跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.210.21.70) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/11 16:41
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:焦季蘊
論文名稱:論邱琪爾<九重天>與黃哲倫<蝴蝶君>之表演策略所呈現的性別與種族議題
論文名稱(外文):Strategic Intersections of Gender and Race in Caryl Churchill''s Cloud Nine and David Henry Hwang''s M. Butterfly
指導教授:楊莉莉楊莉莉引用關係
指導教授(外文):Li-li Yang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立清華大學
系所名稱:外國語文學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:英文
論文頁數:86
中文關鍵詞:cross-dressinggender performancegender fluiditycolonial mimicrythe mirror stagegender constructionstereotypeambivalence
外文關鍵詞:反串扮裝性別操演性別流動性諧擬鏡像時期性別建構刻板印象含混
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:495
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本論文將探討邱琪爾《九重天》與黃哲倫《蝴蝶君》中兩位劇作家所運用的劇場表演策略如何挑戰且顛覆在西方主流社會如父權體制、異性戀體制、及殖民主義下既有的性別及種族上的二元論 (男/女、同性戀/異性戀、殖民者/被殖民者)規範。
兩位劇作家在表演方式上使用扮裝、跨種族表演、一人飾多角等表演方法來呈現出性別操演及性別流動的概念。此外,他們試圖要顛覆及解構在性別及種族規範中之既有傳統以及擾亂性、性別及性向三者間的固定及一致性。雖然兩者在劇場表演策略上皆有使用扮裝手法,但是其劇中功能與產生之效果卻有很大差異。在邱琪爾《九重天》中劇作家在故事開始前的角色介紹中已清楚說明哪些角色需要反串表演。如第一幕中的反串角色有女主人Betty及他的兒子Edward,白人男演員飾黑人男僕Joshua,第二幕中只有小女孩Cathy是由男演員反串。但是,在黃哲倫《蝴蝶君》中的反串角色Song Liling是因劇中角色的國際間碟身分而必須扮演京戲中的女伶來騙取西方男人的愛情。本論文藉由拉岡的主體建構論及巴特勒的性別觀點出發,分析兩齣扮裝戲且檢視戲中如何打破在性別及種族裡的傳統二元論及刻板印象。
同時本論文依照以下幾個議題為中心去分析思考:兩位劇作家如何使用扮裝來呈現性別操演及性別建構的概念,扮裝如何影響戲中扮裝角色的性別認同,這些扮裝、跨種族表演、一人飾多角等策略如何擾亂既有的社會規範,以及撼動既有的社會主流體制,進一步討論這兩齣戲是否真的有達到顛覆效果。
第一章將介紹兩位劇作家在兩齣戲中所使用的劇場策略。他們除了在社會上的地位類似,同時他們在劇情結構、場景安排、劇中時間及表演方式上所採用的策略皆試圖挑戰過去的劇場傳統。
第二章闡釋本論文所採用之理論架構,筆者將大略介紹從佛羅伊德、拉岡到巴特勒的有關性別及主體建構的論點。根據拉岡心理分析,我們可以觀察Clive和Gallimard分別在兩齣戲中如何藉由與另一被動且女性化他者之間的關係來建構自我主體性。最後介紹芭芭的「刻板印象」、「含混」及「諧擬」等概念來分析兩齣戲中的種族議題。
論文第三章分析邱琪爾《九重天》。透過劇中角色如Clive、Betty、Edward與Joshua的分析,筆者試圖討論劇作家如何揭發父權體制、異性戀機制與殖民主義的專制蠻橫。同時利用扮裝、跨種族表演、一人飾多角等表演策略在戲中的功能是如何威脅且瓦解這些社會主流權力。
第四章則討論黃哲倫《蝴蝶君》中,Gallimard如何藉著與東方他者Song Liling之間的關係建構自我西方男性之主體性及他的西方帝國主義意識形態如何把自己導入自殺的絕境。另外,Song Liling的性向變化與扮裝之間的關係也是筆者將在本章節中著手處理的議題。
在第五章裡除了總結前述四章的分析外,筆者將比較扮裝在這兩齣戲中的功能性,進一步檢視這兩齣戲是否如兩位劇作家所預期般達到其顛覆效果。
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.
Chapter One 1
Introduction 1
Chapter Two 9
Identity Formation, Gender performance, Colonial mimicry 9
I. Identity Formation from Freud to Lacan 9
II. Theatrical Cross-dressing and Gender Performance 13
III. Colonial Mimicry 19
Chapter Three 21
Cloud Nine: The Patriarchy in Decline 21
I. A Brief Introduction of Cloud Nine 22
II. The Relations between Theatrical Devices and Sexual/Racial Politics 27
Chapter Four 46
M. Butterfly: Should Gallimard Die or Not? 46
I. A Brief Introduction of M. Butterfly 46
II. As a feminine male: Is Gallimard homosexual or heterosexual? 52
III. Song’s Transvestitism as the Representation of Gender Fluidity 66
Chapter Five 73
Conclusion 73
Works Cited 78
Amoko, Apollo. “Casting Aside Colonial Occupation: Intersection of Race, Sex, and Gender in Cloud Nine and Cloud Nine Criticism.” Modern Drama 42:1(Spring. 1999): 45-58.
Barrett, Michele. Women’s Oppression Today: The Marxist/ Feminist Encounter. Rev. ed. London: Verso, 1988.
Bhabha, Homi. “The Other Question: Stereotype, Discrimination and the Discourse of Colonialism.” The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge, 1994. 66-84.
- - -. “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse.” The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge, 1994. 85-92.
Butler, Judith. “Critically Queer.” Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex.’ New York: Routledge, 1993. 223-42.
- - -. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990.
- - -. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Eds. Henry Abelove, Michele Aina Barale and David M. Halperin. New York: Routledge, 1993. 307-20.
- - -. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay on Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. Ed. Sue-Ellen Case. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1990. 170-282.
Calderone, Mary S. “Above and Beyond Politics: The Sexual Socialization of Children.” Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. Ed. Carole S. Vance. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984. 131-37.
Carlson, Susan. “Process and Product: Contemporary British Theatre and its Communities of Women.” Theatre Research International 13.3(Autumn 1988): 249-63.
- - -. “Self and Sexuality: Contemporary British Women Playwrights and the problem of Sexual Identity.” Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism 3.2(Spring 1989):157-78.
Case, Sue-Ellen, ed. Performining Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theater. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.
- - -. “The Power of Sex: English Plays by Women, 1958-1988.” New Theatre Quarterly 7:27 (Aug. 1991): 238-245.
Chang, Hsiao-hung, “Cultural/Sexual/Theatrical Ambivalence in M. Butterfly.” Tamkang Review 23:1-4(Fall-Summer, 1992-1993): 735-55.
Cheng, Yu-hsiu. “The Death of M. Butterfly.” Tamkang Review 27:4: 569-82.
Chow, Rey. “The Dream of a Butterfly” Ethics after Idealism: Theory- Culture-Ethnicity-Reading. Indiana University Press, 1998.
Churchill, Caryl. Cloud Nine Plays One. London: Methuen, 1985. 243-320.
Clum, John M. “ ‘The work of Culture’: Cloud Nine and Sex /Gender Theory.” Caryl Churchill: A Casebook. New York: Garland, 1988. 91-116.
Cody, Gabrielle. “David Hwang’s M. Butterfly: Perpetuating the Misogynist Myth.” Theater 20:2(Spring, 1989): 24-27.
Cooperman, Robert. “Across the Boundaries of Cultural Identity: An Interview with David Henry Hwang.” Staging Difference: Cultural Pluralism in American Theatre and Drama. Ed. Marc Maufort. New York: Peter Lang, 1995.
Cousin, Geraldine. Churchill: The Playwright . London: Methuen, 1989.
- - -. “The Common Imagination and the Individual Voice.” New Theatre Quarterly 4(Feb. 1988): 3-16.
Dekker, Rudolf M. and Lotte C. van de Pol. The Tradition of Female Transvestism in Early Modern Europe. London: Macmillan Press, 1989.
Diamond, Elin. “(In) Visible Bodies in Churchill’s Theater.” Theatre Journal 40:2 (May. 1988): 188-204.
- - -. “Refusing the Romanticism of Identity: Narrative Interventions in Churchill, Benmussa, Duras.” Theatre Journal 37:3(Oct. 1985): 273-286.
- - -. “Brechtian Theory/ Feminist Theory: Toward a Gestic Feminist Criticism.” TDR: The Drama Review, 32:1 (Spring, 1988): 82-94.
DiGaetani, John Louis. “M. Butterfly: An Interview with David Henry Hwang.” TDR: The Drama Review 33:3(Fall, 1989): 141-153.
Dolan, Jill. “Gender Impersonation Onstage: Destroying or Maintaining the Mirror of Gender Roles?” Women and Performance 2:2 (1985): 5-11.
Eng, David L. “In the Shadows of a Diva: Committing Homosexuality in David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly.” Amerasia Journal 20:1(1994): 93-116.
Fanon, Frantz. 1967. Black Skin, White Masks. Trans. Charles Lam Markmann. New
York: Grove Press, 1967.
Fitzsimmons, Linda. File on Churchill. London: Methuen, 1989.
Fortier, Mark. Theory/Theater: an introduction. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Frank, Rich. “M. Butterfly: A Story of a Strange Love, Conflict and Betrayal,” New York Times 21 Mar. 1988, C13.
- - -. “Plow, and Butterfly: New Leads, New Light” New York Times 23 Sep. 1988, C3.
Freud, Sigmund. “Feminity.” The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud Vol. 22. Ed. James Strachey. London: Hogarth Press & the Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1964. 112-35.
Frockt, Devorah. “David Henry Hwang.” The Playwright’s Art: Conversations with Contemporary American Dramatists. Ed. Jackson R. Bryer. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1995.
Garber, Marjorie. Vested Interests: Cross-dressing and Cultural Anxiety. New York: Routledge, 1992.
Gilbert, M. Sandra and Susan Gubar. “Cross-dressing and Re-Dressing: Transvestism as Metaphor.” No Man’s Land: The Place of the Woman Writer in the Twentieth Century. Vol. II: Sexchanges. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. 324-376.
Haedicke, Janet-V. “David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly: The Eye on the Wing.” Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism 7:1(Fall, 1992): 27-44.
Hermann, Anne. “Travesty and Transgression: Transvestism in Shakespeare, Brecht, and Churchill.” Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. Ed. Sue-Ellen Case. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1990. 294-315.
Irigaray, Lucy. This Sex Which Is Not One. Trans. Catherine Porter. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.
Itzin, Catherine. Stages in the revolution: Political Theatre in Britain Since 1968. London: Methuen, 1980.
Jardin, Lisa. Still Harping on Daughters: Women and Drama in the Age of Shakespeare. Brigliton: The Harvester Press, 1983.
Judith, Mayne. “Walking the Tightrope of Feminism and Male Desire.” Men in Feminism. Ed. Alice Jardin and Paul Smith. New York: Methuen, 1987.
Kehde, Suzanne. “Engendering the Imperial Subject: The (De)Construction of Western) Masculinity in David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly and Graham Greene’s The Quiet American.” Fictions of Masculinity: Crossing Cultures, Crossing Sexualities. Ed. Murphy-Peter F. New York: New York University Press, 1994. 241-54.
Kerr, Douglas. “David Henry Hwang and the Revenge of Madame Butterfly.” Asia Voice in English. Ed. Chan Mimi and Harris Roy. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1991.
King, Dave. The Transvestite and the Transsexual. Aldershot: Avebury, 1993.
Kondo, Dorinne K. “M. Butterfly: Orientalism, Gender, and a Critique of Essentialist Identity.” Cultural Critique 16(Fall, 1990): 5-29.
Lacan, Jacques. “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience.” Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan, London: Trvistock. 1977. 1-7.
- - -. “The Signification of the Phallus.” Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan, London: Trvistock. 1977. 281-91.
Laughlin, Karen. “Brechtian theory and American feminist theatre.” Re-interpretation Brecht: his influence on Contemporary drama and film. Ed. Pia Kleber and Colin Visser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Ling, Amy. “The Origin of the Image of Butterfly.” Representing Politics and Chinese American Literature. Ed. Shan Te-Hsing and Ho Wen-ching. Taipei: Institute of European and American Studies ( Academia Sinica), 1996.
Martin. Biddy. “Sexualities without Genders and Other Queer Utopias.” Diacritics 24.2-3(Summer-Fall 1994): 104-21.
Martin, Carol. “Brecht, Feminism, and Chinese Theatre.” TDR: The Drama Review 43:4 (Winter, 1999): 77-85.
Michasiw, Kim. “Camp, Masculinity, Masquerade.” Differences 6.2-3 (Summer-Fall 1994): 146-73.
Millett, Kate. Sexual Politics. London: Virago, 1977.
Mitchell, Juliet. Psychoanalysis and Feminism. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican-Penguin, 1975.
Moi, Toril. Sexual/Texual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. New York: Methuen, 1985.
Morris, Rosalind. “M. Butterfly: Transvestism and Cultural Cross Dressing in the Critique of Empire.” Eds. Masavisut-Nitaya, Simson-George and Smith-Larry E. Gender and Culture in Literature and Film East and West: Issues of Perception and Interpretation. HI: Hawaii University Press, 1994. 40-59.
Moss-Coane, Marty. “ David Henry Hwang.” Speaking on Stage: Interviews with Contemporary American Playwrights. Ed. Philip C. Kolin and Colby H. Kullman. Tuscaloosa: Alabama University Press, 1996.
Moy, James S. “David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly and Philip Kan Gotanda’s Yankee Dawg You Die: Repositioning Chinese American Marginality on the American Stage.” Theater Journal 42:1 (March, 1990): 48-56.
Quigley, Austin E. “Stereotype and Prototype: Characters in the Plays of Caryl Churchill.” Feminine Focus: The New Women Playwrights. Ed. Brater-Enoch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. 25-52.
Ramet, Sabrina Petra. “Genders and Reversals and Gender Cultures: An Introduction.” Gender Reversals and Gender Cultures: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives. Ed. Ramet, S. P. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. 1-21.
Randall, Phyllis R., ed. Caryl Churchill: A Casebook. New York: Garland, 1988.
Reinelt, Janelle. “Beyond Brecht: Britain’s New Feminist Drama.” Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. Ed. Sue-Ellen Case. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1990. 150-159.
Remen, Kathryn. “The Theatre of Punishment: David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly and Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish.” Modern Drama 37:3(Fall, 1994): 391-400.
Rich, Adrienne. “ Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality. Eds. Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson. New York: Monthly Review P, 1983. 177-205.
Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. Ed. Carole S. Vance. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984. 267-319.
Riviere, Joan. “Womanliness as a Masquerade.” Formations of Fantasy. Eds. Victor Burgin, James Donald, Cora Kaplan. London: Methuen, 1986. 35-44.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.
Shimakawa, Karen. “’Who’s to Say?’: Or, Making space for Gender and Ethnicity in M. Butterfly.” Theatre Journal 45:3(Oct. 1993): 349-61.
Silverstein, Marc. “’Make Us the Women We Can’t Be’: Cloud Nine and the Female Imaginery.” Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism 8:2(Spring, 1994): 7-22.
Skloot, Robert. “Breaking the Butterfly: The Politics of David Henry Hwang.” Modern drama 33:1(Mar., 1990): 59-66.
Solomon, Alisa. “It’s Never Too Late To Switch.” Crossing the Stage: Controversies on Cross-Dressing. Ed. Lesley Ferris. London:Routledge, 1993.
- - -. “Witches, Ranters and the Middle Class: the plays of Caryl Churchill.” Theare 12.2(Spring 1981): 49-55.
Thomsen, Christian W. “Three Socialist Playwright: John McGrath, Caryl Churchill, Trevor Griffiths.” Contemporary English Drama. Ed. C.W. E. Bigsby. New York: Holmes, 1981. 157-75.
Tseelon, Efrat. The Masque of Femininity: The Presentation of Woman in Everyday.
London: Sage, 1995.
Tyler, Carole-Anne. “Boys Will Be Girls: The Politics of Gay Drag.” Inside/ Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories. Ed. Diana Fuss. New York: Routledge, 1991. 32-70.
- - -. “The Feminine Look.” Theory between the Discipliness. Eds. M. Kreiswirth and M. Cheethan. Ann Arbor: Michigan, 1990. 191-212.
- - -. “Passing: Narcissism, Identity, and Difference.” Differences 6.2-3 (Summer-Fall 1994): 212-48.
Volpp Sophie. “Gender, power, and Spectacle in Late-Imperial Chinese Theatre.” Gender Reversals and Gender Cultures: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives. Ed. Ramet, S. P. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. 138-147.
Wandor, Michelene. Carry on: Understudies. London: Methuen, 1986.
- - -. Look Back in Gender: Sexuality and the Family in Post-War British Drama. London and New York: Methuen, 1987.
- - -. Drama Today: A Critical Guide to British Drama 1970-1990. London and New York: Methuen, 1987.
Weeks Jeffery. Sexuality and Its Discontents: Meanings, Myths, and Modern Sexualities. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985.
Worthen, W.B. Modern Drama: Plays, Criticism, Theory. Forth Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1995.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top