Courtesy Salon.com
The following are extracts from correspondence between the only white initiated Sangoma (African Shaman) Annelie de Wet and myself and is a translation from the original Dutch.
Newton wrote:
How do one then explain Oprah’s emotions on her show if she also is a Narcissist (as per a previous email). She does show many of the traits based on what I have observed and reports in the media. This is notwithstanding contributing childhood issues which could’ve brought it about, but is contrasted with what I’m certain is genuine empathy?
While I’m notwithstanding this still a great admirer of Oprah’s achievements, how her Narcissism became apparent to me is when she started spreading her newage psychobable, but also when she raves about all she has done for humanity. But mostly when she promoted The Secret.
Because of her genuine compassion she certainly is a great enigma to me, particularly because she ultimately does more good in the world than any significant harm?
Annelie wrote:
Yes, I thought we were making up our minds a bit too quickly on Oprah. I only saw about five of her shows in my life, so I don’t really know her. I said my goodbyes to the media long ago.
However, in a book that I have (Disarming the Narcissist by Wendy Behary), they talk about healthy narcissism – and they use Oprah as an example. It says that "healthy” narcissism, which sounds like an oxymoron, contains the seeds of assertiveness and self-respect. Narcissism are on a continuum, and embodied in human nature itself is a tendency for narcissistic expression. And it’s not all that bad.
Healthy adult narcissism ... a person who has achieved a degree of fame or recognition, and who is making a difference in the community or the world... The person may have a profoundly personal impact on your life....
They may have come by the qualifier "healthy" through therapy... and ... and…
Many successful people exist within the framework of healthy narcissism. Why do we still use the term? In part, because these people, who often possess above average dexterity and prowess, aren't like the ordinary "nice guy" when it comes to their self-esteem and their facility for dealing with opponents.
Oprah, like other icons of the media, makes us grateful for healthy adult narcissists. Without it, the eye-opening issues and lessons from provocative interviews might not otherwise reach our awareness and mobilize our senses… Through keen edged, frank and prickly confrontations views come to witness and actuate missions of hope. ... etc. etc.
They possess:
· Empathic: attuned to inner world of others
· Engaging: charismatic, socially literate and interpersonally companionable
· A leader: able to conceptualize a purpose or vision and able to formulate a direction when collaborating with others
· Self-possessed (not selfish) : confident and rigorously committed to generosity and authenticity
· Seeks recognition: fuelled by approval ratings and motivated to make a difference
· Determined: able to push beyond the dense briars of opposition
· Confrontational: can hold others accountable without assassinating their souls
· Wisely fearful: able to discern between reasonably disquieting solicitation and destructive seduction.
It looks as if she fits the bill?
Newton wrote:
Yes I think you’ve got it pegged. Despite her floors which we can harp on, she is one of the good guys. Worshipping her however is another matter, but that has nothing to do with her, for a Narcissist – if she is in fact one – will always welcome and in fact strive for that.
Then again, who’s perfect?
It’s good to have another perspective... and your definition largely also explains the attitudes of many media personalities?
Annelie:
The media is one of the professions where you find a lot of individuals with narcissistic tendencies. It is referred to as cerebral narcissism. Such narcs are exceptionally good with words – and the words tend to sound like emotions and insight – but really, is only so on paper or in their speech. And with this prowess they really can pull the wool over your eyes.
There also is a few other areas where they feature strongly: the police, church (or religious institutions in general), politics!!!, show biz, doctors, etc... But a full blooded narc is a nightmare. It is beyond your popular vanilla flavoured media queen. And they are abusive, in various ways, even in gross passive-aggressive ways, if it is an inverted/passive narc.
For more on Oprah’s Narcissism go to Muddied Waters and Scourge: The Demise of Critical Thinking in the age of "The Secret".
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
podunkmarte
TheBadScot
Frank Apisa
ordinaryjoe
Jan Sand
Drewonimo
Salon.com
Comments
I am the sort of the when you give don't let the left hand see what the right hand is doing. At any rate I am sure those who gain benefit from her generosity regardless of motives don't care why. My great great great grandfather was 17 years old when captured by the Union army. He had not eaten over a week. They gave him beans and he would tell his relatives years later after the war. "They may have been Yankee beans, but they were the best beans I ever ate."
She's the richest black woman on planet earth and she works hard for what she has. There will always be those who hate her for that.
Indeed Stella. I was also once a fan, to the point of being taunted by my peers. But yes, there is no consistency with what she promotes, and particularly does grand things for maximum publicity (again that's good business), and promotes really dubious people together with many upstanding one's. My real gripe is about celebrity obsession, and in particular, whatever Oprah says goes. For me it borders on a worship, and the way I look at it, this aspect is in fact .
HSL, it is so, the truly good people who do it from the heart, hardly get noticed. The soccer coaches, the mothers who help the homeless, and many more who do it for selfless reasons are ignored in favor of Oprah’s very questionable generosity. As I indicated in one of my articles, her shoe budget is more than likely more than what she spends on the poor. I nevertheless do not argue against this, but the fact that we allow one very imperfect individual to have such a significant influence over our lives.
I’m baffled, why do America worship celebrity like they do? Most of them live meaningless shallow cocooned lives that cannot be compared to the richness of our own, we should worship ourselves for the struggles we very often overcome on a daily basis.
I will leave all the details out, as the show featured a "hot topic" and would be easily remembered by any regular viewer; however, as related to this particular discussion and post, the main point was that when my friend showed respect, compassion, and genuine empathy toward another guest who held an "opposite" viewpoint from my friend, Oprah and "the team" became upset with her (she learned, during the "commercial break"); Oprah told my friend later she was disappointed in her and "surprised" as my friend had not confronted this other guest in a verbally aggressive manner - I guess they were wanting this so that tensions would build and sparks would fly and ratings (I assume) would soar. However, no-one bothered to ask my friend before-hand if this was okay with her, so she walked into a hornets nest, unknowingly, which she did not appreciate.
As my friend had had a good, collegial relationship with Oprah prior to this particular show, and had believed that they mutually respected each other, she was a bit shocked, even a tad horrified, that all this went out the window when it came to Oprah's show and generating ratings. Even worse, Oprah showed obvious disappointment in my friend's "performance," and did a bit of "shaming and blaming." It really turned my friend off, let me assure you, and she never felt the same about Oprah again. I have a tape of the show and this backs up my friend's experience and her reports to me.
Given this, and other observations I have made over the years regarding Oprah "Incorprated", it is my feeling that she is simply human, and a very powerful human at that. As a child, she was victimized. Today, she is "Mistress of the (her) Universe." Such extremes can cause one to swing intrapsychically between the "Master" and "Slave" position, and it manifests in odd and confounding ways at times. What would any of us be like if we had her money, power, influence, and position? It boggles the mind (mine at least) to even think of it; certainly, she is handling it better than some might, and one must acknowledge that her life achievements are amazing, especially given her race, gender, and original socioeconomic status, along with having been the victim of abuse as a child.
As Karen Horney (20th century psychologist) once said, in the end, we each are "struggling, striving humans." No matter who we are, or what we possess, or what we "do."
Thanks for the post and the opportunity to dialogue on this a bit.
By this post i do not aim to bash Oprah as she is indeed to be admired as an astute business woman, but it is very difficult to separate Oprah the business woman from her good deeds. As I indicated, she most likely is not more empathetic or generous than any of us, indeed we may be more so--as the parable goes of the person who gave their last cent unconditionally against the one who gave a lot but did it for recognition of their deed.
For me your last sentence sums it up nicely: in the end, we each are "struggling, striving humans." No matter who we are, or what we possess, or what we "do."
And it appears that Oprah may be a far more bumbling individual than many of us despite her considerable wealth. If we admire material success alone, she is the ultimate role model. If we include being a great caring mother, a devoted partner, then she perhaps fall somewhat short of the mark.
My overall point being, we have to become adult, and to do so we have to look beyond the illusion, and put the likes of Oprah, Hollywood, and the media projection into its proper perspective, and begin to perceive the courage, magnanimity, generosity, all around us, and that the soapbox is there for our entertainment, and our occasional education. Don't make the world being the make-believe screen the golden calf we worship as the ideal for our lives.
peece
dj
Thank you for this post, Newton. It was very informative. I do have some observations/questions.
It is hard to separate the good Act from whatever drove it. The homeless family helped by the power and wealth of one such as Oprah versus the fact that without that help they would have suffered. How can we do this if we consciously feel and suffer with our fellow human beings? Are the loaves and fish more significant if they came from the coffers of the rulers or from the hands and thoughts of fellow men?
I see the damage being wrought by the golden calves we so cling to in Hollywood and the media. But. A copper thrown in indifference or one given out of love - in the end they may have made the difference between life and death to One person or family. It would be selfish to ask that One person or family the question, I think.
Now, if we were to weigh the good of the One with the damage done to the whole of society? It feels like at that point we have to start talking 'acceptable losses' and things of that nature. I don't know.
I do appreciate the pull of this post and the ones that left comments, though.
peece,
dj
:)
I wonder what the limit is on same person comments?
don't worry - I'll not try to find out tonight.
:)
Angelique writes: This reminds me of one of the subtle differences between Confucianism and Taoism. Confucianism stresses the cultivation and practice of "virtue" (low "teh"); Taoism focuses on virtue that is not self-conscious (high "teh"), i.e., virtue that flows through the one generating the virtuous act as naturally as a river flowing toward the ocean or the cloud floating across the sky. One might call this "non" virtue or "beyond" [trans] virtue. Virtue without egoic attachment might be yet another way to consider this. Perhaps it is the case that we are in a sense discussing the difference between "low" and "high" teh [virtue] as applied to Oprah. Your thoughts?
The My Favorite Things section of Oprah is packed with the merely and expensively decorative. The message of the magazine is one of sincere 'you're worth so much' but then there is the other message, the one that promotes all those things you can buy because 'you're worth it'. She has writers talking about charities and foundations but there is a powerful underlying editorial message of consumerism.
She promoted reading and plugged book s- but when she tried to promote Johnathan Franzen and he declined to owe the probable eventual success of his book to the Oprah brand by including a "Oprha's Book Club Selection" on the cover of HIS book,she cancelled his appearance on her show, and did not, could not discuss the book independently of the author's actions.
And finally, her promotion of The Secret was ham handed and unbelievably stupid and avaricious. She was only brought to her senses when a woman wrote in to say she was giving up her cancer treatments, intending to use the power of positive attraction she learned in The Secret to treat her aggressive cancer. Oprah had to bring her on the show and say to everyone, earnestly, hey, I didn't mean for you to throw over taking responsibility for your own lives. I didn't mean that when I said I liked this book. But it was too late. Spoken from the lips of a hugely successful woman mogul the likes of which the world has not seen, many women embraced The Secret in destructive ways on the word of just that one, same woman, without engaging in any critical thinking or debate or serious search for the truths of the claims being made, at all.
My issue when viewing her contributions, however, is merely that the water is muddied in this regard—how much is for ratings, how much is out of the goodness of her heart? Again, that is her business, but I choose not to place her on a pedestal in this regard, Bill Gates retired from Microsoft to devote himself to worthy causes, and probably is a far greater per capita benefactor. We actually have to give them both credit for empowering themselves to such a point that they do have the capacity to influence humanity for the better as they have.
My biggest issue with Oprah is that she uses this platform to promote her own spiritual agenda, viz-a-vie The Secret, Gary Zukov, and Eckard Tolle, and that she generally promotes a consumerist agenda. The mixing of spirituality and consumerism I believe has become a very dangerous mix, and judging on a particular “my favorite things show”, where the members literally went bezerk when she announced an unscheduled show, I suspect is responsible for a virtual psychosis behind the economic crisis as well.
See, she just has so much power over our culture, she even controls what a great many people choose to read, and this can never be a good thing.
What it comes down to for me, is how I personally choose to view her, or for that matter, anyone else. Fore sure, one is as a great business woman who overcame remarkable odds, but who also appears to have a particular very tainted consumerist religious agenda which I find wholly dangerous.
Sorry for the longwinded answer.
If it is misguided or misplaced we may be feeding a hungry stranger, but neglecting our own child, and this in itself is counter productive to oneself. Thus from a personal perspective it is important to be able to give from a pure state of heart and mind.
This is iterated by Kahlil Gibran with the following: There are those who give little of the much they have – and they give it for recognition and their hidden desire makes their gifts unwholesome… See first that you yourself deserve to be a giver, and an instrument of giving.
This, however, is an almost impossible ideal as most deceive themselves in the very process of introspection as we more often than not are the worst judges of our own deeper motivations. This addresses the general issues you raised with regards to Taoism.
Personally I think it is better to give, particularly of ourselves, than not to. This is the Confusion view you alluded to, where to give is a act of virtuosity, and would indeed apply to Oprah’s "questionable" giving as well. But as a general rule of thumb, that it is unwise to give at significant personal cost, particularly should it hamper your future capacity to do good, or the growth and development of one’s family.