Welcome to the Jungle of the Real: Simulation, Commoditization, and Survivor
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
170 The Journal of American Culture Volume 29, Number 2 June 2006
Welcome to the Jungle of the Real:
Simulation, Commoditization,
and Survivor
Christopher J. Wright
Commodities are ubiquitous in contemporary article will question where Survivor stands among
society. As many have written—Karl Marx most Baudrillard’s four stages leading to simulacra.
prominently among early thinkers on the sub-
ject—these objects of material and/or symbolic
value are often socially constructed and central to Theoretical Context
everyday life, be they perceived as needs or wants.
Attaching additional meaning to commodities
through history (an heirloom), nostalgia (vintage This article will rely on several theoretical con-
clothing), image (Michael Jordan-endorsed sneak- cepts from cultural studies, cultural anthropology,
ers), branding (A shirt with the word ‘‘GAP’’ and critical theory; this section provides a brief
stitched in the collar), or other means can inflate overview of some of them. First, there is the idea of
their value, often artificially (Peterson). Indeed commodities and commoditization. Arjun Appa-
today, even television shows are not immune to durai defines the former provisionally as simply
being commoditized. ‘‘objects of economic value’’ determined through
This article will examine how the reality an ‘‘exchange of sacrifices’’ (3), be it trading money
television program Survivor has undergone co- for a toothbrush, bartering a barrel of oranges for a
mmoditization since its debut in May 2000 and is bushel of peppers, or sending your star shortshop
now approaching what Jean Baudrillard called si- to a rival baseball team in exchange for that team’s
mulacra—a copy without an original, endlessly catcher and a player to be named later. Indeed,
reproducible images that reference nothing. The these days even people can be commodities.
article will first describe Survivor and the ‘‘reality As such, commodities take on countless forms,
TV’’ genre, then demonstrate why the show is not and one of these is the commodity sign. Here
‘‘real,’’ but rather a contrived construction. It will ‘‘sign’’ refers to semiotics, or the science of signs,
then describe how Survivor is used intertextually a field deriving from the lectures of Ferdinand
in parody, fan fiction, and among various seasons de Saussure. A sign consists of a signifier and the
of the series, as well as detail the program’s de- signified it conjures. In a famous example, the
velopment as a commodity through both official signifier ‘‘t-r-e-e’’ evokes the signified, an image of
and unofficial, viewer-driven means. Finally, the what we call a tree (Chandler). The signifier and
Christopher J. Wright holds an MA in Communication, Culture, and Technology from Georgetown University (2004) and is the
author of the forthcoming Tribal Warfare: Survivor and the Political Unconscious of Reality Television (Lexington Books).
The Journal of American Culture, 29:2
r2006, Copyright the Authors
Journal compilation r2006, Blackwell Publishing, Inc.Welcome to the Jungle of the Real Christopher J. Wright 171
signified ‘‘form an indissociable unity, like two original McDonald’s when buying a Happy Meal.
sides of the same piece of paper’’ (McNeill). This And the origins of the character The Shadow have
is the sign (the word ‘‘tree’’). been lost amid myriad mutations and reproduc-
Among others, C. S. Peirce further developed tions (Peterson).
Saussure’s concepts. Some signs, such as ‘‘tree,’’ Baudrillard cites four steps in the progression
are arbitrary or symbolic, according to Peirce— of an image into simulacra:
but there are two other types as well. First,
1. The image reflects a basic reality.
indexical signs refer to a relationship of contigu-
2. It masks and perverts a basic reality.
ity, or ‘‘pointing,’’ such as causal or part-to-whole.
3. It masks the absence of a basic reality.
They also can be based on point of view
4. It bears no relation to any reality what-
(Peterson). One use of indexical signs is in inter-
soever. (170)
textuality, or how one text cites and refers to an-
other (Goldman and Papson, ‘‘Sign Wars’’ 68).
Furthermore, Baudrillard notes the existence
Second, iconic signs are the most primordial and
of simulation as something of a step toward si-
refer by resemblance, such as a painting featuring
mulacra. Simulation is an imitation of the real that
a red stop sign. The red does not arbitrarily rep-
often becomes confused for it. He also posits that
resent the red of a real stop sign; rather, it is the
we exist in a state of hyperreality, where little
same red as the actual sign (Peterson).
distinguishes the real and the imaginary. This is
The aforementioned commodity signs most
perhaps most readily apparent in television. Writ-
visibly take the form of corporate logos, such as
ing in particular about advertising, Goldman and
the Nike swoosh. ‘‘Our consumer-based society
Papson note that ‘‘hyperreal encoding points to
has reached the point where a blank shoe is
efforts to connote a sense of unmediated reality,
meaningless. That’s right, meaningless—the white
but always via a coding system that is mediated
shoe is a blank if it is not marked by a sign . . ..
. . . . Hyperrealism acknowledges the presence of
In fact, the market value of these products is pro-
the camera, although once the technique gets
duced by Nike’s design and marketing specialists’’
routinized, reflexivity about the camera’s presence
(Goldman and Papson, ‘‘Nike’’ 12). In other
fades’’ (‘‘Sign Wars’’ 62–63). As it happens, no-
words, the commodity sign’s value is mainly sym-
tions of the hyperreal, intertextuality, simulation,
bolic, rather than derived from actual use value.
and commodities bear particular relevance to the
Commodity signs can be iconic—for instance,
so-called ‘‘reality television’’ genre.
the sign above a Hallmark card store resembles
the sign above every other one, even though each
has a different name (Leslie’s Hallmark, Amy’s
Hallmark, etc.)—but they are most apparently Survivor as the False Real
indexical. Every Hallmark store points to every
other one, and a Hallmark card points to every
Hallmark in the world, with context critical—that Before the summer of 2000, reality television
is, someone in Boston will likely think of a spe- was little thought of. It was seen primarily in
cific local Hallmark, not one in Utah. shows such as Cops, America’s Funniest Home
Signs and their commoditization have resulted Videos, and The Real World—although rooted
in what Baudrillard called simulacra in his further in the past, in Candid Camera and Real
‘‘Simulacra and Simulations’’ essay. As Baudril- People (Baker 57). Indeed, in the late 1990s, the
lard wrote, it is a question of ‘‘substituting signs of genre seemed so irrelevant that CBS rejected ex-
the real for the real itself . . .. Never again will the ecutive producer Mark Burnett’s concept for Sur-
real have to be produced’’ (167). We see this all vivor at least twice before finally giving him the
over popular culture. There is no original Poke- green light (Farhi and de Moraes A01). Despite
mon; no reasonable person conjures images of the its low production costs and similar programs’172 The Journal of American Culture Volume 29, Number 2 June 2006
success overseas, Survivor was seen as too differ- sionally reenacting scenes using stand-ins in order
ent, something that audiences would never accept. to get aerial shots of ‘‘contestants’’ swimming, etc.,
However, Survivor—in which contestants live thus avoiding having to show camera crews on the
for thirty-nine days in a remote tropical location, ground racing alongside the real contestants—
competing in challenges for food or ‘‘immunity’’ which would, of course, look less ‘‘realistic’’
and gradually voting one another out until only (DeMarco 2). And Burnett always spends about
one person remains—has persevered, and then eight minutes at episode’s end on Survivor’s
some. The program became a cultural phenome- crown jewel, the Tribal Council, an overdramat-
non soon after its May 2000 debut, spawning ic display that simulates a religious ritual. Here,
multiple fan Web sites, making the cover of News- tribe members arrive at an ornate location—a
week and garnering more than fifty million view- simulated Stonehenge, World War II bunker, or
ers for its August finale, where the ‘‘sole Survivor’’ African village—bearing lit torches that represent
was revealed to be corporate trainer Richard each one’s ‘‘life.’’ The contestants talk about re-
Hatch, head of a powerful voting ‘‘alliance.’’ The cent tribal events with show host Jeff Probst; then
program has since gone through two 13-to-15- one by one, they march to an isolated voting
episode ‘‘seasons’’ each year, and as of January booth where they pick up a permanent marker—
2005 still wins approximately 20 million viewers wrapped in native-looking material, as Jennifer
weekly. Yet despite this success and the flurry of Delisle has noted (48)—and jot down the name of
other reality programs Survivor spawned, not a tribemate on ‘‘parchment.’’ (The sign of parch-
enough has been said about the program in academia. ment, of course, contains much more ancient
The emerging literature on ‘‘reality televi- connotations than, say, construction paper.) The
sion’’—a genre based on the recording of events votes are placed in a container that looks as if it
in people’s lives, be they ‘‘normal’’ daily activities was recovered from the remains of Pompeii.
or those resulting from a contrived game-show Probst then says, ‘‘I’ll go tally the votes,’’ and
style setting, and the editing of this material into a reads aloud the votes (obviously prearranged in
packaged television program1—contains one over- the most suspenseful order) as haunting music
arching theme: The term ‘‘areality’’ is ironic on its plays. The camera pans from contestant to con-
very surface. It connotes truth, everyday experi- testant, some smirking, others worried. The vot-
ence, and perhaps most importantly, a lack of ed-out contestant brings forth his or her torch to
mediation—that what you see on video is as it Probst, who snuffs it out, pronouncing that ‘‘the
happened. So it is with reality TV, which obscures tribe has spoken. It’s time for you to go.’’
or makes us ‘‘forget’’ cameras, time compression, To the Survivor novice, all this surely borders
editing, contrivances, packaging, and sound and on the absurd. In fact, it was reported that during
lighting instruments.2 And so it is with Survivor. the filming of the second Tribal Council of the
Indeed, Burnett—who has said in interviews first edition of Survivor—long before it was a
he prefers to describe his program as ‘‘dramality,’’ cultural phenomenon—one contestant, Greg Buis,
not ‘‘reality,’’ (McDaniel 1) seeing it as a con- began laughing and refused to take it seriously. He
trived, unscripted drama—only has to show what even made catcalls to the ousted contestant as he
he and his editing/production team wants. Con- left the set (Burnett 51). That would never happen
sider that each 44-minute episode is culled from as now. Survivor’s skilled editors give Tribal Council
much as 72 hours of footage from multiple cam- a raw, nerve-wracking aura, even when the out-
eras. Burnett and his team can make anyone look come seems preordained, and the repetition and
bad; they can make anyone look good. They can setting add to the religious feel of the event. In-
use audio from solo ‘‘confessionals’’ that occur deed, Tribal Council seems almost sacred, bizarre
between a contestant and a producer—another as that may seem, because the use of repetitious
activity that occurs on Survivor that hardly qual- dialogue, props, fire, and haunting music all con-
ifies as ‘‘realistic.’’ Burnett has admitted to occa- note a religious ritual—albeit a false one.Welcome to the Jungle of the Real Christopher J. Wright 173
The fact that contestant voting takes place at actual reality, and in certain instances, particularly
Tribal Council highlights a key feature of Survivor Tribal Council and some contestant interactions,
and other shows like it: Its ‘‘creators’’ do not have is a mere simulated reality. However, the show
free reign; the stories they tell are limited to what tries very hard, and generally succeeds, at creating
actually happens while the cameras are rolling. the impression that this is as real as it gets. This
This can threaten the show’s suspense, which it reflects the idea of a hyperreality, which aims to
seems at times Burnett uses manipulative means to ‘‘convey the perception of an unstaged reality’’
increase—a fact that has made his reality show all (Goldman and Papson, ‘‘Wars’’ 64). This deceptive
the more unreal. Indeed, as he prepared to air construction elevates the show’s quality by in-
Survivor’s first season, he faced a problem: Mid- creasing suspense and humor, which may boost
way through the game, four contestants formed an viewership and therefore increase the program’s
‘‘alliance’’ and systematically voted out every other potential for multiple instances of intertextuality
player. This development threatened to drain the and commodification—which will only feed back
show’s tension—and ratings. So what did Burnett into the program’s ratings and publicity, in an
and his postproduction team do? They created an endless, capitalistic loop.
illusion of suspense. They took an argument
between two alliance members that occurred very
late in the proceedings and inserted it into a much
Intertextual Survivor : Parody,
earlier episode, making it seem that one member
was about to bolt the alliance. They put together Duplication, Simulation, and
promotions that also hinted at a rupturing of the Re£exivity
alliance, something that week after week never
came to pass (Wright, ‘‘Spoiler’’). Most notoriously,
they allegedly misled viewers by planting a pho- Intertextuality was earlier defined as one text
tograph on the CBS Web site that implied con- citing and referring to another. According to
testant Gervase Peterson would win. (Gervase was Goldman and Papson (‘‘Wars’’), this is happening
not a member of the aforementioned alliance.) more and more in contemporary society, partic-
They later tweaked the show’s opening montage ularly in advertising. Survivor is by no means
by adding footage that strongly suggested Gervase exempt from this phenomenon. Take, for instance,
was one of the final four players. Nearly everyone the never-ending ‘‘Got Milk?’’ ad campaign,
took the bait, as both ‘‘goofs’’ made national head- which features celebrities sporting a milk must-
lines. Several weeks later, the alliance voted out ache and holding a glass of refreshing, cold, does-
Gervase, leaving millions in shock (Poniewozik).3 a-body-good liquid. This may be the most appar-
This is only the most major example of how ent example of intertextuality today. ‘‘Got Milk?’’
Burnett and his team have apparently manipulated has borrowed the Osbourne family. It has bor-
footage, and therefore the audience, by further rowed Ronald McDonald. And it has borrowed
augmenting the already false reality of the pro- Survivor contestants such as season one winner
gram. Sharp-eyed viewers have noted other times Richard Hatch to add meaning and value to milk
when editors appear to have jumbled footage or by indexically appropriating a pop culture gold
used digital effects to conceal information—for mine (‘‘Final Four’’).
instance, sometimes the contestants are thrown a There appear to be endless examples of the
‘‘plot twist’’ such as having to switch tribes (yet intertextual borrowing of Survivor and the sym-
another bit of built-in, manufactured conflict), bolic value associated with it. The most amusing
and to obscure this, editors may digitally alter may be transforming and parodying the show’s
footage.4 logo. Dozens of examples can be found from a
These examples clearly show how Survivor, in simple Google.com search.5 Each logo points
numerous ways, is a contrived product, not an back to the actual Survivor logo and incorporates174 The Journal of American Culture Volume 29, Number 2 June 2006
other meanings and associations, such as the deserted island (DCCC). Most amusingly, the
Christian faith, plumbing, shopping, dog racing, White House Correspondents Dinner in 2001
singing, and raising quintuplets, among other featured a video parody linking what was argu-
things. The resulting sign is rather effective—to ably 2000s biggest popular culture story—Survi-
the intended consumer, it likely appears hip, pop- vor—with the biggest political story, the Florida
culture-conscious, and also meaningful in more presidential election imbroglio. The video depict-
important ways to that consumer. ed Al Gore and Bush seated at Tribal Council as
Survivor has been borrowed from in other host Probst ‘‘tallied the votes.’’ He pulled from
ways.6 The band My Hairy Brother wrote a song the Tribal Council urn one vote for Bush, one
called ‘‘Isle of Survivor’’ that parodied the well- vote for Gore, another vote for Bush, and another
known 1980s tune ‘‘Eye of the Tiger’’, which had for Gore. That left one unread ballot. ‘‘Here’s the
been recorded, appropriately, by a band named last vote,’’ Probst said, and then turned it around
Survivor (MyHairyBrother.com). Cartoonists have with a puzzled look on his face. It read ‘‘Bore.’’ At
appropriated imagery and catchphrases from the that point, Florida Secretary of State Katherine
show to make their own statements. In one, Don Harris, whom Democrats had accused of lacking
Pirato appropriates Survivor and its pop cultural impartiality in the recount process, stepped in and
cousin, Gilligan’s Island, for a humorous cartoon ‘‘re-interpreted’’ ‘‘Bore’’ as ‘‘Bush’’ (Oldenburg
linking the two programs (Pirato). In another, 2D). The fact that Survivor was a central feature
cartoonist Chris Companik of HIVnME.com par- of this major political and media event further il-
odies Survivor’s Tribal Council in order to crit- lustrates the show’s cultural ubiquity.
icize talk show host Laura Schlesinger’s treatment As noted earlier, following Survivor’s huge
of the HIV/AIDS crisis and endorse an advertiser success, other reality programs flooded the mar-
boycott of her program (Figure 1). In 2004, a ket, many of which have borrowed, to varying
Democratic group launched an online cartoon se- degrees, from Survivor,7 in terms of the use of
ries called Republican Survivor, which poked fun physical and mental competitions, terminology,
at conservative figures ranging from President being ‘‘voted out’’ in some fashion, editing style,
George W. Bush to pundit Ann Coulter by a host who banters with contestants, etc. These
stranding animated representations of them on a ‘‘duplicate’’ television programs8 have had varying
Figure 1. Survivor can be used intertextually in humorous ways or to
make a serious point, such as the above comic by Chris Companik.Welcome to the Jungle of the Real Christopher J. Wright 175
degrees of ratings success. CBS’s Big Brother of each episode, during which the players must
features a dozen or so ‘‘houseguests’’ locked in a answer questions about the mole’s identity. The
camera-filled home on a Los Angeles studio lot players then proceed to the dramatic ‘‘Execution,’’
who must interact, take part in competitions, etc. where the player who scored the lowest on the
One by one, they are voted out until one remains quiz is ‘‘executed’’ and escorted from the game.
to win a large cash prize. So, Big Brother is Note that where Survivor has its challenges, The
essentially Survivor in a house, with elements of Mole has its games and tests. Survivor has alli-
MTV’s The Real World thrown in. CBS’s The ances; The Mole has coalitions. In Survivor, play-
Amazing Race features teams of two people rac- ers who lack immunity risk being voted out; on
ing around the world, and taking part in tasks The Mole, players lacking an exemption risk
such as hang gliding, beach volleyball, downing execution. This use of similar terminology by The
two pounds of caviar, and bathing an elephant. Mole (which also features a talkative, charismatic
The slowest teams are eliminated until one re- host, like Survivor) accomplishes dual, dialectical
mains to claim one million dollars. objectives: It links The Mole to Survivor and at
ABC’s The Bachelor and other programs fea- the same time it separates the two. In this way
ture a single man or woman being romanced by ABC’s show, and others, take on their own iden-
an ever-narrowing circle of strangers under var- tity while still using similar lingo to keep an in-
ying contrived circumstances. The UPN series tertextual link to the most ballyhooed reality
The Surreal Life is a takeoff on shows such as The program.
Osbournes, which follow around celebrities much Survivor, which is in many ways a simulated
as Survivor follows around ‘‘regular people.’’ Sur- reality rather than an actual reality, is itself sim-
real features several low-grade celebrities living ulated on some fan sites, resulting in poached
together in a contrived state—and one edition in- meta-discourse that is a simulation of a simula-
cluded Survivor: The Australian Outback ‘‘vil- tion. For example, fan Mario Lanza has published
lainess’’ Jerri Manthey, who, as Thomas O’Guinn online in serialized form three ‘‘All-Star’’ Survivor
might put it, is nothing more than a ‘‘human novels, taking place in Hawaii, Alaska, and
pseudo-event,’’ someone ‘‘famous for being fa- Greece.11 The novels take sixteen actual contest-
mous’’ (157). The fact that former reality ‘‘stars’’ ants from prior seasons of Survivor and throw
have taken part in other reality series demon- them together into a new, fictionalized competi-
strates the limited viability of using reality TV as a tion (Lanza). Each ‘‘chapter’’ includes challenges,
launch pad for sustained fame.9 Elsewhere, reality conflict, chats with host Probst, Tribal Council—
TV has even begun to parody itself—My Big Fat everything you would find on an actual episode of
Obnoxious Fiancee and Joe Schmo feature obliv- Survivor. Perhaps most interesting about all this is
ious ‘‘ordinary’’ people surrounded by actors pre- that, unlike fan fiction based on the X-Files, Star
tending to take part in a reality show, resulting in Trek, or other such programs,12 the ‘‘characters’’
a new kind of ‘‘false real.’’ being written about here are actual people—even
ABC’s The Mole is especially noteworthy for if their on-screen personas were part manufac-
its use of Survivor-like terminology. The program tured simulation. The authors determine who is
features twelve or so strangers who trek around voted out when, and just as in the real show, seven
Europe together;10 one person is a ‘‘mole’’ charged ousted (fictionalized) contestants return to vote
with sabotaging various competitions, while the on a winner. This mingling of fiction, simulation,
others (and viewers) must determine the mole’s and reality seems to tie things up in theoretical
identity. The players, some of whom form ‘‘coa- knots. The ‘‘characters’’ all point to the version of
litions’’ to help out one another, take part in themselves that appeared on television (such as
‘‘games’’ and ‘‘tests’’ that win them money and the character of Tammy in the novel Survivor:
sometimes allow one person to obtain an ‘‘ex- Alaska that points to the contestant Tammy from
emption’’ from the ‘‘quiz’’ that occurs at the end the program Survivor: Marquesas) and to contestants176 The Journal of American Culture Volume 29, Number 2 June 2006
who appeared with them, and situations that oc- Note that this person does not say he had
cur in the novel point back to situations that oc- looked forward to reading about Varner and Kelly
curred on the real Survivor. Further, the novel G.—he says he had looked forward to seeing
itself points to the other novels, and each of them them, just as he had seen them on CBS. This slip
points to all of the actual Survivor seasons. suggests that even those who dislike the ‘‘plot’’ of
Key to the success of these novels is their per- Lanza’s fiction find it realistic enough that they
ceived authenticity, in terms of the representations are lulled into talking of viewing it, not reading it.
of the ‘‘characters’’ and mimicry of the television This parallels the seductive nature of instant mess-
program’s elements. Helen Glover, who placed aging; this author and his friends, certainly, often
fourth on the real-life Survivor: Thailand and refer to such activities as ‘‘talking’’ to one another,
‘‘won’’ the fictional Survivor: Alaska, found her not ‘‘writing’’—a simulated conversation. All this
false self to be believable. The author, fan Mario shows just how ‘‘real’’ a simulation of an already
Lanza, ‘‘seemed to capture my personality very simulated reality can be. Indeed, in Lanza’s case,
well, which was amazing, seeing as how he had no when even those whom he has appropriated for
personal interaction with me,’’ she wrote in an his novels applaud their realism, the effect of the
e-mail interview, though she noted her fictional ‘‘false’’ can approach the effect of the ‘‘real.’’
representation used more profanity and spoke in a Finally, Survivor is often self-referential. Mo-
more ‘‘coarse’’ way than she does in real life ments from one season point to moments from
(Glover). Other former contestants even helped another, which index other moments, which index
Lanza create their own ‘‘self-portraits.’’ This rais- still others. Some of the ‘‘challenges’’ are repeated
es the questions of whether these false versions season after season, so one episode’s puzzle chal-
might at times be more ‘‘real’’ than CBS’s inter- lenge conjures memories of past ones. Plotlines
pretation—and whether people can accurately repeat themselves, often beyond the producers’
evaluate representations of themselves. Few, after control—on Episode 2 of Survivor: The Amazon,
all, would perceive themselves as villains. a female contestant was accused by her tribemates
Fans respond to Survivor fiction much like they of smuggling a granola bar into camp, which is
do the show, reacting strongly to certain players against the rules. She was voted off immediately.
and speculating about future events. Treatment of This indexed an almost identical incident from the
the series is far more involved, but Lanza’s last two same episode, No. 2, of the Australian season that
projects each spurred more than 800 posts on the had aired two years prior. Then, someone was
popular site SurvivorSucks (2002, 2003). A few fans accused of smuggling beef jerky, and was imme-
created Web pages dedicated to covering the novels, diately voted out. This time around, fan sites
simulating those that cover the real Survivor. They buzzed with word of this ‘‘SlimJim-gate redux.’’
list speculation and players’ voting histories.13 Cer- Ironically, Survivor’s producers have in the past
tainly this indicates many find the fiction effective. avoided explicit references to earlier seasons. For
‘‘You never cease to impress,’’ wrote a fan with the instance, whenever contestants on Survivor: The
screen name Colleenlover before Greece’s debut, Australian Outback, the show’s second edition,
referring to Lanza and his writing. ‘‘I think I enjoy discussed Richard, Rudy Boesch, and other players
this more than the actual series’’ (SurvivorSucks from the first show, those references were edited
2003). Additionally, a few become upset when fa- out (Rosenthal 42). This practice changed, however,
vorites are voted out—similar to reactions to the with the overtly reflexive Survivor: All-Stars, which
TV series. After the writers dispatched the popular aired in spring 2004. In this case, the new
Jeff Varner and Kelly Goldsmith early in Alaska, a ‘‘versions’’ of the contestants pointed to their pre-
reader wrote, ‘‘Bring back Varner and Kelly G. vious ones. Survivor: Guatemala (fall 2005) also
They were the two people I was most looking for- featured former contestants returning for another
ward to seeing, and they’ve been unexpectedly and try.14 Also, the opening theme song, which is ad-
unfairly voted off’’ (SurvivorSucks 2002). justed slightly for each new season (for example,Welcome to the Jungle of the Real Christopher J. Wright 177
Outback’s theme appropriating the sounds of an ab- human, and it all serves to reinforce the show’s
original didgeridoo), contained elements of all prior ubiquity. First off, CBS offers a multitude of
theme songs, while the Tribal Council setting and products featuring various incarnations of the
challenges also echoed those from previous seasons. Survivor logo, much as Nike inflates the value of a
Additionally, many seasons, once the two tribes T-shirt it takes pennies to produce by slapping on
merge, the tribe with the majority takes over and a swoosh. Most popular may be the Survivor
systematically votes out the other players. This ‘‘buffs,’’ or bandanas, which are recreations of
happened in the first season, when, as mentioned those that the actual contestants wear on the pro-
earlier, Tagi tribemates formed a secret alliance and gram.16 These enable fans to feel as if they are part
voted out the remainder of the Pagong tribe before of the action, and are one with the contestants,
turning on themselves. This pattern was hereby just as someone wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey
dubbed ‘‘Pagonging’’ by online Survivor fans, and with No. 23 on it may feel more closely associated
has happened several times since (the resulting with Michael Jordan. CBS also offers T-shirts,
predictability has been the show’s most serious hats, bikinis, beach towels, and other products
flaw). Hence, every time a dominant alliance be- with the Survivor logo. Also available are official
gins to pick off a weaker one, we hear that ‘‘the Survivor books, soundtracks, shot glasses, calen-
Sook Jai tribe is getting Pagonged,’’ etc., and dars, DVDs, even slot machines, and a board
therefore are pointed back to the first season.15 game and computer game, both of which allow
Lastly, characters and relationships on the show fans to simulate the simulation that is Survivor.
are self-referential—not only the ubiquitous alli- It does not stop there. For several years, the
ances, all of which point back to the original Tagi forces behind Survivor have teamed with an AIDS
alliance, but also in terms of friendships. The Au- charity to auction off props from the show on
ssie Survivor featured a close friendship between eBay ( Jefferson), a practice that cynics might also
ingénue Elizabeth and tribal elder Rodger. see as cause-related marketing. Fans can bid on
Marquesas, which aired a year later, showcased a such items as players’ torches, the Tribal Council
similar relationship between 21-year-old Neleh voting urn, notepads, food canisters, and more.
and the aging Paschal. Fans immediately compared By helping a worthy cause, fans can have a piece
Neleh and Paschal to Elizabeth and Rodger. Each of cultural history—and simulated reality—in
season also features repetitive ‘‘characters’’ that their own home (Figure 2), ironically making
suffer from stereotypical portrayals: the lazy black Survivor all the more ‘‘real’’ to them. This allows
man, America’s sweetheart, the back-stabbing con- fans to ‘‘touch greatness,’’ much like the fans de-
niver, and many others (Wright, ‘‘Borans,’’ ‘‘Bet’’). scribed in Thomas O’Guinn’s ‘‘Touching Great-
All of these point to their prior, and in some cases ness: The Central Midwest Barry Manilow Fan
later, versions, resulting in a web of indexes and Club.’’ To wit:
icons that ultimately points back to the original
Survivor series from summer 2000 and, arguably, The highest status things in the collection are
whatever is the current edition of the show, since the things actually touched by Barry. This
that is the one most in the media eye. somehow proves that Barry exists for them,
through this person-to-object-to-person con-
nection. It is physical evidence of a personal
relationship . . .. This collecting of things ac-
Survivor Commodities: Mementos tually touched by the admired one is a par-
of a False Reality ticularly interesting aspect of the Touching
Greatness phenomenon. It was observed
consistently across venues and celebrities,
and is very consistent with a liturgical inter-
The world of Survivor is filled with commod- pretation, going as far as the levels of
ities, some official, some unofficial, some even sacredness assigned to religious relics178 The Journal of American Culture Volume 29, Number 2 June 2006
they may involve being split into ‘‘tribes’’ and
taking part in competitions) (Sloan). Local busi-
nesses’ attempts to take advantage of their pro-
ximities to such settings is a fascinating extension
of the ‘‘staged authenticity’’ of tourism—the idea
that a ‘‘host culture,’’ aware that visitors seek in-
teraction with an ‘‘other,’’ exaggerate elements of
local culture while keeping their real lives ‘‘back
stage’’ (Delisle 43). Another emerging ‘‘industry’’
centers around Survivor stars themselves. We have
seen a handful, particularly those from the first
two seasons, snare high- or mid-profile media
gigs.17 Former contestants have arranged large
group appearances, such as the two-day ‘‘Reality
TV Superstars’’ event in Omaha, Nebraska, in
June 2003, and selling tickets for the event, with
proceeds going to charity. Former contestants
have official sites with photographs, diaries, and a
form to request an appearance.18 Others appear as
writers or on-air personalities at the Web site/on-
line radio station TheFishbowl.com. Before long,
Survivor could have its own conventions, much
the way Star Trek has for so many years. Fur-
thermore, former Survivor contestants are fea-
tured in the aforementioned computer game.
Figure 2. (A) A Survivor collection, including an Lastly, the array of Survivor fan Web sites must
autographed prop, center, from a Vanuatu
be noted,19 for it is here that fans congregate. As
challenge, belonging to Wezzie, a member of the
show’s Internet fan community. The prop was
O’Guinn wrote of the Manilow fan club, ‘‘I ob-
bought in an online auction benefiting a pediatric served evidence of the fan club as surrogate fam-
AIDS charity. The ‘‘wall’’ behind the prop is a ily, and what could reasonably be viewed as a
puzzle piece from a Pearl Islands challenge and socialization outcome of life in a society in which
was found discarded on a beach in Panama. Fans the average family watches more than seven hours
such as Wezzie use travel books, top left, to help of television a day’’ (159). A more extensive dis-
in their sleuthing. (B) Closeup of the Vanuatu cussion of the fan sites is a topic for another
prop. article, but some elements of them do take on a
‘‘pseudo-commodity’’ status. Many of the sites’
depending on how ‘‘near’’ they were once to major focus is to spoil Survivor by determining in
the sacred being. (164) advance what will occur on the show. This is done
by analyzing, sometimes frame by frame or word
Whether fans see these items as ‘‘sacred’’ or for word, promotional video clips and interviews,
merely mementos of a TV show they love, there as well as trying to gauge contestant weight loss,
are more Survivor commodities out there than etc. (Wright, ‘‘Sports’’).
official CBS-peddled items and chunks of paper- The sites at times actually compete to see
mache ‘‘rock’’ that once were part of a simulated which can land the most accurate spoilers or
Stonehenge. Fans can also tour former filming analysis, and those who succeed gain stature in the
sites as part of a nostalgic vacation (these tours eyes of the online community, unless they are
also can be a Survivor simulation in the wild, as perceived as arrogant. For instance, the siteWelcome to the Jungle of the Real Christopher J. Wright 179
SurvivorNews.net gained a trustworthy repu-
tation by announcing the names of Survivor
contestants well before the official CBS an-
nouncements. The Washington Post featured an-
other site when it accurately predicted week after
week who would be voted off of Survivor: The
Australian Outback (Farhi A01). The people be-
hind Survivor Maps have figured out time and
again the secret locations of future filming sites
(Bollinger). Perhaps most interestingly, a fan
spoiled much of Survivor: The Amazon after
stumbling upon the filming site while on vacation
in Brazil in January 2003 (ChillOne). He then
wrote a book on his experience (Figure 3). There
are also ‘‘fantasy leagues’’ where members win
points for correctly picking who will be voted off
and who will win immunity.
Web sites and individual Survivor fans take
ownership of video captures, or ‘‘vid-caps,’’ that
they snap from footage CBS provides on its Web
site and on television. They do this even though
CBS is the official owner of the footage. This
‘‘ownership’’ signifies the work it took to locate
and make the capture, especially when the image
captured is viewed as a ‘‘spoiler.’’ (For instance,
someone notices that the ‘‘Immunity Necklace,’’
which prevents people from being voted out, is Figure 3. After discovering many secrets of
around a certain person’s neck in a promotion.) Survivor: The Amazon while vacationing in South
Because of these attempts at ownership, vid-caps America, a fan known in the Survivor online
and spoilers often take the form of pseudo- community as The ChillOne posted his findings
on the Internet and later self-published a book,
commodities—that is, they are seen as having
above, about his experience.
value, even if it is a fleeting, nonexchange value,
and value only in the context of the online
Survivor community. They help Survivor mes-
sage board members compile social capital (and indexically they generally all point back to the
once again, since the vast majority of members are original and current Survivors.
known online only by anonymous aliases, that
capital does not extend beyond the borders of the
Internet). This is reflective of the greater trend in
society today of information as commodity. Conclusion: Survivor as
Survivor is thus commoditized in multiple, ex- Simulacrum?
tensive ways through standard and nonstandard
channels, by CBS, contestants, fans, and others.
This serves the culture industries—and the forces This article has examined the various ways
behind Survivor in particular—by raising the through which the highly rated, hyperreal CBS
show’s profile, as the commodities variously point television show Survivor has been commoditized
to one another and back to the show itself, while and used intertextually. From parodic logos to180 The Journal of American Culture Volume 29, Number 2 June 2006
copycat shows, from fan fiction to self- case a bizarre, contrived microcosm—of a world
referentiality, from buffs to ‘‘All-Star’’ tours, the uni- that lacks an original (Loyola).
verse of Survivor is, at least for now, ever-expanding. However, should Survivor continue to air for
Thinking back to Baudrillard’s notion of years to come—and as inexpensive as it is to pro-
simulacra and the four steps on the road to that duce, it is hard to not see that happening—the
status (170), it is evident that Survivor may be phenomenon could well become an undisputed
well on its way to becoming ‘‘its own, pure simulacra, where the original Borneo version is
simulacra,’’ if it is not there already. Consider lost amid legends of a fat, naked man named
stage one: ‘‘a reflection of a basic reality.’’ The Richard who pulled together the original alliance
show Survivor itself is this reflection—the thing it and walked away a millionaire. In The Matrix,
reflects (or, more accurately, ‘‘refracts,’’ depending one character refers to Baudrillard’s famed
on the editing) is what took place in the jungles of ‘‘Simulacra and Simulations’’ essay when he tells
Borneo, the plains of Africa, the beaches of Neo, played by Keanu Reeves, ‘‘Welcome to the
Panama. Stage two ‘‘masks and perverts a basic desert of the real.’’ In due time, the intertextual,
reality.’’ Examples of this are basic Survivor com- commoditized world of Survivor may well
modities, which pervert the ‘‘reality’’ of Survivor become the jungle of the real.
by prioritizing the image and logo over the show
itself, much as Nike shirts are all about the image,
not the shoes, which are the actual products. As
for stage three, which ‘‘masks the absence of a Notes
basic reality,’’ one can look to Survivor fan fiction,
which is based on ‘‘real’’ characters and a ‘‘real’’
TV show but completely reinvents them and Special thanks to Dr. Mark Allen Peterson, now of the University of
Miami (Ohio).
places them in an entirely new context. But the
1. Adapted from Baker, 58.
convincing prose and the fact that some online
2. See Lance, Delisle, Wright, Andrejevic, and Fetveit.
fans follow the serialized Survivor novels with
3. In most cases, CBS and Burnett have denied having done
similar gusto as the actual TV program show how these things purposely, if at all.
well they mask that they are built out of thin air. 4. For example, eagle-eyed Survivor sleuths noticed that in a
There are also the simulated Tribal Council set- promotion for a Survivor: All-Stars episode, one contestant’s
‘‘buff’’—a bandana whose color signifies tribal membership—had
tings—the fact that they have taken place in such apparently been digitally altered from red to green to hide a twist
locales as a faux African village, complete with (Survivor Network, The).
realistic huts, speaks volumes about the alleged 5. See hhttp://images.google.com/images?q=survivor+logo&hl=
en&btnG=Google+Searchi.
death of authenticity in our culture today. 6. Survivor has also appropriated from other cultural icons,
Finally there is stage four, where ‘‘any relation such as the fall 2003 Pearl Islands season, which made heavy use of
to any reality whatsoever’’ is severed. It is difficult pirate imagery and lore. It also happened to follow in the footsteps
of the blockbuster summer film, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse
to say that Survivor has reached this stage, since of the Black Pearl.
the countless commodities and intertextual refer- 7. Note that Survivor is based on a European television
ences do all point to one another but also, ulti- program, so even it is a duplication. Big Brother also originated
internationally.
mately, back to the show itself, be it the original 8. A similar phenomenon occurred with game shows following
summer 2000 version or whatever edition is cur- the success of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, sci-fi shows following
rently airing—since that is the one most on the The X-Files, and sitcoms that borrowed from Friends and Seinfeld.
9. Manthey eventually also appeared in Survivor: All-Stars in
media’s, and therefore the public’s, minds. How- spring 2004, where it seemed she attempted to present a softer image,
ever, one could also argue that since—as described or the editors decided to present her that way themselves.
in the ‘‘Survivor as the False Real’’ section—Sur- 10. Later editions have featured C-list celebrities competing in
Hawaii and other locales.
vivor is by no means a reflection of ‘‘reality,’’ it
11. The novels originally were posted at www.survivorcentral.
therefore is itself a simulacra. That is, like the com, which is now defunct. Lanza had assistance in writing Hawaii
world in the film The Matrix, it is a copy—in this and Alaska.Welcome to the Jungle of the Real Christopher J. Wright 181
12. See Henry Jenkins’ Textual Poachers (Routledge) for the DeMarco, Peter. ‘‘New Realities of Survivor.’’ New York Daily News
definitive analysis of fan fiction. 10 May 2001: 2.
13. Most of these are now defunct, as the final Greece episode Farhi, Paul. ‘‘The Winner? Elementary, Watson.’’ The Washington
was posted in August 2003. Post 26 Apr. 2001: C01.
14. The characterizations of some had changed somewhat, with Farhi, Paul, and Lisa de Moraes ‘‘Television’s Survivor Instinct;
Jerri more sympathetic than she had been as Australian Outback’s Novelty and Marketing Pay Off for CBS’s Unlikely Hit.’’ The
villain, for instance. Stephenie, meanwhile, was the clear heroine on Washington Post 15 June 2000: A01.
Survivor: Palau but was shown as whiny and less sympathetic on her
Fetveit, Arild. ‘‘Reality TV in the Digital Era: A Paradox in Visual
second appearance, Guatemala.
Culture?’’ Reality Squared: Television Discourses on the Real.
15. In an apparent nod to fans and indicative of this intertextual Ed. James Friedman. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2002.
reflexiveness, All-Stars contestant Shii-Ann Huang was at one point 119-37.
shown complaining to the camera that her tribe was destined to be
Final Four Milk. Advertisement. USAToday.com. 29 Jan. 2005
‘‘Pagonged.’’
hhttp://www.usatoday.com/life/gallery/survivor/1finalfourmilk.
16. See hhttp://store.cbs.comi. jpgi.
17. Colleen Haskell from the first Survivor co-starred in the Glover, Helen. ‘‘E-Mail Interview with Survivor: Thailand Contest-
2002 film The Animal with Rob Schnieder; tribemate Kelly ant Helen Glover.’’ E-mail to the author, 8 Jan. 2004.
Wigglesworth hosted a program on E! called Celebrity Adventures;
Goldman, Robert, and Stephen Papson. Sign Wars: The Cluttered
season two’s Jeff Varner has been a host on the TV Guide Channel;
his former tribemate, Elizabeth Hasselback, now co-hosts The View. Landscape of Advertising. New York: The Guilford Press, 1996.
18. See, for example hhttp://www.amber-brkich.com/i; hhttp:// ———. Nike Culture: The Sign of the Swoosh. London: Sage Publi-
www.survivorjeff.comi. cations, 1998.
19. See communities hhttp://p085.ezboard.com/bsurvivorsucksi; Jefferson, Deshundra. ‘‘Survivor: The Charity Challenge.’’
hhttp://www.realiiity.com/i; hhttp://www.survivorchatter.comi; or CNN.com. 17 Dec. 2003. 29 Jan. 2005 hhttp://money.cnn.com/
an individual’s fan site hhttp://darrell75657.tripod.comi. 2003/12/17/news/companies/survivor_ebay/i.
Lance, Peter. The Stingray. Berryville, VA: Cinema 21 Books, 2000.
Lanza, Mario. ‘‘Mario’s All-Star Survivor Fan Fiction Archives.’’ 29
Jan. 2005 hhttp://members.aol.com/AllStarHawaii/i.
Loyola College New Media Center. ‘‘Postmodernism: Simulacra and
Works Cited Simulation.’’ 29 Jan. 2005 hhttp://nmc.loyola.edu/intro/postmod/
simulation.htmi.
McDaniel, Mike. ‘‘Survivor Contestants Go for Thrills.’’ Houston
Chronicle 31 May 2000: 1.
Andrejevic, Mark. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Critical McNeill, Tony. Untitled. The University of Sunderland, Great
Media Studies. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Britain. 1996. 29 Jan. 2005 hhttp://orac.sund.ac.uk/os0tmc/
2003. myth.htmi.
Appadurai, Arjun. ‘‘Commodities and the politics of value.’’ MyHairyBrother.com. ‘‘The World Discovers MHB.’’ 2001. 29 Jan.
The Social Life of Things. Ed. Arjun Appadurai. Cambridge: 2005 hhttp://www.myhairybrother.com/story.htmi.
Cambridge University Press, 1986. 3-63.
O’Guinn, Thomas. ‘‘Touching Greatness: The Central Midwest
Baker, Sean. ‘‘From Dragnet to Survivor: Historical and Cultural Barry Manilow Fan Club.’’ The Consumer Society Reader. Eds.
Perspectives on Reality Television.’’ Survivor Lessons: Essays on Juliet B. Schor and Douglas B. Holt. New York: New Press,
Communication and Reality Television. Ed. Matthew J. Smith 2000. 155-68.
and Andrew F. Wood. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company,
Oldenburg, Meg. ‘‘Bush Survives Night of Jokes.’’ USA Today 30
2003. 57-69.
Apr. 2001: 2D.
Baudrillard, Jean. Selected Writings. Ed. Mark Poster. Stanford:
Peterson, Mark Allen. ‘‘Class Lecture for ‘Symbols and Commod-
Stanford Press, 1988.
ities: Popular Culture and Social Worlds in Late Modernity.’’’
Bollinger, Dan. ‘‘Survivor Maps.’’ 29 Jan. 2005 hhttp://www. Georgetown University. 5 Feb. 2003.
claycritters.com/map/survivormaps.htmi.
Pirato, Dan. ‘‘Bizarro.’’ 25 Mar. 2001. Online image. GilligansIsle.
Burnett, Mark, with Martin Dugard. Survivor: The Ultimate Game. com. 29 Jan. 2005 hhttp://www.gilligansisle.com/comics/
New York: TV Books, 2000. survivor.jpgi.
Chandler, Daniel. ‘‘Semiotics for Beginners.’’ University of Wales, Poniewozik, James. ‘‘Aaargh! CBS Is Playing Survivor Mind
1995. 29 Jan. 2005 hhttp://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/ Games.’’ Time.com. 3 Aug. 2000. 29 Jan. 2005 hhttp://www.
S4B/semiotic.htmli. time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,51855,00.htmli.
ChillOne, The. The Spoiler: Revealing the Secrets of Survivor. Rosenthal, Phil. ‘‘Survivor Returns to Feed the Addiction.’’ Chicago
Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2003. Sun-Times 26 Jan. 2001: 42.
DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee). Sloan, Gene. ‘‘Outback Tour as Seen on TV!’’ USAToday.com.
‘‘Republican Survivor.’’ 29 Jan. 2005 hhttp://www.dtriptv.com/ 20 Mar. 2001. 29 Jan. 2005 hhttp://cgi1.usatoday.com/travel/
WatchPast.aspxi. vacations/background/australia-outback.htmi.
Delisle, Jennifer Bowering. ‘‘Surviving American Cultural Imperial- Survivor Network, The. ‘‘Amber Goes to Mogo Mogo, Tribes
ism: Survivor and Traditions of Nineteenth-Century Colonial Switch, Merge?’’ 2004. 29 Jan. 2005 hhttp://www.londyscreations.
Fiction.’’ The Journal of American Culture 26.1 (2003): 42-55. com/survivornetwork/spoilers_ep9.aspi.182 The Journal of American Culture Volume 29, Number 2 June 2006 SurvivorSucks. 2002. ‘‘All-Star Alaska Predictions Game.’’ 29 Jan. Wright, Chris. ‘‘Bet on Black.’’ PopPolitics. 9 May 2002. 29 Jan. 2005 2005 hhttp://p085.ezboard.com/fsurvivorsucksfrm17.showMessage hhttp://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-05-09-betonblack.shtmli. Range?start=1&stop=20&topicID=2527.topici. ———. ‘‘Spoiler Sports.’’ PopPolitics. 10 Jan. 2002. 29 Jan. 2005 SurvivorSucks. 2003. ‘‘All-Star Survivor: Greece (Second Chance) hhttp://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-01-10-spoilers.shtmli. Predictions Game.’’ 29 Jan. 2005 hhttp://p085.ezboard.com/ ———. ‘‘Borans Don’t Cry.’’ PopPolitics.com, 22 Oct. 2001. 29 Jan. 2005. fsurvivorsucksfrm17.showMessageRange?topicID=3227.topic& hhttp://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2001-10-22-borans.shtmli. start=1&stop=20i.
You can also read
