POP CULTURE MYTHOLOGY: MONICA LEWINSKY
Our culture has by and large lost a conventional sense of mythology, though we have not lost our hunger for it. We fill the void with a warped preoccupation of celebrities; we raise them to demigod status then eagerly watch as their Greek-like tragedies unfold in headlines.
Despite dominating headlines and punch lines, Monica Lewinsky wasn’t a mythological figure in the late 90s. In fact, her insignificance contributed to the controversy. Of all things, some people were confused why the President, with his pick of Monroes, would have an affair with some unknown, unremarkable intern (though let’s be real, there were probably others). Beyond her face and name Monica remained a nobody; everyone was interested in everything surrounding her, but not her personally. While the Clintons moved up and on, Monica faded into a ghost’s shadow. That is, until recently.
Over the years Monica tried to reenter the spotlight through a TV show, book, and a line of handbags. To be fair, a national scandal sometimes hurts one’s employability, and she may have few options for income. Still, none of it worked. Independently she had no mythological appeal; in order to be meaningful she needed the overarching mythology of power, temptation, and deceit. Monica finally found her footing by converting her negative experiences into something inspirational in the “revolution of compassion” against the “culture of humiliation”.
The story goes like this: a woman has an affair with an older, powerful man. It was a mistake made by someone who was only 22 years old and in love. People found out about this affair and instantly tore her dignity into shreds, drooling with delight in the process. She was left dazed by all that was happening and unable to escape her mistake. But today, despite all that has happened, she is silenced no longer. Taking a stand against the sadistic pleasure people get from needlessly humiliating others, she brandishes the sword and shield of empathy and compassion.
Her mythology becomes Patron Saint of Public Shaming, being America’s first internet martyr. It’s an untouchable position. Her newfound sainthood cannot be called into question without subjecting oneself to backlash. In reality, Monica is a Medusa: look too closely and you’ll turn to stone.
(I’m going to do it anyway.)
Her TED Talk “Price of Shame” sounds good on the surface, but there are some issues with it. Starting off with the technicalities, compassion and empathy don’t stop shame. In fact, they sometimes create it. Humility, atonement, and remorse with forgiveness curb shame (see Shaka Senghor's TED Talk). Then there’s the fact that she is using shame as a weapon against shame; to be compassionless and unempathetic makes you a bad person, and that’s something that you should be ashamed of (well, what if the person spreading the joke had a really bad day and needed to blow off steam? Haven’t you have had a bad day and done something wrong?) Her speeches have shamed those who made remarks about her 20 years ago into apologizing. The irony was wasted on everyone.
Then there are the matters of validity surrounding the story. It’s true that some people are shamed for things they cannot control or for no good reason at all, and that’s extremely unfair and unhealthy for that person and for society. But that’s not what happened here. People seem to forget that she actually did something wrong, and did not and does not appear remorseful for it. What's the real problem here? Celebrities and public figures face public humiliation all the time for far lesser offenses and see it as the cost of doing business. The difference is that they walk away still being somebody. For all her trouble, Monica was persistently nobody. She has no legitimacy to stand on her own. Like a stain, her existence depended on something else. Monica did not go on to do anything terribly impactful, until recently, which is why she wasn’t seen as terribly sympathetic, until recently. Yet her regret seems directed more towards the fact that situation did not end in her favor than anything else.
She begins her speech by asking the audience if they ever made a mistake when they were 22 years old. Then she goes on to say that she made the mistake of falling in love with her boss who just happened to be the President. She does not want to be seen as a bimbo-indeed, she appears to be very intelligent-yet at the same time she wants us to believe that she was completely taken off guard that sexual trysts with the married President of the United States would result in widespread public humiliation. It wasn’t a mistake of the moment; she chose on multiple occasions over the course of 2 years to have consensual encounters. She wasn’t ignorant of her wrongdoing; she covered her tracks throughout and after, even lying under oath. Being so hard to have both ways, it makes one wonder: what did she expect? What scenario did she envision playing out? Was there some grandiose fantasy motivating her? Did Monica “fall in love” despite his status, or because of it? Was the appraisal “narcissistic Looney Toon” close to the mark?
For all of Monica's talk of humiliation, she left out one important detail: Hillary. It's no accident. Hillary is the mirror that can destroy the Medusa. Monica is quick to point out how she was wronged, but conveniently omits how she has wronged others. Hillary was humiliated by the actions of Monica and her husband as well, yet Monica expressed no empathy for her anywhere in her speech. Pursuing a political career, Hillary is burdened by a biased view of powerful women as being cold, castrating bitches. An unfaithful husband provides confirmation bias for the belief that she, being an accomplished and influential woman, must be frigid and neglectful. Under constant scrutiny, and not free from scandal and questionable choices of her own, Hillary has never withdrawn her ambition in the face of public shaming. Hillary does not see herself as a victim who needs to be protected from slings and arrows but a survivor willing to take on the challenges she faces, no matter how unjust.
Monica’s reemergence and retaliation is being seen as brave. Yet Hillary’s continual relentlessness, shame endurance, personal growth and adaptation will not receive the same recognition, respect, or admiration. Hillary does not go out of the way to advertise her plight to invite sympathy. Instead, she accepts it as a part of life, one which is not too great to handle.
This is the pitfall of the Medusa Effect: when we refuse to look more closely we cannot see things for what they really are. We claim to be in favor of empathy, but empathy requires understanding. How can you understand something without taking a hard look at it? Should we abandon our judgment, critical thinking, perceptions and common sense and call it compassionate? Who do we help and who do we hurt in doing so? Who do we look to for inspiration? Who should we look to for inspiration?
Despite dominating headlines and punch lines, Monica Lewinsky wasn’t a mythological figure in the late 90s. In fact, her insignificance contributed to the controversy. Of all things, some people were confused why the President, with his pick of Monroes, would have an affair with some unknown, unremarkable intern (though let’s be real, there were probably others). Beyond her face and name Monica remained a nobody; everyone was interested in everything surrounding her, but not her personally. While the Clintons moved up and on, Monica faded into a ghost’s shadow. That is, until recently.
Over the years Monica tried to reenter the spotlight through a TV show, book, and a line of handbags. To be fair, a national scandal sometimes hurts one’s employability, and she may have few options for income. Still, none of it worked. Independently she had no mythological appeal; in order to be meaningful she needed the overarching mythology of power, temptation, and deceit. Monica finally found her footing by converting her negative experiences into something inspirational in the “revolution of compassion” against the “culture of humiliation”.
The story goes like this: a woman has an affair with an older, powerful man. It was a mistake made by someone who was only 22 years old and in love. People found out about this affair and instantly tore her dignity into shreds, drooling with delight in the process. She was left dazed by all that was happening and unable to escape her mistake. But today, despite all that has happened, she is silenced no longer. Taking a stand against the sadistic pleasure people get from needlessly humiliating others, she brandishes the sword and shield of empathy and compassion.
Her mythology becomes Patron Saint of Public Shaming, being America’s first internet martyr. It’s an untouchable position. Her newfound sainthood cannot be called into question without subjecting oneself to backlash. In reality, Monica is a Medusa: look too closely and you’ll turn to stone.
(I’m going to do it anyway.)
Her TED Talk “Price of Shame” sounds good on the surface, but there are some issues with it. Starting off with the technicalities, compassion and empathy don’t stop shame. In fact, they sometimes create it. Humility, atonement, and remorse with forgiveness curb shame (see Shaka Senghor's TED Talk). Then there’s the fact that she is using shame as a weapon against shame; to be compassionless and unempathetic makes you a bad person, and that’s something that you should be ashamed of (well, what if the person spreading the joke had a really bad day and needed to blow off steam? Haven’t you have had a bad day and done something wrong?) Her speeches have shamed those who made remarks about her 20 years ago into apologizing. The irony was wasted on everyone.
Then there are the matters of validity surrounding the story. It’s true that some people are shamed for things they cannot control or for no good reason at all, and that’s extremely unfair and unhealthy for that person and for society. But that’s not what happened here. People seem to forget that she actually did something wrong, and did not and does not appear remorseful for it. What's the real problem here? Celebrities and public figures face public humiliation all the time for far lesser offenses and see it as the cost of doing business. The difference is that they walk away still being somebody. For all her trouble, Monica was persistently nobody. She has no legitimacy to stand on her own. Like a stain, her existence depended on something else. Monica did not go on to do anything terribly impactful, until recently, which is why she wasn’t seen as terribly sympathetic, until recently. Yet her regret seems directed more towards the fact that situation did not end in her favor than anything else.
She begins her speech by asking the audience if they ever made a mistake when they were 22 years old. Then she goes on to say that she made the mistake of falling in love with her boss who just happened to be the President. She does not want to be seen as a bimbo-indeed, she appears to be very intelligent-yet at the same time she wants us to believe that she was completely taken off guard that sexual trysts with the married President of the United States would result in widespread public humiliation. It wasn’t a mistake of the moment; she chose on multiple occasions over the course of 2 years to have consensual encounters. She wasn’t ignorant of her wrongdoing; she covered her tracks throughout and after, even lying under oath. Being so hard to have both ways, it makes one wonder: what did she expect? What scenario did she envision playing out? Was there some grandiose fantasy motivating her? Did Monica “fall in love” despite his status, or because of it? Was the appraisal “narcissistic Looney Toon” close to the mark?
For all of Monica's talk of humiliation, she left out one important detail: Hillary. It's no accident. Hillary is the mirror that can destroy the Medusa. Monica is quick to point out how she was wronged, but conveniently omits how she has wronged others. Hillary was humiliated by the actions of Monica and her husband as well, yet Monica expressed no empathy for her anywhere in her speech. Pursuing a political career, Hillary is burdened by a biased view of powerful women as being cold, castrating bitches. An unfaithful husband provides confirmation bias for the belief that she, being an accomplished and influential woman, must be frigid and neglectful. Under constant scrutiny, and not free from scandal and questionable choices of her own, Hillary has never withdrawn her ambition in the face of public shaming. Hillary does not see herself as a victim who needs to be protected from slings and arrows but a survivor willing to take on the challenges she faces, no matter how unjust.
Monica’s reemergence and retaliation is being seen as brave. Yet Hillary’s continual relentlessness, shame endurance, personal growth and adaptation will not receive the same recognition, respect, or admiration. Hillary does not go out of the way to advertise her plight to invite sympathy. Instead, she accepts it as a part of life, one which is not too great to handle.
This is the pitfall of the Medusa Effect: when we refuse to look more closely we cannot see things for what they really are. We claim to be in favor of empathy, but empathy requires understanding. How can you understand something without taking a hard look at it? Should we abandon our judgment, critical thinking, perceptions and common sense and call it compassionate? Who do we help and who do we hurt in doing so? Who do we look to for inspiration? Who should we look to for inspiration?