Presence of Comedy and Tragedy in Titus Andronicus - Essay Example

Frоm thе nеurоsсiеnсе роint оf viеw, hоw dоеs thе рrеsеnсе оf соmеdy аnd                                      trаgеdy  in Тitus Аndrоniсus аffесt thе еmоtiоnаl rеsроnsеs оf аudiеnсеs? Introduction, Setting the Scene Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus” does not quite fit easily into the usual genres of his plays, combining as it does several theatrical styles. This makes audience reactions more complicated socially and neuroscientifically. It is classed by some as Shakespeare’s first tragedy, and it is also one of his earliest plays. It seems to have been written and first performed at some time between 1589 and 1592, long before modern science began to investigate what happens neurologically when an audience goes to a drama, yet the play obviously engaged its audiences, so we can presume that, although not known about , the mirror neurons as discovered by modern researchers, were firing in response to the play. In ‘Titus Andronicus’ there are fourteen deaths, as well as other awful and unlawful acts. Such horrors are however mixed with comic elements , as when Lavinia, with both hands chopped off, tries to pick things up, or when Tamora is presented with a pie for dinner which contains the flesh of her dead sons, a mixture of comedy and tragedy, sometimes in the same scene. Few, if any, of these actions would have been experienced by playgoers in real life, yet they have seen similar acts depicted before, so their mirror neurons react as if they were actually carrying out such acts.  Maslen ( Playhouse 5) describes how Shakespeare concentrates not upon the great Roman triumphs he heard of in his school days, but rather upon the invasion of Rome by the Goths and others  in the guise of Queen Tamora and her Moorish lover. In this play, perhaps more than any other by this writer, there are times when the two aspects of tragedy and comedy  are so very closely entwined that they can hardly be separated, as when mother sits down to eat a pie, the meat of which , the audience knows, is from the bodies of her dead sons. The audience therefore receives and then reacts very mixed messages. This essay will consider how it is that  play goers are able to recognize what is going on and can anticipate relate to it in some measure, whether to a joke or some horror, and  how this is because their mirror neurons are able to recognize instantly the correct response, as can be demonstrated by modern research into mirror neurons . Formal Proposal The mixture of emotions engendered by this play is under the control of the human brain..’ The audience become, to some extent at least , part of the action , even though they remain in their seats. This is because of the double consciousness they experience, and because of the activation of mirror neurons in their brains. How does an audience react to this play and what is actually going on in their brains and emotions? Rizzolatti and Craighero ( 2004) describe how stimulation  of the  brain is of great importance for primates, and for mankind  in particular. They are referring to stimulation of the relatively recently discovered mirror neurons,  because of the actions carried out  by other individuals. This is a system designed for a social animal. Once we have watched and copied an action it becomes part of us deep in our brains. When we see the action repeated by someone else we share the experience whether it be a murder as when Titus kills Mutius, or some funny incident as when the rapist sons are silences and can only able to communicate by rolling their  eyes after having earlier made Lavinia mute  ( NOVAScience NOW2005) .This is about much more than simply watching a play and getting pleasure from it. This understanding of the actions of others is an important a survival mechanism for humans and when such a process is impaired there are resultant difficulties. In order to survive, we must be capable of understanding the actions of others. Are they friendly? Will they attack? Hatfield et al describe how emotions such as these are developed and organized  ( 1994, page 3) drawing on the work of Fischer, Shaver and Carnochan ( 1990, page 90). Without such understanding of action and emotion, social organization and interaction would be impossible. In the case of humans, there is another faculty that depends on the observation of others' actions: imitation learning. Humans  are able to learn by imitation, and this faculty is at the basis of human culture. So a survival mechanism has other uses, in this case even something as banal at laughing at a joke on stage. It has been claimed by researchers such as Iacoboni ( 2009) that people’s responses to what they see around them , whether in the theatre or in real life, are under the control a mirror neurons in the brain, so when they see  a funny situation on stage, such as the presentation of the pie to Queen Tamora, they laugh. The neurons described are  formed from premotor and parietal cells (Iacoboni and Depratto, 2006) . When we observe something it is these cells, as well as our personal circumstances,  on which our reactions depend. There is a human tendency to copy the actions observed, because of what Hatfield  et al ( 1994) describe as social contagion, and when this isn’t possible, as when one is sitting in a theatre audience watching a play such as ‘Titus Andronicus’ , these neurons are fired, even when we just observe others’ actions or emotions, rather than if we physically attempt to imitate them. We may not want to rape Lavinia, but nevertheless her ravishment causes a reaction. These emotions and reactions will vary somewhat from person to person, depending to a great extent upon their own circumstances, but emotions may also be influenced by those around them and the collective understanding and reaction to what is seen.  Loomba ( Chapter 3, page 75) describes how an African audience in the days of apartheid really empathized with the black character Aaron in “Titus Andronicus”, . This however is a character who when asked if he wasn’t sorry for what he had done answers:- ‘Ay, that I had not done a thousand more. Even now I curse the day.’ ( Act 5, scene 1) . Despite this depth of depravity there was sympathy for him, at least among this audience. Their experience of life was rather different from that of the average playgoer and so they react positively to Aaron simply because he shares some of their physical traits and because  he was an outsider  in society, in a very lowly position,  something they could align themselves with. This perceived commonality of experience causes the instinctive firing of the mirror neurons, even when , by thinking logically, the action is hard to follow.  One man later explained that he hadn’t understood everything with his brain, but had felt it in his heart. Yet Aaron himself repeatedly describes himself as a person whose blackness and evil behavior explain each other (Loomba, page 79). To the end of the play he remains unrepentant and is eventually buried alive. That audience was made up of people who had had great difficulties in establishing with others, that is with many white South Africans, that they were competent and capable of making their own decisions. They must , emotionally at least, have felt buried alive  just because of who they were.  On page 76 of the same text  Loomba , states that Aaron’s  blackness might have been seen in terms of ‘otherness’ by 17th century audiences , whether as in terms of being Islamic or barbaric, rather than as in being black as opposed to being white. Some parts of the play quite openly invoke our sympathy as when Titus, feeling betrayed by Rome, speaks to the stones, feeling they are a better audience than the tribunes (Act 3, scene 1)  :-         Why, tis no matter, man. If they did hear, They would not mark me; if they did mark, They would not pity me. Yet plead I must, And bootless unto them. Therefore I tell my sorrows to the stones, Who, though they cannot answer my distress, Yet in some sort they are better than the Tribunes. In the document  ‘General Cognition for Theatrical Audiences ‘ ( page 41 ) there is a description from the journal of Bostonian Anna Quincy in 1833, after watching a very dramatic theatrical performance, if not ‘Titus Andronicus.’.  The writer cites theatrical historian Julia Walker as saying about this diary entry that it represent a double consciousness. The onlooker is perfectly aware that this is make-believe, a contrived performance however convincing the acting, and that the actress concerned will, at the end of the show,  put on her everyday clothes and return to normal life until the next performance, just as Elizabethan audiences knew the murder victims in the play would rise again to play the same role the next day. Yet when Quincy refers to ‘she’ and ‘her’ she is describing both the actress,  Fanny Kemble, and at the same time the role, Bianca, that she is portraying so dramatically.  In the same way audiences for Shakespearean plays, especially perhaps in the early years when performances were in daylight, would be very aware that this was a play, rather than reality, that they were watching, so they too had this double headed consciousness. At the same time the other members of the audience would have been in clearer view than usually experienced in a modern theatre with its dimmed lighting, except for the actual stage. This would perhaps have made for a more collectively similar experience than in a darkened room, as not only would they hear gasps and laughter , but would also see clearly the faces of those producing the sounds. Does this go some way to explaining why this particular play, “Titus Andronicus” was so much more popular in the 17th century than it is today? The cues and clues for appropriate and conforming audience behavior would have come across so much more strongly. The same is probably true to some extent though when watching any live performance, rather than watching the action on a small screen for instance, although that too can make an obvious impact. Trumball ( 2007) cites the intensity of the experience of a live performance which enables audience members to identify with the characters and to react emotionally with what they see. At the same time this aspect of a double consciousness allows the viewer to step back from the drama at times and instead consider particular aspects of what they are seeing. ‘Is this actress as good as the other person I’ve seen in this role?’; ‘I don’t like the set.’ ; or ‘Why did they choose to do this in modern dress?’. The person, whether ordinary audience member or professional theatre critic, can think about the direction , the costumes, the skills of those on stage, or of the writer. This double consciousness therefore allows the kind of detachment required for criticism, while at the same time allowing the audience full reign for their emotional involvement.  Perhaps it can be compared to a driver , fully aware of what is happening on  the road and capable of using his driving skills to deal with changing conditions, but who can at the same time carry on a conversation, or appreciate a piece of music on the car radio. Modern Research In the early 1990’s in Italy researchers discovered that when a monkey sees a researcher bring some object to his mouth, the identical brain neurons are fired as do when the monkey brings food to its own mouth ( Blakeslee, 2006), even when apparently the monkey is not reacting or moving, which can be likened to an audience which stays in its seats, but whose mirror neurons fire when they see Lavinia handless and mute trying to  pick up things. Eventually it could be proved that this firing of neurons also take place when the monkey simply hears a peanut being cracked open ready to eat, a type of anticipation , as when the playgoers predict what Tamora’s reaction might be when she discovers the true ingredients of her dinner.. The Italian researchers who discovered this phenomenon  named the particular cells which were shown to  fire in such situations "mirror neurons”. Iacoboni ( 2009) argued that mirror neuron systems within the human brain enable people to understand the movements, actions and even the  intentions of others. He discusses the merging that has occurred between cognitive models of imitation and concepts which have arisen out of social psychology studies, in particular with regard to such things as sympathy, empathy and imitation. He further describes the model of associative sequence learning of imitation, which proposes that Hebbian learning ( undated) , based upon experience,  forms links between the sensory processing of the actions observed in others and motor plans. This is based upon Hebb’s 1949  learning rule which states that the connections between any two neurons could be made stronger if the neurons fire simultaneously. It provides an explanation as to how linked sensory representations of actions observed in others are to motor plans, and this is what happens when an audience member reacts to what he sees on stage.. According to Iacoboni there have been social psychology studies which have demonstrated how pervasive imitation and mimicry can be, and that these are automatic and enable empathy to be established. This neural mirroring enables humans to have access to what others are thinking and feeling and helps us to understand the people we meet and observe, whether in normal life, or by watching a performance, as when  they hear the opening speech in ‘Titus Andronicus’ and begin to anticipate the way Titus intends to get his revenge .This is only acting and the audience are aware of that , but there reactions neurologically are the same as if this were a real life event.  Iacoboni cites a number of sources who have linked imitation with a person’s ability to understand others and to emphasize with them, just as playgoers need to understand what an actor is trying to  portray.. His citations include early authors on these topics such as De Montaigne ( 1575 ) and Smith (1759) as well as  Nietzsche in the 19th century ( 1881) and Wittgenstein more recently (1980). This understanding of others can be quite precise. In 2005 Iacoboni and his fellow researchers were able to report that using mirror neurons meant that individuals could for instance tell whether someone picking up a cup was intending to take a drink from it, or to remove it from the table, just as they can predict the outcome for particular people on stage. As Cook states ( 2010, page 1), unless one watches some theatrical drama alone a person is only one part of an audience, a fragment of the greater whole. There may even be a case where one person is influenced in their reactions by the majority, or even the reverse, as when one person begins to applaud and others join in. People usually want to be accepted and there is huge social pressure to conform which acts in theatrical situations, as well as more generally. We usually laugh with others rather than when alone. As Cook says (2008, page 579):- Theatre works on the body and mind of the spectator, changing minds and touching bodies at the deepest level. Using a speech from’ Richard III’, Cook shows how it is relatively easy to understand what the words mean ( 2008, page 50), but how it is much more difficult to analyze why it means what it does to the human mind. The same can be applied to the opening speech of Satruninus in ‘Titus Andronicus’,  the play being about a struggle for power between legitimate and upstart rulers.  That opening speech compresses the complexities of what is to follow throughout the play. It quite literally ‘sets the scene, and that then helps the audience to prepare emotionally. Cook describes the language used, in this case that of William Shakespeare, as ‘cognitively generative’. People can tell from the words used  in this opening speech that this play is about power and justice set aside. Research by Iacoboni et al (2009) that humans not only have similar  mirror neurons to those found in the laboratory monkey, but, because of the sophisticated and evolved human social interactions and abilities , these are more complex and better developed. Blakeslee ( 2006) describes how many of the motor neurons in the human brain are specialized in detecting quite ordinary things in the human environment. Some, for instance, fire only when they meet  a horizontal line , whereas  others react to vertical lines. There are those which detect a single sound frequency or a direction of movement. Such facts would explain why some people may perhaps be better able to understand or play music, or are better than average at ball sports. As well as these responses to things researchers have discovered groups of neurons that can  detect very complex features such  as faces, necessary for facial recognition , as described by Endicott et al in 2008,  as well as expressive body language.  They will know , if the actors do their job well, which actors are playing negative roles and which are likely to be victims such as the innocent Lavinia. Such research suggests that the better the acting, and the better view the playgoer has, the more likely it is that his brain will mirror the emotions displayed. Shakespeare may not have had modern technology or scientific knowledge available to him, but it seems he knew exactly how to make the16th century playgoers react. The human brain has multiple mirror neuron systems that specialize in carrying out and understanding not just the actions of others but their intentions, the social meaning of their behavior and their emotions ( Blakeslee, 2006). According to Rizzolatti ( cited by Blakeslee, 2006) this  is a survival mechanism in humans who need to understand what is happening around them, including of course the ‘actions, intentions and emotions’ of others , so this is so much more than just understanding and enjoying a play. We need to know what is going on, what is intended, if we are to react appropriately, whether this be to laugh or to take evasive or even aggressive action. This discovery has important implications for study into anthropology, empathy and philosophy, as well as how language works and medical conditions such as autism, a condition which results in social isolation, and  in the field of psychotherapy. In autism for instance it has been found that those affected will be found to have a mirror neuron system which is dysfunctional to a greater or lesser degree, with those with the greatest amount of autistic symptoms having the least active mirror neuron system (Perry, 2013). If they were watching a play such as ‘Titus Andronicus’ they would just be confused, especially because of the mix of comedy and tragedy.  This also means that                                        “ Mirror neurons provide a powerful biological foundation for the evolution of culture.”                                  ( Greenfield, cited by Blakeslee, 2006). Earlier scientists had always thought that culture had little to do with biology, but this more recent research shows clearly that the mirror neurons enable each generation to learn from a previous one, by direct observation of their actions and reactions. Watch a child walking behind his father for instance. He has a very similar gait and posture and the older he gets the more their gaits will match. This is their norm, a family trait, almost as sure as the continuing of the DNA that controls hair color, height, or skin tone. This type of cultural learning and educating down the generations from parent to child can be seen in many families of whatever cultural background. Yet it can at the same time be linked to how an audience react to the emotions displayed on stage, however tangled these might be in a play such as ‘Titus Andronicus’ Billig in 2002 described how in the 19th and early 20th century Sigmund Freud tried to gain an understanding of what happens when we laugh and why it is we do this, as in his work of 1905 ‘Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.’ Freud saw jokes, as he saw so many other things, as being strongly linked to repressed desires – we want to be part of the action, even when it is perhaps socially unacceptable. We laugh at certain things and we disapprove of other things. Most people would disapprove of the rape and dismemberment of an innocent girl, yet this play is so complex that audiences laugh when the handless and mute Lavinia tries to pick up things on stage, despite the situation which brought her to  that position (Act 2), an example of how audiences respond to gesture as well as speech. Many of Freud’s theories have today been largely superseded, and he did not of course have recourse to the modern technology which enables researchers to tell instantly when even one mirror neuron is firing. Nor was he part of the technological advances in communication of the  late 20th and  the 21st centuries which now enable new knowledge on this and other topics to be disseminated so widely, rapidly and accurately. Does our understanding and reaction  depend upon who is performing and how good they are,  as much as on the audience, a group gathered together for a common purpose at a particular place and time? Trumbull ( 2007) describes some of the accepted conventions of a theatrical performance which may be concerned with what audiences will accept and how the story is enacted. The audience, by buying a ticket, agrees implicitly to pretend to see what is not seen. A backcloth for instance is obviously flat, yet is accepted as setting the scene in a particular locale. They accept too that they will react emotionally to a performance as if the actions were taking place in real life. Trumbull ( 2007)  quotes theatre critic Walter Kerr as having said: We are contenders, making the play and the evening and the emotion together. We are playmates, building a structure. This quotation  describes well the interaction needed between performers and onlookers if a play as complicated as Titus Andronicus is to be communicated effectively. Billig cites Bergson , who in 1911  wrote about how laughter seems to be ‘in need of an echo’. The evidence seems to bear this out. Theatrical troops do not perform  well in empty theatres , but would have reacted to the audience responses to their efforts. In the period before the discovery of mirror neurons and how they functioned, scientists  in general thought  that humans brains used logical thought processes in order to interpret and to predict other people’s responses and actions. In the early 21st century there has been a shift and many researchers in the field have come to think that human understanding of others is not so much a matter of thinking, consciously or otherwise,  not by thinking, but of feeling. You see a smile or a frown , or some small gesture  and there is then no need to think actively about what the other person intends or means. The mirror neuron system allows us to both receive and to interpret facial expressions we observe, a kind of  decoding. Whether we are simply observing a particular expression or are creating it ourselves , the very same areas of our brain become activated. In those who are naturally better at interpreting facial expressions, the more actively their mirror neuron system is firing.  The meaning is experienced immediately and without conscious effort. According to Perry ( 2013) research into mirror neurons has led to :-         New insight into how and why we develop empathy for others.          More knowledge about autism, schizophrenia, and other brain disorders characterized         by poor social interactions.          New therapies for helping stroke victims regain lost movement.         A new theory about the evolution of language. Iacaboni (2009) describes how in recent years there has been a convergence between cognitive models of imitation and other ideas with their basis in social psychology studies with regard to mimicry and empathy, as well as neuroscientific empirical findings. The socio- psychological studies have clearly shown that imitation and mimicry have a tendency to pervade, and are automatic rather than under a person’s conscious control They facilitate feelings of empathy with the person or actor seen, whether this be the Moor Aaron and his wickedness  or his lover Queen Tamora who loses her sons.. Such action may take place even at a single cell level mirroring, according to neuroscience investigations as described by Iacaboni ( 2009) . These reactions made in response to external stimuli, human reaction to suspense, surprise and revelations, to the gradual unfolding of events, as well as reversals and unexpected discoveries: any or all of these  enable people to anticipate the reactions of others,  and well as to understand the reasoning behind them,  enabling a great deal of beneficial social interaction. Researchers such as Nevhaniv and Dautenhaun ( 2002) have had as the focus of their work an urge  to understand how the sensory input received from the action of a second party e.g. an actor in a role, whatever it is, is transformed by the nervous system into a matching motor output , that is  by the firing of similar mirror neurons in the imitator. Shakespeare’s early audiences were very aware that it was only actors on a stage. They would even know that the ‘ladies’ in the play were in fact young men or boys. They knew that this wasn’t in any way real life, yet they were able to overcome this, to suspend their disbelief.  In the 21st century the line between what is and isn’t real can become very blurred. There are times in our modern day when it becomes difficult to distinguish clearly between a character in a drama and the person playing the part. Cleland (2009) describes how in modern times humans often take on the part of avatars and how computers can interact with people, either face to face from a screen, or even in robotic form. She is concerned with how such interactions are experienced and felt. She wonders whether a virtual reality screen evokes the same kind of responses we get when we observe human behavior. She concludes that although the onscreen presence is seen as a different type of reality, differences with real life are becoming increasing shaky. Presumably the mirror neurons react in a similar way to when seeing a real life performance. Think of something such as a football game. Most people would prefer to be there in the stadium soaking up the atmosphere, yet at the same time the game can be enjoyed by watching it on a screen at home, preferably with some fellow enthusiasts and suitable refreshments  According  to NOVA ScienceNow (2005) the fans feel as if they are really part of the game. As Cleland says ( 2009, page 3 ) “ it is the perceived intelligence or awareness of the entity which is the most important.” just as it was for 16th century playgoers. Conclusion One has to agree with the opening remarks of Amy Cook (2007) that a theatrical performance  has an effect , perhaps far more strongly than we consciously appreciate , upon both the body and the mind of the spectator at a profound level. The situation seems to be that the mind is not a separately entity, but is very closely bound up at a cellular level with the neurons which enable it to function.  It can be seen from the study above that the audience of a play, or any dramatic performance including a television program,  even if it has a tangled and complicated emotional message such as in ‘Titus Andronicus’, are getting cues, just as the actors on stage are, as to what is expected of them. As a result they are using their mirror neurons in a very direct way, unthinkingly. This is an automatic neural reaction, rather than conscious thinking. We are perhaps in rather less control than we think we are. We choose whether or not to go to the theatre, when we go, what we want to see and how much we can afford for tickets, but our reactions to what we see and hear, are rather less a matter of choice. The word ‘theatre’ comes from a Greek word meaning ‘The seeing place’ and ‘auditorium’ from another root meaning ‘the hearing place’ (Trumbull , 2007) , but it is really a decoding and reacting place. References Bergson, H., Laughter, London: Macmillan, 1911. Billig, M. , Freud and the language of humour , The Psychologist , Volume 15, 9, pages 452-455, September 2009 Blakeslee, S., Cells that read mines, The New York Times, 10th January 2006, 16th November 2013 < http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/science/10mirr.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0> Cleland, K., Intimate Encounters: the Mixed Reality Paradigm and Audience Responses, Proceedings of the Digital Arts and Culture Conference of 2009, University of California , Irvine 16th November 2013, Cook, A., Interplay: The method and potential of a cognitive science approach to theatre. Theatre Journal 59, 2007, pages 579-594, The John Hopkins University Press, 2008 Cook, A., Shakespearean Neuroplay: Reinvigorating the study of dramatic texts or performance through cognitive science, New York, Palgrave McMillan 2010, Fischer , K., Shaver, P. and Carnochan ,P., How emotions develop and how they organize development, Cognition and Emotion 4 , pages 81-127, 1990 Freud , S., Jokes and their relation to the unconscious , 1905 , London, Hogarth  Press, 1960 Hatfield, E., Cocioppo,J. and Rapson,R., Emotional Contagion , Cambridge, Press Syndicate of Cambridge University, 1994 Hebbian Learning Rule, (undated)  16th November 20013 Iacoboni, M., Imitation, empathy and mirror neurons, The Annual Review of Psychology, 2009, 16th November 20013 Iacobonni, M. and Depratto, M., The mirror neuron system and the consequences of its dysfunction, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7, 942-951 , December 2006, 16th November 20013 Loomba, Chapter 3, Wilderness and Civilization in Titus Andronicus. Maslen,R., Extreme Comedy: the funny side of Titus Andronicus, Playhouse 5 , undated Nevhaniv, C. and Dautenhaun, K.  . 2002. The correspondence problem. In Imitation in Animals and Artifacts, ed.Dautenhahn,K. and  Nehaniv,C.  pp. 41–62. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press NOVAScienceNow, Mirror Neurons,  2005,17th November 2013 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/mirror-neurons.html Nstodard, Lets Talk About Titus Andronicus, Drama Daily, 11th September 2010, 16th November 20013 Perry, S., Mirror Neurons, Neuroanatomy, BrainFacts.org 20th February 2013, Rizzolatti, G. and Craighero, L.,The mirror-neuron system,  Annual Review of Neuroscience, 2004, 27 pages 169-92, 16th November 20013 < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15217330> Trumbull, E., The Audience and the Theatre, Introduction to Theatre, North Virginia Community College, 2007,16th November 20013,< http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/spd130et/audthea.htm> Read More