Performing Reality

“For how many generations now had his people been turning their backs on things? How long had they sat in their living rooms and watched other people die?”

― Clare B. Dunkle, The Sky Inside

Throughout graduate school, I made it clear that I was interested in the rhetoric of reality television. I spend way too much time thinking about the show Survivor because I essentially live in Survivor fandom. My support system is probably shocked that I didn’t just write my thesis about Survivor. Anyways, I was watching the latest episode of Survivor when I started thinking about how wonderful the host, Jeff Probst, is at assessing the dynamics of the show through his narration of events. I realized Probst isn’t really a narrator, though, he is a host living the anecdote of the show along with the contestants. The notion of “hosting” made me think about Sacha Baron Cohen’s dynamic “host-like” element throughout the orchestration of Who is America?. Sacha Baron Cohen pushes past the traditional concept of “host” by taking the term to another level, which is to say he instigates. Hosts observe, while Baron Cohen interferes. His instigations leave viewers fumbling with the ethical components behind his manipulative humor. I would suggest this humor is easier to take in when it is nefarious politicians’ reputations on the line, but the comedy can be more difficult to level with when it involves other guests, such as reality stars. 

Many of Baron Cohen’s sketches do involve political representatives, such as Bernie Sanders and Jason Spencer, but a few particular guests seemed to allude to a commentary on pop cultural issues. For example, Who is America? includes scenes featuring reality star Corinne Olympios. Olympios gained recognition for her appearance on ABC’s The Bachelor as well as Bachelor in Paradise. She gained notoriety by establishing herself as her season’s villain, the woman all of the other women despise. In her article, “The Troubling Truth Behind Who Is America?'s Corinne Olympios Prank,” Sonia Saraiya elaborates on Olympios’ character development throughout The Bachelor: “Olympios seemed to thrive on the controversy she created—a necessary character trait in the vicious world of reality television, albeit one that tends to incense viewers.” Saraiya’s commentary suggests that Olympios followed a self-fulfilling prophecy of becoming The Bachelor villain. Throughout her season on The Bachelor, judgement of Olympios appeared to derive from her wealthy background and childlike mindset. She would often comment on how she missed her “nanny” making her cheese pasta and how she helped her father run a multimillion dollar company.

Olympios shifted audiences’ perceptions of the entire Bachelor franchise after  briefly appearing on Bachelor in Paradise. Olympios publicly came forward with her experience of being sexually assaulted by another contestant. The incident went viral and drew criticism of the show’s production. Public discourse was so rampant, that Olympios herself decided to speak up in an attempt to address the misconceptions of the assault. She said, 

My intent over the past few weeks has been to learn and understand what happened on June 4 [2017]. While I never filed complaints or accusations against anyone associated with Bachelor in Paradise, my team and I felt it was very important to be thorough in getting to the bottom of what had occurred. I felt victimized by the fact that others were judging me through conflicting and unsubstantiated reports, while I myself had no recollection of the events that transpired. My team’s investigation into this matter has now been completed to my satisfaction. I am also happy about the changes that have been made to the production of Bachelor In Paradise. While I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to have been a participant on The Bachelor, and while I was invited to return to Bachelor In Paradise when production resumed, I respectfully made the decision not to return. I understand the media’s interest in this story, and I greatly appreciate my fans’ concerns for my well-being, but I think it is best if I keep any further thoughts private for now. 

Even though audiences had come to expect a villainous side from Olympios, her commentary on the situation remained mature and impartial to audience criticism. I find it critical to provide this information about Olympios because these qualities compose the perceptions her audiences have of her. When I originally planned to write about her appearance on Baron Cohen’s Who is America?, I thought I might be more inquisitive of her actions. However, as I looked into reviews of her appearance, I found a great deal of defense towards her. I will suggest that by considering these defenses, we may compose an initial framework for some of the influences that steer the direction of Olympios’ segment. Additionally, I think considering Olympios as an individual separates her identity as a whole from Sacha Baron Cohen’s inclusion of her on the show. As we explore Olympios’ experiences both on The Bachelor as well as on Who is America?, we may find that Baron Cohen’s inclusion of her on his show is more of a commentary on The Bachelor franchise and its fans generally, not just Olympios. 

As someone who watches The Bachelor, I wanted to include Olympios’ side of the story, here, because the details surrounding the event were well known to fans of The Bachelor. I want to suggest that it would have been unlikely that Baron Cohen was unaware of what happened to Olympios because the situation became a part of her notoriety. Olympios was the only guest to appear on Who is America? to have recently experienced sexual assault. While I would never suggest that this single experience defines Olympios as a whole, the experience sets her apart from any of the other guests on the show along with being the only guest to have appeared on The Bachelor. These experiences influence what theorist Kenneth Burke would identify as her “terministic screens.”   In his work Language as Symbolic Action (1966), Burke says a terministic screen is: “a screen composed of terms through which humans perceive the world, and that direct attention away from some interpretations and toward others.” Olympios’ many unique experiences such as being on The Bachelor, growing up with a lavish life-style, and even having a nanny as an adult all contribute to the unique terministic screens through which she sees the world. The assault she experienced significantly impacts these terministic screens by marking them with trauma. 

In a recent article, Jim Kuypers and Caitlin McDaniels expand on Burke’s concept of terministic screens to further inform our understanding of Olympios’ experience. They say,  “How we use our language, the choices we make concerning specific words and phrases, shed light on the underlying assumptions that inform our understanding of the world.” Terministic screens impact our perceptions of the world, but trauma has a way of disrupting those perceptions because it twists how we may have originally understood the way our worlds operate. Kuypers and McDaniels also remark on why critical audiences should consider the terministic screens of performers. They say, “When critics examine the choices made by communicators, they can see how key terms coalesce, interact, to form terministic screens.” This idea is critical to analyzing all of the setups on Who is America? otherwise, as critics of the guests, we are simply judging their experiences based on our own accord. Without considering the terministic screens that comprise the guests we miss crucial driving facets of what motivates them to make particular choices. We may think that it is wrong for Olympios to blindly agree to participate in Baron Cohen’s setup, but if we consider her previous experiences as an individual, we may be more understanding of her perspective. 

We may note that terministic screens differentiate themselves from the notion of perspective in that they are specific to one individual. For example, two individuals may have the same perspective and both may have enjoyed watching Corinne Olympios on The Bachelor. However, the terministic screens that comprise these individuals may suggest that they enjoyed Olympios for different reasons. One individual may enjoy drama for various reasons, so they may have appreciated the chaos Olympios brought to the show. Another individual may be from a wealthy background and find identification with Olympios leading to their appreciation of her on The Bachelor. So while their perspectives are the same in their appreciation for Olympios, the terministic screens that brought them to that point are going to be unique to each separate individual. In a recent work featured in Political Campaign Communication: Theory, Method, and Practice (2017), Jim Kuypers says,

[Terministic screens] are indicative of the internal thinking of the communicator [for the nature] of our terms affects the nature of our observations, in the sense that the terms direct the attention to one field rather than to another. Also, many of the ‘observations’ are but implications of the particular terminology in terms of which the observations are made.

Kuypers’ explanation of  how “terministic screens” originate allows us to consider their impact within Olympios’ anecdote. When we think about how performers use terms, we may consider how terms uniquely operate in individual scenarios. This idea clearly presents itself when we consider the different terministic screens through which a contestant may approach The Bachelor as opposed to the terministic screens through which a guest approaches Who is America?. Olympios’ understanding of the world is going to influence the unique ways in which she approaches each scenario.  

 In the case that follows, I want to point out that The Bachelor plays on network television while Who is America? occurred on Showtime requiring a paid subscription to watch either through an already owned streaming channel or as an added purchase through owning cable. Network television is usually more readily accessible without fees, and networks shows also often appear the next day on low cost streaming websites. While clips from Who is America? can be found on YouTube, the show’s initial viewers likely drew a very different crowd than The Bachelor audience. The likelihood that viewers knew who Corinne Olympios was beyond a reality star is slight.

Olympios appears in the second episode of Who is America?, where she is fooled by Baron Cohen disguised as an Italian billionaire known as Gio Monaldo (yes, the same disguise as with O. J. Simpson, indicating Baron Cohen recognized that performing as wealthy would solicit certain reactions from other wealthy people). In the scene, Gio Monaldo convinces Olympios to pose in a hazmat suit with a bikini underneath for a photoshoot and provide an interview under the guise that she is supporting victims of Ebola in Africa. Then, Gio Monaldo convinces Olympios to create a public service announcement imploring viewers to sponsor a child soldier.  I mentioned that I identified with Olympios’ desire to enjoy herself while being on The Bachelor, I thought that even though she could act immature and be over-the-top, she still seemed smart and intuitive throughout the show. When I saw her willingly participate in Baron Cohen’s setup, it was astonishing to think that she wasn’t as intuitive as I thought. I wanted her to notice the incredulity and overall ridiculousness of the situation, but she never seemed to get there. At one point she even questions Monaldo asking, “Won’t people know I haven’t been in Africa?” Monaldo simply placates her by reminding her the photoshoot is for charity. I found myself wondering how Olympios negotiated that idea with herself. 

Olympios recently explained the encounter from her own perspective in an interview with Julie Miller for Vanity Fair.  Olympios explains: 

“This giant, tall, blond guy was screaming, ‘Don’t do this. Don’t do that.’ Screaming. . . I introduced myself. He said, ‘Hello, hello. Welcome, welcome,’ with this thick Italian accent,” she said. “I’m thinking, ‘This is such an overdone accent. I don’t know if he’s trying to be like that guy on Cupcake Wars, with the overdone French accent. I don’t know what he’s doing.’ He’s also obnoxiously dressed.”

Olympios’ commentary of events provides an anecdotal sense of her thought process. Baron Cohen’s caricature struck her vulnerabilities by overwhelming her with his outrageous persona. When we consider the events through her terms, we might observe the obvious discomfort she experienced. Alternatively, as a woman around the same age as Olympios, I find myself questioning her willingness to continue. She claims a clear doubt that people will believe she was in Africa, but Baron Cohen (in disguise) persuades her to continue by reinforcing the idea that the whole ordeal is for charity. The outrageousness of it all baffles me, but her intentions appear pure as she strives to navigate the extreme anecdote.

A clear consequence from Olympios’ experience on Who is America? was her compelled need to justify to her audience why the events happened—why she fell for it. I find this notion relatable because we often try to explain our choices and when we come up short we struggle with figuring out why. Following her appearance on Who is America?, Olympios gave several interviews where she provided more details as to why she fell for the shtick. Unlike many of Baron Cohen’s other guests, Olympios’ audience actively communicates with her through social media. Her need to address what happened points to an odd double standard for reality stars as opposed to the politicians on the show. Our current political administration has made it clear that politicians have little need to justify corrupt actions as long as they make it an underdog story. Joe Biden introduces efforts to end violence against women and suddenly the violence that he committed against Anita Hill is forgotten. On the other hand, reality stars can’t just introduce new policies to allow their fans to forget their foibles. In this sense, reality stars have to take ownership and responsibility of their wrongdoings in order for their fans to forgive and forget. 

Personally, I think that being a reality star provides Olympios to be honest in ways that salvage her reputation in ways that politicians lack. Olympios has the power to redeem herself by reclaiming her actions. If we consider Olympios’ perspective of the aftermath, we may begin to understand why she would be so easily persuaded by Baron Cohen. He caught her off-guard during a vulnerable time in her life. In her article, Saraiya reveals some of Olympios’ after thoughts: “At one point, she said, she thought to herself, while panicked and hyperventilating, ‘Oh my God, am I going to die? Is this O.K.? Am I O.K.?’ When she left, she said, she cried for hours. Discovering she had merely been subjected to a prank from Cohen was a relief, she said, because ‘imagine if that was real.’” Olympios prior trauma already punctured her understanding of the way her world works, and the confrontation with Baron Cohen severed this understanding even further. In line with Saraiya, Miller alludes to Olympios’ feelings of isolation. Olympios told Miller,

“I leave, only to find that they had sent my manager home hours ago—and they had my phone the whole time. I called my manager like, ‘How dare you leave me. That was fucking insane. I thought I was going to die. It was the weirdest shit ever. I hate you. I feel like America’s going to hate me.’ I was hysterically crying for like three hours.”

Saraiya and Miller both observe Olympios’ post-anecdote feelings. While wildly different situations, Olympios’ response to her experience on Who is America? is as raw and emotional as her response to her experience on Bachelor in Paradise. Her reflections on these anecdotes may allow us a greater sense of empathy towards her. Her world was already destructed in a way many of us may never understand, and she now has to incorporate grappling with how she handled Baron Cohen’s setup.

I would suggest when we find difficulty empathizing with someone, this may indicate that we lack in our ability to identify with them. We might overcome this inability by willingly learning why someone would make certain choices. In Olympios’ case, we might consider how she was already coping with trauma that removes a sense of presence. Baron Cohen’s setup pushed her past the point of assessment, she could only react. Saraiya explains Baron Bohen’s contempt for those who seek validation through “media exposure” emphasizing Olympios’ compatibility for the setup. Saraiya criticizes the setup by establishing the issue of directional power Baron Cohen has over Olympios. Saraiya states: “It’s beyond reason why Cohen and Who Is America? would choose to target a figure at the center of such a sordid story. The show is calling her integrity into question in the same way that it is calling the integrity of conservative politicians into question, as if that is an apples-to-apples comparison.” Olympios’s trauma and her assessment of the trauma indicates that she was already struggling with understanding her own perception of integrity. After more thoroughly considering Olympios’ perspective, I find myself with similar conclusions as Saraiya. While Olympios has fans, she isn’t representing them on a political level where her decisions may impact their futures. Role models can be dropped, but politicians have to be actively voted out.

I do think it is fair that Baron Cohen wants to explore the limits of a social media influencer. Olympios’ over 700,000 Instagram followers are indicative of her social media presence—which we might also identify as her social media performances. Before Who is America?, it had been almost a year since Olympios was in any sort of spotlight. Still, her notoriety and influence made her as much of a prime target as Bernie Sanders.   For these reasons, we may recognize why Baron Cohen would choose her for his show. Saraiya continues by suggesting Olympios was essentially incompatible for Baron Cohen’s ploys, criticizing the troubling power dynamics of the situation: “This is all to say that the dynamic between a young female reality star at the beginning of her career and an older male photographer, as Cohen pretended to be, is inherently fraught. “ She goes on to interrogate the particularly problematic power dynamics in this setup that are less critical in other setups such as with politicians and journalists. While I mostly agree with Saraiya’s assessment, particularly her note on the power dynamics issue, there is still something about “a reality star beginning her career,” that does not sit well with me. Throughout the whole ordeal, the idea that reality television is not a career path is something that Baron Cohen is heavily critiquing. The whole scene suggests Olympios has few limits when it boils down to maintaining relevance and at what cost? If she walks away, in the moment, then this photoshoot loses purpose and no one sees her support a fake charity. Ultimately, the decision to continue kept her in the limelight even if it did not pan out the way she had imagined.  Maintaining the limelight means Olympios maintains her social media presence—she preserves her relevance to her audience.

I refer to what happened in Olympios’ scene as “an extreme anecdote.” Olympios was placed into a position no one has ever been in before, and there’s not a map of directions like she would have had in preparing for The Bachelor. As we find ourselves involved in culminating anecdotes, we may find that these anecdotes also serve to preserve our relevance, our legacies. The anecdotes we share with others, whether they leave us looking notorious or nefarious, suggest how we want others to see us when we have control over them. When an extreme anecdote is presented without our consent, such as in Olympios’ case, how we handle the consequences is our opportunity to preserve our reputations. Miller explores more of the consequential elements of Olympios’ experience and relates these to her time on The Bachelor. Miller states:

When Cohen dupes veteran politicians and journalists with decades of media experience and savvy gatekeepers, the resulting comedy is somewhat earned, if uncomfortable. But there’s something that feels a bit strange about entrapping a twentysomething reality star in a room under false pretenses—especially when that reality star has proven herself comfortable with being a comedy punch line and unflappable by unflattering edits. As a person close to Olympios told us, “Most people couldn’t do what she did on The Bachelor—and be given ‘the villain edit’—and not die [out of embarrassment]. She can endure that stuff. She has a different gene than the rest of us. So it’s become funny to her.”

Miller points to the qualities that garnered her notoriety, but Miller misses that these parts of Olympios’ identity are what Baron Cohen wants to experiment with. If someone is unfazed by being typed as the villain, then we want to know what it takes to make them react. Miller reveals that Olympios was indeed unfazed by Baron Cohen’s trap: she has, Miller says, “come to terms with her Who Is America? Guest star turn” and now just sees the episode as “a funny thing.”

Baron Cohen’s work, in this case, reveals the issues of desperation for self-promotion. Olympios’ reflection focuses on the exposure she foresees. The experience may have revealed parts of herself that she wants to conceal, but she fails to take any opportunity to address the issues of her participation. Olympios grasps for fame, and Baron Cohen shows his audience how this motive dominates her. Miller concludes her article by suggesting the benefits of the trap Olympios fell into: “...maybe any press is good press, especially for a millennial attempting to build her own empire. She has a slew of projects in motion—a clothing line, a podcast, a digital series, a roman à clef, and a mysterious project she will be rolling out soon—and a television platform is a television platform.” Baron Cohen antagonizes this type of conclusion because it perpetuates a culture driven by vanity. Olympios may have had good intentions when she participated in the photoshoot, her own words suggest that as long as she is still seen then she has been successful. 

Viewers may recognize that it was controversial of Baron Cohen to choose a contestant who was sexually assaulted to be a guest on Who is America?; however, Baron Cohen seems to purposefully choose his guests in ways that lead to controversy not just for the show, but also for his viewers to consider long after watching an episode. Olympios, like many other women who have experienced sexual assault, will always be associated with this incident. Since this was the first time that a sexual assault was reported publicly from The Bachelor franchise, many people outside of the show’s viewers became aware of the situation. Therefore, an argument could be made that Baron Cohen selected Olympios because he knew she was famous even outside of the franchise because she openly commented about the assault she experienced on Bachelor in Paradise.  

Burke’s theory of dramatism can help us understand exactly why Sacha Baron Cohen would select Olympios for his show, which I find necessary to consider in order to emphasize Baron Cohen’s credibility as a rhetorical artist. The idea that Baron Cohen deliberately chose a victim of sexual assault would discredit him among many audiences.  In a recent article, Robert Wess refers to Burke’s explanation of dramatism within A Grammar of Motives: “Dramatism suggests a procedure to be followed in the development of a given calculus, or terminology. It involves the search for a ‘representative anecdote,’ to be used as a form in conformity with which the vocabulary is constructed.” In other words, to have a fully represented anecdote, we also have to consider Baron Cohen’s motivations. With Wess’s assessment in mind, we may understand why it is useful to have some background on both agents involved in the scene in order to determine their ultimate motivations. Olympios went through a traumatic experience, but Baron Cohen does not allude to this during his anecdote with her. Instead, Baron Cohen exploits the irony that Olympios, a wealthy heiress, took to The Bachelor franchise to find love—a franchise driven by consumers who continue to watch the show. 

At the time Who is America? was originally filmed, Olympios was undeniably one of the most infamous contestants not just because she experienced assault, but also because she often expressed her multifaceted experiences publicly on social media. In their article, “Toward A Dramatistic Ethics” (2015), Kevin McClure and Julie Skwar refer to Burke’s Language as Symbolic Action, A Grammar of Motives, as well as Permanence and Change to build a framework for Burke’s dramatistic theory, which focuses on the choices that agents may make in a given situation. They say,  “Burke’s Dramatistic view of language centers on action, and ‘action implies the ethical, the human personality.’  Language affords subjects (or, Burke’s word, agents) with the ability to act, and ‘[t]o say that action is motivated is to say that one is not (entirely) a victim of circumstances, but that one must make a choice.’” This idea allows us to further interrogate why Olympios made an ideal candidate for Baron Cohen’s extreme anecdote. Her agency centers around maintaining her fanbase and perpetuating her relevance as a social media influencer. Baron Cohen might have guessed that Olympios would go along with his ploy because her influence relies less on her reputation and more on the actions she takes to be seen.

Based on Burke’s theory of Dramatism, we may acknowledge that ethical agents are going to vary among individuals, as we all individually approach situations with our unique perspectives—our unique vulnerabilities. Within Olympios’ scene on Who is America?, Baron Cohen is able to reveal her vulnerabilities; he persuades her to continue the photoshoot and the interview by appealing to her desire to support charity. He humanizes her in such a way that is rarely achieved with pop culture icons because we, as viewers, witness her using her own volition to determine how to navigate her encounter with Baron Cohen’s disguise. She lacks social media followers or her manager directing her—she is extra vulnerable within an extreme anecdote. On one hand, Baron Cohen relentlessly shows us how far Olympios is willing to go no matter how ridiculous the whole scheme seems because he is ultimately commenting on a broader dynamic of pop culture’s influence on reality stars. On the other hand, Olympios becomes more relatable by explaining why she fell for the setup. The fact that openly explained how overwhelmed she felt, humanizes her in a way most of us can identify with.

Kenneth Burke’s terminology may push us to reconsider (or, alternatively, further validate) our initial judgements of Olympios by incorporating her post-reflection and prior conflicts into our assessments of her anecdote. Again, we have to consider the influences of individual’s terministic screens otherwise we make useless generalizations that fail to allow us to empathize and identify with others. Burke explains that terministic screens can be compared to the development of a photograph.  Kuypers and McDaniels expand on Burke’s comparison by asking us to consider the unique individualism each agent brings to the photograph—to the anecdote. They say,

Kenneth Burke emphasized that our grammatical choices can reveal the meaning behind rhetorical artifacts, and that terministic screens can be used to understand how “what we say we know is filtered through our terms.” It is the “capacity  of language (terminology) to encourage us to understand the world in some ways, while filtering (screening) other interpretations out.” The idea behind a terministic screen can be used with the analogy of a photograph, just as the lens of a camera is responsible for creating new perspectives with the same object, a terministic screen filters a view based on the specific terms used. Since terministic screens have that filtering affect, “our attempts to describe or interpret reality are limited initially by the terms available to us, and then further, by which ones we choose.”

Much as a Polaroid picture may develop as time passes, so may our reflections of an anecdotal experience. Blatantly, as with many guests on the show, Olympios perspective significantly shifted once recognizing that she was fooled by Baron Cohen in disguise. As Kuypers and McDaniels note, we can only assess with the terms available to us. The terms of understanding during Olympios’ anecdote were confined to the situation until she learned that she had been set up.  Based on this assessment of terministic screens, we may acknowledge that, as an audience, we  may all witness the same anecdote but, due to our individual terministic screens, we all experienced the scene differently. 

The unique perspectives of the setup also applies to Baron Cohen and Olympios. From the beginning, the anecdote is exploited because Baron Cohen is in on the scheme, but Olympios sees the setup as real. Baron Cohen not only carries the power of deception over her, but he also has the ability to transform out of his disguise and remove himself from the audience’s judgement. These dynamics supplement the issues Saraiya and Miller address in regards to the power Baron Cohen has over Olympios as a woman in an impressionable situation. 

Baron Cohen’s disguise disrupts our understanding of the agents’ perspectives. Baron Cohen’s audience(s) know he is in disguise, but the fact that his guests lack this piece of information ultimately makes the anecdotes Baron Cohen creates extreme. McClure and Skwar interweave Burke’s dramatistic pentad (act, agent, agency, scene, and purpose) with his conception of terministic screens, and I find their summation interrogates the core issue of how skewed perspectives affect the interpretation of an anecdote. McClure and Skwar state:

While expressions of motives through “terministic screens” are unavoidable, Burke maintains that there are some uses of terminologies that are more representative of reality than others. Terminologies that feature one term or ratio as the “perspective of perspectives” and that suppress other terms or ratios in the pentad are less representative of reality, since any “rounded” or full statement features all five terms.

McClure and Skwar’s observation emphasizes the need to consider every aspect of Burke’s pentad before drawing any final conclusions. However, the issue with using the pentad to assess an anecdote on the show is that the act, scent, agent, agency, and purpose vary depending on what role we subscribe to. We may only be able to fully commit to being the audience, but we can seek understanding motivations through the terministic screens an agent brings to an anecdote. 

While this issue of understanding motivations is blatantly demonstrated throughout anecdotes on Who is America?, rhetorically, this idea applies to our interpretation of any anecdote; we can never fully commit to understanding anyone’s terministic screens except our own. This inability of humans to read other people’s minds alludes to the difficulty in assessing the different perspectives within Olympios’ anecdote. As an audience, we may attune ourselves to the truth we are privy to and recognize Baron Cohen’s goal of revealing a hidden dimension of Olympios’ identity—the lengths she will go to acquire fame, and the lengths her social media followers are willing to let her go. Alternatively, we may recognize the conflicts Olympios endured and show appreciation for her willingness to publicly display vulnerability by becoming one of her social media followers. 

Regardless of where we land on identifying with Olympios, we may agree that the spread of fame through viral videos benefits her by maintaining her pop cultural notoriety. Once a video goes viral, it can’t be retracted, suggesting a loss of control over the situation. On the other hand, however, this viral circulation actually provides an opportunity for Olympios to regain control over how the anecdote is perceived by her audience. Her Who is America? anecdote will exist in perpetuity, but she can shift her audience’s perception of her by posting new anecdotes through photos on her Instagram page.

Technology interferes with our understanding of the pentad by disrupting its traditional operations. Agency, agents, scenes, acts, and purposes are distorted technology controls their perceptions. In his work The Philosophy of Chrysippus (1970), Josiah Gould says:

Our spontaneous identification with the powers of technology can lead to quite a range of bluntness. . . . Almost without thinking, we incline to be like the fellow who had delusions of grandeur because, each time he approached the door of a supermarket, it of itself opened to let him pass. 

After considering this passage, I would ask my readers to replace the idea of a revolving supermarket door with the idea of a constantly recording camera. By employing Gould’s metaphor, I suggest that even the camera in Olympios’ anecdote has more power over the situation than she. If reality is based on the symbols we believe in and those beliefs comprise our terministic screens, then the camera not just of the photoshoot but through Who is America?’s production determines Olympios’ fate just as much as she does if not more so. The technology can be cut and edited, but Olympios’ identity, based off of her interpretation of events, stays static. While Olympios lacked control as the anecdote occurred, she can continue the recording by taking to social media to explain her choices, just as she did with her experience on Bachelor in Paradise. 

Perhaps, though, Olympios’ lack of social media response to her experience on Who is America? allows her to conceal how she actually feels about the events she has experienced. This response serves as a reminder that a reaction to an anecdote can simply be indifference. Terministic screens may serve as motivators towards indifference, as Kuypers and McDaniels note:

For Burke, there are “terms that put things together, and terms that take things apart.”  In other words, terministic screens can also act toward composition and division, since all “terminologies must implicitly or explicitly embody choices between the principle of continuity and the principle of discontinuity.”

If Olympios has an image she wants to maintain, then her reactions to events have to align with that image. If the issue of her image is the case, then we may as well see Olympios as wearing a costume just as Baron Cohen wears one. Just because someone may express indifference does not mean that this indifference is without performative properties. Olympios’ costumes radiate throughout her Instagram account reinforcing why Baron Cohen’s broader goal was not to necessarily stir Olympios into some epiphany of self-reflection, but to point to the ideologies within pop culture are polarized by shows such as The Bachelor that suggest true love and capitalism are what tying the knot is all about. 

As much I think I understand Sacha Baron Cohen’s intentions within this particular anecdote, the dilemma I have when considering the scene derives from Baron Cohen’s refusal to draw conclusions for his viewers. Baron Cohen’s previous work presents clear social commentaries, such as the revelations of prominent racism that emerge in Borat. Within Who is America?, he  usually victimizes political representatives—people chosen for positions of power. However, something about choosing a reality star stands out. Let us consider IndieWire writer Ryan Lattanzio’s description of Who is America?:

His 2018 Showtime series “Who Is America?” tackles humankind’s dark side head-on by bait-and-switching real-life figures to catch them in their blind spots. In the show, he got Dick Cheney to sign a waterboarding kit, former chief justice Roy Moore to take a pedophile lie-detector test, and “The Bachelor” star Corinne Olympios to endorse the training of child soldiers on camera.

Immediately, we may recognize that the victimization of Dick Cheney and Roy Moore are going to strike humor for particular audiences. The addition of Olympios must have ulterior motives. In a write up for The New Yorker, Emily Nussbaum stated the following about her initial screening of the show:

Before screening Sacha Baron Cohen's "Who Is America?," Showtime flacks handed me a nondisclosure agreement. They locked up my phone. Guards roamed the aisles with night-vision goggles. The implication was clear: this show, heralded by panicky press releases from politicians, was incendiary stuff. Then, three days later, the network tiptoed backward like Trump after Helsinki. "At its core [Who is America?] is a comedy show," a pre-airing e-mail insisted. "This is not a statement on the state of the country, but Baron Cohen experimenting in the playground of 2018 America." 

Even though Nussbaum does not refer to Olympios, her analysis of Baron Cohen “experimenting in the playground,” may allow us to further consider why he would include Olympios in an episode. Reality shows are the ultimate scapegoat of television, but The Bachelor still has millions of viewers flocking to the show for a taste of drama they usually lack in their own lives. I’ll be the first one to admit I’m guilty as charged. I watch the show because I find the hyper-drama captivating; I’m not invested in anyone finding their one true love. The Bachelor has not convinced me that finding love is its ultimate purpose anyways. Like most television shows it clearly seeks to rake in viewers regardless of the stakes involved for the contestants.   

While we are considering the viewership of The Bachelor, I also want to note that many of the women who appear as contestants go on to earn money promoting products on their social media account. This occurrence is known in the reality television world as “shilling.” (At least through my experience browsing The Bachelor subreddit.) A gaudy impression surrounds shilling, and The Oxford English Dictionary Online supports this assessment, defining “shill” as “a decoy or accomplice, esp. one posing as an enthusiastic or successful customer to encourage other buyers, gamblers, etc.” This whole concept of contestants taking advantage of sponsorship by shilling to their Instagram followers supports  Baron Cohen’s assessments of social media as often being vain self-promotion, but also product promotion for monetary compensation. Even if Olympios gained nothing but embarrassment from her encounter with Baron Cohen, as an audience, we might see how some social media influencers seem lavish and grandeur, but their morals are easily punctured if it means making money.  

When we identify The Bachelor as an extension of pop culture, there are clear issues with the anecdotes that lie within this franchise. The main issue being that The Bachelor is supposed to be a show about finding love but exists at the behest of consumerism. It is not exactly controversial of me to suggest the clear opposition between love and capitalism. The notions of capitalism significantly disrupt the “reality” aspect of a reality show about finding love.The relationship between capitalism, social media, and The Bachelor signify a commentary on the absolute lack of love involved in this triangle derived from a show advertised as being about finding love. Whether this is Baron Cohen’s larger point or not, the show asks “Who is America?,” and contestants who go on The Bachelor knowing that they will have a career shilling once their time on the show ends is an answer. How we, as an audience, feel about this particular answer is a reflection of the terministic screens that lead us to our own conclusions. If one of my readers is particularly passionate, I would suspect that they have already taken to social media to express their grievances with reality shows. 

Sacha Baron Cohen was recently awarded the Anti-Defamation League’s Leadership Award for his commitment to exposing prejudice. In an article for Haaretz, Josefin Dolsten quoted a portion of Baron Cohen’s acceptance speech:

“Facebook, YouTube and Google, Twitter and others — they reach billions of people. The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged — stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear,” Cohen said. “It’s why YouTube recommended videos by the conspiracist Alex Jones billions of times. It’s why fake news outperforms real news, because studies show that lies spread faster than truth.”

When we consider Baron Cohen’s statement in conjunction with Burke’s philosophy about terministic screens, I would suggest that we may notice that social media outlets act as veils to terministic screens. Influencers, such as Olympios and other Bachelor contestants, use social media to present what they want their fans to know about them. In this way, social media detracts from our understanding about the realities of what influences a reality star’s terministic screens. Social media outlets masquerade as truth and reality. Baron Cohen continued his speech to say,

“...if we prioritize truth over lies, tolerance over prejudice, empathy over indifference and experts over ignoramuses — then maybe, just maybe, we can stop the greatest propaganda machine in history, we can save democracy, we can still have a place for free speech and free expression, and, most importantly, my jokes will still work.”

We can address the irony in Baron Cohen’s critique of social media, his modus operandi center around fooling his guests, just as we use social media into fooling others into believing what we want them to think our lives are like. However, we might distinguish between Baron Cohen’s motivations towards seeking truth through hijinks from the blatant control over content social media outlets, well, shill. His critiques, in the case of Olympios, also matter because Olympios’ relevancy is perpetuated by social media through her followers. The vanity creates an obliviousness to the underlying issues Baron Cohen calls our attention to. The main way I see to address Baron Cohen’s critics is to, at least occasionally, demonstrate aspects of our authentic selves on social media. The calls for change Baron Cohen asks of us may not be televised, but we may authentically tweet them.