CBS's "Survivor" miniseries sorely disappointed me. But I was reminded of a thing or two about human nature.
The concept intrigued me from the very moment the reality television program was introduced. I was hoping to see more of the contestants cooperating to build shelter, hunt food and collect drinking water. I had anticipated a genuine survival situation with no outside assistance. I expected that the elimination of contestants would happen when someone would drop-out from the hard work and extreme fatigue. Then, perhaps a panel of judges could later vote contestants off the island due to laziness, lack of skill, rule violation or whatever.
To my dismay, the show became more of a cross between "American Gladiators" and "MTV's The Real World." To further trivialize the concept, contestants were given the chance to win luxury "prizes" like pillows and extra food by winning a game. Even if one were to excel at all of the games, nobody was immune to the endless gossip that surrounded each player.
"[The show is] two parts adventure contest, eight parts surviving the peer group," said Mark Burnett, "Survivor" executive producer.
But the ones who spent their time building shelter and teaching others how to eat off the land were voted-out early. The contestants who spent the majority of their time forming "alliances" and stabbing other contestants in the back were the ones to make it to the later episodes.
The "tribal council," in which the contestants met to vote other contestants off the island, was not at all concerned with judging who was the best survivor. Rather, the council became a vehicle for contestants to eliminate any serious competition. After all, there was a $1 million prize at stake. Who cares about principle when there's money to be made?
The novel, "Lord of the Flies," by William Gerald Golding, is a great vision of how easily principle is forsaken when people are left to fend for themselves with no governance or rules to guide them. If you have no time for books, rent the video. Although it is fiction, the book contains much more reality than "Survivor" ever offered.
The story begins with several boarding school students shipwrecked on a deserted island. They are left with very little provisions with which to survive. Quickly, alliances are formed, the weak are left behind and the unpopular are ostracized by the crowd. Soon, tribes are formed and murder becomes an option. A primitive earth-religion is established and cannibalism occurs.
These boys were well-educated, civil, and trained to live off the land. But with no principle, no government, and no God, self-preservation became the rule. Anarchy prevailed.
That primal instinct of self-preservation will in most cases overwhelm the virtues of brotherhood and morality. This drive toward self-preservation and eliminating the competition is exemplified by corporate America, where companies scramble to merge in order to corner the market and force smaller companies out of the picture.
This same concept holds true in politics. Many of our Congressmen, even the honest ones, have to ignore principle to compromise and make alliances in order to defeat their ideological rivals. From "Survivor's" tribal council, to local school boards, to the United States Congress, self-preservation and empowerment become the main issues.
No system of man-made organization is perfect. Like the preamble to the Constitution reads, "...in order to form a more perfect union..." Note the word, "more." We can't expect perfection. But we can strive to be more perfect.
Unlike the directly democratic "tribal council," our system allows for a strong, constitutional Republic. In order for our government to work, the people must strive to select educated, honest and sincere leaders who are interested in representing, and not dictating or merely climbing up a step in their political careers. But on the other side of the coin, the representatives must have the wisdom and common sense to defy popular opinion and party philosophy when they are contrary to the well-being of the Nation. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.
And to think there are those who want to extend this careful balance of moral principle versus popular consent to the general public! There are those even on this campus who would blindly vote for a direct democracy system if given the chance. In a direct democracy, the people would be able to vote on almost every issue brought before the legislature. A direct democracy would give the media ultimate power in determining public policy. Instead of rival political parties, we would have a menagerie of selfish special interest groups all vying for the favor of the most watched mass media outlet. If mankind is indeed imperfect, like the tribal council, direct democracy would only reflect that imperfection and project it to a larger scale.
"Survivor" was an awful mess. To the average Joe Sixpack, it was nothing more than "Gilligan's Island" on steroids. But to the thinking individual, it should represent what is wrong with our current notions of conformity and popularity.
Such cheesy attempts at "reality television" distort the truth and alter our conceptions of human nature- not unlike a biased opinion poll. Allowing the tribal council to have final say in who stays or goes was a foolish idea by CBS's programming department.
Maybe a wild pack of blood-thirsty dingos will shake things up a bit in "Survivor II: The Australian Outback." With all hope, they would devour the "prizes" and leave the quirky contestants and the Starbucks-sipping production crew truly stranded.
Now that would be reality television!