Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhprah!!!!! (Photo by: Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images)
Culture » June 10, 2011
Oprah’s Celebrity Pyramid Scheme
The daytime talk goddess’ therapeutic theology ultimately leads into a blind alley.
The Age of Oprah came to an end not with a bang, but with a long series of celebrity purrs. Heartfelt testimonials poured in from Michael Jordan and Madonna. These were punctuated from the great Midwestern citadel of personal empowerment by awkward, Oscar-style invocations of the little people. Tom Hanks, the celebrity emcee, addressed her eminence thusly: “As you’ve said over and over again, ‘It’s all about them.’ “
However, the self-infatuated postmodern celebrity has difficulty acknowledging a “them,” let alone ceding the stage to that terrifyingly anonymous horde. So as the long wind-down of daytime TV’s most revered franchise unfolded, the assembled worthies were at a loss to say just what it was they were commemorating. Were the 19th-century Scottish essayist Thomas Carlyle around to sum up the spirit of our age, he might dub the lapsed Oprah franchise the hollow center of the fame-feeling nexus.
Certainly, the weirdly antiseptic displays of celebrity emotion priming the nearly weeklong farewell ceremony seemed calculated to remind viewers of the crushingly obvious: that Oprah Winfrey is a mega-celebrity, with many mega-celebrity acquaintances. Tom Cruise called his primetime confessor a close personal friend who “just happens to have a classroom of millions.” He aptly likened her to the Land of Oz’s Glinda the Good Witch–one of the original founts of undifferentiated sentimentality of our mass entertainment age.
Hanks, a more well-spoken gent, was reduced to banalities such as “25 years have come and gone so fast,” and (quoting English playwright Charles Morgan) “There is no surprise more magical than the surprise of being loved.” Former California First Lady Maria Shriver, who had recently learned of some bruising, unmagical kinds of surprises in her personal life, regaled Winfrey: “You’ve given me love, support, wisdom–and most of all, the truth.”
The truth of Oprah is that the self embodies the height of cosmic wisdom. Beyond the relentless solipsism distilled in Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret, in the claustral star theology of the Winfrey show there is no there there. Nor is there any suggestion that, from St. Augustine onward, great thinkers have posited rampant self-acceptance as a central problem of spiritual life–not its self-evident solution. Ultimately, that is why the grinding spectacle of Oprah’s farewell felt much more like an infomercial for feeling something, anything, rather than an actual outpouring of human emotion.
“We’ve learned from the Oprah show that we are enough, that we matter, that our lives have value,” former child star Dakota Fanning said. And “we” in the audience somehow were expected to accept that it’s the most natural thing in the world to affirm our existential worth by watching daytime TV.
Nowhere were these painful limitations of the Oprah-programmed life more evident than when the franchise namesake extended her reach into the world beyond television. Via Oprah’s Book Club, Winfrey could launch writers into bestsellerdom with a beneficent nod of approval; the publishing industry, indeed, has long regarded her as a far mightier deity than Glinda. But like a truly jealous god, Oprah could just as swiftly exile writers into the tundra of public hostility, as Jonathan Franzen learned to his distress. The hurt and aggrieved self has clearly served as the lodestone for Oprah’s literary judgment–the point, fittingly enough, that Franzen was trying to make in his derided 2001 remarks that Oprah’s taste tended toward the “schmaltzy” and “one-dimensional.” Once again, we in the Winfrey audience were taught that books not devoted to self-healing aren’t worth bothering with.
The curious thing about Winfreyism, though, is that it leads ultimately into a blind alley, as therapeutic theologies of the self always will. In her ballyhooed final segment–a one-on-one session that allowed the great teacher to relay one last set of life lessons to the faithful–Winfrey alighted on the hoariest of success aphorisms: the notion that through disciplined self-adoration, her audience, too, can achieve a state of celebrity divinity. This is, in essence, a vision of universal celebrity as a pyramid scheme.
“You have to make a living, I understand that,” Winfrey said to her followers in a tone of patient condescension. “But you also have to know what sparks the light in you, so that you in your own way can illuminate the world. … Each one of you has your own platform. Do not let the trappings here fool you. Mine is a stage in a studio; yours is wherever you are, with your own reach. … That is your talk show. That is where your power lies.”
To each true believer a talk show: This is a spiritual aspiration as hollow and nonsensical as Oprah’s closing benediction: “From you whose names I will never know, I have learned what love is.”
Mass adulation is not love, any more than pity is–or any more than enlightenment occurs on a couch opposite Tom Cruise. For these reasons, the most apt closing gloss on the Winfrey daytime brand came not from within the Harpo empire, but with the sad news at the end of Oprah’s final broadcast week that Gil Scott-Heron had died. The great songwriter’s signature composition–his claim to fame, as it were–was “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.”
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Chris Lehmann, a contributing editor of In These Times, is an editor of Book Forum and the Baffler and the author of Rich People Things (Haymarket, 2011). He is now working on a book about American religion and the money culture.

SAVE 53% OFF
Reader Comments
Mr. Lehmann is quite right about the philosophy expressed by Oprah Winfrey: “The truth of Oprah is that the self embodies the height of cosmic wisdom.” There is nothing in her message beyond this, no larger analysis of how society or the economy functions.
It is significant that Barack Obama’s presidency began with his appearance on the Oprah show in 2006. Without her suggesting to him that he ought to run for president, it is unlikely that he ever would have attracted the media attention necessary for the 2008 campaign.
Posted by Valatius on Jun 12, 2011 at 1:27 PM
I totally agree with the article. I never drank the kool Aid about Oprah. She wasn’t the best interviewer, and while I am glad she did some good with her money, she could have taken braver stands and done something brave with her celebrity. Instead, it is all this touchy feely stuff. I found the Farewell show such an exercise in egotism. Really. Her partner Stedman, said she was so humble. If you saw that show, it was so far from it. The way Johnny Carson exited was really class. That was the way it should be done. I will never understand all this Oprah nonsense.
Posted by Connie Colvin on Jun 16, 2011 at 4:33 PM
The curious thing about Winfreyism ... is that it exists at all.
Posted by Jiminy Cricket on Jun 16, 2011 at 9:48 PM
For someone born into poverty she did well for herself. The modern day priestess who people chose to confess to - considering where she came from and how she ended up, well, it’s nothing to sniff at, although people love to do that, either out of jealousy or ignorance. So far as I know she was never worse or better than a lot of people in this world, so I have nothing against her, I think, out of all the shows she ever did, I watched two or three, and not even all the way through since that stuff was never my cup of tea - but it was fascinating to see how people rallied around her, formed a cult. If we who comment were in her shoes, with her background, her money, how different would we have behaved?
Posted by da vinci on Jun 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM
I so don’t like Oprah
Posted by Chris UK Smith on Jun 28, 2011 at 12:33 AM
extended discussion >>>Continued...
Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 6 posts.