History - World history follow the instructions attached homework

Meyers 1

Kaylee Meyers

Professor Ka-eul Yoo

Asias and Orientalism

October 19, 2024

The Violent Power of Fantasy: Dissecting Orientalism in M. Butterfly

Title of Work: M. Butterfly (1988) by David H. Hwang

Passage/Excerpt: p.(858-859)

SONG: Rule Two: As soon as a Western man comes into contact with the East- he’s already

confused. The West has a sort of international rape mentality towards the East. Do you know

rape mentality?

JUDGE: Give us your definition, please.

SONG: Basically, ‘her mouth says no, but her eyes say yes.’

The West thinks of itself as masculine- big guns, big industry, big money - so the East is

feminine- weak, delicate, poor…. But good at art, and full of inscrutable wisdom- the feminine

mystique.

Her mouth says no, but her eyes say yes. The West believes the East, deep down, wants

to be dominated- because a woman can’t think for herself.

JUDGE: What does this have to do with my question?

SONG: You expect the Oriental countries to submit to your guns, and you expect Oriental

women to be submissive to your men. That’s why you say they make the best wives.

JUDGE: But why would that make it possible for you to fool Monsieur Gallimard? Please- get to

the point.

SONG: One, because when he finally met his fantasy woman, he wanted more than anything to

believe that she was, in fact, a woman. And second, I am an Oriental. And being an Oriental, I

could never be completely a man.”

Critical Questions:

How does David Henry Hwang's M. Butterfly illustrate the inherent power dynamics of

Orientalist discourse, as described by Edward Said, by utilizing gendered representations to

reinforce the construction of the East as a feminized, submissive entity subjected to Western

domination and control? In what ways does the character of Gallimard in M. Butterfly reflect

Said's concept of “positional superiority,” and how does this influence his perception and

treatment of Song as an embodiment of the Western fantasy of the “Oriental” woman?

Reading/Analysis:

Meyers 2

In M. Butterfly, David Henry Hwang exposes the intricate power dynamics embedded within

Orientalist discourse through the character of Song’s dialogue, offering a striking illustration of

the gendered representations that Edward Said argues are central to the construction of the East

as a feminized, submissive entity. Song’s assertion that “the West has a sort of international rape

mentality towards the East” directly engages with Said’s concept of the relationship between the

Occident and the Orient as inherently hierarchical and coercive. Song critiques the way the West

justifies its dominance through a gendered logic, casting the East as submissive and complicit in

its own subjugation- adjacent to Edward Said’s concept of the imagined “Oriental woman” who

“never spoke of herself...He spoke for her and represented her”(Said 6).

Firstly, Song’s dialogue with the Judge allows the audience to draw a parallel between Said’s

claim that “ideas, cultures, and histories cannot seriously be understood or studied without their

force, or more precisely their configurations of power, also being studied” (Said 5). The

gendered dichotomy Song outlines between the masculine West and the feminine East fortifies

the power structure that positions the West as inevitable and “desirable.” Song’s line, “Her

mouth says no, but her eyes say yes,” highlights the assumption that the East secretly desires its

own domination- mirroring a patriarchal myth that women, despite outward protestations, truly

long to be controlled. This statement exposes the psychological violence of Orientalist ideology,

which silences the East, denying it autonomy.

Moreover, by dissecting the characters in M. Butterfly, Gallimard is emblematic of Said’s

concept of “positional superiority,” which frames the West’s perspective as inherently

authoritative or unchallengeable; the perception of Song is filtered through the lens of Orientalist

fantasy where she embodies the submissive “Butterfly.” Gallimard’s delusion is rooted in the

conviction that his fantasy aligns with reality- a delusion Song manipulates by saying, “when he

finally met his fantasy woman, he wanted more than anything to believe that she was, in fact, a

woman.” This scene concentrates on Said’s argument that “the relationship between Occident

and Orient [is one] of power, of domination, of varying degrees of a complex hegemony” (Said

6). Gallimard's refusal to see beyond his own delusion and constructed ideal, reflects this

Western addiction to defining and controlling the Orient according to its own desires- a

compulsion fundamental to Edward Said’s argument. His claim is reinforced through

Gallimard’s desperate need to see Song as the docile, obedient woman of his fantasies. And

finally, this fabrication of the Orient, as both an object of fascination and control, underscores the

lack of consent - a point Song elucidates by noting that “the West believes the East, deep down,

wants to be dominated- because a woman can’t think for herself.” In this trial scene, Gallimard’s

belief in the “submissive Oriental woman,” is exposed as it evidently aligns with the historical

Western narrative defining the East through a patriarchal framework, stripping it of its own

agency or voice.

Ultimately, Gallimard’s inability to perceive Song’s true identity is not merely a matter of

personal delusion but of the larger ideology that Said describes as - one that insists on the

Orient’s passivity to justify Western control and domination. Gallimard’s interactions with Song

are driven by a need to see his own superiority confirmed, a need that blinds him to any reality

that contradicts his belief in the East’s submission. The nuance of Hwang’s critique lies in

revealing that this Western fantasy of domination is not simply a cultural misunderstanding. It is

reflective of power relations that rely on the dehumanization and objectification of the “Other.”

Thus, the play’s portrayal of the East as the feminized, inscrutable “Butterfly” serves to

Meyers 3

perpetuate the very “complex hegemony” that Said identifies, where the West’s apparent

superiority is maintained through a constructed narrative rendering the East complicit in its own

domination.

Reflection:

David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly illustrates the mechanisms of Orientalist discourse, as

described by Edward Said, by embedding gendered representations within its narrative. The

play’s exploration of the Western perception of the East as feminized and submissive reveals the

structural power that, even now, maintains Orientalist ideology. Through Song’s dialogue, which

portrays the West's view of itself as masculine and dominant in contrast to the East’s perceived

femininity and submission, the play critiques the West’s need to maintain superiority by

constructing the Orient as compliant and controllable.

M. Butterfly exposes the flaws inherent in these gendered power dynamics, revealing that they

are not merely cultural artifacts but active instruments of Western hegemony. Gallimard’s

character embodies Said’s concept of “positional superiority,” as his need to see Song as his

perfect Western fantasy blinds him to her true identity. The play's critique of these

representations extends beyond a historical context to a contemporary one, illustrating how

Orientalist and gendered stereotypes continue to influence modern narratives and perceptions.

This reflection urges a deeper examination of how such stereotypes persist in present-day

cultural and political arenas, where the East is still frequently exoticized, objectified, and spoken

for.

Luna Lozada 1

Iriana P. Luna Lozada CRES 114

The Aesthetics of Hate: Community, Public and State Perceptions Title of Work: Zoot Suit (1978) by Luis Valdez Passage/Excerpt: p.80 PRESS: What’s wrong with that? The Zoot Suit Crime Wave is even beginning to push the war news off the front page. PACHUCO:

The Press distorted the very meaning of the word “zoot suit” All it is for you guys is another way to say Mexican. hip But the ideal of the original chuco was to look like a diamond to look sharp bonaroo finding a style of urban survival in the rural skirts and outskirts of the brown metropolis of Los, cabron.

PRESS: It’s an afront to good taste. PACHUCO: Like the Mexicans, Filipinos and blacks who wear them. PRESS: Yes! PACHUCO: Even the white kids and the Wops and the Jews are putting on the drape shape. PRESS: You are trying to outdo the white man in exaggerated white man’s clothes! PACHUCO:

Because everybody knows that Mexicans, Filipinos and Blacks belong to the hurache the straw hat and the dirty overall.

PRESS: You savages weren’t even wearing clothes when the white man pulled you out of the

jungle. MARINE: My parents are going without collars and cuffs so you can wear that shit. PRESS: That’s going too far, too goddamned far and it’s got to be stopped! Critical Questions: What is the significance of El Pachuco describing the dressing of zoot suits and stereotypical views of Mexicans, Filipinos and Blacks? How are normal “American” aesthetics used in the passage? Who is threatened by the zoot suit clothing? What is the basis for the angry and hateful arguments of the Press and Marine? How is the interaction between El Pachuco, the Press, and Marine tied to eugenics-support by the public and state? Why is it significant about the Press and Marine being

Luna Lozada 2

the people who hold negative views of zoot suiters? What are the impacts of these stereotypical views on communities? Reading/Analysis: Race and disability are illustrated—specifically in Act 2, Scene 6 titled Zoot Suit Riots— through the interactions between El Pachuco, The Press, and Marine with regard to perceptions of the zoot suit. El Pachuco represents the self-perception of zoot suiters while the Press and Marine represent the public and state perception, respectively. El Pachuco describes zoot suits as “finding a style of urban survival/in the rural skirts and outskirts” (80). On the other hand, he also distinctly points to the fact that the United States society uses zoot suits as “another way to say Mexican” (80). El Pachuco further emphasizes his point by stating that the dominant white society expects the stereotypical aesthetic of Mexicans, Filipinos, and Blacks to “belong to the hurache/the straw hat and the dirty overall” (80). In El Pachuco describing the different perceptions between zoot suiters and the larger society, it highlights how the larger society creates categories of race and disability to justify discrimination.

In order to systematically justify discrimination in the United States, the norm of white “American” aesthetic is used to reinforce those who are deemed as normal and those who are othered. In this passage, the Press states “You are trying to outdo the white man in exaggerated white man’s clothes!” (80). The Press is reinforcing the idea that American fashion is based on white men’s standards and the use of this style by those outside the dominant society leads to a distortion of the “American” aesthetic. This is an important concept because historically aesthetics were used by the United States to determine the ability/disability of immigrants. Through these two categories, the United States has continued to ensure that perceived “threats” are barred from entering the country.

A significant aspect of this need for safety is to understand who is threatened by the Other. The passage points to who is threatened through the Press stating “The Zoot Suit Crime Wave is even beginning to push the war news off the front page” (80). The focus on zoot suits rather than the war shows how the United States at-large is focused on racialized communities being an inner threat. This inner threat is further reinforced when the Marine states “My parents are going without collars and cuffs so you can wear that shit” (80). The Marine uses his parents rationing of fabric to reinforce the idea that Mexican American communities are unpatriotic and a potential threat to the United States.

The angry and hateful arguments made by the Press and Marine are based on eugenics, specifically atavism and evolutionary progress. The Press states “You savages weren’t even wearing clothes when the white man pulled you out of the jungle” (80). This statement is significant to understanding the intersection between disability and race. During the eugenicist movement, many doctors and scholars viewed disabled people as reversions in evolutionary progress. This atavism was tied to racialized people since they were categorized as being stuck in earlier stages of human evolution. Moreover, the passage depicts the public and state support for eugenics in the United States through the white supremacist arguments used by the Press and Marine. The public and state support of eugenics is important in understanding race and disability because it brings to light how normality continues to be used to measure, categorize, and manage societies.

Luna Lozada 3

Reflection: The play, Zoot Suit, depicts the discriminatory experiences felt by Mexican-American communities in the 1940s. These experiences are significant to showcase because they help understand how disability and race are socially constructed by the dominant society of the United States. The Press and servicemen in describing their negative views of zoot suiters are highlighting how negative public opinions of zoot suiters were derived from white supremacy and how these opinions became quickly supported by many in society. This specific passage illustrates the impacts of these social constructions by explicitly contrasting the view of the zoot suiters and the backlash they received from society. Moreover, this play reflects how these negative views have continued to persist and are the dominant narrative of today. For example, there continues to be a constant policing of the aesthetics of marginalized communities which include those who experience racism, sexism, and ableism. This type of policing occurs in higher education institutions, social media platforms as well as the workplace where people need to dress “professionally” and “presentable.” People from marginalized communities are often expected to dress to a certain standard while those from more privileged backgrounds are allowed more leeway in their dressing attire. Furthermore, aesthetics continue to be a method used to justify exoticism and discrimination.