I Watched Survivor Season 1

For quite a while now, I’ve found myself interested in the sociological phenomenon that is Survivor. As it has gone on for now 40+ seasons, I found myself even more fascinated with it’s legacy. I actually don’t remember a time when Survivor wasn’t on the air. It began when I was two years old, and it really did launch the Reality TV empires that exist so prominently now. But I’ve never seen it before. I’ve occasionally heard of a few winners, but am largely in the dark.

So I decided to sit down and watch Survivor like a casual academic. I’m not taking notes or anything, but I wanted to reflect and think about how it reflects and shapes our society, how it encapsulates the culture, biases, and ideas of the time. I wanted to start with Season 1 because I was interested in the development not only of individual players across the individual seasons, but the overall understanding and methodology of game play, relationships, and narratives created by the show itself.

Having recently taught my 6th grade students The Hunger Games, I find myself even more keenly aware of perception vs. reality. What was true and what wasn’t? Obviously we’ll never know. Even after watching the reunion special, I’m convinced the people lied or bent the truth there far more than they ever did on the island. But the act of observation changes behavior; to what extent, again, we likely will never know. Reality TV is of course not reality, but in some ways that doesn’t matter, at least not for my ends. I want to know how the show Survivor is a representation of American sociological reality.

I’ve been getting pretty philosophical there, so let me try for the more concrete now.

Immediately I attached to the Tagi tribe. I was drawn to them, rooted for them, even though I didn’t particularly like the individual people better. In fact, I thought Rich in particular was a pretentious asshole, which he certainly was fulfilling to role for on camera. I never believed he would be the winner because I thought it was so obvious from moment one that he was playing the game much more adeptly than others. Having the benefit of being raised in a world where Reality TV and gameshows were exploding, even if I didn’t watch this particular one, gave me a great deal of preconceptions about how things were going to be portrayed.

Perhaps the single biggest surprise for me was the moral grandstanding done by so many of the castaways, especially after they were eliminated. I am interested to see if that falls away as alliances and strategic play become more and more obviously necessary, after people have seen the show once or twice or thirty times before. The idea that someone should vote off the people they don’t like is, to me, absolutely ludicrous. It seemed there were several times when people would, either for the sake of the show wanting to mislead the audience, or to cloak strategy as something more “noble,” said they were going to vote off one person, then voted off another.

Was this something found by the contestants? Or did the show hope to make more drama by adding a layer of “good” vs. “bad” behavior in a game that demands ruthlessness? I’m not sure. It was that moral grandstanding that made me dislike Kelly, the second place contender. I respected Rich’s play certainly more as someone who found his niche early and stuck with it.

One of the single biggest frustrations for me was the 180 degree turn in the depiction of Colleen from before to after Greg was voted off. Before, she was being depicted as, in Greg’s own words, a “kitten.” Whether or not there was any actual romance — or simply sex — at all is irrelevant. The narrative created for Colleen was that of a sweet, naive, pet for the fierce competitor that was Greg. Then, suddenly, when he’s voted off, Colleen gets a voice. We see a sharp mind, a caring heart, and a rather impressive understanding of how people work. Yet she’d previously been reduced to the chick Greg is sleeping with as a character trait.

I am shocked at how much has changed in almost twenty-two years. It’s obvious that the show thought itself progressive in that, of sixteen people, a whole TWO were people of color. And one, the winner, was gay. That’s…a start, I guess, but in 2021, watching, for the majority of the show, only one POC compete, was a bit jarring. As was the shocking amount of discussion around Rich being homosexual. The conversation was an interesting one because it was not nearly as normalized as it is now. But the repeated use of the word “fag” in the finale made me want to rip off my ears. Times have, of course and thankfully, changed, but it’s shocking to watch a show I consider “modern” behave in such a way.

It was also fascinating to watch people behave against their best interests for personal reasons or distractions or lack of foresight. I am excited to see how the upcoming seasons change in that department, if the general astuteness of the players will increase as the game becomes more familiar.

Personally, I never plan to even try to be on Survivor. I applaud those who do — it can’t be easy in many, many ways. And it makes for a fascinating study for people like me who find the cultural phenomenon intoxicating. However, I feel it would be an interesting thing, at least for my own mental exercise, to try and figure out how I would try to win.

I am a woman. In more than forty seasons, only fourteen women have won, one of them winning twice (I am VERY interested to see how she does that). So statistically speaking, I’m at a major disadvantage already. Since many of the challenges are some form of physical and endurance, it seems to me the best bet is to get rid of as many of the men as possible. As I discovered playing volleyball in high school, our strongest female varsity volleyball player couldn’t spike a fraction as well as a mediocre male athlete. It’s not pretty, but if I’m going to win, it’s probably going to have to be against another girl.

Alliances are also key. I would go for it instantly within my tribe and form up with the women. Four votes from day one will swing every vote if we can agree on it. It would, of course, be a risk to include people in an alliance just because of gender. People may not respond well to that, could refuse or tell, as it seems secrecy is a valuable element early on. But, following this strategy, it’s one I’d take. At first I thought emerging as a clear leader early on would make you a target, but apparently, in the first season at least, they balk at taking out the strong simply because they’re strong and would rather eliminate those they dislike for petty animosities rather than strategy. So I’d go for being a leader from minute one who had a strong alliance of women to give myself the best chance in the end.

Survivor Season 1 was a fascinating watch. Undoubtedly if I was just watching it for entertainment’s sake, I would have turned it off long ago. I don’t find myself invested in the people or their personal arcs, but the sociological factors that affect and are displayed in the game are infinitely fascinating. I will continue to ponder the nature of this “reality” and move onto season 2.