Memories, Opinions and Oprah

So, you made a bad joke during the announcements before worship.  You offended a parishioner grievously.  Now you have to explain that event to your pastor/parish relationship committee.  And you find yourself in the "spin cycle," adjusting on the fly your report of what happened, why it happened, and how people should view you now.  All the adjustments are designed to make you look better.  And you aren't aware of making any of those adjustments to the "truth."

Are you a liar?  Are you a hypocrite?  Are you a coward?  No, you are a normal human being in quite good and even world-famous company.

Oprah Winfrey claims that she was a victim of racial profiling in a Swiss boutique.  The clerk, named at this point as "Adriana N" is shocked, baffled and distressed by the report.  Winfrey has tried to defuse the situation with a Twitter-driven attempt at humor.  The clerk has lost sleep and has expressed great emotional upset in response to the report.  A report of the uproar can be found at http://www.today.com/entertainment/oprah-racism-claims-absolutely-untrue-horror-says-swiss-shop-clerk-6C10904070.

I was particularly struck by this sentence in the report: "Winfrey and Adriana clearly have differing opinions about what happened in that store visit, not just in outcome, but details" (emphasis is mine). The news reporter treats an objective event out in the public world as a matter of "opinion."  

If we take a few moments to reflect, we can see how unhelpful that description really is.  One of the details has to do with whether Winfrey was accompanied or alone.  Clearly, one fact or the other is an accurate reflection of actual events.  No one is discussing whether the decor of the store is appealing or not.  That might be a matter of opinion.  The events related to this encounter cannot be.

The memories that each party has of the events, however, are indeed quite different.  Winfrey remembers that she was treated as a lone, cash-strapped black woman who really had no business looking at at thirty-eight thousand dollar purse (a voice inside of me said, "Well, who does, really?"). The clerk remembers that she treated the customer--and her companion--with care, patience and respect.

Shameless self-promotion of Mosaic bags
at Beans, Books and Bull!

What is happening here?  Of course, I have no idea.  When I saw the initial report in the media, I was inclined to believe it as sadly accurate.  Now I must live with some healthy skepticism.  Oprah Winfrey, regardless of her current wealth, status and power, has been primed to be alert to demeaning responses from white people.  She noted this in her interviews where she mentioned this incident. While Oprah is not subjected to the "N-word," she remembers and honors all who have suffered through the indignities of racism.

Was she primed to experience something that in this case didn't happen?  Have her memories been revised to reflect her ongoing and proper commitment to identify and resist racism wherever she sees it?  I don't know.  But that may be part of the situation here.

What about Adriana?  She would have strongly self-interested motives to remember the situation quite differently.  Her job is certainly at stake here, and she notes in the report that she is the one on the low end of the power differential.  Does she remember herself as nicer than she actually was? Does she remember a companion for Winfrey who wasn't there?  Did she engage in some unconscious behavior that, as a white person, she has the luxury of ignoring?  I don't know.  But that may be part of the situation here.

Public leaders are well-served to remember the limits of memory.  This is particularly true when we are prompted to offer self-justifying defenses and descriptions.  If you are a parish pastor, please read Tavris and Aronson's book, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me).  Here's a critical quote: 

"Our convictions about who we are carry us through the day, and we are constantly interpreting the things that happen to us through the filter of those core beliefs.  When they are violated, even by a good experience, it causes us discomfort..." (page 31).

Read the book.  And then consider training your lay leaders, staff and other influential folks regarding the limits of human memory.  Better yet, ask me to come and do the training!  I wonder how many church fights have been launched simply based on revised memories, built on the basis of self-interest.

I am not suggesting that the objective facts are merely in the eye of the beholder.  I am suggesting that when we are sharing information with high emotional content, we want to be very careful about communicating too much certainty--especially when that information could be damaging to someone else.  When we are in positions of power, we must recall that what we say always has explosive potential.  That's true if one is Oprah Winfrey.  That is also true if one is a parishioner in a highly anxious congregation.

Keeping quiet and thinking about our words is always a viable option.