Unveiling the Enigma: The Dual Nature of a Modern Day Reproduction

 

The number “2.” We often forget its significance as it gets shadowed by the grandiose of “1,” yet we see it everywhere. From Anakin Skywalker supposedly ‘revamped’ into his alter ego of Darth Vader to Bruce Wayne transforming into a funky bat dressed vigilante, the notion of ‘duality’ is prevalent in all works.

Now picture this: A man, dressed as a woman, loves a man who thinks she...wait...no he is a... are probably not the only one confused, mind you I found this a mind-bending text to comprehend initially. You guessed it! This is David Henry Hwang's    M Butterfly (1988).

It doesn't even take the first page, let alone the first act, to realise there's some opposing ideas at play.

   M.? 

Firstly let's get the title out of the way: "M. Butterfly."

The letter, "M" is the abbreviation of the French term 'Monsieur,' used similarly to the English abbreviation 'Mr.' By transforming the title of Puccini's opera Madame Butterfly (a closely linked, mirroring text) to M Butterfly, the text clues the audience into the deception that is revealed in the play. The title is suggestive of a play providing us a, 'Mr. Butterfly's' point of view, but to our surprise, we are presented with a seemingly feminine character, one leaning towards a 'madame'. 

This dual natured branching is lathered onto us from the opening act, adding not only ambiguity, but inviting us to question the legitimacy of Song and Gallimard's relationship. Is this typical of a Western man and Eastern woman's relationship? Or is it some amended, revised byproduct?

     

   Mme and M

Giacomo Puccini's Madame Butterfly (1903) is entwined with that of M Butterfly yet it noticeably, providing commentary on rather antagonising ideas. Madame Butterfly uses Orientalist narratives in the portrayal of the main character, Cio-Cio San, a Japanese 'geisha,' whose set out her 'life goal' to tend to an American navy officer. Eventually Cio-Cio San is unable to "overcome her Japanese womanhood," putting an end to her life, signifying the Orient's passive nature and moral weakness. Additionally, it highlights the inferiority of Asian cultures in comparison to the West, whilst simultaneously endorsing western chauvinistic ideals.

Contrastingly, M Butterfly serves as direct criticism to Madame Butterfly, primarily achieved through subverting the portrayal of Oriental womanhood. In response to the presumed submissive Oriental woman, Song perceptively and intelligently learns a great deal about Gallimard's (broadly the western male's) psyche, allowing him to seamlessly manipulate Gallimard for classified documents. Song's ability to think rationally and logically is unlike the ideal Oriental woman, therefore acting to destabilise the upheld Orientalist gender-based stereotypes. As such, M Butterfly inverts the Orientalist East/West asymmetric power dynamic, as seen through the, 'Western victim' who also challenges the binary gender assumptions of Madame Butterfly. 

The differences in audience's reception of Madame Butterfly and M Butterfly reflect two changing historical contexts; one context of reception being early 20th century Europe, who commonly placed the Orient in an inferior power dynamic to the west, whilst the other (contemporary Europe) outrightly rejected this view. Despite modern day dismissal of Orientalism, gender oriented binary views still exist in film and theatre; Asian women in Hollywood are still stereotype as feeble, disgustingly hyper-sexualised and having no free agency.

 Fact?

Bechdel Test: A test measuring representation of women in film and other fiction, having three main criteria to pass:

1. Text features more than two women
2. These women must talk to each other
3. They must talk to each other about something other than a man

Well it turns out majority of the Orientalist texts don't pass (is it really a surprise?).

This leaves us with the question, is our explicit rejection of Orientalist beliefs meaningful, or is it a form of tokenistic self-persuasion?

    East vs West

The cultural dichotomy between the East (the 'Orient') and the West lay the foundations of Orientalist theory. The events of the play unfold during a time of turmoil in South East Asia. Native uprising threatened to take control over European imperialist colonies, civil wars sparked between the Chinese communist and Nationalist party, all having occurred amidst the remains of the Indochina war.

The text showcases the representation of an Orient from the Occidental perspective of  Gallimard, naturally appearing to exemplify the westerner's essentialising view of Asian women as faceless and vulnerable. Gallimard understands (or it seems as if he does) that the submissive Asian female (how he views Song) is a cultural stereotype, but regardless of that, embraces it and eventually find that Song is 'ideal.' In another instance, Song "appears as a beautiful women in traditional Chinese Garb," categorising her not only by her ethnicity but in conjunction, her beauty. Immediately following this, “[Song is] surrounded by the percussive clatter of Chinese Music,” serving as juxtaposition to the previous feminine description. This in turn essentialises the Asian women as exotic and solely possessing lewd beauty, yet holding a distaste for their cultural identity, a common view of the West.

The irony of this lies in the fact that Gallimard thinks of himself as unattractive and ordinary - stereotyping himself - but then fantasises of obtaining affection from a sacrificial and selfless woman. This reveals the diametric nature of the Western man, externally viewing himself as a bold and controlling figure, but internally as being filled with insecurities and diffidences.

   What's Next

Again and Again we see binaries. They are after all inevitable. I hope through this blog I was able to communicate few of the binaries in M Butterfly, explained how they were constructed and their lasting effects. Whether one is for the better or for the worse, will always be a mystery. All I can say is that they are here to stay.

 Unity by itself will never have a meaning

 It shall only ever exist as a binary.

"Unity can only be manifested by the Binary. Unity itself and the idea of unity are already two"

By. Rudra Trivedi