Ehrenreich made her name taking on the humiliations and inadequacies of American low-wage jobs in Nickel and Dimed, and in Bright-Sided she identifies a similarly large-scale enemy — a sort of positivity-industrial complex composed of big corporations (who want optimistic, obedient workers), motivational speakers and coaches (who want to sell materials on how to be more positive), and even medical researchers (who feel pressure to support the "sexy" idea of mind over matter). These forces combine, she argues, to enforce a "deliberate self-deception" that not only masks real unhappiness but has led our country into danger.

Bright-Sided is especially strong in its critique of Rhonda Byrne's The Secret, which Ehrenreich identifies as a rehash of earlier self-help books, and even of some principles of magic. She points out that the ideas promulgated in The Secret — say, that you can "attract" a life partner by making room in your closet for his clothes, or a car by putting a picture of it on a "vision board" — require a universe in which other people are slaves to your whims. She describes an interview in which Larry King found himself in "an odd situation for a famous talk show host — having to insist that he, Larry King, was not just an image on someone else's vision board but an independent being with a will of his own." A world where no one else has free will, Ehrenreich points out, is "a god-awful lonely place."

Ehrenreich also writes persuasively that the popularity of positive thinking in corporate America — she cites the rise of "self-described management gurus" like Tony Robbins and the book Who Moved My Cheese? as examples — has served to blind workers to their ever-decreasing job security. "Outplacement" firms teach the newly unemployed to think of layoffs as a good thing, and Who Moved My Cheese? tells readers that the most successful people (or rather, mice) are those who don't "overanalyze or overcomplicate things" — with the result that workers are less likely to complain about their employers' increasingly capricious control over their lives. Ehrenreich writes,

By and large, America's white-collar corporate workforce drank the Kool-Aid, as the expression goes, and accepted positive thinking as a substitute for their former affluence and security. They did not take to the streets, shift their political allegiance in large numbers, or show up at work with automatic weapons in hand. As one laid-off executive told me with quiet pride, "I've gotten over my negative feelings, which were so dysfunctional." Positive thinking promised them a sense of control in a world where the "cheese" was always moving. They may have had less and less power to chart their own futures, but they had been given a worldview — a belief system, almost a religion — that claimed they were in fact infinitely powerful, if they could only master their own minds.

The book can be unforgiving at times. Ehrenreich writes provocatively of her own battle with breast cancer, and of the criticism she faced from other sufferers for admitting she was angry. She also notes that the (highly questionable) claims that "positive" people are healthier can degenerate into a kind of victim-blaming — one patient said, "I know that if I get sad, or scared or upset, I am making my tumor grow faster and I will have shortened my life." And she cites one study showing that women who see benefits to cancer may even "face a poorer quality of life" than those who don't. At the same time, Ehrenreich doesn't make much distinction between negative events we can resist in some way and those we simply have to accept. She mentions that breast cancer therapies haven't improved all that much since the 1930s, but this isn't for lack of effort or research, and some women thinking of cancer as a "gift" hasn't stopped the search for a cure. Ehrenreich's critique of the whitewashing of her own and other women's feelings is apt, but at the same time, a cancer diagnosis represents for many people a powerful loss of control. It's little wonder that many try to find a silver lining, and a little inhumane to discourage them from doing so.

Other forms of positive thinking, especially that imposed by employers, are far more damaging to society. Ehrenreich mentions the role of optimistic yes-men in the financial crisis and the Iraq war, but she could have condemned even more strongly the movement that seeks to convince people that losing their jobs is awesome. While looking on the bright side of a layoff may make sense on a personal level, it also discourages any sort of collective action. Ehrenreich writes in her postscript that "positive thinking has been a tool of repression worldwide" and that "the threats we face are real and can be vanquished only by shaking off self-absorption and taking action in the world." The latter seems like the real key point of Bright-Sided — that convincing ourselves that things are already good can keep us from making them better, both for ourselves and for others — and I wish Ehrenreich had made it more forcefully throughout her book, not just in the postscript. It's a message that deserves to be heard.

Bright-Sided: How The Relentless Promotion Of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America [Amazon]

In his blog, The White Coat Underground, internist PalMD takes Oprah to task for her claim that, "homeopathy treatment is similar to how a vaccination or immunization works." He counters, "You can measure the antibody response provoked by a vaccine. You cannot measure anything provoked by homeopathy because the only think homeopathy produces is a bill." To Oprah's admission that, "there are different theories behind homeopathy. But lack of convincing evidence is a big concern with homeopathy's acceptance by conventional medical doctors," PalMD responds,

No! Homeopathy's "lack of convincing evidence" is not some problem we uptight "conventional doctors" have-it is the fundamental problem (along with the absurdity of it) with homeopathy. It has not been shown to work. This is rather important in medicine.

Newsweek's critique is more far-reaching. Writers Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert call Oprah out for her embrace of Suzanne Somers's potentially dangerous "biodentical" hormone regimen, Jenny McCarthy's potentially dangerous argument that vaccines cause autism, and Rhonda Byrne's The Secret, which is potentially dangerous if you, like Oprah's guest Kim Tinkham, take it to mean that you should use positive thinking instead of actual medicine to cure your illnesses. Oprah is in a unique position, they write:

Her most ardent fans regard her as an oracle. If she mentions the title of a book, it goes to No. 1. If she says she uses a particular wrinkle cream, it sells out. At Oprah's retail store in Chicago, women can purchase used shoes and outfits that she wore on the show. Her viewers follow her guidance because they like and admire her, sure. But also because they believe that Oprah, with her billions and her Rolodex of experts, doesn't have to settle for second best. If she says something is good, it must be.

Oprah told ET Online that "I trust the viewers, and I know that they are smart and discerning enough to seek out medical opinions to determine what may be best for them." And in a longer statement released to Newsweek, she said,

The guests we feature often share their first-person stories in an effort to inform the audience and put a human face on topics relevant to them. I've been saying for years that people are responsible for their actions and their own well-being. I believe my viewers understand the medical information presented on the show is just that-information-not an endorsement or prescription. Rather, my intention is for our viewers to take the information and engage in a dialogue with their medical practitioners about what may be right for them.

But the truth is, many do look to Oprah as an oracle. She had far too much power to pretend that her excitement over certain treatments ("After one day on bioidentical estrogen, I felt the veil lift," she wrote in her magazine) is just more information or people to consider. Oprah's opinion is persuasive to many people, more persuasive, perhaps, than the advice of their own doctors, and she has a responsibility not to recommend that her viewers sacrifice their money and possibly their health for treatments that have no scientific basis.

Kosova and Wingert say Oprah hasn't given equal weight to critics of Somers or McCarthy's positions. She read a statement by the CDC denying the link between vaccines and autism but then allowed McCarthy to conclude the segment. McCarthy said, "my science is named Evan, and he's at home. That's my science."

Health is unpredictable and scary, and it's natural to want to rely on "my science," to crave a certain feeling of control. Oprah offers that control, telling viewers, "we have the right to demand a better quality of life for ourselves. And that's what doctors have got to learn to start respecting." But this control is an illusion. We can't demand better health from our doctors, from supplements, or from the universe. At some point, we have to take what comes our way. Oprah's message of "living your best life" has been helpful to many people, but sometimes your best life comes from accepting your lot, and looking at your options with a clear, critical eye.

Live Your Best Life Ever! [Newsweek]
Oprah's Website Of Woo-Can It Change? [ScienceBlogs]
Oprah Responds To Newsweek Report [ETOnline]

Sometimes, shit happens, and it is the human thing to do to have strong, maybe even unmanageable, emotional reactions. Jarvis quotes a study that says that people who "visualize moving a way from [a terrible] situation to a vantage point where they could watch themselves in the unfolding drama as if it were a video," had lower blood pressure. Maybe they had lower blood pressure because they were DEAD INSIDE. They also have someone from the Insight Meditation Society who recommends meditating in order to "detach yourself from your thoughts and feelings."

I think this sort of technique is worthwhile with minor upsets. You shouldn't be having a hysterical breakdown just because you dropped coffee on your blouse. But with the major stuff? It's far healthier, I think, to get out those visceral emotional responses than it is to process them immediately. You can, and will, process them eventually.

The sort of self-meditation meme is very popular with the big O to a detrimental degree. It's really just an extension of The Secret, Oprah's favorite self-help book, that advocates the power of positive thinking. For those of you unfamiliar with the distinct charms of The Secret, basically, you get back from the universe what you put out into the universe, and so you are only rewarded by thinking positively. If you think negative thoughts, any failure is your own damn fault. The whole focus on ignoring negative feelings seems like a vast conspiracy to shame women into towing the emotional line, into never being "out of control." Maybe with all her money and her endless stream of gurus catering to every emotional whim, Oprah herself has evolved beyond actually experiencing strong, negative emotions. For the rest of us, having a mini-breakdown when a loved one is in an accident is a totally appropriate reaction.

How to Cope: Step Back and Get Some Distance [O]
The Secret Behind The Secret: It Was Stupid Crap Even In 1910
Living Oprah

The Message Of 'The Secret' Available Soon To 60 Million People Across The U.S. and Canada With 'The Secret' On Demand [PRNewswire]
Earlier: The Secret Behind 'The Secret': It Was Stupid Crap Even In 1910

If you're at all familiar with The Secret, you know that the big secret revealed therein is a centuries-old principle called the law of attraction, or LOA. In The Secret LOA is presented as a scientific law akin to the law of gravity. LOA believers maintain that whether we realize it or not, we "attract" everything that happens to us - the good and the bad, the sublime and the silly, the comical and the tragic. Financial success or failure, health or illness, a life of peace or one beset by violent crime or natural disasters, all occur because we somehow attracted them.

Schmidt goes on to expose the real secret:

Rhonda Byrne, the main creator and producer of "The Secret", was originally inspired by a 1910 book called "The Science of Getting Rich," one of many books by success/motivational writer Wallace D. Wattles (1860-1911). Wattles, who believed a fulfilling life was not possible without wealth, wrote that a "normal" person cannot help wanting to be rich, and that if you don't become rich, "you are derelict in your duty to God, yourself and humanity." Although he did not mention the law of attraction by name in the book, he alluded to it: "It is a natural law that like causes produce like effects." He added, "Once you learn and obey these laws, you will get rich with mathematical certainty."

I think it worthy of note that Wattles, who died at a relatively young age, did not die rich. Perhaps he failed to do the math...

Exposing "The Secret" [BoingBoing]

Guess CNN producers haven't learn a thing from the growing chorus of critics regarding the continuing and unquestioning coverage of self-help book The Secret. Last night, it was Larry King's turn to step into the ring of wide-eyed, friendly talk show hosts: King devoted an entire hour to The Secret juggernaut with nary a real critic in sight.

First up was John Assaraf, founder of something called 'OneCoach' and a creepy, chiclet-toothed pseudo-scientist ("there are positive chemicals in the brain and negative chemicals in the brain" he asserts), who calls The Secret "a phenomenal breakthrough for mankind". But forget him. The real outrage came courtesy of Joe Vitale, "founder and president" of something called the "Hypnotic Marketing Institute". When King asked Vitale if Jessica Lunsford  the 9-year-old Florida girl raped and killed by just-convicted sex-offender John Couey  "attracted" the crime against her, Vitale basically said, well, yes.

"We are attracting everything to ourselves. There is no exception. I hear previous people talking about there is luck, there is [sic] some exceptions here. No. We attract everything. But we're doing it on an unconscious level, Larry. That's what's going on."

Got that? A beautiful 4th-grader  albeit "unconsciously"  asked to be abducted from her home, beaten, raped and then buried alive with only a stuffed animal as company.

And did Larry King bat an eyelash or pose a follow-up question after that outrageous statement? You know the answer.

The Secret Revealed [transcript via CNN]
Joe Vitale Is... Mr. Fire [MrFire]

Apparently we aren't the only ones troubled by Oprah Winfrey's wholesale endorsement of the recently-released new-age sensation The Secret. Yesterday in Salon, writer Peter Birkenhead launched a surprising but thoughtful warning shot over the bow of Winfrey's self-help ship, and our jaws went slack.

You can forgive us our shock and awe. After all, the episode of Winfrey's show in which the talk-show host publicly endorsed the book aired in mid-February; a follow-up episode on the book and the accompanying frenzy followed just a week afterwards. Other than Variety columnist Brian Lowry's brief and rather timid Feb. 20 critique of Winfrey's endorsement of the book, the issue seemed to be dead in the water; the media oblivious, or worse, indifferent. But, as The Secret so fervently instructs: if you believe in it, it will come.

And come it did. In a five-page screed, Birkenhead accuses Winfrey of positioning herself at the top of the book's "pyramid scheme", having helped The Secret's self-help gurus to "create a symbiotic economy of New Age quacks that almost puts OPEC to shame", and adding that the media mogul's crass consumerism, obsession with aesthetics, and narcissism is doing her followers (particularly those girls at her new South African Leadership Academy) a disservice, rather than making them the best they can be.

The academy is a controversial enough project in South Africa that the government withdrew its support, because of the amount of money that's been spent on its well-reported, lavish design  money that could have gone instead to creating perfectly fine schools that served many, many more students than the 350 who will be making use of spa facilities at the academy. But, when I watched Oprah's prime-time special about interviewing candidates for the school, it seemed to me that she wasn't nearly as excited about providing an education to the girls as she was about providing a "Secret"-like "transformative experience." (And not just for the girls, for herself; the first thing she said to the family members at the opening ceremony wasn't, "Welcome to a great moment in your daughters' lives," it was, "Welcome to the proudest moment of my life.")

On the special, Oprah talked far more about what the school would do for the girls' self-esteem and material lives than what it would do for their intellects  sometimes sounding as if she was reading directly from "The Secret." And in discussing what she was looking for in prospective students, she didn't talk about finding the next Eleanor Roosevelt or Sally Ride or Jane Smiley. Instead she used "Entertainment Tonight" language like "It Girl" to describe her ideal candidate. She praised the girls for their spirit, for how much they "shined" and "glowed," but never for their ideas or insights. Oprah puts a lot of energy and money into aesthetics  on her show, in her magazine, at her school. The publishers of "The Secret" have learned well from their sponsor and are just as visually savvy. They have created a look for their books, DVDs, CDs and marketing materials that conjures a "Da Vinci Code" aesthetic, full of pretty faux parchment, quill-and-ink fonts and wax seals.

Oprah's TV special about the Leadership Academy, essentially an hourlong infomercial, was just as well-coiffed and "visuals"-heavy. In fact, when Oprah was choosing her students, her important criteria must have included their television interview skills. On-camera interviews with the girls were the centerpiece of the special, but as one spunky, telegenic candidate after another beamed her smile at the camera, I couldn't help wondering how Joyce Carol Oates or Gertrude Stein or Madame Curie would have fared  would they have "shined" and "glowed," or more likely talked in non-sound-bite-friendly paragraphs and maybe even, God forbid, the sometimes "dark" tones of authentic people, and been rejected. Sadly, the girls themselves (and who can blame them, desperate 12-year-olds trying to flatter their potential benefactor) parroted banal Oprah-isms, like "I want to be the best me I can be," and "Be a leader not a follower" and "Don't blend in, blend out," with smiley gusto.

More  much more  below.

Oprah's Ugly Secret [Salon]

It's about two weeks late, but today The New York Post published a two-page story on the The Secret, the Oprah-endorsed self-help tome that claims that happiness, riches and success are all but a few positive-thoughts away. According to the Post, Oprah isn't the only flaky high-profile businesswoman to assert that the guiding principle behind The Secret  namely, that if you build it in your head, it will come is one she's been using for years.

We've all seen this happen for Diane time and time again. It's how she operates," said Alexis Rodriguez, [Diane] von Furstenberg's public-relations director.

Rodriguez goes onto say that staff at von Furstenberg's company is passing out copies of The Secret DVD around the office and that Diane is "the type of person that if she wants it, it will happen", using as examples von Furstenberg's finding a new location for her company and introducing her hallmark wrap dresses. [Emphasis ours]

She willed these things to happen."

With a little help from some guy named Barry, of course.

Variety columnist Brian Lowry posted an interesting piece today on Oprah Winfrey and her inability to thoughtfully critique some the well-meaning but flaky blowhards who come on her show to save us from ourselves.

It's the daytime program, however, that remains her power base, and last week she used it as a forum for two highly questionable discussions  featuring TV psychics John Edward and "Medium" inspiration Allison DuBois, and then a follow-up regarding "The Secret," which boils down to a semi-mystical theory that putting forth positive energy (good vibrations?) will bring positive things back to you because "like attracts like."

Presiding over each hour, Oprah endeavored to at least appear neutral. "This is a show that lets you decide for yourself," she said at the outset of the psychic episode. "We're not trying to tell you how to think about anything."

Um, bull. Because no matter how she couches it, in both instances Oprah provided an approving, wholly uncritical platform to what could be the equivalent of modern-day snake-oil sales.

Lowry - 1. Winfrey - 0. Ball's in your court, Miss O.

With Psychics, Oprah Exposes Her Secret [Variety]