Letters to the Editor
-
Oprah's largesse and parental anxiety
I found this to be the most insightful and important contribution from Ms. Traister in memory, her somewhat unbecoming need to pathologize Ms. Winfrey notwithstanding.
RT is not only exactly on with the observation that what Oprah seems most driven (by her own dynamic and needs) to provide these girls – material comfort and the rewards of status, power and class – is NOT what they most need for healthy development; but also that the ascendancy of these values along Oprah’s apparent trajectory to public influence (and their reflection in the American family system) is indeed “dark”. RT’s most important insight is that in misidentifying her own deprivations and needs with the emotional, relational, and actualization needs of the students, Oprah actually subordinates their best interests and autonomy. As writer collin put it simply, Oprah may tend to succumb to the falsity of “lavishing money as an expression of love”, a point that paul475 also seems to get.
Of course adequate education can be important, and Oprah’s generosity is praiseworthy. But lavish furnishings, a “leadership” track, and being told you’re pretty can never substitute for relatedness, love, and support of autonomy. Again, RT is right on with her take that if these are “daughters” to Oprah, then Oprah, out of her own needs, is over-identifying and over-investing in them, as extensions of her self, with predictable results.
Maybe that discomforting insight about parental over-investment helps explain the remarkable virulence (and underlying defensiveness) of the responses to Ms. Traister’s piece – parents in our culture tend, like Oprah and despite best intentions, to become trapped in the mistaken and ill-fated substitution of material wealth and access to social status for what their children really need: unconditional love and autonomy. In analyzing that dysfunction, Ms. Traister seems to have generously, and hopefully productively, touched a raw nerve.