The purpose of this paper is to analyze Robinson Crusoe (1719), The King and I (1945), and M. Butterfly (1988) from the perspective of Edward W. Said’s Orientalism (1978). Robinson Crusoe and The King and I have been used as favored texts for the sc...
The purpose of this paper is to analyze Robinson Crusoe (1719), The King and I (1945), and M. Butterfly (1988) from the perspective of Edward W. Said’s Orientalism (1978). Robinson Crusoe and The King and I have been used as favored texts for the scholars of Orientalism to reveal the origin and development of the mechanism of Orientalism. Lots of research on M. Butterfly has been done in the context of post-colonialism, multiculturalism and postmodernism. In this paper, the three works are combined and analyzed in the context of Orientalism. Considering the close relationship between post-colonialism and Orientalism, and the two faces of Orientalism, M. Butterfly can serve as the counter part to Robinson Crusoe and The King and I in the discourse of Orientalism. In a sense, the construction of the Orientalism in the two works is fully deconstructed by M. Butterfly.
From the perspectives of post-colonialism, cultural imperialism and multiculturalism, there is a lot of research that has been completed on Robinson Crusoe, The King and I and M. Butterfly. There are also some authors of different countries that have researched Orientalism successfully in each of the three works. But no one combines the different works together to reflect the dual characters of Orientalism. In this study, through the analysis of the three works, the meaning of the construction and deconstruction of Orientalism can be clearly revealed to readers. With the background of the Orientalism, it also shows readers the whole process from the construction of Orientals to the deconstruction of Orientals.
In each of these works, the Orient as “the Other” plays a pivotal role in the construction and deconstruction of the Orientalism. This paper will comprehensively explain the changes in the role and function of “the Other” as it relates to the construction and deconstruction of Orientalism.