In Defense of the Indefensible
Metaphorically speaking, Samantha Power was not wrong.
Frankenstein is not the monster in Mary Shelley’s novel. Frankenstein is the monster’s creator. The monster is a nameless creature who has a taste for revenge and a lack of self-control. Now, while I don’t condone calling Ms. Clinton a monster, I can see how the misstatement might of taken place. And there’s little doubt in my mind that the reference was, unconsciously, if not consciously, fueled by the existence of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in our cultural lexicon. Such a comparison—while not as adept as comparing Barack Obama to Ken Starr—is, shall we say, understandable.
I speak as an English composition instructor, who has worked to prepare countless college students to write essays of all stripes, that they might succeed across the various disciplines that demand agility with the written word.
Let’s begin with the definition of "monster" and the standard, that in choosing our words, it is not necessary that every nuance of a definition fit the case, only that there is within definition, meaning that exonerates the choice.
In the case of the Ms. Clinton/monster faux pas, I would argue that it is possible to defend Ms. Power’s word choice by focusing on the second and fifth definitions of "monster" in Webster’s II, the Riverside University edition, which gives us the following:
- An animal or plant with structural defects or deformities
- One arousing disgust or horror
How can one justify calling Ms. Clinton an "animal" with "structural defects or deformities?" Surely, I jest or, like Ms. Powers, am willing to risk termination and condemnation, or at least being the center of controversy. (Perhaps this is true, but hear me out.) I’m a writer, not a lawyer, and I’m not arguing for the legalistic meaning here, I’m arguing ala George Lakoff, about the implications of language, metaphor, symbolism, meaning, and collective cultural agreements.
First of all, let’s do away any concerns over the term "animal." Now admittedly, the human race does at times use the word "animal" as a derogative. Humans are, however, scientifically, (evolutionarily) speaking, animals. In fact, we share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. That is, of course, if one believes in science, which last time I looked, most Democrats do.
Which brings me to my second, and more controversial point: because, in order to understand the validity of my assertion, one must center themselves within the Democratic Party worldview, or paradigm. If one categorizes Ms. Clinton as a Democrat, and she has not yet abandoned that label to my knowledge, it can be argued that she may indeed have some kind of "structural defect or deformity." Structurally speaking, individuals who ban together under the banner of Democrat, do so to form a team of sorts, a collective that develops a platform of ideas and presents them to the general public. As a rule, individuals ban together under the principle of "united we stand, divided we fall." The party works together, raising money, creating alliances, networking, creating mutual defenses against common enemies (i.e., other parties that would hope to keep all Democrats out of power), etc., etc. You know the litany.
So, my argument is that Ms. Clinton is a Deformed Democrat. She’s not a party player. She’s a one woman show. Certainly she has her minions, and I venture to say, that she’s "become" increasingly Deformed over time. Earlier, when she was convinced that she was inevitable, she was more structurally in line with the Democratic party, and many of us didn’t consider her hyperbole deformities, as much as failures of judgment.
What Mary Shelley proved in Frankenstein, however, for those who haven’t read the real deal, is that failures in judgment lead almost inevitably to deformities. That’s what happened to Victor Frankenstein. He didn’t set out, intending to be a bad person. He set out, albeit with grandiose hubris, to save the world. He thought the rest of the world would be grateful for his behavior. He thought we’d feel safer in the world knowing that he was working on our behalf. Unfortunately, he failed on two accounts: the first was judgment; the second accountability. When the chips began to fall and his creation proved to be a monster, he pretended that he didn’t create it, that he had no responsibility for its existence, that, in fact, it didn’t exist. He stood back while it killed innocent people and than actively participated in shifting the blame so he would not be found out. This is probably why modern culture conflates Frankenstein with his monster, and arguably, Mary Shelley's point.
As for definition number five, the one about "disgust," and "horror." Personally, as a Democrat, I am disgusted by Ms. Clinton’s behavior and I am, if not horrified, at least frightened by its implications for the Democratic party. I think we all should be.
Have I connected enough dots here?
I understand why Samantha Power resigned, but I believe the unconscious processes that led her to her slip of tongue are logical, understandable and perhaps even defensible.