As the May 8th opener of the new Star Trek movie rapidly approaches, I have many things to think about. Not just the mundane (gosh, my Starfleet engineering uniform needs to be ironed probably, and did I ever replace that broken communicator?), but also thoughts more profound. Now, I know what you’re thinking, this uberg33k is about to write a giant post on how much he loves Star Trek, and…. well, fine, you’re right. But bear with me a few paragraphs, as the topic I wish to discuss is not the show itself, but the philosophy found therein. I am a Trekkie today for the values that the show espouses, which I will explore and explain here.
For the majority of my life I have been a Star Wars fan, and don’t get me wrong, I still am. As a child, during the 7 year run of Star Trek: The Next Generation from 1987 to 1994, that show was always more of a background presence to my more direct love of George Lucas’ world. I vaguely remember my parents turning on TNG every now and then in the evenings during dinner. My brother and I had an obsession with having dinner on a picnic mat placed in the middle of the family room; TNG just happened to be a series on at dinner time that my mother somehow determined to be devoid of objectionable material. (Later of course I realized that nearly every episode contains a ludicrous amount of sexual tension, though I was far too young to pick up on that at the time).
Star Wars was always more immediate; it was about action and adventure – two-dimensional and easily lovable/hate-able characters gallivanting about on epic crusades to save the galaxy and reestablish the noble and mysterious Jedi order. This is a science-fiction universe that appeals to all ages, is simple to follow yet as complex as you want it to be (I happen to own the Imperial Sourcebook, a giant technical guide to the Empire’s starships and equipment), and a story that touches on from whence our civilization came – our past Christian and pre-Christian archetypal characters that have pervaded Western epics since the Greeks, possibly earlier.
Star Trek on the other hand, is harder to latch onto because it looks ahead, to where we might be. Whereas Luke, Han, and Leia are detached from us in that their adventures happen “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away”, the USS Enterprise in Gene Roddenberry’s story is built on our Earth, in our future. After a second 21st century Dark Age of world war, the fragmentation of humanity, and near nuclear apocalypse, humanity eventually unites following the discovery of intelligent life beyond Earth (see the amazing movie First Contact).
How profound it indeed would be, to find that we are not alone in this vast sea of blackness, and that the differences that divide us here on Earth are in fact laughably minuscule compared to the infinte wonder of what is out there. In the words of President Whitmore (played by Bill Pullman) in the popular sci-fi thriller Independence Day: “Mankind… those words should have new meaning for all of us today. We can’t be consumed by our petty differences any longer.”
By the end of the 22nd century, so the story goes, Starfleet has been established, world government formed, and humanity realigned with the goals of peaceful exploration and scientific knowledge of the universe. Yes, we still have weapons, and yes, on occasion we have to use them; but our progress as a society, as a people, is no longer tied to military dominance or nationalistic goals. In Star Trek, we mature into the core of what humanity is – intrepid explorers, not devoid of prejudice but rising above it, and always creating, learning, protecting, and pushing the boundaries of what is possible.
The following quote is from an essay posted to Living Trekism:
The whole show was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but to take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. We tried to say that the worst possible thing that can happen to all of us is for the future to somehow press us into a common mould, where we begin to act and talk and look and think alike. If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there. And I think that this is what people responded to.
More broadly, I think its a fair argument to make that Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, is a secular humanist. As described by the Council for Secular Humanism, theirs is a philosophy that espouses the following tenets:
- A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
- Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
- A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
- A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
- A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
- A search for viable individual, social, and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
- A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.
Reflect on every (if any) episode of Star Trek (especially The Next Generation) that you have seen, and I think you will find that one or more of these tenets are central themes of each. I myself would not go so far as to call myself a secular humanist, but in general, the philosophy described here is one in which I find many principles that would take us far if we let them.
This vision is not just far off in the future. There are men and women working today to make it real, perhaps not in terms of secular humanism, but certainly for the core spirit of peaceful and bold exploration and discovery. Consider the memorable opening lines of the series, set to appropriately inspirational music (and spoken as dramatically as only Patrick Stewart can):
Space… the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise – its continuing mission: To explore the universe; To search for new life and new civilizations; and to boldly go where no one has gone before.
And compare to the mission statement of a particular agency of our government:
To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers… as only NASA can.
Further, reflect on the words of a great man, President John F. Kennedy, as he launched this great agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, on it’s most historic mission. The whole thing is relevant here, but I have underlined a few choice phrases that drive the point home:
“For the eyes of the world now look into space — to the moon and to the planets beyond — and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding. Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and therefore we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others all require us to make this effort to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men and to become the world’s leading spacefaring nation.”
Profoundly moving, and to me clearly in keeping with the spirit of the creative explorer that Roddenberry so revered. The respect that the world of Star Trek showed to the mission of NASA was acknowledged and even returned. On September 17, 1976, America’s first constructed space shuttle orbiter, designated OV-101, rolled off Rockwell’s line near Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California. Roddenberry and many of the original cast were present; and before OV-101 was transferred to NASA’s nearby Dryden Flight Research Center for its first flight tests, it was christened… Space Shuttle Enterprise.
So lets reflect. I have written here an essay on why I love Star Trek, yet not once have I gone into detail about the characters, the worlds, the starships, the geek conventions, the special effects… these are fun and interesting to me certainly, but in my mind they are secondary. The real reason I have come to enjoy Star Trek is what it represents – it is a bold and positive view of what we could become if we tried. It is the idea that we can set aside our differences, that we can someday be free of militarism, that we can learn to use our strengths as a species and learn to grow from our weaknesses… and that all else will someday be secondary to the great quest of exploring the strange and overwhelming beauty that awaits us on that infinite final frontier.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a Starfleet uniform to iron.
4 Comments
Beautifully written man. I have to say though, I’ve found ST a bit boring myself. I remember thinking that it was pretty lame that Picard would pretty much hold a meeting to decide whether or not to fire the phaser if enemies showed up! I never really thought about it in this way though. So what would be some good episodes to watch then that really show what you are saying here? I guess I can be open to being convinced it is good!
Thanks Kyle. Yeah, TNG especially when they start espousing philosophy can get a bit dry compared to the days of Kirk, or certainly with Star Wars as a comparison. But again, bigger issues at play here than just action. If you can get past the cheesy 1980’s-style acting, it’s great! An episode right off the top of my head is the very first one… “Encounter at Farpoint”. An omnipotent being called Q puts humanity on trial via the crew of the Enterprise, and we get a brief “history” of what has happened between the here and now and the show; Picard must defend humanity by demonstrating our finer qualities.
Any of the other episodes that also involve the character Q are good for showing humanity’s resolve (“Hide and Q” for example). A few of the episodes that center around Data (I can’t think of names off the top of my head, sorry) deal with the question of what it means to be human.
Ok, so I’m going to try this again, seeing as MSN ate my e-mail (ARG!). I hope I remember what I wrote…
This was very well written. Some valid points and interesting to read.
However, I disagree with one of your major points:
” Yes, we still have weapons, and yes, on occasion we have to use them; but our progress as a society, as a people, is no longer tied to military dominance or nationalistic goals. In Star Trek, we mature into the core of what humanity is – intrepid explorers, not devoid of prejudice but rising above it, and always creating, learning, protecting, and pushing the boundaries of what is possible.”
Although I can agree that Roddenberry’s Earth is no longer after military dominance, that has been replaced with a drive for intellectual dominance. Which may actually be a more dangerous thing in the long run. However, I would argue that the nationalistic goals of today have merely evolved into planetary goals in Star Trek.
Sometime along in the mid ’90s someone said (I don’t remember who, and I’m paraphrasing) that the US had seen fit to become the world’s policeman. Take for example the invasion of Iraq and the deposing of Saddam Hussein. Will it ultimately be for the good of the state of the earth? Probably. Was it what the Iraqi people wanted? Maybe, but who knows? They weren’t given a choice. Like a parent telling a child to eat their brussels sprouts. It’s yucky in the moment, but ultimately healthy. But who is the US to be the parent (or the policeman) to the entire world? We have no right. But I digress.
My point is that in the world of Gene Roddenberry, Starfleet has taken on the role in the universe that America has in the current world. It has become the policeman of the universe. Yes, there is the Prime Directive, and while that is wonderful in theory, it is violated almost episodically. On the surface, the vision of the future appears quite optimistic, but dig a little deeper, and the situation is much more a corollary for our current societal situation.
I also find it interesting that you see Star Trek as merely the future and not our past. The exploration, creativity and drive to learn are the basis for the creation of our nation. The stories of Star Trek could be told (without the cool gadgets) about Lewis and Clark, or Columbus, or the Vikings. The only difference is the area being explored.
Honestly, I came at the world of Sci-Fi backwards from you — I grew up on Star Trek. I remember sitting in the movie theater for one of the later original movies (I don’t remember which one), reading the Klingon subtitles to my brother because he couldn’t read yet. I was a trekkie quite early on. Star Wars took some growing into for me. I think because I was a total techno-geek — the science and technology of Star Trek was cool and fascinating — and Star Wars was much more about the romance and interpersonal relationships, something that took me longer to really comprehend.
Ok, I’ll stop rambling now. Hope I made sense… ;o)
Cam
Thanks Sheepeys. I love a good debate! I see three points here, lets go one by one, and then conclude with them all together.
1. US Policy in Iraq – I disagree with your assessment, but given my position I shouldn’t touch that in a public forum. Ask me in person sometime. [/sidestep]
2. UFP is the “America of the Future” playing galaxy cop.
Disagree. True, the Federation is much like the early United States, with several separate sovereign entities aligned almost solely for trade and common defense. However parallels to modern U.S. foreign policy are present but weak in my opinion. Consider:
a) The Enterprise spends the majority of its time in Federation space, and it does act to police Federation worlds. Just because the Federation worlds are aligned, doesn’t mean that they know a lot about each other or themselves. The Federation includes not only humans, but 150 other races. By definition, these worlds have accepted Starfleet as a mediator and protector of the common Federation interest, even though they are bound to disagree with particular actions. Travel to worlds external to Federation space is almost always done in response to a direct threat (see sub-point b), because somebody like Q took them there, or with great trepidation (“but that’s in the neutral zone!”). You don’t even see the Enterprise doing much that could be construed as policing with the Klingons, who are formally allies (in TNG anyway). When they travel outside of Federation space to nonaligned worlds (e.g. not Federation, the Prime Directive applies (see subpoint c).
b) There is no jurisdiction for self-defense. It is always within an individual or entity’s purview to respond to a direct and credible threat. (However, whether that response is executed responsibly is a different matter altogether.) Does the other side have the same view? Probably. Do they have a “right” to that? Maybe. What does that even mean? What governing body gave them that right? Even if you think the right is divinely granted or inherent, at some point you still had to make a choice to believe that, which means that you also have a choice as to which particular way of life you believe should be preserved in the event of a clash between two different ones. I will wholeheartedly agree that I do not like weapons, interference, or violence personally, but an entire nation of non-aggressors would in my opinion be dead very quickly along with their worldview, and what good does that do?
c) There is a great summary of the Prime Directive, including the times it is violated, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive. In general, the theme of my post was that I like Star Trek because of the philosophy it espouses. In my opinion, acceptable counters would be i) Star Trek does not in fact espouse the philosophy I claim it does, ii) Star Trek does espouse that philosophy, but it’s a bad philosophy, or iii) Star Trek as a whole does espouse that philosophy, but chooses to portray the struggle of Starfleet (humanity) in figuring out how it should be best applied. I think you are trying to argue (i) which I think have rebutted, but are using arguments more in line with (ii), which is not relevant. Arguments for (iii) I find much more acceptable counters to my original essay, because I think that is really what I meant to say, but probably failed to do so. It is a good compromise position and I think it also shows the humanity of it, which would be just as true in the future as it would be today. Here we have a standard to which we hold ourselves, but to do so in the face of real dangers and real human problems is a struggle, indeed the central struggle of both the show and what I’m trying to say (see point 3). The overarching theme of the entire series is just that: is it possible for us to hold ourselves to something like the Prime Directive, what does it even mean to do so, and is even trying to do so relevant or meaningful?
3. Star Trek is more a reflection of who we are today and where we were in the past than it is a vision of what we might become.
Qualified agree. In the sense that we have the same human issues in the future that we do today and have always had is clear from the show, that point I will concede. Certainly Starfleet does not always live up to the Prime Directive just as we do not always live up to our stated values in this country. But the major difference between our society today and the Federation of the hypothetical tomorrow is that at least they hold a standard that aims for those lofty goals, and actively try to adhere to them. Today I see no policies to declare that nationalistic goals are over; that the military, while necessary, will no longer dominate our national agenda; that humanity’s mission is first and foremost to be explorers and protectors; that humanitarian concerns must be solved first before we can define our civilization as great. The fact that the Federation can’t live up to these all of the time doesn’t matter so much to me, because we probably never will as a species, but at least they try to, whereas today those goals are not even acknowledged. So when I say “what we could become if we tried”, perhaps I should have said, “the values we could hold if we tried”.
Thanks for forcing me to clarify. Glad you liked the essay!
Post a Comment