Between Theater and Courtroom: Theatricality, Performativity, and Citational Practices in Milo Rau’s Die Zürcher Prozesse Richard McClelland University of Bristol Abstract: Since founding his production company The International Institute of Political Murder in 2007, Swiss-born director Milo Rau has produced critically acclaimed and award-winning theater� Rau’s dramaturgy centers on the effort to engage with the real, to uncover the hidden patterns and processes that underpin contemporary reality, and in turn to open these up to future engagement� In Die Zürcher Prozesse (2013), Rau facilitated a trial in which the Swiss weekly magazine Die Weltwoche was charged with infringing the Swiss constitution� In this analysis, I consider what implications the theatrical framework has in an event that purports to “put reality on trial”� Drawing on theories of citation proposed by John Langshaw Austin and Jacques Derrida, I examine the role of performativity in the production to demonstrate how the theatrical frame creates a rich citational interplay that destabilizes the relationship between the production and reality� In turn, this raises questions about the nature of contemporary life - an issue that lies at the heart of Rau’s dramaturgical practices� Keywords: Milo Rau, John Langshaw Austin, Jacques Derrida, citation, speech act theory, Die Zürcher Prozesse, justice on stage Over three days in May 2013, the Swiss weekly magazine Die Weltwoche was put on trial for overstepping the limits of journalistic freedom to the detriment of third parties and civil society� The three articles that formed the case against the publication were each based on a specific infringement of the Swiss Criminal Code: “Schreckung der Bevölkerung” ( Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch , Art� 258); “Diskriminierung und Aufruf zu Hass” (Art� 261); and “Gefährdung der verfassungsmässigen Ordnung” (Art� 275)� Though these supposed constitutional infringements were real, the trial itself was not: it carried no legal weight and 126 Richard McClelland was, in fact, a piece of theater� Die Zürcher Prozesse , as the event was known, was the latest production by Swiss director Milo Rau and the courtroom was a stage inside Zurich’s Theater Neumarkt� During the production, lawyers and specialist witnesses, acting in their real-life professional capacities and not performing a theatrical role, were called to the dock in hearings that took place over three afternoons, each dedicated to one of the constitutional infringements listed above� Each day, both the prosecution - acting on behalf of the Swiss population - and the defense - representing the Weltwoche - presented evidence as part of the case; wide-ranging discussions questioned the role of the press in contemporary life, the protection of minority groups within civil society, and the potential limits of free speech� While this took place, a representative seven-member jury, drawn from the wider population of Zurich, weighed up the evidence that was presented to them and considered whether a point should exist at which freedom of expression should be curtailed to protect society as a whole� The jury delivered its verdict on the third and final day of the trial: the Weltwoche was acquitted by six votes to one� The jurors were clear: “Die Meinungsfreiheit und Meinungsvielfalt erachten wir als ein sehr wertvolles Gut” (Rau, Die Zürcher Prozesse 154)� Employing an analogy drawn from soccer, the foreperson Erika Nart explained: “Der Ball hat die Linie berührt, diese aber nicht übertreten” (154)� In short, though the prosecution had raised important truths about the role of the press in contemporary Switzerland, they were found to be too insubstantial; freedom of expression, itself enshrined in the Swiss Constitution ( Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, Art� 16), was found to be paramount, even in the face of the perceived hurt caused by the Weltwoche ’s alleged infringements of the Swiss Criminal Code� Had the publication been found guilty, however, the legal outcome of the trial would have been the same� As a theatrical event, Die Zürcher Prozesse carried no legal weight� Though it followed Swiss legal proceedings, centered on apparently real charges and featured individuals performing in their professional and official capacities, the event was a construct that simulated court proceedings as closely as possible� It is important to stress, however, that Rau’s production was no mere diversionary entertainment� In fact, Die Zürcher Prozesse responded to a perceived frustration with the Swiss justice system: real-life efforts to bring action against the Weltwoche on similar grounds had been rejected before they came to trial (see Bossart 6)� In this way, Die Zürcher Prozesse mirrors Rau’s theater as a whole� In all of the work that he has produced with his company, the International Institute of Political Murder (founded in 2007), Rau has engaged synecdochally with wider problems perceived to exist in contemporary society� In his productions, theater functions as an arena in which to explore Between Theater and Courtroom: Milo Rau’s Die Zürcher Prozesse 127 the patterns and processes that underpin and shape our understandings of contemporary reality, and the political implications that recognizing these might have� What is especially important in Rau’s project is that these theatrical interrogations of contemporary life often possess a utopian element� For Rau, his productions are not simply the negotiation of past events in the present, but rather represent the future-becoming of discourse and our potential responses to how the future might take shape (see Rau, Was tun? )� Considered in this way, Die Zürcher Prozesse becomes not simply an opportunity to discuss the Weltwoche ’s supposed past constitutional infringements� Rather, the production is an opportunity to generate a broader, future-facing discussion on the limits and responsibilities of individuals and the media regarding freedom of expression as this intersects with other legally protected rights� Die Zürcher Prozesse gestures therefore beyond its potentially narrow foundations to broader societal concerns� As Rolf Bossart states: “ Die Weltwoche ist nur Anlass und Ausgangspunkt, um ein politisch-mediales System in einem Zeitalter sich verhärtender ideologischer Fronten und eines wegbrechenden Wertekonsens zu untersuchen” (8)� Moreover, in the Swiss context the role of the production takes on a greater importance because the state is a direct democracy in which media outlets represent an important platform in the formation of public opinion� As Bossart continues: “Es geht um die Untersuchung eines viel größeren Systems - des Systems Schweiz� Panorama, Panoptikum, Schaulager” (9)� By facilitating an alternative forum in which a potentially necessary public debate could take place that had been denied in reality, then, the event in fact acted as a supplement to reality itself� As outlined above, although Die Zürcher Prozesse is framed as a theatrical event, both the materials that form the basis of the investigation, and the bodies that participate through their presence on the stage, are real� This means that Die Zürcher Prozesse is marked by a blurring of the real and the fictional that not only has an impact on how the audience should understand the production, but also on how participants should approach their involvement� It is precisely this blurring of the real and the fictional that meant that not all invited parties felt that the production was an appropriate forum in which they could participate� One such individual was Roger Köppel, who became the Weltwoche ’s chief editor in 2001 and has been its publisher since 2006� In an interview originally published in the Weltwoche , Köppel justified his refusal to participate by stating: “Der echte Roger Köppel kann nicht vor einem falschen Gericht stehen” (Bandle et al� 21)� 1 The present paper takes this statement as its point of departure to explore both the relationship between non-representational theater and reality, and how such theater can contribute to social debates� At the same time, it considers why the courtroom is a productive forum for the study of these dynamics� 128 Richard McClelland The first part of the article examines how Rau deliberately and provocatively plays with the inherent theatricality of the courtroom in a way that destabilizes the opposition that Köppel asserts between the real and the fictional and upon which he bases his opposition to participation in the production� The second part extends the discussion to J� L� Austin’s speech act theory (1962) to consider the performative dynamics of the real courtroom scenario as this relates to the theatricalized one in Die Zürcher Prozesse � The third part turns to Jacques Derrida’s discussion of Austin in his essay “Signature Event Context” (1988) to destabilize further the perceived binary opposition between the real and play in Rau’s production� Using Austin and Derrida in this way not only facilitates the deconstruction of the relationship between the real and the fictional as manifest in Rau’s production, but also brings into focus how Die Zürcher Prozesse opens up a space for debate that might be precluded in closed, dramatic courtroom theater. Finally, the study considers the potential efficacy of Rau’s production as a piece of theater without legal weight as it relates to the broader societal debates that Rau seeks to provoke through his productions� As demonstrated throughout, the deconstruction of the binary opposition between the real and the theatrical in Rau’s production results in a rich citational interplay that has bearing on everyday reality� This raises the question: does the theater quote the practices of the courtroom, or the courtroom the practices of the theater? By investigating this question through a non-representational production that places a theatrical frame around the real without fictionalizing it, this paper argues that Die Zürcher Prozesse facilitates a productive, alternative public forum that gives space to a key debate that affects contemporary life not just in Switzerland, but across the globe� Theatricality is an integral part of public life� It is often used to aid the conceptualization of abstract notions to the individual, including abstract categories such as “nation,” “monarchy,” and “freedom” - as well as the law (see Nield 284)� As the contributions to this special issue attest, there is a well-established link between the theatrical and the legal that has brought the latter to the stage numerous times� This also works in reverse, however� The British judiciary, for example, abounds with the theatrical both in practice and in the popular imagination� From the set roles and blocking of the courtroom itself to the dull swishes of black gowns and horsehair wigs, the court is a highly theatrical space� It is important to note, however, that the connections between the two institutions go much deeper� Theatricality and performance are inherent features of the legal process and a vital part of its claims to legitimacy� As Karen Crawley and Kieran Tranter outline, “the criminal trial is a complex performance of space and bodies, of forms and formalism, of words spoken and ritual undertaken” Between Theater and Courtroom: Milo Rau’s Die Zürcher Prozesse 129 (621)� What is more, the high level of theatricality and the public-facing position this facilitates are an integral part of the legal process� As Crawley and Tranter continue: “visuality is considered a hallmark of a just, functioning criminal law” (622)� This is supported by Nield, who states that the traditions of the courtroom “imbue the process with dignity and authority, they make up the ‘face’ of the legal process itself, and it is through these signs and signifiers that the public recognizes its legitimacy” (287)� Likewise, Graham White, speaking of the Hague Tribunals, highlights that “the ‘play’ of the courtroom is crucial to the reception of the event’s significance outside of the space” (79). Die Zürcher Prozesse reflects the theatricality of the courtroom in a number of ways� At the same time, however, these conventions are adapted to make concessions to theatrical spectatorship� The particular mise-en-scène of the production manifests the blending of the real of the court and the fictional of the theater that I outline above, while drawing on the theatricality of both� For example, participants are placed on the stage in a semi-circle (as one moves from stage right to stage left: the jury, the witness stand, the judge’s bench, the prosecution, and the defense) and so the focal point falls center stage, directly in the audience’s line of sight� Though this arrangement restructures the courtroom for the stage, such deliberate theatrical framing may have had little impact on how participants behaved during the production� Images of the event show participants addressing the jury or other members of the production from this central focal point, but often facing away from the audience� This suggests the presence of a fourth wall that simultaneously separates the participants from the spectators, while also acknowledging a spatial co-presence with a requisite audience, as can be recognized in the public gallery in an actual courtroom� More overt theatrical features included a glass interpreter’s box (from which Swiss German was interpreted into High German), cameras and screens that were used to project footage of the trial above the stage, and a clapperboard used to mark the start and end of individual sessions� The presentation of these media elements mirrors Rau’s other theatrical projects; presenting materials in this way not only draws attention to the role of the media in the dissemination of the legal process, but also serves to increase the considered theatricality of Rau’s production beyond the theatricality of the courtroom itself� The inclusion of an on-stage jury during Die Zürcher Prozesse provided an interesting dynamic that contributed to the theatricality of the production� The seven-member panel were present on the stage during the three hearings and delivered the final verdict on the third day. Though juries had been a feature of Swiss criminal courts in the past, they were abolished in 2011 (see Hürlimann)� Rau’s choice to include a jury in Die Zürcher Prozesse two years later raises the question of his dramaturgical intent� On the one hand, if one considers that the 130 Richard McClelland telos of the theatrical production, as with a real-life trial, is the final judgment, then the jury’s presence is potentially redundant� After all, the judge could reach a verdict without their participation� On the other hand, the jury serves an important, dual dramaturgical function: not only does its presence on the stage highlight that this trial is, in fact, theater, but this presence potentially extends a frame of participation outwards to the spectators seated in the auditorium� As Rau notes, the jury is a concession to the audience to maintain a different level of interest beyond that of the trial proper (see Das geschichtliche Gefühl 108)� During the trial, the jury received information and heard statements at the same time as the audience� This shared experience of events provides the individual spectator with an opportunity to link their own interpretation of proceedings with that of the public voice present on the stage� This adds weight to the outcome: as a supposedly representative group of people (though Rau does not go into further detail), the prospect of the jury’s decision at the end of the production incorporated a level of tension into proceedings� This tension can be seen in the press coverage of the production, which emphasizes the outcome of the production over the content of the discussions that took place during it (see Müller)� The clear, but ultimately open, teleology of Die Zürcher Prozesse does, of course, mirror actual legal trials: the simultaneous pronouncement and enactment of justice at the end of a trial is the decisive factor of the proceedings� Dramaturgically, however, there is also a clear affinity between the flow of Die Zürcher Prozesse and more traditional dramatic structures� One can see this at a basic level insofar as the production can be understood as the unfolding of action through conflict that results in a resolution. That there are deeper structural affinities to drama is explored by Rau in the third of the lectures that he gave when he held the Saarbrücker Poetikdozentur für Dramatik in 2017� As he outlines, there are clear parallels between the different stages of the production and those of a traditional five-act tragic drama: “Die Eröffnungssitzung (Exposition), die drei Fälle (in ansteigender Intensität), schließlich die Schlussplädoyers und die Urteilsfindung (Auflösung)” ( Das geschichtliche Gefühl 113)� This structure is emphasized through the arrangement of the trial across three consecutive days: the opening session was held on the evening of the first day, beginning at 19: 15; on day two, sessions covered the first and second charges against the Weltwoche ( Schreckung der Bevölkerung and Rassendiskriminierung ) with an interval of an hour between the two; and the third day opened with the final charge ( Gefährdung der Verfassungsmässigen Ordnung ) before moving in the afternoon to the closing session and statements and, from just after 19: 00, sentencing� The potential link to dramatic structure is emphasized in the official publication and transcript of the production, which includes frequent references to moments of Between Theater and Courtroom: Milo Rau’s Die Zürcher Prozesse 131 tension and audience anticipation that rise and fall across each of the individual sessions, as well as to the potentially cathartic effect of the final outcome of the event� 2 As Rau continues, this structure has an important effect in relation to the production as it emerges as a piece of theater: “Was entsteht, ist nichts weniger als ein Live-Archiv der agonalen Gesten einer bestimmten politischen Fundamental-Differenz” ( Das geschichtliche Gefühl 113)� Here one can identify why the debate is more important for Rau than the outcome - a point discussed below� The theater, as an agonistic space lacking a legally binding outcome, has facilitated a dialogue between opposing parties that would be impossible in reality. In this respect, the theater has effectively supplanted official court proceedings� It is clear from the above discussion that the courtroom is a highly theatricalized space� Rau’s Die Zürcher Prozesse plays with this by producing a heightened judicial theatricality� That is, the production layers the theatricality of the theater over that of the courtroom through the dramaturgical structures that the director employs, not least through the inclusion of a jury in the event� What is more, parallels between the five-act structure of tragic drama and Die Zürcher Prozesse serve to heighten the dynamic of productive exchange between the prosecution and defense, which, through the very fact of it taking place at all, potentially surpasses the courtroom itself� There is an important distinction to be drawn between strictly theatrical events that take place in the theater itself and theatricalized processes as more broadly conceived and which happen in the real world outside the theater� In what follows, this difference is articulated through a consideration of performance and performativity as behavioral and speech categories that are simultaneously part of, and different to, the theatrical. As Julie Stone Peters outlines, theater differs from performance both “analytically” and “ontologically�” That is: “Where theatre is mimesis (imitation), performance is methexis (participation); where theatre is pretending, performance is real” (184)� In this argument one can recognize a justification for Köppel’s assertion that he cannot participate in the production as a “real man” (see Bandle et al� 21): that is, even if performativity is embedded in everyday life, at a fundamental level this is different to the theatrical framework that is applied to the courtroom in Die Zürcher Prozesse � However, the role of the theatrical in the performative processes of a real courtroom cannot be underestimated� This is echoed by Nield, who argues that theatricalized events in society entail “both presentation and execution […] performance […] [and the] fact of the event” (284)� This undoubtedly holds true for the law� It is the performative process that underpins the complex of legal theatricality that is important here because it has a direct effect on the individual. As Stone Peters 132 Richard McClelland states, “it has been argued [that] law is the ultimate performative institution: producing the framework of subjecthood and subjectivity through discursive acts” (185)� Both performance and performativity, are therefore essential categories of any legal proceeding, as Arjomand (1) argues� The role and function of the performative as an essential feature of the legal process is outlined by J. L. Austin in his influential text How to do Things with Words , originally delivered as a series of lectures at Harvard University in 1955� In Austin’s definition, the performative is that category of “utterances” that function in such a way that they “do not ‘describe’ or ‘report’ what the speaker means to convey” (5)� Rather it is their utterance that “is, or is part of, the doing of an action” (5)� The classic example given by Austin is the Christian wedding ceremony’s proclamation “I do (sc� take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife)”: by pronouncing these words the action that they represent comes into effect (5). When applied to the courtroom, the “performative utterance” is the judgment pronounced at the end of the trial� Though the judgment and its legal consequences for the bodies in the courtroom have been decided in advance, it is only in and through the act of pronouncing the judgment that it becomes legally binding� Austin goes on to state that, while the performative utterance is an integral part of the enacting of the act itself, this is not the sole contributing factor to it taking effect (8). The performative is not only dependent upon the “circumstances” of the utterance being “appropriate,” but also upon the performance of an accompanying gesture� When one considers that Die Zürcher Prozesse is a theatrical production that reproduces the procedures of the courtroom within a clear theatrical frame, it is clear that the circumstances appropriate to the performativity of the trial are not met� As a result, the theatrical framework precludes legal implication - a reality that was decided in advance and is clear to all participants� Likewise, the theatrical frame means that, while any supposedly appropriate gestures enacted by participants are in fact performance, they are crucially not performative� Die Zürcher Prozesse , then, by virtue of its very nature as a theatrical event, is not a sham precisely because it does not deny that it is theater� Austin explicitly mentions the stage as one of a number of fictional frameworks that render the performative as “hollow or void” (22)� He does so in his presentation of the so-called “doctrine of the Infelicities ” (Austin 14—15; emphasis original), a seemingly exhaustive list that outlines how the uttering of a performative can go wrong� The stage, for Austin, produces circumstances in which language is used in a non-serious way, which he states to be “parasitic” upon its normal usage� That is, an utterance made on the stage undermines the pure use of language that Austin requires for the performative to be enacted by Between Theater and Courtroom: Milo Rau’s Die Zürcher Prozesse 133 fictionalizing it deliberately. If this aspect of Austin’s argument is applied to Die Zürcher Prozesse , it would follow that Rau’s staged courtroom and any performativity that might occur during the production feeds on and exploits the pure usage of language that Austin demands� However, Rau’s production actually undermines Austin’s notion of parasitic language itself� This rests on the fact that the production is not simply a piece of dramatic theater� As outlined in the introduction, the individuals who appear in the production are performing in their real-world competencies in a self-conscious way� In Stone Peters’ sense of the term, the lawyers performing in Die Zürcher Prozesse behave as they do on the stage because it is their job� They act in a way that emulates real-life processes. What is more, there is a fundamental difference in form and nature between this production and famous courtroom scenes from dramatic literature� This is an open-ended production: neither the procedures, though shaped by Rau in advance, nor the outcome, are fully and exclusively pre-determined by him� That is, though participants in Rau’s production are fully aware that they are taking part in a theatricalized courtroom event with no legal weight, the words and actions they perform are not scripted as they would be if they were actors performing in a drama� Their use of language is not, therefore, parasitic as Austin describes it, precisely because this is not pre-scripted dramatic theater� But this does not mean that performative language features in the production as it would in real life. As described above, the efficacy of the performative is negated in this production because of the theatrical context� Die Zürcher Prozesse is, after all, theater� Participants’ speech and actions might not be performative, but they are performance� Jacques Derrida deconstructs Austin’s concept of parasitic language in his essay “Signature Event Context” (1988)� He does so by looking at language and communication through two interrelated lenses� First, that of iterability: the ability of a sign (i�e�, a written or spoken word) to be repeatable in new contexts as a marker of its very status as a sign� Second, that of absence: the ability of a sign to function, and thereby communicate meaning, even when the speaker or writer is not present (see Derrida 5)� Put in other words, this is the ability of writing to communicate meaning to an addressee even if both partners are not in the same physical space� Derrida extends this further, stating that, in order for writing to be able to function fully as a carrier of meaning, it must be able to communicate meaning even in the absence or non-existence of the addressee� As he states, “writing that is not structurally readable-iterable-beyond the death of the addressee would not be writing” (7)� Derrida’s deconstruction of speech act theory and the prominence he places on iterability as part of the process of communication has several implications 134 Richard McClelland for our understanding of the theater� As Kevin Halion highlights, the theatrical spectator is only able to recognize that an actor is acting as though he is doing something because of the inherent iterability of language and its ability to communicate meaning (162)� That is, because language is repeatable in new contexts, we are able to understand that what happens on the stage is a play version of real life� To make such a recognition is to acknowledge the mimetic quality of the stage: the language spoken by the actor on the stage has been spoken previously outside of the theater and is now being reproduced in front of the audience� As Halion states, “any pretended act is logically posterior to some instance of the act it pretends to be” (162)� The act of citation has further implications for Derrida’s argument� In his discussion of Austin, Derrida does not distinguish between supposedly proper and supposedly parasitic usage of language� For Derrida the pure context that Austin demands for a performative utterance to be valid does not, and cannot, exist� To illustrate his point, Derrida demonstrates that, as a result of iterability, communication can work in both the absence of the referent (one can say “the sky is blue” and understand what is meant without seeing the sky) and, following Husserl’s understanding of crisis of meaning (that is, instances in which meaning is deliberately de-objectified or made incoherent, such as the sentence “the circle is squared”), in the absence of the signified (Derrida 11). By pushing the implications of this idea to its limit, Derrida demonstrates that there is no such thing as improper usage of language� There are no situations in which pure or parasitic language can occur, and so speech is always already simply speech� Citation is key here: through this process, one can quote signs in an infinite number of contexts. This act places, as it were, quotation marks around a sign to cite it� As Derrida continues, “in so doing it can break with every given context, engendering an infinity of new contexts in a manner which is absolutely illimitable” (12)� Whereas Austin sees speech acts determined, then, by the context in which they are said, Derrida argues that no such context exists� As outlined above, by implication there is no specific context in which an iteration can take place that has precedence over other iterations� Following this line of argument, to hear something said on stage is no longer to hear a parasitic utterance of a pre-existing, extra-theatrical, and supposedly pure utterance� Rather, it is but one iteration of an utterance among equals� Furthermore, owing to the absence of a pure context, one can no longer ascertain whether one is interpreting “play” or not� If there is no longer any objectively “parasitic” utterance, then there are no longer any objectively parasitic contexts: the boundary between the real and play breaks down� Between Theater and Courtroom: Milo Rau’s Die Zürcher Prozesse 135 That the boundary between the real and play might break down in this way is of importance when considered in relation to Die Zürcher Prozesse � As outlined above, for Austin, the context of the production would not be pure because it takes place within a theatrical framework and therefore all language uttered on the stage would be “parasitic�” In this view, the production feeds on and makes hollow the real-world courtroom� One could even expand Austin’s line of argument to categorize not just the on-stage language, but also the performance more generally, as parasitic� That is, the gestural mimesis that takes place on stage not only mimics supposedly real-life behavior, but also the contexts in which the performative (as defined by Austin) might manifest. This can be seen in Die Zürcher Prozesse in the pronouncement of the trial outcome, for example� If one brings Derrida’s argument into consideration, however, the very nature of the performance as play comes into question� As stated above, the participating lawyers and other experts (who are no less real that Roger Köppel himself) perform their real-life competencies during the production, but they do so within a clear theatrical framework� However, if the boundary between the real and play is broken down, then the spectator can never be sure that what is being performed on the stage is true to real life or true to theatrical representation� One might assume that a lawyer is acting as they would in a real criminal trial, but this cannot be taken for granted� It is significant here that the production does not carry legal weight because, even if participants were surpassing the boundaries of their normal behavior, this would carry no implications because their actions are not taking place under oath (itself another example of performative language)� They are free, in effect, to behave and act at will. At the same time, if this were a real trial, then the opposite is also true: as Halion outlines, even in a genuine court event, one can still not guarantee that all utterances are truthful (170)� That is, while no oath took place before Rau’s production, that one is taken in a courtroom is no guarantee of truth� It follows then that the absence of an oath in Die Zürcher Prozesse should therefore not be taken as an automatic marker of falsehood� As Halion argues, in the courtroom “any apparently normal promise may turn out not to be a promise, or to be a false promise or a non-serious promise, on consideration of different features of the context” (170). Halion goes on to extend this further, and effectively argues that the non-discernibility of pure context and truthful intent applies to all aspects of life� A key feature of this is the inherent theatricality that one finds in places like the courtroom: An utterance iterated on stage, during a play, is different from that same utterance made in the course of legal arguments in court� But in court the theatrical, the ritualistic, and the non-theatrical and non-ritualistic are often hard or impossible to tell 136 Richard McClelland apart� And it is not only on stage that there is pretence and play-acting; and it is not only in courts of law that there is unthinking ritual speech� […] One can [never] be sure that one has left play-acting behind� (170) Within the parameters of Derrida’s argument, then, it is impossible to differentiate between supposed fact and constructed fiction in Die Zürcher Prozesse � What is more, this can be extended to life more generally: one can potentially never differentiate between truth and play in a real courtroom. Köppel’s bombastic assertion, then, that he as a real man cannot appear before a false court, is revealed to be misguided because the opposition between such categories has been effectively deconstructed. The blending of the theatrical and the real in Die Zürcher Prozesse engenders a level of uncertainty in the production; both participants and spectators alike cannot be entirely certain that the events happening during the production are real or false� This should not be taken as grounds for dismissing the charges that form the heart of the accusations levied against the Weltwoche , however� As outlined at the start of this paper, Die Zürcher Prozesse facilitates a parallel forum in which debates precluded in real life can take place, and this remains the case in spite of the deconstruction of the truth/ play binary in and through the production� This is touched upon by the Austrian journalist and writer Robert Misik, who participated in the production as an expert witness for the prosecution. On the third and final day of the production, Misik made the following appeal to the members of the jury: Ich habe […] in meinem Einleitungsplädoyer gesagt, was wir hier erleben, ist einerseits Fiktion, weil es eine Theaterproduktion ist, aber andererseits ist es auch real� Und das heißt, das Urteil, vor dem Sie stehen, oder die Entscheidung, vor der Sie stehen, für die gilt dasselbe� Es ist rechtlich völlig bedeutungslos, aber es ist nicht irrelevant! Sie senden hier ein Signal� (Rau, Die Zürcher Prozesse 139) On the one hand, Misik is correct to state that the production delivers a message that is potentially of importance for the real world: though this is a theatrical production, the outcome (regardless of what this may have been) would have been disseminated and debated in the press, and potentially altered attitudes towards permissible topics and stances in journalism in Switzerland� On the other hand, while Misik’s statement carries a certain weight, not least as an appeal to those individuals who debated and made the decision, it downplays the importance of the trial as process� Rau himself argues that it is not so much the judgment reached by the jury that is important but rather the process that takes them to this point (cf� Müller 11)� Between Theater and Courtroom: Milo Rau’s Die Zürcher Prozesse 137 In this way, it is possible to link Die Zürcher Prozesse to other examples of heightened judicial theatricality from theater and dramatic history� In each case, rather than the outcome being important, what matters is the debate that is facilitated and, in turn, the potential pedagogical function that this might have� The journalist Tobi Müller, for example, links Die Zürcher Prozesse to Brecht’s didactic Lehrstücke of the 1920s and 30s (Müller 11)� For Müller, what is important is that both Rau and Brecht generate, or seek to generate, meaning through an experiential process� 3 That is, in both Brecht and Rau it is an individual’s participation in the theatrical event that is important� In the case of Brecht’s mass workers’ choirs, participation can or should result in a heightened or transformed political consciousness� In Rau’s production participation by the real individuals who form the jury or perform in their professional capacities on the stage might alter how they see and understand contemporary reality� While the experience of process is an important aspect of how these different theater events work, there is, however, a notable and major difference between a Lehrstück and Die Zürcher Prozesse � As commented above, the dramaturgy of Rau’s production is open, whereas that of Brecht’s plays is effectively closed. The Lehrstücke are enclosed textual objects that are performed on the stage; the realization that is encoded in them and enacted through participation is predetermined by the dramatist himself� 4 No such predetermination has taken place in Die Zürcher Prozesse � In the conversation held between Rau, Roger Köppel and the journalist Rico Bandle, the question of show trials is raised regarding Die Zürcher Prozesse and Rau’s earlier Die Moskauer Prozesse (2013) . Köppel and Bandle link the production to the show trials of the twentieth century, most notably those ordered by Joseph Stalin in the 1930s� 5 Rau states that, in their USSR context, such trials performed a political service in terms of the publication and dissemination of expected behavior and political attitudes (see Bandle et al� 20)� At the same time, however, he acknowledges that they represent a travesty of justice because their outcome was predetermined� By contrast, Die Zürcher Prozesse is dramaturgically open-ended and the comparison that Köppel and Bandle draw might be interpreted as a crude dismissal of Rau’s left-wing politics by the populist, rightwing press� What is important here is that, as Arjomand highlights, the term ‘show trial’ was not originally pejorative, but intended to highlight the didactic quality of the trials: “[The term ‘show trial’] conveyed two meanings at once: the courtroom as a didactic space (a space to show something) and as a theatrical space (a space for shows )” (3)� When Die Zürcher Prozesse is understood in this way, one can recognize how the production facilitates a space in which the debates surrounding the Weltwoche might be shown and explored in a public forum, which, as outlined above, has been denied outside of the theatrical context� 138 Richard McClelland As Rau discusses in his lectures for the Saarbrücker Poetikdozentur , the importance of the production as process is clear because of the potential didactic function that is serves� As he outlines, the structure of the courtroom, which brings together two opposing parties, was the perfect forum in which such a debate could take place. In his justification of the production, Rau outlines that the two parties - the Weltwoche and its supporters on the one hand, who see the publication as a bastion of liberalism and free speech, and those who oppose what they see as its populist tubthumping on the other - did not engage in debate (see Rau, Das geschichtliche Gefühl 112)� That is, the two parties talked about, but never with, each other� The production facilitates this engagement in two ways� First, it gives the debate a political exigency by placing it into a public forum� And second, that this public forum is the theater and not the court means that the legal immediacy of a real trial is negated and, as a result, the debate (and not any potential outcome) takes on an enhanced importance� As outlined at the start of this paper, Rau’s theater centers on the effort to present alternative visions of society to the public that are intended to trigger a debate on the nature of contemporary reality� It is clear that Die Zürcher Prozesse achieves this in two ways� First, the production questions both the role of the media in contemporary society and how this relates to the question of potential limitations on free speech� Second, the production can be considered as emblematic, insofar as the debate it facilitates can serve as a model for future engagement between antagonistic parties� Bossart relates this back to the role played by the actual courts themselves, highlighting in particular their role in the “Veröffentlichung von geschehenem bzw. vermutetem Unrecht” (7). That perceived injustice is made public and discussed is a key aspect of Rau’s theatrical project� This presents something of a paradox� On the one hand, the theater is potentially more efficacious than the courtroom despite its absolute legal impotence because it has facilitated a public debate� In Die Zürcher Prozesse , the nature of this debate is rooted in the temporality of the theatrical event, which happens in real time in front of an audience, and which works towards a future resolution for the conflict being discussed. The courts, however, seek resolution in the present for events that have already taken place� The court is not directed towards the future, but to the past� Theater of this kind therefore has an advantage over the courtroom� As Arjomand argues, “while legal judgment can only address the past, theater can teach judgment as a continual process” (6)� On the other hand, that Rau’s production does not carry legal weight potentially diminishes its ability to influence those involved. The lack of a binding judgment means there is no real reason for the individual, or the organizations they represent, to change� After all, one would not incur punishment by ignoring the Between Theater and Courtroom: Milo Rau’s Die Zürcher Prozesse 139 outcome of the event� Responsibility to act is therefore invested in the individual and not enforced by an external legal reality� This relates, for example, to Joe Kelleher’s belief that theater can never have the same effect on an individual as a real-life situation, even if they portray the same material (23)� One should keep in mind an important aspect of Rau’s production, however, when considering this opposition between the efficacy of the theater and that of the courtroom. As demonstrated, the relationship between the real and the fictional is destabilized throughout Die Zürcher Prozesse in multiple ways� Though Rau’s production draws attention to the theatricality and performativity intrinsic to legal processes, it is possible to see how notions of real and play intertwine fully in everyday life, as Halion argues� Multiple layers of theatricality and multiple forms of performativity affect and shape our relationship to a discernible reality� By revealing this to audience scrutiny, then, Rau’s production potentially facilitates the negotiation of a theatricalized, performative ‘real’ that marks experience outside of the theater� If this is the case, then, Roger Köppel is no less real, and no less false, than Die Zürcher Prozesse � Notes 1 It is important to note that, while Köppel refused to participate in the production, he did not refuse to have anything to do with it, as this interview and the coverage of the event in Die Weltwoche attests� In his statement, we can see Köppel taking the event at face value in a way that is both engaged and reactionary; he knows that the event will generate debate that he can spin to sell more copies of his magazine, but the dynamics of the production and his right-wing views means that he cannot participate in events directly (doing so would concede, perhaps, that there is some truth to the accusations being levied against his publication)� The interrelation of politics and the media in Switzerland mentioned above has intensified since the production: in 2015 Köppel became a member of the National Council for the right-wing Schweizerische Volkspartei � 2 For example, on the first evening of the production, the official transcript of the proceedings (which again mirrors legal practice) notes that “alle warten gespannt” (Rau, Die Zürcher Prozesse 28)� 3 For more information on Brecht’s Lehrstücke and the political theories that underpin this form of dramatic theater, see Mueller� 4 Admittedly Brecht did alter the texts of his Lehrstücke in response to audience feedback (as Mueller outlines)� However, this process still entails the pre-determination of action towards a fixed realization on the part of the 140 Richard McClelland participant� Neither the route to the outcome nor the outcome itself was fixed in this way in Rau’s production. 5 Rau’s 2013 Moscow-based production, Die Moskauer Prozesse utilizes the courtroom format discussed here� It provided a forum to discuss both sides of the Russian culture war as epitomized in the arrest and imprisonment of the band Pussy Riot in February 2012, and the subsequent international debate that this caused� Works Cited Arjomand, Minou� Staged: Show Trials, Political Theater, and the Aesthetics of Judgment. New York: Columbia UP, 2018� Austin, J� L� How to Do Things with Words � Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1962� Bandle, Rico, Roger Köppel, and Milo Rau� “Und dann ab in den Pranger�” Die Zürcher Prozesse � Ed� Milo Rau� Berlin: Verbrecher Verlag, 2014� 16—23� Bossart, Rolf� “Prolog� Die Weltwoche vor Gericht? ” Die Zürcher Prozesse � Ed� Milo Rau� Berlin: Verbrecher Verlag, 2014� 6—9� Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft , 18 April 1999� fedlex.admin.ch � Fedlex, n�d� Web� 18 July 2022� Crawley, Karen, and Kieran Tranter� “A Maelstrom of Bodies and Emotions and Things: Spectatorial Encounters with the Trial�” International Journal of Semiotic Law 32 (2019): 621—40� Derrida, Jacques� “Signature Event Context�” Limited Inc. Transl� Samuel Weber� Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1988� 1—23� Halion, Kevin� “Parasitic Speech Acts: Austin, Searle, Derrida�” Philosophy Today 36 (1992): 161—72� Hürlimann, Brigitte� “Der letzte Akt des Geschworenengerichts�” nzz.ch � Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 Sept� 2011� Web� 1 Oct� 2019� Kelleher, Joe� Theatre & Politics � Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009� Mueller, Rosawitha� “Learning for a new society: das Lehrstück �” The Cambridge Companion to Brecht. Ed� Peter Thompson and Glendyr Sacks� Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2006� 101—17� Müller, Tobi� “Das Theater als unmoralische Anstalt�” Die Zürcher Prozesse � Ed� Milo Rau� Berlin: Verbrecher Verlag, 2014� 10—15� Nield, Sophie� “How does theatricality legitimize the law? ” Thinking Through Theatre and Performance � Ed� Maaike Bleeker et al� London/ New York: Methuen Drama, 2019� 284—95� Rau, Milo� Das geschichtliche Gefühl. Wege zu einem globalen Realismus. Berlin: Alexander Verlag, 2019� ---� Die Zürcher Prozesse � Berlin: Verbrecher Verlag, 2014� ---� Was tun? Kritik der postmodernen Vernunft. Zürich/ Berlin: Kein & Aber, 2013� Between Theater and Courtroom: Milo Rau’s Die Zürcher Prozesse 141 Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch , 21 Dec� 1937 (1 June 2022)� fedlex.admin.ch � Fedlex, n�d� Web� 1 Oct� 2019� Stone Peters, Julie� “Legal Performance Good and Bad�” Law, Culture and the Humanities 4 (2008): 179—200� White, Graham� “Witnessing Proceedings: The Hague War Crimes Tribunal, Narrative Indeterminacy, and the Public Audience�” The Drama Review 52 (2008): 75—87�