.png)
Author Information
Oprah's Pedagogy: A Black girl's perspective
In 2007, media mogul, Oprah Winfrey, went public and announced the opening of her 40 million dollar leadership academy school for girls. To qualify to attend the state of the art school, located outside of Johannesburg, South Africa, students had to identify as low-income and have above average grades in school. Potential students also underwent an application process, academic testing and an evaluation process that accessed their potential leadership skills (Harpo Studios, 2008). Reportedly, not only do the young women at the leadership academy supposedly receive a state of the art education, but their living quarters are also adorned with a yoga studio, beauty salon, and indoor and outdoor theaters (Givhan, 2007). Besides being identified as one of the wealthiest women in the world, Oprah Winfrey is one of the richest African Americans (Goldman, 2008). The intent of this discussion is not to discuss the hard earned success of Ms. Winfrey, nor to debate the authenticity of her on air character. First of all, being a woman of African descent whom has achieved much wealth and status among the general public, Oprah would be too easy of a target to blame on Americans obsession with celebrity lifestyle and materialism. Furthermore, any analysis of Oprah’s image or many cultural pursuits would be shortsighted considering that “Oprah Winfrey,” at least as the everyday person knows her, is a brand and a media image (see Travis, 2007 for a thorough discussion on cultural critiques). Thus, we are not concerned with Oprah as text as much as we are concerned with her words as text.
More to the point, we are more concerned with the words that spilled from her mouth during the news coverage of the highly televised opening of her Leadership Academy for Girls. During an interview, when asked why she had not considered opening a school for girls in the Chicago neighborhood where her talk show studio is located, Oprah poignantly replied,
In America if you ask the kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school.
There is little doubt that Oprah has done wonderful things for women, children, people of color and the poor, in the form of philanthropy and role modeling. Notwithstanding such an observation, the above words stands out, because it gives some insight into Oprah’s psyche, but it also provides much insight into American’s long standing views about the deserving and undeserving poor. First, Oprah contradicted herself in the above statement. She is a role model for most Black children living in the inner-city and attending high poverty under-resourced schools. Five days a week and throughout the year, many Americans turn on their television sets to view Oprah telling us that material goods are a reflection of how much we care about ourselves.
Therefore, those who do not have are seen as not caring about themselves or of not being cared about; thus, it is only appropriate that many African American children would want to attend school with a nice pair of shoes and the latest technology. For these hypothetical young people, such material things, as they have been taught by Oprah and the rest of America culture, including Jay-Z, 50 cent, and Beyonce’, makes them appear as if they are cared for and care for themselves. As Oprah would say, that is what every child wants, “To simply feel cared for,” right. Assuming Oprah actually spoke with children who requested I-pods and sneakers, maybe the school children responded in a way they thought Oprah wanted to hear. Because Oprah is both a contrived reflection of American culture, as well as a producer of culture, she is just as much responsible for any materialistic response as parents, athletes, or rappers for the school children’s presumed materialism. Before a live studio audience, she gives away “things,” whether they are automobiles, shoes, make-up, school uniforms or I-pods. Yet, she also offers spiritual ruminations that serve to shape viewers perceptions and engagement with the material and spiritual world. Scholars have called attention to Oprah’s marketing and pedagogical strategies that have effectively captivated audiences’ attention and unwavering support through the years and recruited millions of women (and men) from the white middle and upper classes to consume her New Age spiritual messages (Travis, 2007; Lofton, 2006). As articulated by Lofton (2006),
… the empire of Oprah Winfrey remains a necessary topic for our dispute and discussion. We, as scholars, must continue to seek common classificatory vocabularies for our analysis of topics within the incorporated morass of popular culture. Winfrey's distain for institutions, anxiety about all forms of tradition, and her advocacy of an ostensible spiritual "pluralism" (not to mention her status as the CEO of a very for-profit corporation) suggests that by contemporary legal and academic standards Harpo Productions is not a choate religious organization. Nevertheless, Oprah Winfrey continues to practice her own self-perfection, leaving in her multimedia wake a trail of prescriptive liturgy for all who hunger to follow (p.617):.
The above quote suggests that Oprah’s attempt at crossing over into the religious realm is open to investigation, and that spirituality is intimately fused with self-indulgence, marketability, and profit-seeking intentions. Therefore, it is reasonable to state that Oprah has convinced many that the material is a reflection of the spiritual and vice versa. Consequently, anyone exposed to her philosophy on life (with a less than critical eye) would desire to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, while at the same time desiring her lavish lifestyle. For example, Oprah’s daily musings typically focuses on beauty, fashion, and material goods, celebrity lifestyles, and maybe medical and health advice, alongside little doses of relationship and money advice. Educational attainment as a vehicle for social and economic mobility in the midst of the glitz and glamour would be more of a side note. Even Oprah’s Leadership Academy links the material with the educational experience; hence, the beauty salons and state of the art entertainment centers that she believes the students deserve.
Therefore, Oprah should not be surprised if, and when, young Black children digest, and then regurgitate her messages of consumerism, instant gratification, and material consumption. Oprah’s methods of a sort of religiously-based pedagogy has conditioned individuals, the young and adults alike, to worship and show homage not only to her, but also to the so-called “spiritual capitalism” (Lofton, 2006, p. 599) she represents. Along these same lines, evidence suggests that children from low-come families and African American children spend more time exposed to electronic media, and young people from these groups are more likely to be exposed to media marketing at greater rates than other children (Roberts & Foehr, 2008; Kumanyika & Grier, 2006). Considering Ms. Winfrey’s identity as an African American and her mass appeal, one could assume that she has been a major influence for many African American children living in the inner-city, for better or worst. Notwithstanding what is not known about her influence on the aspirations and lifestyles of African American children, probably less is known or imagined about her influence on white American children and adolescents.
Which brings us back to the original question: Where are pre-service teachers learning about Black female students? One response is the media. Individuals like Oprah bring credibility to individuals’ perceptions of Black girls who reside in low-income and working class neighborhoods and attend urban schools. For instance, when asked, “Why not a school for the girls where you live and work,” Oprah’s retort, “They only care about I-Pods and sneakers,” only yields credibility to pre-existing racist and classist beliefs about low-income women and girls of color. Regrettably, when Oprah makes a comment on Black girls, her words are cerebrally assimilated as “truth,” and they become a part of already adulterated representations of all that is Black and woman and poor. She would never defy the Black community, is the thought process of her majority white middle class audience. Even more, because Oprah’s traditional histrionics sale her love for humanity, audiences tend to believe that she will never say anything that would potentially cause harm to anyone, especially against people who look and sound like her. Thus, for Oprah to obliquely convey to millions of viewers around the world that U.S. urban Black girls do not care about education, and knowing that her words are more or less treated as gospel, by an already mesmerized racially unbalanced listening audience, whom are unfamiliar with African American female students, is at the least irreverent and at the most negligent.
Note: This is excerpt from a manuscript I am working on, so please cite properly and/or provide useful feedback and comments. VEW
References:
Evans-Winters, V. (2005). Teaching black girls: Resiliency in urban classrooms. New York:
Peter Lang.
Givhan, R. (2007). In Oprah's South African School, Girls Will Get a Beautiful Education. The
Washington Post Company. P. C01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401817.html. Retrieved October 27, 2008.
Goldman, L. (2008). The top earning African American stars. Forbes.com. Retrieved:
Harpo Studios (2008). Building a dream: The Oprah Winfrey leadership academy. Retrieved
From http://www.oprah.com/article/seriesandspecials/leadershipacademy/20070102_sas_leadership_academy. October 27, 2008.
Kumanyika, S & Grier, S. (2006). Targeting Interventions for Ethnic Minority and Low-Income
Populations. The Future of Children, 16 (1), pp. 187-207.
Lofton, K. (2006). Practicing Oprah; or, the Prescriptive Compulsion of a Spiritual Capitalism.
The Journal of Popular Culture, 39 (4), pp. 599-621.
Roberts, D.F. & Foehr, U.G. (2008). Trends in media use. Children and Electronic Media, 8 (1), pp. 11-38.
Travis, T. (2007). It will change the world if everybody reads this book: New thought religion in
Oprah’s book club. American Quarterly, 59 (3), pp. 1017-1041.
- Venus Evans-Winters's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
- Topic Tags:
Comments
This is a perceptive and
This is a perceptive and needed commentary. The transparent and insidious power of capitalistic and materialistic assumptions—clothed in the self-righteousness of celebrity. That is the essence of Oprah as an icon. I mean nothing derogatory toward her as a person, but as this outstanding post describes better than I could, it is the power of her words, what she has become that makes us step back to see the person behind the curtain. . .thank you, and I look forward to the completed work you are doing! Paul Thomas
wow what post!
Hello,
I am a brand new phd student studying under Shirley Steinberg and I am very interested in the media and representations. I feel very priviledged to have read a post like yours, it is extremely insightful and thought provoking. For years, I have been trying to figure out why I am not buying into Oprah the way millions upon millions of people all over the world do. As you stated in your post she has worked extraordinarily hard at building up her career and status as an African American woman. She is a positive representation in numerous ways but at the same time I feel she has become too powerful and hungry to put her stamp of approval on everything and anything she can. The words "Oprah for president" are often uttered by her fans and I am not doubting for even a minute that it is impossible for her to run and win. I think that like many celebrities Oprah is putiing her efforts everywhere but where they should be. The comment she made about why she did not want to open a school in Chicago her very own city and gold mine is troubling to me beyond belief. The words of celebrites hold so much influenece on individuals who support them. To me knowing that Oprah made a comment like that just shows me that she is not truly authentic in her convictions. Don't get me wrong, as a public figure she offers alot but I think like with anything else if we are not careful about who we listen to and believe in then we are doomed to be further manipulated by those in place of remarkable power.
I am also looking forward to reading the rest of your manuscript, you are wonderfully articulate and will definitely be used as a reference as I get my research started!
I agree (name removed)
(name removed), I totally agree and was going to bring up how Oprah's old show (the standard "Donahue" format) was very on the surface and watered down (which was the trend in those days...granted they did deal with some cutting edge issues of the times). Perhaps you are right about the dominant forces of the media moguls behind her but she is REAPING the benefits and she has an audience of men and mostly women who are dangling on her every word. It comes back again to the way we as individuals put celebities on a pedastel and the important figures of yesteryear like teachers, policemen, firemen, parents etc. are not the role models children are looking to anymore for inspiration. It is truly the end of innocence!
If wishes were horses, dreamers would ride
Pedestals are made for toppling. I know. I've been on a few. I crashed and burned in a major way following the divorce from my kids mom. It's amazing how long it takes to build a career and reputation and how quickly we can destroy it.
"Whirling Dervish. Heading Down. Suicide King. Shattered Crown." I said that :) I was actually writing about my friend Irv Rubin (OBM), but it applied equally to me.
I'm much better now, having made a conscious decision to NEVER under any circumstances, take Dr Phil's advice on any thing.
Oprah, while doing a great deal of good, is ultimately dangerous in that her viewers are easy targets, and highly susceptible to suggestion. I was invited on her show once, years ago, and refused. I think it was a first.
J
PS: I've been watching the candidates with an air of detached amusement, having already voted. For some reason I keep thinking "parrots lecturing sheep." BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA humbug:) They say we get the government we deserve, but I still can't figure out what I could have possibly done to deserve this.
"There is no such thing as a conservative hero." Jesus said that in Christopher Moore's amazingly funny and affirming book Lamb. The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal.
Don't touch that dial!
The simulacrum becomes us.
Torn loyalty
You all raise some very good questions and interesting comments. For those of us who grew up watching the Oprah Show, we have witnessed her go from being a "person" on television to now representing a brand on television. Again, we don't truly know Oprah Winfrey the person anymore. Every time Oprah opens her mouth, introduces a new book, hosts someone on the show, and does some charitable gesture, Oprah (the brand) is selling us something (e.g. a movie, jeans, jewelry, animal adoption, botox, an African school we can help fund).
In my opinion, Oprah is definitely free. Of course, more than likely at some point in her career, she did not feel free. Thus, to solve her feeling of discontent and that feeling of being a "slave" to the system, she decided to "purchase" and "own" herself. This took place when she bought the rights to the company, show, or whatever. Now, she represents capitalism to the fullest. In essence, now that she "owns" herself, she can now "sale" herself. As hinted at in the original blog, it is because of this observation/revelation on my part that made me realize that Oprah's comments about "inner-city" (compared to South African) kids, was negligent. When she opened her mouth, she knew what she was selling to the mainstream medium. Anyhow, we all are torn about Oprah (the brand), because we know that there is an Oprah (the person) inside of her; therefore, we all are torn about any criticisms about Oprah (the brand/person).
One Luv
Venus
Thanks Venus and (name removed) for your insightful comments
Venus,
As someone who was predisposed early on to support Oprah and who believed she had the possibility to make a profound positive impact on the world, watching her branding, her social decontextualization, her dismissal of power relations, her avoidance of the nuts and bolts of racism and class bias has been very difficult for me to observe. Your insights here are so helpful in the effort to understand the multiple forces at work in her persona--both brand and person. What a complex set of socio-cultural and political economic forces collide around her over the last few years. In this sense she becomes larger than life, more than just an individual, and a symbol for a mediated age.
Again, thanks so much for these valuable insights.
In solidarity,
Joe
Joe L. Kincheloe Canada Research Chair in Critical Pedagogy Faculty of Education McGill University
oprah and elections
I so agree with what you are writing here Venus( what a lovely name).I shoud post probably the bio I have started but it gets too big and not sure what to cut from it. So anyway just to put things in perspective I came to Canada in 1996 and in Romania( my country of origin) I might have heard of Oprah but never saw her on TV there. I only started to see her shows once my schedule allowed me ( after going back to school and being home at time show was on- soemtimes after 2001). I have done that a while than when I met my boyfriend I read some of her magazines that he had. The magazine made me asked more questions as is still so full of ads ( of course like most maganizes here in North America). I have also seen some old shows as my boyfriend had some tapes recorded by his kids in the past.I came to learn that she built her little kingdom and helped me to see how the power of media is so huge. So slowly I stopped watching her shows as I saw how much of cosnumerism is she promoting. I still think she has a good heart but I agree that she made her own brand (how brilliant ). The power she has is huge. Now what I am interested to put it out here is about elections. We all know that she endorsed Obama from the very beggining. I followed elections on TV and of course as I was proud to be part of such a historical moment. About the same time I was initially going to reply to this blog I saw on TV (ABC I think) some of the statistics about elections. Actually they said that according to her power to make anybody to sell anything they made an estimation that her endorsment brought Obama over one million votes apparently making one of the differences in the elections results. So is this one aspect in which we could say that her power is positive or is it that she like many others have too much power of influence? On the other hand is it that better to have some influence for the good things that none? I also am wondering what would happen if Oprah would start to learn something about critical pedagogy and instead judging the american girls that want ipods ( which she might actually be endorsing) understanding that she could use her power for social justice and transformation instead of just charity type activites. anyway these are my thousghts. I was just wondering what do you think about this?
Ruxandra
Harpo/Oprah
One Luv
Oprah and her school
Thank you for your post! However, I would like to hear more about Oprah's comment on why she chose to open her school in South Africa and not Chicago. Going off the little info given about her comment in your post, I have to say that I don't think she was motivated by American school children's interest in material items over education that led to her decision to put the school in South Africa. As a person who has spent a several years of my life in West Africa's rural villages, I can attest to the dearth of educational opportunities available for girls all over the continent. I honestly think she felt her money would best be used in South Africa in a place where there was little to no opportunity for the girls who attend the school.
I think you should also look at the politics of starting a school in the US (something I am sure you are more knowledgable about than I am...). Oprah, an entertainer -- not an educator, had a lumpsum of money she wanted to put towards an education that she saw fit for South African girls. Personally, I think the school should be a bit more "South African" and not emulate elite boarding schools of the West. Were these girls really interested in a yoga studio or was there some other kind of physical activity that is perhaps native to the cultures of the people who live in South Africa? I don't know, but I would like to see the needs assessment that went into the planning of this school. In any case, I don't think Oprah would have as much freedom with the design and implementation of the school had she done it in Chicago. I think that was the real motivation for choosing South Africa over Chicago.
Oprah's motivation
Miss May,
I agree with you 100%. No doubt there are many obstacles and politics to establishing and/or overseeing the operation of a school in the U.S., especially those for Black and Brown students or students living in poverty. Also, possibly Ms. Winfrey's charitable dollars may go a lot further in South Africa. And, I agree with you, there is definitely a need for schools in South Africa for girls/women. My gripe (Do I have one?) isn't necessarily with where/how the school was started. As my parents would say, "That none of my business."
I am more concerned with Oprah's unchecked disparagement of "inner-city" (female) students. She seems to check everything else coming out of her mouth, shows, magazines, etc. My question is: What was her motivation for throwing Black poor girls under the bus? Self-hatred or self love? This question gets at your observation on how is the girls' culture being embedded in the curriculum. In other words, is Oprah considering the cultural context in which ALL young African women are living in or will soon return.
One Luv
Venus