Abstract
This thesis will investigate two works, Caryl Churchill’s Cloud Nine (1978) and David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly (1988), which, though widely separated in time and space, share Lacan’s idea of identity formation, Judith Butler’s gender performativity and Bhabha’s idea of colonial mimicry through transvestite theater. Both of the playwrights use cross-dressing, cross-casting and doubling to explore the idea of gender performance and gender fluidity. In addition, they attempt to subvert and deconstruct the traditional conventions of gender and race system. However, transvestitism is treated differently in these two works. In Cloud Nine, the playwright explained in the arrangements of the casting: four of the characters (Betty, Joshua, and Edward in Act I and Cathy in Act II) would be played by the opposite sex (or trans-race) before the beginning of the play. Gender fluidity and multiplicity are also reflected in the characters of the drama text. In general, the character’s social gender is destined by the playwrights. So the other issue is cross-dressing plays also break the characters gender fixity in the text. But in M. Butterfly, one of the characters (Song Liling) has to play the opposite sex because of stealing the important political secrets (espionage). Thus, this character’s real social gender is male, but he should play the other social gender of female in the plot. By analyzing different cross-dressing plays, the traditional binary and stereotypical model of gender and race will be broken. This argument will go along with Lacan’s idea of subject formation and Butler’s idea of gender. In my study, I will focus on the following questions: how do the playwrights use cross-dressing to point out the concepts of gender performance and gender construction? How does cross-dressing influence characters’ sexual identity? How do the strategies of cross-dressing, cross-casting and doubling shatter the social norms? And the last, if both plays challenge the conventions of gender/race norms through meta-theatrical devices, I will discuss furthermore whether these two works are subversive or not. The first chapter is an introduction of theatrical strategies in both plays which the playwrights use. Besides their social statuses, both of them use similar strategies in the dramatic structure, settings, the time of the play and the performing styles to challenge the theatre conventions. In my second chapter, I will trace certain gender problems discussed by Freud, Lacan, and Butler. I will begin the chapter with an overview of Freud’s process of subject formation. Then, I will draw on Lacanian psychoanalysis. Based on Lacanian psychoanalysis, we can understand how Clive and Gallimard construct their subject identities in relation to ‘other’--- passive feminine roles. Moreover, I will introduce Judith Butler’s concept of gender. Beyond Freud, Lacan and Butler, the last part of chapter two includes Bhabha’s ideas of “stereotype,” “ambivalence” and “mimicry” derived from colonial contexts to help us explain the race issue in two plays. In chapter three, through the analyses of Clive, Betty, Edward and Joshua in Cloud Nine, I will discuss how Churchill exposes the sovereignty of patriarchy, heterosexuality and colonialism. Besides, I would like to talk about the functions of theatrical strategies. How does Churchill use the strategies of cross-dressing, cross-casting and doubling to threaten the authority of the patriarchy, heterosexuality and colonialism in this play? How does Churchill manipulate cross-dressing to manifest gender performance and gender construction? In chapter four, through the transvestite character’s (Song’s) cross-dressing in M. Butterfly, I want to discuss what Gallimard’s real sexuality is as well as how Gallimard’s western imperial ideology causes his downfall. On the other hand, Song’s transformation of gender identity is another important issue to be discussed. The conclusion chapter summarizes the discussion in other four chapters. I will also state the different functions of the cross-dressing in both plays. Furthermore, we can examine whether these two plays are subversive or not.