Are YOU still calling M. Butterfly ‘Postmodern’?

David Henry Hwang’s 1988 play M. Butterfly has shocked audiences for over 3 decades. Let us know in the comments what you think of this exciting new theory. Is M. Butterfly the postmodern masterpiece we think it is?

M. Butterfly spoilers ahead!

To all the literary nerds out there who have just experienced M. Butterfly, you have probably encountered many readings of this play speaking of orientalism, gender fluidity, metatheatre, etc. These ideas all seem to be grouped under an all-encompassing term: Postmodernism. Commonly referred to as a ‘mode of discourse’, or what I like to think of as ‘a culture of thinking and feeling’, which appeared as a reaction to the modernist era. We all know the headlines: ‘Hwang’s postmodern deconstruction of Madama Butterfly’, or ‘The postmodern other; Orientalism in M. Butterfly’. But despite Hwang’s outward subversion of modernist principles, don’t be so quick to categorise it. Some academics have been looking at a new movement in contemporary literature: ‘Metamodernism’, and a closer inspection of this theory could enlighten a whole new way of thinking about this classic play.

But hold on a moment. What on earth is Metamodernism?

A valid question that many of you readers may be thinking. If so, good; what would one of my blogs be without something new to learn?

In Hegelian terms, one can view modernism as the thesis i.e., the initial proposition that arose due to cultural forces at the time. It attempts to make objective assertions about the world and collect them in a grand theory centred on the progression of humanity. Ergo, postmodernism is the antithesis. It pokes holes all over the grand narratives of modernism, relying on relativism, scepticism, and irony to destroy faith in the ‘truths’ posited by modernism. Thus, as dialectics would have it, a synthesis arises, namely metamodernism. The ‘meta’ in the term comes not from a frequent use of metafictional devices, but from Plato’s ‘metaxy’ in the symposium which denotes a movement between opposite poles as well as growth beyond them. Metamodernism was first coined in 1975, but most significant work on the concept has occurred since 2010 with cultural theorists Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker contributing significantly in their essay ‘Notes on Metamodernism’.

Metamodernism thus includes and transcends both modernism and postmodernism. Often the tone of a text can be viewed as a pendulum “oscillating” between them to form a signature sense of “ironic sincerity” (Vermeulen & Van de Akker, 2010). This ironic tone used to communicate genuine ideas comprises the backbone Hwang’s play. The initial premise of the play sets itself up as a reincarnation of Puccini’s Madama Butterfly, an opera written at the height of the modernist era which embodies its essentialist philosophy, and its belief in grand narratives such as the orientalist relationship between Pinkerton and Cio-cio San. This narrative is quickly discredited by the play, in classic postmodern fashion, as the French male protagonist Gallimard, who is “clumsy and got zits” fails to live up to the expectations of western masculinity. Furthermore, the female lead Song exhibits masculine qualities of confidence and autonomy in her outward critique of the ridiculous implausibility of Madama Butterfly on page 17.

Despite this, the pendulum swings back to sincerity when Gallimard and Song enter into a relationship mirroring the one between Pinkerton and Cio-cio San. “Yes, I am. I am your Butterfly” confirms Song, symbolising her total frailty and objectification. This relationship is of course, the source of a subversion in which Song is revealed to be a man and ‘playing’ Gallimard the whole time. Hwang uses this subversion to critique the simplicity of the essentialist views of race depicted in Madama Butterfly, which is the source of the plays ‘postmodern’ label. However, despite this, there are many moments between Gallimard and Song which suggest genuine intimacy. At the end of Act 1 Gallimard says: “Then we will go very, very slowly [He starts to caress her; her gown begins to open]”. In amongst what is for Song a spying mission and for Gallimard a carefully constructed delusion, Hwang nonetheless creates moments of true connection, which suggests a move beyond the ironic pastiche and claim to meaninglessness that postmodernism offers. He gives credit to the postmodern critiques of outdated narratives yet seems to suggest that in amongst the chaos and multiplicity of realities, meaning can still be found.

This is confirmed by the characters in Act 3 as Gallimard admits “Yes – love. Why not admit it all?”, and Song, teasing Gallimard, says “It doesn’t matter how rotten I answer does it? You still adore me. That’s why I love you Rene”. Here Song manages to oscillate between irony and sincerity within a single sentence, and it is unclear to the audience what is real and what is a fiction. Does he have feelings for Gallimard or not? Due to the cultural conditions in which they met, Song’s unobscured feelings for Gallimard will never be revealed. His character only expresses feelings in an oscillation between an expression of identity which fits the parameters of modernism, and an ironic critique of this identity for its inauthenticity. For Song, truth lies in the unknown, in the in between or the grey area. This grey area or ‘metaxy’ is the reality which has been marginalised from the ‘reality’ modernism proposes. Without the guiding structures of heteronormativity and global politics perhaps it would have been possible for these two people to have a genuine relationship without deception or fetishisation. This would be a narrative that does not accept the closed-mindedness of modernism but also moves past the meaninglessness of postmodernism to find something concrete in the chaos.

At the end of the play, Gallimard’s own narrative culminates in a climatic ending, in which he “turns upstage and plunges the knife into his body, as music from the “Love Duet” blares over the speakers”. Due to Song’s position of power, Gallimard is unable to take the role of Pinkerton in “[his] version of Madame Butterfly” so he takes the role of Butterfly. In this suicide Hwang reverses the oriental trope of Madama Butterfly. But rather than end the parody in a state of meaninglessness (think ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’), Gallimard finds powerful purpose in his action.

According to Hanzi Freinacht (2017) “The metamodernist has her own unapologetically held grand narrative, synthesising her available understandings. But it is held lightly as one recognises that it is always partly fictional” Gallimard has abandoned hope in his picturesque modernist fantasy, as its evident falsehood proves too compelling. Instead, he creates his own subjective narrative, one which finishes with him as the Butterfly, in which he kills himself for “love” and “honour”. Metatheatrical devices show Gallimard understands his place as an actor in this narrative, and he learns of its fictional nature, declaring “I choose fantasy”. Nonetheless this narrative still has emotion, meaning, and subjective truth. Gallimard clings to it ferociously and gives his life for it, solidifying this play as a defining text in the beginnings of metamodernism.

Will James