Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

And now for something completely different...

I work at home most of the time, which is wonderful. Over the past few months, I have taken to watching Star Trek on Spike TV for a break here and there during the day (Spike shows two episodes of Deep Space Nine from 1-3, and three episodes of TNG from 3-6). Even if I don't watch it, I often have it on in the background. Slowly, I have become re-addicted to the Star Trek universe, a problem I thought I had cured in the late 1990's when I did not even go see Insurrection in the theaters. I guess having access to five episodes a day plus the extensive online Star Trek library did the trick.

Anyway, re-watching so many of these old episodes as I write about politics has made me realize how, like with the X-Files, there are basically two types of Star Trek episodes. While the X-Files has "monster of the week" episodes and "myth" episodes, Star Trek has "ethical problem of the week" episodes and "galaxy politics" episodes. While I love both kinds of episodes, the focus on this post is on the "ethical problem of the week" type. Specifically, they always seem to resolve their problems by being, well, liberal humanists.

Star Trek is a rare phenomenon in popular culture: a detailed, future fantasy universe that is both based on our own past and that takes an overwhelmingly positive view of our future. Most popular culture science fiction either views the future in negative terms (The Matrix, Phillip Dick) or as an indecipherable "other" (X-Files, Arthur C. Clarke). Star Trek is an unusual view of our future simply because it is so darn positive. Poverty has been eliminated. Humans are free and united. People live to be over 100 years old on a regular basis. There isn't even any money! As Jean Luc Picard puts it, in the future world, individuals do not search to acquire wealth or power, but rather "to better themselves." As we travel around the galaxy making more new friends all the time, our beliefs in equality and self-determination always serve to make us stronger, even against totalitarian adversaries such as the Borg that in many ways are more powerful than the United Federation of Planets.

Star Trek not only shows what is best about liberal political structures and philosophies, but it is fundamentally a representation of the culmination of modernism and the great march of progress. It shows us what liberalism and modernism hope to eventually achieve, rather than what they have already achieved. It is, in that sense, a powerful mythology of modernism, of liberalism, and of progressivism. That works perfectly for those beliefs since, in contrast with conservatism, progressivism always sees the ideal of society as lying somewhere in the future, rather than in the past. As a result of our march of progress, things will be better in the times to come. Even for the characters in Star Trek, rather than trying to live up to some past ideal, rather than trying to imitate the unmatchable actions of super-human archetypes from the past, the best is always yet to come in new worlds and new cultures that are not yet known.

One of the problems with the mythology of almost any culture is that it tends to find our ideals in the distant past. The ways we should act as members of a family, as citizens of a public society, or simply as social animals have always been laid down for us by people who lived long ago (or who didn't live at all). In this way, most of mythology has been inherently conservative, depicting contemporary society, and indeed all societies, as but a poor imitation of the greatness of the past. However, if we are always trying to live up to the greatness of the past, we may have difficulties imagining a better future, which is a necessary aspect of any progressive. By taking the unusual step of placing your mythological greatness in the future--and not in an eschatological future, as the rapturists would have it--then what we are ultimately trying to live up to is the fulfillment of the promises inherent in our own liberal democracy: equality, self-determination, prosperity, and friendship. With this shift, mythology can become a progressive vision for self-improvement that is not bounded by the dictates of the past. Hell, San Francisco even becomes our capital. Hard to imagine a better place for the capital of a progressive future.

Or I could be totally off my rocker, and just seeing in Star Trek what I want to see. That sort of bias is inevitable in any form of cultural criticism.

Tags: Culture (all tags)

Comments

59 Comments

You maybe off your rocker

Who am I to disagree with you on that point?  But about Star Trek, you are spot on.  

A senior professor in Cultural Anthropology where I trained (UVa), Roy Wagner, used to teach a class called 'Fantasy and Science Fiction' in which he made the argument that Sci-Fi was our mythology.

It was the most popular class  in the department.

Personally, I think Star Trek Enterprise is the most relevant vis-a-vis political mythology in our time because it is about the fundamental Progressive struggle to be powerful and respectful at the same time.

And that would make Dick Cheney the Borg queen, I suppose.  Which seems to fit.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-07-18 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

You are right, absolutely.

One of the most important values TNG (and the others) really fostered is recognition of "others" as legitimate beings, no matter the differences.  Captain Picard would greet the most grotesque figure at the transporter room and say with complete and utter  sincerity, "Welcome Mr. Ambassador.  It is a real honor to have you on our ship."  He also set a real standard of leadership, of grace under pressure (which was Hemingway's definition of "class").  They also, after the (very dated now but loved it when it appeared) original series, had some of the best roles for women.  They did a lot of gender-bending with Dax on DS9, a symbiont who had known Commander Cisco first as a man and then as a woman.

Several of the episodes of TNG also explored what it means to be "human" through Data.  One in particular revolved around some little objects that everyone else wanted to destroy but which Data believed were sentient.

Then there were the "political" episodes on DS9, with major Kira as the Israeli and Gul Dukat and the other Cardassians as the Nazis.  But one episode completely turned that theme on its head.  There were some really good ones about ethical issues in war, loyalty, killing in the name of religion etc.    

Voyager wasn't as good as TNG or DS9, and even DS9 went off the deep end the last year or so, but all in all a very good series, and you are right, a great exemplar of liberalism at its strongest and best.

by Mimikatz 2006-07-18 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

As a literary analogy, people can see whoever they want in the Bajorans.  I agree that the Cardassians do not represent the Israelis, they are far more brutal, but the Bajorans were clearly written as Palestinians.  The producers mentioned this in passing, but generally spoke in generic terms of an "occupied people."

I watched the first Ensign Ro episode of STTNG on its first run with an Israeli-American, and he made this observation immediately.  

The analogy is this: a less-technologically advanced, but religious people, have their land seized in a military action, and are displaced, and forced to live under occupation.  The quadrant (the UN) opposes this, but nothing is done in practical terms to correct the injustice.  The Bajorans (Palestinians) take solace in their prophets, but without a military option, resort to terrorism, including attacks on civilian targets, to oppose the occupation (per Major Kira.)  This terrorism causes the Bajorians to lose the sympathies of the Federation (the US) as described by Ensign Ro.  But after a 50 year occupation (1940's -1990's) territory is returned, and the Bajorans are able to form a provisional government.  (I think the Palestinian Authority assumed control of the West Bank in the same season that the Bajorian Provisional Government is formed.)  Then the Federation is concerned when intolerant religious extremists threated to take control of the new government.

The creation of this series was a bold move in media that had usually been pro-Israeli.  To see the Bajorans as the Israelis is desperate wishful thinking.  

by Winston Smith 2006-07-18 05:08PM | 0 recs
There's Certainly A Parallel, But...

The Palestinians are the most secular of all the Arab peoples, and are, in fact, more similar to Israelis.  (That's part of what really gets under the Israeli's skin, IMHO.)  So I think the whole religious dimension is more of an add-on, or at least a shift of emphasis.

But, OTOH, the backstory of the Cardassians is a parallel to the Israelis.  They were once a much more spiritual people, like the Bajorans, but they were nearly destroyed, which is what turned them in a militarist direction.

In short, there are definite parallels, but they are independent creations.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-07-18 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

I think Voyager doesn't get enough credit in the "roles for women" dept. Even aside from the whole female captain thing, Janeway, Torres, and Seven of Nine are notable for all being strong-willed, independent women and good at math and science. Not just good, even, but brilliant. If there was an engineering problem on the ship, it was usually Torres or Seven who solved it, and Seven was even called the smartest human being alive. And unlike Kirk, Picard, or Sisko before her, Janeway didn't just let her eggheads spout off and then accept their recommendations; she was a scientist in her own right, and made meaningful contributions to the scientific discussions and even made repairs herself  when the ship was short-handed.

I can't think of any other show on television where the three women in the cast were depicted as the first, second, and fourth most clever scientists.

by Gpack3 2006-07-18 06:31PM | 0 recs
True, But

DS9 had already positioned women as just about everything short of captain--in fact, with Jadzia as "old man" one could say it had gone beyond captain.   I think to a certain extent people had just come to take strong women for granted in Star Trek. Which is, like, a good thing, right?

(And don't forget Ishka, who single-handedly transforms the entire ultra-capitalist Ferengi civilization into a social democracy!)

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-07-18 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: True, But

I didn't mean to denigrate DS9, just point out Voyager's strengths. And as far as strong women characters go, no one on any Star Trek series can beat Kira.

by Gpack3 2006-07-19 07:07AM | 0 recs
I Agree With Your Point

In fact, it's arguably Voyager's greatest strength.

I was just trying to point out that, while it's remarkable compared to most TV, it's not that remarkable compared to the immediately previous Star Trek series.

In sharp contrast, the loss of Tasha Yar in TNG really hurt the show.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-07-19 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

I've had my friends that read the economist (yeah, I have them) accuse Trek (and my fave, DS9 in particular) of being unrealisticly humanistic in what  the show believes to be possible.

I always thought that the Cardasians were more Dutch in their era of African colonialism rather than Nazi but clearly I see the comparison.

by DMIer 2006-07-18 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

Sorry to disagree, but Farscape had far and away more complex and more numerous female leads in positions of power and authority, good and bad.  Chiana, Zhaan, Aeryn, Jool, Zhalax, Grayza, Noranti, Moya, and Sikozu were recurring leads.

Honestly I'd hate to equate the kind of mushiness associated with the Star Trek model of almost endless yakking with liberalism...maybe its liberalism of the 80s and 90s, but not necessarily at its best or ideal.  Too mushy and DLC for me.  

Farscape my friend...its all about farscape :)

by phaet2112 2006-07-18 10:07AM | 0 recs
Farscape?
This is getting even nerdier than I had imagined it would.
by Chris Bowers 2006-07-18 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Farscape?

As someone who writes science fiction, I get annoyed  when conversations about science fiction in any serious context whether it be politics or cultural dynamics, etc. are coopted by comments about which series is better or which character is better, etc. There truly are interesting discussions to be had about this, especially since it is an area where 'ivory tower' intellectual ideas often meet with real life concerns. Unfortunately that is rarely allowed to happen.

by TimThe Terrible 2006-07-18 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Farscape?

Far be it from me to offer actual "comparisons" of serious topics of female leadership roles with contempary science fiction series for this proper "discussion".

Ideas bouncing around in a bubble was another of Star Trek's failings in relation to progressive politics.  Problems and solutions are judged through one lens throught the series,  in this case most often a military view of society where the solutions invariably come top down from (all too frequently) visiting foreigners/aliens.  The series would have better relation to progressive politics if ideas bubbled up from the bottom- citizens and local participants coming up with their own solutions instead of being ordered by a commander based on their interpretation of the situation in relation to the overall goal of continued federalism.

by phaet2112 2006-07-18 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Farscape?

Phaet2112: I appologize if I was offensive, it wasn't your post content specifically that set me off on my rant. I don't want 'stuffy' or 'proper' discussion.. I just get tired of fanboy arguments (Your post was not one).

You have hit directly on my problem with Star trek as a model of progressivism: We are asked to imagine a society with no money, where humans work toward a common good, but then we are only shown their military arm with rigid authoritarian command structures. Now, as military culture goes, the federation's space ships were as liberal and non warlike as they come (at least in ST:TNG).

What I really hunger for is a look at the actual mechanics of the government at home.. What was the civilian administration like in the Star trek universe? How did people live their daily lives? Who builds the schools, who decides what gets done when and by whom?

And of course, we don't know this precisely because the Star trek writers probably had no clue how that part actually worked.

by TimThe Terrible 2006-07-18 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

Chris,

Please stop embarrassing the progressive blogosphere.

Thanks.

;)

by danielj 2006-07-18 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

Shh, nerd talk now.  :-D

I've been waiting a LONG TIME for a nerd conversation like this to pop up on the political blogosphere.

I've felt the same as Chris abotu Star Trek, just never knew how to phrase it. Thank you!

Side fact: In the documentary Trekkies, one guy mentions how he got the Enterprise on a stamp. He mentions the wide amount of support he got for the project including letters from U.S. Senators. A picture is then shown of a letter written by JOHN KERRY supporting the efforts to put the Enterprise on a stamp.

Kerry is a nerd and so am I.  :-D

by Trowaman 2006-07-18 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

You know I had always wondered how the people in the world of Star Trek: The Next Generation lived. What their daily life was like. People obviously had property, well at least they seemed to live somewhere and have at least some personal possessions, which somewhat rules out communism. Yet they said they didn't use money, which rules out capitalistic or socialistic (at least in terms of wealth redistribution through taxing). So how did their government work? Until we have some concrete ideas about that it's hard for Star Trek TNG to be prescriptive. Rather it becomes more mythological. Its easy to say: "everyone lives in harmoney" Without telling us how that state was achieved.

Does Star trek point to how humans could live? Possibly. Does it give any actionable suggestions on how to attain that state? Heck no. Which I guess is the challenge for us as progressives isn't it?

It isn't enough to want something. You have to create a plan for reaching that thing and then you have to put that plan into action. Star Trek gave us a view of something that could be, it's up to us to figure out the rest.

by TimThe Terrible 2006-07-18 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

now now...

you'd be amazed how many problems a replicator solves.

by pacified 2006-07-18 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

You'd also be amazed at home many problems a replicator creates. But then, scientifically speaking, if you have enough energy lying around that you can build matter from that energy when you feel like a glass of water, well.. gosh thats whole other discussion.

by TimThe Terrible 2006-07-18 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

The replicators were the least of their problems. It was always the holodeck and the transporters that were malfunctioning.

Which reminds me: DS9, TNG, and Voyager collectively make a good argument for privatization of holodeck technology. On the publicly owned and maintained holodecks on the Enterprise and Voyager, the safeties were always failing or characters would develop sentience and try to take over the ship or some nonsense like that. However, Quark's privately run holosuites that were operated for profit always worked perfectly. On a few occasions they even exceeded their design limitations, whether it was to provide a place to store transporter patterns inside a program that was running, or to have a character counsel an injured battle veteran out of his depression. In short, when it comes to holotechnology, you get what you pay for.

by Gpack3 2006-07-18 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

Picard's brother, who had stayed on Earth, had a vineyard in which he toiled in a rather 20th Century French sort of way.  Cisco's father, IIRC, had a restaurant in New Orleans.  Briother Picard sold the wine and father Cisco sold the meals.  Who said they didn't have money?  Didn;t they have "credits"?  A lot of the time they were oin shipboard and didn't need money.

by Mimikatz 2006-07-18 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

There was also a strong implication that money was not necessary for the average Federation citizen.

by bhirsh26 2006-07-18 02:19PM | 0 recs
Details, Details!

Yeah, of course I noticed that right away.  But where would fandom be without continuity problems?

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-07-18 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

Geek correction: While Starfleet is headquartered in San Francisco, the capital city of the Federation is actually Paris.  Something else to make right wing fans' heads explode.

by michaelrbn 2006-07-18 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

It's nice to know there's someone else as geeky as me... I was just about to say that, but you beat me to it.

by Fitzy 2006-07-18 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

What's interesting about this isn't necessarily the details of Star Trek. Like any artistic product, they are up to interpretation, and I have no doubt there are plenty of conservatives who have there own opinions about what Star Trek means.

What's interesting to me is that we see and recognize the need for agreeing on how to approach the idea of the future. That progressives see the possibility of improvement is the future is, I think, less debatable than whether Star Trek is the best expression of this.

Our awareness of the need to take the future seriously, and to act in the present to insure a better future, is a very important part of our makeup. We don't believe blindly in a better future. We instead hope to bring about improvement in our present condition. And it's impossible to express that hope without taking the possibility for change in the future seriously.

Progressives take global warming seriously because we take future change seriously, and hope to bring a better future about by acting in the present. We want to work for a better future and for  better conditions for everyone. In a world of cynical political calculus, this desire is difficult to sustain and understandably rare.

by thief 2006-07-18 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

Actually, Roddenberry was always pretty explicit about the fact that Star Trek was a political - and progressively so - enterprise. Er, no pun intended.

by jkdism 2006-07-20 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

Back in my grad school days, a Chicago free weekly had an amusing diatribe against the ST universe, especially the original series, as an idealized totalitarian state.

It is interesting to note that, for all the talk in this post and thread about ST illustrating progressive values, very little has been said about the extent to which it demonstrated progressive politics.  While I am not thoroughly versed in the universe (saw all of ST and ST:NG, but only some DS9 and almost none of ST:V), it is striking that so much attention is paid to military authority in ST and comparatively little to civilian government (at least within the Federation).  Let alone things like parties, elections, candidates, ideologies.  Political contention is almost always portrayed as something that leads to war and genocide on an alien planet, calling for the benevolent power of the Federation to quell.

If we want to totally geek this out, let's bring in Babylon 5, Firefly/Serenity and Battlestar Galactica (the new series), all of which have quite detailed visions of progressive political struggle in a sci fi universe.

by boffo 2006-07-18 11:04AM | 0 recs
Atheism

In the Star Trek world, the general belief (or lack thereof) among the majority of the population is atheism.

And I think this all a reflection of the time in which Star Trek originated: the 1960's, when America thought it could do better than it was doing.

Ah, to go back to the days when progress was a virtue.

by LiberalFromPA 2006-07-18 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Atheism

Agreed absolutely. In fact Star trek was the first place where I can remember Atheism portrayed in the media in a positive light.

by TimThe Terrible 2006-07-18 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

Great post, Chris.  I have a Star Trek friend and we have talked about ourselves as Star Trek progressives or Star Trek liberals/ socialists.

I think it is important to point out that Star Trek is not explicitly prescriptive.  You can't say "How did the Federation solve health care and social security?"  But I don't think the true power of Star Trek lies in what we should do with society.  It's strength lies in the general vision of future.  It's a society that still has conflicts, prejudices, wars, and problems, but it says we can evolve.  We won't always be this way.  Picard's quote demonstrates what counts as an incentive has changed in the Star Trek universe.  Profit and greed still exist in humanity, but they do not work as a motiviating factor.  Bettering yourself or society is the most important incentive.  

That could be perceived as mushy, soft glow early 90's liberalism.  "Can't we all just get along."  But I believe it represents something much more momentous and revolutionary.  Envisioning a world where the incentive is bettering yourself or humanity lays the groundwork for many of the things that progressives want to change in society.  I believe many of the underlying problems in our society result from a combination of a faux-meritocracy and a social-Darwinist strain running through modern American beliefs and politics.  Star Trek has said that humanity evolves beyond that.

Yes, there is a weird vague socialist/ capitalist hybrid, but the cut throat nature of capitalism has been minimized in humanity and is looked down upon with other societies.  In addition, there is an active anti-war/ anti-poverty message that emphasizes that we should take care of others.

Also, I can't imagine why anyone would think themselves cured of Trek in the late 90's (voya...)

by bhirsh26 2006-07-18 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

We should be cautious of conflating the ideas of progressiveness and modernity too much. Modernism in its mid/late-19th century form was definitely perceived as a break from authoritarian and oppressive structures (church, monarchy/dictator, academy) in search for other ideas and solutions for society's problems. But by the mid-20th century people (progressives) started questioning the power that modernity had claimed for itself. The idea that progress, change and the "new" were always seen as the "good" begins to create some problems. The ideology that the new and the future are where we will always find better solutions and that new ideas are always better than old ones cannot and should not be seen as an absolute. Modernity allowed many to forget what history can offer us (Henry Ford called history "bunk") and this "progressive" view of the world became a constrictive status quo in post-WWII America. For example, in 1961 the incredible Beaux Art style Penn Station built in New York in 1910 was torn down for a glass and steel structure in the name of "progress." After this progressive activists formed the first Historical Preservation group. Modernity had also become narrow in its scope with its heavy Eurocentric history. The roots of modernism did not include women, people of color, or homosexuals. It's ideal was defined by the Caucasian male. So, in the mid-20th century we also see these excluded groups standing up: civil rights, women's movement, farm workers union, etc. Progressives of today look for new and innovative solutions and are positive about future possibilities, but also need to be able to cull the best experiences from human history. We want to improve upon the wheel, not completely reinvent it each generation. We are now more inclusive than modernism ever allowed or promoted.

Oh, by the way. I'm also a Star Trek fan ;)

by John Ariel 2006-07-18 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

I agree with John in that my one quibble with Chris' post, which I loved and think is important, is the use of the word "modernism."  It's sometimes been used to describe tendencies in modern society that are overly focused on "material progress" and largely ignore ethical and spiritual values and developments.  

But, aside from that "labeling" issue, I think TNG is a great mythology for us to use.  The wisdom, open-mindedness and compassion, combined with the universally beneficial and empowering technological development expressed in that show were, to me, a wonderful and inspiring example (albeit fictional) of where we might (and should) head as a species.  

And, as far as I'm concerned, Captain Picard was the kind of leader we could use today...clever and quick-thinking, but also wise and deep, courageous yet diplomatic, strong yet compassionate, and with impeccable integrity. He'd certainly get my vote and I have no doubt he'd be a progressive Democrat in today's political environment (now that I think about it, Wes Clark embodies some of those warrior/philosopher/leader qualities I saw in Picard).  

And then there was Data, who was a product of the technological development, yet always seemed to remind everyone else about the "human" qualities of being truly human.

Great observation Chris.  I haven't watched any Star Trek episodes since TNG stopped being produced, but maybe its time to start revisiting some of those old shows.  

by mitchipd 2006-07-18 03:53PM | 0 recs
Whose Modernity???

Henry Ford is not what I'd call a paragon of modernity in any depth.  The heart of modernism is the dynamic of questioning, and Ford was very much against that.  A simple answers man.

And I'd argue that this is characteristic of where your complaint really lies--it's with derivative, imitative or superficial forms of modernism.

The idea that progress, change and the "new" were always seen as the "good" begins to create some problems.
This is typical of the superficiality I mentioned.  From Freud to Picasso to Stravinski the primative played a vital role in modernist consciousness from at least the beginning of the 20th Century.  The Boas school of anthropology was another manifestation of this--one in which women (Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead) played very important roles.

<blockqoute>The roots of modernism did not include women, people of color, or homosexuals.</blockqoute>You need to read Wittgenstein's Vienna.  And anything by Gertrude Stein.  As for people of color--just look at their influence in music.

I would agree that the label of "modernism" got shrunk during the 1950s, and people were right to rebel against this.  But to accept that shrunk label as historically accurate is historically mistaken.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-07-18 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology - a caveat

While I too am a huge fan of Star Trek in its many forms, and agree that it espouses a basically socialist economic system and libertarian philosophy,  I am surprised no one has mentioned the  prevelance of episodes with a strong sanctity-of-all-life position, and the 19th century Cultural Anthropology assumption that cultures basically adhere to a universal scale of development.

It's been quite a while since I gave up my cable TV, and I don't have the series on DVD, but there are several STTNG shows that deal with rights of the unborn, of clones, of the old, of artificial life, of things of indeterminate sentience.  ALL of the shows wind up resolving the moral conflict in favor of an inviolable right to life whereever there is the possibility that the object in question might be alive.  What I see is more of a progressive Catholic (liberation theology?) morality at work.

Then, there's the matter of the series' anthropological viewpoints.  I don't see very much of the Boasian, cultural relativism viewpoint that treats foreign cultures as distinct and incommensurate from our own culture.  Instead, I see Kirk, Picard, Janeway (and to a far lesser extent, Cisco) treating the Ferengi, Klingons, and pre-warp peoples as being on lower rungs of a roughly linear cultural development that ultimately leads towards Earth culture.  (The Vulcans also share this attitude, with Human culture as just a way-station on the rise towards Vulcan culture.)  Some of my favorite bits of dialogue occur in DS9, where Garrek, especially (and also Quark)rightly call into question the Federation's presumption of cultural supremacy and paternalistic approach to other civilizations.

So anyway, hooray for star trek's libertarian and socialist orientation, but I also see a lot more going on in there, that doesn't fit quite so easily.

by Transmission 2006-07-18 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology - a caveat

I disagree on the anthropological point. The whole purpose of the Prime Directive is to stop people who might be tempted to step in and meddle or impose their values on an alien society.

As for the abortion point, abortion per se was not much discussed on Star Trek. Besides, there's nothing wrong with a sanctity of life ethic. It's only when people apply it hypocritically as a way to deprive women of their autonomy that it becomes a problem. In the 24th Century, babies can be beamed in and out of uteruses just as easily as people get beamed out of starships, so there's no conflict between the life of the child and the physical autonomy of the mother.

by Gpack3 2006-07-18 06:58PM | 0 recs
Not entirely progressive

For example, in 28 years of television, there was not a single gay character.  (And no, I don't count Jadzia in "Reassociation," Trekkers.)  Kate Mulgrew blamed Berman, one of the producers, for that, and others have pointed to "someone" (cough Berman cough) who didn't want a gay character in any of the series.  

Also, with the exception of Janeway and Kira, women in command positions have been rare; almost all the women on the show have been support personnel.  And in the case of Janeway and Kira, they happened upon command almost by accident.  Kira had to resist or die.  Janeway was a scientist who was given command of a science vessel - she ended up in a far more hostile environment than she'd expected to deal with as captain.

And Enterprise was, if anything, a big step backward on every front, with fewer women and nonwhite characters than Voyager, with ones that were present marginalized, and a pretty culturally chauvinistic captain and crew.  I suppose you can excuse the latter because of its place in the narrative - can't expect the humans to be more friendly to aliens before Kirk than after - but, at least from what I read, 'cause I sure didn't watch that crapfest for long, there wasn't much growth in the characters over the course of the series.

Of course, that's a problem with most Treks - a preference for cheap thrills over character development.  And it really doesn't have much to do with a progressive mythology.

by Drew 2006-07-18 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Not entirely progressive

You know why there are no gay characters on Star Trek?  They cured it.  

Sorry, I just had a major flash of nostagia.  When I was a senior in college, one of my roommates was gay.  He hated Star Trek, but all of his gay friends loved it, and they made him sit through episodes every week.  As a Trek fan myself, I would listen to him complain about this with amusement every week.  One evening I came home, and there were like ten gay and lesbian students watching DS9 in the living room, and it occured to me as odd because there were no gay characters.  At the next ad break, I made this observation to the shock of everyone in the room.

To put this in more perspective, I was good friends with most of the people there, made the comment affectionately, and everyone had a good laugh.  

by Winston Smith 2006-07-18 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

My wife and I are huge Trek fans and love their progressive view of the future. I have some Neocon type friends who are huge Trek fans and forwarded your Post to them so they can understand that the show they enjoy so much is a liberal position on many levels. aI enjoyed and agreed with all your points! Course set? ENGAGE!
by politics64 2006-07-18 01:39PM | 0 recs
Star Trek iliberal

I've seen many episodes of Star Trek w/ the "white man" coming and helping "native man" develop his world. Thats not my brand of liberalism.

Furthermore, I would argue that DS9 is not very utopian/humanist.
Religion is very powerful. The mood on DS9 is much darker.  Even the lighting is darker. They fight wars. Section 31 is a dark and sinister organization that attempts genocide. Sisko blows up the Romulan ship in order to get them to help in the war against the Dominion. I'd say thats very much an ends justify the means mentality. Not utopian or liberal.

by sam89 2006-07-18 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek iliberal

The main theme of DS9 was to put all the liberal ideas laid out in TNG to the test, not just to take them as given. On TNG, more often than not, the Enterprise crew were fighting for liberal ideals against external foes. On DS9 the fights were internal, where the characters fight to uphold their ideals against internal temptation.

In the Pale Moonlight is a classic example. Sisko didn't just decide that he was going to do whatever it took to get the Romulans into the war. He rationalized himself into making one little decision, which gradually slipped more and more out of his control, to his increasing horror. In the end, he adopts an ends-justifying-means philosophy so he can live with himself, but he's not happy about it. So the show itself upholds the ideals, even though the character didn't. Contrast that with 24, where the Amnesty International lawyer is depicted as a paid stooge of the terrorist group and the main obstacle of the episode is how to circumvent the Constitution to torture someone. In end of that episode, Jack Bauer is lionized as a hero for cutting through the bureaucratic red tape and getting things done.

by Gpack3 2006-07-18 07:16PM | 0 recs
Quite True!

DS9 is far and away the best Star Trek series, IMHO, and this is a big part of the reason why.  It's a very morally complex series compared to all the rest.  And that moral struggle is the heart of the show's liberalism.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-07-18 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek iliberal

First on the "White Man" comment, a little pathetic treatment as two ofthe main characters, Jordy and Worf are African American.  Next Generation was very progressive. The other Treks with Deep Space and the rest sucked.  The original and Next Generation are the spirit of Chris Bowers Post!

by politics64 2006-07-19 02:49AM | 0 recs
Wrong!

DS9 is far and away the most rich, complex and progressive.  The way it dealt with the Eddington's Les Miserables fantasy, for example. If the Dems were as skilled as Sisko was, they wouldn't keep losing elections like they do.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-07-19 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

Got to admit that I do like Star Trek --- well, some of Star Trek --- I could never really like the Picard group, though I did like some of their stories.

But it's always bothered me how little conservative they are culturally.  From the women's makeup and hairstyles to the obedient family units replicated throughout the universe apparently, when they deign to show children at all(Wesley's just a child!  He can't know anything!) to the way the Deep Space Nine commander apparently wasn't willing to date outside of his race.

by catherineD 2006-07-18 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

Should have previewed.

by catherineD 2006-07-18 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

Sisko fell in love with an alien. Yes, she had dark skin, but she was well outside of his race.

by Gpack3 2006-07-18 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

Who was this?  Not Cassidy Yates, freighter captain.  She was as human as they come.  

by Winston Smith 2006-07-19 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

The alien chick in Second Sight. Season Two. Also, he did have sex with Mirror Jadzia in Through the Looking Glass, but I'm not inclined to count that

by Gpack3 2006-07-19 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

thanks.. i will play that one now.  I hate to admit it, but I usually only watch seasons 4-7.

by Winston Smith 2006-07-21 11:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

The first couple of seasons of TNG dealt pretty extensively with issues of Wesley's being a child, and gradually maturing - several episodes revolved entirely around him, his decisions, mistakes, lessons learned, etc.

Also - Re:Sisko, keep in mind that while black male characters are often allowed to date non-blacks (see Worf and Troi, Worf and Dax), when was the last time you saw a white male character involved with a woman of color? Which then leaves women of color out in the cold entirely - though they broke this taboo finally in "Voyager" by having Torres and Paris become involved and married.

Jesus, I'm really not this big a nerd.

Okay, sure, I am.

by jkdism 2006-07-20 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

What about Miles and Keiko O' Brien? Do Asians not count as people of color? Hell, what about Plato's Frickin' Stepchildren, and the first interracial kiss on TV?

by Gpack3 2006-07-20 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

" As a result of our march of progress, things will be better in the times to come. Even for the characters in Star Trek, rather than trying to live up to some past ideal, rather than trying to imitate the unmatchable actions of super-human archetypes from the past, the best is always yet to come in new worlds and new cultures that are not yet known."

This is exactly why I can't stand that they are doing all these prequels such as Enterprise or this new movie with Matt Damon as Kirk. It seems against the whole philosophy of the franchise.

Excellent post Chris, live long and prosper.

by who threw da cat 2006-07-18 03:09PM | 0 recs
My Problem With Enterprise Is Execution

I don't see the problem with Enterprise that you do.  It deals with how we got to that seemingly utopian state, so of course it's going to be messier.  But it doesn't deny or negate the progress.  It explores the difficulty of the struggle.  I thought that it was a very good choice of direction.  It just wasn't pulled off very well.

I mean, think of the "Bell Riots" episodes from DS9.  Same concept.  Much better execution.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-07-18 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: My Problem With Enterprise Is Execution

I agree with you, Paul. I also think that there's a pretty direct link b/t when each series was produced - and the geopolitics of the time - and the general atmosphere of each show.

original series (late '60s/early '70s): deals extensively with issues of MAD, racism, social upheavel

TNG (late '80s/early '90s): an internationalist moment - peace and prosperity are possible, and the question becomes, what is the responsibility of those who are peaceful and prosperous to those in chaos (Prime Directive), or when that peace and prosperity is threatened (Borg, Romulan neutral zone).

DS9 (mid-late '90s): very much dealing with the issue of occupation/colonial transition issues, parallels to South Africa, Israel/Palestine

Voyager (late '90s-early '00): eh, dunno about this one

Enterprise (early-mid '00): VERY post-9/11; always unsure/unclear whether humanity/the Federation will survive. Highest degree of existential threat and terror of any of the series.

by jkdism 2006-07-20 07:58PM | 0 recs
wait...

i'm not sure if I can participate in this thread or not...

see I like getting laid.

:)

-C.

by neutron 2006-07-18 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: wait...

You are so Riker, Neutron.

by Winston Smith 2006-07-18 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: wait...

Once you have a MyDD user name and password you've already crossed over to the nerd darkside. We've already established what you are, now we're just haggling about degree.

by Gpack3 2006-07-18 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Star Trek As Progressive Mythology

You raise an interesting point, and I think a fairly correct one.  David Brin (author of the Uplift series among other things) made essentially the same point - although directing it specifically as a contrast to the Star Wars films.  I thought he had a copy of the article on his own web site, but all I can find is the Salon version ""Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists"  http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/ 1999/06/15/brin_main/index.html

by nkedel 2006-07-19 11:29PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------