In Bertolt Brecht’s play “The Caucasian Chalk Circle”, can justice be achieved in a corrupt system only with a “ruleless” judge?
The character of Azdak in Bertolt Brecht’s The Caucasian Chalk Circle emerges during a chaotic period of social transition when traditional institutions of justice collapse and power constantly changes hands. His identity as a “rule-breaking” judge presents a radical thesis that justice in a corrupt system can only be possible with an anti-authoritarian attitude. This situation opens up the tense relationship between law, morality and power to question on a philosophical level.
- The Impossibility of Justice in a Corrupt System and the Dialectical Role of Azdak
Brecht constructs Azdak as an “anti-judge” who takes shape in the chaos following the revolution. Traditional legal institutions (aristocratic judges, bureaucratic procedures) have become tools that reproduce social inequality. Azdak’s attitude, which disregards the rules and even turns the court into a theater stage, exposes how “legitimate justice” is actually a legitimization tool for power. Here, Walter Benjamin’s “critique of violence” comes to mind: Law-making violence protects the status quo, not justice. Azdak, on the other hand, inverts this violence and invents a “law-protecting violence” that works in favor of the poor.
- The Instrumentalization of Justice and the Power of the Absurd
Azdak’s approach to cases resembles the theater of the absurd: He makes decisions with childish games, jokes, and even physical violence. This is a parody of the traditional understanding of justice. Brecht refers to Kierkegaard’s “power of the absurd” here: Only an action that seems irrational (Azdak’s decision in favor of Grusche) can overthrow established morality and reveal true ethics. Grusche’s love and labor for the child are more “just” than the possessive attitude of the biological mother, but only a judge who does not recognize the rules can accept this.
- The Nature of Power and the Class Character of Justice
Azdak’s justice confirms Marx’s thesis of the “superstructural character of law”: the law legitimizes the interests of the ruling class. For example, Natella’s wealth leads her to claim a “natural” right over the child. Azdak, on the other hand, develops a proletarian understanding of justice: the “chalk circle” test shows that the child belongs to the one who is trying to save him. This can also be read with Lacan’s concept of the “object of desire”: Grusche attracts the child “as her own” because her desire is pure love; Natella sees the child as property.
- Conclusion: Justice Born in Chaos
Azdak’s justice is like Nietzsche’s “dionysian” chaos: It appears destructive, but it is the birth pangs of a new morality. Brecht asks the audience: The justice of order or the order of injustice? Azdak can only achieve justice in a corrupt system by breaking its own rules. This is like a temporary victory for anarchism; however, Azdak’s disappearance at the end of the play also reminds us of the fragility of the revolution.
Philosophical Inference
Brecht asks the question, “Is justice possible in a world without power?” Azdak’s character shows, from a historical materialist perspective, that justice can only exist through the rejection of class domination. However, this justice is also temporary, because power is always reshaped. Perhaps the real message is this: Justice is not about following the rules, but about hearing the voice of the oppressed.
