Survivor and the Civil Sphere: Heroes vs Villains

The above image depicts a moment in Survivor, a reality television show where contestants are cast away to an island with just the clothes on their backs to compete with each other in challenges to earn supplies and avoid being voted out by their fellow castaways. In this image, the two teams, distinguished by their different colored buffs, have just finished a gruesome physical challenge where the Heroes team (blue buffs) are all celebrating their win. This season, the teams were named “Heroes” and “Villains” based on their reputation in prior seasons. The Heroes team, the clear winners of this challenge, are seen gleaming with excitement, one team member is jumping in the air with their hands in fists over their head. The Villains team is clearly frustrated, as losing this challenge means they have lost an opportunity to win the prize of the challenge (food, supplies, tools, etc…) and now they have to go to the dreaded tribal council, where one of their team members will be voted out and lose their chance at winning the 1 million dollar prize of being the last to survive. Losing this challenge means the Villains will now spend the rest of the day strategizing and working with alliances to try to form a plan to vote out one of their teammates while the Heroes will enjoy their reward and remain a strong unified force. 

After lots of pondering and theorizing over the meaning of civil society, In The Civil Sphere, Jeffery Alexander defines the civil sphere as “a sphere or subsystem of society that is analytically and, to various degrees, empirically separated from the spheres of political, economic, family, and religious life” (Alexander 2006: 53). Alexander carefully distinguishes spheres from institutions, fields, etc.. as spheres are moral realms that influence human action. The civil sphere is reinforced by three key elements: cultural codes, communicative institutions, and regulative institutions (Alexander 2006) and produces a sense of solidarity. Alexander also outlines civil binary codes to explain how the civil sphere functions in influencing individual action. He notes that individuals can move through these binary codes throughout their lives, as they are not inherent by birth but rather socially imposed upon them. (Alexander 2006).

This season of Survivor, "Heroes vs. Villains" is an example of the binary codes Alexander structures his theory on. These teams were not randomly decided, as individual gameplay in previous seasons determines if they should be placed in the Heroes team or the Villains team. Those who played with what the audience deemed "heroic", playing with loyalty and integrity, for example, were grouped with the Heroes, while those whose playing style included more cruelty and manipulation were deemed Villains. It is important to note that these team names are metaphorical; none of the players on this game show are actually "Heroes" or "Villains". The binary codes of the civil sphere "are imputations that are induced, via analogy and metaphor, from the internal logic of the symbolic code" (Alexander 2006). The civil sphere of Survivor is defined by different institutions, as Alexander defines as communicative and regulative. Throughout the forty-plus seasons of Survivor, different gameplay strategies have been used that determine someone's moral standing (forming alliances, backstabbing, working hard to help one's team win challenges, etc), and these choices can lead to their teammates voting them out if they are frowned upon. Players will often align themselves with others who share their social values, leaving those who have different views on how they want to play the game on the outs. These cultural codes, as Alexander describes, help the group decide who to trust and who not to trust, especially when deciding whose lead to follow when making the difficult decision to vote someone out. Violating social codes can put a target on someone's back or make them someone to align with, depending on the sphere's values.

The unique aspect of Survivor is that while players can make it through the 49 days without getting voted out, the final decision of who will be named Sole Survivor is ultimately in the hands of the audience. On day 49, all of the other castaways who have been voted out get to reenter the game to vote on which of the last three standing players should be named the title at the final tribal council. They ask the final three contestants many questions to evaluate their ability to "Outwit, Outplay, and Outlast" their fellow contestants. This aspect of the game represents Alexander's points about communicative institutions in which players are being judged and evaluated by the public based on whether the contestants played the game "right". Contestants answer questions to defend their gameplay choices as strategic and morally correct within the framework of the game. A player who made their way to the end of the game by backstabbing their allies may have to defend their decisions to do so more than someone who played with loyalty to their alliances. The jury and voting system is also an example of a regulative institution that Alexander talks about, as even if a contestant believes they have played the game perfectly and should win, they have to be a winner in the eyes of the Jury since they hold all of the power in determining the morals of Survivor's civil sphere. And all of this is unfolding on TV to a national audience, represents another level to the communicative institutions Alexander describes. Viewers see an hour long episode that has been curated to highlight only the most interesting moments during the long days these contestants endure, leaving it up to viewers to interpret and judge contestants' actions based on limited, carefully selected moments of conversations, moves, and gameplay. Communicative institutions shape civil discourse and symbolic representation; the fact that this game was created to be enjoyed as a reality TV changes the way contestants are filmed and therefore interpreted by viewers and therefore changes the way the audience believes the game is supposed to be played based on what highlights are broadcast on TV.