find a job. During the conversation
Sun 56 keeps humiliating Shen Te by giving her insulting responses. At the end Shen Te achieves to
change Sun’s mind and falls in love with Sun after having sexual intimacy under the rain with him
although he does not pay any attention to her, care about her or show any kind of affection to her. The
only thing Shen Te does to test Sun’s affection towards her is by putting him to a test saying that he
would marry Shu Fu, a wealthy widowed men, since her cousin does not support her relationship with
Sun. Sun who had earlier sounded out Shui Ta about Shen Te’s financial situation, very easily
persuades Shen Te to run away with him by paying her factitious compliments. In contrast to Shen
Te, Shui Ta is in good control of his feelings. He is a very intelligent businessmen, with an astute,
crafty and self-seeker personality. He is also very successful at crisis management. He is able to think
rationally at times of moral decision-making and does not fall for the mistakes that Shen Te normally
does in critical situations. He is completely purged off from Shen Te’s mercy and compassion. He is
very much relentless towards the poor and does not see any harm in exploiting their labors. After he
steps into Shen Te’s tobacco business and makes the poor living under his roof work for his business,
he starts driving significant amount of profit. After a while, he establishes a tobacco factory. He
achieves such accomplishments by staying totally negligent to poor’s demands and prevents any kind
of excessively emotional state of mind. Still, Shen Te’s hysterical love for Sun that she persistently
hold on to, even though she knows about his real intensions over his talks with Shui Ta, is hard to
explain. Pointing out her lack of capacity of intelligence would be undermining her business mind and
rationality that she shows during her masquerade as Shui Ta. However the play’s context divides
these two masquerades in a very sharp way that after a while one cannot make sense of the emotional
decisions that Shen Te makes. Such a sharp difference brings about the idea that Shen Te would only
achieve to overcome her emotional obsessions by wearing a men’s suit and appearing as a man in
order to act rationally. Shen Te’s femininity depicts her as a prisoner of her hysterical emotions and
lack of ability to use her intelligence in a sufficient way as long as she is dressed as a woman. The
symbol of a feminine body and female apparels constitute an obstacle for any kind of rational
decision-making and emotional stability. All through the play these deficiencies are substituted by a
male masquerade. Eventually, Shen Te’s escape from 57 her kind, considered personality also
signifies her effort to run away from her gender identity. Such signification justifies and reproduces
the already existing gender norms on the stage and connotates femininity with excessive emotions and
irrationality and; masculinity with intelligence and coherence. Consequently, what looks like an
innocent solution to some material troubles at the beginning, leads to substantial amounts of gender
stereotyping. Elisabeth Wright (1994) in her article The Good Person of Szechwan: Discourse of a
masquerade examines these striking differences between the characteristics of Shen Te and Shui Ta.
She argues that Brecht addresses the cross-dressing in the play in a unilateral way and she attributes
this perspective to the single mechanism of Marxism. What she means by single mechanism is the
tendency of the Marxist theoreticians to analyze the issues only by referring to class conflicts and
material relations. In this sense, Shen Te embodies the exploited, and the exploitive mechanisms are
embodied by Shui Ta. In other words Shen Te symbolizes the oppressed by capitalist forces while
Shui Ta symbolizes a servant of the capitalist machine. However, the discursive and oppressive
dynamics in the play is not limited with capitalism. At this point, Wright refers to Gramsci who
coined the term hegemony. Gramsci argued that there are a number of systems such as culture and
religion that dominates the individual and societies other than capitalism’s single mechanism. The
sum of these different oppressive mechanisms constitutes the hegemony. Wright’s interpretation of
Gramsci’s system of multiple mechanisms brings around the gender issue as the second mechanism to
the surface of discussion in the context of The Good Person of Szechwan. She argues that Shen Te’s
oppression is “economic as a prostitute, psychic as a romantic beloved, social as a pregnant mother”
(Wright, 1994, p. 123). Within these systems of oppressions Wright develops an interesting argument
stating that Shen Te is also represented as a masquerade herself. She is divided in two different
personalities but none of them is her real self. So, she is not a full-fledged character, but only a
counter-existence or symbol for “social construction of femininity”. According to Wright, among the
Lacanian realms of real, imaginary and symbolic, Brecht in this play fails to represent the symbolic
realm of gender identities. Since women are not taken as a category or a specific group during the
play, the dual existence of Shen Te and Shui Ta does not go further than the contradiction between the
good and the bad in imaginary realm in which Shen Te is represented, as an “angel to the slums”
while Shui Ta is the 58 fierce capitalist. Moreover, Brecht’s lack of interest in the symbolic realm
ends up in “idealization of the phallic” through reason and control and “hystericization” of
“’womanly’ masquerade”. Although Wright’s arguments are very much well grounded and addressing
the multiple mechanisms has crucial importance in order to elaborate on the gender issues, I must
disagree with the part that she perceives Shen Te as a masquerade only. Claiming such an argument
means undermining the embodiment of Shui Ta and Shen Te within the same body, but to ascribe
them two totally disengaged forms of substance. However, there is not a magic wand that turns Shen
Te into Shui Ta without her consent. It is very risky to undercut Shen Te’s subjectivity, which is
already threatened by stereotypical definitions of gender identities throughout the play. Ultimately, it
is Shen Te at the end of the play who reveals her “real self” in front of the gods and is judged by
them. Thus, I think the problem of the play is not generated by Shen Te’s missing selfhood, but
instead, both the lack of display of connection between these two characters, and extreme display of
and emphasis on the stereotypical characteristics of gender identities which are associated with
different notions such as good and bad, or socialist and capitalist types of behavior. Alternately, the
forces behind Shen Te’s decision of masquerading as a male persona and the problems of how this
choice and its implementation is depicted should be addressed in order to grasp a better understanding
how the gender identities and performances operate during the play. The discourse of being a good
person and the bribe-like money that Shen Te receives from the gods becomes an unbearable and
oppressive burden for her. Since the discourse is generated by the gods, a source of religious
authority, the burden also develops into an inevitable assignment. This authority turns Shen Te into
gods’ bribed pushover or some sort of an instrument whom they would manipulate to imitate a world
in which the good is still alive as if they have fulfilled their mission of sustaining a world that the
good is still alive. In this structure, in which the gods are seeking for success -even if it is fake-, the
poor is seeking for food, shelter and money-even if they are misappropriated-, and everyone is
seeking for their own interest, Shen Te is 59 portrayed as the only person left to be manipulated by
both of these parties7 . In order to escape from this manipulation that later transforms into a system of
oppression, Shen Te develops herself into a relentless business man, Shui Ta, and creates her own
system of oppression in which she uses both the money from the gods and the labor from the poor.
Until this point the story seems to be about these interconnections and corruption that everyone
somehow is both oppressed by and gain favor over each other. However in such an approach to the
plot the elephant in the room is not pointed out. The discourse of being a good person is only imputed
to Shen Te, a woman who finds the resolution by dressing like a man. In the web of the different
signifiers and connotations Shen Te’s womanhood might lead to the assumption that being good,
naive, emotionally driven and even unintelligible and irrational is associated with the characteristics
of women, and being relentless, intelligent and rational with those of men. When Brecht’s techniques,
especially gestus that tends to generalize these characteristics, are considered these gender identities
gives way to stereotypes and a gender-biased narrative. Smith (1991) also warns the theatre
practitioners about the representation of characters and the manipulation of gestus saying that a
possible disconnection between these two characters and two distinctly irrelevant bodily gestus might
cause a disconcert of significations. She mentions Travis Preston’s production from 1984 of The
Good Person of Szechwan and points out how the company chose to present Shen Te. All the
disruptions that the company makes on the original Brechtian gestus address our points of discussion.
They have carried the components of female performativity to Shui Ta’s actions and created a blurred
rather than clear-cut distinction between these two characters in order to restore Shen Te’s
subjectivity. Although such a dramaturgical intervention gives the authority of her own body to Shen
Te and by revealing the consent of Shen Te in cross-dressing processes recognizes her subjectivity,
still, even with these adaptations the risk of affirmation of the gender performativities continues to
exist. 7 This point is interesting in the sense that Shen Te here constitutes both a contrast and
similarity with Mother Courage. Both of the characters are placed in corrupted environments. As I
already mentioned Mother Courage stands out with her tough nature within such a structure however
Shen Te seems as if she cannot handle the situation because of her essentially good nature. 60 The
lack of display of the connection between the characters and exaggeration of such a difference also
serves for the main message or the macrosign. The macrosign of the play is very much in line with
that of Mother Courage and Her Children: the dialectic of both being a sufferer and perpetrator of
capitalist forces. Eventually, Shen Te is also marginalized with some aspects just like Mother
Courage. However, Shen Te is marginalized not only within the limits of her material relations but
also within sexual and moral dimensions. I think that since Brecht is heavily focused on the
macrosign, the play lost track of these latter issues that arise as contributory elements. These
contributory elements can be listed as gender performativities and moral behaviors that are directly
associated with the macrosign. These two aspects complicate the main argument of the play by
offering different connotations that would provoke very much sexist conclusions. I have already
discussed how gender performativities are rendered as an element of the character’s gestus in a way
that acknowledges and reproduces them. In the specific context of the play, Shen Te’s decisions are
made through emotional mechanisms while Shui Ta’s are rational and based on calculations of profit
and loss. The sharp transition between these two states runs the risk of association of lack of
rationality to female behavior and lack of emotions to male behavior. Since the already existing
stereotypical characteristic of gender roles also maintains these characteristics I think the process of
such an association is inevitable. As a result the forces that makes Shen Te to masquerade are not
subjected to criticism but justified. Instead, the main criticism is addressed towards the capitalist
nature of Shui Ta’s behaviors. However this conclusion is not generated form Brecht’s individual
approach (or lack of approach) to gender issues, but also highly interconnected with Marx and Engel’s
approach to women. Anne Herrmann (1989) in her article Travesty and Transgression: Transvestism
in Shakespeare, Brecht, and Churchill examines three plays, one of which is The Good Person of
Szechwan, that use transvestism as a dramaturgical mean in order to convert and challenge the
historicized social infringements. During her analysis of The Good Person of Szechwan, Herrmann
argues that the transition between feminine and masculine stands as a metaphor of socialism and
capitalism. Since this transition does not have any sexual underlying she does not think that we can
call Shen Te a travesty. Instead, she argues that Shen Te is depicted as a subject position, not as a
psychological 61 subject that cross-dresses for different reasons. What makes her position more
specific is the fact that the subject position is “conceivable only in its relation to the masculine”
(1989, p. 134). Herrmann attributes this limitation to the image of a “bad father” as Yang Sun, and a
“good mother” Shen Te. Although Yang Sun is out of picture at the end of the play, Shen Te imagines
her child as a pilot in the future who would bring around brighter days. The child’s definition through
his father can also be interpreted as the revolution the socialist dreamt of is only conceivable through
masculinity. Hermann attributes this relation to the Communist Party policy on women of the time:
Like Shakespeare, who ceased to put cross dressed heroines on the stage once they began to appear on
the streets, Brecht used his women figures to embody Communist Party policy at a particular
historical moment. The discrepancy between women on stage and their roles on the stage of history
reinforces the role of the cross-dressed heroine as metaphor. (Herrmann, 1989, p. 147) In The Good
Person of Szechwan we observe a very similar attitude towards Shen Te. During the play, her struggle
for survival is defined through her economic means of survival and her existence is portrayed as a
metaphor. However, the metaphor of crossdressing also runs the risk of pointing out the women’s
incompetence of economic survival, which actually is a conclusion that goes against the idea of
Marxist scholars’ perspectives that I referred so far. The play carries the hazard of being interpreted as
if a woman by her own is not qualified to sustain a business under capitalist forms of production.
Even if the capitalist forces are blamed for this reason, this does not change the fact that symbolically
a woman is deprived of her ability to pursue her business appearing as a feminine figure, and there is
not a counterargument or criticism against such point except for the last scene of the play when the
audience is asked to come up with a resolution “to help good people to happy end” (Brecht, 1965, p.
109). The answer to this call, on the other hand, is so dependent on the audience yet so obvious:
socialism, since the dichotomy embodied in Shen Te and her male masquerade Shui Ta constitutes the
metaphor of the dichotomy between socialist and capitalist types of behaviors. In the end Shui Ta is
eliminated and the basis for audience’s solution is explicitly prepared. As a result, socialism is
implied as the force that would bring about emancipation to the women.