Does Dr.

Phil Get Real: Evidence From Domestic Dollar Disputes

Dr. Phil has gained celebrity status by dispensing behavior modification therapy, designed to change a behavior without discovering the cause of the behavior. The viewers of the Domestic Dollar Disputes episode of Tuesday July 11th 2006 saw Dr. Phil dispense terse advice to guest Chere and her husband Clint on solving marital relationship difficulties attributed to financial disagreements. The Dr. is 6 feet 4 inches tall and 230 pounds, giving him a commanding presence, which he enhances with a seriousness resulting from rarely smiling and and being always ready to chastise with a judgmental and intimidating stare. Dr. Phil's genre of daytime TV can be called self-help confessional TV, and it attracts a mostly white female studio and viewing audience aged 18 to 54 (Dixon 175). One interpretation suggests that to exploit this audience demographic Dr. Phil has focused on championing the cause and counseling the abused women of America. Dr. Phil's on air counseling is controversial. Critics have called his counseling advice at best simplistic and, at worst, invective. (Wikipedia, 2006). While admitting he is skilled at emotional education, critics claim he is doing therapy on TV, and that involves ethical problems. Psychiatry professor Dr. J. R. Hayes argues that "People who try to fix people on TV are committing malpractice. Any competent therapist knows you must have a personal relationship with someone in order to treat them. Otherwise the intervention is just entertainment." (Donald, 2000). Similarly, critics disparage Dr. Phil claiming that "to watch someone be humiliated is entertaining, it's good TV, but whether or not it's helpful [to them] is debatable."(Donald 2000). But these narrow psychological based critiques of Dr. Phil ignore the multiplicity of meanings audiences and participants can make from the show. MacKenzie argues that television talk shows rhetorically invite audiences to make meaning at several levels, the most significant of which is a feeling of involvement in a larger societal dialog. (McKenzie 192). From this perspective the humiliated husband on a typical Dr. Phil episode is performing a greater social good by stimulating the societal dialog regarding the issue they embody in their life. This suggests that Dr. Phil produces epideictic

discourse to attract that large female demographic which is seeking perfomative entertainment. Dr. Phil's style of "command and control" performance offering answers to the problems and uncertainties of modern life delivered with certainty appeals to viewers who apparently crave discourse which attributes wrongness to ways of life they disagree with. This essay will examine the balance between the meanings of counseling and of entertainment available to viewing audiences in the Dr. Phil show. ANALYSIS The Domestic Dollar Disputes episode topic is couples who fight about money, and Dr. Phil suggests that this is a common practice of married couples, but one which serves to hide a different and more serious problem. The widespread prevalence of the behavior makes the issue a societal concern, thereby giving show participants, audience members, and TV viewers of the show the feeling of being engaged not only in a voyeurism into one couple's marital difficulties, but more respectably, a feeling of being engaged in a worthwhile societal dialog The Dr. Phil Domestic Dollar Disputes episode invites viewers to make meaning from it at multiple levels. Since discourse analysis is image-blind, a critically oriented eclectic approach is required (Deacon et al 310). In addition to the live guests conversation with Dr. Phil, the show also features a montage presentation which not only invites, but nearly demands, that viewers make meaning of the show at multiple levels. Dr. Phil, the couple he is allegedly counseling, and the studio audience are in live segments of the show sandwiched in between an introductory montage of video clips, and shorter video montages before and after each commercial break. According to Deacon et al (313-317) discourse analysis of the transcript of a live or televised political speech can be effectively analysed using a six component model. The six components are 1) displays of affiliation, 2) displays of disapprobation, 3) cruces, moments of crises or repair work, 4) implicit or explicit expression of social values, beliefs, relations or identities, 5) deictics, and 6) ideological references (Deacon et al 314).

Displays of Affiliation Several displays of affiliation by the audience are observed in the Domestic Dollar Dispute segment. The most apparent is the vigorous, almost wild cheering and clapping which occurs as Dr. Phil makes his entrance to the stage at the beginning of the show. Thereafter, just prior to each commercial break the orchestra music rises signaling the audience to clap vigorously. These affiliative responses essentially represent approval of Dr. Phil. The camera shows displays of affiliation in the form of smiles on the faces of some audience members when Dr. Phil lectures about money being a safe topic to argue about in a marriage. The camera shows displays of affiliation for the guest in the form of smiles on the faces of some audience members when Dr. Phil opens an envelope and presents to the viewers a receipt for a 89 cent package of gum and a shopping list. Dr. Phil presents the items in a style which reminds the viewer, at least subliminally, of a prosecution attorney presenting evidence in a court of law. The guest interacts with Dr. Phil's discourse by seeking empathy. She does this by accepting Dr. Phil's ideology, thereby positioning herself as belonging to the same group (Simon-Vandenbergen 418). When the guest describes how she had successfully managed financially as a single mom for two and a half years the audience displays affiliation for the guest by breaking into applause. In contrast the husband adopts the strategy of attempting to refute criticism by attempting to position himself as independent (Simon-Vandenbergen 418). But when he complains about being in a bind between working more hours to earn more money to please his wife, and working fewer hours to be able to spend more time with his wife and children, Dr. Phil quips, That's called being married, and the audience displays affiliation for Dr. Phil's expression, and for the guest, in the form of laughter, clapping and smiles. Finally as Dr Phil wraps up with a brief lecture about sharing their income and managing it together, the audience displays affiliation by vibrant clapping. In addition several displays of affiliation by the institution of the Dr. Phil show are observed in the segment. The introductory video montage presents a number of emotional outbursts. The outbursts by the woman guest are predominantly a sad and remorseful recounting her financially and emotionally

victimized status in the marriage as a result of her husband's mistreatment. This display represents the Dr. Phil show's display of affiliation for the woman guest. Similar displays are seen in the video montages which precede and follow each commercial break. Displays of disapprobation The audience displays disapprobation for the husband, in the form of audience laughter, when Dr. Phil rhetorically asks the husband, Well what part of this do you disagree with?, after he goes through a list of the husband's alleged verbal mistreatments of the guest. Dr Phil's style in going through the list and then asking the rhetorical question implicitly refers to prosecuting an accused in a court trial, and is thus a form of disapprobation of the husband on the part of Dr. Phil. In addition several displays of disapprobation by the institution of the Dr. Phil show are observed in the segment. The introductory video montage presents a number of statements and emotional outbursts by the husband. The outbursts by the husband show him angrily disagreeing with his wife. The statements by the husband are often defensive of what he has done. This display represents the Dr. Phil show's display of disapprobation for the guest's husband.. Similar displays are seen in the video montages which precede and follow each commercial break. Cruces, Moments of Crises, or Repair work The husband can be seen attempting some repair work after Dr. Phil asks him, rhetorically, if he had told his wife to just 'F you' and 'You better F-ing watch it. The husband replies, Those are the words she uses ....I am not the cusser in the household by any means. I don't lose my temper. I don't cuss at her. A few times I have. Expression of social values, beliefs, relations and identities Social values of gender roles and gender equality are addressed when Dr. Phil requests confirmation from the guest that the husband told you to quit your job, but then refused to give you any money. Dr. Phil does not question the rightness of the guest not earning an income, nor of the husband telling her to quit her job, but only of the husband's insufficiency of income. The issue of patriarchal dominance is addressed in a video montage segment where the husband

states I provide for this household. I deserve some privileges in this household. The husband states Chere wants to be the boss showing the guest challenges the husband's assumption of patriarchal dominance. The issue of patriarchal dominance is also implicitly supported, by the demonstration of Dr. Phil, the older physically larger male, dominating the show's proceedings, including cutting off and redirecting discussion according to his preferences, and condescendingly lecturing his guests. Dr Phil's repetitive questioning about who uses F words, and other swearing, addresses issues of social norms of politeness and respect. Dr. Phil's association of swearing at one's spouse, with expressing a desire for divorce, implies that both are equally offensive behaviors. This implicitly addresses issues of loyalty and fidelity. In the opening video montage the guest states He went and bought $100 worth of computer things when our children don't have clothes on their backs ... I'm married to a very selfish man. The claim that she is married to a very selfish man addresses the issue of generosity vs. selfishness. In conjunction with scenes of the woman carrying her fully clothed 1 year old son Spencer, her statement implicitly raises issues of honesty and verbal integrity, as do the husband's statements in response to Dr. Phil's direct questions, many of which contradict the woman's answers to the same questions. Issues of honesty in relationships and of integrity are significantly important to the attribution of a counseling meaning to the show. However, in epideictic discourse, a speaker's 'performative display,' ... will be more prominently considered by the audience ... than what the speaker says, if audience sentiment is already in favor of the substance of the discourse (Mackenzie 195). Therefore evidence of lesser regard for consistency of statements and honesty is not significant to performative display if the audience is already in favor of the guest's claim to being the victim of her husband's abuse. Deictics Although the guest accuses the husband of financial and emotional abuse, both she and the husband still define us according to the traditional legal fiction of marriage, while ignoring the fact that financially she is still supported by, financially dependent on, and part of the financial family of her exhusband.

Time is indexed in terms of the past, right now, and in a few days. In the past the guest was a single mom in control of her finances, and the husband never had to work a part-time job in addition to his military job. In the right now, the guest is no longer in control or even competent with her finances, the husband works two jobs, and they don't have enough to satisfy her. In a few days he'll quit his part time job, be shipped off by the military, and she'll have control of the family finances. Ideological / Common Sense My viewpoint on ideology is influenced by my background situated in the upper middle class as a member of a commercially successful minority ethnic group. My ethnic group considers it a main part of a husband's responsibility to abundantly provide financially for the family. From this viewpoint the husband's failure to provide adequately financially to satisfy the guest addresses the issue of male irresponsibility and failure in life. Chere's claim that the husband mocks her and is emotionally abusive addresses issues of fairness and power. The guests claim that the husband attempts to take away her ATM card when they fight addresses issues of private property and of ownership rights. The basic premise of the Dr Phil show, that therapy administered by a highly trained expert in psychological science can help people to live a more satisfying and successful life is a common sense of modern western culture (Epstein & Steinberg 84). Dr. Phil's judgment and summary direction to the couple to trust each other financially, for Chere to stick to a budget and Clint to accept that the money is not his alone, but is jointly or commonly owned by him and his wife, is an implicit addressing of the issues of private property ownership, and communal property ownership. The guest's statement that she doesn't want my son to be raised with the example of the husband present, in conjunction with the husband's claim that the boy is our son implicitly raises issues about possession and control and ownership rights over children. This is an issue which is still generally considered to be a common-sense solution to protecting children, while actually providing for a means for parents to protect their investment of effort and cash in raising the child. Conclusion

There have been no scientific studies which have demonstrated the effectiveness of Dr. Phil's unorthodox therapy regime. In addition while psychological practice is moving toward briefer forms of therapy, no research has been done which supports the possibility that brief therapy of twenty-two minutes could be as effective or more effective than more traditional therapeutic protocols. I did not receive any intuitive sense of significantly insightful advice being offered to the show guest or her husband. In contrast the lack of concern for honesty by guests, and lack of concern for fact checking show the success of the Dr Phil show is consistent with the evidence on epideictic discourse. The program format includes praise (of the guest) or blame (of the guest's husband) as well as performative display to be a popular entertainment (Mackenzie 200-201). The guest, the husband and Dr. Phil are all engaging performative actors. My conclusion is that the Dr Phil show offers much less meaning in terms of counseling than it does in terms of epideictic discourse.