So today USA Today ran a praise piece on Oprah. She is, of course, the media darling of the modern world. A few things about this article that struck my eye, or maybe, poked it like a cattle prod.
First off, Kathryn Lofton, a professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon who has written two papers analyzing the religious aspects of Oprah, said this about her: "She's a really hip and materialistic Mother Teresa."
Um, what? First of all, the words "materialistic" and "Mother Teresa" do not belong in the same sentence. And certainly not the latter right after the former. The last thing Mother Teresa was was materialistic. And according to an expert on Oprah, it's the second thing she is. "Materialistic Mother Teresa" is a contradiction in terms, a stringing together of words that causes said words to lose their meaning and become superficial and bereft of substance. Now, if that's what we mean when we describe Oprah as a "materialistic Mother Teresa," superficial and bereft of substance, then I can accept that as a possibility.
Perhaps by "Mother Teresa" Professor Lofton just meant to refer to Oprah's participation in good causes like Darfur and Hurricane Katrina. The distinct difference here of course is that every day of Mother Teresa's life was about the good cause--specifically in Calcutta. Anything less was not enough for her or for her good name. For Oprah, the natural disasters are on Monday and Tuesday, and what not to wear is on Wednesday. That's not a jab at Oprah, it's just what is. There's also the distinct difference that everything Mother Teresa did was aimed at the glorification of Jesus Christ. She pointed to Him. Who does Oprah point to?
Later on the article reads:
One of Winfrey's most appealing subtexts is that she's anti-institutional, says Chris Altrock, minister of Highland Street Church of Christ in Memphis. He says Winfrey believes there are many paths to God, not just one. After doing his doctoral research three years ago on postmodernism religion, a religious era that began in the 1970s as Christians became deeply interested in spirituality and less interested in any established church, he came up with what he calls "The Church of Oprah," referring to the culture that has created her."Our culture is changing," he says, "as churches are in decline and the bulk of a new generation is growing up outside of religion." Instead, they're turning to the Church of Oprah.
"People who have no religion relate to her," Nelson says.
Well of course. This is no big riddle here. What makes the Church of Oprah so appealing to so many people particularly in America is the same thing that ever made every other craze in history so appealing: the veritable absence of challenging moral requirements. That's what's at work in the DaVinci Code, it's what's at work in alternative spiritualities and yes even in the spirituality of Oprah. Does she say some good things? I guess maybe: frankly I don't watch her show that often. What I do know is that in the Gospel according to Oprah most of the notion of moral obligation has to do not with your neighbor but with precisely "you". The article makes it clear: "purchase self-indulgent gifts, take time for you — because you deserve it. The notes rang true to millions of viewers."
True or false doesn't enter into it. It rings comfortable. And that's the pop cultural view of religion right there. Religion is a sort of therapy. It's all about comfort and happy feelings and the moment that it makes an uncomfortable demand on a person or a culture it ceases to be valuable. That's the popular religious outlook of many in America today and Oprah is glad to preach it. Catholicism is a profound rejection of that idea.
One pointy-headed Oprah follower actually goes so far as to invite readers to ponder the question: "Why do we all need her so much?"
"We all"? Excuse me? Forty-nine million viewers a week--okay, it's impressive. But it does not in any way shape or form constitute "we all," especially for those of us two-hundred-some-odd million Americans who actually don't watch it every single day.
I have to say, my favorite parts of the article were the quotations of Debbie Schlussel, a blogger who, aside from resenting the ridiculous comparisons of Oprah to bona fide saints, seems to just plain not like her. She describes Oprah's fans as "incredibly gullible, bandwagon-jumping trend-slaves." Winfrey, according to Schlussel, "acts as if her show has 'evolved,' but in fact, she still has the salacious sex and deviance stories, with a psychologist in the audience to make it seem highbrow and give it the kosher seal of approval. If this is the person whose morals we are putting on a pedestal, then America's moral compass is in much need of retuning."
Well, yes Debbie, I'm afraid it in fact is. Trying to look on the bright side though, I wonder if all 49 million of Oprah's viewers really are "fans," in the sense of being the gullible, bandwagon-jumping trend-slaves that Schlussel describes. Is it too much to hope that people can watch Oprah with a critical mind? I don't think so. Still, it is rather unsettling when "Oprah said" becomes an authoritative prefix culturally rivalling "Jesus said." But that's from the point of view of the present time. In terms of history, I think it's safe to say which person's words will last longer.
Leave a comment