Ethnographic Television in the new Millennium,

A case study of BBC's Tribe

Merijn Hoogenstrijd 0311693 Merijn.Hoogenstrijd@student.uva.nl Bachelorscriptie 15 08 2009 John Kleinen Ph.D Dr. M.P.J. van de Port

The anthropologists immediate audience, like that of any academic, is tiny, being made up of students and colleagues. But the academic community does not exist in a social vacuum: it only appears to do so because of the time it normally takes for scientific knowledge to take on the credentials of common sense. Television offers the most powerful means it invented of reducing this time-lag David Turton 1992 i

The academic discipline of anthropology has always had a unique connection to the media. Critically, as the discipline is about any form of representation (including science and anthropology itself), it has extensively analyzed media from many angles while creating some radically new perspectives. Theories like Theodor Adornos culture industry ii and Nick Couldrys Media Rituals iii, provide its reader with a new understanding of the relation between culture and media. Aside from these critical analyses however, anthropology has not been an active participant in working together with the media to address moments of intercultural exchange. Despite the fact that broadcasted television provides a much larger audience with representations of the other than anthropologists are able to, anthropology has historically had very little voice or influence in this industry of popular culture. One of the few recent examples of anthropologists working with broadcasted television to produce anthropology in the popular media can be seen in the television series Tribe. Co-Produced by the BBC and Discovery Channel from 2003 to 2005 iv, this 15 episode long series sees presenter Bruce Parry travel to 15 different tribes to live amongst them in a manner that closely resembles ethnographic fieldwork. On the front-cover of the officially released DVD-box set stands a firm quote from the Financial Times stating that the series is A one man taskforce for popularizing anthropology (see image). What we can see from this quotation is a well respected mediator of popular culture (The Financial Times) arguing for more popular anthropology on broadcasted television while noting Tribe as the only recent valid example. This statement brought me to the following research question: Can Tribe be described as popular ethnographic television and how does this relate to the academic discipline of anthropology?
2

Methodology
The description of Tribe as ethnographic television in the research question was used to distinguish it from anthropological television. Within the leader v of each episode of Tribe the central format of the series is espoused which in short states that Parry intends to travel to remote tribes to see how they live (observation) and in order to fully understand them by living as one of them (participation). Clearly the series thus echoes the pillars of ethnographic fieldwork and should therefore be analyzed as ethnography. Similarly the official BBC website features well written ethnographic content and contains bibliographical links to a number of introductory works on general anthropology, research methods and visual anthropology.

The word ethnography has a double meaning in anthropology: ethnography as product (ethnographic writings the articles and books [and visual productions] written by anthropologists), and ethnography as process (participant observation or fieldwork). (Barnard And Spencer 2002[1996]: 193) To analyze Tribe as a visual ethnographic product can be done according to different criteria as the interests and demands of popular culture and academic anthropology are not always similar. As Tribe is generally described as a popular representation and due to its presence on the mass medium that is broadcasted television, it seems most fair to consider it as such and not confuse it with the academic ethnography from which it was originated. Since Tribe makes use of the ethnographic methods from both general anthropology and visual anthropology it should also be investigated to see how successfully it incorporates elements from either discipline in its creation of a popular representation. At the same time Tribe should also be looked at to see how it addresses contemporary concerns within the academic discipline of anthropology. The structure of the analysis is based on Reading National Geographic, a study into the National Geographic Magazine and the way this magazine represents and communicates anthropological content to its popular audience. Lutz and Collins divided their research into three parts; the history behind the production, the structure and content of the media itself and the audience (Lutz and Collins 1993: 12-14). Similarly I will start by situation the series in the historical landscape of anthropological broadcasting. This will be done through a short overview of the history of ethnography and anthropology on television and a short analysis of the contemporary politics of television broadcasting. Secondly I will analyze the actual

content and production of the media itself. Tribe apart from being broadcasted on television as a 15 part series has also been covered in a written publication. The book Bruce Parry Tribe is written in the form of a memoir recounting Parrys experiences during the shows production. It includes the full chronological story of what happened during his visits at the tribes including elements of the production process and some personal thoughts that didnt make it into the television production. The book, which was likely based on Parrys field notes and memories, was actually written by ghostwriter Mark McCrum in close collaboration with Bruce Parry. This is a rather common practice for celebrity memoirs in which a ghostwriter makes sure the book turns out as readable prose (Parry 2009: 368). By crossanalyzing both forms of media, the most comprehensive view can be created on the production and intend behind the series. Finally I will analyze the response of the series trough an extensive analysis of the reactions from general public on the internet. These reactions will be compared to published responses from within the anthropological community to show how successful Tribe can be regarded as popular ethnography.

A Short History of Anthropological Broadcasting:

Before we can analyze and value the Tribe series, it is necessary to take a look into the history of anthropology and ethnography on broadcasted television. It is worth noting here that despite anthropology having little representation on television, it has always been deeply entrenched within the development of documentary cinema. Some of the earliest documentary films where of an ethnographic nature (Nanook of the North, Men of Aran and Song of Ceylon) and some of the most important documentary styles have been championed and theorized by anthropologists (Cinema Vrite, Observational Cinema). Despite this involvement in documentary cinema, the participation within the industry of broadcasted television remained a different matter. Though a large number of ethnographic documentary films have been financed partially by television broadcasting companies (for example; the classic ethnographic documentary Tempus de Barristas was financed partially by the BBC), the intent behind these films is usually not to produce it for television broadcasting. Unlike television programs which are being broadcasted repeatedly on specific timeslots with an anonymous (often accidental) audience of millions, ethnographic films are made to be shown on specific viewings (projected on a screen or on dvd/vhs) in front of a visible and usually small audience. There is the possibility to replay or view the film a second time and a many ethnographic films are accompanied by a textual reader with additional information (Singer 1992: 122; Turton 1992: 114). Turton further states that:

What drives the programme-maker [] is the desire to hold the attention, on one brief occasion, of the floating viewer. What drives he filmmaker is the desire to give unique and permanent expression to his or her experience. The programme-maker sees him- or herself as communicator, the filmmaker as an artist (Turton 1992: 114). The role of a television program maker as a mass communicator is far more defined than it is for the filmmaker. The ethnographic filmmaker, relying heavily on the anthropological theories of the visual representations of cultures, is often extremely careful in making the film an as true a representation as possible and thereby often sacrifices an appeal to a mass audience in favor of ethnographic preciseness. Thus, when the grandfather of ethnographic cinema David MacDougall premiered his new film Children of Ghandi in the Netherlands for a single viewing, the audience counted less than 200 attendees. This is a luxury that most program makers cannot afford. Tied down to audience-ratings and the commercial nature of most television broadcasting the program makers has to work the other way around and
5

sacrifice preciseness in representation for a larger mass appeal. While ethnographic filmmakers mostly cater to a small academic audience, it is the program makers mission to bridge the gap between academic knowledge and common sense by their strength as a mass communicator (see the quotation of Turton at the start of the paper).

Anthropology on Television:

Aside from the irregular programming of ethnographic films which have not been designed for television broadcasting, there have been throughout the years few examples of ethnographic television programs. What we do find is a good number of programs where the anthropological content shown on television [] actually had little to do with anthropologists or the academic discipline. it was overwhelmingly material produced by filmmakers whose anthropology was often incidental to the main subject matter (Singer 1992: 123). As examples of this type of programming Singer mentions amongst others adventure and travel programs aside from including journalistic documentaries and reports (ibid). It is not hard to see the reason for this, as on the most basic level anthropology and television share a similar interest in the world. Whereas anthropology tries to describe, analyze and understand humans, culture and societies for the sake and benefit of science. The program makers has an equally strong interest to provide an insight into humanity, cultures and societies for the domain of popular culture, be it on commercial and/or educational grounds. When it comes to anthropological content in regular programming, Singer points out: There have been many films and programmes that have used images of societies outside the viewers normal conceptual or geographical reach and knowledge. But does Armand and Michaela Dennis looking at a Maasai dance during a safari in the 1950s, for example, constitute anthropology on television? To the extent that it is from such material that viewers either receive or reinforce their perception of the other, the answer is yes (ibid, my emphasis, MH). It is seems clear that for those people that do not get their information about the world from scientific publications, the television provides an easy and low-entry alternative to inform oneself of what is out there. However, there is a danger lurking here. Unlike the discipline of anthropology with its dedication to the values of science, program-makers do not always operate from the starting point of education and information. This can be seen in the manner in which anthropological theories and sensitivitys have been largely ignored by broadcasting

media. The few moments when anthropologists where sought out for advice their role remained limited and subjected to the whims of the producer (ibid). Thus, the informing of the audience for the program maker turned out to be less of an exercise in scientific inquiry and more of an attempt to confirm to the viewer that what he or she already believed (ibid). A challenge seemed to be there for anthropologists to adapt their academic theories and findings to the format of the television program in order to replace those programs where anthropology was only incidental. It can be concluded after all that it is the anthropologists responsibility, both inside and outside of science, to supply the world with the framework in which it can understand and interpret intercultural encounters and to facilitate the translation of cultural experience when needed. The answer came from the UK with its unique system of public service broadcasting. Unlike in the United States where the media is completely dominated by a commercial market attitude, the UK required commercial broadcasters to comply with public service remits that mandated a number of broadcasting hours be spent on educational programming. Thus when the first commercial broadcasting service ITV started up in 1955, backed up by a monopoly on advertisement and with the pressure of public service remits on broadcasting quality a fertile breeding ground was created for the development of talent and programming [of] ideas without the annual threat of funding cutoffs or the pressure of immediate success in audience ratings in order to gain advertising or underwriting (Ginsburg 1992: 98). It took however a bit more than that for the first truly anthropological television program to arise.

Granadas Disappearing World Series:

The Disappearing World series produced by ITVs Granada Television in the early 1970s was the result of an accidental marriage of ideas and vision amateur ethnographic filmmaker Brian Moser and Granada Televisions Chairman Sir Denis Forman. Forman had a long standing appreciation of the classic ethnographic films by Robert Flaherty and Jean Rouch and supported Mosers vision of a new documentary style grounded in the Malinowskian tradition of showing the non-western world from the natives point of view (Ginsburg 1992: 98). The main intention behind the series for Moser was to combine the knowledge and experience of the anthropologist, who is an expert on the subject matter, with the skills of the film/program-maker who is an expert at communicating through the audio-visual; The Disappearing World series rightly prides itself on making it a principle that no programme should be made without the help of an anthropologist who has carried out extensive fieldwork
7

in the community where filming is to take place (Turton 1992: 115). Furthermore, the influence of the anthropologist on the production process itself, starting from the original draft proposal, was unprecedented and ensured that the anthropology would not be a side issue (ibid). The end product of this was supposed to reach out to both students of anthropology and the accidental mass of peak time television viewers (Woodhead 1992: 118-119). Ultimately, the series never had one single aim behind it, but took its guidance from the many personal aims and academic sensibilities of the different anthropologists and filmmakers that produced each episode. Through the experimental freedom granted by Granada Television and a heavy inspiration by the works of ethnographic filmmakers such as MacDougall and Rouch, the series showcased a rather broad collection of styles, techniques and formats. Over the 23 years that that the Disappearing World series has been on television (with a break during 1983 and 1986), over 50 documentary films were produced, in which many technological/representational innovations where introduced
vi

(Singer 1992: 123; Ginsburg 1992: 98). With numerous awards and higher than expected

viewer ratings, the series was seen as a mayor success by its producers. More critical responses came early on from the academic anthropology community, where the simplification for the television audience was seen as coping out of anthropology (Ginsburg 1992: 99). As time moved on however the Disappearing World series slowly made its way into the classroom curriculum in anthropology and can now be regarded as the most successful instance of broadcasted anthropology (ibid) vii. Despite its success, the series did not have much effect on the way anthropology in the English broadcasting media was perceived. The ideological view that an anthropologist was necessary for productions that had to do with other cultures did not turn into a wider acceptance and anthropology-oriented programs have remained scarce. The English public service remit, responsible for giving birth to the Disappearing World series, similarly meant that anthropology was now represented on television with enough hours (3 to 6 hours per year) necessary to fill the perceived public

need. Anthropology was seemed to have been catered for and only a few other series of mediocre success followed Disappearing World
viii

(Singer 1992: 124).

The situation was not helped when the Broadcasting Bill of 1991 removed the public service remit and thereby stopped requiring the commercial companies like Granada to deliver educational content for the publics need. Similar to the system in the United States, viewer ratings and market forces take precedence over public service (Singer 1992: 124). The fear of losing the Disappearing World series in this new broadcasting system prompted a series of debates and articles from the visual anthropology community in 1990 (Ginsburg 1992; Turton 1992; Singer 1992; Woodhead 1992). Unfortunately, this fear proved grounded when in 1993 Disappearing World made its last appearance on Granada Television. Since that time Granada Television (now almost entirely gone from television and replaced by ITV1) has not made a single serious effort at bringing anthropology to television and currently focuses entirely on drama and entertainment productions ix. Anthropology on television was almost entirely abandoned with non-fiction broadcasting channels such as Discovery Channel and the National Geographic Channel taking over the lion share of cultural documentaries.

The Rise of Reality Television

This broadcasting landscape changed drastically once more when at the start of the new millennium a new non-fiction genre started to become widely popular. Reality Television, born through early 90s series as COPS and MTVs Real World became an internationally popular phenomenon through the success of Big Brother (Endemol) and Expedition Robinson/Survivor (Strix). Since then, due to high popularity in viewer ratings, reality television has grown larger and larger up to the contemporary situation in which most of the non-fiction broadcasting on television falls into the category of reality television. Almost since the start of reality television at the end of the 20th-century program makers started to look for more exotic and foreign backgrounds in their programs. With Expedition Robinson leading the way more and more reality programs started to base themselves outside of the western world. The concept was simple, take a number of real western people, place them into a foreign and possibly exotic situation to record the onslaught of real drama that might enfold. Thus popular reality programs like The Amazing Race (CBS), Peking Express (Net5/VT4) , The Farm (Strix) and Meet The Natives (Channel4) turned into the main providers of culturally infused images for the general television audience. The anthropology however was merely a background painting to the entertainment of the reality drama. Despite
9

the mayor success of the Disappearing World series with both the academic and popular culture audience, the growing commercialization of broadcasting systems worldwide made similar programs unlikely to appear again. As Reality-TV became increasingly popular taking over more and more broadcasted hours on television, producers started looking for newer ways to use the format. A recent development has been the surge of first-person, reality-based, adventure television (e.g., The Simple Life, Going Tribal, Digging for the Truth, 30 Days, No Reservations, Caught in the Moment [, Man vs Wild, Bushcraft])., this sub-genre of reality television is similar to investigative journalism and first-person ethnography (Fish 2006). Fish notes the similarities between this reality genre and certain theoretical developments within ethnography. The shows have in common a focus on the earlier (pre-1960s) production of cultural difference through cultural encounter and the later turn towards first-person reflexivity (post 1960s; explicitly the 1980s) (ibid). Thus through the charismatic presenters who function as guides and interpreters the audience is taken into foreign worlds. The cultural differences are made understandable through the personal contact of the presenter with his or her hosts and the presenters transparent reflexive narration to the audience at home (ibid). During the early years of this development towards first-person adventure reality-tv, BBC producer Steve Robinson, who had formerly worked on adventure films for the BBC (Extreme Lives), saw an amateur documentary x about a climbing expedition in Papua New Guinea filmed by ex-British Marines and expeditionists Bruce Parry and Mark Anstice. In this documentary Bruce and Mark had a number of intercultural encounters with New Guinea natives amongst which a fairly unique first encounter xi with a group of Korowai men. Apparently this documentary and especially the style of presenting by Bruce Parry had instigated Robinson to come up with a pitch for a new television program oriented centrally around Parry and his lust for expeditions.

The Amazing Race

Peking Express
10

Bruce Parrys Tribe:

The program idea that Parry and Robinson came up with was originally oriented around the themes of adventure and endurance. Parry was to be filmed amongst different tribal groups around our planet in order to see how he would cope with the harshness of living a tribal life xii. However, during the development of the production the programs theme moved away from a survival orientation to one focusing on the lives of the indigenous tribes themselves. Though the program was not intended by the producers to function as an academic ethnographic account, the series did employ a number of anthropologists as researchers, cameramen, and directors. Their purpose was to supply the program with grounding in anthropology and supply a companion website with anthropological background information and links to ethnographic sources. Furthermore the series producers employed the services of Brian Singer, one of the first producers for the Granadas Disappearing World series, as the series main consultant. Despite the format being completely unlike the Granadas series and Singer stating that he was merely a small anthropological voice in the background the intention of Tribe reflected the Disappearing Worlds series by taking the expertise of the anthropologist very seriously (Singer 2008: 11).

[I] pointed out glaring contradictions or misinterpretations, and suggested areas where anthropological sensibilities might have been ignored. There were very few areas were the producers were not prepared to listen and adjust, and overall the series exceeded my expectations and those of the production team (ibid, my emphasis, MH). Similar to the approach of the Disappearing World series, the community Parry visits are taken to be representative of the whole tribe that is the subject of the program (Turner 1992: 116). Though unlike the Disappearing World series the communities are not treated as bounded isolated entities; the series regularly makes a point of alluding to a wider set of relationships and connections outside of the community that Parry is visiting and often discusses the contemporary situation of the tribes (Suri, Kombai, Darhad, Sanema, Nyangatom, Dassanech, Matis, Nenets, Anuta, Akie and Penan episodes). Most importantly however it seems that David Turtons advice mentioned earlier on the inclusion of the fieldworker in ethnographic productions is what drives the format of the program (Turton 1992: 116). Parry, in referring to anthropological series like the Disappearing Worlds that relied heavily on voice over narration, stated in an interview that he disliked the God-like voice pontificating on the behavior of these people (Caplan 2005: 5). The format of the series

11

as it is presented in the introduction leader to the program xiii points directly to the ideology behind participant-observatory fieldwork. By living amongst the native people and participating with them in their tasks Parry hopes to learn more about the tribes. More than simply participating however Parry includes a heavy degree of reflexivity in the way he presents the programs. As such in the Matis episode he is aware of his limitations when he notes that he is not one of them [nor do] I think I ever will be one of them (Matis episode, 17:55). The whole program is presented as the subjective experience of Parry. Even when Parry includes references to anthropology he states it in a non-objective manner; Some anthropologists say (Suri episode, 40:38). The program thus resembles closely the contemporary reflexive trends in academic anthropology where observer and observed are not separated and where intersubjectivityxiv is central to the ethnography.

Showing wider relationships between communities and the contemporary situation of the tribes. (Sanema, 32:39)

The Production of Tribe:

In total running over 3 seasons on both the BBC2 and internationally on Discovery Channel, the BBC Whales team produced 15 different, one-hour long documentary films of Bruce Parrys experiences living with 15 different tribal communities. Except for Parry, the on-site production team was ever changing with directors, camera-men and researchers being called up depending on their availability and other reasons xv. Many of the researchers participated in the production of more than one episode and the ever changing team consisted of mostly athletes who functioned as non-anthropological researchers with only four episodes employing the service of an anthropologist on site xvi. However none of them are mentioned to be experts on the local communities who had performed years of fieldwork on site before filming had started (Parry 2008: 5, 31, 97, 144, 192, 218, 240, 261, 287, 312, 333). For five of
12

the episodes (of which four in the third season) the series specifically credits anthropological experts however these consultants where employed to give advice before filming had started and where not present on site (ibid: 125). Instead of using anthropological experts the series producers regularly employed the service of fixers and translators to help establish contact with the communities and to aid Parry with communication (ibid: 4, 30, 54, 78, 97, 121, 144, 217, 240, 262, 285, 312, 334) . For the positions of director and cameraman a number of different people where employed each with their unique style and way of working. In fact, it can be said that the series contains an experimental value due to the dynamic nature of the production crew. The most influential on the style of the series and the most often employed of the crewmembers were Steve Robinson (series producer and director of the first episode), James Smith (director of six episodes) and Jonathan Clay (director of two episodes and cameraman on five episodes) both responsible for the majority of the episodes in the first two seasons. Both employed a surprisingly different style of directing which resulted in the series being not as homogenous as one would expect from a television series. James Smith preferred a traditional presenting style with a heightened focus on Parry and allowing for numerous retakes to get a segment the way he wanted it (ibid: 31). Interviews are used but often cut short in favor of Parry explaining the situation. Steve Robinson and Jonathan Clay on the other hand worked more with the observational cinema style, standing back and allowing the situation to play out without too much directing influence (ibid). In what is one of the biggest differences in style, Clay also preferred more and longer interviews with the local natives relying slightly less on Parrys presenting ability.

Parrys voice over (top) narrating over a conversation in which the tribal chief welcomes him (bottom) (Nyangatom, 12:40)

13

The most important stylistic difference however can be seen in the approach different directors had towards the presence of the crew. The decision was made at the start of the series that the crew would work from a production camp near the tribal village site where filming was going to take place. Parry would start camping out in the production camp and after a few initial days move over to the tribal village site armed with one hand-camera (nicknamed the Bruce-cam). The production crew would move back and forth between the production camp and the village in order to collect enough footage from which to assemble the program. During times when the crew was absent from the village Parry would film by himself using his hand-camera. This situation resulted in Parry often being left alone in the village without an interpreter/translator or a camera crew nearby to capture the daily pace of life. While James Smith preferred the luxury of the production camp outside of the village during the first two seasons, a change in direction came in the third season when producers Wayne Derrick xvii and Gavin Searle camped within the tribal village itself (Parry 2008: 152, 218, 287, 337). This resulted in Derrick and Searle being able to capture much more intimate and unscripted footage. The idea that continuous presence of the filmmaker in the local culture provides more intimate footage has been an established idea within ethnographic filmmaking for over a few decades (MacDougall 1998: 128). Despite this Parry only recognizes the benefit of this more observational method of filming in the last chapter of his book when he notes:

Gavin was totally happy to muck in, eating and sleeping with the locals, not away to one side in some luxury tented camp. This meant that we were already so much more at one with the Penan and it was an infinitely preferable way to make the film (Parry 2008: 337). Unfortunately the Penan episode was also the final one recorded in the series and this realization would thus only serve to support the existing ideas in observational filmmaking. Despite some of these differences most of the episodes contain a similar formulaic approach to presenting the tribe and Parrys adventure. Almost every episode starts with a discursive introduction on voice over, where Bruce uses the information that is most likely supplied by the anthropologists in his crew, to explain about the tribe he is about to visit. Every episode includes a short map sequence in which the viewer is shown where the location of the tribe is and Parry is always shown traveling towards and arriving at the tribe, sometimes on foot other times in a vehicle. Throughout the episodes Parrys voice over, based on information he gets from his crew, is used to explain about the tribe and relevant

14

anthropological theories. A clear choice was made to have Parry present the ethnographic information through short, factual depictions of popular anthropological theories without offering competing theories or detailing the academic discussion. As such, when Parry witnesses scarification practiced amongst the Suri he espouses one of the popular theories that scarification could function to domesticate violence amongst the Suri. He does not add however that amongst other cultures in Africa scarification has been analyzed on the grounds of aesthetic beauty and community bonding amongst gender groups (Gengenbach 2003: 114115, 134-136). Interviews with people from the local community are used only shortly and sparingly most of the time just to add to what Parry has already mentioned. While at some moments the full process of question-translation-answer-translation is shown, more often the interviews are cut short sometimes favoring voice-over narration by Parry. It is clearly all about Parry being the communicator, a link between audience and tribe. Through Parrys comments and actions, both on voice over and directly to the camera, the audience gets a sense of being there, experiencing it from the position of Parry. Unlike the accepted method in visual anthropology, whereby through the use of long observational takes and context sensitive interviewing the viewer is presented with the view of the native people, the series rather looks to communicate Parrys view. Due to Parrys central position in reflexively relaying what is happening and how he experiences it, we get to see a western person living tribal life, rather than tribal people living tribal life. This approach which is quite the opposite of the goal behind the Disappearing World series seems rather based in the domain of reality television where the audience enters the experience through their identification with the presenter/contestants.

Parry reflects on not being allowed to participate in a Suri stick fight due to safety concerns. (Suri, 45:18)

15

Tribe, the Written Account:

The personal presenting style of the television series is expanded on in the written publication on the series. This memoir of Parrys experiences written in first-person perspective adds on the already heavy reflexive attitude of the series. Aside from it providing the complete story behind Parrys visits to the tribal communities, so that the book can be read as a stand-alone work, it includes many details on the production process that could not be included into the television series itself. Parry explains and details certain decisions taken by him and the production team and describes how this influenced the final product. Despite McCrums rewriting of Parrys notes into a more easily readable prose and thus possibly adding slightly more romanticism to the whole account, the book on the whole is far more precise on what happened than the alternative visual account. Comparing the book and the series it becomes clear that while the book is following the chronological sequence of events a choice was made in the series to restructure the footage into a new story. This process where the narrative structure is fabricated in order to successfully combine the raw filmed footage into a sensible short story is a common process in both television and film production. Even in visual anthropology filmmakers use fabricated narratives to structure their films (Henley 2006). Another reason for this change in chronology is the decision to not include the production process within the films itself. Parry refers to decisions taken by the crew on occasion but unlike the book which provides numerous details on what happened behind the scenes most of this hidden in the series itself. As such many episodes make it seem as if Parry moves into the village on the first day of arrival while in fact this process took up a couple of days. Though the choice of restructuring for the television series is often done in a logical way it becomes a problem when we look at certain rituals such as rites of passage. Rites of passage have been extensively studied by anthropologists and through the works of Arnold van Gennep (van Gennep 1960) and Victor Turner (Turner 1969) have been defined as containing a three part structure; separation, liminality and reintegration. The importance of this was however not completely understood by the series producers. When Parry participates in a rites of passage ritual amongst the Nyangatom, the rites of passage events are restructured in the film to such a degree that the thee part phases are unrecognizable. Aside from the issue of linearity however the book is also more precise, honest and informing of what went on and how most of it was actually experienced by Parry himself. While during the series itself Parry is almost constantly communicating a specific story to his audience it seems that in the book Parry allows for a more transparent view of what actually
16

went on. Examples of this are some sexually charged moments not mentioned in the series, Parrys more personal thoughts on some of the rituals he experienced and issues that had been explained poorly in the series due to restrictive editing xviii (Parry 2008: 68, 113-115, 154, 190191). However unlike the book the television series provides a much better sense of the relationships that Parry build up in the various communitys and the mutual respect and appreciation that has created those relationships. This difference in contents echoes what my professor in visual anthropology Steef Meyknecht xix taught me when he described the written medium to be intended for abstract data and theoretical or personal reflection while the visual medium is best suited to exhibit atmospheres, emotions and relationships. From a cross comparison between the book and the series it furthermore appears that the broadcasting was re-ordered slightly to combine episodes from the same director in sequence xx. The most surprising element about this new episode order for broadcasting however is the reallocation of the Babongo episode from the first to the fourth episode. The choice of the Babongo tribe as the first project for the Tribe series cannot have been accidental. The Bwiti ritual, which contains the use of the highly psychoactive Iboga root, is practiced amongst this tribe and the reason for asking Parry to participate in this ritual had more importance and implication than the need for shocking and controversial television. The series producers did often make it a point to visit most of the tribes around the times of initiation rituals or other important events; Steve Robinson honestly admits that the reason behind this was their perceived demand of pace on television xxi. In other words, they wanted people to be drawn to the television and they needed something more spectacular than the traditional observational films on the daily lives of natives.

Shocking footage of Parry after he ingested near-lethal amounts of the psychoactive Iboga root. (Babongo, 47:13)

17

The Iboga ritual however did not seem to be so much about the audience at home and neither about the Babongo tribe itself, despite the series claims of wanting to investigate how the native people live. In what would become a symbolical element for the series the Iboga ritual represented Bruce Parrys initiation in the world of Tribe. Apart from being an initiation into the Babongo tribe itself this Iboga ritual, supported by the devastating psychedelic effects of the Iboga root, served to transform Parry from his former identity of an ex-marine adventurist into a more conscious, pacifist, amateur anthropologist (Middleton 2007). The psychedelic plant enhances the separation, liminality and reintegration stages of the rites of passage process and it can be said to have left Parry in a more blank state than otherwise possible, ready to be introduced and restructured into tribal life. The Bwiti ritual would be only the first step on the personal journey that Parry was to undertake, a journey that would be the central theme of the series and a journey that anyone at home could follow intimately due to the personal presenting style of Parry. A journey that would see Parry being thought the ways of tribal life and which would show the audience at home the things they have lost in the western modern way of life (Parry 2008: 360-361). Accepting most of the differences between the book and the film it seems a strange choice to take this symbolic episode that started and fueled the whole series and relocate it to be the fourth episode. By doing this the series producers seemed to have missed the exact narrative point they should have emphasized instead providing the viewer with a misconstruction which hides what is a central element of the series.

Parry intimately sharing his personal experiences with the audience at home after his Bwiti ritual (Babongo, 57:06)

18

Discussion:

It seems that by sending Parry to these communities as an interested outsider a solution was offered to the earlier problem of the exclusion of the fieldworker in the Disappearing World films. Similar to Turtons idea, the series was not to rely on a detached invisible observer providing information but instead use the presence of Parry as a catalyst for new understandings, achieved through the experience of filming itself (Turton 1992: 116). However whereas Turton was clearly describing the inclusion of an anthropologist, who is an expert on the local community, the series makers instead opted for the charismatic but anthropologically inept Bruce Parry to visit many communities of which he is clearly not an expert. This can easily be described as the series most disappointing and confusing decision as Parry was not properly trained in anthropological field methods. Despite the series having originally been devised based on Parry and his endurance skills, with the anthropology as a latter added notion, it had quickly turned into a more serious anthropological endeavor for which a trained anthropologist would have been better suited. Though Parry does make use of a basic form of participant-observation we do not see him use any other anthropological method during his visits to the tribal community. Only in the Babongo episode, the very first project of the series, do we see Parry with a notebook in his hand trying to learn the local language. The notebook, which is possibly the most important tool of a fieldworker, only returns in one other episode when Parry is practicing his welcome in native vernacular on route to the Matis tribe.

The only moment in the series where Parry is seen doing something other than participantobservation to learn about the tribe. (Babongo, 15:49)

19

Aside from Parry clearly not taking advantage of all the methods and techniques developed for anthropological fieldwork there also seems to be a lack in anthropological advice from Parrys researchers. This becomes painfully clear when in the Nyangatom episode Parry starts out referring to the Nyangatom through the derogative name Bume, given to the Nyangatom by the neighboring Suri tribe (Parry 2008: 152). A mistake that could have easily been avoided through proper anthropological research. Parry and his researchers also fail to see the anthropological issues behind his adoption by his host family in each community. For example Parry does not seem to note the prestige his presence brings to the chief that adopts him rather taking the whole thing at face value. More importantly, Parry was apparently not informed that his adoption within a tribe usually entails him being assigned a certain status and identity to overcome his former position as an outsider to the community. As a newcomer to the community, who doesnt possess the cultural skills and customs and who has no understanding of the local language he is often classified as a child within the tribes he visits. Thus the other children of the tribe are usually first and foremost in communicating and connecting to Parry. In the Suri episode, Parry thus innocently notes on voice over the kids in the village have made me one of their gang. However throughout the series it seems that Parry becomes more and more conscious of his classification as a child and makes it a struggle to prove himself as a full-fledged male member of society (episodes 5,6,7,8 and 10 are centered around this theme of coming of age).

Children are always the first to seek contact with Parry as he himself is re-identified in the community as a child. (Nyangatom, 21,32)

In general there is a disproportionate amount of attention given to the male aspects of the societies though Parry is often very willing to aid his female hosts in some of the mundane daily tasks they have to perform. In interviews with woman however the subject rarely ever moves beyond the issue of relationships and Parry often ignores many of the
20

anthropological issues that surround woman in those societies. Within the same Suri episode for example, despite spending some time covering the issue of lip plates and scarification amongst woman, Parry glances over the issue of the female-oriented economy of beer making while this is actually a central source of power for woman in that community xxii. There is a logical explanation for this gender imbalance as Parry in most of the episodes is trying to become a full fledged male member of the society. Furthermore it is widely accepted in anthropology that male anthropologists often have limited access to the female aspects of a culture. However with the aid of some of the female researchers who worked in the onsite production Parry is on some occasions able to get a number of interviews and perspectives from female members of society. For example in the Suri, Hamar and Dassanech episodes there is quite a bit of attention given to the female aspects of society. It becomes a problem however when in the Hamar episode Parry tries to do too many things at the same time. In the same episode where Parry participates in a male coming of age ceremony he remarks to the camera; as much as possible Im going to try and become one of the girls (Hamar episode, 14:51).

Local healer explains her view on female circumcision in an interview with female crewmember Willow Murton (Parry 2008: 204) (Dassanech, 44:24)

Parry not only has troubles dividing his time between the male and female aspects of society but more also between the camera and his hosts. Parry is constantly aware of the presence of the audience and often tries to communicate to both his hosts and the audience at home at the same time. Thus Parry is often speaking English to his tribal hosts even when it does not get translated. Parry also often chooses (or possibly is asked by the director) to communicate with the camera instead of interacting with his tribal hosts. The most conspicuous example of this is the way Parry deals with the issue of food and drinks. What should be a private activity between Parry and his host family instead becomes a culinary
21

report from Parry to the camera next to him as he explains to the audience at home how the food and drinks taste to his western pallet. The manner in which Parry tackles this reminds one immediately of other food segments in reality television shows (for example Bear Grylls in Man vs Wild and Anthony Bourdain in No Reservations) where a presenter is shown in close-up chewing on an exotic delicates while honestly reporting on their disgust or enjoyment of the specific food item. Meanwhile his native hosts are sitting right there wondering what this strange man is saying about their food to the camera in a language they do not understand.

Every meal becomes a culinary report to the camera as Parry consumes the local food and drinks (Adi, 47:27)

The heightened focus on the exotic foods and drinks that Parry ingests is only one of many choices that the production crew made with the perceived demand of the television audience in mind. Aside from trying to provide a contemporary look into the native communities showing through the regular daily activities the show focuses heavily on exotic and sensational subjects. Trying to provide both informative and entertaining television the choice of activitys that Parry is asked to perform in where chosen specifically in order to create television that can be perceived as: shocking (stick fighting; episode Suri, cannibalism; episode Kombai, crocodile hunting; episode Dassanech, female whipping; episode Hamar), controversial (female circumcision; episode Dassanech, psychedelic drugs; episode Babongo & episode Sanema), strange (cattle jumping; episode Hamar, polyandry; episode Layap), romantic (nomad lifestyle; episode Darhad & episode Nenets, idyllic island life; episode Anutans) or traditional (hunters & gatherers; episode Kombai & episode Matis & episode Akie, ). Scenes are also often enhanced in the editing room by additional studio produced music, sound effects and even slow-motion effects (during stick fight in the Suri episode) to add to the perceived shocking, strange or romantic atmosphere . Examples of this are the
22

many visits to different shamanic healers where tense, dark and even spooky sounds effects are added. Similarly in the almost every episode background music is used to enhance the romanticism of tribal life. These elements are rather at odds with the continuing claim by Parry himself that one of their many aims was to challenge overly romantic views of tribal communities. The misconceptions of historical explorers have influenced us all and too often been continued by modern media, who actively reinforce existing stereotypes. To counter this, we wanted to go against the tide and highlight the similarities between human beings rather than accentuate their exotic differences (Parry 2008: 359). The statement seems to be more hindsight than fact however as in the series itself it appears much different. It is rather a case in which Parry visits a number of these tribes with existing stereotypes and preconceptions in his mind and through his time with those tribes he is able himself to get over his previous exotic and romantic views (ibid: 361).

Parry overcomes his preconceptions on female whipping amongst the Hamar. (Hamar, 46:09)

The reason Parry could do this so successfully was because of his readiness to challenge his own preconceptions and a good degree of cultural sensitivity (ibid). On numerous occasions Parry shows that he is clearly well aware of the sensitive situation he is in and the cultural bridges he will have to cross. An example is in the Babongo episode where shortly after his arrival a number of tribe members suddenly die, because of which the entire village went into into bereavement. Parry, sensitive to his intrusion upon the villages grief, decides not to go out and film it (ibid: 9). Likewise in the Layap episode, a bad prediction of the future from a local astrologer puts Parry in serious doubts of continuing his work without offending his native hosts (ibid: 245). Sometimes this goes as far as Parry being too sensitive to inquire into an issue. For example, a number of times Parry is almost starved by his tribal hosts as Parry is too sensitive to inquire about the food protocol (ibid: 13, 222-223). One of
23

the more successful choices behind the series was the cultural sensitivity to portray the contemporary way of life of their tribal hosts including modern or western influences. As such, the episode around the Nenets which centers on a Siberian herding migration concludes with his host family in their modern house which they inhabit for part of the year. Some of the visited tribes were positively surprised by this decision to include these influences. The Matis originally refused to co-operate with the documentary due to previously been visited by filmcrews who did not show this cultural sensitivity and instead requested the tribe to perform in front of the camera in a more traditional way (Parry 2008: 219). As Parry and his crew explained how they wanted to show the contemporary situation of the tribe, the Matis reacted by granting them full permission to stay and film.

Matis welcoming the intention of Parry in showing the current situation of the tribal community. (Matis, 10:11)

Tribe often shows the modern influences in the local communities. Here Parry sits with his Nenet host family in their house after completing the migration. (Nenets, 56:55)

24

Aside from the Matis, the Tribe crew visits a number of other societies that seem very welcome to the idea of having the film crew present in their village. A prime example is the Penan episode, where chiefs actively engaged with Parry and his film crew media in order to promote their own political interests. However in a number of episodes the production also moves to other tribes that neither actively sought out this type of contact. Surely all tribes have agreed on the film to be produced but the production crew should have realized that not all of these tribes are aware of the consequences that his production entails. The whole series was very much produced in a situation where filming started almost straight after arrival. Most locations where apparently scouted and visited by a crew-worker to discuss the production but neither the book nor the series have any information on those agreements. Likely Parry and his crew to easily assumed that their good intentions would provide enough of a safety-net for their hosts. Examples of this are the Kombai en Anutan episodes. These peoples do not have many problems or much need for contact with western groups. The sole reason that they were chosen to be part of the series is not because of any political or anthropological issues but rather because they fit the exotic picture that Bruce and the series creators had when they were looking for remote indigenous people.

Parry looking for hidden tribes in Papua New Guinea to make first western contact with (Kombai, 14:07)

The subjects of these episodes, cannibalism and idyllic island life, are far from any real academicals issues but rather fit the exotic fascination that Bruce and his colleagues have with the tribal world. It is also easily visible how these groups (mostly these groups but not excluding other groups they have visited) could be hurt in the process of filming. First there is the introduction of not only western influences like the camera, which is an evil any ethnographic film crew will have to learn to live with, but more importantly there is the issue
25

of the payments that follow in return for the film. Strangely not much is known about the payments that have followed due to anthropological fieldwork. Most anthropological researches and films are made with low funding and often do not include big rewards in return for filming. In a commercial production like the Tribe series however there is a different situation. Perfectly exemplified by the Matis episode some tribes are clearly aware of the commercial aspect of film-productions and they rightfully request to receive part of the wealth created by these productions. As Parry has noted many times in the Tribe book, this brings with it the problem of preferring one community over others nearby and thus disturbing the wealth and power relationship of that wider area. One could easily ask if it is worth having a television crew going to some of these communities if the risk of disturbing them is so great. Tribal tourism is another problem that arises from television production like this. It should be the ethical responsibility of the western world and the power that the western world has through the media to avoid putting any community in danger through promoting them through media. It is not that hard to imagine how a hidden island community like that of Anuta could be hurt by publicity on global television, especially when it is presented as an idyllic paradise hardly untouched by western society. In fact travel books have already been including references to Bruce Parry and Tribe pushing people to experience the adventure for themselves (Hughes-Freeland 2006: 22).

Parry encouraging tribal tourism to hidden communities such as the island of Anuta (Anuta, 01:29)

26

The audience response:

The audience of Tribe likely consists of two categories of viewers. The largest part of the audience consists of a mass of million random viewers that possibly accidentally zapped to the program and continued watching. The second part of the audience is built up out of professional anthropologists and others initiated in academic anthropology (Singer 2006: 24). These anthropologists do not constitute the target audience of the series which has a popular orientation but they are naturally drawn to the series due to professional curiosity. The popular representation of anthropology in the series makes it rather unsurprising that the reactions from the professional anthropologists have been predominantly critical and negative (Caplan 2005: 4). After all the series was never created with the intention of academic anthropologists as its audience. In contrast the response of the general audience has been largely positive xxiii. Parry in his book described the general reaction to the series as having been largely warm and positive (even amongst some of those who were initially against the idea) (Parry 2008: 359). To help understand this difference in comments on the series a cross survey of the academic and general audience is required.

On one rare occasion Parry and his crew return to the Suri and gave them a viewing of the Suri episode of (not translated into Suri xxiv) (Nyangatom, 02:22)

The general audience:

The popularity of the series with its millions of viewers all around the world has generated quite a large response. The attitudes of this mass audience can be fairly easily charted through an analysis of the comments and reviews that are posted on the internet xxv. However, online posted comments cannot be accepted uncritically as a true representation of audience reaction. A common practice on the internet called trolling has people post controversial or

27

inflammatory comments in an attempt to provoke other users to respond in an emotional or provocative way thereby disrupting regular discussion xxvi. Thus, some websites that are widely known for this behavior have not been included in this analysis (youtube.com xxvii). At the same time, online message boards rely heavily on discussion and when moderated they can be quite revealing on the range of responses from the general public. In an article on the Tribe series, anthropologist Pat Caplan also made an online survey of the general publics response to the series. The range of comments that she highlights can be divided in three main categories which I will use and expand on in my own survey. Her article was written in 2005 shortly after the complete broadcasting of the first season, since then two more seasons have been broadcast and many more people have taken the time to leave comments online. The first group of people that Caplan addresses is the large majority of people that found the show to be a fantastic piece of television making. When Caplan wrote her article, the general view she found on online message boards was almost entirely positive. Caplan was actually able to find only one severely critical comment on a small website for geography teachers (Caplan 2005: 7). Since then, many more critical comments have surfaced, though the general view has stayed dominantly positive. Of the comments that I have found on the main media discussion websites many express the opinion that the series is an excellent introduction into the featured tribes and their lives. Some also cite the educational value that they perceive from the series.

This series is very exciting to watch (enhanced especially for those who dabble in bushcraft) but for me it is more important than simply giving viewing pleasure). It has given me insight into the past that i would value at much more than 30 quid - try something in the region of priceless Alasdair Robertson on amazon.com xxviii

Essential is an overrated term these days, But this programme merits the accolade of 'essential viewing' if ever I saw one. I agree fully with the reviewer who states that this is one of the best series of factual programme of the past decade, if not the best. I simply cannot remember seeing anything as engrossing, informative and touching as this for a long time, if ever. This series really needed to be made, and is a must have for any armchair anthropologists out there S. Cobley on amazon.com xxix

I totally agree with everything you people have said to support the show. I think this is a wonderful show, and Mr. Parry does a fantastic job of telling people about these tribe that probably most of us didn't even know existed! To those of you who are picking apart the show and taking things out of context to make it seem like a bad show, if you want to be critics, pick apart hollywood movies. They have more flaws than this show ever will ans15 at discovery.com xxx
28

Caplan, basing herself on the viewer comments, noted the series links with other reality television and travel shows (Caplan 2005: 7). She mentions the entertainment value as the series primary purpose but forgets to mention that the current British Broadcasting system relies heavily on high viewer ratings which are easiest achieved when the program is considered entertaining. She seems to cite the entertainment purpose in her article in order to deny the possibility of an educational grounding behind the series. However unlike Caplan viewers from the general audience refer to the educational aspect just as often as they do to the entertainment value. Entertainment might indeed be one of the primary purposes behind the programs but at the same time a number of people also noted that compared to other reality TV programs Tribe seems to be a much more serious endeavor.

While channel surfing I stopped on this show it intrigued me and I watched the whole episode...it is the best, informative, most real show that I have seen in about 10 years drderry on discovery.com xxxi I agree. Talk about a shocking dose of reality. This show is unlike any other. I sense that Discovery coming back with better programming like the good ol' days in the early 1990s apley on discovery.com xxxii

Going Tribal with Bruce Parry is absolutely one of the best things going on TV today. We are learning to get away from reality competition shows like "Survivor" and truly learning about these people, their lives and the land that they inhabit. I am learning so much from this show and loving each and every minute of it. Bruce Parry was a brilliant choice as host, as he is willing to try anything from hallucinating herbs to piercings and penis inversion.(I even cringed at that and have no penis!) Exploration is a dying art, and exploitation seems to be what the trend is. Living and learning from these tribes is not only a lesson in anthropology but a lesson in why is it necessary to leave their land untouched. We dont want these tribes don't disappear from this world entirely Cyn_66 on tv.com xxxiii

I had no reason to watch this until i really understood what it was about. I mean we have all seen that kind of show, when some dude just walks in to the jungle and shows us some members of a tribe and just describes them straight out of a book. Takes some pictures and leaves. This is made so different because Bruce (The host) really lives with these fascinating people and adapts to their way of living in every way. He becomes one of them for about a month. It gives a much better image of what's going on and how beautiful they are as humans. They appreciate life and what it's all about. Rawaz on imdb.com xxxiv

29

By far the biggest success according to the general public has been the including of Bruce Parry as the shows host. The majority of all the responses online mention Parrys humbleness, openness and willingness to try all aspects of tribal life their favorite element of the series. Through the audience identification with Parry and his position as the midway communicator between them and the local culture many viewers realize, just as Parry does, that fundamentally all people are the same despite their apparent exotic differences. This result is very similar to the goals of written ethnography in the past.

Stumbled across Mr. Parry's Tribe on, I think, Discovery World the other day - and apart from being a great show it's also turned me into somewhat of a Parry-fanb0i. The way he combines his ethnographic interest in the lives and customs of the people he visits, with a genuine respect for these - yet without coming across as a wide-eyed fool - is utterly impressive. Also, his way of connecting with the indigenous peoples of Africa is just something to behold - amazing how close he can get to many of these otherwise very closed societies in just a month or two. phAge on eurogamer.net xxxv

On the program, Bruce Parry attempts to learn as much as he can while visiting indigenous tribes. While he is obviously a skilled communicator, many times he did not understand or speak their language. He developed communication with them through simple body language, eye contact, and emotion. It proved to be very effective. The Team on sky2seainternational.com xxxvi

I absolutely LOVE Bruce Perry! I think the show has and will open the minds of Americans to other cultures and to the fact that in general, people are good,loving people. Bruce has an enthusiasm for life and natural curiosity that are unrivaled by anyone I've ever seen before. He has such kind eyes, and it makes me feel good to see him interact with people in such an unpredjudice way. mugzy451 on discovery.com xxxvii

Finally finally this wonderfully weird, scary, funny, educational and extremely entertaining series is out on dvd! I'd seen every single one of them and I never stopped being amazed by the fascinating people Bruce Parry lives with for about a month. He's showing us all the things we'll probably never get to see for ourselves, and cheerfully doing all the things we certainly never ever would want to do ourselves! This series shows us a rare glimpse into the lives of very vulnerable peoples that may not survive in our 21st century world very much longer. It's also showing us that people are just people, wherever, whatever, whenever. They just want to live a quiet life, support their families and give their children a good future too. I think that's an important message, wrapped up in a highly entertaining package! flmfn on amazon.com xxxviii

30

For the second category of viewers Caplan brings up a well known theory by Martinez on spectatorship in visual anthropology. The theory found that ethnographic films are often read to confirm prejudices amongst students rather than correcting them. Caplan uses the theory to support her view that many spectators took what they wanted to see from each programme (Caplan 2005: 7). In 2005 Caplan could not find a case where negative prejudices where confirmed, she assumed that they existed but were not reported online. Since then some examples of this have entered online message boards. These voices are however still far outnumbered by the people that had their preconceptions changed and that seem to be willing to create an understanding based on the local culture terms.

I just think that these cultures need to evolve. Sooner or later someone with more culture and with better weapons than sticks is going to take their land and sooner or later this tribe will have to deal with famine as they lose animals and food. We are only being polite to them if we encourage them to remain the way they are. This tribe is in ethiopia, one of the poorest country's on earth. All of these tribes covered on the show need to be civilized and taught modern ways and customs so that they will survive for the next hundred years. I am sick and tired of seeing Africa suffer and be exploited, but if they insist on living like cave man who can blame the civilized man for exploiting them? princeakbar on discovery.com xxxix Yes, they are savages, in every sense of the word. And if they are truly cannibals, they need to change their ways. Those "people" sicken me brianjmc on discovery.com xl This is an interesting topic to debate about and in my opinion I don't think they are savages. I see them as people like you and me we are all human beings. The Suri seem very proud of their culture and their way of life and I don't think it is up to us to change that. I'm sure they would think that our way of life is different and strange. I like Going Tribal and don't see it as being exploitation. I see it as showing us that there are many different cultures in the world besides our own and we should respect and try and understand each one laurac1987 on discovery.com xli

What makes the show brilliant is that by the end you realize that these people actually are JUST like everyone we know in the outside world. They laugh just like us, they play games like us, they joke around like us. They enjoy the company of friends, and so far all of have been extremely friendly to the television people. That's what makes this show brilliant; you get to view this foreign culture, which has rarely been documented on film, yet in the end you no longer fear them. You actually feel as if you could be friends with these people yourselves mateo82p on tv.com xlii

The last category of spectators that Caplan addresses but of which she only found one short example of is those with a critical and cautious response to the series. In fact this group of responses is quite a bit larger than one would expect after reading Caplans
31

article xliii. The viewers in this group seem to have quite an understanding of the academic issues surrounding the series and actually react against the central role of Parry and the exotic subjects of most episodes:

No doubt, this could have been a very fine documentary. The tribes presented are among the least known and most fascinating on the planet. The problem is that, watching the series, you get the feeling that it is mostly focused on Bruce Parry himself, and how he manages to survive under impossible circumstances. In almost every single scene we see Parry trying to show us how well adapted he has become within the tribe: eating beetles and rats, building his hut, climbing trees, taking hallucinogenic drugs, urinating among the reindeer, or simply having a good time with the local people. I do not underestimate his accomplishments, but, after all, the purpose of such a documentary series is not to prove how brave and resilient the expedition leader is. It is to present and explain in some detail the daily life, culture, creativity, and spiritual beliefs of these vanishing peoples. This is attempted in a very shallow and superficial way. It is almost as if we are watching Bruce Parry's personal video with his exotic adventures. There is a "reality show" approach: You put a westerner in a remote place, among "natives" and then have fun as you watch the troubles he gets himself into. It is as if the series is addressed to immature teenagers, who will quickly get bored if they do not watch some "action" with a tough guy. Do we really need this? Aren't the tribes themselves interesting enough? Why does every scene has to be spoiled by the presence of a western person, who doesn't belong there, and just tries to imitate the tribal peoples? Why not concentrate on the tribal peoples themselves as THEY live their lives? If most of each film was not devoted to the doings of Bruce Parry (who is NOT an anthropologist, or an expert of any kind) there would definitely be more time and space for presenting and interpreting the complex world of the tribes. Kostas Stamelos travel bug on amazon.com

And it's ever so slightly tarnished in terms of realism in that they edit out most of the information and footage of the big crew he goes with. I think there are about 11 of them (10 after one falls ill) in the village yet they clearly try to give the impression it's just little old bruce with his night vision camera. Pirotic on eurogamer.net

If they were showing the people as they really were they'd be spending a lot more time on the everyday stuff and less on the "exotic" stuff. They'd also be focused on the people not on the host. The show is not about the people he is visiting but rather about how brave Bruce is because he "lives with savages" and participates in their "unusual" practices nehllah on discovery.com xliv

Due to the expansive size of the internet it is not unsurprising to find alternative opinions. Overall however my survey of responses online showed that the general audience, aside from a small minority, had an overwhelmingly positive view of the series.
32

The Academic Response:

Unlike the fairly large response of the general public, surprisingly few reactions have thus far been published by anthropologists on the series. One of the reasons for this could be the extremely negative view that many anthropologists got from viewing a part of the series. Pat Caplan in her article also addresses the reactions from her colleagues which turned out to be unanimously negative xlv. Caplan finds this unsurprising as to her the series does not constitute a form of anthropology that she is able to recognize. She mentions the following five elements of ethnography as a reason for this; (1) Parry is not a trained anthropologist; (2) he did not speak any of the local languages; (3) he spent only an average of a month in each area; (4) there was little or no reference to previous anthropological research in the region; (5) the material presented lacked much in the way of social or cultural context (Caplan 2005: 4). While she is absolutely right that Parry could have used some anthropological training before he went out into the field it is a rather different requirement for Parry to learn 15 different languages. It is quite an accepted view in anthropology that one shouldnt rely solely on translators in the field but at the same time one would be severely hard pressed to find an anthropologist who can master 15 languages within the time span of 3 years. Since the series was produced around a central presenter who would visit the 15 different cultures the situation would have been the same even if Parry was replaced by an experience anthropologist. Similarly, although it is common practice within ethnography for an anthropologist to spend more than a month in the field, this is a quite impossible requirement to make of a television production. The costs of television production often results in programs being recorded in a short a time as possible. Caplan should understand that if the Tribe production crew would have stayed twice as long with any of the tribes the series would have most likely contained half as many episodes. This is a choice anthropologists can afford to make in order to protect the quality of their methodology but it is not a choice that television producers can make while working to fit the program into a broadcasting schedule. The last elements that Caplan addresses have to do with the quality of the anthropological research and information in the series. Caplan was very likely unaware of the fact that a number of crewmembers on location where graduated anthropologists, an element that the series is rather unclear on xlvi and which can only be found within the book of Tribe published after Caplans article. Caplan however assumes to fast that the series was produced by amateurs without the aid of

33

anthropologists instead of looking at the possibility that the anthropology in the series was simplified on purpose to accommodate to the general audience (Caplan 2005: 4).

On occasion Parry refers to simplified anthropological theories as in this example on lip plates (Suri, 20:40)

Aside from judging Tribe based on the ethnographic method, Caplan also addresses the series on its own terms. Taking five mayor claims xlvii that Caplan perceives the series to make she tries to answer whether the series was able to fulfill its promises. She starts by asking if the series succeeded in banishing tribal stereotypes. Caplan concludes that the series producers should have chosen less stereotypical subjects to focus on if they wanted to achieve that. That critique brings with it the question if the program would have been as widely popular if the series producers had chosen less exciting subjects for its focus. Another question that one could pose back to Caplan is why despite the stereotypical subjects so many people in the general audience concluded that ultimately we are all the same (Parry 2008: 360). Secondly, Caplan attacks the series claim that Tribe tells the truth about peoples changing lives. Her main criticism is the absence of information on indigenous political movements. This seems actually a rather weak argument to counter the series coverage of multiple cases where elements of change and contact with the outside world have and are occurring. Furthermore, in the third season which was produced after Caplan wrote her article, two of the episodes partially center on the political aspects of the indigenous tribes (Matis and Penan episode). In both cases the reason for the heightened focus on the political aspect came from the request of the native people themselves.

34

A Penan chief travels to meet Parry and plead his political case against the logging companies (Penan, 38:04)

Caplan has a more convincing critique against the third claim by the series. Wondering if the series actually humanized the local people and gave them a voice she rightfully notes that we barely get to hear from the indigenous people due to Parrys omnificent presence. In fact, at times the series producers chose not to include indigenous people explaining things in front of the camera rather having Parry restate these explanations on a voice over. The fourth claim that Caplan takes on is that the programs would give a small impression of how people live in another culture. She mourns the lack of insights into womans lives and notes that the producers often chose to include the difficult activities rather than the stuff of everyday life. Steve Robinson in an interview explains that the series tries to take a more balanced approach between the stuff of daily life and the sensational elements in order to suit the demands and pace of television xlviii. As I noted earlier Tribe does indeed attempt to include both the daily and special subjects and it did attempt to include aspects of the lives of woman. Finally she refutes the idea that Tribe is a look into the culture from the inside. Even anthropologists with along residence and total linguistic fluency would be chary of such statements she says (Caplan 2005: 5). She is too easy on the series here as Parry often doesnt even attempt to hide his own ethnocentric view. As such when Parry first meets a real shaman at the Senama tribe he reacts; what really strikes me apart from the spectacle of a man who, to be honest, looks like he has lost his mind is that no one else is taking a blind bit of notice (Sanema episode, 08:32). Caplan concludes her rather one-sided analysis of the series by suggesting we look at another BBC production for an example of good anthropology on television. She mentions Fever Road, an ethnographic film, as comparison but fails to realize the production difference between a film and a television series.

35

Parry sometimes tries to help woman with their mundane tasks such as in this example where he tries to grind sorghum for beer making (Hamar, 14:14)

Pat Caplans article in Anthropology Today produced a total of three reactions which together form most of the published anthropological response. Felicia Hughes-Freeland in the first reaction agrees with Caplans analysis of the series as being entertainment and not anthropology. She feels the anthropology graduates working on the program undelivered in anthropological content and calls the series in a whole a Victorian romp where men boldly go out of history, to the realm of the savage at the very heart of darkness, and return to tell their tells, converting suffering to celebrity (Hughes Freeland 2006: 22). She is altogether much more negative of the series claiming it would be hard to find any anthropology in there, neither public nor academic (ibid: 23). She admits anthropology has had a difficult time entering into the public face but sees Tribe as neither the answer to anthropologys image problem, nor a sign of what anthropology has to offer. Ultimately she calls for anthropology to enter into and take control of the anthropological representations in the public realm (ibid). This assault did not go unnoticed and in a defense of the series Andre Singer published a response shortly after (Singer 1992: 22). Singer starts out by underlining Parrys sincere approach in learning about the culture he is visiting. He lists empathy, mutual respect and honest affection as the driving forces and especially notes that the native communities often consider Parry as entertaining. Singer admits that the series contains degree of the noble savage and that it fails to address contemporary values of anthropology but goes on to state that the answer does not lie in the intellectual patronizing of popular audiences by anthropologists. He urges for a more practical participation in the mechanisms of television and popular media blaming anthropologists for staying on the sidelines and complaining about lack of opportunity when successful projects like Tribe are greeted with such enthusiasm (Singer 2006: 24). Singer underlines that the intended audience has never been
36

those familiar with anthropology but rather the general media mass that have not been presented with a humanized account of these people. He agrees that it is a unfortunate situation that anthropology is not represented as good as many would want it to be but doesnt see any advance in condemning those few attempts that are made in popular anthropology. The success of Tribe has opened up for the first time in two decades the possibility of getting broadcasters to consider commissioning anthropological material. Bruce has opened up a window; its up to us how we make the best use of it, remarks Singer (ibid).

The native communities that Parry visits are often very entertained by his attempts to fit in (Sanema, 09:16)

The final article comes from a pair of UCLA students who performed an extensive audience study based on the Discovery Channel community forum. In their analysis, Fish and Evershed found two separate viewing cultures on the discussion board; the anthropologists and what they call viewers (Fish and Evershed: 22-24). While the former group identifies with Pat Caplans interpretations of the series the latter group describes Tribe as entertaining and informative. Fish and Evershed (ibid.) side with Andre Singer in brining to attention the elitism and hyper-criticalness of anthropologists. By quoting viewers responses they show that some believe anthropologists to be out of touch with their world. The viewers call attention to a situation in which anthropologists try to dominate representational politics without allowing for an interdisciplinary approach through popular culture. Fish and Evershed warn that ethnographic filmmaking is not the exclusive domain of the anthropologist and remind us that disciplinary identity politics and paranoia of mass-media will not avoid nonanthropologists to use these media for anthropological representations. Fish and Evershed urge media anthropologists not to fear for what is lost in the process but rather to collaborate with television through the adoption of useful methods, instead of looking down upon the less successful ones (Fish and Evershed 2006: 3). In the case of Tribe, Fish and Evershed make
37

special effort to note that the program is not a case of television on anthropology but rather the reverse; Tribe is anthropological television, i.e. experiential, depictive and emergent . With an emphasis on the dangerous process of building knowledge, Tribe shares more with contemporary trends in reflexive ethnography than with the observational ethnography of the past (ibid: 22). Because of the series focus on relationship building and amateur fieldwork, Fish and Freeland conclude that Tribe is about the process of anthropology rather than the product. In fact, they say anthropologists would be better by learning from this well received combination of anthropology and television which brings into public view a reflexive report of the first month of fieldwork. In this it could even be used as a teaching tool for introducing students to the clumsy first phases of the ethnographic method of fieldwork (ibid: 23).

Tribe documents the first phase of fieldwork which is focused on establishing relationships and trust (Suri, 11:42)

Parry is very successful in his bonding with the local community. When he leaves his hosts are often sad to see him go (Nyangatom, 57:23)

38

A Case for Anthropological Television, Tribe revised

With all the pieces of information in place let us now return to the original research question; Can Tribe be described as popular ethnographic television and how does this relate to the academic discipline of anthropology?. As explained in the methodology chapter the ethnography of Tribe relates to the academic discipline of anthropology as both product and process. However, unlike the Disappearing World series which can be regarded as academic ethnography, Tribe should rather be seen as a popular representation of ethnography. The producers of Tribe did not go into the field in order to generate or indeed even validate anthropological theory. The representation that Tribe hopes to achieve is not based on amending or changing the theoretical body of work in anthropology but rather to supply the popular culture with a new understanding and appreciation of cultural differences. Tribe is not an investigation into academic theory but rather an investigation into shared humanity, in this it is rather successful. We have seen that both Parry and a large part of his audience are able to overcome their exotic preconceptions concluding that ultimately we are all humans that found a social and cultural solution to our biological needs. This is ultimately not a different goal compared to the anthropological pursuit but it is aimed at an audience that has much less starting knowledge of academic anthropology. Necessarily this form of anthropology needs to be adapted to the level and demands of the audience.
The Value of the Popular Account:

It is clear that both the anthropologists and regular viewers look at Tribe with separate agendas. For the anthropologists, one of their main tasks is to safeguard the depth and complexity of information and theories in their discipline. This approach includes being rather suspicious of any popular representation of their discipline, especially since these will certainly contain a certain degree of simplification and distortion. In turn, this results in a rather complicated situation in which certain groups of anthropologists try to protect the pureness of the discipline against any form of regression or simplifications, while other groups of anthropologists (for example those employed in television broadcasting) are using a regressed or simplified form of anthropology to communicate to those unfamiliar with the discipline. More than it being a question of necessity, as both groups seem to have a different but equally respectful ideology on the worth of anthropological data for the general public; this rather seems to be an issue of effectiveness.

39

The first group defends the skeptical view that a simplified popular account of anthropology is unable to communicate the right understanding of anthropology to those only slightly interested in the subject. Though this is a stance that is logical from the viewpoint of the academic discipline itself, where complexity and richness of data is necessarily appreciated due to the cumulative nature of scientific knowledge, it makes less sense to apply it to the domain of popular culture. The alternatives left by the puritans of science are either too idyllic (such as the perfect anthropological television show where no simplification or concessions have to be made) or will end up hurting the popular notions on anthropology even more (such as the overly exotic and sensationalized reports of anthropological subjects and intercultural exchanges in the media where no anthropologists were involved). Leaving the broadcasting media to deal with issues of anthropology by themselves, while critically commenting on their results from the ivory tower of academic anthropology, seems a rather cowardly approach that does not help the discipline to advance their evolved understanding to become common sense. Only through a hands-on-approach with the broadcasting media, while being prepared to make mutual concessions and allowing the possibility for mistakes, can we hope to create an ever evolving debate between the television viewers and the discipline of anthropology. As a visual document Tribe was clearly much less influenced by developments in visual anthropology than the Disappearing World series. Tribe employed directors with such different styles that some episodes resemble closely travelogue documentaries while others are much more observational in nature. The show is thus a strange combination of ideas taken from visual anthropology combined with the regular practices of television making. It is obvious that Tribe used exotic and sensational subjects to draw in their audience but at the same time Tribe makes an honest attempt at supplementing this with the mundane stuff of daily life. This exotic focus might not line-up with contemporary attitudes in academic anthropology but in every episode Parry does extensively note on the contemporary situation of the native community. Anthropologists would do best not avoid letting their initial fears about the entertainment demand of contemporary television refrain them from collaborating with television. Reality-TV for example might be not be the visual ethnography that they are familiar with within their own discipline but it is one of the most popular formats of contemporary television programming. As broadcasting everywhere is heavily dependent on viewer ratings and since Reality-TV continues to generate large audiences anthropologists need to look beyond the bad examples and investigate the possibilities of the genre. This is exactly what happened when the format of Reality-TV was adapted to reflexive documents of
40

intercultural encounters. Of these programs Tribe can surely be categorized as the most ethnographic especially when it comes to the ethnographic method employed.

The Ethnographic Method Visualized:

In borrowing the reflexive fieldwork practice of participant-observation from the discipline of anthropology Tribe automatically puts itself in a critical position. Not only is it using a practice that has been coined and perfected by anthropologists but it does so in full view for everyone to see. Fish and Evershed in their thoughtful article describe Tribe as the initial phase of fieldwork where the creation of relationships and trust is central (Fish and Evershed 2006: 22). It can be concluded, as Caplan does, that real anthropology starts after this period but in doing so one simply clouds this initial phase in mystery (Caplan 2005: 4). Until the reflexive trend in anthropology, where it was realized that ethnography is the product of the intersubjective cultural encounter, anthropologists rarely ever reported on their fieldwork experiences in detail. First year students learn to refer the grandfather of participantobservation Bronislaw Malinowski and his masterpiece Argonauts of the Western Pacific while Malinowskis posthumously published diary revealed a rather different, more problematic, picture of his fieldwork experience (Malinowski 1989). At the same time students read about Evans-Pritchard receiving severely limited advice from his peers on the subject of fieldwork; behave as a gentlemen keep off woman [do not] bother about drinking dirty water [and do not] be a bloody fool (Evans-Pritchard 1976: 240). Since that time anthropology has come a long way in analyzing the process of fieldwork and instructing its students through reflexive ethnographies and classes in methods and techniques. Missing from that however is a visual documentation of the process of fieldwork. Similar to what David Turton debated when he called for the inclusion of the fieldworker in films from the Disappearing World series in 1991 (Turton 1992: 116). Though Tribe might not have been exactly what Turton imagined it does point to an area that is underdeveloped within academic anthropology. In visual anthropology it has been a regular practice to include the filmmaker in the film in an attempt at greater reflexivity. Yet to my knowledge there has never been a project similar to Tribe in which a phase, or several phases, of the fieldwork experience is documented in such fullness and transparency. It is easy for anthropologist to critique the series when often neither Parry nor his production crews make an attempt to hide the mistakes, faux-pass and difficulties that they encountered. Rather than be critiqued Tribe should be seen as a challenge to anthropologists to create their own reflexive visual
41

documentations of the fieldwork experience. Orienting this to an academic or student audience rather than a popular culture audience could make it a valuable teaching tool on the process of ethnography. I agree fully xlix with Fish and Evershed that until there is a better offer Tribe can be perfectly suited for use as a pedagogical tool in introductory anthropology courses (Fish and Evershed 2006: 23).

Conclusion and Further Research:

Tribe is not an ethnography that adds to the academic discipline of anthropology. As a massively successful product of popular culture however Tribe does address an audience that has long been left out of academic anthropology. In over a decade there had not been much anthropology on television and compared to other television programs that visited other cultures Tribe can be seen nothing less than a breakthrough in the fair treatment of native cultures. Tribe informed their audiences with information their viewers were not aware of and provided an opportunity for people to get beyond certain preconceptions. Its practiced ethnography might not have been on the same level as in academic anthropology but it did present the experience of fieldwork in such a transparent and reflexive manner that many students in anthropology could surely learn something from it. Anthropologists should feel urged to create their own version of Tribe in which there is less focus on the exotic aspects of tribal life and which documents the fieldworker over a longer period. This will surely be a very important addition to the reflexive study of the ethnographic method. After the production of Tribe ended Bruce Parry and his team moved on to a new project named Amazon in which Parry studies the tribes and cultures in the area of the Amazon. As a recommendation for further study one could investigate how Amazon follows up on the production of Tribe. Which changes were made compared to Tribe and to what effect. Are Parry and his crew able to represent a more accurate and intimate portrayal of the local communities compared to Tribe and if so how did they achieve this? Finally I see a need for a deeper study into the viewer reception of the series. Such a study would able to accurately analyze how a random television audience looks at popular representations of anthropology and could help anthropologists to prevent accidentally communicating the wrong message to a laymans audience.

42

Literature list:
Adorno, T. 1975 Culture Industry Reconsidered. New German Critique No. 6: 12-19

Barnard, A. and Spencer, J. 2002 Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. New York: Routledge [1996] Caplan, P. 2005 In search of the exotic. A discussion of the BBC2 series Tribe. Anthropology Today 21(2): 3-7 Couldry, N. 2003 Media Ritual. A Critical Approach. New York: Routledge

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1976 Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic Among the Azande. Oxford University Press: Oxford Fish, A. 2006 Parish Hilton Anthropologist: The production of Cross Cultural Difference in First-Person Adventure Television. FlowTV 5(2): http://flowtv.org/?p=43 Fish, A. and Evershed, S. 2006 Anthropologists responding to anthropological television. A response to Caplan, Hughes-Freeland and Singers. Anthropology Today 22(4): 22-23 Gengenbach, H. 2003 Boundaries of Beauty. Tattooed Secrets of Womans History in Magude District, Southern Mozmbique. Journal of Womans History 14(4): 106-141 Gennep, A. van 1960 Ginsburg, F. 1992 Television and the Mediation of Culture: Issues in British Ethnographic Film. Visual Anthropology Review 8(1): 97-102 Henley, P. 2006 Narratives the dirty secret of ethnographic filmmaking. In: Postma M. and Crawford P., Reflecting Visual Ethnography: Using the camera in anthropological research. CNWS Publication: Leiden & Intervention Press: Hjbjerg, pp. 294-318
43

The Rites of Passage. University of Chicago Press: Chicago

Holtzman, J. 2001 The Food of Elders, the Ration of Woman: Brewing, Gender, and Domestic Processes among the Samburu of Northern Kenya. American Anthropologist 103(4): 1041-1058 Hughes-Freeland, F. 2006 Tribes and Tribulations. A response to Pat Caplan. Anthropology Today 22(2): 22-23 Lutz, C. and Collins, J. 1993 Reading National Geographic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

MacDougall, D and Taylor, L (ed.) 1998 Transcultural Cinema. Princeton University Press: New Jersey

Malinowski, B. 1989 Middleton, L. 2007 Interview: Bruce Parry, presenter of Tribe/Going Tribal. The New Scientist 195(2620): 66-67 Parry, B. (and McCrum, M.) 2008 Singer, A. 1992 Television Culture: The Representation of Anthropology in British Broadcasting. Visual Anthropology Review 8(1): 122-125 2006 Tribes and Tribulations. A response to Hughes-Freeland. Anthropology Today 22(3): 24 2008 The Art of Visual Anthropology, an interview with Andr Singer. Anthropology Today 24(2): 10-12 Turner, V. 1969 The Ritual Process, Structure and Anti-Structure. AldineTransaction: New Yersey Turton, D. 1992 Anthropological Knowledge & The Culture of Broadcasting. Visual Anthropology Review 8(1): 113-117 Woodhead, L. 1992 Collaborating With Anthropology Through Television. Visual Anthropology Review 8(1): 118-121
44

A diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. Stanford University Press: CA

Tribe, Adventures in a Changing World. London: Penguin Books

Visual Media:

Tribe, 2005-2007, BBC Wales/Discovery Channel Season 1, originally aired: 03/01/2005 07/02/2005 The Adi of Arunachal Pradesh in the Himalayas, James Smith, 59min The Suri of Ethiopia, James Smith, 59min The Kombai, hunter-gatherers of the West Papua jungle, Jonathan Clay, 59min The Babongo, rainforest dwellers of Gabon, Steve Robinson, 59min The Darhad, nomadic herders in Mongolia, Graham Jonston, 59min The Sanema, shamens in Venezuela, Jonathan Clay, 59min Season 2, originally aired: 16/07/2006 30/07/2006 Nyangatom, James Smith, 59min Hamar, James Smith, 59min Dassanech, James Smith, 59min Season 3, originally aired: 21/08/2007 25/09/2007 The Matis of the Western Amazon, Wayne Derrick, 59min The Nenets, reindeer herders of Siberia, Wayne Derrick, 59min Anuta, tiny island in the South Pacific, James Smith, 59min The Akie, hunter-gatherers of Tanzania, Matt Brandon, 59min The Layap, devout Buddhists and yak herders of Bhutan, Gavin Searle, 59min The Penan, nomadic forest people of Borneo, Gavin Searle, 59min

Extreme Lives: Cannibals & Crampons, Brucy Parry & Mark Anstice, 52min

45

Appendix A.
Tribe Crew: Executive Producer: Sam Organ Series Producer: Steve Robinson Production Manager Lindsey Davies Production Assistant Michelle Baars (up to season 2) Series Consultant: Andr Singer

Anthropology Consultant Episode 6: Marcus Colchester Anthropology Consultant Episode 10: Philippe Erikson Anthropology Consultant Episode 11: Florian Stammler Anthropology Consultant Episode 12: Pr. Richard Feinberg, Anthropology Consultant Episode 13: Marianne Hovind Bakken Consultants Episode 15: S.P. Gifford, Ian MacKenzie

46

Book #

Ep #

Tribe

Director

Camera

Researchers

2 4 3

1 2 3

Adi Suri Kombai

James Smith James Smith Jonathan Clay Steve Robinson

Sam Gracey Jonathan Clay Tim Butt

Rachel Webster Rachel Webster

Assistant Producer / Production Team Assistant Hannah Grifits Hannah Grifits

Editors

Location Managers

Field Assistants / Translators

John Parker, Keith Ware John Parker Gwynfor Llewellyn, Iwan Williams (online) Keith Ware, Gwynfor Llewellyn, Iwan Williams (online) Gwynfor Llewellyn, Iwan Williams (online) Gwynfor Llewellyn, Eve Summerfield (online) John Parker, Keith Ware (online) John Parker, Keith Ware (online)

Ozing Dai Shenny Italia

Bitton Zerang

Babongo

Jonathan Clay

Judy Knight

Alison Quinn

Hugues Poitevin

Darhad

Graham Johnston Jonathan Clay

Graham Johnston Tim Butt

Willow Murton

Kent Madin, Mishig Jigjidsuren Emilio Perez

Chinbat Tumurbaatar Angela Lehnar, Julio Apiama, Levi Apiama Soya Kurupa

Sanema

Nyangatom

James Smith James Smith

Jonathan Clay Jonathan Clay

Jane Atkins, Willow Murton Jane Atkins, Willow Murton, Renee Godfrey Jane Atkins, Willow Murton, Renee Godfrey

Zablon Beyene Zablon Beyene

Hamar

Melaku Belete, Gello Mula, Ben Playle Melaku Belete, Ebrahim Mulgeta, Oscar Ode, Stephen Arkerech Ivano Cordeiro

Dassanech

James Smith

Jonathan Clay

Bethan Evans

John Parker, Keith Ware (online) Gwynfor Llewellyn, Rich Moss (online)

Zablon Beyene

10

10

Matis

Wayne Derrick

Wayne Derrick

Matt Fletcher, Willow Murton Matthew Dyas, Willow Murton Matt Fletcher, Renee Godfrey Matt Fletcher Bethan Evans Bethan Evans Willow Murton /Bethan Evans Bethan Evans

Neisomar Marques Do Nascimento, Raimundo Souza Barbosa

13

11

Nenets

Wayne Derrick James Smith Matt Brandon

Wayne Derrick Tim Butt

12

12

Anuta

14

13

Akie

Matt Norman

Gwynfor Llewellyn, Rich Moss (online) John Parker, Richard Doel (online) John Parker, Richard Doel (online) Peter Simpson, Maggie Choyce, Richard Doel (online) Nicola Sirrell, Jon Everett (online)

Roza Laptander. Florian Stammler

Peter Jones

Alois William Sikirari

11

14

Layap

Gavin Searle

Gavin Searle

Matthew Dyas, Renee Godfrey

Chimmi Dorjee

Asha Kinley, Chimmi Dorjee, Gaki Tshering

15

15

Penan

Gavin Searle

Gavin Searle

Matt Fletcher /Bethan Evans Anthropologists are referenced to in bold

Esta Bala

47

Endnotes:
i ii iii iv v

Turton 1992: 114 Adorno 1975: 12-19 Couldry 2003 Broadcasted on the Discovery Channel as Going Tribal My name is Bruce Parry. Ive been travelling to some of the worlds most remote places to see how people

there live and how theyre adjusting to a rapidly changing world. I believe theres only one way to really understand another culture and that is to experience it firsthand. To become, for a short while, one of the tribe Intro leader of Tribe
vi

Such as subtitling of native tongue, personal casual commentary and co-operation in the productions by

informants (Ginsburg 1992: 98)

vii

Films from the Disappearing World series have been used the introduction year courses that I attended and

many professors admit to using it in their own seminars.

viii ix x xi

Face Values, Worlds Apart, Strangers Abroad, Under the Sun

http://www.granadamedia.com/sf/gm/standard.asp?section_id=3&sub_section_id=0&redirect_id=0 Cannibals and Crampons included in the Tribe DVD box set on DVD1 The reality of this having been a true first encounter is debatable. Bruce Parry however states in the

commentary track on the DVD version of the documentary that he is convinced it was.
xii xiii

http://www.bbctraining.com/profile.asp?tID=5966 My name is Bruce Parry. Ive been travelling to some of the worlds most remote places to see how people

there live and how theyre adjusting to a rapidly changing world. I believe theres only one way to really understand another culture and that is to experience it firsthand. To become, for a short while, one of the tribe Intro leader of Tribe
xiv xv xvi xvii

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Intersubjectivity Appendix A Appendix A It should be noted here that Wayne Derrick was likely forced into staying within the tribal village due to

circumstances on site whereas Gavin Searle chose to do this on his own account (Parry 2008: 337)
xviii xix xx xxi xxii xxiii

An example of this is the issue of disease amongst the Matis (Parry 2008: 215-238)

Drs. Steef Meyknecht, CA/OS Universiteit van Leiden Appendix A http://www.bbctraining.com/profile.asp?tID=5966 As is seen amongst the Samburu in neighboring country Kenya (Holtzman 2001: 1041-1055) According to my own analysis of viewers reaction. This analysis was based on blog posts found through -

google and reactions found on the largest and most well known media websites: www.amazon.co.uk www.imdb.com www.tv.com www.discovery.com

48

xxiv xxv

Parry 2008: 146 Comments and reviews quoted here from online sources have not been altered and where copied with

possible bad grammar intact. Boxes where put around the quotes to emphasize when different reactions came from the same online discussion thread.
xxvi xxvii

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) and http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling http://www.google.nl/search?q=trolling+youtube&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-

8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&client=firefox-a
xxviii

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-

reviews/B000S6UZGU/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDesce nding
xxix

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-

reviews/B000S6UZGU/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDesce nding
xxx xxxi xxxii xxxiii xxxiv xxxv xxxvi xxxvii xxxviii

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7861949408/m/5131987508 http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4961949408/m/8461950728 http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4961949408/m/8461950728 http://www.tv.com/going-tribal/show/40861/reviews.html?tag=page_nav;reviews http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481448/usercomments http://www.eurogamer.net/forum_thread_posts.php?thread_id=139625 http://sky2seainternational.com/blog/bruce-parry/what-we-can-learn-from-bruce-parry-and-tribes http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7861949408/m/7621959508 http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-

reviews/B000S6UZGU/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDesce nding
xxxix xl xli xlii xliii

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7861949408/m/2461959508

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7861949408/m/2461959508 http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7861949408/m/2461959508 http://www.tv.com/going-tribal/show/40861/reviews.html?tag=page_nav;reviews I found only one site, for geography teachers, where there was somewhat more caution (Caplan 2005: 7). In

contrast to this statement by Caplan I was able to find more than one site with critical responses without too much effort.
xliv xlv

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7861949408/m/2951939508 I emailed a number of colleagues and asked them to give me their reactions. These were unsurprising:

appalled Boys Own idiocy; I had to switch off as I was so appalled by the take of the programme, in the five minutes I did see; reality TV with tribal peoples; lack of contextual information and cultural analysis[] woeful, a totally missed opportunity[] surely there must be plenty of research on this [subject] to give it better information; talk about the Exotic Other! A complete ego-trip; weird foods, violence, TVfriendly rites of passage, must be the directing forces; reconstitutes an extremely dated catalogue of anthropological exotica (Caplan 2005: 4).

49

xlvi

The anthropology graduates that worked on the production of Tribe, either on location or at the production

company, are not referred to in the voice over narration and are mentioned in the end credits as Researchers or Assistant Producer. See also Appendix A.
xlvii

1) They [the producers of Tribe] banish many of the tribal stereotypes

2) They [the producers of Tribe] tell the truth about their [tribal hosts] changing lives 3) The programmes humanize them [tribal hosts] and give them a voice 4) These programmes give a small impression of what it must be like to live in a different culture 5) [The programmes view another society from the inside and [finds] what it is that we have maybe lost along the way (Caplan 2005: 4-5)
xlviii xlix

http://www.bbctraining.com/profile.asp?tID=5966

I reached the same conclusion after my own initial analysis of the series before I had read the article by Fish

and Evershed.

50