M/C Reviews: Rich and the Male Language of Success on 'Survivor'

	Rich and the Male Language of Success on Survivor Jessica Livingston
	Survivor, CBS (USA) / Channel 9 (Aus)	04 May 2001

Bit

Bit 1		As the premiere Survivor season neared its close, Newsweek called the show a combination of “physical challenges and Darwinian selection…office politics played by people who haven’t showered for weeks.” Fans of Survivor had been comparing the island situation to the corporate environment, saying that it was a microcosm of American competition. The last episode unfortunately proved these statements true. As the jury voted between Richard Hatch and Kelly Wigglesworth, gender politics played a role in their selection. And after Rich had won the million dollars, his financial wealth legitimated his success as the rhetoric of the American dream and hard work was invoked. The final episode of Survivor in its first season employs these two disturbing discourses, the first revealed mostly in reference to Kelly and the second in reference to Rich. The issue is not who should have won the competition but how the contestants are talked about and how they talk about themselves.
Bit 2		In the final tribal council both Rich and Kelly respond to the jury’s questions in a gendered manner. Colleen asks, “What three characteristics got you where you are and are essential?” Kelly responds faith, strong will, and likeability. Although Colleen votes for Kelly because she said strong will, by stating likeability Kelly falls into gender expectations - as a woman she must be likeable. Whereas Sue accepts Rich’s arrogance, she calls Kelly “two-faced and manipulative.” However, Rich manipulated Sue so that she would turn against Kelly, and she does so quite fiercely. Although Kelly had displayed in one of the immunity competitions that she knew more about the other competitors personal lives and Rich admitted to not caring, jury members used her knowledge against her - she became the backstabber. Greg, who claims not to take a side, also makes reference to Kelly’s various identities.
Bit 3		During the jury’s questioning Kelly falls into the trap of defending her actions while Rich refuses to defend himself. Kelly says that no one in this game is “without faults or errors.” Rather than defending his actions, Richard boldly states that he is “proud” of the way that he has played the game. Both Kelly and Rich had been playing the game. Both had formed alliances and had made choices based on their own personal best interest. But while Rich was applauded for playing the game well, Kelly was condemned for being two-faced and a backstabber. The competitive corporate language of aggressive ambition is available to Rich; however, Kelly cannot use such language without being labeled a bitch.
Bit 4		Before the final vote, Rich’s ally Rudy doubted that Rich could win: “I don’t know hardly any who would vote for Rich. He stepped on some toes, and they’re not going to forgive him.” Kelly also recognized that Rich had made some enemies and chooses him over Rudy as her competitor. In response to Colleen’s question about character traits, Rich states that his self-awareness, observation skills, and ethics helped him to reach this point; “I played ethically as possible.” Should the “as possible” be emphasized? Before the final tribal council, Kelly says that Rich never pretended he wasn’t in this to win, never pretended he wasn’t scheming, conniving.”
Bit 5		Sue invokes the rhetoric of hard work. In her infamous closing statements she addresses Rich: “You are a very openly arrogant, pompous human being, but I admire your frankness with it. You have worked hard to get here, started working hard before getting to the island. With my work ethic background, I give that credit to you.” Rich says in his final words before the jury votes, “I wouldn’t change anything I did, and I hope you recognize that was what I had to do to play the game;” thus the end prize of winning a million dollars justifies whatever strategic means necessary. The jury and public agreed that Rich had not only played the game well, but he had worked hard (this notion seemed to be the general consensus in particular at the reunion night aired after the final episode).
Bit 6		When voting, both Gervase and Jenna recognize the hard work that Kelly had actually performed; they both state that Kelly won five challenges. Gervase says that Kelly “played this game better than anyone else, played both sides of the fence.” Jenna says that Kelly displayed aspects of a Survivor, endured physically and emotionally, and befriended her possibly as strategy. Jenna also thinks Kelly “is a good person” despite what she might have done “in the spirit of the game.” While Sean acknowledges that Rich is an “out and out scoundrel,” he decides that Kelly was “clearly more deceptive, more manipulative, more double-faced.” Sue sticks with the hard work rhetoric and says about Rich: “I admire your strong work ethic, and you’re honest about why you’re here.”
Bit 7		What is more upsetting is not that Rich won but how that the public responded to his winning. Why do people insist on calling Rich’s lying and manipulating hard work? Americans are used to cutthroat competition and by the rules of Survivor the ruthless might win, but does that we mean we have to applaud his actions, that we have to call them by different names? Perhaps the need to credit Richard with hard work reveals our attachment to the American Dream; in the United States hard work is suppose to be the key to success although the social, political, and economic inequalities prove the opposite. When I used the public’s response to Richard’s winning the million dollars in my class (college freshman composition) as a comparison to how my students legitimated anyone who has money, they only more stubbornly argued their original claims. When reading about U.S. corporations building sweatshops in other countries, they insist that the owners must have worked hard to get where they are and thus deserve their financial success rather than admitting that the capitalist system encourages the exploitation of people’s labor to accumulate wealth for the elite. I find this denial disturbing, and this instance from popular culture both illustrates and reinforces the power of these discourses.

Bit 8		References “‘Survivor’ Tsunami: Talk about addictive.” Newsweek. August 28, 2000: 52.

Bit 9		Details Survivor originally aired May 31, 2000 on CBS Survivor II originally aired January 28, 2001 on CBS Survivor II airs in Australia on Channel 9, 8.30pm on Wednesdays (the final episode to be aired 4th May, 2001).

Bit 10		Citation reference for this article MLA style: Jessica Livingston. "Rich and the Male Language of Success on Survivor" M/C Reviews 04 May 2001. [your date of access] <http://www.api-network.com/mc/reviews/features/realitytv/rich.html>. Chicago style: Jessica Livingston, "Rich and the Male Language of Success on Survivor," M/C Reviews 04 May 2001, <http://www.api-network.com/mc/reviews/features/realitytv/rich.html> ([your date of access]). APA style: Jessica Livingston. (2000) Rich and the Male Language of Success on Survivor. M/C Reviews 04 May 2001. <http://www.api-network.com/mc/reviews/features/realitytv/rich.html> ([your date of access]).

[image]

Links:
Survivor
Survivor II