1

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

2

The anthropologist’s 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 1992i

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 Adorno’s “culture industry”ii and Nick

Couldry’s “Media Rituals”iii

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

, 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.

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?”

3

Methodology

The description of Tribe as ethnographic television in the research question was used to

distinguish it from anthropological television. Within the leaderv

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

4

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 Parry’s 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 didn’t

make it into the television production. The book, which was likely based on Parry’s 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 cross-

analyzing 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.

5

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 Vérite, 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

6

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 1950’s, 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 sensitivity’s have been largely ignored by broadcasting

7

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.

Granada’s Disappearing World Series:

The Disappearing World series produced by ITV’s Granada Television in the early 1970s was

the result of an accidental marriage of idea’s and vision amateur ethnographic filmmaker

Brian Moser and Granada Television’s Chairman Sir Denis Forman. Forman had a long

standing appreciation of the classic ethnographic films by Robert Flaherty and Jean Rouch

and supported Moser’s vision of a new documentary style grounded in the ‘Malinowskian

tradition of showing the non-western world from the native’s 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

8

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

.

9

need. ‘Anthropology was seemed to have been catered for’ and only a few other series of

mediocre success followed Disappearing World viii

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 public’s 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

(Singer 1992: 124).

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 90’s series as COPS and MTV’s 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

10

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 1960’s;

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

presenter’s 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 documentaryx 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’

11

Bruce Parry’s 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

lifexii

. However, during the development of the production the program’s 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 Granada’s Disappearing World series, as the

series main consultant. Despite the format being completely unlike the Granada’s series and

Singer stating that he ‘was merely a small anthropological voice in the background’ the

intention of Tribe reflected the Disappearing World’s 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 Turton’s 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

12

as it is presented in the introduction leader to the programxiii 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

Parry’s 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 reasonsxv. 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 sitexvi. 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

13

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

Parry’s presenting ability.

Parry’s voice over

(top) narrating over a

conversation in which

the tribal chief

welcomes him (bottom)

(Nyangatom, 12:40)

14

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 Derrickxvii

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 Parry’s 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 Parry’s voice over, based

on information he gets from his crew, is used to explain about the tribe and relevant

15

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: 114-

115, 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 Parry’s 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

Parry’s view. Due to Parry’s 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)

16

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 Parry’s experiences written in first-person perspective adds on

the already heavy reflexive attitude of the series. Aside from it providing the complete story

behind Parry’s 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 McCrum’s

rewriting of Parry’s 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

17

went on. Examples of this are some sexually charged moments not mentioned in the series,

Parry’s more personal thoughts on some of the rituals he experienced and issues that had been

explained poorly in the series due to restrictive editingxviii (Parry 2008: 68, 113-115, 154, 190-

191). However unlike the book the television series provides a much better sense of the

relationships that Parry build up in the various community’s and the mutual respect and

appreciation that has created those relationships. This difference in contents echoes what my

professor in visual anthropology Steef Meyknechtxix

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

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.

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 televisionxxi

. 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)

18

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 Parry’s 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)

19

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 Turton’s 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 participant-

observation to learn

about the tribe.

(Babongo, 15:49)

20

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 Parry’s 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 doesn’t 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

21

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 communityxxii

. 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 I’m 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

22

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 activity’s 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

23

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 village’s 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

24

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 film-

crews 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)

25

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 tribe’s 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 colleague’s 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

26

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)

27

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 positivexxiii. 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 internetxxv. 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

28

inflammatory comments in an attempt to provoke other users to respond in an emotional or

provocative way thereby disrupting regular discussionxxvii). At

the same time,

xxvi. Thus, some websites that are

widely known for this behavior have not been included in this analysis (youtube.com

o

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.

nline 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 public’s

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.

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.comxxix

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.comxxx

29

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.comxxxi

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.comxxxii

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.comxxxiii 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.comxxxiv

30

By far the biggest success according to the general public has been the including of

Bruce Parry as the show’s host. The majority of all the responses online mention Parry’s

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.netxxxv

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.comxxxvi 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.comxxxvii 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.comxxxviii

31

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.comxxxix

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.comxl

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.comxli

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.comxlii

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 Caplan’s

32

articlexliii.

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.comxliv

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.

33

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 negativexlv

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

. 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 shouldn’t 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.

xlvi

and which can only be found within the book of Tribe published after Caplan’s article. Caplan

however assumes to fast that the series was produced by amateurs without the aid of

34

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 claimsxlvii 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.

35

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 Parry’s

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

woman’s 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 televisionxlviii. 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

doesn’t 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.

36

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 Caplan’s 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 Caplan’s 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 anthropology’s 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 Parry’s 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

37

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 doesn’t

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; it’s 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 Caplan’s 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 non-

anthropologists 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

38

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)

39

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.

40

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 audience’s 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

41

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 participant-

observation Bronislaw Malinowski and his masterpiece Argonauts of the Western Pacific

while Malinowski’s 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

42

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 fullyxlix

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 layman’s audience.

43

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 Woman’s History in Magude

District, Southern Mozmbique. Journal of Woman’s History 14(4): 106-141

Gennep, A. van

1960 The Rites of Passage. University of Chicago Press: Chicago

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:

Højbjerg, pp. 294-318

44

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

Middleton, L.

2007 Interview: Bruce Parry, presenter of Tribe/Going Tribal. The New Scientist

195(2620): 66-67

Parry, B. (and McCrum, M.)

2008 Tribe, Adventures in a Changing World. London: Penguin Books

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 André 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

45

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

46

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: André 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

47

Anthropologists are referenced to in bold

Book #

Ep #

Tribe Director Camera Researchers Assistant Producer / Production Team Assistant

Editors Location Managers

Field Assistants / Translators

2 1 Adi James Smith

Sam Gracey

Rachel Webster

Hannah Grifits

John Parker, Keith Ware

Ozing Dai Bitton Zerang

4 2 Suri James Smith

Jonathan Clay

Rachel Webster

Hannah Grifits

John Parker Shenny Italia

3 3 Kombai Jonathan Clay

Tim Butt Gwynfor Llewellyn, Iwan Williams (online)

1 4 Babongo Steve Robinson

Jonathan Clay

Judy Knight Alison Quinn

Keith Ware, Gwynfor Llewellyn, Iwan Williams (online)

Hugues Poitevin

5 5 Darhad Graham Johnston

Graham Johnston

Willow Murton

Gwynfor Llewellyn, Iwan Williams (online)

Kent Madin, Mishig Jigjidsuren

Chinbat Tumurbaatar

6 6 Sanema Jonathan Clay

Tim Butt Gwynfor Llewellyn, Eve Summerfield (online)

Emilio Perez Angela Lehnar, Julio Apiama, Levi Apiama

7 7 Nyangatom James Smith

Jonathan Clay

Jane Atkins, Willow Murton

John Parker, Keith Ware (online)

Zablon Beyene

Soya Kurupa

8 8 Hamar James Smith

Jonathan Clay

Jane Atkins, Willow Murton, Renee Godfrey

John Parker, Keith Ware (online)

Zablon Beyene

Melaku Belete, Gello Mula, Ben Playle

9 9 Dassanech James Smith

Jonathan Clay

Jane Atkins, Willow Murton, Renee Godfrey

Bethan Evans

John Parker, Keith Ware (online)

Zablon Beyene

Melaku Belete, Ebrahim Mulgeta, Oscar Ode, Stephen Arkerech

10 10 Matis Wayne Derrick

Wayne Derrick

Matt Fletcher, Willow Murton

Gwynfor Llewellyn, Rich Moss (online)

Neisomar Marques Do Nascimento, Raimundo Souza Barbosa

Ivano Cordeiro

13 11 Nenets Wayne Derrick

Wayne Derrick

Matthew Dyas, Willow Murton

Bethan Evans

Gwynfor Llewellyn, Rich Moss (online)

Roza Laptander. Florian Stammler

12 12 Anuta James Smith

Tim Butt Matt Fletcher, Renee Godfrey

Bethan Evans

John Parker, Richard Doel (online)

14 13 Akie Matt Brandon

Matt Norman

Matt Fletcher Willow Murton /Bethan Evans

John Parker, Richard Doel (online)

Peter Jones Alois William Sikirari

11 14 Layap Gavin Searle

Gavin Searle

Matthew Dyas, Renee Godfrey

Bethan Evans

Peter Simpson, Maggie Choyce, Richard Doel (online)

Chimmi Dorjee

Asha Kinley, Chimmi Dorjee, Gaki Tshering

15 15 Penan Gavin Searle

Gavin Searle

Matt Fletcher /Bethan Evans

Nicola Sirrell, Jon Everett (online)

Esta Bala

48

Endnotes:

i Turton 1992: 114 ii Adorno 1975: 12-19 iii Couldry 2003 iv Broadcasted on the Discovery Channel as Going Tribal v ‘My name is Bruce Parry. I’ve been travelling to some of the world’s most remote places to see how people

there live and how they’re adjusting to a rapidly changing world. I believe there’s 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 Face Values, Worlds Apart, Strangers Abroad, Under the Sun ix http://www.granadamedia.com/sf/gm/standard.asp?section_id=3&sub_section_id=0&redirect_id=0 x “Cannibals and Crampons” – included in the Tribe DVD box set on DVD1 xi 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 http://www.bbctraining.com/profile.asp?tID=5966 xiii ‘My name is Bruce Parry. I’ve been travelling to some of the world’s most remote places to see how people

there live and how they’re adjusting to a rapidly changing world. I believe there’s 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 http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Intersubjectivity xv Appendix A xvi Appendix A xvii 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 An example of this is the issue of disease amongst the Matis (Parry 2008: 215-238) xix Drs. Steef Meyknecht, CA/OS Universiteit van Leiden xx Appendix A xxi http://www.bbctraining.com/profile.asp?tID=5966 xxii As is seen amongst the Samburu in neighboring country Kenya (Holtzman 2001: 1041-1055) xxiii 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

49

xxiv Parry 2008: 146 xxv 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) and http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling xxvii 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 http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7861949408/m/5131987508 xxxi http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4961949408/m/8461950728 xxxii http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4961949408/m/8461950728 xxxiii http://www.tv.com/going-tribal/show/40861/reviews.html?tag=page_nav;reviews xxxiv http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481448/usercomments xxxv http://www.eurogamer.net/forum_thread_posts.php?thread_id=139625 xxxvi http://sky2seainternational.com/blog/bruce-parry/what-we-can-learn-from-bruce-parry-and-tribes xxxvii http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7861949408/m/7621959508 xxxviii http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-

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

nding xxxix http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7861949408/m/2461959508 xl http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7861949408/m/2461959508 xli http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7861949408/m/2461959508 xlii http://www.tv.com/going-tribal/show/40861/reviews.html?tag=page_nav;reviews xliii ‘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 http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7861949408/m/2951939508 xlv ‘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, TV-

friendly rites of passage, must be the directing forces”; “reconstitutes an extremely dated catalogue of

anthropological exotica”’ (Caplan 2005: 4).

50

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 http://www.bbctraining.com/profile.asp?tID=5966 xlix I reached the same conclusion after my own initial analysis of the series before I had read the article by Fish

and Evershed.