Reflecting on Me Too

The refrain “Me Too” will echo not just across Duke’s campus this weekend, but also college campuses nationwide. The Me Too Monologues production—performed monologues selected from anonymous submissions that draw from individuals’ experiences with matters of identity and belonging on campus—will spread its provoking model to schools like Columbia and Princeton. We are enthusiastic about the expansion of so powerful a production, but we pause here to reflect on the evolution of the monologues and its impact on Duke’s campus.

When it first began in 2009, Me Too centered primarily on issues surrounding race—a focus inspired by founder Priyanka Chaurasia’s experience at Duke’s Common Ground retreat. The production gave private narratives a public space, offering a counter culture where individuals could submit pieces that went against the traditional grain. Monologues challenged audience members and struck with vulnerabilities revolving around issues of identity that lurked unspoken beneath the surface.

Yet there has been a marked change in the tone and focus of the monologues in recent years. With popularization has come a shift away from what can oftentimes be uncomfortable issues, like race, to issues that already occupy broad platforms in campus discussion. In expanding to instead describe the myriad Duke experiences, the monologues have increasingly gravitated toward issues like body image and mental health. While these topics are vitally important in their own right and should be discussed on campus, they diverge from the production’s original mission.

In this way, Me Too Monologues has become a victim of its own success. A broadened audience has shaped the types of stories in a way to more likely elicit “me too” moments from the audience, which in turn influences the types of submissions in the first place. Popularization, then, has catalyzed a cyclical effect that perpetuates public narratives rather than reveals the hidden private.

We ask, then, what the goals of the monologues are and what impact the production hopes to have on the Duke community. If it is meant to elevate and amplify the voices of those at the fringes—voices often muffled by the dominant campus culture of whiteness and affluence, a culture of hegemonic normativity—then it is important to recognize how the power and voices of the monologues can replicate existing cultural and social dynamics. Addressing the social isolation that can occur on campus is an intensely important issue, and allowing these common experiences a platform to be heard does, indeed, unite students. However, regurgitating common experiences, even if through uncommon lenses, simply (re)produces the stifling of issues regarding the particularities of identity.

As Me Too Monologues gains traction, its producers should take time to reflect on the purpose and method of conveying campus impact. Recognizing the importance of the power differential between the stories of those who may be marginalized in their multiple identities and those who are common should inform the decisions of the production team. In this vein, developing an advisory group to preserve the power and intent of the production may be beneficial. Yet, the onus falls also on audience members to fully engage with the narratives. The monologues are not voyeuristic exhibition but a call to engage and question with open mind. As you head to the monologues this weekend, engage in the monologues and attend the post-discussions with willingness to be challenged, uncomfortable and vulnerable.