They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented.
Their representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over them, an unlimited governmental power which protects them from the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above.

Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. 1852
 The singular guard of honour formed for Bonaparte by the peasantry near Bayonne. (1894) from: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org

It has been a 160 years since Karl Marx analysed the contemporary events that led to Louis Bonaparte’s coup d’état of 2 December 1851. Subject / object of his statement [they] was the „most numerous class of French society“ at that time, the small-holding peasants:

[They] form an enormous mass whose members live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France’s poor means of communication and the poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society.

There is nothing to misunderstand in this quote. Marx makes his position clear about the peasants belief „in the miracle that a man named Napoleon would bring all glory back to them“:

It [the Bonaparte dynasty] represents not the enlightenment but the superstition of the peasant; not his judgment but his prejudice; not his future but his past;

Marx’ statement has to be read in its specific historical context. As we can see above, he identifies a combination of lack of mutual intercourse, poor communication infrastructure, no diversity of talent, no application of science, poverty etc. as the matrix, that finally made Bonaparte’s coup d’état possible. It might be interesting as well to have a deeper look on Brecht’s idea of the learning play, that problematizes the mechanisms of “representation”:

Whereas Brecht presents a complex critique of representation and political tools in Der Dreigroschenprozeß (The Threepenny Trial), in Die Straßenszene (The Street Scene) he develops his concept of demonstration as an alternative political action that (as it turs out) also becomes one of the major elements of his theatre. […] In response to the social and economic structures of the bourgeois culture in which he finds himself, Brecht locates theatre as social action occuring not within the cultural superstructure, but in society’s base – meaning the street, the place where public life is at its most direct and physical. […] For Brecht, the stage as a site or terrain depends less on the theatre as an institution than on the presence of the public […] Brecht’s imperative for social experiments – that every participant should take a position according to his own interest in a terrain of opposing interests – is, therefore, essential for the stage as the very foundation of his theatre.

Astrid Oesmann, Staging History: Brecht's social concepts of ideology

On our second day of the Sino-German workshop in Chongqing we went to visit the three neighbourhoods selected for the project and a modell school. I had visited the first two neighbourhoods already during my last trip to Chongqing (more about my impressions here and here), and we didn’t stay long in the third, which has some historical significance: The first cell of the Chinese Communist party in Chongqing was founded here. We spent most of our time there in its spacious community centre, where we had the possibility to discuss with some selected residents. We saw photographs of important politicans, that had visited this site, as well.

On our final third day all Chinese-German „experts“ were then divided into three groups and joined by students of the department. Each group was dealing with one of the three neighbourhoods, and the task was to think about possible strategies to „improve“ the local living quality there. I found myself in a group with Prof. Jörg Leeser and three professors of the Department of Architecture & Urban Planning of Chongqing University. Two of them had more an artistic background and were teachers for painting and architectural art. Our discussion about „Da Jing Xiang“ became quite productive, thanks to the open atmosphere and highly motivated and well-prepared students. I have to admit, that from all three neighbourhoods that we visited in Chongqing, „Da Jing Xiang“ was definitely my personal favourite. It is a very vivid area with many residents sitting around, chatting and playing. The huge pedestrian area with its narrow lanes, open places, small shops, ping pong tables, badminton field and other relax & leisure equipment seemed to be very comfortable for both the elders and the young.
Right at the beginning of the workshop, Prof. Leeser and I made clear, that we didn’t had come just to promote our own ideas, but instead to observe, learn and develop some possible strategies in a collaborative manner. I recalled, that we had seen many „happy“ residents and that I was already told last time, that one of the slogans of Da Jing Xiang is „Happy Flower: All people water the flower to achieve a happy and beautiful result“. In our discussion we soon put our main focus on residents, that for different reasons might not be so „happy“ than others. We started to think about a way to integrate them more into the community, without forcing them to do something they do not want to or without trying to represent them. We all agreed, that there are some differences between different people, and that not all people can share the same interests.
We were discussing this against the background of the political notion of a „harmonious society“, that claims not to promote „one main idea that subordinates everything to itself“, but a „peaceful co-existence of many equal ideas“. In a sometimes chaotic but always very energetic, funny and productive process we collected ideas, how to create an open and safe platform, where everybody can play a part in, no matter what his / her own preferences, expectations and ideas are. “Empowerment“ and “DIY” became some keywords, since we were thinking about strategies, where individuals become encouraged to integrate themselves with their own ideas according to their skills and interests. We were talking about public art and architectural design as cultural measures, that can boost hidden potential that is already existent and that can make passive community members to more active ones, that want to take responsibility in their neighbourhood.