(Oprah.com)
This essay was originally produced as part of Dr. Christopher Voparil's seminar on postmodern ethics, during the Fall of 2010, in Union Institute and University's
Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies program.
Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies program.
Seeking
to further define feminist ethics, Gilligan advocates for the “creating and sustaining [of] responsive
connection with others [as] a central moral concern…that human survival…may
depend less on formal agreement than on human connection” (45). Cable
television was still in its infancy when Gilligan first called for this return
to “human connection” in 1982; most home computers were unable to participate
in larger information networks. As social and interpersonal philosophy has been
influenced by the exponential growth of technology and his given rise to new
networks of ‘connectedness,’ broadcast television has served (perhaps until
recently) as the most widespread social construct that pursues Gilligan’s
less-than-formal agreement.
Two wildly popular daytime television
programs provide apt examples of Gilligan’s dichotomy, between “the different
logics of justice and care reasoning” (p. 43)—Judge Judy and The Oprah Show.
These programs have been at odds with each other in the ratings for decades,
and each tells stories that are not fiction, but like philosophy seek to make
better sense of ‘real’ life. To what extent has each of these programs sought
to embrace Gilligan’s call for a new feminist ethics, and, to what extent does
each answer Baier’s call for the pursuit of feminist ethics outside of “a
framework of liberal morality?” (p. 56).
More complete exploration of the contrast in
feminist ethics at root in both Judge
Judy and Oprah may dissect roles
of television and mass media, and a host of inherent technical and topical
choices made through the production of each program. The role of television has
changed since Oprah graduated from being a reporter on television news
magazines (“Oprah Winfrey Biography”) to begin her syndicated program in 1986,
and since Judy Sheindlin left New York’s family court for her own show one
decade later (“Judge Judy”).
This discussion seeks only to identify brands
of ‘ethics of care’ and/or ‘ethics of justice’ in each program, through brief examination
of each program’s official web presence—itself the result of dramatic evolution
in technology, media and a culture of celebrity. In lieu of more complete
research involving show transcripts and each personality’s publications (both
Winfrey and Sheindlin have written nonfiction bestsellers), this paper primarily
employs each program’s site to identify core philosophies, histories, and to
help identify main concerns of upcoming programs. Seeing Gilligan’s original call through the
lens of an ongoing daytime television series ratings war, Baier’s call for a
new framework for women becomes unfortunately useful, as both programs may well
heed the dangers of rationalism (Baier, p. 57).
Winfrey and
Sheindlin: Histories of Objectivity
Purporting a feminist ethics, Gilligan’s
concern is a moral one—an establishment of right and wrong, good and bad. It’s
worth noting here that while Sheindlin passed the bar exam in 1965 and served
as a judge since her appointment by Mayor Ed Koch in 1976 (“Judge Judy”), her
judicial experience—an experience within the frameworks Gilligan seeks to
redefine or replace—may predispose Sheindlin all too quickly towards a Platonic
ethic of justice, one in which, at the very least, “the adoption of a single
perspective may facilitate clarity of decision” (Gilligan, p. 32). Most
importantly, Sheindlin’s rulings on Judge
Judy rest with her alone, and her viewers are treated to only individual
making decisions, not being subjected to and limitations of constitutional
frameworks and precedents. This leads to empowerment of Sheindlin’s
strong-willed character and more: speaking on the occasion of the renewal of
Sheindlin’s contract, President of CBS Television Syndication John Nogawski
described her ethics as such: “some people change when they see the light, but
most people change only when they feel the heat” (Bowles).
Oprah Winfrey’s professional career began
with positions in broadcast news, in Tennessee, Baltimore and Chicago. After
serving as an anchor and reporter, Winfrey was given her own morning show in
January, 1984—just four years later, The
Oprah Winfrey Show had won five Daytime Emmy Awards, Winfrey had been named
“Broadcaster of the Year” by the International Radio and Television Society,
and she had established her own production company, and “acquired ownership and
all production responsibilities… from Capitol Cities/ABC, making Oprah Winfrey
the first woman in history to own and produce her own talk show” (“Oprah
Winfrey”). Demarcations of journalism, and subsequent ethics, may be assumed
clear: once a news reporter, Winfrey’s long-running program may not be viewed
as abandoning an objective stance, but not strictly adhering to one, either.
The Ape Who
Has Conversations with… The 30-Year-Old Virgin
“… women, especially when speaking about
their own experiences of moral conflict and choice, often define moral problems
in a way that eludes the categories of moral theory and is at odds with the
assumptions that shape psychological thinking about morality and about the
self” (Gilligan, p. 33). Winfrey and Sheindlin, in their respective programs,
are “at odds” with common tenets of identity and one’s own ethical choices;
both pursue guests and topics that present “moral conflicts,” and the integrity
and quality of each personality’s response to these helps “define moral
problems” in a new way, as suggested by Gilligan. The format of a strong woman
being presented with evidence of human behavior, however virtuous, remains
successful.
Coming up on The Oprah Show: “The Ape Who Has
Conversations with Humans”; “One Mom, Twenty Personalities”; “Why She Sued Her
Husband for $12 Million and Won”; “The 30-Year-Old Virgin” (“The Oprah Show”).
Taking these as a representational example of Winfrey’s program, these topics
surely ‘elude’ simple categorization, but do reflect a general moral ethic, one
which may be seen as holding justice for women at its focus.
Gilligan warns against this situation: where
two choose-able moralities exist, “people have a tendency to lose sight of one
moral perspective in arriving at a moral decision—a liability equally shared by
both sexes” (p. 38). Winfrey’s concern for one gender is clear in her web site:
in one section, featured articles include “Friends or frenemies? The real
benefits of female friendships,” “How to raise the men we’d want to marry,” and
a review of Geneen Roth’s book “Women, Food and God,” which Winfrey’s website
suggests as “a chapter-by-chapter guide to ending your obsession with food”
(“Spirit and Self”). The page’s main caption reads, “Do you think your value
comes from doing everything for everybody else? It’s time to let go of the
mistaken belief that sacrificing yourself makes you a “good” woman” (“Spirit
and Self”). Winfrey’s ethic of care may be assumed to be intended for women,
specifically; Winfrey’s ethic of justice comes through the degree of
‘liberation’ she may offer her viewers, those who still hold “mistaken
beliefs.”
Vacation
Giveaways as Non-Justice
Whether or not Gilligan would view Winfrey as
having lost “sight of one moral perspective” (p. 38), the program’s
extraordinary benevolence may invalidate any larger framework of justice:
“moral judgments thus do not reveal the structure of moral thinking, since
there are at least two ways in which people can structure moral problems”
(Gilligan, p. 39). Not seeking to fully discern here Winfrey’s deeper
“structure of moral thinking,” attention must be paid to the program’s recent
giveaways: one season began with every audience member receiving a new car, and
this season started with three hundred “ultimate viewers” (chosen by the
producers of the show) winning an all-expense-paid trip to Australia: “This is
my last chance to do something really big, and if you want to do something big,
you would want to take along your ultimate viewers” (“Oprah’s Biggest Audience
Giveaway Yet”).
If Winfrey seeks to establish larger
frameworks of a justice of care, what she pays attention to becomes important,
as “the distinction between justice and care as alternative perspectives or
moral orientations is based empirically on the observation that a shift in the
focus of attention from concerns about justice to concerns about care changes
the definition of what constitutes a moral problem” (Gilligan, p. 32). Thus,
the success of the individual remains of primary concern, even in her web
site’s main headings: “Spirit-Health-Relationships-Fashion and Beauty- Books-
Food- Entertainment.” In a pop-up sub-menu, between “Exclusives” and the “Oprah
Store” lies “Community,” merely a link to message boards to discuss the The
Oprah Show.
Without purchasing an eight-dollar “Oprah
Quote Magnet” that reads “Love what you’ve got,” Winfrey’s framework of justice
may begin from a place in which I may afford such a magnet, and am willing to
live a life free of longing. A recent after-show question-and-answer session
with Winfrey and her audience yielded this important quote, in understanding
her notion of justice: “I know a lot of you feel like you’re in the wrong job.
What you do is you keep that job until you can get to that place that feels
like the best thing… doing the wrong thing helps lead you to do the right thing
for you. The universe… wants you to be in alignment with your calling, what
you’re supposed to do” (“Oprah”). While purporting to espouse deeper
understanding of virtue for each participant in her program, if only through
advocating such complacency as above, Winfrey fails to construct any framework
that would support a justice of care.
Ethical
“Messenger” Wins Ratings War; Justice Lives
There are many good reasons why 2010-2011 is
Winfrey’s final season on a major network, and just as many good reasons why
Sheindlin’s program Judge Judy has
consistently earned high ratings, beating Winfrey this past summer for the first time since 2001 (Hollywood
Reporter). Neither Winfrey nor Sheindlin achieve an alternative framework of
justice, as advocated by Baier: “women should not be content to pursue their
own values within a framework of liberal morality” (p. 56). Winfrey followed
patterns of programming set in place before her arrival in Chicago (Phil Donahue
among them), while Sheindlin’s husband served for two years as the judge on The People’s Court before she left
public law for her own show in 1996.
Complementing Gilligan’s call for a new
justice of care, Baier’s four reasons assert an alternative and complete
framework for ethics, because the current has a “dubious record,” an
“inattention to relations of inequality or its pretence of equality,” an
“exaggeration of the scope of choice,” and, most troubling, an assumption of
rationalism, in that “we need not worry what passions persons have, as long as
their rational wills can control them” (p. 57). To this, Baier challenges
parents: “they need to love their children, not just to control their
irritation” (p. 57).
In this, Sheindlin’s application of the law
may entreat the individual to some new brand of liberalism, one in which the
function of justice remains some larger framework, but one which “stresses
personal responsibility in the management of one’s own disputes and legal
affairs” (Kohm, p. 697). Through rulings and precedents that seek to establish
community values and ethics, Sheindlin’s efforts of justice have been described
as “neo-liberal,” a “reassertion of market principles” (p. 698). While these
terms deserve deeper exploration elsewhere, Sheindlin describes how she sees
her role: “I think there needs to be a message out there to women that even if
your man beats you, even if you’re scared for your life. You have choices. You
have power. And if they need me to be that messenger, so be it. I can handle
it” (Sheindlin, as cited by Bowles). Sheindlin’s from-the-bench empowerment
runs in both directions: on a video ‘tip’ on her site, Sheindlin describes “one
of her favorite topics: ‘don’t try to teach a pig to sing. It doesn’t work and
it annoys the pig’” (“Judy’s Tips”). In both of these messages, respect for the
individual results in a situation that promotes the most respect possible, for
all parties involved: from the sadly abused woman to those failing to
accomplish useless tasks.
Baier ends with an educated guess: that women
will triumph the coming combination of male and female insights on justice,
“since they are the ones with more natural empathy, with the better diplomatic
skills, the ones more likely to shoulder responsibility…” (p. 57). The network
careers of Sheindlin and Winfrey differ in how they each advocate for justice:
both advocate for individuals’ care for themselves, but only one (Sheindlin)
presents such in a useful, practical framework. And, only one will exist in its
current form in coming years—to this, Baier and Gilligan may be likely to
toast.
Baier, A. “The Need
for More than Justice,” in Held (ed.), Justice and Care, pp. 47-58.
Bowles,
S. “Judge Judy:
No one gets the best of her in court, in ratings.” USA
Today. July 16 2010. Retrieved September 25, 2010 from http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2010-07-14-judgejudy14_CV_N.htm
Gilligan, C. “Moral
Orientation and Moral Development,” in Virginia Held (ed.), Justice and
Care: Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 1995, pp. 31-46.
“Judge Judy.” Wikipedia.
Retrieved September 24, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Judy
“Judy’s
Tips.” JudgeJudy.com. Retrieved September 25, 2010 from http://www.judgejudy.com/judys_tips.php
Kohm,
S. “The People's Law versus Judge Judy Justice:
Two Models of Law in American Reality-Based Courtroom TV.” Law & Society Review. Vol.
40, No. 3 (Sep., 2006), pp. 693-727. Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Law and Society Association
“Oprah’s Biggest Audience Giveaway
Yet.” Daily Contributor. Retrieved September 25, 2010 from
“Official
Harpo Press Releases.” 2010. Harpo Productions. Retrieved September 26, 2010
from http://www.oprah.com/press_room.htm
“Oprah
Winfrey.” Wikipedia. Retrieved September 24, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_winfrey
“Oprah
Winfrey Biography.” Academy of Achievement. Retrieved September 26, 2010 from http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/win0bio-1
Powers,
L. “’Judge Judy’ Tops ‘Oprah’ in Ratings.” Hollywood Reporter. September 17,
2010. Retrieved September 28, 2010 from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i188fd3103facd85ea65fcc8254f02e04
“Spirit
and Self.” Oprah.com. Retrieved September 26, 2010 from http://www.oprah.com/spirit.html
“The
Oprah Show.” Oprah.com. Retrieved September 26, 2010 from http://www.oprah.com/oprah_show.html
No comments:
Post a Comment