III.2.3.

The Survivor Symptomatology The contemporary age has included concepts such as ecology, environmental protection, pollution, over-population and resource scarcity among its most common vocabulary. The social and economical discourses adhere at least in theory to the philosophy of sustainable development and living in harmony with the natural environment. On the background of excessive and disorienting information, media culture theorizes its own version of ecological utopia, dissolving scientific facts and cultural to create an entirely new pro ection of the interconnectedness man nature. !nstead of promoting a holistic picture of the real ecological issues with which humanity is confronted at present, the rating-oriented philosophy of the media dictates the opposite" it builds a complex bricolage of cultural myths about nature, camouflaged by fake signifiers and a provocative reiteration of the seemingly timeless humanity-versus-nature conflict. #tereotypical concepts, related to the survival of the human species, are translated into a simulated individual struggle, in situations mimicking dramatic dangers and near-death encounters. Thus, survival is turned into fetishism in television shows dedicated to the artificial revival of a long-extinguished conflict. The social environment that stands for the target audience of such shows, framed by the processes of technologization and the implementation of economical approaches focusing exclusively on the modern version of progress $. These phenomena have had, as most obvious %side-effects&', the destruction and pollution of the natural environment, as well as the disappearance of thousands of plant and animal species and the endangering of numerous others. !n a spectacle of anthropocentrism, any needs other than human have been utterly and deliberately ignored. (ven though environmental slogans are already clich)s through their prominent display in media, the role of nature itself is reduced to that of limitless provider, a mere source to nourish humanity*s progress. The rate of deforestation is already dangerous for the very survival of most of the world*s natural habitats, and the dangerous effects of pollution can be felt on land, in air and in water, having a destructive effect on all living species. The unprecedented demographic expansion is also a more and more visible threat to the planet*s resources, in contradiction with the policies of sustainable development. +ith already numerous megacities, with more than twenty-five thousand inhabitants, humanity has become an increasingly heavy burden for the planet as a whole. The patches of wilderness that have remained relatively free from human interference are getting smaller, a process that is simultaneous with the accelerated expansion of urban conglomerates eventually creating various instances of the media-acclaimed %megalopolis&. +ith this threatening picture as scenery in the real world, T, channels are flooded with shows dedicated to %educational purposes&" namely, they are supposed to serve as lessons about survival in the wild. The scenario is more or less the same" one individual alone in the wild, fighting to overcome a seemingly hopeless situation and having as final goal the return to civilization. Or a small group of people, stranded on an island and having some sort of primitive tribal organization as the only weapon against wilderness. !t is essentially the T,-enhanced
$

-ere, progress is regarded as the sum-total of the purely economic and social advances, rather than part The .uotation marks point to a generalized attitude regarding natural environment, which places human

of a holistic vision, ade.uate for sustainable development.

'

needs on top of any list, and the preservation of habitat right down, at the bottom.

reiteration of /an-versus-0ature clash, a proliferation of cultural myths designed to eventually prove that human intelligence and resourcefulness are no match for the obstacles inherently generated by wilderness. Taking the whole matter further than the T, show %#urvivor& itself, these %realityshows& are even more prefabricated, because they build up the simulation of an adverse nature, on one hand, and a scenario that is highly unlikely to occur, on the other. The scenario that shows such as %(xtreme #urvival& and %1ltimate #urvival& favour creates the impression of a vast wild environment, full of deadly animals and hidden traps2 the human hero fights his way back to civilization thanks to his super-human abilities when it comes to building shelters, hunting, fishing, finding cover, and confronting the most difficult natural obstacles. +ith encyclopaedic knowledge of plants, animals, geography, diseases, meteorology, coupled with movie-like physical skills, these shows tend to hypnotize the viewer into believing he3she too can be mentally e.uipped to get out of such situations. The subtextual message of these shows is not about survival2 it is not about valid ways to triumph over whatever obstacles nature can throw in front of a human individual. !t builds a picture of utopian wilderness, untouched by humanity, in a retrograde history" the 4post5modern man, unarmed, facing the wild. The very idea that such an encounter between the %untamed nature& and the %civilized man& is likely to take place is inherently far-fetched. 6y deliberately promoting a hypostatis of /an as perpetually threatened by 0ature, in the middle of an allegedly vast, untouched wild space, such shows emphasize upon a re-articulation of the already well-documented global ecological crisis in pseudo-ecotopian terms. This paradoxical phenomenon could be regarded as the subconscious need for humanity to further antagonize the forces of nature, to replay the man-versus-wild, cultureversus-nature dualism under the conditions of a hypertechnologized modern environment, without being actually threatened. 7eproducing the spectacle of survival, the individual is en route to finding a lost, meaningful relationship with the environment, a need triggered by the absence of any symbiosis between man and nature in the contemporary age. Once the former threat of the wild remained an evolving cultural myth, the empty space left has to be filled with simulated fears. 8ll survival shows present an extremely pessimistic view on the chance to actually survive the stress is placed upon carnivorous beasts, poisonous snakes and insects, deadly or crippling plants and imminent natural disasters2 the same images that could trigger the inspiration of an artist are inevitably turned into lists of life-threatening elements. The angles and effects of the shooting substantially add to the re.uired dramatic effect" the man cannot simply survive, there has to be a fight for survival, of epic proportions, with movie-like scenes initially presenting the life of the hero as hanging by a thread, only to eventually allow the viewers to witness his triumphant return to civilization. !nstead of portraying the allegedly positive tribalism supposed to unite the human against the dangers of wilderness, the only accurate description is that of the callousness of the contestants, in interpersonal relations as well as in handling their environment- or %survival&related duties. The act of killing animals for food is particularly enthusiastically carried out2 the other %survival guides& also have copious amounts of time reserved for scenes depicting the slaughter of various animals, for food or protection. The graphic images, through their repetitive pattern, are gradually perceived by the viewers as normality, especially under the conditions presented by the shows, where physical death 4in the case of %survival guides&5 or elimination for

not being tough enough 4in the case of %#urvivor&5 are the only foreseeable alternatives, should the individual be less aggressive than the vilified version of the wild offered to the audience. 9onse.uently, the audience is led to believe that, in order to fight the seemingly deadly natural elements, the individual is forced to fight back using a certain level of brutality, prescribed by the subtextual functionality of the show2 violence in every encounter with the environment particularly with animals becomes the norm, the common denominator for the behavioural patterns of the protagonists. Once the ob ective status of nature has become a sub ective representation of deliberately misinterpreted cultural myths, the dynamics of interaction between the individual and his natural environment is detached from the cause-effect, action-reaction framework, becoming functional exclusively within the staged reality designed by the show producers, a kind of %Truman #how&, but with Truman having a simulated version of wilderness for playground. The fragmented reality of these survival plays constitutes the viewers* alternative for the nature they cannot actually experience otherwise, thus they come to rely solely on the fictionalized version if it, filled with extra-drama and artificially multiplied conflicts. +ithin the frame constructed by survival shows, nature is given the status of an inherent adversary for the individual as well as for the community2 the roles of environment, provider of shelter and resources would not add to the much-needed dramatic effect that fuels the interest of an audience that fets excitement and adrenaline in exchange for a biased reading of the concept of nature. 8nd that is exactly what nature is reduced to" a concept, a metaphor for something long lost, easily metamorphosized according to the rules of the television entertainment industry. (ach such artificial saga of the man in the wild invariably ends with the %victory& of the former. (ssentially, the outdoor adventure could be regarded as a cinematic detour, an opportunity for the man-as-survivor character played by each host, since the ourney is basically one from civilization to civilization. The image of the wild and the time spent there only acts as a reversed mirror placed in front of human civilization or at least in front of a particular vision of civilization, manufactured by the show producers. :laced in this artificial context, nature is employed as a subterfuge ultimately meant to demonstrate the superior abilities of the human sub ect, compared to the environment. The schematic voyage of one individual representing the entire humanity ; is a culturally constructed articulation of a phenomenon that is prominent in the postmodern contemporary environment" simulation.< The hyper-urbanized human society needs a reassuring proof that, somewhere, nature is still wild and untainted by the negative side of economic progress, with the perspective somehow distilled through the discourse of a developing ecological consciousness. 9onse.uently, %reality shows& dispaying an ecotopian version of the wild have found a significant echo in the taste of a worldwide audience. This particular conceptualization of nature is also enscribed in the same man-versuswild oppositional discourse" nature is still represented as otherness, not inherently significant from a strictly human point of view, but gaining in significance precisely due to its relationship with mankind. (ven though the natural environment is idealized as far as its vastness and purity = are concerned, it is always vilified, at a certain level" it is presented as an entity garnished with
;

(ach host of such shows, from 7ay /ears to 6ear >ryllz, insists that anyone could follow the relatively #imulation as theorized by 6audrillard and ?yotard.

simple guidelines for survival in the wild, without any need for prior training.
<

almost deliberate threats to the human venturing by himself, as a force initially contesting man*s supremacy, only to eventually become the stage for a %human drama&.@ 8 6ig 6rother version of the same conceptualization of a man-versus-nature antagonism, the show %#urvivor&, with sixteen contestants left on an island, exhibits even more numerous features of artificiality. !n this case, %survival& is not the issue, at least not in its literal meaning" the one million dollar prize is the real issue. 8ll the contestants aim for the prize, on one hand, and for television celebrity, on the other. The basic idea for the show is to let the competitors on their own, facing whatever obstacles they might come across in order to survive both physically, as they are supposed to live on what they can find on the island, and figuratively, since they can be eliminated from the game through voting. The level of the realistic portrayal of life outdoors is even lower than in the case of the guides to survival mentioned before, as cameras are all over the place, and the contestants act out the particular character they consider to be the most appealing to the others, in order not to get their negative votes. 6ut besides this competition between the sixteen participants there is also a generic one" again, the clich)-rich %man-versus-nature& struggle. Arom this viewpoint similar to the other survival reality shows, such a staged struggle includes unnecessary killing of animals and the ob ectification of nature in general. !f for the viewers this is a television-induced articulation of a natural utopia, the condensed image of wilderness about to be %tamed& by humans, from a purely ecotopian point of view is a rather radical dystopia" nature itself is mutilated in the process, practically and figuratively, animals are brutally sacrificed to fulfil completely artificial needs. The cultural representation of nature is thus devalued, with wilderness transforming itself on the screen from an alleged adversary to mere provider, and ultimately to a tool for the survival of one species in the detriment of all others. !nstead of legitimating the integration of man into his environment, everything is presented as a potential clash of non-merging entities, an unsolvable man3 nature dichotomy. 6ut while in the case of survival guides the whole concept is much like a utopia of lost nature, in the case of the %#urvivor& contest nature itself is almost totally taken out from the e.uation" it is the fabricated utopia of the need for survival, the postmodern utopia specifically designed to make up for the loss of a symbolic relationship between humanity and nature, essential for the survival of both. !nstead of rebuilding the connections, society chooses to rely on simulation2 the mimicry of real-life situations of people lost in the wild is much more lucrative for the producers, as well as for the mass of viewers addicted to the products of postmodern %reality T,&. 8sserting species identity through artificial situations, in artificial surroundings, such as the ones displayed in survival-related reality shows, contextualizes an inherently faulty design of the utopian discourse" utopia for /an inevitably means dystopia for 0ature, as the anthropocentric and consumerist behaviours shaping human evolution mediate even the idealization4s5 of wilderness. The centrality of human needs, irrespective of the de facto situation, triggers particular hypostases of ecotopia, within an aldready fragmented discourse pattern2 the craving for nature is disguised in simulation, while each representation of the wild is
=

The places in the wild are always presented as pollution-free, untainted by the debris of human The dramatic .ualities of each lesson in survival, however impressive, are shadowed by the assumed

civilization
@

presence of a film crew and even the declarations of the producers, who state that the host is permanently monitored and within comfortable limits of actual danger.

rendered in self-contradictory terms. The spectators are taught about survival in natural environments that are gradually erased from the map by urbanization, pollution and overtechnologization. The contestants of %#urvivor& mimic strategies for survival in the wild in front of countless cameras, simulate health hazards while surrounded by medical crews e.uipped with the latest technologies, and manoeuver the viewers* interest in the show resorting to carefully studied patterns of behaviour. 8s if to move the perspective even further away from an allegedly natural setting of the %#urvivor& show, the footage recorded by a multitude of cameras is edited by the producers afterwards, so that the %end product& what viewers actually get to see can be as catchy as possible. -aving created an additional layer of sub ectivity, post-production editing eventually suspends the entire discourse of the make-believe (cotopia inhabited by the contestants. The final result is a simulated, pseudo-ecotopian 6ig 6rother, with a mimicked wilderness for setting. The dynamics of inter-personal relations is no less fictional than a genuine movie, based on a pre-existing script, the only difference being the fact that the %survivors& try to play more photogenic, more likeable versions of themselves in order to appeal to the audience. 0ature, fauna, wilderness all become a potentially disposable background, meant only to stir the public*s attention long enough to get caught in the human %drama&, and thus revalidating the same anthropocentric discourse that sells. 6oth types of show the guides to survival in the wild and %#urvivor& are essentially a hybrid between a simulated ecotopian vision and a movie-like T, production founded on the rules of entertainment, a spectacle of television-generated reality meant to fill an empty space in the collective mind of society" the need to still be part in the man-versus-nature mechanism. The over-technologized 4post5modern man still needs, apparently, the challenge formerly represented by nature. #ince the wild itself cannot deliver any substantive fulfilment of this need, popular culture has taken on the mission of recreating it within the artificial environment of television and media in general. The dissolution of the concept of wilderness in a culture living at !nternet-speed and representing progress through technology has also meant a loss of need, as far as the natural environment is concerned not the loss of a need dictated by the scientifically rigorous problem of actual survival 4individually or collectively5, but the loss of a need to directly perceive nature. #imultaneously, the apparently more resilient need of feeling the thrill of the struggle against natural forces has found comfort in television duplications. The genuine contact with nature has been challenged by its culturally constructed evocation on the T, screen2 and ust like in the case of nature theme parks, the simulation seems to be much more appealing than the real version. The %wild nature& serving as stage for playing %#urvivor& is not only a form of artificial spaciality, it also acts as a tool for disinformation as far as the genuine necessity to hunt or ust slaughter domestic animals is concerned. The show thus transforms brutality into entertainment, and cruelty into a lucrative business, as long as the spectators en oy what they are being offered. Aor the producers, including such scenes means turning the show into something more believable, more dramatic.B Through the lens of survival shows, the relationship between nature and culture is permanently and inevitably under the sign of conflict, and, in this made-up confrontation, the human element always has the upper hand, in conformity with the screenplay acted out by the protagonists and producers. This superiority is gained, according to the discourse of the shows,
The competitors usually get some %help for survival& in the form of live chickens, which the competitors have to slaughter themselves.
B

through the superior intelligence and resourcefulness of the individuals confronting nature. !n reality, thanks to an entirely artificial de facto situation, inherently and precisely controlled by the very individuals meant to play the role of survivor. (nscribed in an essentially anti-ecological discourse, nature is downsized to a T,constructed, stereotypical otherness, with its complexity reduced to a binary schematism, where the human is always good and the wild is always evil. 8s a cultural mode of representing nature, survival tutorials strongly resemble Cean 6audrillard*s vision of the symbolic exchange according to this view, some of the defining concepts of modernity, such as reason, value and meaning, are being replaced, along a seemingly irreversible process, by their own annulment. D 8pplying the same theory to %survival in the wild& shows, the essential transformation begins with an allegedly rational approach to the survival of man in spite of the antagonistic forces of nature, and ends with its negation, the ecological discourse being replaced with a simulated reality, based, essentially, on the absence of any sound ecological principles and a prominent display of anthropocentrism. The metamorphosis of the %natural savage& inside postmodern media culture has produced a new type of hero, and a new type of personalized utopia, both of them perfectly corresponding to the artificiality of the environment" the sum-total of culturally-generated myths about survival, against the background of conventional modes of representation. Eecoded culturally, the natural environment becomes instrumental in portraying human resourcefulness2 concurrently, the value of nature is primarily defined through an acutely utilitarian perspective, with the focus on the logic of entertainment. Eisplaying the image of artificial heroes, in a pseudo-ecotopian setting, survival shows could be considered as one of the primary sources of the television-created utopia, in an age of a complex dualism, as far as the human perspective on nature is concerned. The first facet of this dualism is the awakening of the so-called ecological consciousness, accompanied by a genuine environmentalist discourse. The second facet, much easier to promote through media instruments, is the generalized process of articulating the ecological crisis in reversed terms" it is not nature that needs protection, it is the human individual who is under the constant threat of natural elements. (asier to comprehend in comparison with the first facet, at least the second version of the man-nature interaction acts as the currently available representation of ecological utopianism. The two identities, the human and the natural, are being mixed within a clearly stated anthropocentric vision, thus transforming their intersection into conflict. 8s a result, the image of idealized wilderness delivers a fragmented message to a culture where, in the so-called ob ective reality, human utopia means ecological dystopia. The very existence of the wild is perceived as an intrusion into human safety, while the human self-imposed norm to con.uer the wild is duplicated in numerous visions, all of them with the same easily predictable ending" the triumph of man over nature, the realized utopia of fake survival. Aake, because the environment is no longer natural, but completely artificial. 1topia, because the actual situations described by the survival shows can no longer occur in real life. The conceptually misguided version of ecological utopianism presented on television screens includes all the ma or tenets of the postmodern discourse" fragmentariness, sub ectivity, simulation. -aving survival as narrative subterfuge, media culture distorts concepts like nature and wilderness, and generates a hyperreal version of ecotopia, valid only as a stage for a fake human drama. The alleged ecological discourse turns into a forgotten artifact of the long-gone wilderness.
D

Cean 6audrillard, Symbolic Exchange and Death, #age, ?ondon, $FF;, p. '<