The concept of the insistence of the signifying chain can completely disclose the intentional nature of a given text. This is no different (if not seemingly more relevant) when applied to the television talk show. The semiotic flow of the text’s language, whether dialogical or monological, is restricted at the level of syntagm by the insistence of the signifying chain. Where does someone like Dr. Phil exist within this chain? The answer to this question must lie within the context of the ideological paradigm in which he exists. As this context is, by its very nature, intensely relative, and too enormously complex to address in such a small space, we will assume (although only momentarily and out of necessity) that the show Dr. Phil does exist where it claims it exists: entertainment television presenting a subject/object relationship defined by “helper” and “in need of help.” In terms of signification, this relationship manifests itself in the form of a pseudo-psychologist and a series of pseudo-patients.

The instant the very name “Dr. Phil” is announced, very strong connotations arise in your head. You associate him with Oprah, and with self-help—and with the rolling of millions of eyes that purposely don’t watch the show.

But what makes Dr. Phil “Dr. Phil” isn’t the reputation that precedes him. It’s what he actually does. He’s not Oprah, and he’s not Ellen, and he’s not Jerry Springer—and here’s why:

He has a tendency to make everything relatable. He’s not Oprah, who gets that sad look on her face during her serious shows, with her pity, disgust, anger, and sympathy. Dr. Phil comes out and asks his audience, “Doesn’t everyone go through this? Yeah—we do.” He doesn’t over dramatize the emotional aspect like Oprah does, and he makes it look like something we can all admit and thus overcome.

He’s an inquirer. “What happened here?” he asks Terri. “Are you a troublemaker?” Then he doesn’t believe her answer—and becomes the shamer. He brings the audience in on the shaming, jokingly. And unlike Springer, he rules the show—the audience can laugh but they cannot take over the shaming. They can’t turn Springer-esque.

He’s also the insinuator. He never accuses Terri of anything—he never says “yes you did.” If he were to do that, he would push her away too quickly. She would feel attacked and not like she was being assisted in her self-improvement. Instead, he’ll repeat the question with his eyes wide, prodding her to rethink her answer. He guilt-trips her into admitting it—and when she never does, he brings in Steve and Theresa to discuss it. He’s like a lawyer—he makes the most insinuations of any question-asker there ever was. And when interviewing Dr. and Mrs. Wilson, he asks another question that he already knows the answer to: “Did they come rushing back, saying 'we’re sorry, here’s your job back?'” To which Dr. Wilson, naturally, says, “No.” Again, it is as if he’s questioning his client.

He tries to let them all figure out what they did wrong first, then he gets to “my point.” This is when he brings out the finger pointing. “You need…you need…you don’t want…you don’t want…” These are staple words in his conclusion. And in his conclusion, he suddenly sweeps in with the answer—and they suddenly start listening…to his very simple answer.

What he can’t not do is make light jokes of the situation—if he were to be too serious or too demanding he would be just another Donohue or just another Simon Cowell. And if he were too jokey, this wouldn’t be a show about change and growth and self-help.

This is the signifying chain of Dr. Phillip C. McGraw. And he depends on that. If he couldn’t sell “Dr. Phil-ness,” he would still just be a guest on Oprah.

The pleasure in talk shows isn’t derived from what guests are scheduled for that evening or what band is playing but in the insistence of the signifying chain of the show's character. A signifying chain is a linear linkage of syngtams that is inscribed within, and ascribed to a character. This chain is a discourse that a person must follow because they always have before, and it’s what others expect from them. This is what makes a talk show watchable. The audience tunes in with the expectation that the show will usually adhere to the signifying chain. When a show does divert from its chain, the diversion is usually controlled. For example, Dave Letterman has his animal guy Jack Hannah—when he shows up the audience knows something crazy will happen, but even then it is a kind of “canned chaos,” a chaos that is anticipated and thus controlled.

Dr. Phil is an interesting example of the talk show. Dr. Phil’s signifying chain includes his “southern, no-nonsense” persona and how the show positions him as a disciplinarian for his guests. This “southern, no-nonsense” persona accounts for how his show fails to confront his guests’ problems in a psycho-analytical way. If Dr. Phil was to start waxing Freudian about his guest’s repressed mommy issues he would most definitely no longer be Dr. Phil. The southern, no-nonsense set wouldn’t touch that kind of “psycho-babble” with a ten foot pole. On this specific episode a mother and son are confront one another about her tendency to gossip and how it leads to him having her thrown out of his wedding for doing so. Dr. Phil never questions them about past issues they have dealt with as mother and son, and most definitely doesn’t ask the “how does that make you feel?” question. His almost exaggerated southern drawl also adds to his southern-ness.

Another important aspect of Dr. Phil’s signifying chain is his position as an authoritarian and disciplinarian figure over his guests. This is evident in how he speaks to his guests and in how he solves his guests’ problems. Dr. Phil speaks to his guests like they are complete and total morons. That’s not to say that they aren’t, but most professionals in the psychology field would shy away from calling their patients as such. But not Dr. Phil. He uses very simple sentence structure and emphasizes the word “you” to the point of hilarity. He speaks as if he is desperately trying to explain to a seven year old why he can’t give his sister’s cat a hair cut: “You just can’t, because I say so.” This is obvious in how he resolves this rift between mother and son. He doesn’t identify underlying reasons for their dispute; he doesn’t outline a comprehensive plan on how they can mend their relationship; he basically says “You’re both stupid, I know best, so stop fighting and get over it.” It’s the adult alternative to “because I said so.” If there was an actual resolution for their problem, it wouldn’t be Dr. Phil. That’s just not what he does.
Dr. Phil isn’t about conflict resolution, or bettering people’s lives and relationships; it’s about Dr. Phil being a southern, no-nonsense type and being smarter and bigger than his guests. The insistence of this signifying chain creates Dr. Phil as a talk show.

When people have conversations, a pattern that must be followed. The conversation will consist of certain signs that must come in a particular order to produce the correct syntagm for that conversation. For example, if a person told you "it was snowing outside" you would know that they were informing you that there were small white flakes falling from the sky. However if they said "was it snowing outside?" you would know that they were asking you if there were small white flakes falling from the sky. The word order of these two sentences changes the meaning of the syntagm, and therefore the two conversations—or signifying chains—that will follow each initial statement will take on a different shape. These conversation rules are automatic and are insisted upon by our society, and when they are not followed the conversation will fall apart. This insistence of the signifying chain is important for communication, but it becomes essential for the television viewer.

When people watch television shows, they expect that the signifying chain will take a certain shape. The viewer will insist that certain things must be present in the shape of the signifying chain, and if this does not occur they will not enjoy the show. All television shows must have a certain shape for their signifying chain, however some shows have more freedom in this regard. When the viewer watches the show to learn about the characters, the shape of the signifying chain is not as important. For example, on LOST the signifying chain must contain a flashback of one of the characters. It however does not matter what character, or how many characters have flashbacks. As long as the episode has a flashback the insistence of the signifying chain has occurred and the audience will enjoy the show. When people watch LOST their enjoyment of the shape of the signifying chain is second to their enjoyment in the character development. It is when viewers enjoyment of character development is second to their enjoyment in the shape of the signifying chain that the signifying chain is more important, and therefore more structured. For example the shape of the signifying chain on a talk shows is the main reason people watch the show, it is where they derive their pleasure in the show. If the shape of the signifying chain were to change even slightly, the audience would no longer enjoy the show, and would stop watching. For example, the talk show Dr. Phil is a very popular show because people enjoy the shape of the signifying chain.

People enjoy watching strangers discuss their problems and get into fights with family members. They do not care who the people are, as long as they argue. Dr. Phil's signifying chain structure is designed to give the audience exactly that, strangers arguing. The entire concept of Dr. Phil's show is to "help" people with their problems. On the episode that aired on Nov. 11, 2005, a mother, Terry, was accused of gossip at her son Steve's rehearsal dinner. She and her son were there to ask Dr. Phil to find the truth. The mother and son argued over what exactly happened at the dinner, and the insistence of the signifying chain took place. If they had come onto the show without arguing, and agreed that they were both to blame, the signifying chain would change and the audience would be lost. The show would then become about people willing to listen and who have accepted their mistakes. It would become like Oprah.

A second example of the insistence of the signifying chain is Dr. Phil himself. Dr. Phil is the most important element of the signifying chain because he is the host and has certain mannerisms that people expect when they watch this show. He is very animated and involved with the guests. He does not stand at a distance holding a microphone while calmly listening to there stories. He sits in a chair on the stage with the guests, passing judgment as he actively takes part in the conversation. In the Nov. 11 episode, it would appear that Dr. Phil has already made up his mind before the guests even come out. He accuses the mother of being a trouble maker, and it is obvious from his "yea right" look that he does not believe her when she says she is not. This involvement with the guests is the reason Dr. Phil is the most crucial element of the signifying chain. It allows the viewer to actively participate in the argument, through Dr. Phil. If Dr. Phil were to stand up one day and host his show as an audience member, or passive viewer, the show would no longer be Dr. Phil, and the structure of the signifying chain would convey a different show.

Dr. Phil knows a lot about life in general—mine, his, and most especially yours. Guests come on his show and ask him to help them be normal well-adjusted people. There is an assumption that is reinforced throughout the show that he too is a normal well-adjusted person. The difference is that he is the super normal person. He is so wonderfully normal that he stands on high, issuing his decree on how to change one’s self to be normal. He is merciful, harsh (because that is what the guest needs), all-knowing, and yet somehow down to earth with us mortals. This is the chain he basks in as he selflessly helps people.

The audience of Dr. Phil is his congregation, which can, like he, see these people as the crazies they are. They are his choir. At the beginning of the show, while this mother is explaining why she was escorted out of her son’s wedding, there is a point at which Dr. Phil thinks that she is stretching the truth. He tucks his chin down to his chest and looks at the guest through his eyebrows, then looks at the audience through them too. The look communicates to the guest and audience that this guest is a liar. He has made the judgment and so tells all what that judgment is without a word. This is also seen as him being on the level.

He is also on the level by signifying himself as a straight talker. The lady says that she did not say something that he has proof of her saying. It is printed on a card he has. He lets her read it but she still denies saying it. He then says, “Do you have trouble reading?” He says this not because he thinks she has problems reading (he is an understanding person; he would never make fun of someone’s disability). He says it because he is on the level. He is trying to rile her up a bit and show her how he has caught her in a lie. He doesn’t sugar coat things. If you are a liar, he will be harsh and abrasive toward you till you repent and change your ways. But at the same time he is riling guest up he is getting them under control.

When his guests get worked up to the point of being loud and not listening to him or anyone else, he calms them and brings them back under his control. He lifts his hands. He makes them parallel with the ground and palms down. Then he raises and lowers them with his eyes closed, sometimes while saying, “No, no, no, no hold on.” He is in control and calm. These people are out of control and ridiculously worked up. He closes his eyes like a parent would when the children are acting up in public. He pumps his hands up and down, calming the air as he tries with his word to calm the people. He is the master in control looking down on the bickering masses. The audience too looks down on them, pitying them for not heeding the words of the Phil.

There are two other instances when Dr. Phil is at his Phillyest. When this same liar mother contradicts her son and says, “He never told me that.” Dr. Phil falls over from the waist. At this point in the show this woman has said never at least 10 times, if not more. Dr. Phil shows his disbelief and frustration by letting go of his back and abdomen muscles and falling over. If he did not do this, the audience and viewers would be waiting for something. We wouldn’t know what that was (we can’t possibly know the masters mind), but there would be something missing. The woman is obviously wrong and we know it but we want some sign from Dr. Phil, because he always gives us one, and what if we are wrong? He also deals in rhetorical questions. At one point he asks this woman, “If you lost your son today, how dumb would you feel?” Of course this woman is not supposed to answer, and if she did that would be weird—and it would be stepping on Dr. Phil’s big speech. I don’t know if he could ever let that happen. His head might pop off and he might say something like, “Have you ever heard of a rhetorical question or did you not get a high school diploma?” He might lose it and rain down is god-like wrath on the ignorant guest. He wants to spur them to think about their problems but he is also giving a sermon to his people. When he finishes they ferociously clap as if to say, “Dr. Phil is right and you all up on stage should see the error of your ways and let him help you.” The ridiculous thing is these guests ask him to do this to them.

>  >  >  >   m  a  n  o  n  '  s     c  o  u  r  s  e     p  a  g  e  s 


Page layout and design ©2004 by Hugh S. Manon for the Oklahoma State University Film Program. Some images on this page are the property of a third party and are used with permission. The marks of Oklahoma State University are controlled under a licensing program administered by The Collegiate Licensing Company.

Last update: 1/22/2005