O, pray for us

So 'The Oprah Winfrey Show' ended not with a bang but a whimper.

As usual, it was a self-aggrandising whimper. Oprah preached. We listened in awesome wonder. Oprah's bank account grew. We were captivated. Oprah's show endeth but the Oprah phenomenon liveth and reigneth on her network; the one with the subtle acronym (OWN).

Don't get me wrong. Oprah is massively talented. But she's more smart(s) than talent. She's an excellent movie actress who discovered that reincarnation as cult leader-cum-talk show host brought rewards rendering those from her previous career comparatively minuscule. To be fair, Oprah has done lots of good with those rewards. How do I know? Because ever-present cameras have recorded each drop of good, thereby creating blockbuster episodes of 'The Oprah Winfrey Show'.

I hear you saying, it's easy for the envious to criticise from the cheap seats. Maybe. But, is it possible persons not envious of Oprah exist (gasp!)? Is it conceivable the occasional oddity mightn't want to emulate her? Such an eccentric might struggle to unconditionally accept her coronation. Legitimate questions might reasonably be asked.

For example, she repeatedly represented herself as a relationship guru. As such, she forced guests to divulge every unnecessary detail of their sexual or other transgressions (e.g. her interview of former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey). She revelled in the suffering of others to the extent that followers would've been excused for believing suffering is an essential prerequisite to happiness. She created cottage industries for pseudo-relationship/health psychoanalysts/experts, including former protégés Drs Phil and Oz. But Oprah, who has never married despite insisting she has a 'Steddy' boyfriend, refuses to disclose her own relationship particulars. Boyfriend's contribution to her finale still leads all Emmy contenders for 2011's most awkward moment. Their feeble attempt at a passionate embrace should've suggested romance, but seemed more 'showmance'. It looked to me that Oprah would've preferred to hug constant companion Gayle King 'insted'.

Religious zealot

Oprah's no different than many black American artistes whose origins are in the Church. Close examination of her modus operandi reveals all the mind-control tools of the religious zealot. Oprah successfully transferred revivalist religion's strategies to talk shows, including promises of material benefit disguised as spiritual reward for believing. Unlike other religions, she, with sponsors' help, delivered while disciples still lived. Believe in me and get a new car. Never mind you can't afford to maintain it. In my name, take this free trip to Australia, even though it might lose you your steady job. Just close your eyes, listen to the timeless lyrics of Ervin Drake, Irvin Graham, Jimmy Shirl and Al Stillman and believe!

"I believe for every drop of rain that falls

a flower grows.

I believe that somewhere in the darkest night

a candle glows.

I believe, for everyone who goes astray,

someone will come to show the way.

I believe,

Oh, I believe."

One wicked questioner of Oprah's methods is Kathryn Lofton, a Yale professor whose new book Oprah: The Gospel of an Icon takes a scientific look at Oprah's techniques from a sociological perspective. Lofton equates Oprah to hellfire-and-damnation preachers like Charles Finney, an early 19th-century evangelist, who invented 'the anxious bench', a pew set aside where sinners declared themselves by sitting on it while other already - 'saved' churchgoers prayed for them. The bench became the raison d'être for attendance at Finney's services. Who'll sit there? Will I see Mary (that witch)? Will she be saved?

Daily ritual

Oprah's Anxious Bench became a daily ritual and, eventually, a national institution. The inevitable subliminal message that deliverance follows public confession can potentially cause more harm than good.

But, like everyone, Oprah continues to be a complex mixture of positive and negative. There's sound spiritual truth underpinning her message that we should explore alternatives to traditional religion. But yet she uses traditional religion's techniques to make that very point. Her choices of guest lecturers weren't always perfect. That's understandable on a daily show running for 25 years. But her gushing acceptance of these unsound 'experts' could've corrupted impressionable minds.

I recognise her personal history drives her subconscious message that everything begins with suffering. But it's a flawed message capable of encouraging awestruck believers to desire suffering, thus empowering the likes of abusive partners and paedophile priests. Let's see if she OWNs up to her past fixations (Oprahmania?) and tries a new direction. Or will it be more of the same commercial pap disguised as spiritual journeys? We'll see.

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.