Cancelling M. Butterfly?

Can one justly condemn artists and art without knowledge of context? Should we cancel David Henry Hwang (DHH) for his 1988 play M. Butterfly? What on earth is cancelling and why do people keep getting mad about it? Well, that third question is outside the scope of today’s post, and I invite those unfamiliar with the concept to stop and do some background reading. For the rest of us, it’s time we talk about the first two. And to begin, we must first tell a tale of opera and espionage.

La Scala, the Milan Opera House where
Madama Butterfly was premiered

The Opera

On the 17th of February 1904, crowds filled a Milan opera house to see Giacomo Puccini’s newest opera, Madama Butterfly. The opera would soon receive critical acclaim, becoming the sixth most-performed opera worldwide. Madama Butterfly follows the relationship between American Lieutenant Pinkerton and Cio-Cio-San (Butterfly), a 15yr old Japanese girl who is sold into marriage. Shortly after their marriage, Pinkerton returns to America leaving the now-pregnant Butterfly behind. Pinkerton, too cowardly to face Butterfly himself, returns with his American Wife who agrees to care for the son. Realising that Pinkerton will not be with her, a broken-hearted Butterfly commits suicide.

Bernard Boursicot, left and Shi Pei Pu, right
as their trial began in Paris, May 5, 1986

The Espionage

In 1964 Bernard Boursicot, a 20yr old accountant in the French Embassy in Beijing met the then 26yr old Peking opera singer Shi Pei Pu at a Christmas party in the Embassy. In perhaps the most comical case of espionage ever, Boursicot engaged Shi Pei Pu in an on-and-off relationship for 2 decades and passed over 150 classified documents to Shi, without ever realizing he was not a biological female. In 1983 the affair came to an end with both Shi and Boursicot being arrested and tried for espionage. Being an open-and-shut case, the trial only lasted 2 days resulting in each party being handed a six-year prison term. Both would be pardoned in 1987.

The Play

A photo of the 2017 Broadway revival of M. Butterfly

M. Butterfly is a confluence of the two tales mentioned. I’d have liked to spare you from reading another detailed summary of a play you are likely already familiar with (if not I recommend reading one of the many summaries available online, or better yet reading the play), but a little introduction is necessary. It follows the sexist, orientalist and rather dumb René Gallimard, a disgraced former French diplomat residing in a Paris jail cell. He was sentenced for passing on classified documents during a 20-year-long affair with male Peking opera singer and Chinese spy Song Liling, whom Gallimard believed was biologically female (sounding familiar?).

The intellect displayed on Twitter is truly astounding

The Problem

At the risk of sounding rather like a Twitter thread, I feel it is important to discuss the aspects of Hwang’s play which may be seen as problematic. Most obviously we have Gallimard, a man who sees Pinkerton’s actions as courageous, who views all Chinese people as arrogant, who utters such lines as “Orientals will always submit to a greater force” and “Orientals simply want to be associated with whoever shows the most strength and power”. But one must also consider the actions of Song who, however accurate or defensible they are, subscribes to oversimplified stereotypes. Song expresses these in lines such as “As soon as a Western man comes into contact with the East-he's already confused”, “The West believes the East, deep down, wants to be dominated”, and “pasty, big-thighed white women”.

These examples are not unique. Throughout the play, most characters can be found expressing such views. Most prominently displayed are of course Orientalism and misogyny, but their inverses (Occidentalism and misandry) also appearance. If one wanted to, one could use nearly any isolated extract of the play to “cancel” the work. So why hasn’t this happened and why shouldn’t it be done?

David Henry Hwang, creator of M. Butterfly

The Meaning

There is no one character who embodies M. Butterfly’s message, the play criticises its environment first and its characters second. Don’t get me wrong, Hwang is no fan of Gallimard whom he kills off (generally not a sign of affection); nor does he seem fond of Song’s enthusiastic (if self-aware) embodiment of Oriental stereotypes. But none of these characters are ‘right’, they all portray people so heavily devoted to myths and misconceptions they can’t see the truth of the world around them. In the afterword, Hwang writes that he considers the text “a plea to all sides to cut through our respective layers of cultural and sexual misperception” and to “deal with one another […] from the common and equal ground we share ”

This meaning and intent, noble and unproblematic as it is, may be entirely missed by analysis of any isolated excerpt. Taken in isolation, most extracts will contain problematic views with no clear indication that these are not shared by the playwright. While characters conveying distasteful notions is nothing unique (most stories do have a villain), M. Butterfly’s lack of any ‘good’ character makes it uniquely vulnerable to misguided outrage.

Richard B. Spencer, a neo-nazi, experiencing rapid delivery
of 'consequences' while spouting racist rhetoric 20/1/2017

The Message

In today’s world of fast everything, it’s easy to get caught up in social outrage without being familiar with the subject matter supposedly justifying it. Shown enough incensed tweets that #CancelDHH with decontextualised excerpts from M. Butterfly, it would be expected that you may adopt the view that Hwang and his work are sexist/racist/… It is this haste and decontextualisation I warn you of. This post is not meant to criticize the notion of cancellation (actions have consequences, both social and legal) but to remind the reader of the dangers of haste. Some ideas and stories are definitely problematic (see: Madama Butterfly), but in the world of Literature, there is an exceptional risk when rushing to form an opinion. Plays poems and prose aren’t scientific articles, authors don’t have to be direct with their message, so without complete knowledge, one cannot be certain of a text's intent.

I’m sure those who have read or seen M. Butterfly felt unease during some of the play, a feeling entirely justified given the content of the work, but one should remember that a scene maketh not a play, and portrayal is not endorsement. Sometimes the most powerful critique of an idea is that idea itself.

 

-Orlando Morris-Johnson (1000 words)