Ethnography

Bear Grylls and Les Stroud are just simple men. Both come from backgrounds in wilderness survival training and expertise and both enjoy a good adventure. However, simply by doing what they do in front of a camera, these two men became cultural icons seemingly in the blink of an eye, or the snap of a lens. Both shows are set up as educational programs, where useful information is passed along, both by speech and physical demonstration. However, both shows carefully toe a line between educational quality and entertainment, and it is in this dichotomy, this balance that these shows truly engage and connect with their viewers.

What separates Man vs. Wild and Survivorman from classic reality shows such as The Real World, The Mole, The Apprentice, and many others is that these wilderness survival shows have a more intimate relationship with their viewers, by virtue of the fact that the shows are meant to be almost instruction manuals, and the hosts are therefore the instructors. Unlike typical reality television, in which the viewers watch the drama unfold as removed observers, viewers of wilderness survival reality programming take a more active role in their viewership. They engage with the shows and the hosts on a more personal level, regarding them as guides or even mentors, figures to be looked up to and revered. Many viewers feel a deep bond with the hosts, men who are completely strangers to them, such as this viewer, who said, “My Father Served for the US ARMY 82nd AIRBORNE and 101st, from 1954-1969 KIA in Vietnam, for some reason, You Fill A Big Void in My life, I can't thank You ENOUGH.”[1] What we will explore then is how these relationships are constructed and what exactly is at stake in these intensified forms of viewership.

Objectively, the premises for these shows may seem rather outlandish. It is man and his survival skills pitted against nature and the wilderness. But Bear Grylls and Les Stroud are fulfilling a very specific purpose in this programming, namely instructing and educating people, giving them the necessary knowledge and skills to stay alive in dangerous environments. Viewers take very seriously what they glean from these shows, and it is the quality of information, its relevance and veracity, that seem to constitute much of the value on which these shows are judged. The most avid viewers (and often serial commenters) are ones who have some background or interest in wilderness survival and exploration, and thus engage with the hosts truly as students of their craft. However, it seems that the aspect of entertainment, though it is supposedly a secondary motivation, is a driving motivation for many of the events and actions that take place in the show. Many viewers believe there to be more distinct entertainment value in Man vs. Wild, such as this commenter on the Discovery fan site who wrote, “While Bear is more entertaining....Stroud is more realistic. And if you have a brain, you'll take more of his advice over Bear's.”[2]

It is in this subject of entertainment that we begin to get a sense of the importance of authenticity, and the emphasis that the viewers place on this. Part of the entertainment that we find in these shows is the vicarious experiencing of the dangers and exoticism of the wilderness. By watching these shows, viewers get a sense of what itis like to be thrown into these strange, hostile environments and to have to adapt and learn. Within these experiences is a desire for something strange and different, something that is completely removed from human civilization. This is where the idea of authenticity comes in – viewers watching the show are excited by the exploration of the wilderness and the individualistic experience that it conveys. The viewer travels along closely with Bear Grylls and Les Stroud, and they are able to feel both the fear and excitement that is in every moment when in these situations.However, simultaneously, the viewers have the comfort and pleasure of watching from their homes, where they are safe and ultimately in no danger. This is part of the draw of reality television – the viewer perhaps receives some of the “authenticity” of the experience, without having to deal with the “reality.” (This relates to Kant’s notion of the “sublime,” alluded to in the “Analysis” section).

Part of what is interesting about these two shows is the raging debates between fans on either side, trying to decide which show is “better.” Most of the criticisms of Man vs. Wild are focused around the idea that Bear Grylls is less authentic, and thus less worthy of respect (much of this invective came to the fore after this news surfaced). As one commenter says, “You've got to be kidding. Bear Grylls is the fakest of the fake.He always looks like he stepped out of a bandbox, perfectly groomed and in stylish outdoor gear… Les Stroud is by far more authentic. He films his own show… and he actually has to hunt his own surviv al food.I can't believe anyone would fall for Bear Grylls.”[3] Although Bear Grylls seems to be seen as more

of a brave adventurer, Stroud is more successful in connecting with his viewers who have a strong desire to learn from him. Many viewers seem to see Stroud asbeing more earthy and in touch with the environment. Although many of the frequent commenters seem to be ex-military or other armed service groups, like Grylls, Stroud is seen more as the everyman outdoorsy type, as opposed to the high-flying daredevil. One commenter iterates this sentiment in saying, “But it does matter. I've put it this way before: "Les shows me what *I* can do to survive. Bear shows me what HE can do to survive.”[4] This seems to imply that there is a certain distancing effect in the way that viewers are entertained by Grylls’ “stunts.”

In exploring the feedback and commentary on these shows, it seems that there is a divide in the viewership, and that the more experienced viewers, with some sort of investment in the project of wilderness survival, gravitate more towards Survivorman. These are the viewers who feel a deep connection to the show, and use it as a vehicle for their passion for the wilderness and adventuring. These viewers are almost always male, as they seem to identify with the hosts and the manly adventurer image that they display. These viewers often hold discussions of their own experiences in wilderness survival, and how it relates to the shows. One commenter tells a story:

One thing This Marine learned form the Air Force guys is having built in redundancy aka back up systems. 5 years after I heard that story I was hunting with my father and my brother arrowed a fine buck. It was time to field dress the animal I was the youngest guy there (16) and I had a sheath knife … I was the only one that had a knife at all. Even though my older brother killed the deer I got the bigger pat on the back. Pays to pay attention when the old guys tell stories.[5]

In this way, these viewers can relate to the show in a definitive way, through the technical aspects that seem to fascinate them. This is how they connect with the “reality” of the show, by bringing it substantially into their own lives, and then sharing this with others. Thus, imagined communities of wilderness enthusiasts and Man vs. Wild and Survivorman fans are created and fostered.

 

See "References":