((STOP! Before you plow ahead, I would like to encourage everyone to approach this post in its intended medium. Ideally, it may be best experienced as a Word document, though a PDF is an acceptable substitute. To have a truly genuine experience, I encourage the reader to print out the pages, annotate in red pen, and provide a final score. If, however, you are staunchly opposed to such things, or if it's ten years from now and the links are dead, a plaintext version of the majority of the included material follows in spoiler.))
- [+] But seriously try the files first
- [+] I mean it
- Juliette Sargent
Mr. Danya’s Homeroom
June 10, 2018You Think You Really Know Me: The Ethics and Ambition of Betrayal in Survival of the Fittest
Since 2005, the Survival of the Fittest terrorist attacks have shaped American culture in an unprecedented and incalculable fashion. The widespread availability of footage from the events has fostered a national dialogue regarding morality, mortality, and the ethical nature of various actions when undertaken by young adults placed in a stressful and perilous situation with little hope of escape. Behavior typically seen as aberrant and beyond the pale is treated with leeway in light of the unique stresses and circumstances of the game, and is at times even deemed morally just; to date, no survivor has ever been prosecuted by the government for actions undertaken during the attacks, and a number of instances of what would be considered manslaughter at a minimum have instead been lauded as heroic. While not strictly benevolent, my recent interactions with Kelly Nguyen were not so clear-cut as they might initially seem. By shoving Nguyen off the wrecked boat, I proved myself a proactive and interesting participant in the ongoing proceedings, precipitated conflict between uninvolved unstable elements, and introduced my victim to danger and betrayal in a relatively safe fashion, all results which examination will reveal ultimately both ethically justified and completely in line with the goals of the organization known as the “Arthro Taskforce.”
Since the inception of Survival of the Fittest, a strong emphasis has been placed upon the value of contestants behaving in an “interesting” fashion. This value has been perpetrated both through external and internal reinforcement. Following the conclusion of Version Three, final official survivor Johnathan Rizzolo, during the attack an infamous killer and generally-acknowledged antagonist, was catapulted into renown as media sources lined up to interview him and whitewash his misdeeds. Far from being prosecuted, as he would have had he committed his more violent actions in any other situation, he was embraced and justified, and he flourished during the year preceding his untimely murder seemingly to a degree greater than those with more muted resumes who followed him. In case that message was not sufficiently clear, the incentive to be entertaining is spelled out explicitly in the material presented to each student as part of their induction into the system. A pamphlet provided to each reminds participants of the broadcast nature of the event, stating that viewers are “watching for the carnage they expect [the participants] to unleash” and directly exhorting them: “you're being watched at all times -- not only by me, but by people around the world” (Danya, Victor 1). Participants know that they are constantly under surveillance, and adapt accordingly; behaviors previously held as the most closely-guarded personal secrets will be laid bare for all to see. Everyone who survives beyond a day will need to use bathroom at some point, and such a mundane process will either be complicated by the presence of cameras or else previously-dear notions of dignity will be abandoned. In this way, the situation echoes Jeremy Bentham’s experimental Panopticon prison design, under which the incarcerated were kept in a constant state of suspense and unease, never sure what or when a guard was watching and never left to real solitude. This also impeded prospects of escape, a concern near to the organization responsible for Survival of the Fittest. Bentham noted the presence of groups did little to diminish security, stating: "Towards effecting an escape, what can two or three do more than one, confined as they are by iron grates while they are within the prison, and by walls when they are without? and, in either case, never out of the eye of an inspector, who is armed and out of reach of attack, and within reach of whatever assistance he can desire?" (Bentham 73). Thus, the constant state of surveillance both encourages compliance with the stated expectations of participants, to behave in interesting fashion, and discourages alternatives, such as rebellion or attempted escape.
While a physical assault of the variety I unleashed upon Nguyen is of decidedly low comparative brutality, it is made interesting by a number of factors. It occurred in the early stages of the first day of the event, at a time when most participants were still rousing themselves from their chemically-induced slumbers and going through the most typical motions of adaptation to their new situation. Just within the overturned yacht, this was clear, as Nguyen cheerfully rendered what aid she could, Arjen Kramer bemoaned the collective fate of the class, and Marco Volker attempted to rally the spirits of those present with a sort of “tough love” approach. While individually intriguing to various degrees, none of these responses was unique, and ultimately Nguyen’s was the weakest. By pushing her from her resting place, I upended the conventional order of affairs, providing a more intricate challenge for her to attempt to extricate herself from. At the same time, the actual danger to her was well within reasonable limits. The school from which we all hailed included an Olympic-sized pool, which we were at various times compelled to make use of as part of mandatory physical education courses. Had Nguyen lacked the most basic understanding of water safety, that would fall outside my reasonable expectations and be entirely due to her own negligence. Furthermore, as I made my exit, I tossed her a safety apparatus once I realized that retrieval by Kramer and Volker might be less forthcoming than I had initially expected. My actions were ethical by the rules of our situation, including not only those imposed by the authority figures of the Arthro Taskforce, but also by society at large; every survivor of the event has been welcomed back, if not with open arms, than with a minimum of judgment. I killed nobody. I did no harm. At the same time, I created a situation in line with the precise goals of the organization sponsoring the event, proving clearly my ability to follow directions and produce results without excess or needless bloodshed.
John Donne wrote “No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent” (Donne 108-109). This phrase, which has become an ubiquitous rallying cry against egocentrism, also applies pointedly to Survival of the Fittest. No action occurs in isolation, and any choice, whether initially seemingly good or ill, bears consequences which can often be difficult to predict. In the case of violence or aggressive maneuvers, however, this effect tends to boil down to one of two options: unifying or divisionary. A unifying response sees those subjected to stress or violence come together against it, working in tandem in effort to achieve what one alone could not. A divisionary response sees the core of the group’s trust shattered, as members squabble amongst and ultimately turn on each other. While it might at first seem that only the latter is in keeping with the stated goals of the event, this ignores several key factors. A unified front does not ultimately change the conclusion; any alliance is by definition temporary when only one participant may survive. What rallying a group does do, however, is encourage greater reach and impact of the efforts of the members, in effect allowing for further ripples to be created, as the group is often viewed and treated as a single entity and cultivates and inherits alliances and rivalries of all of its members, allowing even those who were at first unconnected to the larger conflicts to be judged for their roles in the aims of others. In this way, to incite a reaction of any sort that shakes group dynamics is to work in the interests of the Arthro Taskforce.
I will readily admit that I expected the effect produced in Kramer and Volker by my pushing overboard of Nguyen to be of a unifying sort. The pair were at odds, locked in an escalating confrontation, and it seemed to me that the creation of a crisis situation could go some way towards resolving that predicament, or at least deescalating it; it is well-known that stress and perilous situations can promote quick bonds between those who might have nothing to do with each other in circumstances more voluntary. While this was not the core motivation behind my actions, it was a factor, a happy alignment of possibilities. Instead, however, my choices prompted a divisionary response, as Kramer physically assaulted Volker, prompting the latter to employ his provided assault rifle. There is, indeed, a fairly large chance that this resulted in the maiming or death of one or more participants in the engagement. While it may at first seem hypocritical, I feel that I can simultaneously reap the credit for the changes to the group dynamics resulting from my actions while denouncing any ethical responsibility for harm caused by others. I chose to act in a way that escalated the stakes, but I did not prompt Kramer to charge Volker. I did not suggest that Volker fire his weapon. Those were their own decisions, and decisions which I believe a neutral observer would fairly characterize as irrational and unpredictable. I cannot be blamed for the irrational violence of others, particularly when I put a finger on the scales to prompt a more unified response, calling them to Nguyen’s aid. In short, my actions furthered the goals of the event organizers by creating a change to the group dynamics, something I fully intended, but the character of that change, though still beneficial to the organizers, was of a character I had not anticipated and had discouraged, leaving it a hard argument that I am in any way culpable for it.
But there is no arguing the fact that I betrayed Nguyen. Betrayal, however, is not so clean-cut an issue as it might be outside of Survival of the Fittest. Due to the expectations and restrictions in play, betrayal is not an exception but rather the norm; to some degree, nearly every participant will betray others, or at least the societal expectations they held to prior to their induction. This is the result of conscious design; the provided literature ends with a stark reminder to this effect: “Just because you aren't willing to do unto others, children, doesn't mean that others out there are so kind. This is a game about deceit. It's a game about murder. Be wary of others” (Danya, Victor 1). In fact, so important is this facet of the game that it was directly expounded upon in the opening briefing, where the head of the organization stated “Remember that, whatever you think you know about your friends... everything changes once your lives are at stake” and “Think about those around you. Do you hate them? Do they hate you? Do you have any grudges or does someone secretly harbor a grudge against you?” (Danya, Tracen). In fact, betrayal may well be the single most vital aim of the proceedings, for without betrayal the vast majority of those chosen would decline entirely to participate, leading to an abrupt and anticlimactic conclusion. It is, thus, evident how enacting any betrayal would work towards the aims of the organization.
But how, then, can betrayal be ethical? I would point, in Nguyen’s case, to the degree of betrayal, the motivation underlying the betrayal, and the benefits of the betrayal to the one betrayed. Nguyen placed trust and confidence in me, and in return I assaulted her and put her in a situation of some mild peril (setting aside, for the moment, the possibility that she could have sustained a serious or fatal injury during or immediately after her fall due to concussion, which would have been upon my head had it happened). I did not seriously injure her. I did not kill her. I was armed, and I could have easily slit her throat and then disposed of her body in much the same way; I chose not to because Nguyen is and was a person for whom I bore a real measure of respect and affection. This, then, leads to the motivation: betrayal is, as established, an inevitability of the situation, but Nguyen seemed unaware of this. She allowed me to guide and direct her, to fritter away supplies potentially vital to her continued survival and success without a word of protest. In effect, due to her poor understanding of betrayal, she was setting herself up for a far more deadly turnaround courtesy of someone without her best interests at heart. I prevented that by betraying her trust in a relatively controlled situation, and in so doing endowed her with the benefits of betrayal. From the moment she left the deck of the ship, Nguyen surely realized that she was in a new world, and that placing trust in anyone, no matter how benign or benevolent they once seemed, was the height of folly. I sacrificed our good relationship and standing to teach her a valuable lesson, one which she will need if she is to thrive and prosper. The next time she approaches a group, she will size each of them up and wonder who is planning to slip a knife between her ribs. Should she and I cross paths again, she will know me in a way she never did before, and she may well betray me in turn, striking out as she must if she is to have any chance of triumphing. Nguyen is now prepared for the reality that awaits her, and the only cost to her was minor discomfort, transient terror, and a certain destruction of dignity, unless one includes the deterioration of her and my relationship, though I feel that particular cost is one that is of greater harm to me.
The goals of Survival of the Fittest are murky and myriad, but certain factors remain consistent and obvious. The organizers seek to encourage abnormal behavior of interest to viewers, evolutions and complications in group dynamics, and repeated and escalating exhibits of betrayal. While these aims may seem, at a surface examination, to inherently require unethical behavior, they can in fact be engaged with and enacted in a manner that is ethically neutral, or even in many cases ethically justified. In my particular instance, while those present would likely disagree, I acted from such a position. I caused mild harm in the interest of acting in interesting fashion, but to a degree trivial when compared to the actions of those who have come before and will come after. I provoked an evolution of group dynamics that resulted in peril and harm, but this was a wrinkle resulting from the eccentricities of others and contrary to my aims and attempts to steer the situation. I betrayed Nguyen, but this betrayal ultimately came at notable personal cost to me, and the benefit derived from it was entirely hers; I sacrificed myself, my good name, and my social standing to improve her chances against someone less judicious in the future. Up to this point, I have conducted myself both in strict accordance with the ideals and goals espoused by the Arthro Taskforce and with a clear conscience and cogent ethical understanding of my situation. I believe that, should I ultimately succeed at my goal and emerge from the enterprise alive, these and my actions to follow should serve as ample resume to facilitate my quick and unqualified induction into the ranks of the Arthro Taskforce.
Works CitedBentham, Jeremy. The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 4. 6/11/2019 <https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1925>
Danya, Tracen, and Jim Greynolds. “Version Seven Briefing.” Survival of the Fittest. 9 June 2018, Undisclosed, Undisclosed.
Danya, Victor. Mr. Danya’s Guide to Survival. Mr. Danya’s Guide to Survival, Arthro Taskforce, 2006.
Donne, John. John Donne's Devotions upon Emergent Occasions: Together with Death's Duel. University of Michigan Press, 1959.