| Welcome to Survivor 2016. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| juries | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 13 2016, 05:09 AM (12 Views) | |
| Bill Clinton | Jan 13 2016, 05:09 AM Post #1 |
![]()
|
The Tribe Has Rarely Spoken: Deliberation in Survivor’s Jury A jury, in the legal sense, conjures images of stringent deliberation (Gastil, Deess, & Weiser, 2002) . However, not all bodies that carry the name of a ‘jury’ could be considered a deliberative body. In this paper, I analyse a little-studied construction: the “jury of peers” present in the reality television show Survivor (Wolgast & Lanza, 2007). While we may assume that this jury is ostensibly deliberative, my analysis will instead reach a different conclusion: that, in a system where self-interest is prioritized, personal vendettas and agendas may overwhelm the deliberative potential of a small group. I will further argue that, whilst this quality may be desired in other small group deliberations, the structures of Survivor and of reality television in general demand that this deliberation be cast aside. Background Before commencing an analysis proper, it would be wise to discuss, in depth, what we aim to study and how we aim to study it. The mechanics of a Survivor jury have varied season to season but have always kept the same operating principle. In Survivor, a show where players are marooned in an inhospitable environment and are required to survive the elements and frequent vote-offs (or ‘tribal councils’) by their fellow players, there comes a stage when all players find themselves in the same tribe for the first time in the game (‘the merge’) (Survivor, 2000). Usually, beginning at this point, all players voted off will instead join ‘the jury’, whose role it is to observe proceedings at subsequent vote-offs, and to deliberate on a winner once the final stage begins (Survivor, 2000). Usually, this final stage has occurred with three players left in the game, although some iterations have waited for the final two. Likewise, the size of the jury has varied, but can range from seven to nine, depending on when various game phases such as the merge begin (Survivor, 2000). The construction of this system, described by Wolgast and Lanza as “absurd”, is at the heart of Survivor’s jury system, and a point we will return to later in this paper (Survivor, 2000; Wolgast & Lanza, 2007). For, to win a jury vote, the jury must deliberate to award someone whom has betrayed them and defeated them. Our question (amongst others) is: is this a sustainable environment for deliberation? To determine the deliberative qualities of this particular jury construction, we will turn to Gastil’s conception of deliberative processes (Gastil, 2008, p. 20). Gastil separates his conception of deliberative process into two discrete streams: the analytic process and the social process. We will look at both processes in terms of determining the deliberative power of the Survivor jury. In his exploration of the analytic deliberative stream, Gastil identifies five key processes: 1. Create a solid information base; 2. Prioritize the key values at stake; 3. Identify a broad range of solutions; 4. Weigh the pros, cons, and trade-offs among solutions, and; 5. Make the best decision possible (Gastil, 2008, p. 20). Likewise, in the social stream, four processes are identified, with a less obvious direction in which they are to be implemented: 1. Adequately distribute speaking opportunities; 2. Ensure mutual comprehension; 3. Consider other ideas and experiences, and; 4. Respect other participants (Gastil, 2008, p. 20). It is with these nine processes in mind that we will analyse the deliberative qualities of the Survivor jury, and what this particular form of small group deliberation might imply for broader deliberative bodies in different scenarios. Before turning to the analysis proper, however, it would be proper to first examine one other factor potentially affecting deliberation: the electoral processes in which the jury is formed. Survivor is, first and foremost, a game, with specific electoral structures in which that game is played out. Particularly, there are two main areas in which voting takes centre stage in the game of Survivor: at regular intervals in the ‘tribal council’ vote-offs, and at the very end of the game (‘Day 39’), where the jury itself votes for a winner (as opposed to a tribal council, in which players vote to remove someone) (Survivor, 2000). Crucially, these votes all take place under what could be referred to as a modified Coombs exhaustive ballot (Grofman & Feld, 2004), with first-past-the-post votes being taken at each successive ballot (Survivor, 2000). Such a method is extremely vulnerable to tactical voting, and indeed, tactical voting forms much of the strategic appeal in Survivor. Specifically, ‘compromising’ can be seen at most tribal councils, in which players vote insincerely in order to obtain a numerical advantage in their safety (Farquharson, 1969). Such tactical voting invites the formation of ‘alliances’ based on close proximity , shared characteristics , or the tactical environment (Wikia, 2015). The eventual result, and something important to our analysis, is that deliberation in the lead-up to the jury phase is skewed by the necessities of tactical voting and survival. With multiple players all attempting to ‘outwit’, ‘outlast’, and ‘outplay’ one another, the hopes for a solid information base to be formed are low, and there are likely few solutions acceptable to all deliberators at each successive tribal council, as all solutions demand that someone be eliminated, and often with less than a majority of the votes (Wikia, 2015). As such, deliberation is already weakened before the jury phase begins. However, there is a pressing question: does that affect the overall deliberation? The Jury System We can now turn towards a thorough analysis of the Survivor jury process, in order to determine its deliberative qualities. In this process, as aforementioned, we will use Gastil’s key features of deliberative conversation and discussion to assess whether the jury process indeed contains those key features. By looking at both the structural setup of the jury, as well as specific examples from particular seasons that embody particular deliberative concepts, we hope to identify a deliberative constant in the jury process—or a lack thereof. The Survivor jury phase, in its entirety, consists of a discrete set of processes which are followed in every season, creating a similar experience for each season, as seen in Figure 1. This process can be split into two distinct phases: pre-Day 39, in blue, and Day 39, in orange. The question is: can the analytic deliberative process be carried out in the pre-Day 39 phase, and more importantly, during actual jury deliberations on Day 39? Figure 1 (Survivor, 2000) Analytic Process Solid information base Small group deliberation in other cases has effectively achieved a solid information base from which to derive values, solutions and decisions. One example, roughly twice the size of a Survivor jury, is Oregon’s Citizens’ Initiative Review (Knobloch, Gastil, Reedy, & Cramer Walsh, 2013). The method of information gathering in the Citizens Review, and one which is entirely distinct from the jury’s method, is a distinct objective of the entire process . Non-‘partisan’ experts and advocates both for voting the proposal up and voting it down are given an opportunity to speak to the review in discrete sections (Knobloch et al., 2013). This is wholly different from the process that a Survivor jury would go through. As Figure 1 shows, at no stage will jurors hear from finalists individually. At no stage, either, do jurors hear from independent sources—the only contacts they have are the finalists, who are naturally biased towards their own arguments, and each other, whom as pointed out, have all been eliminated by a player they are now asked to reward. There is no chance for unbiased information in a Survivor jury, nor could we expect there to be. However, we can draw a definite line between Ponderosa (when the jurors discuss with each other) and Day 39 (when the jurors may question finalists directly). Ponderosa allows for what Gastil calls the sharing of “personal and emotional experiences”—a conceptualization of deliberation that is not possible in the structured, limited, one-question affair of a final tribal council (Gastil, 2008, p. 20). In this way, we may be tempted to suggest that the jury itself does have some room to construct a solid information base as a route to deliberation when not actually in the process of ‘deliberation’ itself. Prioritizing key values The ‘key values’ of a juror could be likened to the key values of a partisan in an electoral environment, or an actor otherwise concerned with pre-established notions of ‘victory’. In all three of these environments, there is no conception of a deliberative ideal to strive towards: instead, the juror wants only what’s best for them (Huckfeldt, Johnson, & Sprague, 2004). This is not necessarily a key value that is against a deliberative atmosphere. Taking, again, the example of the Citizens’ Initiative Review, both partisan liberal and conservative participants—who might otherwise be expected to disagree in all cases—met each other at some point or other according to the information disbursed and deliberation conducted (Knobloch et al., 2013). But it is that deliberation that causes the shift in opinion, and as such, those key values because conduits through which deliberation could take place. All this points to the ‘key values’ of a juror being prioritized as a self-fulfilling exercise: either the jury is deliberative, in which case the key values may also be deliberative, or the jury is not, in which case the key values may not be. In either case, we cannot draw any stable conclusion here. Identifying a broad range of solutions It is here where the analytic deliberation promised by the concept of a ‘jury’ begins to fall apart. Take, as an analogue, a jury in a civil or criminal court case. All options remain on the table, depending on the jurisdiction of the jury, and the attendant legislation (Gastil, 2008, pp. 163-164). Criminal juries may find a defendant guilty or not guilty, or may be hung if indecision exists. Even more options, such as returning differing verdicts on charges of differing intensity, exist for the wavering jury. These options do not exist in terms of a Survivor jury. It is here that the electoral mechanics of Survivor damage deliberation: the jury is asked to identify a winner, and yet only two or three options are presented (Survivor, 2000). There is no opportunity to reject those winners, and no opportunity to return a draw should the jury be unable to select a winner. Indeed, in the case that no one person wins a majority of votes, the person with the most votes may win—in other words, this ‘jury’ may return a result of 4-3-3, and reward the player receiving four votes with victory (Survivor, 2000). This forced opportunity for vote splitting, compromising, and tactical voting writ large, is anathema to a broad range of solutions being considered: we know from other research that this first-past-the-post method encourages polarization and two-party systems whereas more majority-affirming systems (such as instant runoff and approval) encourage compromise candidates and broad appeal, albeit still with only one winner (Brams & Herschbach, 2001; Cini, 2002). Put simply, the Survivor jury encourages a narrow consideration, which damages its deliberative potential. Weigh the pros, cons, and make the best decision In combining these two particular analytic processes, we make a recognition that these two processes in particular occur in similar strains within the jury system. As per Figure 1 above, any weighing of the pros and cons once all information has been presented does not take place in a group environment, but is an individual affair, followed swiftly by a vote in which each juror must make the best decision (Survivor, 2000). In essence, there is no opportunity to weigh the pros and cons. However, we cannot discount that there may be deliberation occurring. An analogue to this process may be the deliberative poll, in which the options are presented in a deliberative way and polling takes place as a function of deliberation, as an alternative to opinion polls’ simple question asking (Fishkin & Farrar, 2005). Deliberative polling, as pioneered by Fishkin et al, has the potential for “meaningful democracy”, and here too, that possibility is certainly available (Gastil, 2008, pp. 201-204). As such, we cannot discount the deliberative potential of the final jury vote. It may be a flawed process through the prism of deliberation, but its likeness to other deliberative proposals does hold some promise. The analytic stages through which the Survivor jury travels are, to varying degrees, flawed in their deliberative potential. While deliberation can occur in the structural form of the Survivor jury, often this deliberation is obscured by those inherent structural forms—with electoral mechanisms being most egregious. However, the jury itself cannot be said to be non-deliberative: there is true potential for deliberation here, even if it requires more effort. The question then is: will Gastil’s social processes complement this possible deliberation, or derail it? Can an inherently socially fraught event like Survivor still engage in social deliberation? Social Process Adequately distribute speaking opportunities This particular social process may be the easiest to objectively quantify, both in its successes and its failures. The jury process stipulates (as per Figure 1) that each finalist has one opening statement, followed by each juror having one section in which to address the finalists or other jurors. In a mathematical sense, this allows all jurors and finalists to have an equal opportunity to speak. In an objective sense, this social process would seem to be fulfilled (Survivor, 2000). However, it is important to note that with the rigid structure of the jury process, there is potential for speaking opportunities to be denied. Specifically, a closing statement, directly framed as a response to questioning “different” from the opening statement, was present from season one (“Borneo”) to season twelve (“Panama”), with the practice abandoned in season thirteen (“Cook Islands”) (Survivor, 2000). The abandoning of the closing statement is a denial of adequate speaking opportunity, especially given the consideration of pros and cons during the analytic process may otherwise be aided by that closing statement. While the Survivor jury does have in place rigid structures to ensure equal speaking time, it has thus degraded in recent seasons. Ensure mutual comprehension Of the social processes, this particular process is the most difficult to identify in the regular continuance of the jury system. The concept of question and answer would seem to suggest, as Weithman describes, an environment and character where “appropriate repons[e]” takes place—in effect, the mutual comprehension would already be set (Weithman, 2005, pp. 282-283). There is nothing structural to suggest that mutual comprehension is not possible—and the social costs of lacking mutual comprehension in jury examples is evident throughout multiple jury situations. Wolgast and Lanza point out that only the jury has the power to award a finalist the win, and as such, a breakdown in mutual comprehension (as experienced by Richard Hantz in seasons nineteen (“Samoa”) and twenty (“Heroes vs. Villains”) is highly damaging to the deliberative process completely, as it becomes highly unlikely for jurors to want to comprehend you, let alone ensure mutual comprehension (Survivor, 2000; Wolgast & Lanza, 2007). This social process blends well with the consideration of other ideas and experiences, which we can now turn to. Consider other ideas and experiences It is in this section and the following section that deliberation in the social sphere begins to break down slightly when it comes to the jury system. We can turn, here, to Huckfeldt et al’s research on shifting partisanship in order to see the effects of considering other ideas and experiences (Huckfeldt et al., 2004). He describes “effective” political conversation as being couched in disagreement, and in the eventual conflict that this disagreement prompts when deliberated amongst people. To that end, we can interpret the Survivor jury as one of his interlocking networks, with seven to nine people all interacting with each other, learning from each other (especially in the Ponderosa, pre-Day 39 stage, where deliberation as established is more likely), and eventually interacting in their final state with the finalists themselves. It is in this final state that the consideration of other experiences becomes more difficult. In reaching a stable network, with no further shits, there is a likelihood of partisanship which Huckfeldt et al note makes the changing of opinion more difficult. Simply put, strong partisans will not change their minds easily, and the “subjective nature” of democracy permits disagreement to remain (Huckfeldt et al., 2004). The hope the finalists have of sharing their own ideas and own experiences with the jury is reduced because of this sequester experience, and because the jury are, in essence, allowed to discuss before the case is even concluded and closing arguments presented by the attorneys (although, it must be noted, that this does not prevent deliberation in real jury settings) (Gastil, 2008, p. 159). In this way, the Survivor jury loses its deliberative power as the event continues, eventually reaching a stable yet not deliberative conclusion, right when the finalists need that deliberation most. Respect other participants The concept of a “bitter jury” is extremely common in Survivor, as these are a group of people denied victory by the finalists who now seek their votes. As such, and as these examples will show, respect is commonly lacking in the Survivor jury process, and cannot be considered a boon to its deliberative power. Through the thirty juries to have been formed to date, there have been examples against what Gastil calls presuming the “honest[y] and well intentions” of other participants (Gastil, 2008, p. 20). Barber refers to the process of open and inclusive deliberation as a “conversation”, being the true goal of deliberation in the first place (Barber, 1984, pp. 183-185). This openness and deliberation is rejected in multiple juries, in what may be a reaction to the innately personal matter being deliberated upon. And this trend begins not as a reaction to the reality television constructs imposed on the show, but from the very first jury formed, in season one (“Borneo”). If I would ever pass you on in life again, and you were laying there dying of thirst, I would not give you a drink of water. I would let the vultures take you and do whatever they want with you, with no regrets…this island is full of only two things: snakes and rats…we have Richard the snake…and Kelly the rat…we owe it to the island…to let it be in the end the way Mother Nature intended, for the snake to eat the rat. The savage nature of a “bitter jury” makes the inclusion and openness Barber and Gastil both promote almost an impossibility, if the first ending speech of a Survivor jury is any guide. With relatively unprepared remarks touching on themes of nature and death, there is a visceral tone to Sue Hawk’s comments above that prevent the “respect” sought by Barber and Gastil. When the jury is filled with people who are personally affected, personal rhetoric becomes unavoidable, and the Survivor jury process cannot avoid this failure of deliberation. Discussion As noted in the beginning of this paper, the conception of a ‘jury’ brings to mind justice, fairness, and deliberation. In the analysis of a Survivor jury, it cannot be said that this deliberative promise holds true in all circumstances. However, while the structural demands of the jury might in itself be only damaging to some degree, the social processes which Gastil lists as essential elements of a deliberative environment by and large do not exist. The jury’s vote being called the “Final Tribal Council” is appropriate, as the vote itself may be likened more to a political, partisan council or committee meeting than an impartial jury of peers. Why, then, is the deliberative potential of the jury weakened, and why have any changes only weakened further the promise of the Survivor jury? We believe that the answer lies in the reality show constructs Survivor marries itself to. Dahl’s modified requirements for democracy, as Gastil refers to them, are ‘inclusion’, ‘participation opportunities’, and ‘enlightened understanding’ (Dahl, 1989). It is from this understanding of democracy that our conceptualization of deliberation flows (Gastil, 2008, pp. 5-7). But reality television, and Survivor as belonging to that genre, is not interested in these concepts. Just as every narrative requires conflict, every reality television show requires conflict, manufactured or otherwise (Hearn, 2009). Survivor has this conflict built in, both in the tribal council vote-offs, and in the jury scenario itself, where defeated players clash with potential victors. The ‘enlightened understanding’, seen in other deliberative programs such as legal juries, the Citizens’ Initiative Review, and compromise-heavy legislatures, appears to be absent in Survivor: instead, the drama of “snakes and rats” is deliberately broadcast last, to frame the deciding vote (Hearn, 2009; Rose et al., 2005). This version of deliberation is more partisan, more aggressive, and more reliant on the sheer personality of different competitors to prompt interest, rather than actual discussion of the issues (Rose et al., 2005). In short, what may be seen as deliberation within the Survivor process may not be deliberation at all, but a partisan exercise of egos and agendas. The decision every Survivor jury takes is an important one, if only for the monetary importance ascribed: the winner takes a million dollars, and the losers win near nothing. However, if this would prompt an honest and full deliberation within the jury, there is not much evidence of it through the television show’s thirty completed seasons to date. While there are elements of deliberation taking place, and while jurors do have those deliberative tools at their disposal, the Survivor jury system falls to the wayside in living up to its potential. In the constructs of reality television, this may be unavoidable as a fact of television production and narrative storytelling. It is, however, nevertheless disappointing for this million-dollar deliberation to replicate so many real-world partisan processes in its deviation from proper and true deliberation. Works Cited Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory democracy for a new age. Berkley & Los Angeles. Brams, S. J., & Herschbach, D. R. (2001). The science of elections. Science, 292(5521), 1449-1449. Cini, M. (2002). A divided nation: Polarization and the two-party system in Malta. South European Society & Politics, 7(1), 6-23. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and critics. New Haven. Farquharson, R. (1969). Theory of voting: Blackwell. Fishkin, J., & Farrar, C. (2005). Deliberative polling: From experiment to community resource. The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century, 68-79. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation: Sage. Gastil, J., Deess, E. P., & Weiser, P. (2002). Civic awakening in the jury room: A test of the connection between jury deliberation and political participation. Journal of Politics, 64(2), 585-595. Grofman, B., & Feld, S. L. (2004). If you like the alternative vote (aka the instant runoff), then you ought to know about the Coombs rule. Electoral studies, 23(4), 641-659. Hearn, A. (2009). Hoaxing the Real: On the Metanarrative of Reality Television Reality TV (pp. 165-178): NYU Press. Huckfeldt, R. R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. D. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks: Cambridge University Press Cambridge. Knobloch, K. R., Gastil, J., Reedy, J., & Cramer Walsh, K. (2013). Did they deliberate? Applying an evaluative model of democratic deliberation to the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(2), 105-125. Rose, R., xa, L, Wood, S., xa, & L. (2005). Paradox and the Consumption of Authenticity through Reality Television. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 284-296. doi:10.1086/432238 Survivor (Writer) & J. Probst (Director). (2000). Survivor, Survivor: CBS. Weithman, P. (2005). Deliberative Character*. Journal of Political Philosophy, 13(3), 263-283. Wikia, S. (2015). Alliance. Retrieved from http://survivor.wikia.com/wiki/Alliance Wolgast, B., & Lanza, M. J. (2007). You Screwed Me, Now Screw You! The Psychology of Survivor. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Exile · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Zeta Original | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
8:55 PM Jul 10
|







8:55 PM Jul 10