tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/oprah-winfrey-4566/articlesOprah Winfrey – The Conversation2024-03-01T01:32:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2239872024-03-01T01:32:48Z2024-03-01T01:32:48ZBillionaires are building bunkers and buying islands. But are they prepping for the apocalypse – or pioneering a new feudalism?<p>In December 2023, <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-inside-hawaii-compound/">WIRED</a> reported that Mark Zuckerberg, the billionaire CEO of Meta and one of the foremost architects of today’s social-media-dominated world, has been buying up large swathes of the Hawaiian island Kauai. </p>
<p>Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, are constructing a gigantic compound – known as <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ko%E2%80%99olau+Ranch/@22.197651,-159.6822401,10z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x7c06e7950965c60b:0x9e280ca304972e35!8m2!3d22.1975405!4d-159.3526296!16s%2Fg%2F11ptm9klm9?entry=ttu">Ko’olau Ranch</a> – on this land, which will most likely cost over A$400 million to complete.</p>
<p>This estate stretches over 5,500,000 square metres, is <a href="https://media.wired.com/photos/6579e8f807a9f58616a193a1/master/w_1600,c_limit/Jung_Wired_Zuckerberg_story-5.jpg">surrounded by a two-metre wall</a> and is patrolled by numerous security guards driving quad bikes on nearby beaches. Hundreds of local Hawaiians work on Zuckerberg’s property. But precisely how many, and what they actually do, is concealed by a binding nondisclosure agreement.</p>
<p>WIRED’s subheading hones in on the fact that Zuckerberg’s Ko’olau Ranch includes plans for a “massive underground bunker”. This seems to be the detail that piques the interest of reporters and conspiracy theorists alike.</p>
<p>People are asking not only “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/21/mark-zuckerberg-apocalypse-bunker-hawaii">Why is Mark Zuckerberg building a private apocalypse bunker in Hawaii?</a>”, but also “<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12974609/What-know-Worlds-billionaires-building-bunkers-assembling-fortresses-outside-mansions.html">What do the [billionaires] know?</a>” and “<a href="https://medium.com/@eajayi646/why-the-movie-leave-the-world-behind-might-actually-be-a-prophecy-for-2024-72444be57a8e">What is going to happen in 2024 that they are not telling us?</a>”.</p>
<h2>Beyond the bunker fixation</h2>
<p>Doomsday bunkers are becoming a common sight in contemporary apocalypse-themed US pop culture, from <a href="https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a42702626/how-the-last-of-us-bill-constructed-his-post-apocalyptic-world/">The Last of Us</a> and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15978122/">Tales from the Walking Dead</a> to the recent Netflix film, <a href="https://screenrant.com/leave-the-world-behind-plot-holes-headscratchers/">Leave the World Behind</a>. </p>
<p>At the same time, public interest in the (<a href="https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/nuclear-bunkers-are-back/">increasingly lucrative</a>) bunker industry is fanned by lurid headlines such as “<a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/bunkers-billionaires-survive-apocalypse-cost-features-1235822762/">Billionaires’ Survivalist Bunkers Go Absolutely Bonkers With Fiery Moats and Water Cannons</a>”.</p>
<p>But other pieces of infrastructure on Kauai are arguably more deserving of our attention: several oversized mansions, with the combined footprint of a <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/zuckerberg-hawaii-compound.html">football field</a>; at least 11 treehouses connected by rope bridges; machinery dedicated to water purification, desalination and storage. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the Facebook billionaire posts “<a href="https://www.thespectrumabrhs.com/win-relatable-billionaires.html">relatable</a>” content on Instagram from his humble ranch, such as a pic of “<a href="https://www.instagram.com/zuck/">Zuck</a>” about to <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/C15Lck4SfpS/">tuck into a massive side of grilled beef</a>. </p>
<p>Zuck informs his followers he’s now ranching his own cattle, feeding them with macadamia nuts grown on the ranch and beer brewed there as well. “Each cow eats 5,000-10,000 pounds of food each year, so that’s a lot of acres of macadamia trees,” he (or one of his assistants) writes.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Photo by Mark Zuckerberg on January 09, 2024. Mark with ossobuco and steak." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578835/original/file-20240229-18-os3o1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578835/original/file-20240229-18-os3o1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578835/original/file-20240229-18-os3o1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578835/original/file-20240229-18-os3o1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578835/original/file-20240229-18-os3o1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=782&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578835/original/file-20240229-18-os3o1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=782&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578835/original/file-20240229-18-os3o1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=782&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mark Zuckerberg is ranching his own cattle.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/C15Lck4SfpS/?img_index=1">Mark Zuckerberg/Instagram</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As two of us argue in our forthcoming book, <a href="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=36787">The Influencer Factory</a>, this kind of ersatz “down to earth” social media presence is actually an example of “a new transformation in capitalism, in which the logic of the self is indistinguishable from the logic of the corporation”.</p>
<p>Accompanying a picture of his child digging a hole in the ground, one of the most powerful (and least accountable) men in the world comments:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>My daughters help plant the mac trees and take care of our different animals. We’re still early in the journey and it’s fun improving on it every season. Of all my projects, this is the most delicious.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://people.com/mark-zuckerberg-s-hawaii-super-compound-reportedly-includes-a-secret-underground-bunker-8416854">Other plans</a> from Zuckerberg and Chan include wildlife preservation, native plant restoration, organic turmeric and ginger farms, and partnerships with conservation experts in Kauai to preserve and protect the native flora and fauna. These activities will have far more material impact on Kauai than the bunker, no matter how many rooms it might have.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/doomsday-bunkers-mars-and-the-mindset-the-tech-bros-trying-to-outsmart-the-end-of-the-world-188661">Doomsday bunkers, Mars and 'The Mindset': the tech bros trying to outsmart the end of the world</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>An ecosystem of one’s own</h2>
<p>The founder of Facebook isn’t the only billionaire building gigantic compounds in Hawaii. <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/oprah-zuckerberg-ellison-billionaires-continue-155110078.html">Oprah Winfrey</a> purchased a 163-acre estate in Maui back in 2002, and has bought further plots of land since then, totalling over 650,000 square metres. </p>
<p>Larry Ellison, the co-founder of tech company Oracle, purchased <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/oracle-larry-ellison-lanai-hawaii-plans-sustainability-tourism-2020-12#murdock-became-the-owner-of-lanai-in-1985-after-taking-over-doles-parent-company-castle-and-cooke-prior-to-murdocks-ownership-the-island-was-controlled-by-pineapple-king-james-dole-2">almost all of the Hawaiian island Lanai</a> in 2012. Two years ago, the billionaire Frank VanderSloot <a href="https://www.kitv.com/news/local/billionaire-shares-plans-for-the-more-than-2-000-acres-he-bought-on-kauai/article_c369109c-d8a0-11ec-98dd-1b2ba349abc1.html">purchased a 2,000 acre ranch</a> just south of Zuckerberg’s. </p>
<p>As high net worth individuals move in, locals already living on the land are increasingly <a href="https://www.kitv.com/news/local/priced-out-of-paradise-census-data-shows-more-local-families-leaving-hawaii/article_395b8e9c-88b9-11ed-9a97-9f2e667fd31c.html">priced out</a> or even <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/23/mark-zuckerberg-hawaii-land-lawsuits-kauai-estate#:%7E:text=Zuckerberg's%20lawsuits%20have%20prompted%20a,who%20is%20originally%20from%20Kauai.">forcibly displaced</a> – an unfortunate side effect of <a href="https://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/18/business/facebooks-zuckerberg-sues-to-force-land-sales/?HSA=74dae150a1d9f99e2592d0eac31ea430d01f35d5">Hawaii’s complex land rights</a>, where indigenous ownership and stewardship is often not legally recognised.</p>
<p>At first blush, these tycoons might seem to be “<a href="https://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/page/27457795">prepping</a>” for a familiar 20th-century style apocalypse, as depicted in <a href="https://parade.com/1223919/gwynnewatkins/best-end-of-the-world-movies/">countless disaster movies</a>. But they’re not. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ov_GnMiquuE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Oracle founder Larry Ellison purchased ‘almost all’ of the Hawaiian island Lanai.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yes, their vast estates do include bunkers and other technologies traditionally associated with prepping. For example, the mansions of Ko’olau Ranch are connected through underground tunnels that feed into a large shelter. </p>
<p>However, Zuckerberg, Winfrey, Ellison and others are actually embarking on far more ambitious projects. They are seeking to create entirely self-sustaining ecosystems, in which land, agriculture, the built environment and labour are all controlled and managed by a single person, who has more in common with a mediaeval-era feudal lord than a 21st-century capitalist.</p>
<h2>Welcome (back) to feudalism</h2>
<p>Some have argued the tech industry has invented a new form of “<a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/books/technofeudalism-9781529926095">technofeudalism</a>” or <a href="https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/neofeudalism-the-end-of-capitalism/">“neofeudalism”</a> that depends on “<a href="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=28816">data colonization</a>” and the corporate <a href="https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/455862/data-grab-by-couldry-ulises-a-mejias-and-nick/9780753560204">appropriation of personal data</a>. </p>
<p>We agree, but also suggest what’s going on in Hawaii is actually aligned with traditional understandings of feudalism. As Joshua A. T. Fairfield, author of <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/gb/universitypress/subjects/law/property-law/owned-property-privacy-and-new-digital-serfdom">Owned: Property, Privacy and the New Digital Serfdom</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-internet-of-things-is-sending-us-back-to-the-middle-ages-81435">puts it</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the feudal system of medieval Europe, the king owned almost everything, and everyone else’s property rights depended on their relationship with the king. Peasants lived on land granted by the king to a local lord, and workers didn’t always even own the tools they used for farming or other trades like carpentry and blacksmithing.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here it’s easy to see a contrast between Ko’olau Ranch and earlier attempts by billionaires to build bunkers to “escape” some future cataclysm. </p>
<p>Take, for instance, libertarian venture capitalist and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/18/peter-thiel-refused-consent-for-sprawling-lodge-in-new-zealand-local-council">failed attempts to build</a> an elaborate, bunker-like underground lodge in Aotearoa New Zealand’s South Island, taking up more than 73,700 square metres of land. The plan was rejected because of hostilities between Thiel and the local council. </p>
<p>What we see with Zuckerberg’s project isn’t an overt conflict between billionaire and community. In Kauai, members of a community have consented, or conceded, to grant a plutocrat the stewardship of their land, in the name of preservation. This is a business model that leads directly (back) to feudalism.</p>
<p>This insight is lost in the media’s obsession with the “<a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/zuckerberg-hawaii-compound.html">craziest features</a>” of Zuckerberg’s Hawaiian folly. Rather, what is emerging among billionaires is a belief that survival depends not (only) on hiding out in a reinforced concrete hole in the ground, but (also) on developing, and controlling, an ecosystem of one’s own.</p>
<p>It’s all too easy to assume that, because some of the world’s richest people are buying up estates on remote islands and fitting them out with bunkers, they must be privy to some secret inside information. But the truth is simpler, and more brutal, than that. Billionaires are building elaborate properties … because they can.</p>
<p>Mark Zuckerberg’s net worth in 2024 is an almost unfathomable <a href="https://fortune.com/2024/02/02/mark-zuckerberg-net-worth-wealth-meta-stock-price/">A$260 billion</a>. A $400 million Hawaiian fortress, extravagant as it might be, represents less than 0.2% of his total wealth. As a percentage, this is comparable to a household with a net worth of $1,000,000 (<a href="https://www.canstar.com.au/savings-accounts/average-aussie-earn-save-owe/">the average net worth in Australia</a>) spending just $1,540.</p>
<p>These back-of-a-napkin calculations make it clear that members of the billionaire bunker club don’t have to “believe” in the likelihood of apocalypse or imminent social collapse in any committed or meaningful sense (as <a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-if-the-worlds-systems-are-already-cracking-due-to-climate-change-is-there-a-post-doom-silver-lining-213890">self-declared “doomster” Jem Bendell</a> does).</p>
<p>Instead, since they have far more money than they know what to do with, they may as well use a small fraction of it to build underground fortresses. Bill Gates, for example, owns <a href="https://robbreport.com.au/homes/inside-bill-and-melinda-gates-property-portfolio/">at least eight properties in the US alone</a> and, <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/bunkers-billionaires-survive-apocalypse-cost-features-1235822762/">according to the Hollywood Reporter</a>, “is rumored to have underground security areas under every one of his homes”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-if-the-worlds-systems-are-already-cracking-due-to-climate-change-is-there-a-post-doom-silver-lining-213890">Friday essay: if the world's systems are 'already cracking' due to climate change, is there a post-doom silver lining?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Rich prepper, poor prepper</h2>
<p>On the other hand, the less disposable income someone has, the more any serious attempts to “prepare for the future” will disrupt their lives in the here and now. </p>
<p>Prepping culture makes little sense in countries like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/10/living-off-grid-in-india-am-i-the-only-one-left-who-believes-in-globalisation">India</a> or Cambodia or Yemen, where severe poverty is widespread and hundreds of millions of people are already surviving in conditions that might seem “apocalyptic” to privileged westerners.</p>
<p>Closer to home, for middle-class people who can’t afford to own multiple properties, a decision to live on a potentially “safe” island would necessitate moving there permanently, in the process passing up opportunities to earn income elsewhere.</p>
<p>If your disposable income is roughly $5,000 or $10,000 per year, and you hope to purchase a Rising S “<a href="https://risingsbunkers.com/layouts-pricing-bunkers/survival-shelter-base-model-10x40/">Standard Bomb Shelter Base Model</a>”, this would set you back a little over $150,000. You would have to dedicate your entire working life to this project.</p>
<p>Maybe this is why, during the early weeks of lockdowns in 2020, there was a rush of ordinary people <a href="https://youtu.be/GVHYTdGUAZM?si=Ju5d3tmpO5QD4SIw">bulk-buying toilet paper</a>. It was the least expensive, most convenient way to amass a significant-looking stockpile in a hurry. People could feel like they were “taking action” during an otherwise overwhelming situation. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, our obsession with the mega-bunkers of the mega-rich is part of a broader cultural trend, in which ordinary – read: poor – people pretend to make fun of “crazy” billionaires, while furtively aspiring to uber-wealthy status themselves. </p>
<p>This ideological shell game allows us to (fleetingly) acknowledge the damage <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/jul/17/top-economists-call-for-action-global-inequality-rich-poor-poverty-climate-breakdown-un-world-bank">runaway global inequality</a> is doing to social cohesion and the viability of our ecosystems. </p>
<p>In a voyeuristic fantasy, we can project ourselves to the very top of the inequality pyramid, just for a moment. A convergence of industries that prey on our collective insecurities occurred in 2021, when Texan bunker salesman Ron Hubbard <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbtif06gsiw">appeared on an episode</a> of Keeping up with the Kardashians, and audiences got to watch Kim and Khloé go bunker shopping.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XGmyAwpChhM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">On an episode of Keeping up the with the Kardashians, they go bunker shopping.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That the Australian public is fascinated by Zuckerberg and other billionaires’ spare mansions at a historical moment when our <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-deeply-unfair-housing-system-is-in-crisis-and-our-politicians-are-failing-us-219001">housing affordability crisis is reaching unprecedented levels</a> is particularly telling, and galling.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, for the actual billionaires, bunkers are just a small part of a “diversified portfolio” of bets against the future. </p>
<p>Other well known schemes include <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2021/12/21/billionaire-space-race-turns-into-a-publicity-disaster/?sh=6fec57345e4d">investing in space travel</a>, <a href="https://www.tatler.com/article/super-rich-freezing-bodies-for-the-future">cryonics</a> (freezing your body in the hopes of a future reincarnation), <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/silicon-valley-billionaire-pays-company-thousands-to-kill-him-and-preserve-his-brain-forever-a3790871.html#:%7E:text=News%20%7C%20World-,Silicon%20Valley%20billionaire%20pays%20company%20thousands%20'to%20be%20killed%20and,his%20brain%20digitally%20preserved%20forever'&text=A%20tech%20billionaire%20has%20paid,that%20it%20is%20preserved%20forever">mind uploading</a>, and in Peter Thiel’s case, flirting with <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5662775/">parabiosis</a> – transfusing young people’s blood into your own veins. </p>
<p>For billionaires, putting money into such projects doesn’t mean they’re crazy, or paranoid, or in possession of some special secret knowledge about the future. It simply means they’ve amassed such colossal surpluses of wealth, they may as well use it for something.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223987/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Doig receives funding from Creative Australia and the New Zealand Society of Authors. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grant Bollmer and Katherine Guinness do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg buy vast swathes of land in remote areas, it can look like “prepping” – but they’re really trying to establish medieval-style fiefdoms.Katherine Guinness, Lecturer in Art History, The University of QueenslandGrant Bollmer, Senior Lecturer in Digital Media, The University of QueenslandTom Doig, Lecturer in Creative Writing, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2074262024-02-26T19:00:43Z2024-02-26T19:00:43ZThe Secret promises we can ‘manifest’ what we want. But if that’s true, why aren’t we all rich and famous?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/576648/original/file-20240220-26-k72tyz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C8%2C5991%2C3979&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mikhail Nilov/Pexel</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Our cultural touchstones series looks at influential books.</em></p>
<p>Imagine you really wanted something and all you had to do was ask the universe and you would get it. That’d be awesome, right?! </p>
<p>I present this to my students in my first-year Research Methods in Psychology course, in the first session of the semester. Then I ask them what they think. </p>
<p>The first respondent is usually bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. They say something like: “Absolutely! You can achieve anything you want if you put your mind to it!” Emboldened, a handful of others express similar sentiments. Naturally, there are also sceptical students, but at this point it doesn’t suit my agenda to give them much oxygen. </p>
<p>Next, I tell the students I presume they’d all love to achieve High Distinctions in my course. I tell them it is, in fact, possible, and I’m going to share how it can be done. At this point, even the most sceptical students are intrigued. </p>
<p>I tell them all they need to know is … The Secret. </p>
<h2>A self-help megaseller</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52529.The_Secret">The Secret</a> is a 2006 feature-length film and then book created by Australian Rhonda Byrne, who was a television executive when she came up with it. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/576699/original/file-20240220-20-t5u99s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/576699/original/file-20240220-20-t5u99s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/576699/original/file-20240220-20-t5u99s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=773&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/576699/original/file-20240220-20-t5u99s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=773&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/576699/original/file-20240220-20-t5u99s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=773&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/576699/original/file-20240220-20-t5u99s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=972&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/576699/original/file-20240220-20-t5u99s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=972&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/576699/original/file-20240220-20-t5u99s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=972&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The book has sold more than 35 million copies and been translated into more than 50 languages. Byrne has gone on to produce several related books, including The Greatest Secret, and associated merchandise, like a card deck. </p>
<p>It was even adapted as a romantic drama film, <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-secret-dare-to-dream-movie-review-2020">The Secret: Dare to Dream</a>, starring Katie Holmes and released in 2020. (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jul/30/the-secret-dare-to-dream-review-hokey-wish-fulfillment-soap">The Guardian described it</a> as “inoffensively middling […] with nothing of note other than a few laughably dumb moments”.)</p>
<p>Others have also got in on the act. For example, there’s a DVD titled <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Secret-Behind-Abraham/dp/B000O76WTW">The Secret Behind The Secret</a>, in which a self-help guru purports to channel a spiritual being called Benjamin. </p>
<p>The Secret’s fundamental claim is that a law of attraction operates within the universe: we become or attract what we think about most. In effect, positive things happen to positive people and negative things happen to negative people. Importantly, we are not passive recipients of our outcomes. Rather, we manifest our outcomes by actively thinking about them. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Mf3-oCDdTzQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Secret: Dare to Dream, the 2020 adaptation starring Katie Holmes, was described as ‘inoffensively middling’.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Oprah Winfrey, who <a href="https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1944527_1944528_1944309,00.html">lavishly embraced The Secret</a>, devoting two episodes of her talk show to it in 2006, said it embodied the message she’d been trying to share for 21 years: “you are responsible for your life”.</p>
<p>As others have pointed out, these ideas are not a secret and they’re not new. </p>
<p>The Secret is effectively a repackaging of the “power of positive thinking” <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-pop-psychology-can-it-make-your-life-better-or-is-it-all-snake-oil-158709">pop psychology</a> from recent decades – and, centuries earlier, the quackery of the metaphysical movement. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-avoid-toxic-positivity-and-take-the-less-direct-route-to-happiness-170260">How to avoid 'toxic positivity' and take the less direct route to happiness</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Victim blaming</h2>
<p>Much <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.131.6.803">empirical psychological research</a> suggests thinking and feeling positively is likely to be associated with more positive outcomes. </p>
<p>But there’s a stark gap between the blithe blanket statements of The Secret and the <a href="https://people.clas.ufl.edu/shepperd/files/moderators.pdf">empirical studies</a> that have tested the qualifications and nuances of the effects of positive expectations. </p>
<p>It’s in that gap where The Secret becomes an easy target.</p>
<p>For instance, The Secret is good news for anyone fortunate enough to be blessed with an eternally sunny disposition, but less so for anyone struggling with chronic depression. The Secret suggests depression and its consequences are the fault of the victim. If only they could think more positively! </p>
<p>Taken on face value, the principles espoused in The Secret should mean the end of poverty and war. Perhaps we’re not wishing hard enough? </p>
<p>Elsewhere, The Secret has <a href="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-secret-law-of-attraction-considered-quantum-physics-do-you-support-it.397994/">offended physicists</a> with its misappropriation of quantum physics principles to explain the “law of attraction” (in itself a pseudoscientific idea). </p>
<p>And yet … people love this stuff. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-causes-depression-what-we-know-dont-know-and-suspect-81483">What causes depression? What we know, don’t know and suspect</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>An alluring fiction</h2>
<p>On Amazon, more than 40,000 customers have taken the time to review the book. The average rating is 4.6/5. Perhaps this should not be surprising. </p>
<p>The Secret (superficially) taps into a spiritual realm and research demonstrates that spirituality <a href="https://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2012/278730.pdf">nurtures and comforts many</a>. The Secret speaks to a search for meaning and we know feeling a sense of purpose in life <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141">provides a measure of happiness</a>. The Secret proposes the individual has the power to control their own destiny – and research demonstrates the role a <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-4276-5_19">sense of personal control</a> has in people’s lives. </p>
<p>And The Secret encourages <a href="https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1348/026151004772901140">magical thinking</a>, which some people may be prone to more than they realise. The Secret promises the alluring fiction that – just for once – things in life might be easy. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vLZ_GXmUTOM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Chaser’s War on Everything questioned The Secret’s ability to deliver almost 15 years ago.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Back in the classroom, in <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-america-enduring-a-slow-civil-war-jeff-sharlet-visits-trump-rallies-a-celebrity-megachurch-and-the-manosphere-to-find-out-203948">this Trumpian age</a> where truth is in the eye of the beholder, The Secret reminds us the principles of the scientific method are still important when it comes to critically consuming information. </p>
<p>There are several ways of <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267098119_Conducting_Research_in_Psychology_Measuring_the_Weight_of_Smoke">knowing about the world</a>. We can defer to authority. We can rely on our intuition. We can employ logic. And we can make observations based on our experiences.</p>
<h2>Pseudo ‘experts’</h2>
<p>To some extent, Rhonda Byrne and her devotees leverage these knowledge sources to help give credence to The Secret. For example, it has been endorsed by high-profile influencers (like Winfrey) and prominent US personal development gurus (like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MulLAfffQoQ">Bob Proctor</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_mJiImlcXQ">John Assaraf</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEgaSB7udDg">Jack Canfield</a>). Byrne claims eminent historical figures – including Plato, Shakespeare and Einstein – knew the secret and employed its principles. </p>
<p>All these people are experts, or at least present themselves as experts. So they must know what they’re talking about. As they’re authority figures, we intuit they can be trusted. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, it’s the equivalent of toothpaste advertisers dressing an actor in a white coat to imply they’re a scientist, who recommends a particular brand of toothpaste. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KYFIN6Csr0k?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Oprah Winfrey embraced The Secret, helping to make it a bestseller.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To persuade you, The Secret takes you down the peripheral route, the one where you don’t put much effort into your research – “Einstein used it! There must be something to it!” – rather than the central route, where you think critically about claims. “Just because she says Einstein used it doesn’t make it valid. And how does she know he used it?”</p>
<p>The Secret appeals to intuition, by appropriating spiritual and scientific language. To the extent an individual believes in a spiritual dimension to this world, or that they can control their own destiny, The Secret speaks loudly. </p>
<p>On the other hand, anyone who thinks critically about its claims presumably finds themselves arriving at the maxim that if it sounds too good to be true, it is. </p>
<h2>Positive thinking plus effort</h2>
<p>Back in the lecture theatre, my students unpack the claims of The Secret. Quite reasonably, they suggest a whole bunch of important ingredients are needed in addition to “positive thinking”, if someone really is going to manifest their deepest desires. Things like hard work, perseverance, motivation, skill and ability.</p>
<p>The Secret is less able to appeal to logic, though it attempts to by referring to the pseudoscientific “law of attraction”. Again, the secret of The Secret’s success lies in the suggestibility of association. Referring to a “law” implies there is a scientific basis to the principles – and we all know science is logical, right? </p>
<p>A key component of the scientific method is that theories must be testable. Testing theories requires making observations – that is, collecting data. </p>
<p>If personal experience is one form of empirical evidence, then The Secret performs very impressively. There are thousands of testimonials on the internet from people around the world attesting to its ability to deliver results. </p>
<p>But dig a little deeper, and it’s clear this anecdotal evidence (“it happened to me, therefore it’s a thing”) almost always reflects the problem of the illusory correlation. Two events occur in close proximity to the other and rather than putting it down to coincidence, for example, people presume the first event caused the second. </p>
<p>This is even more likely to occur when an individual is <a href="https://www.donchristoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/nickerson1998.pdf">looking to confirm</a> – rather than test – their beliefs. </p>
<p>So, individuals wanting to see evidence The Secret works will find it. They ask the universe for a pay increase and two weeks later they get it. The possibility the pay increase was always on its way, due to their previous hard work and diligence, does not seem to be relevant. </p>
<p>Before my students leave, I wish them all the best for the course and their other university studies. I tell them I hope they all achieve the outcomes they desire. </p>
<p>And I remind them some of the principles embraced by The Secret do have some merit and are supported by empirical psychological research. Particularly, the idea that having a positive attitude tends to produce positive outcomes – though not always, and not because some magical connection with the universe made it so.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207426/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Strelan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A psychology professor debunks Rhonda Byrne’s world-bestselling book and film – and her theory of personal success through a magical connection with the universe.Peter Strelan, Professor, School of Psychology, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2224372024-02-01T18:09:43Z2024-02-01T18:09:43ZWhy Taylor Swift is an antihero to the GOP − but Democrats should know all too well that her endorsement won’t mean it’s all over now<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572838/original/file-20240201-29-3iozq0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C0%2C5973%2C3979&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Travis Kelce celebrates with Taylor Swift on Jan. 28, 2024, after the Kansas City Chiefs defeated the Baltimore Ravens in the AFC championship game.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/travis-kelce-of-the-kansas-city-chiefs-celebrates-with-news-photo/1970250651?adppopup=true">Patrick Smith/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A pop <a href="https://people.com/travis-kelce-reveals-when-he-taylor-swift-romance-first-began-8557241">icon falling for one of the NFL’s preeminent superstars</a> may seem like a slice of Americana – a scene from a small-town high school magnified by a factor of 10 million. </p>
<p>But this is America in 2024 so, of course, nothing magical stays that way. </p>
<p>To be clear, public opinion data suggests that most Americans think Taylor Swift is <a href="https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/taylor-swift-the-nfl/">good for the NFL</a>. But with her beau Travis Kelce’s Kansas City Chiefs heading to a fourth Super Bowl in five years, and with Swift herself reportedly preparing for a journey <a href="https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/nfl/taylor-swift-super-bowl-chiefs-tokyo-japan-concert-report/3435863/">across the globe</a> to cheer him on in the big game, the right-wing talk machine has gone into overdrive.</p>
<p>Fox News host <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/10/pentagon-taylor-swift-fox-00134866">Jesse Watters suggested</a> that Swift may be a Pentagon asset used to combat online misinformation. Former GOP presidential candidate <a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/01/29/vivek-ramaswamy-says-super-bowl-could-be-rigged-to-boost-taylor-swift-and-biden/">Vivek Ramaswamy tweeted</a> that he thinks Swift and Kelce are being artificially propped up by the media pending an upcoming Swift endorsement of Joe Biden. OAN referred to the couple as a “<a href="https://www.mediaite.com/media/oan-host-rails-against-americas-love-for-football-in-tirade-over-travis-kelce-and-taylor-swift-psy-op/">Massive Super Bowl Psy-op</a>,” a brainwashing campaign designed to indoctrinate citizens to an elite agenda and away from religion.</p>
<p>The idea that the Swift-Kelce romance is some sort of deep-state plot is perhaps gaining some traction in far-right circles because it lines up with other right-wing conspiracy theories and the right’s broader agenda. </p>
<h2>Swift’s NFL fandom</h2>
<p>Swift has <a href="https://theconversation.com/taylor-swift-person-of-the-year-and-political-influencer-208631">endorsed Democrats</a> in the past, including Joe Biden in 2020. Kelce, while not politically outspoken, was featured in a <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2023/10/02/travis-kelce-promotes-flu-covid-19-shots-pfizer/71033013007/">Pfizer ad</a> touting the COVID-19 vaccine. </p>
<p>Republicans are more likely than Democrats to believe, without evidence, that <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/conspiratorial-thinking-polarization-america-united-kingdom/672726/">a secret group of rulers is controlling the world</a>, as well as <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/gop-voters-vaccines-poll-00117125">that vaccines cause autism</a>. While there isn’t public opinion data yet on the theories from Fox News and the right-wing echo chamber that the Swift-Kelce romance is an elaborate left-wing scheme, it contains elements of similar conspiracies for which partisan splits exist.</p>
<p>And opinions on Swift herself are similarly polarized. The singer is viewed favorably among virtually all groups in America, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/taylor-swift-transcends-americas-political-divides-barely-rcna125908">although Republicans</a> are the only group in which as many members dislike Swift as like her.</p>
<p>Taylor Swift has brought a unique element to NFL fandom. I haven’t seen fans of my hometown Buffalo Bills <a href="https://twitter.com/LavenderKelce/status/1749147389728784475">make signs</a> denigrating a pop star since they thought Jon Bon Jovi wanted to buy the team and <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/bills-to-toronto-concerns-raised-by-documents-is-buffalo-being-played/">move it to Toronto</a> in 2014.</p>
<p>Yet, <a href="https://library.park.edu/scholarsatwork/matthewharris">as a political scientist</a>, I know it’s an open question whether any of this matters politically.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a blue blazer, white shirt and rep tie gestures with open hands." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fox News host Jesse Watters has speculated, without evidence, that Swift may be a Pentagon asset.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/host-jesse-watters-as-jesse-watters-primetime-debuts-on-fox-news-photo/1552264944?adppopup=true">Roy Rochlin/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Oprah, Obama and celebrity endorsements</h2>
<p>In the background of these conspiracy theories is the possibility that Taylor Swift could <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/us/politics/biden-trump-election-taylor-swift.html">endorse Joe Biden</a>. The Trump campaign is reportedly thinking about such a possibility, with allies talking behind the scenes about a <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-more-popular-taylor-swift-maga-biden-1234956829/">“holy war”</a> against Swift, brainstorming ways of painting her as a left-wing celebrity advancing an elite Democratic agenda.</p>
<p>But how much would such an endorsement matter? </p>
<p>In political science literature, a hallmark case of the power of celebrity endorsements is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewr031">Oprah Winfrey’s 2008 backing of Barack Obama</a>. Winfrey’s endorsement occurred during a primary in which he was taking on a more well-known opponent, Hillary Clinton. </p>
<p>Winfrey’s endorsement, wrote the authors of a prominent study of the case, led participants in the study “to see Obama as more likely to win the nomination and to say that they would be more likely to vote for him.” In other words, it helped advance public perceptions of Obama’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208321948">viability as a candidate</a>.</p>
<p>A Swift endorsement of Biden would be different. </p>
<p>Swifties are <a href="https://theconversation.com/taylor-swift-person-of-the-year-and-political-influencer-208631">largely suburban and young</a>. Almost <a href="https://pro.morningconsult.com/instant-intel/taylor-swift-fandom-demographic">half are millennials</a>, and over 10% belong to Gen Z. They represent a slice of the youth vote that candidates have attempted to court for decades, and the <a href="https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-bcf4-d17b-a1ff-bef5e8a70000">suburbs are increasingly a battleground</a> in the country’s urban-rural divide. A Swift Instagram post in 2023 helped lead to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/09/22/1201183160/taylor-swift-instagram-voter-registration">35,000 new voter registrations</a> – and her ability to generate funds could also be <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/us/politics/biden-trump-election-taylor-swift.html">invaluable to Biden</a>. </p>
<p>But an Oprah-like effect is less likely for a Swift endorsement of Biden, who is running as an incumbent without a serious primary challenger and his status as the Democratic nominee is certain.</p>
<p>Further, polling demonstrates that the effect of a Swift endorsement could be essentially <a href="https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/18-of-voters-more-likely-to-back-taylor-swift-endorsed-presidential-candidate-poll-shows-2024-election-voting-ballot-biden-trump-white-house-politics-travis-kelce-kansas-city-chiefs">a net wash</a>, with 18% of the public saying they’d be more likely to support a Swift-backed candidate and 17% saying they would be less likely to support Swift’s favored choice. </p>
<p>Even those numbers might be affected by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0">partisan-motivated reasoning</a>, where a person’s party identification colors their perceptions of information. Swift’s prior backing of Democrats and perceived liberalism might cause her supporters and detractors to use polling questions asking about a potential Swift endorsement to express support or disfavor of her, regardless of how her endorsement would actually influence their choice. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a blue blazer, blue tie and white shirt in front of an American flag, holding his right hand in a fist." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Swift endorsement, if it comes, could be less important than Donald Trump’s response to that endorsement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-presidential-candidate-and-former-u-s-president-news-photo/1965960388?adppopup=true">David Becker/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Not just a love story</h2>
<p>Essentially, a Swift endorsement might matter at the margins, but there are many, many other factors at play in a general election. That’s especially true in an election between two men who have both served as commander in chief, a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/few-former-presidents-have-run-for-their-old-jobs-or-anything-else-after-leaving-office/">rarity in American politics</a>.</p>
<p>A Swift endorsement, then, is perhaps less important in and of itself than Donald Trump’s response to a Swift endorsement of Biden. </p>
<p>Public opinion polling in the wake of Trump’s Access Hollywood remarks in 2016 showed that majorities of both women and men believed Trump had little or no <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/11/04/trump-respect-for-women/">respect for women</a>. But Trump actually improved his numbers among <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/">women voters in 2020</a>. </p>
<p>A Swift endorsement of Biden could bring out some of Trump’s worst impulses. Perhaps the effect of his response on how voters view him could be more important than her endorsement of Biden.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222437/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt Harris does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The idea that the Swift-Kelce romance is some sort of deep-state plot is perhaps gaining traction in far-right circles because it lines up with the political right’s broader agenda and beliefs.Matt Harris, Associate Professor of Political Science, Park UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1712882022-01-31T13:01:21Z2022-01-31T13:01:21ZThere is much more to mindfulness than the popular media hype<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/444116/original/file-20220202-27-14try7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C9%2C2108%2C1365&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Have the benefits of meditation been overhyped in the West?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/praying-posture-royalty-free-image/1051055894?adppopup=true">FatCamera/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Mindfulness is seemingly everywhere these days. A Google search I conducted in January 2022 for the term “mindfulness” resulted in almost 3 billion hits. The practice is now routinely offered in workplaces, schools, psychologists’ offices and hospitals all across the country. </p>
<p>Most of the public enthusiasm for mindfulness stems from the reputation it has for reducing stress. But scholars and researchers who work on mindfulness, and the Buddhist tradition itself, paint a more complex picture than does the popular media. </p>
<h2>Medicalizing meditation</h2>
<p>Mindfulness originated in the Buddhist practice of “anapana-sati,” a Sanskrit phrase that means “awareness of breath.” Buddhist historian <a href="https://religiousstudies.as.virginia.edu/faculty/profile/ecb2j">Erik Braun</a> has <a href="https://www.lionsroar.com/the-insight-revolution/">traced the origins of the contemporary popularity of meditation</a> to colonial Burma – modern-day Myanmar – in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Meditation, which was practiced almost exclusively inside monasteries until then, was introduced to the general public in a simplified format that was easier to learn. </p>
<p>The gradual spread of meditation from that time to the present is a surprisingly complex story.</p>
<p>In the U.S., meditation first started to be practiced among <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/mind-cure-9780190864248">diverse communities of spiritual seekers</a> as early as the 19th century. It was adopted by <a href="https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/mindfulness-in-psychotherapy/">professional psychotherapists</a> in the early 20th century. By the 21st century, it had become <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/mindful-america-9780199827817">a mass-marketing phenomenon</a> promoted by celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey, Deepak Chopra and Gwyneth Paltrow. </p>
<p>The process of translating the Buddhist practice of meditation across cultural divides transformed the practice in significant ways. Modern meditation often has different goals and priorities than traditional Buddhist meditation. It tends to focus on stress reduction, mental health or concrete benefits in daily life instead of spiritual development, liberation or enlightenment. </p>
<p>A pivotal moment in this transformation was the creation of the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) protocol by <a href="https://profiles.umassmed.edu/display/130749">Jon Kabat-Zinn</a>, a professor of medicine at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, in 1979. The stress reduction program introduced a standardized way of teaching meditation to patients so that its health benefits could be more rigorously measured by scientists. </p>
<p>Research on this new kind of “medicalized” mindfulness began to gather steam in the past two decades. As of today there are over 21,000 research articles on mindfulness in the National Library of Medicine’s <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov">online database</a> — two and a half times as many articles as have been published on yoga, tai chi and reiki combined. </p>
<h2>Scientific evidence vs. mindfulness hype</h2>
<p>Medical researchers themselves have had a far more measured opinion about the benefits of meditation than the popular press.</p>
<p>For example, a 2019 meta-analysis, which is a review of many individual scientific studies, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093423">pointed out</a> that the evidence for the benefits of mindfulness and other meditation-based interventions has “significant limitations” and that the research has “methodological shortcomings.” </p>
<p>Based on their review of the scientific literature, the authors warned against falling prey to “mindfulness hype.” On the positive side, they found various forms of meditation to be more or less comparable to the conventional therapies currently used to treat depression, anxiety, chronic pain and substance use. On the other hand, they concluded that more evidence is needed before any strong claims can be made regarding treatment of conditions such as attention disorders, PTSD, dysregulated eating or serious mental illnesses. </p>
<p>More troubling, some researchers are even beginning to suggest that a certain percentage of patients may experience <a href="https://www.brown.edu/research/labs/britton/research/varieties-contemplative-experience">negative side effects</a> from the practice of meditation, including increased anxiety, depression or, in extreme cases, even psychosis. While the causes of these side effects are not yet fully understood, it is evident that for some patients, therapeutic meditation is far from the panacea it is often made out to be. </p>
<h2>Putting mindfulness back into context</h2>
<p>As a <a href="http://www.piercesalguero.com/academic/">historian of the relationship between Buddhism and medicine</a>, I argue that mindfulness can be a beneficial practice for many people, but that we should understand the broader context in which it developed and has been practiced for centuries. Mindfulness is one small part of a diverse range of healing techniques and perspectives the Buddhist tradition has developed and maintained over many centuries. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443191/original/file-20220128-19-bxd6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Buddhist monks in orange robes praying" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443191/original/file-20220128-19-bxd6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443191/original/file-20220128-19-bxd6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443191/original/file-20220128-19-bxd6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443191/original/file-20220128-19-bxd6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443191/original/file-20220128-19-bxd6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443191/original/file-20220128-19-bxd6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443191/original/file-20220128-19-bxd6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mindfulness is one small part of the healing techniques forwarded by Buddhism.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/buddhist-monks-praying-royalty-free-image/185091185?adppopup=true">FredFroese/iStock / Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a recent book, <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/a-global-history-of-buddhism-and-medicine/9780231185271">I have traced the global history</a> of the many ways that the religion has contributed to the development of medicine over the past 2,400 years or so. Buddhist tradition advocates countless contemplations, devotional practices, herbal remedies, dietary advice and ways of synchronizing the human body with the environment and the seasons, all of which are related to healing. </p>
<p>These ideas and practices are enormously influential <a href="http://www.jivaka.net/global/">around the world</a> as well as in Buddhist communities <a href="http://www.jivaka.net/philly/">in the U.S.</a> Such interventions have been <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-buddhists-handle-coronavirus-the-answer-is-not-just-meditation-137966">particularly visible during the COVID-19 pandemic</a> – for example, through the medical charity of major international Buddhist organizations as well as through health advice given by high-profile monastics such as the Dalai Lama. </p>
<p>Buddhism has always had a lot to say about health. But perhaps the most significant of its many contributions is its teaching that our physical and mental well-being are intricately intertwined – not only with each other, but also with the health and vitality of all living beings. </p>
<p>Medicalized meditation is now a self-help commodity that generates over US$1 billion per year, leading some critics to label it “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/600158/mcmindfulness-by-ronald-purser/">McMindfulness</a>.” But placing mindfulness back into a Buddhist ethical context shows that it is not enough to simply meditate to reduce our own stress or to more effectively navigate the challenges of the modern world. </p>
<p>As I argue in my <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/691081/buddhish-by-c-pierce-salguero/">most recent book</a>, Buddhist ethics asks us to look up from our meditation cushions and to look out beyond our individual selves. It asks us to appreciate how everything is interconnected and how our actions and choices influence our lives, our society and the environment. The emphasis, even while healing ourselves, is always on becoming agents of compassion, healing and well-being for the whole.</p>
<p>[<em>This Week in Religion, a global roundup each Thursday.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/this-week-in-religion-76/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=religion-global-roundup">Sign up.</a>]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171288/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pierce Salguero does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A scholar studying the relationship of Buddhism and medicine explains how the popular media has misrepresented mindfulness.Pierce Salguero, Associate Professor of Asian History & Religious Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1571042021-03-16T17:15:09Z2021-03-16T17:15:09ZWill the Meghan/Harry revelations change Canadian attitudes about the monarchy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389568/original/file-20210315-23-1ialflz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5048%2C2448&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, is seen being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A day after <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/07/world/meghan-harry-oprah-interview">Oprah Winfrey’s interview</a> with Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, was broadcast in North America, an <a href="https://researchco.ca/2021/03/01/canadians-monarchy-2021/">online poll</a> suggested only one-quarter of Canadians felt that Canada should remain a monarchy.</p>
<p>Conducted two weeks before the interview aired, the survey of 1,000 Canadian adults by opinion firm Research Co. also found that only one-fifth of them wanted Prince Charles to succeed Queen Elizabeth.</p>
<p>In our upcoming book <em><a href="https://www.routledge.com/Revealing-Britains-Systemic-Racism-The-Case-of-Meghan-Markle-and-the/Ducey-Feagin/p/book/9780367765415">Revealing Britain’s Systemic Racism: The Case of Meghan Markle and the Royal Family</a></em>, we apply systemic racism theory and the concept of the <a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-White-Racial-Frame%3A-Centuries-of-Racial-Framing-Feagin/05c6b0c7fbea7170df8c5aa50c1c2334a3daa824?p2df">white racial frame</a> to assess the implications of Meghan’s entry into the British Royal Family. The white racial frame is an organized set of racialized stereotypes, emotions and discriminatory inclinations that motivate white people to discriminate. </p>
<p>A consequence of this frame is what we have termed <em>social alexithymia</em> — an incapacity to understand the painful experiences of oppressed people. Hostile white reactions towards the Duchess of Sussex following the Oprah interview — from <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1410034/Donald-Trump-reaction-Meghan-Markle-interview-comment-steve-bannon-jason-miller">Donald Trump</a>, <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2021-03-09/piers-morgan-leaves-good-morning-britain-meghan-markle">Piers Morgan</a>, Megyn Kelly, <a href="https://meaww.com/lady-colin-campbell-says-meghan-markle-is-not-first-biracial-royal-family-member">Lady Colin Campbell</a>, <a href="https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/tucker-carlson-invokes-911-mocking-meghan-markle-oprah-interview-084417404.html">Tucker Carlson</a> and even her own father, <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/meghan-s-father-thomas-markle-says-the-royals-are-not-racist-1.5339428">Thomas Markle</a> — indicate that social alexithymia is common. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1368980815800057863"}"></div></p>
<p>By questioning enduring beliefs about racial progressiveness in the U.K., our book provides an account of how Meghan’s experiences as a biracial member of the Royal Family highlights contemporary forms of British racism. We must challenge romanticized notions of racial inclusivity in Canada, too. We have a moral obligation to do so. </p>
<h2>Defensive of the Royal Family</h2>
<p>Canadians who support the monarchy will likely not be swayed by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s revelations. They are likely to become more defensive of the Queen and other royals. </p>
<p>Those who believe that Canada and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-post-racial-british-society-remains-a-myth-even-in-universities-93607">U.K. are post-racial</a> and that we live in a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/">colour-blind</a> world will also likely maintain those beliefs. <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7632579/canada-systemic-racism-foundation/">Canadians</a> who believe that systemic racism is built into our nation’s institutions, on the other hand, will be less surprised by the couple’s revelations.</p>
<p>We should not assume that a desire to cut ties with the Royal Family is the same as an acceptance that systemic racism is a problem or even real. </p>
<p>Look at the media coverage surrounding the death of <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/5194869/colten-boushie-documentary-racism-prairies/">Colten Boushie</a>, an Indigenous man from Cree Red Pheasant First Nation, and the not-guilty verdict of the white farmer who killed him to understand why. </p>
<p>That coverage exemplified colonialist and white racial framing. Chris Andersen, a Métis scholar-activist and dean of native studies at the University of Alberta, put the issue best. On his now-defunct Twitter feed, he tweeted in the aftermath of the verdict:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Hey, journalists, if you want to bring clarity to important issues around the Stanley verdict, stop asking dumb questions like ‘do you think race was involved?’ If you can’t get over that hump as your starting point, you’re not helping.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The expression of racial hostility and discrimination by white Canadians towards people of colour takes an imposing array of damaging forms, from blatant discrimination to subtler and covert discrimination. <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7643596/strathcona-high-school-white-alliance//">Recent examples</a> illustrate the enduring presence of everyday racism in the white Canadian mind. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette stands in the House of Commons" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette rises in the House of Commons in Ottawa in May 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Liberal MP <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/robert-falcon-ouellette-faces-racism-during-mayoral-campaign-1.2686918">Robert-Falcon Ouellette</a> encountered racist obscenities during his mayoral campaign in 2014 in Winnipeg. “Go back to drinking. That’s where Indians belong,” he was told. </p>
<p>Ouellette captured how irrational racism is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“You know, I have my PhD, two master’s degrees and a bachelor’s degree. I was in the army for 18 years, and no matter, it seems, what I do, for some people it’s never enough.” </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Effecting racial change</h2>
<p>As we consider the relative inability of any one person or interview to single-handedly change minds and hearts, let alone systemic racism, we might consider what U.S. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30herbert.html">historian Howard Zinn</a> once said about former president Barack Obama. </p>
<p>Explaining why he was not disappointed in Obama for his failure to push forward aggressively on labour, feminist and civil rights, Zinn remarked: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“If there is going to be change, real change, it will have to work its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves. That’s how change happens.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is important wisdom for people waiting for the Duchess of Sussex or any individual to effect real change when it comes to systemic oppression. A major international movement involving millions of ordinary people of all racial and national backgrounds is needed to bring about the kind of change that so many whites unrealistically fear Meghan symbolizes and others unrealistically hope she will usher in. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Harry and Meghan arrive at the annual Commonwealth Day service." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this March 2020 photo, Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, arrive to attend the annual Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey in London.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As we demonstrate throughout our book, the Royal Family has had deep ties to and has propagated the white racial frame, especially via their representation of the British Empire, colonialism and white racial purity.</p>
<p>We also document their individual acts of racism. For example, one month before Meghan married his son, Prince Charles told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2018/apr/19/prince-charles-brown-skin-british-people-head-of-commonwealth">Anita Sethi</a>, a British writer of South American Guyanese descent, that she did not look like she was from Manchester, England. </p>
<p>Sethi courageously excoriated Charles for his framing: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“This is exactly why some people, including the prince, urgently need a history lesson about immigration, the British Empire, the Commonwealth and colonialism. Because I do look like I’m from Manchester, actually — a city in which many people of colour have been born and bred.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Prime Minister <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-monarchy-meghan-harry-interview-1.5942549">Justin Trudeau</a> has called the Queen “a guardian of many of our country’s traditions.” He has also acknowledged that “many of Canada’s institutions, including Parliament itself, are built on a legacy of systemic racism” but says “the solution is not to dump them altogether but to reform them from within.” </p>
<p>Feelings about the monarchy in the wake of the Oprah interview are arguably more about how we feel about systemic racism, of which all people of colour are painfully aware — and all white people benefit. </p>
<p>While acknowledging “the risk … of disrupting white supremacy,” including the price Prince Harry has paid, the chief consultant for <a href="https://kojoinstitute.com/">The Kojo Institute</a>, which works to make workplaces less oppressive and racist, weighed in.
<a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/why-the-meghan-and-harry-interview-hit-black-and-racialized-viewers-harder-1.5338690">Kike Ojo-Thompson</a> said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Racism is white people’s problem. It’s a white construct. It was created by white people, the beneficiaries are white people. And therefore white people need to invest in making this change.”</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157104/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Canadians who support the monarchy will likely not be swayed by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s revelations about racism within ‘The Firm.’ Instead, they’ll become more defensive of the Royal Family.Kimberley Ducey, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of WinnipegJoe R. Feagin, Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1567452021-03-09T08:29:10Z2021-03-09T08:29:10ZIf Princess Diana needed a legacy statement, she’s got it in Harry and Meghan<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388464/original/file-20210309-15-fqnmap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Harry and Meghan. They left the royal family.</p>
<p>What a shock. Who saw this coming? Harry’s mum Princess Diana definitely would have.</p>
<p>She was, after all, the woman who was ridiculed by a lot of the mainstream media for being too emotional. Her trembling lower juxtaposed against Charles’s stiff upper lip.</p>
<p>Well guess what, if Diana needed a legacy statement her son Harry has made it by marrying a very smart and powerful woman who will not sit in the corner and be told to behave.</p>
<p>Diana famously offered <a href="https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a34732735/princess-diana-aids-activism-the-crown/">her ungloved hand to an AIDS patient</a>. It was significant because part of the protocol of royalty is that ordinary people are not meant to touch the royals. Anyone remember the “Lizard of Oz” scandal when Paul Keating <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/gallery/2017/jul/12/no-hands-maam-australian-prime-ministers-meet-the-queen-in-pictures">put his hand on the Queen’s back</a>?</p>
<p>In stark contrast to Queen Elizabeth, Diana frequently kissed and hugged people. Unlike her husband she made a point of showing physical affection to her children in public.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Princess Diana frequently hugged and touched people, and was referred to as the ‘Queen of hearts’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/Alejandro Pagni</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Meghan and Harry story and the current debates about whether they should have done an interview with Oprah Winfrey sent me back to when I was writing my PhD thesis on why tabloid media matters. Later, I published it <a href="https://www.readings.com.au/products/3452375/gotcha-life-in-a-tabloid-world#">as a book</a> titled Gotcha: Life in a Tabloid World.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-royal-family-cant-keep-ignoring-its-colonialist-past-and-racist-present-156749">The royal family can't keep ignoring its colonialist past and racist present</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>I wrote about Oprah and why talk shows like hers matter. It’s because they let us hear the voices of people we don’t hear in the mainstream media. We hear more from black people, people from disadvantaged backgrounds and more from women. And sometimes those people get emotional. What a shock.</p>
<p>Emotion and empathy are very clearly lacking in our public debates these days. And thank goodness interviewers like Oprah bring that to the table.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Oprah Winfrey brought her trademark empathy and emotion to her interview with the royal couple.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/STRF/STAR MAX/IPx</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The symbolic aspect of Diana’s persona aligned her with religious figures like Mother Theresa. And that’s part of why she was seen in the mainstream media as a bit of a spiritual nut-job.</p>
<p>But the perception that many others had was that she channelled empathy and humanity through the way she connected with people. And that’s why she was and is still called “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyIUWbvx7uw">the Queen of hearts</a>”.</p>
<p>Back to Harry and his wife.</p>
<p>Meghan has clearly been targeted by the tabloid media, in an undeniably racist way, and she and her husband made a sensible decision to get out. But their dilemma raises a far bigger issue for all of us.</p>
<p>We are living through a time where the limits of free speech – the boundaries of what it is acceptable to say - are unclear. And we equally live in a time where anyone can post anything on social media and effectively become a publisher.</p>
<p>Twenty years ago, I was optimistic about the tabloid media and talks shows balancing out the elitism of the so-called “fourth estate”. Now I’m not so sure. </p>
<p>When I bother to check my Twitter feed or my email account I, like many of us, am increasingly alarmed by the trolling that goes on. I assume Meghan has someone to deal with that for her. The rest of us are only just working out how to manage it. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/meghan-and-harrys-oprah-interview-why-british-media-coverage-could-backfire-156424">Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview: why British media coverage could backfire</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156745/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catharine Lumby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Oprah Winfrey brought emotion and empathy to her bombshell interview with the couple – two qualities sorely missing in public debate these days.Catharine Lumby, Professor of Media, Department of Media, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1567442021-03-09T07:23:51Z2021-03-09T07:23:51ZThe Oprah interview is a royal PR nightmare, but republicans shouldn’t get their hopes up just yet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388401/original/file-20210309-17-1ciexzy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=3%2C3%2C2574%2C1523&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joe Pugliese/AP/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1992, Texan millionaire John Bryan was caught <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/toe-sucking-photo-drove-sarah-22405395">sucking the toes</a> of Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York. It made front page news and saw Australians’ support for a republic surge from <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291790423_Loyal_to_the_Crown_shifting_public_opinion_towards_the_monarchy_in_Australia">36% in 1991 to 57% in 1992</a>. </p>
<p>Despite this, and the unedifying spectacle of Charles and Diana’s divorce (and a slew of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/24/royal-family-bounced-back-annus-horribilis">other royal scandals</a>), in the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AustralianRepublic">1999 republic referendum</a>, Australia still clung to the monarchy. </p>
<p>This should serve as a timely reminder as the uproar grows over the public relations disaster of <a href="https://theconversation.com/meghan-and-harrys-oprah-interview-why-royal-confessionals-threaten-the-monarchy-156601">Meghan and Harry’s interview</a> with Oprah Winfrey — and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/09/harry-and-meghan-interview-stirs-debate-about-australia-becoming-a-republic">renewed calls</a> for an Australian republic. </p>
<p>If Fergie couldn’t bring down Australia’s monarchy, it’s unlikely Oprah can.</p>
<h2>The interview</h2>
<p>The interview, which is making headlines around the world, is arguably far more nuanced situation than the royal scandals of the 1990s. </p>
<p>The claims the palace is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/palace-under-pressure-to-respond-to-harry-and-meghan-racism-claims">racist</a>, that toxic tabloid culture invaded their lives, that Meghan’s <a href="https://www.vox.com/22320404/meghan-markle-suicide-oprah-cbs-interview">mental health </a> was severely neglected and the couple were not supported by their family are horrible and harrowing. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_4kWaiDuTYU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>But they must also be seen in the context of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/finding-freedom-the-new-harry-and-meghan-book-is-the-latest-risky-move-in-a-royal-pr-war-144090">escalating war</a> between Buckingham Palace and the Sussexes. Also at play is the fact Meghan and Harry are desperately trying to make money - and <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/will-harry-and-meghan-s-interview-help-or-hinder-their-brand-20210305-p57835.html">build a brand</a> - to support their new life in California. </p>
<p>From a political communications perspective, the TV interview also does not have the visual imagery needed to shock otherwise disinterested voters (again, think back to the toe episode). </p>
<h2>Most Australians want to keep the queen</h2>
<p>It is also fair to say the republic is not a top priority for Australians. </p>
<p>For the first time since the 1990s, in 2019, the Australian Election Study showed <a href="https://australianelectionstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/Trends-in-Australian-Political-Opinion-1987-2019.pdf">a majority</a> of Australians (51%) wished to retain the queen as our head of state.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/meghan-and-harrys-oprah-interview-why-royal-confessionals-threaten-the-monarchy-156601">Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview: why 'royal confessionals' threaten the monarchy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Public opinion has also held in the wake of last year’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-big-reveal-jenny-hocking-on-what-the-palace-letters-may-tell-us-finally-about-the-dismissal-142473">palace Letters</a> revelations and the Prince Andrew/ Jeffrey Epstein <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/14/prince-andrew-refuses-to-deny-he-stayed-in-jeffrey-epstein-mansion">scandal</a>. In January 2021, an <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-sense-of-momentum-poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-australia-becoming-a-republic-20210125-p56wpe.html">Ipsos poll</a> indicated only 34% of Australians wanted a republic. </p>
<p>This presents republican activists with a much harder task than at any point in the past three decades. The need to make a huge dent in public opinion to achieve the double majority support required nationally and in at least four states for the dissolution of the Australian monarchy.</p>
<p>Interestingly, younger people — who tend to be more politically progressive — are also strong supporters of the monarchy. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="The Queen walking past Commonwealth flags at Windsor Castle." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Most Australians want to hang on to the monarchy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steve Parsons/ AP/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For every birth year cohort born after 1975 (with no memory of the Whitlam Dismissal and less memory of the ‘90s), at least 51% want Australia to keep its constitutional links with the House of Windsor. Older Australians (those over the age of 70) also want to keep the queen. </p>
<p>Support for a republic is strongest among baby boomers, with about <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330093922_Howard's_queens_in_Whitlam's_republic_explaining_enduring_support_for_the_monarchy_in_Australia_-_Chapter_9_-_Australian_Social_Attitudes_IV">65% wanting</a> a revised constitution.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-royal-family-cant-keep-ignoring-its-colonialist-past-and-racist-present-156749">The royal family can't keep ignoring its colonialist past and racist present</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Explaining the poll results from earlier this year, Ipsos director Jessica Elgood said there was “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-sense-of-momentum-poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-australia-becoming-a-republic-20210125-p56wpe.html">no sense of momentum</a>” towards a republic, while monarchists pointed to the popularity of the royals among younger people. </p>
<p>It’s also worth noting that in the two decades after the referendum, there have been relatively few scandals from the royals (until recently). </p>
<h2>Republicans should not be celebrating</h2>
<p>So, republicans should not see the Oprah interview as a major boost to their cause — there are hard yards to be done.</p>
<p>Beyond the odd account on Twitter, there is no significant campaign in place to take advantage of the political opportunity this scandal presents.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/prince-harrys-decision-to-step-back-from-the-monarchy-is-a-gift-to-republicans-129624">Prince Harry’s decision to ‘step back’ from the monarchy is a gift to republicans</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Australian Republic Movement have a <a href="https://republic.org.au">website</a>, a well-known chair in Peter FitzSimons and many eminent supporters, including historical biographer Jenny Hocking and mental health expert Patrick McGorry. They also highlight a <a href="https://republic.org.au/media/2020/12/22/campaign-for-an-australian-republic-stronger-than-ever">19% increase </a>in membership in 2020. </p>
<p>But it is hard to argue the group has a high profile in the broader community. </p>
<p>Compared to same-sex marriage, for example, there is not the campaign infrastructure or political communication tools. What cut-through is a republic push going to have amid the ongoing sexual assault claims emerging from Canberra? Or outrage over standards in aged care? Or the push for Australians to get vaccinated?</p>
<h2>Other constitutional priorities</h2>
<p>There are also arguably far more important constitutional issues that require our nation’s attention. </p>
<p>Constitutional change is a hard and difficult project in Australia at the best of times - and at the moment, the republic sits down the list of priorities. It would be a hard case to argue the republic should be dealt with before <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/about-constitutional-recognition">First Nations’ Recognition</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-explainer-the-federal-state-battle-for-funding-75383">skewed tax arrangements</a> between the federal and state governments, as we emerge from the COVID economic catastrophe.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1369078950505312258"}"></div></p>
<p>A further complicating factor is we still don’t have a clear idea about what our republic would look like. </p>
<p>In 1999, <a href="https://australianelectionstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/McAllister-Elections-Without-Cues-AusJPS-2001.pdf">55% of Australians</a> wanted a republic with a president elected by the people. Only 21% preferred the model offered in the referendum of a president appointed by parliament. And we are still no closer to arriving at a <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-australia-ready-for-another-republic-referendum-these-consensus-models-could-work-142646">preferred model</a>. </p>
<p>The interview is a terrible look for the monarchy — and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/palace-under-pressure-to-respond-to-harry-and-meghan-racism-claims">uncomfortable questions</a> must follow. But it is hard to see it having an impact on the republican cause in Australia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156744/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Mansillo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Republic backers need to make a huge dent in public opinion to get the progress they want. People should remember even Fergie’s ‘toe sucking’ incident didn’t bring down the monarchy in the 1990s.Luke Mansillo, PhD Candidate in Government & International Relations, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1233992019-10-06T12:28:22Z2019-10-06T12:28:22ZMarianne Williamson and the religion of ‘spirituality’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295598/original/file-20191004-118217-1pezlku.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=48%2C0%2C5400%2C3597&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Democratic presidential candidate and author Marianne Williamson acknowledges applause after speaking at the New Hampshire state Democratic Party convention in September 2019. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Marianne Williamson recently <a href="https://www.salon.com/2019/09/13/to-her-texas-supporters-marianne-williamson-has-already-won_partner/">burst onto the political scene</a> as a somewhat unconventional candidate vying for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in the United States. </p>
<p>While she has never garnered more than two per cent in the polls and did not qualify for <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whos-in-and-whos-out-of-the-october-debate/">the third debate</a> — meaning it’s likely her run will come to an end soon — her remarks during the first two Democratic debates, as well as her personality and unconventional campaign parlance, have provoked many media responses. </p>
<p>What distinguishes Williamson from other candidates is her personal and professional background. Prior to her foray into politics, she was an internationally renowned self-help and spiritual author and speaker, known for penning bestsellers like <a href="https://www.harpercollins.ca/9780060927486/a-return-to-love/"><em>A Return to Love</em></a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.marianne2020.com/my-story">A child of the 1960s</a>, Williamson was significantly involved with the New Age and Human Potential movements, even spending time working <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-esalen-institute-and-the-human-potential-movement-turn-50_b_1536989">at Esalen Institute in California, the American “mecca” of alternative spirituality.</a></p>
<p>Today, she’s known as <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/02/marianne-williamsons-esprit-de-orb-corps">Oprah Winfrey’s spiritual adviser</a>, and remains an outspoken advocate of mindfulness meditation, yoga and therapy as ways to achieve spiritual and social transformation. </p>
<h2>Calling for an awakening</h2>
<p>Williamson unapologetically infuses her interest in spirituality into her political campaigning. </p>
<p>On her website she calls for a <a href="https://www.marianne2020.com">“a moral and spiritual awakening”</a> in America, speaking to those who are “seeking higher wisdom.” And in her closing statement at the first Democratic debate, she proclaimed that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JA6gYXEdwY">she will harness love</a> to defeat President Donald Trump.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0JA6gYXEdwY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">NBC News.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A number of pundits <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/30/opinions/marianne-williamson-christian-faith-hypocrisy-bailey/index.html">have mocked Williamson</a>. But the more common reaction is puzzlement: many just don’t know what to make of a renowned spiritual and self-help teacher running to lead the Democratic Party. </p>
<p>I believe this is largely because few are familiar with the history of alternative spirituality in North America and its ties to progressive politics.</p>
<p>We have seen a dramatic rise over the last few decades in the number of North Americans who self-identify as <a href="https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/10/16630178/study-spiritual-but-not-religious">“spiritual but not religious.”</a></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-spiritual-87236">What does it mean to be spiritual?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Those in this group, while certainly diverse, have deep spiritual interests, often champion something like the existence of a higher power, remain wary of orthodoxy and place a premium on individual autonomy. </p>
<p>It is these people to whom Williamson appeals. And while they might view themselves as seekers who don’t adhere to traditions, there is a longstanding tradition of alternative spirituality in the West.</p>
<h2>Metaphysical movements</h2>
<p>In <em><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/spiritual-but-not-religious-9780195146806?cc=ca&lang=en&">Spiritual but not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America</a></em>, religious historian Robert Fuller sheds light on the various metaphysical movements that emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries in America. </p>
<p>These include <a href="https://swedenborg.com/nce-minute-swedenborg-theologian-who-wasnt/">Swedenborgism</a>, <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/transcendentalism">Transcendentalism</a>, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/spiritualism-religion">Spiritualism</a>, <a href="https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/mesmerism-the-discovery-of-animal/9781927077313-item.html">Mesmerism</a>, <a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/theosophy">Theosophy</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-you-should-know-about-the-new-thought-movement-72256">New Thought</a>, each of which — despite being relatively unknown to most people — have significantly shaped the “spiritual but not religious” trend. </p>
<p>These movements were certainly theologically different, but nevertheless, like Williamson and her followers, they postulated the existence of unseen forces and championed the importance of both mystical experiences and individual freedom. If channelled appropriately, those forces could purportedly lead to self-empowerment. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-you-should-know-about-the-new-thought-movement-72256">Why you should know about the New Thought movement</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The influence of these movements was far from marginal in American society. They often attracted well-known writers, politicians and artists. Ralph Waldo Emerson, often called America’s national poet, was an avowed <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/20884/the-american-transcendentalists-by-edited-and-with-an-introduction-by-lawrence-buell/">Transcendentalist</a>, as was <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/henry-david-thoreau-1773664">Henry Thoreau</a>, committed civil rights activist and author.</p>
<p>Others who belonged to some of these movements include psychologists William James and Carl Jung, philosopher Rudolf Steiner and biologist Alfred Russell Wallace. </p>
<h2>The spiritual is political</h2>
<p>Historian Leigh Eric Schmidt of Princeton University usefully traces the historical ties between these movements and progressive democratic politics in the U.S. in <em><a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520273672/restless-souls">Restless Souls: The Making of American Spirituality</a></em>. </p>
<p>Schmidt observes that many of the leaders and spokespeople of these movements were ahead of their time, both socially and politically. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295618/original/file-20191004-118200-tuenxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295618/original/file-20191004-118200-tuenxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295618/original/file-20191004-118200-tuenxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=787&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295618/original/file-20191004-118200-tuenxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=787&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295618/original/file-20191004-118200-tuenxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=787&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295618/original/file-20191004-118200-tuenxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=990&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295618/original/file-20191004-118200-tuenxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=990&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295618/original/file-20191004-118200-tuenxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=990&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902), an important leader of the 19th century women’s rights movement in the United States, is seen in this 1890 portrait.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For instance, <a href="https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/the-essential-margaret-fuller-by-margaret-fuller/9780813517780">Margaret Fuller</a>, an early Transcendentalist and confessed mystic, was also a staunch advocate for women’s rights in the early 19th century. So was <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374532390">Elizabeth Cady Stanton</a>, a women’s suffrage activist who sought to claim the privilege of autonomy for the female sex in <a href="https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/2585"><em>The Woman’s Bible</em> </a>, published in 1895. </p>
<p><a href="https://whitmanarchive.org/criticism/current/encyclopedia/entry_617.html">Walt Whitman</a>, the famous American poet and writer - as well as a “curious inquirer into clairvoyance and Spiritualism” - championed, in cosmopolitan fashion, “the good in all religious systems,” according to Schmidt.</p>
<p>Felix Adler, a Reform Jew and founder of the Society for Ethical Culture, published in 1905 <a href="https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-essentials-of-spirituality/9781141327409-item.html"><em>The Essentials of Spirituality</em></a>, wherein he championed the importance of “doing justice to that inner self” in order to do “justice to others.” </p>
<p>Finally, Ralph Waldo Trine, proponent of New Thought and author of the successful <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/303893/in-tune-with-the-infinite-by-ralph-waldo-trine/"><em>In Tune with the Infinite</em></a>, depicted God as a spirit of infinite life akin to a “reservoir of superhuman power.” </p>
<p>And though <a href="http://ralphwaldotrine.wwwhubs.com/">Trine’s doctrines</a> were eventually appropriated by entrepreneurial and materialist ministers such as <a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/power-of-positive-thinking-norman-vincent-peale/1101102278">Norman Vincent Peale</a> in the mid-20th century, Trine himself was a staunch progressive and social reformer. He was also a committed vegetarian, playing an active role in the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. </p>
<h2>Why is Williamson so mind-boggling?</h2>
<p>In light of this history, Schmidt concludes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The convergence of political progressivism, socioeconomic justice, and mystical interiority was at the heart of the rise of a spiritual left in American culture.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s therefore worth asking why a candidate like Williamson so boggles the modern-day mind. </p>
<p>In part, it has to do with the way alternative spirituality developed over the 20th century. The New Age movement of the 1970s was arguably the most prominent. And while the “New Age” label may today be out of fashion, many ideas that were once championed under its banner remain strikingly popular. </p>
<p>In fact, it’s likely that many who call themselves “spiritual but not religious” subscribe to a set of ideas and engage in a variety of practices that were once central to that counter-cultural movement. And carrying forward a long-standing tradition, these ideas tend to appeal to the left.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/being-a-progressive-christian-shouldnt-be-an-oxymoron-96617">Religion, after all, is increasingly associated in the U.S. with social conservatism</a>. In turn, for many progressives, <a href="https://theconversation.com/millennials-abandon-hope-for-religion-but-revere-human-rights-90537">especially millennials</a>, “religion” is no longer considered a viable option. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295451/original/file-20191003-52837-1c9digi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3658%2C2436&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295451/original/file-20191003-52837-1c9digi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3658%2C2436&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295451/original/file-20191003-52837-1c9digi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295451/original/file-20191003-52837-1c9digi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295451/original/file-20191003-52837-1c9digi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295451/original/file-20191003-52837-1c9digi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295451/original/file-20191003-52837-1c9digi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295451/original/file-20191003-52837-1c9digi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Williamson waves during a climate change summit in Washington, D.C., in September 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So for those with spiritual interests, the cosmopolitan and inclusive spirituality of Williamson has an obvious appeal. </p>
<p>Of course, one of the tenets of New Age thought, at least in its most radical form, is that politics is a distraction from what really matters: self-transformation and spiritual enlightenment. </p>
<p>This may be why the image of Williamson as president is so difficult to entertain: we tend to think spirituality and politics just don’t mix. </p>
<p>But that’s at odds with the actual history of spirituality in America. Perhaps those who are “spiritual but not religious” will stop drawing a line separating the spiritual from the political. And if this happens, maybe the thought of a Williamson presidency won’t seem so implausible.</p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/ca/newsletters?utm_source=TCCA&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123399/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Galen Watts receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>The way Marianne Williamson is being dismissed as a viable presidential contender is at odds with the actual history of spirituality in America.Galen Watts, PhD Candidate in the Cultural Studies Graduate Program, Queen's University, OntarioLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/919992018-04-17T10:44:58Z2018-04-17T10:44:58ZWould America vote for Oprah for president?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209814/original/file-20180311-30979-1t9ofvm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Oprah's 'Time's up!' speech at the Golden Globes got people talking about her candidacy in 2020.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN5HV79_8B8">NBC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>America has had a black president. </p>
<p>Is the country ready for a black president who is also a woman? </p>
<p>Speculation about the candidacy of Oprah Winfrey makes clear that some voters think so. Granted, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/11/politics/oprah-presidential-advice-cnntv/index.html">Winfrey says she won’t run</a>, but <a href="http://www.eonline.com/news/918716/gayle-king-pressures-oprah-winfrey-to-run-for-president-on-cbs-this-morning">friends</a>, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2018/03/07/stephen-colbert-enlists-god-to-persuade-oprah-winfrey-to-run-for-president/?utm_term=.f19058ed2914">commentators</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Oprah2020?src=hash">many in the Twitterverse</a> are pushing for her to reconsider. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=PGpQdewAAAAJ">a scholar of race and politics</a>, I’m curious about whether Oprah will change her mind about running – and even more curious about whether she could win. </p>
<h2>Occupying a unique space</h2>
<p>A paper <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18757236">I recently published</a> with <a href="http://uwm.edu/africology/people/mcclerking-harwood/">Harwood McClerking</a> and <a href="https://polisci.as.uky.edu/users/erbl226">Ray Block</a> tried to shed light on this question by examining Oprah’s first major foray into politics — her endorsement of Democratic candidate Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election. Specifically, we wanted to know how the endorsement altered the public’s perception of her, as a way of understanding if people like the idea of a “political Oprah.”</p>
<p>First, it helps to understand just how popular Oprah was leading up to the 2008 election. From 2002 to 2006, Winfrey’s daytime talk show pulled in <a href="https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/oprah-winfrey-to-end-her-talk-show/">an estimated 7 million viewers</a> every day. Winfrey also had racial crossover appeal, maintaining an audience that was <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/claire-bidwell-smith/going-to-an-oprah-taping_b_128529.html">predominately female, white and over the age of 55</a>. </p>
<p>During this phase of her career, Oprah avoided politics, a strategy that may have helped her “transcend her race,” to borrow a phrase from <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3843957">political scientists Donald Kinder and Corrine McConnaughy</a>. </p>
<p>For example, in an interview with the <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ElswmhzTc8cC&lpg=PA17&ots=-bVR-kvkWa&dq=ann%20kolson%201986%20%22Winfrey%20has%20come%20a%20long%20way%20since%20her%20days%20in%20Kosciusko%22&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false">Jacksonville Daily News in 1986</a>, Oprah described her high school experience: “Everyone went through the black-power phase … (but) I knew I was not a dashiki kind of girl.” </p>
<p>Talking to <a href="http://people.com/archive/cover-story-tvs-queen-of-talk-vol-27-no-2/">People Weekly a year later</a>, Oprah said that during college at Tennessee State, a historically black college, she “refused to conform to the militant thinking of the time.” </p>
<p>“People feel you have to lead a civil rights movement every day of your life, that you have to be a spokeswoman and represent the race,” Oprah said. “Blackness is something I just am.” </p>
<p>Writing in 1994, <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1354479">media scholar Janice Peck</a> asserted that Winfrey served “as a comforting, nonthreatening bridge between black and white culture.” She goes on to say that Winfrey minimized her race through “public rejection of black political activism and the Civil Rights Movement.” </p>
<h2>Winfrey’s Obama endorsement</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209813/original/file-20180311-30986-1fr8y09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209813/original/file-20180311-30986-1fr8y09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209813/original/file-20180311-30986-1fr8y09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209813/original/file-20180311-30986-1fr8y09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209813/original/file-20180311-30986-1fr8y09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209813/original/file-20180311-30986-1fr8y09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209813/original/file-20180311-30986-1fr8y09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209813/original/file-20180311-30986-1fr8y09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Michelle and Barack Obama campaign with Oprah Winfrey in 2008.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Mary Ann Chastain</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This notion of Winfrey’s racial transcendence was tested in May 2007 with her explicit endorsement of Obama, which made her racial identity and political views salient to the American people. This connection was not lost on viewers, some of whom said she was trying to <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-12-13/features/0712120175_1_oprah-com-oprah-winfrey-fan">“sway her mass following</a>.”</p>
<p><a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2008/04/obama-supporter-oprah-takes-a-big-dive-009427">Politics scholar Costas Panagopoulos</a> predicted that the endorsement would cause Winfrey’s popularity to suffer. It didn’t help that Winfrey’s endorsement of Obama alienated her from white women – the largest segment of her audience – who believed that, as a woman, she should have backed Hillary Clinton. </p>
<h2>Winfrey and black women’s consciousness</h2>
<p>Oprah isn’t the first black woman to struggle with two minority identities. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039">Gender studies scholars</a> find that historically, black women reside in a unique space where they are marginalized by black communities due to their gender and sidelined by the feminist movement due to their race. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792120">Claudine Gay and Katherine Tate</a> assert in their research that the experience of being “doubly bounded” has resulted in the formation of a black female consciousness. Gender and legal scholar <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039">Kimberle Crenshaw</a> argues that the experiences faced by black women cannot be understood through traditional understanding of race and gender discrimination. Crenshaw believes that the intersection of racism and sexism interact in a way resulting in shared experience with discrimination that is more severe for black women. To describe this situation, Crenshaw coined the term “intersectionality.” </p>
<h2>The fragility of racial transcendence</h2>
<p>To understand Winfrey’s transcendence and its fragility, we used <a href="https://www.harrispollonline.com/">Harris Polls’</a> measure of how Winfrey ranked relative to other television personalities regularly during a large span of her talk show, from 1993 to 2011. In the years leading up to her Obama endorsement – 2002 to 2006 – she was the nation’s favorite television personality. But immediately following her endorsement, her favorability dropped to No. 4. Over the next five years until her show ended in 2011, Oprah’s average ranking was No. 3.</p>
<p>Before her endorsement of Obama, individuals were favorable toward Winfrey at relatively equal levels – between 73 and 82 percent – regardless of their race and gender. After the endorsement, a gap opened up. Black women rated her 86.2 percent favorable. Black men still maintain the second highest favorability, but we see a drop from 81 percent to 72 percent. Similarly, the percentage of white women who hold favorable ratings of Winfrey drops from 73.4 percent pre-endorsement to 67.8 percent after.</p>
<p>By examining post-endorsement polling data, we argue that the impact of Oprah’s endorsement is an important factor that seems to follow the same breakdown. Her endorsement had the strongest tangible effect on black women, followed by black men, white women and white men. </p>
<p>These numbers are important when considering Oprah’s electability because blacks make up only <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/">11.9 percent of the electorate</a>. Having black support alone is not enough to win the presidency. Indeed, Obama built his success on <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/11/05/inside-obamas-sweeping-victory/">support beyond the black community</a> by having high levels of turnout from voters under the age of 30, low- to moderate-income workers – those earning less than $50,000 – and Latinos.</p>
<h2>Oprah 2020?</h2>
<p>Despite the seeming impact on her popularity, Winfrey has become more political over time. </p>
<p>For instance, in a recent series of articles in Oprah Magazine and on <a href="http://www.oprah.com/index.html">Oprah.com</a>, Winfrey discusses <a href="http://www.oprah.com/inspiration/why-we-need-to-talk-about-race">race</a> and <a href="http://www.oprah.com/inspiration/when-people-become-aware-of-their-race">racial awareness</a> in a very different way than those interviews from the 80s.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.oprah.com/inspiration/what-oprah-knows-for-sure-about-race">one article</a>, she writes, “The audacity it takes to judge another because they don’t look or sound or act like you goes against the current of humanity.” <a href="http://www.oprah.com/inspiration/why-we-need-to-talk-about-race">In another</a>: “We can’t afford to say race is just a black thing, or a Hispanic thing, or an Asian thing or a #StayWoke thing. It’s a human thing.” </p>
<p>The speculation centered on Winfrey’s possible presidential bid – while encouraging on its own – lacks a full assessment of all that Winfrey brings to the table. The experiences of black women, even those that are high-profile, are often constrained by how people view them. </p>
<p>Oprah’s claim that “time’s up” inspired many, but our research suggests that the more political Oprah becomes, the more aware voters will be of her race and gender. And that awareness will give her not one, but two, challenges to overcome.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91999/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chryl N. Laird does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Getting to the White House would mean overcoming issues of race and gender.Chryl N. Laird, Assistant Professor of Government and Legal Studies, Bowdoin CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/907562018-04-04T21:27:44Z2018-04-04T21:27:44ZHow compassion can triumph over toxic childhood trauma<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212866/original/file-20180402-189795-keekl0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New research shows that when mothers who have experienced childhood trauma feel supported by the people around them -- such as therapists, physicians, friends and neighbours -- their risk of pregnancy complications is substantially reduced.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a recent piece on the television show <em>60 Minutes</em>, Oprah Winfrey discussed <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oprah-winfrey-treating-childhood-trauma/">childhood trauma</a> — shining a public spotlight on the lasting effects of abuse and adversity in childhood. Oprah herself is a survivor of childhood abuse. </p>
<p>Adverse childhood experiences, commonly called ACEs, include witnessing verbal or physical conflict between parents and having a parent with a mental illness or substance-abuse issue. They also include parent separation, divorce and incarceration and the experience of neglect or abuse (sexual, physical or emotional) as a child. </p>
<p>ACEs are common. Approximately <a href="http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/21160456">60 per cent of the general population</a> report experiencing at least one before the age of 18. More than eight per cent of the population report experiencing four or more ACEs. </p>
<p>Research has consistently found that the more adverse childhood experiences a person has, the greater their risk for later health problems. </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379717306517">research group</a> investigates how ACEs affect women’s physical and psychological health in pregnancy. We study how adversities are “inherited” or <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2018/03/16/peds.2017-2495">passed from parent to child</a>, as well as how the risks of ACEs in pregnant women can be reduced. </p>
<p>Our latest finding suggests that <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00737-018-0826-1">when mothers who have experienced ACEs feel supported by the people around them, their risk of having pregnancy complications is substantially reduced</a>. In essence, feeling supported by friends and family can counteract the negative effects of having ACEs. </p>
<h2>From liver disease to early death</h2>
<p>Adverse childhood experiences increase the risks of many health challenges later in life. These include mental health problems like <a href="http://www.jad-journal.com/article/S0165-0327(04)00028-X/abstract">depression</a>, <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.456.757&rep=rep1&type=pdf">alcohol and drug abuse and suicide attempts</a>.</p>
<p>They also include health risk behaviours, such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30118-4">smoking, sexually transmitted diseases</a> and <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0802038">obesity</a>, as well as diseases like <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.456.757&rep=rep1&type=pdf">heart, lung and liver disease</a>. </p>
<p>For example, an individual who has experienced four or more ACEs is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30118-4">four times more likely to experience a mental health problem</a> than someone who has not. </p>
<p>People with <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.06.021">a high number of ACEs may even be at risk for early death</a>.</p>
<h2>Toxic stress and the body</h2>
<p>When children are exposed to abuse and adversity, they experience heightened levels of stress without a strong support system to help them through these difficult experiences. This is <a href="http://www.albertafamilywellness.org/resources/video/toxic-stress">often referred to as “toxic stress.”</a> </p>
<p>This stress is different from the tolerable types of stress that can help with development — such as learning to make new friends, going to a new school or taking a test. </p>
<p>Experiencing high levels of toxic stress during abusive or traumatic experiences can alter how our brain and body process future experiences and stressful events. Toxic stress impacts how we think and learn. </p>
<p>How does this happen? Toxic stress can cause excessive “wear and tear” on the body. It primes our system to be hyper-sensitive to stressors. This wear and tear builds up over time and can lead to both physical and mental health problems throughout our life. </p>
<p>When adults become parents, the effects that ACEs have had on their own body, mind and behaviour can influence how they experience their pregnancy and their pregnancy health. It can affect how they are able to interact with, and care for, their children. </p>
<h2>Babies with developmental delays</h2>
<p>In our work, we’ve shown that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.04.052">mothers who experience a higher number of ACEs are more likely to have gestational diabetes and hypertension</a>. </p>
<p>They are also more likely to deliver a baby who is born too small or too soon or needs intensive care. </p>
<p>Even if the baby is born full term, children born to mothers with ACEs are at risk of developmental delay. For each additional maternal ACE, there is an <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/141/4/e20172826">18 per cent increase in the risk</a> that their child will be identified as delayed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212868/original/file-20180403-189801-q1w4yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212868/original/file-20180403-189801-q1w4yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212868/original/file-20180403-189801-q1w4yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212868/original/file-20180403-189801-q1w4yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212868/original/file-20180403-189801-q1w4yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212868/original/file-20180403-189801-q1w4yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212868/original/file-20180403-189801-q1w4yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Health professionals can help new parents burdened by childhood adversity simply by supporting and listening to them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ultimately, we have found that the effects of adversity can be passed down from one generation to the next. </p>
<p>However, with the right supports in place, our work also reveals that mothers can show remarkable resilience to adversity. </p>
<h2>Compassion is protective</h2>
<p>What helps promote resilience in the face of stress and adversity? How do we help families triumph over past experiences?</p>
<p>For some, even just being aware of how past adversities and traumas can impact their current functioning, including physical and mental health, is an important first step. This can start the road to recovery. Some people may benefit from additional counselling and professional support to launch them into a brighter future. </p>
<p>For others, it’s the compassionate response they receive when they talk to someone about their early experiences. </p>
<p>Oprah Winfrey and others have wisely encouraged people to replace saying “what’s wrong with you?” with “what happened to you?” — to allow for a more compassionate and understanding approach to individual experiences, including trauma and adversity. </p>
<p>Oprah describes her main protective factor from adversity as school, and pinpoints certain teachers who encouraged her intellectually and creatively. School and caring teachers helped her to feel valued and gave her a sense of belonging, helping heal the emotional wounds of abuse. </p>
<h2>How to foster resilience</h2>
<p>Supportive relationships are indeed a key ingredient for change. Support from friends, family, spouses or neighbours can boost the quality and security of life for people. </p>
<p>Community supports also matter. For example, our work suggests that when women participate in low-cost community programs and recreation, such as story time at the library, and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012096">when they can be encouraged to develop or engage in social support networks, their children do better</a>.</p>
<p>Investing in families with young children makes financial sense too. Strategies that <a href="https://heckmanequation.org/resource/invest-in-early-childhood-development-reduce-deficits-strengthen-the-economy/">help new parents develop supports and parenting skills have a particularly high return on investment</a> — improving outcomes for parents, children and their families and avoiding later, higher-cost interventions.</p>
<p>Whether we have been affected by ACEs or not, we can all play a role in fostering resilience by being the buffering support to our friends, family members and neighbours. </p>
<p>Using <a href="https://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA14-4884/SMA14-4884.pdf">a trauma-informed approach to patient care</a>, health professionals can also play a central role simply by supporting and listening to patients burdened by childhood adversity. </p>
<p>The silver lining is that ACEs don’t define who we are or who we can become. </p>
<p>With supports, people who have endured ACEs can achieve emotional and physical well-being. It is compelling to realize that many people struggling with past adversity can identify support from teachers, neighbours, spouses and friends as instrumental in overcoming their adversities. </p>
<p>Each and every one of us can help make a difference in someone’s life. </p>
<p><em>Individuals are encouraged to speak to a physician or health care professional if they have concerns about how their adverse experiences might be impacting their functioning. For helpful resources and information on the science of early adversity visit The <a href="http://www.albertafamilywellness.org/">Alberta Family Wellness Initiative</a> or Harvard University’s <a href="https://developingchild.harvard.edu/">Center on the Developing Child</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90756/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sheri Madigan receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canada Research Chairs program, and the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Racine receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, and the University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Tough receives funding from the Alberta Childrens Hospitial Foundation, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Owerko Centre and the Max Bell Foundation </span></em></p>Childhood trauma impacts women’s health and can be passed from parent to child. New research shows that when new mothers feel supported, the risk of pregnancy complications is reduced.Sheri Madigan, Assistant Professor, Canada Research Chair in Determinants of Child Development, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, University of CalgaryNicole Racine, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of CalgarySuzanne Tough, University of CalgaryLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/920902018-03-02T12:28:50Z2018-03-02T12:28:50ZSexual violence may be in the Hollywood spotlight, but there are limits to speaking out<p>The entertainment award season hits its peak with the 90th Academy Awards – the Oscars – on March 4 2018. Since the public outing of <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/harvey-weinstein-44767">Harvey Weinstein</a> as a serial sexual abuser, award ceremonies have become spotlights to display solidarity and declare time on sexual harassment and gender inequalities in and beyond the film industry. </p>
<p>Beginning with the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/07/movies/golden-globes-2018-activists-metoo-red-carpet.html">Golden Globes</a> and repeated at the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/18/sisters-this-is-our-moment-to-say-times-up">BAFTAs</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-sofia-helin-and-swedens-metoo-movement-aim-to-change-the-script-on-sexism-90962">others around the world</a>, high-profile actors have worn black to demonstrate solidarity and highlight the work of anti-violence activists on the red carpet as their plus ones. The <a href="https://www.timesupnow.com/">Time’s Up</a> movement aims to translate this awareness into practical support for all survivors, including a legal fund for working-class women to fight for equality and justice. </p>
<p>Given all this airtime, various commentators hold hope that this year’s Oscars will make history not only in terms of <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-oscars-diversity-breakthroughs-20180123-story.html">nominations</a> and awards for black, women, transgender and young stars but also in continuing a united stance against sexual violence.</p>
<p>Breaking the silence around sexual violence has been an important strategy for this movement. Take <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/15/me-too-founder-tarana-burke-women-sexual-assault">#MeToo</a>, originally a campaign created by woman of colour activist Tarana Burke 12 years ago, which has in more recent times gone viral, resulting in 12m survivors sharing their stories on social media. The impact of breaking the silence on sexual violence in and beyond Hollywood has been lauded as Hollywood actors, alongside hotel housekeepers, activists and agricultural workers, collectively known as <a href="http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2017-silence-breakers/">the silence breakers</a>, became Time magazine person of the year for 2017. </p>
<h2>Speaking out</h2>
<p>The importance of speaking up and telling the truth is stressed more and more. In <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/full-transcript-oprah-winfreys-speech-at-the-golden-globes/549905/">her speech</a> as the first black women to receive the Cecil B. de Mille award at the 2018 Golden Globes, Oprah Winfrey claimed that “speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have”. She then shared the story of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/29/recy-taylor-alabama-dies">Recy Taylor</a>, who died ten days earlier. Recy Taylor was a black woman who was raped in Alabama by six white men in 1944. The case drew national attention as a key moment of injustice for black women as two all-white, all-male juries failed to indict the white men.</p>
<p>With the world watching, the stories of sexual violence are being illuminated in the Hollywood spotlight. But, as the story of Recy Taylor suggests, there are limits to speaking out within a deeply unjust world. Not all survivors are safe to speak out. Some survivors are not believed and can face harmful consequences. After years of feminist campaigning and legal reform, many still see their rapists and abusers avoid being held accountable.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fN5HV79_8B8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>We need to be mindful that the act of speaking out in public is risky, far from safe for all victims and survivors. As such, the history of sexual violence activism is entwined with black, queer and working-class resistance to the state, including police, prisons and the criminal legal system.</p>
<p>Research has demonstrated that survivors that come forward to report sexual violence <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1466802504042222">struggle to be seen</a> as credible victims of crime by police officers. Reporting sexual violence is particularly challenging for communities who are targets of state harassment, including poor and working-class <a href="https://rapecrisis.org.uk/userfiles/FINALBetweentheLinesresearchbriefingJuly2015.pdf">black and minority ethnic</a>, <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1524838015585318">queer, transgender and non-binary</a> groups and <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/katherine-koster/16-facts-about-sexual-ass_b_8711720.html">sex workers</a>. Negative consequences are amplified. These can include loss of homes, family, friends, jobs – as well as risk of arrest, imprisonment or even <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/nov/28/victim-arrested-on-immigration-charges-after-going-to-police">deportation</a> if a victim has insecure immigration status.</p>
<h2>Legal promises</h2>
<p>There is a drive to increase legal powers to solve sexual violence in the fight against gender-based violence. This is a strategy known as “<a href="https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/2/1/16952744/me-too-larry-nassar-judge-aquilina-feminism">carceral feminism</a>” (literally: relating to prison). Legal reform may seem progressive, but the protections that legal solutions offer survivors become harmful when we recognise that they extend from a deeply unequal system. </p>
<p>In the US for example, mandatory arrest policies requiring the police to make an arrest when responding to a domestic violence call-out led to many <a href="http://www.incite-national.org/sites/default/files/incite_files/resource_docs/2883_toolkitrev-domesticviolence.pdf">survivors being wrongfully arrested</a>. This pattern has also been identified in the UK by the <a href="http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Domestic_abuse_report_final_lo.pdf">Prison Reform Trust</a>, who found that domestic violence victims were repeatedly arrested, rather than their abuser. Women reported committing offences to protect a partner, support a partner’s drug use, or under pressure from their partner. Meanwhile, case work by <a href="http://prostitutescollective.net/2018/01/ecp-cases-update/">English Collective of Prostitutes</a> has demonstrated how sex workers are being failed by the police. </p>
<p>The scholarship and activism of <a href="http://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/01/how-anti-violence-activism-taught-me-to-become-a-prison-abolitionist/">Beth E Richie</a>, a professor at the University of Illinois and founding member of <a href="http://www.incite-national.org/">INCITE!</a>, has highlighted how domestic violence is a key pathway to prison for black working-class women. Likewise, in the UK the <a href="http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Domestic_abuse_report_final_lo.pdf">Prison Reform Trust</a> has found that 57% of women in prison have experienced domestic violence. </p>
<p>Despite all this – and even though the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-officer-complaints-domestic-abuse-sexual-assault-cases-rise-watchdog-figures-a8214201.html">number of complaints</a> made against police handling of sexual and domestic violence cases have soared in the UK – the drive to increase police powers and conviction rates lies at the heart of Theresa May’s new <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-ministers-plans-to-transform-the-way-we-tackle-domestic-violence-and-abuse">Domestic Violence and Abuse bill</a>. This bill is similar to the landmark <a href="http://www.legalmomentum.org/history-vawa">Violence Against Women Act</a> in the US that has subsequently set the expansion of legal powers to address sexual and domestic violence into motion during the 1990s. </p>
<p>As black feminist poet and activist Audre Lorde <a href="http://www.poconlineclassroom.com/blog/2016/6/7/rad-reading-the-masters-tools-will-never-dismantle-the-masters-house">warned us</a>, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”. The point here is that the legal system has been built to protect the powerful. Reforming this system will never lead to justice for all. We therefore need to re-imagine justice beyond the criminal legal system.</p>
<h2>A solution?</h2>
<p>The criminal legal system, then, fails to make all survivors safe. And it is counter-intuitive to invest in and expand a criminal legal system that extends the violence it promises to protect all victims from. There are clear limits to speaking out for some victims and survivors. Taking this into account, the <a href="http://www.nwlc.org/timesup">Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund</a> that encourages working-class women to engage with the criminal legal system looks shortsighted.</p>
<p>As Ericka Hart and Ebony Donnely, hosts of the <a href="https://soundcloud.com/user-501838661/the-golden-globes-was-performative-bs-in-defense-of-those-who-dont-defend-rich-white-folks-oprah">Hoodrat to Headwrap</a> podcast, spell out in their discussion of the Golden Globes: “We need to change the conditions in which the truth is told.” This means also imagining diverse strategies beyond the criminal legal system and drawing public attention to the violence of state welfare cuts to specialist services for survivors of domestic and sexual violence. </p>
<p>Much of this slow and difficult work is happening outside the spotlight by survivors of colour in organisations such as <a href="http://www.incite-national.org/">INCITE!</a>, <a href="http://www.sistersuncut.org/">Sisters Uncut</a>, <a href="https://www.imkaan.org.uk/">Imkaan</a> and <a href="http://www.creative-interventions.org/">Creative Interventions</a>.</p>
<p>The strategy of speaking out can only take us so far. Power inequalities mean that some survivors in marginal groups will never be safe to speak out. Instead of protecting victims, legal solutions can exacerbate violence and harm for the most vulnerable. </p>
<p>We should seize this moment to recognise the pitfalls of the criminal legal system, invest in independent specialist services and solutions that place the most marginalised victims and survivors at the centre. Speaking out demands us all to take responsibility to nurture a culture in which we can support and believe all survivors.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92090/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julia Downes is affiliated with Sheffield Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre and the Salvage Collective. </span></em></p>Speaking up and telling the truth is important, but we need to be mindful that it is risky, far from safe for all victims and survivors.Julia Downes, Lecturer in Criminology and Social Policy, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/918142018-02-23T11:43:15Z2018-02-23T11:43:15ZMad cows, Oprah Winfrey and communicating the science in a high-profile court case<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207638/original/file-20180223-108122-1hjhvna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=2%2C96%2C1782%2C1212&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A reporter interviews a protester outside the Amarillo courthouse.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-Texas-United-Sta-/f096abe143e5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/3/0">AP Photo/Eric Gay</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Twenty years ago, images of staggering cattle and descriptions of brains resembling Swiss cheese became associated with one of the most popular television programs of the day when <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1177368.html">Texas Panhandle cattlemen sued</a> “The Oprah Winfrey Show” for defamation under Texas’ “<a href="http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.96.htm">veggie libel law</a>.” They claimed the program’s negative portrayal of their business caused a steep decline of beef prices. </p>
<p>On the surface, this conflict looked like a battle between an industry and the TV producers who portrayed it negatively. But at its heart was some complicated science that had the potential to scare the public and be sensationalized by the media. </p>
<p>Today’s practitioners of science communication grapple with the difficulty of <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-science-of-science-communication-9780190497620">transmitting science information via the media</a> to a lay audience. This 1998 trial serves as a rare public case study documenting the media’s imperfect attempts to clarify the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/ResourcesforYou/AnimalHealthLiteracy/ucm136222.htm">science of mad cow disease</a> in the midst of a celebrity spectacle.</p>
<p>Ultimately Oprah won the legal case. But how did the public’s understanding of the science fare? </p>
<h2>Facts of the case</h2>
<p>A year and a half earlier, rancher-turned-animal-rights activist Howard Lyman appeared on Winfrey’s program. He claimed the American beef industry was giving cattle feed that contained remains of processed cattle. This practice, <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/ComplianceEnforcement/BovineSpongiformEncephalopathy/default.htm">no longer legal in the U.S.</a>, had been <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100514231604/http://www.food.gov.uk/scotland/regsscotland/regulations/scotlandfoodlawguide/sflgpart06/sflgpart06branch02/sflgpart06branch02doc03">banned by the British government in 1996</a> due to the belief it had led to the <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chronology-of-mad-cow-crisis/">1980s outbreak in Great Britain</a> of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.</p>
<p>BSE is a fatal nervous system disease in cattle; a human form of the disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob, was subsequently diagnosed in England, causing the <a href="https://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/figs.pdf">deaths of 178 people in the U.K.</a> through 2017. Medical researchers believed this form of CJD was caused by eating the meat of cattle infected with BSE.</p>
<p>Upon hearing these revelations Winfrey proclaimed on-air, “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/21/us/talk-of-the-town-burgers-v-oprah.html">It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger!</a>” The “<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2015/10/19/oprah-effect-does-everything-she-touches-turn-gold/74211636/">Oprah effect</a>” kicked into gear and the term “mad cow disease” rose in the public consciousness.</p>
<p>The resulting lawsuit initially focused on the science of BSE and the extent of the danger to beef consumers. However, the judge’s ruling ultimately hinged on legal questions of freedom of speech, rather than whether “The Oprah Winfrey Show” broadcast scientifically valid findings. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206919/original/file-20180219-75997-1y9dfwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206919/original/file-20180219-75997-1y9dfwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206919/original/file-20180219-75997-1y9dfwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206919/original/file-20180219-75997-1y9dfwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206919/original/file-20180219-75997-1y9dfwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206919/original/file-20180219-75997-1y9dfwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206919/original/file-20180219-75997-1y9dfwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206919/original/file-20180219-75997-1y9dfwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Was American beef dangerous for consumers?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dongkwan/2411796681">Ernesto Andrade</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Science from lawyers, via media, to public</h2>
<p>The verdict itself doesn’t provide a clear reflection of how effectively the science of BSE had been communicated during the trial to the jury. But the case was also tried, as they say, in the court of public opinion.</p>
<p>U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson imposed a gag order on the attorneys, prohibiting them from talking about the case outside of court. She did, however, provide permanent seats in the Amarillo courtroom for local media. One of us (Larry Lemmons) was the lead reporter for the local CBS affiliate during the trial.</p>
<p>Celebrity sightings around the courthouse were common. PETA protesters traded insults with local restaurant employees grilling burgers for the crowd. Presumably because I was one of the primary local media reporters, my reports were followed by attorneys from both sides. When I personally met Oprah Winfrey she remarked, “So you’re Larry Lemmons.” I never figured out precisely what that meant.</p>
<p>My media colleagues and I struggled to understand and communicate the specifics of BSE. We listened to the attorneys present the science to the jury, and then communicated those details to the public, who tended to be more interested in the spectacle.</p>
<p>In Amarillo in 1998, although access to the internet was growing more common, we reporters tended to regard it with suspicion. We gathered news the old-fashioned way, via in-person or phone interviews. For BSE research, I went to the library and a local college where a science professor provided me with some background. Part of my job as a reporter was to get the complicated scientific facts straight, and I couldn’t ask any of the trial participants for clarification.</p>
<p>Looking back over two decades, I wondered if my challenges communicating the science were shared by colleagues and other important players in the trial. Now, as a doctoral student of media and communication (working with Dr. Landrum and others at Texas Tech), I contacted some of them to discuss how attorneys related the science of BSE to the jury and how the media subsequently reported on information presented in the courtroom.</p>
<h2>Thinking back to the trial</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207642/original/file-20180223-108125-98vlya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207642/original/file-20180223-108125-98vlya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207642/original/file-20180223-108125-98vlya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207642/original/file-20180223-108125-98vlya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207642/original/file-20180223-108125-98vlya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207642/original/file-20180223-108125-98vlya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=673&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207642/original/file-20180223-108125-98vlya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=673&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207642/original/file-20180223-108125-98vlya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=673&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Oprah celebrates the ruling in her favor on Feb. 26. 1998.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-Texas-United-Sta-/4122616744e5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/5/0">AP Photo/LM Otero</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As expected, there are conflicting perspectives on how effectively the science was communicated.</p>
<p>Howard Lyman’s defense attorney, Barry Peterson, said that “to prevail I had to inform the jury that there was reasonable scientific evidence to support Howard’s opinions.” But he also had to consider the political environment: “We were more concerned about our ability to successfully defend Howard and HARPO Production because we are in beef country.”</p>
<p>Despite representing the losing side, one of the plaintiff’s attorneys Vince Nowak said the trial was a success for the cattle industry because it convinced the public that BSE was not a serious threat to American livestock. Though he presented extensively on the science during the trial, he acknowledged that “science played a very small factor” in the subsequent ruling by the judge.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, some reporters said the local cattle industry, who were not affected by the judge’s gag order, should have been more eager to clarify to the media the relative risks of Texas cattle becoming infected with BSE. At the time, Kay Ledbetter worked for the Amarillo Globe-News. She said obtaining scientific information was frustrating and limited to what was discussed in the courtroom:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“There was nobody reliable to discuss what the disease – bovine spongiform encephalopathy – really was … We were left with the catch phrase Mad Cow Disease, and our imagination.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On the other hand, Stacy Yates, who covered the trial for local news radio station KGNC, thought both the defense and plaintiffs did a reasonable job communicating the science and that “if you were a person who wanted to understand the science, the coverage was there.”</p>
<p>Ultimately the media covering this trial were left to muddle through as best we could – and the public relied on our efforts.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207640/original/file-20180223-108125-1dwihoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207640/original/file-20180223-108125-1dwihoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207640/original/file-20180223-108125-1dwihoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207640/original/file-20180223-108125-1dwihoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207640/original/file-20180223-108125-1dwihoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207640/original/file-20180223-108125-1dwihoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207640/original/file-20180223-108125-1dwihoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207640/original/file-20180223-108125-1dwihoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The case hinged on controversial feeding practices.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Food-and-Farm-Beef-Prices/514ac11bd9fc4c5791f8c098c26fa21b/4/0">AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The name matters</h2>
<p>My own notes from the trial are rich with legal and scientific explanations that accompanied courtroom observations. Notes for one report included this passage:</p>
<p>“[Winfrey’s] attorney Charles Babcock tried to establish links between what’s called ‘new variant CJD’ in humans and mad cow disease in cattle. [Primary plaintiff Paul] Engler insisted upon precise scientific answers while Babcock tried to put the issue in layman’s terms.” </p>
<p>However, recent research on how to most effectively communicate science has found that sometimes <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-science-of-science-communication-9780190497620">putting a scientific issue into less accurate layman’s terms</a> can add to confusion and heighten controversy.</p>
<p>Ledbetter is now an agriculture science communicator for Texas A&M AgriLife, a statewide agricultural research institution. She said that by using the term “mad cow disease,” the media misrepresented the issue:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“It’s not Mad Cow Disease, it’s bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE. And if agriculture would have taken the same stance on this issue as they did on Swine Flu, trying to educate on what it really was and asking the media to call it by its real name, H1N1, many people wouldn’t have had the same concerns.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ledbetter’s point of view is supported by science communication research. In one study, researchers investigating a subsequent mad cow outbreak in France determined that the framing of the issue influences public perception. When people were confronted with the term “mad cow,” they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00811.x">reacted more emotionally</a> than they did to a scientific label, such as BSE. It’s an open question, though, how opinion would have changed with the use of a more deliberative description of the disease during the Oprah Winfrey lawsuit. </p>
<p>Today the CDC considers the risks to Americans from BSE to be “<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/prions/bse/bse-north-america.html">extremely low</a>.” Since 1993 there have been a total of only 25 cases of BSE in North American cattle, the majority of those in Canada. In “A Comparative Study of Communication About Food Safety Before, During, and After the ‘Mad Cow’ Crisis,” food law scholar Matteo Ferrari concluded the public decides <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.15">whom to trust regarding the message</a> by how government, industry or advocates frame it.</p>
<p>In this case, the jury determined the media’s First Amendment protections outweighed the defamation concerns presented by the plaintiffs. Ironically, because of the media focus on the trial, the perspectives of the cattle industry were also highlighted.</p>
<p>The public got the message that there was little evidence that BSE threatened American livestock in a substantial way. Two decades of hindsight suggest that lawyers and media – in perhaps a piecemeal, stumbling way – did transmit relatively accurate science information. The cattlemen may have lost the case, but U.S. media consumers were left with the understanding that U.S. beef was safe. Media professionals still struggle with knowing how to best explain and condense complex science and public health issues in ways that won’t inappropriately trigger defensiveness, denial or fear. Research in the area of the science of science communication has made great strides in exploring these issues, but there is still much work to be done.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91814/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Twenty years ago, a Texas court decided Winfrey hadn’t defamed the state’s cattle industry. At the time, local media struggled to explain the science at stake in the case.Larry Lemmons, Doctoral Student in Communications, Texas Tech UniversityAsheley R. Landrum, Assistant Professor of Media and Communication, Texas Tech UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/898632018-01-11T11:42:38Z2018-01-11T11:42:38ZFor black celebrities like Oprah, it’s impossible to be apolitical<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201512/original/file-20180110-46697-1d0ovb7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey appear during a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on Dec. 8, 2007.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Oprah-Obama-2008/0fb729cd64b5483bbc2d5de08b753c6f/62/0">AP Photo/Paul Sancya</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Oprah Winfrey’s <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/full-transcript-oprah-winfreys-speech-at-the-golden-globes/549905/">rousing Golden Globe speech</a> has many speculating whether the media mogul will become a presidential candidate in 2020, with some pundits <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-2020-oprah-president-20180108-story.html">questioning the merits</a> of another “celebrity” president.</p>
<p>But to equate Oprah with other “celebrity” politicians like Donald Trump and Arnold Schwarzenegger skirts the history of how black celebrities have long assumed political roles – often unintentionally – within the black community.</p>
<p>When it’s viewed through this lens, the transition into politics for someone like Winfrey is more natural. Oprah, for her part, seems to understand the tremendous importance of high-profile blacks in American society. During her monologue, she became emotional when she described how, as a young girl, she watched Sidney Poitier receive the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the 1964 Golden Globes – “I’d never seen a black man being celebrated like that.”</p>
<p>But the ability of black celebrities to symbolize hope and racial progress precedes Poitier. The black singers, actors and athletes of the 1930s and 1940s weren’t simply entertainers; they were living proof that African-Americans didn’t need to succumb to racist stereotypes, and could be treated with dignity, even deference. With structural racism embedded in the nation’s social and economic fabric, this, in and of itself, was a political act. </p>
<p>As I point out in my book “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Black-Culture-New-Deal-Roosevelt/dp/1469619067/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515513766&sr=8-1&keywords=black+culture+and+the+new+deal">Black Culture and the New Deal</a>,” during the Great Depression and World War II, the U.S. government recognized the political potency of the black celebrity, and would tap into this power to project a democratic ethos at home and abroad.</p>
<h2>Elevating the black cultural hero</h2>
<p>By the time Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to seek a second presidential term in 1936, African-American voters had become an important demographic for the Democratic Party. But with white Southerners comprising a significant part of Roosevelt’s base, segregation and discrimination were more difficult for the government to directly confront. </p>
<p>Roosevelt still needed to figure out a way to reach out to the black community. So instead of passing legislation to correct racial inequality, his administration developed cultural programs that would employ large numbers of black men and women, and promote the skills and abilities of African-Americans. </p>
<p>For example, New Deal Arts programs included individuals such as Carlton Moss, Sterling Brown and Zora Neale Hurston to create books and plays that would depict African-Americans in sympathetic, humane ways. The Federal Writers’ Project’s American Guide Series, which Brown edited, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=image+federal+theatre+project+negro+unit&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx4Jr7oMvYAhWBl-AKHa5WCisQ7AkIPg&biw=1363&bih=732#imgrc=sn5lTFp_aC7kYM">highlighted</a> the diversity of African-American communities and customs. The Federal Theater Project <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=image+federal+theatre+project+negro+unit&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx4Jr7oMvYAhWBl-AKHa5WCisQ7AkIPg&biw=1363&bih=732#imgrc=pM9_GgtVndVMVM">featured plays</a> written and directed by black men and women that grappled with pressing racial issues.</p>
<p>This was a potent political tool; federal officials understood that African-Americans would be deeply affected – as Winfrey later was when watching Poitier receive the DeMille Award – by seeing African-Americans portrayed in more realistic and respectful ways.</p>
<h2>A message of unity and freedom</h2>
<p>The stakes became even greater as America entered World War II. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States#Twentieth-century_events">Simmering racial tensions</a> needed to be reconciled with America’s democratic, anti-fascist ideals. </p>
<p>Cultural programs promoting racial cooperation abounded within war agencies. Office of War Information <a href="https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2015/onewayticket/site/assets/Howard-Liberman.-Poster-for-the-Office-of-War-Information-1943.jpg">posters</a> and Hollywood films such as “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035664/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt">Bataan</a>” featured white and black men working and fighting together. </p>
<p>But no one was more central to this brand of propaganda than boxer Joe Louis. </p>
<p>In 1938, <a href="http://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/9404398/more-just-fight">Louis had stunned the world</a> by defeating German Max Schmeling. Geopolitically, it was a display of American superiority. But for African-Americans it was a triumph over whites. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Heavyweight champion Joe Louis dances as German challenger Max Schmeling falls to the canvas in the first and final round of their rematch in New York City in June 1938.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Sports-New-York-United-States-/6b1caf479be5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/59/0">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unassuming and apolitical, Louis didn’t ever talk about racial issues. Nonetheless, he became a hugely important political figure. </p>
<p>Poet Maya Angelou <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Z2q_1A0nlvIC&lpg=PP1&dq=caged%20bird%20sings&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22strongest%20people%20in%20the%20world%22&f=false">wrote of</a> Louis’ victories as evidence that African-Americans were the “strongest people in the world”; novelist Richard Wright <a href="http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewMasses-1935oct08-00018">described</a> Louis’ victories as “a fleeting glimpse … of the heart that beats and suffers and hopes for freedom.” </p>
<p>Recognizing Louis’ profound appeal, the government quickly swooped in, employing him in the Army’s Morale Division to boost patriotism among African-Americans during World War II. </p>
<p>As one government official <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=VLGYcemVOAYC&lpg=PP1&dq=black%20culture%20new%20deal&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22the%20answer%20is%20obvious%22&f=false">noted in 1942</a>, “It might be well to ask the questions as to who would draw the biggest audiences, Joe Louis or [NAACP Executive Secretary] Walter White. The answer is obvious.” </p>
<p>During his 46 months in the Army, Louis partook in 96 exhibition fights in the U.S. and abroad as part of a troupe that included black boxers George C. Nicholson, Sugar Ray Robinson and George J. Wilson. He also appeared on posters and in films that promoted racial inclusion, such as “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6YvZy_IsZY">The Negro Soldier</a>.” </p>
<p>Louis wasn’t the only black cultural hero to play a political role during the war. The Armed Forces Radio Service created a program featuring black musicians called “<a href="https://www.colorado.edu/amrc/glenn-miller-archive/gma-catalogs/jubilee">Jubilee</a>.” Lena Horne, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and others appeared in this weekly program that was broadcast domestically and to servicemen abroad. It reassured black troops on the front lines, while many white soldiers were able to listen to musicians they had never heard before. </p>
<h2>The power of the stage</h2>
<p>These federal efforts during the Great Depression and World War II are complicated. One the one hand, it could be argued that they represented a tokenistic appeal to African-Americans in lieu of real social and economic change. On the other, there’s no doubt that African-Americans were given the opportunity to be themselves, be celebrated, and move beyond the demeaning stereotypes that had existed for decades. </p>
<p>In the postwar period, civil rights leaders challenged African-American celebrities to use their platform to promote racial equality. Some, like Muhammad Ali, famously called for change, while others were more reticent. But the political stance of these individuals may not have mattered as much as their visibility and success. As filmmaker Ezra Edelman <a href="http://www.espn.com/30for30/ojsimpsonmadeinamerica/">argues</a> in his 2016 documentary “O.J.: Made in America,” even as Simpson insisted that we was “not black, just O.J.,” he was still embraced by the black community, and lauded as an African-American hero. </p>
<p>After centuries of degradation and discrimination, the accomplishments of African-Americans like Simpson or Oscar winner Hattie McDaniel possessed a political resonance. Though they were reluctant to promote racial change, by succeeding in traditionally exclusionary industries, they nonetheless became political figures. They signaled to other African-Americans that barriers could be broken down. Even if they weren’t activists themselves, they inspired others to fight inequality.</p>
<p>As a black woman, Oprah Winfrey occupies a unique space in this legacy of cultural heroes. Though it remains to be seen whether her candidacy will become a reality, she knows the significance of her actions for people of color in the U.S. and around the world. At a time when black women <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=axy_Am9HEPcC&pg=PA87&dq=black+women+marginalized&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYrfKL8M3YAhWixYMKHXEDCKMQ6AEIRDAF#v=onepage&q=black%20women%20marginalized&f=false">remain marginalized</a>, Oprah – media mogul, actress, philanthropist, tastemaker – embodies the American Dream. People still look to cultural figures as much as they look to politicians for inspiration. </p>
<p>As Oprah stated in her speech, her life and career demonstrate how “we can overcome.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89863/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren Rebecca Sklaroff has received funding from National Endowment of the Humanities. She is an Associate Professor of History at the University of South Carolina. </span></em></p>Throughout American history, being a black celebrity has been a political act in and of itself. When viewed through this lens, the transition into politics for someone like Winfrey is more natural.Lauren Rebecca Sklaroff, Associate Professor of History, University of South CarolinaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/714432017-02-17T02:01:34Z2017-02-17T02:01:34ZWho counts as black?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157004/original/image-20170215-27391-7xf0mh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/multicultural-crayons-representing-different-skin-tones-574934023?src=mYYtqxwJlChMIMQrMUSSiw-1-0">'Crayons' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For generations, intimacy between black men and white women was taboo. A mere accusation of impropriety could lead to a lynching, and interracial marriage was illegal in a number of states. </p>
<p>Everything changed with the 1967 Supreme Court decision <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395">Loving v. Virginia</a>, which ruled that blacks and whites have a legal right to intermarry. Spurred by the court’s decision, the number of interracial marriages – and, with it, the population of multiracial people – has exploded. <a href="http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_multi.html">According to the 2000 Census</a>, 6.8 million Americans identified as multiracial. By 2010, that number grew to <a href="http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/02/16/57543/in-an-increasingly-multiracial-america-identity-is/">9 million people</a>. And this leaves out all of the people who might be a product of mixed ancestry but chose to still identify as either white or black. </p>
<p>With these demographic changes, traditional notions of black identity – once limited to the confines of dark skin or kinky hair – are no longer so. </p>
<p>Mixed-race African-Americans can have naturally green eyes (like the singer <a href="http://www.arogundade.com/rihannas-tyra-banks-vanessa-williams-eyes.html">Rihanna</a>) or naturally blue eyes (like actor <a href="http://www.wetpaint.com/you-tell-us-what-color-are-jesse-williams-eyes-641896/">Jessie Williams</a>). Their hair can be styled long and wavy (<a href="http://www.essence.com/galleries/hair-evolution-alicia-keys">Alicia Keys</a>) or into a bob-cut (<a href="http://www.etonline.com/news/190948_halle_berry_reveals_new_edgy_shaved_flower_haircut/">Halle Berry</a>). </p>
<p>And unlike in the past – when many mixed-race people <a href="http://racerelations.about.com/od/hollywood/tp/Passing-For-White-In-Hollywood.htm">would try to do what they could to pass as white</a> – many multiracial Americans today unabashedly embrace and celebrate their blackness.</p>
<p>However, these expressions of black pride have been met with grumbles by some in the black community. These mixed-race people, some argue, are not “black enough” – their skin isn’t dark enough, their hair not kinky enough. And thus they do not “count” as black. African-American presidential candidate Ben Carson even <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/ben-carson-obama-was-raised-white-219657">claimed</a> President Obama couldn’t understand “the experience of black Americans” because he was “raised white.”</p>
<p>This debate over “who counts” has created somewhat of an identity crisis in the black community, exposing a divide between those who think being black should be based on physical looks, and those who think being black is more than looks. </p>
<h2>‘Dark Girls’ and ‘Light Girls’</h2>
<p>In 2011 Oprah Winfrey hosted a documentary titled “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UWwbTglQKg">Dark Girls</a>,” a portrayal of the pain and suffering dark-skinned black women experience. </p>
<p>It’s a story I know only too well. In 1992, I coauthored a book with DePaul psychologist Midge Wilson and business executive Kathy Russell called “<a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Color_Complex.html?id=3asbkganD14C">The Color Complex</a>,” which looked at the relationship between black identity and skin color in modern America.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DOjgTIN9pTE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The trailer for ‘Dark Girls.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As someone who has studied the issue of skin color and black identity for over 20 years, I felt uneasy after I finished watching the “Dark Girls” film. No doubt it confirmed the pain that dark-skinned black women feel. But it left something important out, and I wondered if it would lead to misconceptions. </p>
<p>The film seemed to suggest that if you are black, you have dark skin. Your hair is kinky. Green or blue eyes, on the other hand, represent someone who is white.</p>
<p>I was relieved, then, when I was asked to consult on a second documentary, “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN_81iytSXU">Light Girls</a>,” in 2015, a film centered on the pain and suffering mixed-race black women endure. The subjects who were interviewed shared their stories. These women considered themselves black but said they always felt out of place, on the outside looking in. Black men often adored them, but this could quickly flip to scorn if their advances were spurned. Meanwhile, friendships with darker-skinned black women could be fraught. Insults such as “light-bright,” “mello-yellow” and “banana girl” were tossed at lighter-skinned black women, objectifying them as anything but black.</p>
<h2>Identity experts weigh in</h2>
<p>Some of the experts on identity take issue with the general assumptions many might have about “who is black,” especially those who think blackness is determined by skin color. </p>
<p>For example, in 1902 sociologist Charles Horton Cooley <a href="http://mills-soc116.wikidot.com/notes:cooley-looking-glass-self">argued</a> that identity is like a “looking glass self.” In other words, we are a reflection of the people around us. Mixed-race, light-skinned, green-eyed African-Americans born and raised in a black environment are no less black than their dark-skinned counterparts. In 1934, cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead <a href="https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/mead/field-sepik.html">said</a> that identity was a product of our social interactions, just like Cooley.</p>
<p>Maybe the most well-known identity theorist is psychologist Erik Erikson. In his most popular book, “<a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Identity_Youth_and_Crisis.html?id=v3XWH2PDLewC">Identity: Youth and Crisis</a>,” published in 1968, Erikson also claimed that identity is a product of our environment. But he expanded the theory a bit: It includes not only the people we interact with but also the clothes we wear, the food we eat and the music we listen to. Mixed-race African-Americans – just like dark-skinned African-Americans – would be equally uncomfortable wearing a kimono, drinking sake or listening to ongaku (a type of Japanese music). On the other hand, wearing a dashiki, eating soul food and relaxing to the beats of rap or hip-hop music is something all black people – regardless of skin tone – can identify with. </p>
<p>Our physical features, of course, are a product of our parents. Indeed, in the not-too-distant future, with more and more interracial marriages taking place, we may find black and white hair texture and eye and skin color indistinguishable. It’s worth noting that there’s an element of personal choice involved in racial identity – for example, you can choose how to self-identify on the census. Many multiracial Americans simply identify as “multiracial.” Others, even if they’re a product of mixed ancestry, choose “black.” </p>
<p>Perhaps true blackness, then, dwells not in skin color, eye color or hair texture, but in the love for the spirit and culture of all who came before us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71443/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ronald E. Hall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With the number of multiracial Americans growing, there’s a fierce debate in the black community over who’s black – and who isn’t.Ronald E. Hall, Professor of Social Work, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/122932013-02-20T19:37:26Z2013-02-20T19:37:26ZIn the Tour de Finance, who will be the Lance Armstrong of the financial markets?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/20397/original/kgzxp92f-1361249394.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">RBS joins the list of banks implicated in the ever-widening LIBOR scandal.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr\ell brown</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In his recent interview with Oprah Winfrey, Lance Armstrong belatedly admitted to taking illicit drugs throughout his career. But in doing so, he also shed light on a corrupt culture within the sport involving colleagues, sponsors and even the governing body of cycling. Drug taking was such an integral part of the sport that, because the sport was gaining in popularity, nobody wanted to rock the boat. Everyone was benefiting from the deceit.</p>
<p>Last week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) handed down a <a href="http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6510-13">damning report</a> on the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and its part in the ever-widening LIBOR scandal, which has already engulfed <a href="http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6289-12">Barclays</a>, <a href="http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6472-12">UBS</a> and is about to <a href="http://theconversation.com/watching-the-dominos-fall-in-the-libor-crisis-11358">touch others</a>.</p>
<p>The RBS report is shocking because it details blatant examples of market manipulation, widespread collusion, and anti-competitive, cartel-like behaviour. The conversations between bankers and brokers in multiple firms to manipulate LIBOR are laid out in shocking snippets of expletive-laden market jargon and workplace bonhomie. Transcripts record the fact that traders knew that they were doing wrong; they just didn’t think that they would be caught. They, like Armstrong, thought were above the law.</p>
<p>But RBS is not unique. The same brazen tactics used to extract unwarranted profits from manipulating the markets were reported at UBS and Barclays. Nor was it just the banks: the exploitation also involved brokers, who were bribed by under-the-counter payments to rig the largest financial market in the world to the detriment of their clients.</p>
<p>It was not just the frontline troops. The reports into Barclays and UBS detail instances where the most senior management of these companies were actively involved in manipulating the market to protect their jobs. The CFTC inquiries also document massive failures of compliance functions within all of these banks; <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chinesewall.asp">Chinese Walls</a> were burned down in the dash for instant profits.</p>
<p>When the reports are put together — and doubtless amplified by more to come — a picture of corruption emerges across the industry. Manipulation of the $300 trillion interest rate market had become so commonplace that it had become part of doing business. Specialists moved between firms keeping their networks alive by sending over crates of champagne to one another when backs had been scratched. The LIBOR trough was so enormous that there was enough for every pig to gorge themselves silly.</p>
<p>How long had this deceit been going on? Technology has allowed investigators to find instances dating back to 2005, in the super-heated markets before the GFC. But one <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc5f49c2-d67b-11e1-ba60-00144feabdc0.html">ex-trader</a> reports that, as a new trader the early 1990s, his colleagues considered him amazingly naive when he reported what he considered to be manipulation.</p>
<p>At this point, one might ask: what were regulators doing? There were a number of studies, by normally astute bodies such as the <a href="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/gfsr/2008/02/pdf/text.pdf">IMF</a>, which concluded that while manipulation was alleged it could not be proven. These regulators were not duped. It transpires that manipulation was so widespread it was no longer anomalous, but was part of the background noise of the market. When there is collusion to rig market prices, who can say what the real market price should be? Certainly not post-hoc statistical analysis.</p>
<p>In itself, the widespread corruption in the global interest rate markets would be sufficient to warrant a serious re-think of banking regulation. But in the past few years, major banks have also been accused and found guilty of <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/11/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211">money laundering</a> (HSBC and Standard Chartered), <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/15/AR2010071505111.html">securities fraud</a> (Goldman), <a href="http://theconversation.com/debunking-the-myth-of-our-well-regulated-banks-9333">tax avoidance</a> (Australian banks) and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/01/lloyds-ppi-mis-selling-5bn">deceptive practices</a> (UK banks) in multiple markets. There is a stench of corruption in the global financial markets that will not be removed except by root-and-branch reform.</p>
<p>Who should tackle this mammoth task?</p>
<p>Certainly not the global banking regulator, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which has been <a href="http://theconversation.com/is-the-basel-process-broken-you-can-bank-on-it-11488">captured</a> by the largest banks. Self-regulation doesn’t work either, as shown by the failure of the British Bankers Association (BBA) to police its own rules on LIBOR. Local regulators are finding it hard to chase companies beyond their parochial jurisdictions. The largest banks are adept at routing dodgy transactions through so-called Special Purpose Vehicles, located in offshore banking centres such as Ireland, to evade local scrutiny.</p>
<p>Is there a better model?</p>
<p>We can look to sport for an example. The World Anti-Doping Agency (<a href="http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/">WADA</a>), headed by Australian John Fahey (a modern day Elliot Ness if ever there was one), has created a regime that means that while an offender may not be caught today, information is painstakingly collected that can be analysed later to detect drug-taking. It is CSI applied to sport. This system eventually led to the confessions that finally brought Lance Armstrong down.</p>
<p>In their next meeting, the G20 should create a World Financial Crimes Agency (WFCA), based loosely on the WADA model. The role of such an agency would be to collect data from financial markets around the world and to test for possible financial crimes. Such an agency would actively encourage whistle blowing and prod legislators to provide protection for whistle-blowers. The body would also ensure that bank boards, like sporting administrators, sign up to a campaign to drive white-collar crime out of the financial industry.</p>
<p>The costs would be a pittance compared to the economic damage inflicted by market manipulation and might start to restore public faith in the financial markets.</p>
<p>There is a possible candidate for the Armstrong role. His name is Thomas Hayes, who has been <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libor-scandal/9737068/Three-arrested-in-SFO-Libor-rigging-investigation.html">outed</a> by the press as the probable ‘Senior Yen Trader’ at UBS. This senior banker was a Svengali who successfully orchestrated “campaigns” to manipulate the LIBOR markets. Mr Hayes, if he is indeed the infamous Senior Yen Trader, will never work in the financial markets again and hence should be encouraged to come clean about the deception in return for some form of protection. Perhaps a segment on Oprah awaits.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12293/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pat McConnell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In his recent interview with Oprah Winfrey, Lance Armstrong belatedly admitted to taking illicit drugs throughout his career. But in doing so, he also shed light on a corrupt culture within the sport involving…Pat McConnell, Honorary Fellow, Macquarie University Applied Finance Centre, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/116162013-01-20T01:45:41Z2013-01-20T01:45:41ZSpin: Lance Armstrong’s confession and Livestrong’s future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19395/original/qtjpjmbx-1358646150.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lance Armstrong surprised many by the extent to which he confessed to cheating, arrogant denial and bullying in his interview with Oprah.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Oprah.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In his much anticipated interview with Oprah, Lance Armstrong surprised many by the extent to which he confessed to cheating, arrogant denial and bullying. But is this enough to protect the Livestrong Foundation, which is so intrinsically associated with the name and the reputation of its founder?</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/what-lance-armstrongs-interview-with-oprah-means-for-livestrong-11612">Positive brand image</a> can result in higher donations for non-profit organisations. Association with high-achieving sports people can add to that positive brand image. So will its association with Lance Armstrong reduce the credibility of Livestrong now that Armstrong has confessed to being a cheat, when he had spent many years not only denying it repeatedly, and under oath, but also savagely attacking those who dared speak the truth?</p>
<p>Before looking into the crystal ball, let’s look to what has occurred to date. Over a period of 15 years, Livestrong raised $480 million dollars and inspired many cancer sufferers. For the past decade, the Foundation has had a full-time president and a board including members independent of the charity’s founder. </p>
<p>Even when it was still the Lance Armstrong Foundation, its website used the name Livestrong, which is associated with its popular yellow wristbands. According to Oprah, 80 million of these wristbands have been sold worldwide. </p>
<p>In October 2012, the Foundation <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/1986/armstrongs-foundation-still-thriving">advised ESPN</a> that the Livestrong donor base was holding up despite the ongoing controversy surrounding its founder. In fact, for the year to 30 September 2012, revenues for the Foundation were up 2.1% (to $33.8 million). In addition, both the number of donations to the Foundation and the average size of those donations had increased by more than 5% compared to the previous year. </p>
<p>But these figures pre-date the 10 October 2012 <a href="http://www.usada.org/default.asp?uid=4035">release of findings</a> by the <a href="http://www.usada.org/">United States Anti-Doping Agency</a> (USADA), which show “systemic, sustained and professionalized doping conspiracy” by Lance Armstrong and the US Postal Service cycling team.</p>
<p>So, how has the Foundation itself sought to manage its brand in the aftermath of the USADA’s announcement? Initially, it sought to “control” the situation. On the day the USADA findings were made public, the Foundation went on the attack with a <a href="http://mediaroom.livestrong.org/press-releases/statement-from-doug-ulman-president-and-ceo-of-th-0940476">press release</a> that began by questioning the impartiality and fairness of the USADA proceedings. </p>
<p>That approach, however, was short-lived and only a week later, Armstrong <a href="http://mediaroom.livestrong.org/press-releases/lance-armstrong-to-step-down-as-chairman-of-livest-0942846">stepped down</a> as the Foundation’s chairman. Armstrong stayed on the board however, until November when he severed all ties to the Foundation.</p>
<p>In his interview with Oprah, Armstrong revealed that his stepping down as chairman was prompted by people in the Foundation saying, “We need you to consider stepping down, for yourself.” He added that severing ties with the Foundation was the lowest point in the whole of the saga for him. </p>
<p>The post-Armstrong leadership team at the Foundation has started charting a new course distancing the Foundation from its erstwhile namesake. In recognition of the enormity of the media and communications challenges ahead, within a month of Armstrong standing down as chairman, the Foundation took two significant steps to position itself better for the credibility challenges ahead. </p>
<p>First, it <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/15/us-cycling-armstrong-livestrong-idUSBRE8AE00020121115">formally changed</a> its name from the Lance Armstrong Foundation to Livestrong. And it <a href="http://mediaroom.livestrong.org/press-releases/livestrong-foundation-appoints-new-leadership-posi-0954432">announced the appointment</a> of a new vice president of marketing. In both, the lead-up to the interview and in the time between, the Foundation has been on the front foot with messages focusing on the good works of Livestrong in its own right.</p>
<p>Lance Armstrong is a genuine survivor of cancer and has inspired many who have been similarly afflicted. The Foundation he established has made a difference to the lives of many. So, will the Lance Armstrong interviews with Oprah be enough to protect Livestrong? </p>
<p>It’s likely that people who were looking for an opportunity to find a reason to pardon Lance Armstrong or to maintain their support for Livestrong have found enough in the disclosures. Similarly, people who were already sceptical towards Lance Armstrong or condemnatory of him will have found little reason to change their opinion. </p>
<p>The overwhelming majority in the latter category, however, have not been and were not likely to become Livestrong supporters. So little may change.</p>
<p>The big challenge for Livestrong is capturing the attention of potential future donors given there are many worthy charitable organisations working to support and inspire cancer sufferers – and they are not associated with a sullied name. In a market where trustworthiness is paramount and competitors many, Livestrong will for the foreseeable future be operating at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>Personally, I hope Livestrong weathers this storm. I’m not sure the interviews have helped. But I can’t help thinking of the adage – when it comes to trustworthiness, integrity is key. When you can fake that, you’ve got it made.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11616/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Baker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In his much anticipated interview with Oprah, Lance Armstrong surprised many by the extent to which he confessed to cheating, arrogant denial and bullying. But is this enough to protect the Livestrong…Christopher Baker, Research Fellow: Social Investment and Philanthropy, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/116882013-01-18T05:17:11Z2013-01-18T05:17:11ZLance Armstrong begins his confession – but why Oprah?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19377/original/8kd5grzg-1358485133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Armstrong confession tells us a lot about our relationship with the media and sportspeople.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Oprah.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>By now you would have heard about Lance Armstrong’s “world exclusive” encounter with Oprah Winfrey. The first half of the two-part interview aired this afternoon (AEST), attracting much attention from media outlets (and social media) around the world.</p>
<p>So what did Armstrong reveal in part one?</p>
<p>Not a lot – but how could he, with so much on the record that had shredded any prospect of plausible deniability?</p>
<p>He admitted his faults, admitted to taking performance-enhancing drugs and characterised himself as “deeply flawed”, “a bully” and “arrogant”. Armstrong denied some of the most damaging accusations – such as coercing others to dope – and, notably, insisted that he’d been clean since his first retirement in 2005 (a claim that, if accepted, would help him avoid further litigation).</p>
<p>Armstrong asserted that he was a victim of “momentum”, that lots of other people were doping, and that he would spend the rest of his life apologising for what he’d done. </p>
<p>Lance had been both “jerk” and “humanitarian”, but right now, by his own admission, he appears as more the former than the latter. This obviously implies that the dial could switch in a positive direction.</p>
<p>But Armstrong’s confession reveals more than just his personal ethical frailty. It tells us something much more profound about our relationship with the media, sportspeople and the culture of celebrity.</p>
<h2>Into the vortex</h2>
<p>Televised celebrity confessions such as Armstrong’s have become staples of contemporary public culture. When they involve sportspeople, especially male, they can temporarily dominate the media landscape.</p>
<p>Why? Not only are sportsmen among the most globally visible of all celebrities, they also stimulate romantic yearnings for the noble Corinthian struggle against the constraints of mind and body.</p>
<p>Hence the constant lament among sport fans about their loss of innocence when disappointed by their heroes which, for those even lightly acquainted with today’s sportsbiz, manifests as truly child-like.</p>
<p>In what some call the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy">“attention economy”</a>, the travails of celebrities are valuable for a host of interests. Media outlets receive effortlessly compelling copy and audience opportunities; social media are set abuzz with outrage and rumour; pundits dispense wisdom and speculation; moral entrepreneurs find new sharpening tools for axes; and workplaces, living rooms and pubs have ready-made conversational common ground.</p>
<p>Academics, meanwhile, can gain some additional public intellectual relevance.</p>
<p>This is a prime case of what the British media academic Garry Whannel calls <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortextuality">“vortextuality”</a>, the media phenomenon that, in the world of digital networks, rapidly and fleetingly draws almost everyone and everything into is orbit.</p>
<h2>The trials of Tiger</h2>
<p>The last time a comparable event occurred – Tiger Woods’ <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-19/us/tiger.woods.transcript_1_elin-behavior-core-values?_s=PM:US">scripted televised apology</a> for serial infidelity in February 2010 – the BBC led with the story on the grounds that there was no other <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253598/BBCs-news-coverage-Tiger-Woods-apology-sparks-dumbing-backlash.html">“story with bigger news impact”</a>. US news organisations voted the scandal the 2010 <a href="http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2010-12/golf-woods-ap-1216">“Sports Story of the Year”</a>.</p>
<p>Golf as it is played on fairways and greens was clearly not enough of a sports story – the real action was off course.</p>
<p>In dealing with “sports stories” that are so big as to interest people who wouldn’t know a peloton from a polony sandwich, the hand-picked advisors in the celebrity’s corner usually put it about that their errant charge wants to “unburden”.</p>
<p>Throwing off the insufferable weight of guilt while slipping in some self-justification, they invite sympathy and a possible way out and back. Thrashed out well in advance, these structured exchanges promise spontaneity while, in fact, delivering carefully calculated strategic execution.</p>
<p>Celebrities need to enlist the media as a key component of their <a href="http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/GlobalMediaSport_9781849661577/chapter-ba-9781849661577-chapter-006.xml">reputational gaming</a>, through which they seek to control how they are represented and so can be seen.</p>
<h2>Using Oprah</h2>
<p>The crafted public confession – in Armstrong’s case involving the world’s best-known and most reliably empathetic interviewer - maximises publicity for his admission of doping while trying to head off subsequent attempts to pursue the matter in detail.</p>
<p>It garners the enormous media coverage that re-confirms the celebrity’s newsworthiness and, in the process, creates the potential for post-penitence bankability. It invites sympathy among fellow human beings who also have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feet_of_clay">feet of clay</a> but who have not been subject to the same extraordinary pressures and temptations.</p>
<p>After ritual supplication and humiliation, it is hoped to replicate the rise-fall-rise trajectory of celebrity redemption of others – including, perhaps, Woods himself – who have gone before.</p>
<p>Ultimately, then, it is a question of repairing personal brand damage. A date with Oprah is a last, desperate attempt to stave off celebrity oblivion for the likes of Armstrong, who for so long lied, litigated and bullied, spluttering with indignation whenever questioned about acts to which he has now admitted.</p>
<h2>Back to Earth</h2>
<p>In reflecting, provisionally, on how Lance Armstrong fashioned his own fate, it is tempting to think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus">Icarus</a> - but his only sin was hubris. Others might prefer “Pinocchio on Wheels”, but I keep conjuring an image of Austrian skydiver <a href="http://theconversation.com/felix-baumgartner-set-to-skydive-through-the-sound-barrier-how-10057">Felix Baumgartner</a> with the emperor’s new clothes for a parachute.</p>
<p>Even if Lance survives his designer crash landing, his celebrity persona will be permanently re-arranged and diminished.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11688/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Rowe has received funding from the Australian Research Council for work on culture, media and sport: Handling the ‘Battering Ram’: Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation and the Global Contest for Dominance in Sports Television (DP0556973) and Struggling for Possession: The Control and Use of Online Media Sport (with Brett Hutchins, DP0877777).</span></em></p>By now you would have heard about Lance Armstrong’s “world exclusive” encounter with Oprah Winfrey. The first half of the two-part interview aired this afternoon (AEST), attracting much attention from…David Rowe, Professor of Cultural Research, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/116682013-01-18T01:08:32Z2013-01-18T01:08:32ZLance Armstrong’s wrong turn at the moral and legal crossroads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19309/original/f8b7qpk7-1358385180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Irrespective of his response to questions from Oprah, Lance Armstrong's previous evasions about drug use indicate a faulty moral compass.</span> </figcaption></figure><p>If Lance Armstrong admits today to using performance-enhancing drugs during his career as a professional cyclist, his evasive response to the <a href="http://www.usantidoping.org/">US Anti-Doping Agency’s allegations</a> has to suggest at the very least a faulty conscience, or a faulty moral compass.</p>
<p>What is also yet to be confirmed - and may well be in his interview with Oprah Winfrey, the first part of which will be aired in a few hours time - is whether he broke the law. </p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9602544/Lance-Armstrong-could-face-perjury-charges-following-USADA-allegations.html">some reports</a>, Armstrong may face charges of perjury after testifying in 2005 that he never took performance-enhancing drugs.</p>
<p>If so, his evasions up to this point would indicate a failure to appreciate that avoiding warranted legal sanctions and punishment, by whatever means, is in fact morally wrong.</p>
<p>Armstrong <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/sunday-times-to-sue-armstrong-20121224-2bun5.html">successfully sued companies</a> who have made such accusations against him.</p>
<p>To explain this ethically, these actions - in which Armstrong continued to accept and insist on receiving the rewards of winning, despite failing to meet legal and regulatory requirements - suggest a curious disconnect between what he saw as moral, and what was legal. </p>
<p>Ideally, we might hope the relationship between ethics and the law is so close that the law is a subset of ethics or morality; that is, our laws are morally and rationally defensible.</p>
<p>In reality, we recognise that some laws have been unjust - and that some remain so - and therefore cannot be regarded as morally and rationally defensible; most obvious among such laws are those which have legalised slavery.</p>
<p>We also recognise there is sometimes a tension between the demands of justice and advocating for clients within the legal profession. But this does not blunt the aspiration to ensure the law is concerned with justice and forming a civil society in which selfishness and individual presumptions of license are emphatically rejected. </p>
<p>The law ought to insist that we have no right to deceive or coerce others into action primarily designed to benefit ourselves and amounts to using others for our own ends.</p>
<p>We generally regard cheating and lying as human vices, even though we have almost come to expect both in certain contexts, and even though there are contexts in which we might even regard lying as excusable. </p>
<p>But we regard cheating and lying as wrong when the perpetrators use the victims as means to their own ends, because the perpetrators do not give others what they are fairly due but rather act toward them in exploitative and harmful ways. We legally prohibit this kind of activity as criminal.</p>
<p>Also, the wrongness of an action cannot be mitigated by any argument that everyone else is doing it, or that one has managed to evade detection in the past, while others have not or have chosen to confess to wrongdoing.</p>
<p>Even the desires of the majority about the moral permissibility of particular behaviours cannot be sufficient reason for legislating against some kinds of behaviour, if those desires amount to mere opinion; rational justification is imperative. </p>
<p>What is crucial is the understanding that much of our legislation aims to express a society’s unwillingness to tolerate particular kinds of activity on the grounds of rationally defensible judgements that those activities are wrong.</p>
<p>So if Armstrong confirms what many suspect and what the USADA has alleged about his behaviour, then our thoughts might well turn to what we can glean about his attitudes to his own behaviour. It would seem to suggest a failure to see that how the legal and the ethical realms of life intersect.</p>
<p>Avoiding legal sanctions does not excise ethical responsibility precisely because the legal sanctions in question are motivated by ethical concerns. </p>
<p>Any attempt – whether misguided or contrived – to disregard this intersection raises the possibility of a faulty moral compass, and perhaps an indefensible relativism with regard to personal morality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11668/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sandra Lynch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If Lance Armstrong admits today to using performance-enhancing drugs during his career as a professional cyclist, his evasive response to the US Anti-Doping Agency’s allegations has to suggest at the very…Sandra Lynch, Director, Centre for Faith, Ethics and Society/Assoc. Professor in Philosophy, University of Notre Dame AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/116752013-01-17T23:20:47Z2013-01-17T23:20:47ZThe whole truth and nothing but: what I want from Lance Armstrong<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19336/original/nd72nbrg-1358401013.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lance Armstrong should reveal the dirty business of being a professional athlete.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Elizabeth Kreutz</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>What I want from Lance Armstrong is the unabridged and brutal truth. It’s very simple. I want to know why he doped.</p>
<p>Unlike other <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/opinion-roundup-lance-armstrong/index.html">commentators</a>, I am hoping Armstrong avoids <em>mea culpa</em> and throwing himself on the mercy of the court of public opinion. What I want is to know is just what it was about cycling in the 1990s and 2000s that enabled such a sophisticated doping operation. Armstrong knows where all the skeletons are buried and just how high systemic doping in cycling really went.</p>
<p>I hope that Armstrong really does tell all. I want him to describe just how tough it is to be an elite cyclist and what people have to do to get there. Joe Public is largely ignorant of what it takes to be an elite athlete. It is a bizarre and rarefied world that bears little resemblance to the two-dimensional purity we see on our screens. Broadcasts are carefully stage-managed and mediated to ensure a spectacle that is pure sport.</p>
<p>And we all fall for it because we want to be deceived into believing there is something pure and romantic about sport. This comes from Victorian times where sport was intricately tied to religion and the arrogance of British colonialism. Sport was seen as a method of training young British men to take their rightful position of moral superiority when dealing with the colonies. Sport in this era has been characterised as “<a href="http://nymag.com/news/sports/tebow-sanchez/tim-tebow-christianity-2012-9/">muscular Christianity</a>”. </p>
<p>The reality is that elite sport is a brutal place, constantly treading the line between abusing and venerating athletes. Sport constantly demands <em>citius, altius, fortius</em> at any cost. Athletes can end up being treated like widgets in a production line, where ones that fail any test are discarded. Athletes caught doping are replaced by the next available athlete with little, if any observable impact on performance, sponsorship or revenues. The costs are borne entirely by the athlete, and the benefits belong to the sport.</p>
<p>The problem with Armstrong is that his comments may make us face the brutal reality of what we ask athletes to do in the name of sport, usually for our entertainment. So I want Armstrong to describe, in detail, what <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/sports/24doping.html?_r=0">athletes</a> have to do when providing a urine sample. I wonder how many people in the general public would strip from the chest to the knee and have someone watch a sample “leave the body”. I wonder how many people would be willing to tell their employer where they will be for an hour each day (including weekends and holidays) three months in advance of a race or risk losing their jobs. This is what happens to athletes to enable randomised out-of-competition testing, and has been observed to be the kind of thing courts usually reserve for paedophiles released from prison. This is the reality of what athletes have to do to allow the public to enjoy “drug-free sport”.</p>
<p>Exposing the public to the reality of elite athleticism breaches the psychological contract we have with sport, where we agree to be deceived. This puts us in a state of cognitive dissonance. Our behaviour (enjoying sport where athletes are required to dope to meet our performance expectations) fails to match our attitudes (pure and virtuous sport defined by the absence of doping). It draws back the veil and shows us that there is no such thing as drug-free sport. We know the majority of athletes use a cocktail of pharmaceutical “supplements” and medicines in seeking a competitive advantage.</p>
<p>This is perhaps why some people want Armstrong to apologise. But what I want is for him to tell us exactly what role different players had in co-ordinating and enabling doping in elite cycling in the same uncompromising way he rode in every event he entered. I want to know if the US Postal Service, and by extension the US government was somehow complicit. I want to know if International Olympic Committee members were complicit. I want to know if the International Cycling Union was complicit. I want to know if the organisers of the Tour de France were complicit. I want to know if sponsors were complicit.</p>
<p>I also want to know what it is like being singled out and relentlessly pursued by the United States Anti-Doping Agency. </p>
<p>What I hope is for Armstrong to blow this whole thing so wide open that Joe Public can understand what went on and why doping happens. I hope to be mesmerised and confounded by just what it takes to be an elite cyclist – doping, anti-doping and all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11675/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Mazanov does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What I want from Lance Armstrong is the unabridged and brutal truth. It’s very simple. I want to know why he doped. Unlike other commentators, I am hoping Armstrong avoids mea culpa and throwing himself…Jason Mazanov, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, UNSW-Canberra, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/116322013-01-16T01:18:09Z2013-01-16T01:18:09ZAn old dog with an old trick: why Lance Armstrong’s Oprah moment won’t save him<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19244/original/vnqvrg3w-1358294550.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong will need to do more than appear on Oprah to win back public appeal.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Ian Langsdon</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Once upon a time, there was something beseeching about a public <em>mea culpa</em>. Once upon a time, if you found yourself soliciting sex in a toilet block, in bed with a prostitute or having fathered an illegitimate child, there was always a chance that the situation could be salvaged. </p>
<p>Your people would phone <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0910181/">Barbara Walters’</a> people, would phone Oprah’s people, and you’d settle into armchair and tell your story. </p>
<p>You’d mention your depression. Your struggles with substance abuse. There’d be child abuse. Self-esteem issues. Your parents always said that you were nothing. You once saw a kitten hit by a car. You’ve been struggling with a mysterious illness.</p>
<p>The sin would be admitted to – yes you’re flawed, aren’t we all flawed? – and you’d cry. And if you’ve got a long-suffering significant other, they’d be propped next to you squeezing your hand at well-timed intervals. </p>
<p>You hurt people, you’re <em>devastated</em> that you did that. You’re seeking treatment, you want to take some time away from the public eye now. To recover, regroup, rebuild relationships and truly work out what it is you want from this life.</p>
<p>And once upon a time audiences bought it. We might not have ever completely forgotten your sin, but there was once a time when taking ownership of a wretched situation could be construed as adult, as responsible, as potentially even admirable for those drawn to the bad-boy-made-good narrative. And you’d be credited accordingly.</p>
<p>Not anymore, my friends, not anymore. </p>
<p>Spin and crisis management are ridiculously familiar to modern media audiences. Nowadays, no screen portrayal of politics exists without at least a couple of career-destroying scandals that get fixed through press conferences, tell-all interviews and tears.</p>
<p>And in every single one of these depictions, audiences are reminded of the all-too-quickly deployed tools of political manipulation. Because in a world where each of us has a phone that doubles as a camera, there’s only so long a scandal can be denied before the evidence surfaces and the witnesses start blabbing. Control needs to be regained and a public <em>mea culpa</em> has always been a key component.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BF9LJw20bSc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Bill Clinton set the benchmark for public confession with his appearance alongside wife Hilary to address allegations of infidelity in the 1992 presidential campaign.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That nowadays we can all see through this routine is at the crux of why any crap Lance spills to Oprah won’t help him. In the contemporary mediascape, he has chosen an anachronistic technique to try to fix a horrendous situation without conceding that it no longer functions as the silver bullet. He’s not as smart as he thinks he is, audiences are nowhere near as malleable as they once might have been and this whole soft interrogation thing is starting to look pretty dusty.</p>
<p>Of course, such arrogance about his intellect, about his powers of persuasion, is precisely why Armstrong finds himself in this pickle.</p>
<p>Had he just been a doper, and had it been 1991, then perhaps having a sit-down with Oprah may have done the trick. Alas it’s not 1991, we’re not in Kansas anymore, and he’s not <em>just</em> a doper; rather, he is the bloke who arrogantly <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/just-layin-around-armstrong-photo-fires-up-twitter-20121112-2972j.html">Tweeted the photograph of himself</a> reclining in front of his ill-gotten tour jerseys. I dare say we’re less likely to forgive this routine than all his dastardly juicing.</p>
<p>Lance started digging his grave every time he denied enhancing his performance. And he shovelled deeper every time he exhibited his trademark arrogance that made it seem outrageous that anyone would ever <em>think</em> to question his integrity.</p>
<p>Humans are predisposed to forgive. That, compounded with our yen to put athletes on pedestals for even the slightest achievement means a lot of us really want to stop hating him. But doing so is only possible when we’re given a reason to. When something - <em>anything</em>! - gets dangled in front of us to make him seem worthy of our forgiveness.</p>
<p>Rather than seeming like a nice guy, a humble guy, a likable guy, instead, Armstrong has been treating us all like idiots. Having a yarn with Oprah only perpetuates this.</p>
<p>We’re all 30 seconds away from typing “lance armstrong couch jersey” into the Google images search. That’s thirty seconds from a visual reminder that no public <em>mea culpa</em> is going to get him out of this one. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11632/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren Rosewarne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Once upon a time, there was something beseeching about a public mea culpa. Once upon a time, if you found yourself soliciting sex in a toilet block, in bed with a prostitute or having fathered an illegitimate…Lauren Rosewarne, Senior Lecturer, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.