How can the “Steve Irwin Phenomenon” be Explained from a Socio-cultural Perspective?
By Stephen Ritchie (CSSE Blog Editor)
Were you one of the estimated 300 million television viewers of the Steve Irwin memorial service on Wednesday, September 20, 2006? For those who were not, the service was opened by the Prime Minister of Australia, chaired by the blue-shirted member of The Wiggles – arguably Australia’s best-known boy band – entertained by a True Blue Aussie singer, and consoled by several messages from Hollywood superstars. Crikey! What a turn out!
I was a viewer. I even became embarrassed when I realized I needed to swallow more frequently than usual, if you know what I mean. The service tugged a range of my emotions. While journalists highlighted Bindi’s (i.e., Steve’s 8-year-old daughter) polished cameo performance, I took most notice of a short speech from a research scientist who announced that, prior to Steve’s death, the University of Queensland was about to honor Steve by appointing him an Adjunct Professor in recognition of his contribution to a collaborative research project tracking large estuarine crocodiles – a project that has already realized several discoveries about crocodile behavior. While Steve was a passionate (some might even say crazy) entertainer, he was much more than this. He was an educator, conservationist, wildlife ambassador, and research scientist – albeit, without formal scientific qualifications. In his numerous television (plus one movie) appearances he connected with viewers like no other naturalist. So, how do we make sense of this? and how can the “Steve Irwin phenomenon” be explained from a socio-cultural perspective?
Perhaps it was Steve’s highly charged positive emotional energy that entrained our emotions towards the mutual focus of particular animals that hitherto had been feared or not appreciated, forming solidarity between the viewers (cf. Collins, 2004). This would explain why Germaine Greer’s poorly timed criticism of Steve’s antics copped an avalanche of hostile rebukes from politicians, scientists and the public in general – our memories of Steve Irwin became symbols of our solidarity that needed to be defended. But don’t we need to engage in successful interaction chains face-to-face for solidarity to bond us? What else could be at play?
More important than Steve Irwin’s capacity to entertain, was his educational impact. At a time when kids are turning their backs on formal science studies in high schools and universities around the world, Steve was able to communicate the message of conservation and environmental stewardship so effectively. It appears that children and adults alike DO like science; simply not the way it is taught in schools. What can science educators learn from Steve Irwin’s teaching practices? Are there implications for curriculum reformers and policy makers?
I invite you to comment on the questions posed here in the attempt that we might come to a better collective understanding of the Steve Irwin phenomenon. In so doing, our discussions might even lead to better school-based practices in science education.
Reference
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
I did not ever sit down and watch a Steve Irwin show–just saw the highlight reels when he did something crazy, appeared on Larry King Live etc. But, from what I saw he was larger than life and used a lot of verve. His high energy style captures my attention, that is it gets me engaged and I pay attention–which is what you have to do–or else the channel flipper will cease my engagement. So, for me his practices create structures with which I resonate pretty easily, especially because I like to see animales and also risk takers. So, I engage and my interest is relatively high. I am attentive too because I am not quite sure that what he does is proper. Is it fair to the animal to be taunted/teased?
Most vignettes I have seen do not seem to harm the animal and he really does seem to care about wildlife and preserving animals in their habitats. He seems to know what he is doing and I decide that he knows enough not to harm the animal and to keep himself and those around him safe as well. In terms of primary emotions, as a coparticipant I can imagine that there is ample satisfaction — happiness and a touch of aversion–fear. According to Jonathan Turner the first order elaborations that are likely are wonder, hope, relief, and perhaps gratitude. So, the likely emotions for me would include those.
Germaine Greer might experience assertion anger as a primary emotion with a significant valence pointing toward anger. If she also experiences disappointment–sadness as a primary emotion the first order elaborations might include bitterness.
Just as all the colors can be produced from the primaries through color addition, so Turner theorizes that emotions are generated by mixes of primary emotions to produce first and second order emotions. Turner has many interesting books and papers to which someone might turn. I like a book called Face to face: Toward a sociological theory of interpersonal behavior. It is published by Stanford University Press in 2002.
I am sure that not everybody resonates with someone like Steve Irwin in a positive way that gets them involved actively. However if individuals do appropriate his practices as they unfold ln ways that allow them to meet their goals, then the successful transactions witll be associated not only with the procduction of culture as schema and practices–but also as emotions. Over time the positive emotions might build to create a store of positive emotional energy that is associated with participation in the activity. That is the participant can create a social bond with the activity and when he or she participates in activities like it in the future the reconstruction of the memories of the activity can provide a resonance for the emotions to be enacted. For sure, I would expect that participation in another Steve Irwin TV show would likely produce similar stocks of emotional energy.
I find Stephen Ritchie’s blog entry that opened this forum and Ken Tobin’s response interesting and timely. When I heard about Steven Irwin’s death I was sadden (primary emotion) and stunned (secondary emotion). Initially I did not give his untimely passing much thought beyond the controversy played out in the media regarding his memorial service. It was not until my 6-year old daughter came to me and started to talk to me about Irwin’s death that I realized his passing had to be collectively addressed on deeper levels. I suspect that many parents experienced similar exchanges with younger children. The conversation with my daughter did not dwell so much on why he died, but on if there would be additional opportunities to see his show. The manner in which he explored wildlife and engaged a new generation of learners and television watchers is likely to be one of the most intriguing attractions to this explorative giant. His television show created a lot of resonance structures that engaged his entire audience, particular younger viewers. His verve and seemingly playful antics gave us the feeling that he could have been exploring in our own backyards. Although I only watched a few episodes of Irwin’s show, there were many aspects that resonated with me, and some that did not. His show certainly had a hint of the reality television that I did not really care for, but as Tobin points out, Irwin showed us how to be a sensible risk taker. I too like risk takers. Irwin’s show had both entertainment value and educational value. So how can we explore the ‘Steven Irwin phenomenon’ from a socio-cultural point of view?
I am certain that Irwin’s show had contradictions that Greer and others are happy to point out. However, it is the agency within Irwin’s transactions with wildlife itself that earned him a lot of capital among his audience. We viewed his transactions in the third person perspective as active learners. The positive emotional valence he created tapped into our emotional gyroscope and as a result has encouraged us to be co-participants and active viewers. It was as though we were not involved in the third person perspective anymore. A recent episode of the show I watched found Irwin bitten by a poisonous snake. As he was about to pass out, while his aides ran to his side, he began to talk about the dangers of the venom and what would happen if he did not get the anti venom serum. In between all of this he gives us a few tips on what to do if a poisonous snake were to bite. I was at the seat of my pants while listening and watching Irwin. My primary emotions ran from aversion-fear, when I first realized what happened to Irwin, to satisfaction when I knew he would be all right. I also felt relieved as a secondary emotion. Irwin continually has taken us down a path that has allowed us to attach emotional valence to his actions in praxis and emotional valence to alternatives. When Irwin was bitten, I knew it was serious and felt emotionally invested in that he should have chosen a different venue for this episode. We like his show because Irwin built culture around successful transactions. As Ritchie writes, Irwin was a passionate entertainer, educator, conservationist, research scientist, and wildlife ambassador. Many of us loved him and felt the need to protect his symbolic capital because we each shared various levels of positive emotional valence and solidarity with his character. We also wanted him physically protected from harm.
Irwin’s work does leave us with a lot to think about in terms of science education. I remember telling my daughter that science and learning both involve taking sensible risks that my lead to unexpected results. Some may take a misguided approach toward Irwin’s show and claim it to be a validation for ultimate ‘hands-on’ learning. Irwin’s show, to the contrary, has evidenced that teaching and learning science in appropriate ways can and does sustain chains of successful transactions, positive emotional valence and mutual focus. Ultimately, his pedagogy enabled him to use the medium of television fluently and in an extremely engaging manner.
Teachers can shape the cultures of their classrooms, but they are also shaped by these cultural fields. Suppose a novice teacher models her pedaogogical practices on her perception of the high risk, engaging, and emotionally charged “presentations” of Steve Irwin. To what extent would this be desirable and to what extent would such practices be accepted by students? In other words, would there be cultural alignment (or fit) between the “new” pedagogical practices and student expectations of teacher behavior?
Thanks to Wesley and Steve for interesting comments. Just a brief point in each. I do think that consistent with an individual|collective dialectic (also agency|structure) teachers can adapt their cultural enactment and fit what they do to the dispositions of the youth they are teaching. Hence, by teaching in particualr ways they can afford high levels of appropriate engagement. For me the take away message for teachers from the Irwin TV programs might just be to explore how they can teach in high energy ways. He was engaging to me (when I watched) because he was always high energy and I guess I am more likely to get in synch with someone who is high energy.
Wesley–I loved the connection between emotions and participating in the viewing of a TV program. THis is a promising theoretical lens and the work of Jonathan Turner and Randall Collins is salient.
In reading this piece and the posts that have followed from it, I am reminded of the importance of emotions in teaching and the powerful technique of understanding social life through the sociology of emotions. I am thinking mostly of a text by Turner (2002) in which the importance of emotions in our daily interactions is made explicit and explored. The piece by Ritchie begins by noting the incredible impact of Irwin’s work by highlighting details of his funeral. It seems evident that Irwin’s reach was broad. In order to achieve what he was able to, he worked to build positive emotional energy about/through his many programs. Wesley’s post speaks to this idea of emotions and television viewing also.
We can consider Irwin as a teacher, his viewers as students and the medium of television coupled with our homes as the classroom. Like any teacher, Irwin needed to engage his students and find ways of building positive emotional energy about shared experiences. These experiences were the content of his programs. While Turner (2002) focuses on face to face interactions, I think this can be expanded and his framework used to understand interactions between individuals and media figures such as Irwin. Irwin (perhaps through the energy and excitement about the area he was working in as the post by K Tobin suggests) was able to engage many people in his work. This teacher spoke and acted in ways that engaged his viewers (students). As a result the viewers kept tuning in (made an ongoing commitment to the class and the material). What was created is known as a capital spiral or, in another way, an unending feedback loop. Irwin engaged the audience, the audience was excited which resulted in higher ratings and/or criticism and support of the work, using this feedback Irwin makes more programs, the audience watches these and gives more feedback which only spurs more programs and more viewers watching, more feedback which informs future programs and on and on.
As an educator one needs to learn how to engage students. Much in the way that Irwin used feedback to inform future programs, an educator needs to listen to the feedback given by students (through their words, actions, facial expression, etc.) and use it as a guide when developing future lessons and activities. Modifying instruction to meet the needs of one’s students is a crucial aspect of being an effective educator. There should be an emergent and reflective process where past interactions guide new interactions all with the goal of creating positive emotional energy about shared classroom experiences. Turner (2002) explains that building positive emotional energy is a key to effective classroom practice. Similarly, the building of positive emotional energy was a key to Irwin’s success and the effectiveness of his programs. After all, if those who watched his programs were not invested in them emotionally, and did not feel an emotional connection to the work they were observing, they would have gotten up, turned off the tv and walked away. The build up of positive emotional energy leads to solidarity (Tobin, ***) demonstrated by the multitude of consistent fans Irwin has. In the classroom solidarity is a staple of effective classroom environments. Without positive emotional energy around shared experiences there is no solidarity and without solidarity our students would metaphorically turn off the televisions and walk away (tune out and disengage). This piece certainly does present a lot of helpful information that educators need to reflect and grapple with.
Turner, J. H. (2002). Face to face: Toward a sociological theory of interpersonal behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.