My Life (review)

Producing a sociological review of My Life presents an interesting and unusual set of challenges. Clinton's autobiography does not make an intervention into an identifiable literature, it does not build theory, nor does it adopt a systematic, reflexive attitude to the presentation of evidence. There are a large number of reviews already in circulation, many of which were published in mainstream media outlets within a week or two of the book's initial release. For these reasons, I do not offer a standard account of Clinton's memoir, but use it instead to examine the cultural dimensions of political autobiography. Specifically, I am interested in (1) the cultural forms that Clinton uses to tell his story, (2) the way that these cultural structures influenced the reception of the book, and (3) the possible explanations for why Clinton told the story the way he did.

While the media reviews of My Life varied in a number of respects, almost all of them agreed that the Young Clinton is by far the more interesting protagonist of the autobiography. There is some fascinating reading in the book's early pages: the story of Clinton's childhood; his improbable journey from Hot Springs, Arkansas to Georgetown University; his years at Oxford University and Yale Law School; his inner struggles about the Vietnam War and the draft; his courting of Hillary Rodham; and his return to Arkansas, to be elected governor at the tender age of 32. At this point, the narrative style of the book changes dramatically. The last 700 pages of the book present a seemingly endless chronicle of policy decisions and political meetings. Tom Carson ( The Atlantic, September 2004, p. 128) has described the unfortunate effect of this shift in style on the reader:

"As you wade through the gubernatorial years, the real reason for your sinking feeling is the suspicion that the White House narrative will be another long march through Bill's desk diary on a much vaster scale."

Why is the early part of the book so much more compelling than the later part? From the perspective of cultural sociology, I think the concept of genre provides insight into this question. I would submit that the early pages of Clinton's autobiography can be understood quite easily as a Bildungsroman, or a coming-of-age story. Tragedy struck Bill Clinton before he was even born. His father was killed in an automobile accident when his mother was only six months pregnant. Following this family trauma, Clinton was raised in his early years by his mother, then by his grandparents, and then finally by his mother and his stepfather, who turned out to be an abusive alcoholic. These events, the reader is told, help to explain Clinton's desire to make a difference in the world, his concern for helping families stay together (e.g., the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, which was the first bill he signed into law as President), and his need to keep personal secrets.

Clinton's political consciousness developed in his early teen years, through his support of Kennedy and Johnson, through his opposition to the segregationist tendencies of the political culture that surrounded him in Arkansas, and through his participation in Boys Nation. By the time he was sixteen, Clinton tells the reader, he had already decided to be a politician (p. 63). By the time he graduated from Georgetown, Clinton was deeply involved in American politics, finding his first significant political mentor in William Fulbright, who employed Clinton during his last two years of college. Fulbright taught Clinton about Arkansas politics, national politics, and foreign policy, and was instrumental in getting him into Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship.

Clinton's memoir suggests that his psychological, spiritual and political development was mostly formed by the time he graduated from Georgetown and moved to Oxford. The time at Oxford and Yale is presented as the completion of his personal maturation, and the source of many of the close political contacts and advisers that Clinton would rely on...