Oprah Winfrey
Ben Casnocha linked to this New Republic cover piece on Oprah (which annoyingly requires registration to read; I’d share the username and password I created for the purpose, but they are disgustingly obscene expressions of my irritation with stupid marketing directors). Thanks, Ben.
I’ve always struggled to succinctly explain what it is I find appealing about Oprah’s shows and her magazine, and one thing the piece does is bring me to the point: That growth and strength through suffering is the only option we have, because we all suffer and if we don’t come out of it better off than we went in, the alternative is a more miserable, less full life. And, as the writer says, Out of great pain, goodness. Absolutely.
The Oprah tale is, as they used to say, a paradigm shift. In place of Horatio Alger’s Protestant ethic-driven rags-to-riches story, Oprah’s is a Christian fundamentalist-driven tale of the power of faith and grace. It’s not that Oprah hasn’t worked hard to get where she is. One of the most appealing things about her has got to be that she always looks exhausted. Oprah has always worked superhumanly hard, it seems, but the object of her work is different from the traditional Alger-type jobs: rag-picking, selling newspapers, et cetera. Oprah’s work has been her own life. That is her ministry.
I have always hated being asked, “So, what do you do?” If anyone asked Oprah, “So, what do you do?” and she replied, “I work in television and publishing,” we all know what a woefully inadequate response that would be. I want to live in a world where “So, what do you do?” stops being a question we ask of one another. “So, who are you?” should get us to what we want and need to know about ourselves and others. You don’t have to believe in God to live your life as a ministry. Like it or not (and there is no reason that you shouldn’t), service of others is always service of your self.
Oprah annoys me when she goes anywhere near politics (although the interview with Mary J Blige in last month’s issue included Blige railing against the entitlement culture fostered in the ghetto by government handouts: “In the inner city, there’s a mentality that the government owes you something. My breakthrough came when I stopped feeling sorry for myself and took responsibility for every part of my life. No more pity parties.“). As I wrote not too long ago:
How can one have such a strong sense of personal responsibility and individualism, and be such a glowing example of prolific philanthropy, yet push so hard for more collectivism? There was even a glowing profile of a South American socialist politician in one of the recent issues. What I wouldn’t give to meet this woman and try to figure out how someone so smart can also promote such evil.
I think the New Republic piece gives me a glimmer of an answer: In Oprah’s world, the ends justify the means, and if holding up as an example a woman who has overcome adversity to achieve political power means promoting socialism, well, so be it. One matters more than the other in her world. This is, of course, assuming that she has connected the dots between why socialism is incompatible with the empowerment of women.
Filed under: Celebrities, Happiness, Home, Individuality vs Collectivism, Life, Magazines, Survival, Television, The State Is Not Your Friend, Work