In the fall of 1972 a small group of students in an introduction to education psychology class at a midwestern university saved every single soul in the lifeboat.
The professor became agitated. “No! Go back and do the exercise again. Follow the instructions.”
The students, products of the radical 1960s culture, expected this to be a small group assignment in creativity and ingenuity. They had worked out an intricate plan whereby everyone in the lifeboat could survive. When the professor persisted, the students resisted – and ultimately refused to do the exercise. Chalk up a victory to the human spirit.
However, it was a short-lived victory. This overloaded “lifeboat in crisis” represented a dramatic shift in education. The exercise – in which students were compelled to chose which humans were expendable and, therefore, should be cast off into the water – became a mainstay in classrooms across the country. Creative solutions? Not allowed. Instructions? Strictly adhered to. In truth, there is to be only one correct answer to the lifeboat drama: death. ( Iserbyt, intro XXV)
Now, the appeal of the show Survivor makes a perverted sort of sense to me. The viewer is to come to a conclusion where the only way to “win” is to manipulate, deceive and outright lie to the other players. It is “situational ethics” on steroids. I also understand why many of my friends do not like the show.
Perhaps you are like I was before I read about the “lifeboat in crisis” exercise. Perhaps you already knew why you didn’t like the show.
5 comments:
I didn't like Suvivor.
Just not interested.
Like you said, it wasn't about survival. It was about manipulation by the producers of the show. It was obviously contrived and therefore unreal. Unreal = uninteresting.
I would have liked to see the players vote the producers off the show.
I also saw it for what it was. A blatant copy of a winning formula from another network. Namely, Real World and Road Rules on MTV.
I know why I don't like it. I don't know if I can articulate it.
It has little to do with survival. Like most 'reality' TV, it has nothing to do with reality. It is basically voyeurism. Throw some people you know are not going to get along together and watch 'em fight.
Most of these types of shows have cutaways where each side of the conflict is given by the participant. That is where the meat of the show is.
I agree 100%. I always thought I was looking at it too critically because of my background and training. I'm glad to know that I was not alone in thinking the shows were lame, and predictable.
When I read those words in the book, my first thought was how simular the lifeboat exercise was to the 'reality TV' crap that is on these days.
Thanks for your thoughts.
It reminds me of one of the Rules of Acquisition:
"Let's you and him fight."
I am also reminded of the days of church camp, where the inherent relativism of the PCUS reared its ugly head, having 12 &13 year-olds play the Lifeboat game.
Post a Comment