Butterfly", the process of implicating the audience by drawing .
parallels with Foucault's study of punishment, we come to see that rather than.
leaving the play with a greater understanding of our interiors, we have witnessed.
and participated in the operation of power and resistance on physical bodies in.
a Foucauldian system.
Much of the criticism on M. Butterfly has focused merely on the plot and.
indeed the content of the story is such that it ought to incite interest. Most.
mainstream plays do not have a collection of "tabloid" topics such as crossdressing,.
international intrigues, mistaken identity, and illicit homosexual.
affairs. However, critics who look only at the plot are allowing the sensational.
aspects of the plot to distract them from the theoretically radical structural.
effects of the play. Robert K. Martin and Robert Skloot only seem concerned.
with interpreting the play on the most basic level. Both have difficulty making.
sense of the ending of the play. .
In his interpretation, Martin goes so far as to reduce the final scene to the.
statement that "Gallimard, at the end is after all simply the dying queen."5.
Skloot at least seems to see the playas more than a case of cross-dressing, but.
his analysis remains firmly in a psychoanalytic understanding of Gallimard.
that leaves him confused with the ending: "Gallimard's transformation into.
Butterfly has several possible interpretations.is his suicide confessional.
transcendence or humiliating defeat? Has he accepted or rejected the woman in.
himself? Is one culture superior to another or merely different?,,6 Skloot does.
not arrive at any conclusion and attempts to justify the ambiguities by saying.
that the unanswered questions make us think about our own interiors. .
Dorrine K. Kondo has a perspective that goes beyond Skool's binary concerns. .
Her argument focuses on "the multiplicity of Asia and of women," and her.
article is useful in understanding Hwang's condemnation.