| Survivor: Cook Islands, the 13th season of the long-running reality show, premieres on September 14 with a controversial new ploy to lure viewers in.
In a purported effort to address criticisms that the program has not been ethnically diverse, as previous seasons have included predominantly white contestants, the show will separate contestants according to race into African-American, Hispanic, Asian-American and white tribes.
Let's lay this out straight: to address charges of racism, the show will use segregation. This is a thinly veiled attempt to stir up controversy and sensationalism in order to renew interest in a program whose formula has run dry. The last season, Survivor: Panama, was the least watched instalment in the show’s history. It is a sign of desperation that the producers have resorted to the exploitation of an issue as sensitive as race, particularly in a country with a history of discrimination and racial tensions. Already, the new format is proving offensive and garnering negative publicity, and deservedly so.
A segregational setup has many ramifications. By grouping contestants according to race, the show runs the risk of reinforcing stereotypes. Host Jeff Probst sees no harm in this: "There are going to be people looking for stereotypes: Will this tribe be smarter than this tribe, or will this tribe be faster than this tribe? That's why I think it's fun." Playing the loyal host, Probst obtusely dismisses stereotypes as mere entertainment, as though watching television for racial stereotypes has become an acceptable and enjoyable pastime.
Yet the danger is real. Already, bigots have jumped at the opportunity furnished by the show. Ever-discordant radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has suggested that African-American contestants will fail at swimming events, Asian-Americans will use their intelligence to outsmart others, white participants may resort to oppression, and that Hispanics’ evasion and border-crossing abilities and their willingness to do anything will give them the edge to win. In response to a caller’s objections, he retorted, "I'm telling you what a major network is doing in its prime-time schedule. They're pitting races against each other in this stupid Survivor format, and you tell me I'm being racist." Probst and Limbaugh could get together and act out the pot and kettle bit indefinitely.
Additionally, the show promotes race as a clear, objective category when, in fact, race is a human invention. It is culturally constructed and historically variable. It is not a scientific truth; it is an arbitrary system of classification according to physical characteristics. Defining the boundaries of race is a subjective process – at what point does white skin become brown skin? Dividing groups along racial lines encourages the fallacy that natural, scientific divisions separate people. Survivor propagates the idea that there are exactly four races in the world: black, white, Asian and Hispanic. By doing so, it excludes individuals who do not fit neatly under these labels, contradicting its claims of seeking increased diversity and being the "equal opportunity show" advertised by Probst.
Though race does not exist as a scientific absolute, it exists in the minds of people, and the consequences of this are real. Survivor threatens to masquerade as an actual experiment that will reveal racial differences. Probst ridiculously describes the latest format as a "social experiment… which is taking the show to a completely different level." A different level? Sure, if sinking to new lows in a ratings bid counts. Probst does acknowledge that a team of five people does not represent an entire group, yet the organization of the program encourages this idea.
From a young age, we learn that teams are representative of something larger. High school teams represent high schools; franchise sports teams represent cities; Olympic teams represent nations. Survivor has taken this idea beyond rational and responsible limits. Imagine viewers cheering for a race the way that sports fans cheer for a team. It is unlikely that anyone will refer to the teams by their tribe names, so there will be references to "the Asian team" and "the blacks." There may be office pools with people placing money on a race. If society identifies you with one of the participating races, in particular if you are part of a minority group, how will you feel if your Survivor representatives perform poorly, embarrass themselves or embody stereotypes? How will you feel if one of them wins? Because disturbingly, after battles of strength and intelligence, it will not simply be an individual who triumphs; it will be one race that has emerged superior to the rest.
Publicity is what the producers are aiming for, and publicity is what they are getting. The latest Survivor has fuelled debate among viewers – even those who have never watched the show. Browse online forums discussing the program and you will find numerous articulate criticisms. Petitions against the show are circulating. In New York, a protest held in front of the CBS headquarters was attended by several city officials. These efforts will not lead to the cancellation of the show, but they bring the issues to the forefront.
Granted, Survivor: Cook Islands has not started and no one knows what will happen or in what light the participants will be portrayed. Perhaps the show will challenge stereotypes by presenting the contestants as humans with depth; maybe the Asians will lose events involving math, maybe the blacks will dominate at swimming. And the program will surely serve up the usual merging of the tribes as a nice metaphor for unity and integration. But even if this happens, Survivor has taken the wrong path towards diversity.
Aspiring to create a more inclusive television program is laudable and essential in these times, but Survivor clearly lacks sincerity in its efforts. Instead of seeking more diverse participants and forming teams of more variety, the show has resorted to partitioning racial groups. Segregation is not inclusiveness. The erection of barriers and fostering of competition between races cannot be considered progress in achieving ethnic diversity on television. |
Copyright ©2006 FFWD. All rights reserved.