In an otherwise stale summer-rerun TV season, CBS took a
bold leap forward into the new trend of "reality TV" (an interesting
oxymoron if there ever was one) and aired the new show "Survivor" which
became an instant sensation, even beating the insurmountable "Who Wants
To Become a Millionaire" in the ratings race. "Survivor" features 16
contestants dumped on the Pulau Tiga Island off Borneo, each competing
for a $1 million prize. Every week, after a test of their physical
abilities and endurance skills, the group votes one of its members off
the island until only one contestant remains to claim the prize. When
only two members are left, the entire cast returns to decide who will
win. Just think "Lord of the Flies" meets "Gilligan's Island."
The genre of televising intimate details of the lives of
ordinary individuals began in the 1970s with the PBS series on the Louds
family, and continued in the 1990s with MTV shows "Real World" and "Road
Rules." It developed to new heights (or lows) in summer 2000 with
"Survivor," "Big Brother," and "1900 House." Many more such shows are in
the works, and each has to become more bizarre and extreme to capture
the attention of jaded consumers.
Reality TV is part of a disturbing social trend where
the boundaries between private and public life erode, as media
spectators become ever more voyeuristic. This implosion is most clearly
revealed in phenomena such as confessional talk shows; the invasion of
the private lives of politicians and celebrities by the paparazzi and
tabloids; and webcams that allow individuals to broadcast the most
intimate aspects of their lives to a global internet audience.
"Survivor" is a showcase of American values and an
allegory of predatory capitalism. Competition, greed, narcissism, and
the fetishization of celebrity are blatantly on display. Social
Darwinism moves to the foreground as the contestants fight it out each
week to outlast both the natural elements and -- far more grueling --
one another. Initially, the team members are split up into "tribes." A
bad choice of words, for true tribes are organized around values of
cooperation, whereas the pseudo-tribes of CBS practice cutthroat
competition and engage in "alliances" only to further their own
interests. As in capitalist culture in general, the spirit of
cooperation is rarely manifest; rather, a war-of-all-against-all
prevails.
Thus, the show does nothing to dispel the illusion that
conflict, competition, power, domination, struggle, and scarcity are the
eternal order of things, in both the natural and social worlds.
Capitalism, thereby, is made perfectly natural and the human condition
appears to be nothing but the decaying rump of possibility it is today.
As always in the ideology of Social Darwinism, there is a chronic
slippage from (what allegedly are) natural conditions to social
conditions, and then back again. This oscillation justifies elitism,
class hierarchy, and brutal competition in society where the weak and
"unfit" are marginalized, cast aside, or allowed to expire -- just as
(we are led to believe) occurs in nature.
Yet there are no "losers" on "Survivor." Each of the
vanquished get their 15 minutes of fame on news and talk shows, as they
receive offers for further media work, to write books about their
experience, to be consultant to the contestants of "Survivor2," or even
to pose for Playboy. And brace yourself for the coming "Got Milk?" ads
featuring the final four. These junk celebrities have fame without
achievement. Just as they desire, their ordinariness is negated in the
hot light of the media, but in reality TV it is their prosaic being that
makes them so extraordinary. They are the Darva Congers of the world --
instant cultural icons, paragons of nothingness. But soon enough the
Warholian egg timer will run out and they will plummet back into the
banality of everyday life which will seem all the gloomier after their
massive inhale of celebrity crack.
There is more simulation than reality in "Survivor."
Medical crews are never far away, food often is brought in, the
characters are chosen for their videogenic qualities or likelihood to
generate conflict, the action is edited for maximum dramatic effect, and
the ubiquitous presence of cameras and microphones effects the way
contestants talk and act. The spectacle of scarcity and "roughing it"
therefore is totally negated, as it certainly was in episodes where
contest winners ate pizza flown in from a chopper or dined on a luxury
yacht.
Unfortunately, one aspect of "Survivor" is all too real
as the contestants frequently kill animals for food. Fish, eels, manta
rays, rats, and chickens die on the slaughterbench of CBS profits and
the vanities of celebrity wanna-bes. Some very disturbing scenes
depicted the castaways laughing while trying to club rats to death, and
chopping the head off a frightened chicken and then zestfully devouring
its cooked corpse. One of the castaways was kind enough to name the
chickens -- "breakfast, lunch, and dinner." Such killing reinforces the
widespread public opinion that animals exist as entertainment value for
humans -- a tradition some might think expired with the Roman culture,
but of course is alive and well in zoos, circuses, rodeos, the
entertainment industries, and now reality shows. Moreover, it
underscores the ideology that killing animals is natural for human
beings, that we still live in a pre-technological food chain where we
have to kill to survive. Outside of appeals to the Biblical claim that
God created animals as "meat" for humans, this is the most common
legitimation for killing animals. Thus, the ideology effect of
"Survivor" -- which captivated over one hundred million viewers for its
final episode -- is damaging to the movement for vegetarianism and
non-violence (ahimsa).
Curiously, there hasn't been much uproar over "Survivor"
in the animal rights community. One notable exception is PETA, which was
inundated with complaints about the show. In a letter to the president
of CBS, they emphasized that the show delivered a dangerous message that
it's fun to harm animals, a belief our violent and anthropocentric
culture certainly does not need reinforced. "Survivor has lightheartedly
depicted cruelty that in many U.S. states is considered a felony," PETA
wrote, "we urge you to educate future contestants so that they can
identify and survive on edible vegetation. Please leave the animals
alone."
Columnists such as Marc E. Fisher and Deroy Murdock took
great delight in mocking PETA's defense of "rat rights" and reducing all
animal rights philosophy to absurd positions such as misanthropy. In his
acrimonious caricature of PETA and animal rights, Fisher points out that
"rats were responsible for one of the greatest plagues in history in the
14th century when Europe lost between one third and one half of its
entire population." I don't think the brave warriors of "Survivor" were
endangered at any point by swarms of bubonic rats. The point is not
whether rats have rights, but that "Survivor" indulges in gratuitous
killing and therefore contributes to violent sensibilities and the lack
of empathy for nonhuman species.
While people living in conditions of true scarcity have
no choice what to eat, and may have to kill to survive, the world of
"Survivor" is a meretricious, manufactured, ultra-contrived simulacrum
of pseudo-scarcity. The producers intentionally rigged the show to
encourage the islanders to kill fish, rats, and chickens, and the
conniving castaways all-too happily obliged. As columnist Mesia Quartano
observes, "There is more than enough drama when sixteen people are
placed in a difficult situation. Do viewers really want to see
unnecessary cruelty to animals?" Quartano rightly argues that the
producers could have made the game find the food stash rather than kill
an animal. But she misses the point: since violence and killing bring
huge ratings in TVland, the profit imperative commands it.
It is instructive to think how different the series
would be if one of the contestants were a vegetarian (ideally, a vegan).
He or she could educate fellow islanders and the nation alike about the
health, environmental, and ethical problems that stem from the Global
Meat Culture that itself barely survives on animal products. A
vegetarian could discuss how a diet heavy with animal fats predispose
one to an array of diseases; how the factory farm system degrades the
air, water, land, and forests; how the island terrain would be most
efficiently used to grow a plant-based diet; and how animals suffer
miserably in cages, boxes, shipping trucks, and slaughterhouses before
they land on the cafeteria tray or dinner plate.
But don't hold your breath for the vegetarian equivalent
of an "Ellen" to make it to a major network. In the meantime, you can
take some action to help prevent reality TV from going the way of crush
videos.
<> <> <> <> <>
Please write to, fax, or call CBS to tell them there is
nothing entertaining about killing animals and not to repeat this
mistake in future episodes of "Survivor2" (the show's web site says the
next contestants will have "to build shelter, catch food and establish a
new society").
Les Moonves, President and CEO
CBS Television, Inc.
CBS Television City
7800 Beverly Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tel.: 323-575-2345
Fax: 323-651-0285
Go on to Another
Way to Help the Animals
Return to 23 August 2000 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
