the satisfactory response from its audience . ( 79-80 )
The relationship that professional wrestling has with its audience as a performance of hegemony is unique , in that not only does the relationship allow for the audience to perform , as discussed earlier , but it also allows for the audience to determine whether or not this spectacle is a form of resistance to the hegemonic forces being performed .
This aesthetic of absurdity and exaggeration produces a Brechtian dramaturgical quality of epic theater referred to as the “ alienation effect ,” which defamiliarizes the performance for the audience , enticing them to take an active , critical standpoint on the social forces being demonstrated on stage . The function of the Brechtian alienation effect is to cause the audience to question something that has become familiar by making it unfamiliar . As I ’ ve discussed , wrestling operates on artifice and predetermined established roles . I would argue that the vast majority of wrestling fans are aware of this artifice ; after all , the WWE and its chairman Vince McMahon have openly outed the wrestling industry as “ sports entertainment ” rather than a legitimate competition ( WWE “ Mr . McMahon ushers in the Attitude Era ”). When wrestling “ fails ” to convince the audience , i . e ., when the artifice becomes visible , it forces the viewer to question ( and ultimately reject ) the validity of wrestling as a sports competition , and instead entices the viewer to pay closer attention to the social movements that are being demonstrated .
Brecht tells us that subjects in epic theatre should demonstrate social “ gestures ,” that these subjects “ must
199