You could argue that it's meant as a window into how people react when they are segregated by race. Kind of like a popular psychological experiment. It might be more interesting if they had a control group which was made of a random sampling of Americans so you could measure their group dynamic relative to the segregated groups.
The African-American team includes a jazz musician and a nursing student, the Asian-American team an attorney and a fashion director, the Hispanic team a heavy metal guitarist and a police officer, the White team a writer-producer and a boxer-waitress. Anyone who is tuning in to support their racist ideas is going to be disappointed, or is going to have to selectively interpret everything in a manner that reflects more on them as a viewer than on the merits of the show. Assuming the editing is fair, I think the show ought to demonstrate the silliness of these sorts of stereotypes.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Off topic......., but not really...... especially since I see this surviver series as a battle of tribal pride not inbred cultural bias....! I found this article on cultural relativism that I thought you might enjoy.
....or why we need more progressive scholars to help us drive the political debate. (We know the right is wholly ideologically driven..... see WaPo article here
Choose any historical period, any region of the world, and you'll find that long before cultural relativism appeared, tribes were killing each other in the cheerful, absolute certainty that their god or gods wanted them to massacre their neighbors. That's the reality of those "moral absolutes" right-wingers proclaim as the grounding of decent behavior: the absolute right to hack to death anyone who doesn't share your tribe's religion, table manners or musical taste. When writers like Montaigne forced their readers to consider the possibility that we should be wary of judging other tribes, it was possible to argue, for the first time, that participating in tribal wars of annihilation might not be a religious obligation -- might, in fact, be mere arrogant savagery. You can see how it might have been handy to remind our fellow Americans of this, right around the time that Bush & Co. were telling us that we had a moral obligation to liberate Iraq.
Take the beam out of your own eye before you try and remove the splinter from anothers.
It would have been nice if a few people who knew better had been willing to say outright that even if the war really was about liberation, it was an arrogant invasion born of the ancient belief that our tribe is the only one that knows how life should be lived.
I found this whole article to be an enlightening read, especially since you introduced me to the world of relativism. I hope you have the time to read it.
The tribal element is what I find most intriguing, seeing as how many scholaraly types are redefining the strategy for fighting terrorism as a tribal struggle. Which is why I find the surviver series also an interesting study in our tribal selves and our individual selves.
As you mentioned in your discussion of relativism....... it can give one a sense of comfort when you are looking for a compass to define the pressing issues of our time. (I call it respect for the differences)
because this is not a "window" because it is not scientific, it is a show, entertainment, and is to be judged by what it does for the audience, and to the audience.
I can only see one defense, free speech. I'm not for prohibiting idiocy of this kind, just calling it out. You could say that makes it a good thing, because we have reason to face what are obviously still extant racist tendencies... silver linings, but all point back to the fact that it promotes racism, a fake competition of this sort.
but seriously I find it surprising all the liberal apologia for this show.
it's "just TV" and that's why we don't try to... say, prohibit it with law, but such thing that law does not deal with become our social responsibility to call out, especially in a commentary-medium like blogging.
Jeff Yang in the article I quote was doing the same thing... showing some unease but not quite sure there is anything wrong.
I posit it's the latent racism that makes it hard to pinpoint why it's wrong, we see racist stereotypes are still harmless... when we harbor just enough of them.
A lot of liberals do not look any more deeply at their racism past the dangerous and obviously hateful sort. I'm not saying it's easy either, I have long though the problem was very interestingly put wondering if it's ok to praise a race, e.g. "african-americans have produced the best of American Music"... etc.
The subtle thing here is to consider the conversations, the watercooler or kitchen table banter this will inspire. It's clear it will involve the stereotypes, the race-battle, because there is no structure for program to enforce cross team cooperation.
What if there were ways for individuals to cooperate with others, make their own teams, or otherwise defeat the race line.
THEY CAN'T. They are not allowed to break the race line.
for the latent racism you suspect is buried in the viewers, because watching this Survivor will bring it to the surface. I think that for people who aren't hardcore racists, it's often healty to examine feelings about race, to be forced to confront prejudices. I'm not sure you can say at this point that the show will reinforce stereotypes, personally I think it's more likely (if the editing is fair) that a viewer with prejudiced notions about a particular race will find their stereotypes challenged, and perhaps change their mind as a result.
I don't agree that splitting individuals into teams based on race on a contrived reality TV show is racist in the strict sense of the word, meaning that it promotes the superiority of or discriminates against a particular race. I do recognize that there's room for disagreement here, and it doesn't bother me if people criticize the show for whatever reason, it's not like I think it's a stunning cultural achievement or anything.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
What we have seen in the debate between pro- and anti-war Americans is a squabble between two kinds of Protestant busybodies: squeamish Unitarians and fierce Baptists. Both sects are convinced that the world is no more than a war between good and evil, differing only about which evil should be zapped and by what voltage.
Consider Afghanistan, a truly alien land. George Bush has nothing but contempt for its violent, anarchic culture. In what way would a typical American "progressive" disagree? Maybe as far as a few craven sarcastic remarks about how conservatives want to make Afghanistan part of "McWorld." But as soon as Bush points out that Afghans are growing opium, many Bush critics lapse into cowed silence -- because they are, at heart, as steeped in pleasure-hating Protestant moralism as Bush himself.
Indeed, the only way to explain the left's stunning cowardice in the face of the War on Drugs is by realizing that these people are simply missionaries of the Church of Christ without Christ. Just as they know that drugs are bad, they know that it is their right, their mission, to outlaw other unruly customs, like war. [empahsis added] If Somalis consider raiding and clan war essential to a man's life, then -- well, they'll just have to change.
Has he captured something important here or is he off-base?
Don't mean to threadjack but this is an interesting premise and I'd like to hear our liberals' thoughts on what he's saying.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
It goes to this "clash of civilizations". It goes to the so called snobishness of liberalism, which essentially advocates the same frame, good vs evil, but fought in a kinder gentler way.
I always found it oddly sadistic that so called virtuous people would feed a draught starved nation two colonels of shipped in corn a day, ........ allowing a slow and torturous death by starvation, when in many ways it seems they were interfering with the natural order of things....... and it would be more ethical for the suffering to end than to continue with an endless hope for a prosperity that would never arrive. Is that a relativist postion that takes courage. I would say it is not a popular opinion. But perhaps more merciful than a torturous death by starvation, where young children literally are forced to eat dirt to fill their stomachs.
It goes to taking the word MORAL out of the picture. For whomever opposes what is proclaimed as moral is therefore IMMORAL. And each culture religon has a different definition that they say is the blanket truth.
Re war: Also to the battle of good vs evil. The frame is that whomever objects is therefore evil. Dissenters = evil. It is a false and absolutist frame which is impossible to "win", until the false frame is removed. It is not a battle of good vs evil. It is either terroritorial (interesting that terror is in there) or self defense.
with it being unscientific and thus for entertainment purposes only. The way it's set up, the gimmick only has value to the audience if it leads them to false conclusions about races, cultures or the way people react to being segregated by race. I just brought up the latter since I don't think disseminating misinformation on how people react to being segregated by race is racist, just somewhat irresponsible. But I doubt the creators of the show had only this in mind as an audience reaction. So your probably right that it was racist at it's inception. That is if you believe making money off of disseminating false information about races or cultures based on race is racist.
I guess there is the other possibility that the creators of the show think it is in fact a valid social experiment...
but I'd rather watch an attempt at a scientifically conducted social study than a silly game show. Call it reality reality TV. I don't know, could be successful. Then again, it might be painfully tedious.
"The way it's set up, the gimmick only has value to the audience if it leads them to false conclusions about races, cultures or the way people react to being segregated by race."
first, on disagreeing... this is a great example of something where it's easy to disagree. This sort of thing is good to debate expressly because it's not a big deal to go ahead and think it's no big deal, etc... some examples have a lot more riding on them.
so that's all good...
On the content: I am blaming the show because it brings up those feelings about race but does not force people to "confront" those feelings, they are given a playground for those feelings, to enjoy those feelings... to get a sense of suspense and excitement with those feelings.
That is, to reinforce those feelings. If I saw how those feelings would be confronted rather than reinforced... I'd feel differently perhaps.
Comments :
Just to be a devil's advocate...
You could argue that it's meant as a window into how people react when they are segregated by race. Kind of like a popular psychological experiment. It might be more interesting if they had a control group which was made of a random sampling of Americans so you could measure their group dynamic relative to the segregated groups.
Thanks Pyrrho
for some sanity.
I had to take a shower after that last diary on the same topic.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Oh look!
The Asians have buck teeth, are wearing glasses, and use an abacus before every challenge!
And there are the African-Americans, slugging down watermelon and fried chicken! Boy, can they run fast and jump high!
Oh, and look at Pepe and his pals! They're actually trimming some of jungle bushes!
Vapid TV, eh?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Well then
I had to take a shower after that last diary on the same topic.
I'm glad to hear I had a positive impact on your day, and for that matter the day of those around you :p
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
That's not what's there, of course
The African-American team includes a jazz musician and a nursing student, the Asian-American team an attorney and a fashion director, the Hispanic team a heavy metal guitarist and a police officer, the White team a writer-producer and a boxer-waitress. Anyone who is tuning in to support their racist ideas is going to be disappointed, or is going to have to selectively interpret everything in a manner that reflects more on them as a viewer than on the merits of the show. Assuming the editing is fair, I think the show ought to demonstrate the silliness of these sorts of stereotypes.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Admittedly
I was a bit ripe and due for one. :)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
yes
this show is leading us firmly towards our goal of colorblind society.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Pyrrho
Off topic......., but not really...... especially since I see this surviver series as a battle of tribal pride not inbred cultural bias....! I found this article on cultural relativism that I thought you might enjoy.
The Absence of Cultural Relativism by the Left
....or why we need more progressive scholars to help us drive the political debate. (We know the right is wholly ideologically driven..... see WaPo article here
Take the beam out of your own eye before you try and remove the splinter from anothers.
I found this whole article to be an enlightening read, especially since you introduced me to the world of relativism. I hope you have the time to read it.
The tribal element is what I find most intriguing, seeing as how many scholaraly types are redefining the strategy for fighting terrorism as a tribal struggle. Which is why I find the surviver series also an interesting study in our tribal selves and our individual selves.
As you mentioned in your discussion of relativism....... it can give one a sense of comfort when you are looking for a compass to define the pressing issues of our time. (I call it respect for the differences)
I'm only half stupid
that would not affect my point
because this is not a "window" because it is not scientific, it is a show, entertainment, and is to be judged by what it does for the audience, and to the audience.
I can only see one defense, free speech. I'm not for prohibiting idiocy of this kind, just calling it out. You could say that makes it a good thing, because we have reason to face what are obviously still extant racist tendencies... silver linings, but all point back to the fact that it promotes racism, a fake competition of this sort.
lol
but seriously I find it surprising all the liberal apologia for this show.
it's "just TV" and that's why we don't try to... say, prohibit it with law, but such thing that law does not deal with become our social responsibility to call out, especially in a commentary-medium like blogging.
Jeff Yang in the article I quote was doing the same thing... showing some unease but not quite sure there is anything wrong.
I posit it's the latent racism that makes it hard to pinpoint why it's wrong, we see racist stereotypes are still harmless... when we harbor just enough of them.
A lot of liberals do not look any more deeply at their racism past the dangerous and obviously hateful sort. I'm not saying it's easy either, I have long though the problem was very interestingly put wondering if it's ok to praise a race, e.g. "african-americans have produced the best of American Music"... etc.
The subtle thing here is to consider the conversations, the watercooler or kitchen table banter this will inspire. It's clear it will involve the stereotypes, the race-battle, because there is no structure for program to enforce cross team cooperation.
What if there were ways for individuals to cooperate with others, make their own teams, or otherwise defeat the race line.
THEY CAN'T. They are not allowed to break the race line.
That's racist.
is it possible for the show to demonstrate
race plays no part in the outcome?
what?
that defies all reason.
enforcing a race barrier that evidently the players did not know about ahead of time is not colerblind.
I don't get that.
It seems to me you're blaming the show
for the latent racism you suspect is buried in the viewers, because watching this Survivor will bring it to the surface. I think that for people who aren't hardcore racists, it's often healty to examine feelings about race, to be forced to confront prejudices. I'm not sure you can say at this point that the show will reinforce stereotypes, personally I think it's more likely (if the editing is fair) that a viewer with prejudiced notions about a particular race will find their stereotypes challenged, and perhaps change their mind as a result.
I don't agree that splitting individuals into teams based on race on a contrived reality TV show is racist in the strict sense of the word, meaning that it promotes the superiority of or discriminates against a particular race. I do recognize that there's room for disagreement here, and it doesn't bother me if people criticize the show for whatever reason, it's not like I think it's a stunning cultural achievement or anything.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Is he on target?
An interesting point of view:
Has he captured something important here or is he off-base?
Don't mean to threadjack but this is an interesting premise and I'd like to hear our liberals' thoughts on what he's saying.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I think he is right on the money!
It goes to this "clash of civilizations". It goes to the so called snobishness of liberalism, which essentially advocates the same frame, good vs evil, but fought in a kinder gentler way.
I always found it oddly sadistic that so called virtuous people would feed a draught starved nation two colonels of shipped in corn a day, ........ allowing a slow and torturous death by starvation, when in many ways it seems they were interfering with the natural order of things....... and it would be more ethical for the suffering to end than to continue with an endless hope for a prosperity that would never arrive. Is that a relativist postion that takes courage. I would say it is not a popular opinion. But perhaps more merciful than a torturous death by starvation, where young children literally are forced to eat dirt to fill their stomachs.
It goes to taking the word MORAL out of the picture. For whomever opposes what is proclaimed as moral is therefore IMMORAL. And each culture religon has a different definition that they say is the blanket truth.
Re war:
Also to the battle of good vs evil. The frame is that whomever objects is therefore evil. Dissenters = evil. It is a false and absolutist frame which is impossible to "win", until the false frame is removed. It is not a battle of good vs evil. It is either terroritorial (interesting that terror is in there) or self defense.
I'm only half stupid
I understand your problems...
with it being unscientific and thus for entertainment purposes only. The way it's set up, the gimmick only has value to the audience if it leads them to false conclusions about races, cultures or the way people react to being segregated by race. I just brought up the latter since I don't think disseminating misinformation on how people react to being segregated by race is racist, just somewhat irresponsible. But I doubt the creators of the show had only this in mind as an audience reaction. So your probably right that it was racist at it's inception. That is if you believe making money off of disseminating false information about races or cultures based on race is racist.
I guess there is the other possibility that the creators of the show think it is in fact a valid social experiment...
Maybe I read it wrong
but I thought he was sarcastic. If not, take away my agreement with it.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
'... valid social experiment'
Yeah. The producers of a reality TV show are interested in "social experiments."
They are only interested in ONE social experiment:
"How much cash can this thing generate?"
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
the question is how can that comment not be sarcastic...
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
reason is not always the answer
I thought liberals knew that kind of stuff ;)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
hmmm
Terror is only in there if you misspell territorial.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm not sure how representative I am...
but I'd rather watch an attempt at a scientifically conducted social study than a silly game show. Call it reality reality TV. I don't know, could be successful. Then again, it might be painfully tedious.
still interesting
defending terra firma with terrorism.
I'm only half stupid
no it's not
but you are trying to excuse terrorism as usual in a very annoying fashion.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
wrong
I do not want to become like the enemy...... that uses only violence as a solution.
It is way past time for a smarter strategy.
I do not excuse violence, and I also do not promote it.
I'm only half stupid
you did get my point well
and put it more succinctly.
"The way it's set up, the gimmick only has value to the audience if it leads them to false conclusions about races, cultures or the way people react to being segregated by race."
exactly!
facing racism
first, on disagreeing... this is a great example of something where it's easy to disagree. This sort of thing is good to debate expressly because it's not a big deal to go ahead and think it's no big deal, etc... some examples have a lot more riding on them.
so that's all good...
On the content: I am blaming the show because it brings up those feelings about race but does not force people to "confront" those feelings, they are given a playground for those feelings, to enjoy those feelings... to get a sense of suspense and excitement with those feelings.
That is, to reinforce those feelings. If I saw how those feelings would be confronted rather than reinforced... I'd feel differently perhaps.
I just figured it was one of those
we can collect more taxes by not collecting taxes things that conservatives like.
you know, counter intuitive...
hehehe
it's only counter-intuitive when one doesn't know all the factors involved :)
Tax cuts work!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR