Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Politics

The Politics of Star Trek 485

Posted by Soulskill from the to-boldly-gerrymander-where-no-man-has-gerrymandered-before dept.
smitty_one_each writes: Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer at the Pacific Legal Foundation has written a breezy overview of the politics of the little-known show Star Trek. His thesis: "...the key to Star Trek's longevity and cultural penetration was its seriousness of purpose, originally inspired by creator Gene Roddenberry's science fiction vision. Modeled on Gulliver's Travels, the series was meant as an opportunity for social commentary, and it succeeded ingeniously, with episodes scripted by some of the era's finest science fiction writers. Yet the development of Star Trek's moral and political tone over 50 years also traces the strange decline of American liberalism since the Kennedy era." The article traces through episodes at each phase of the franchise, exploring literary allusions and lamenting that "Star Trek's latest iterations — the 'reboot' films directed by J.J. Abrams — shrug at the franchise's former philosophical depth."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Politics of Star Trek More

The Politics of Star Trek

Comments Filter:

  • Not many morals in the federation really (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sectokia ( 3999401 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @07:16PM (#50464663)
    I have always thought that the federation was a communist society. We are told that they don't need money. But the two fundamental rules of economics are:
    1. We are in a universe of scarcity
    2. People have ever increasing unlimited desires and wants

    In the federation, we are told that everyone gets what they need, yet we constantly see scarcity everywhere. There is scarcity of engergy, transporter credits and limitations. There is an almost endless list of things people can gain credits and perks for. Then there is the huge amount of laws and regulations. Even trading and using something as money is illegal.

    The federation has never been liberal, it has always been communist. It has just been hidden behind a higher level of technology.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It was pretty liberal, except when it wasn't. You never get uniformity with a random collection of episode writers. But that wasn't the issue. People just got sick of the "Prime Directive," I think.

      I prefer the Doctor Who/Tom Baker take on it from a few years later.
      "Don't interfere? Why not interfere? Always do what you're best at, that's what I say!"

    • Re:Not many morals in the federation really (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @07:54PM (#50464807) Homepage

      A correction, the majority of people do not have "ever increasing unlimited desires and wants", only a tiny minority. It only seems like more because the unlimited greed types are extremely noisy and attention seeking about it and of course main stream media applaudes it because that is who they are and what they sell. The majority are happy with enough, if not, the system would collapse very quickly and extremely brutally.

      So the only logical premise for 'Star Trek' culture is the prior elimination of the genetically damaged, narcissists and psychopaths (narcissists and psychopaths being portrayed as humans coming from primitive non-federation planets).

      Star Trek was redone by a second stage director as a cheetos Saturday morning crowd special, all disjointed action with little story and the PR slugs just come up with 'reboot' as a nerd/geek term to brand their really dumb scifi spectacular. How well did the bullshit marketing and branding work, hmm, just one movie latter and pretty much all other content outlets just dead with disinterest killed by a reboot to the arse by second set story tellers (no story just empty action, even the PR douche marketing term 'reboot' has been killed by Jerk Jerk A's Star Trek).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kohath ( 38547 )

        A correction, the majority of people do not have "ever increasing unlimited desires and wants", only a tiny minority. ... The majority are happy with enough...

        We have machines to wash dishes in our houses, even though it's really not difficult to wash them by hand. Is "the majority" happy to do it by hand, or would "the majority" rather have a mechanical dishwasher?

        Does "the majority" want a smart phone, or a feature phone?

        When auto-driving cars become widely available, will "the majority" be happy with an old-style manually driven car or a bus ride, or will "the majority" wish for one of the new auto driving cars?

        • An automatic dishwasher is more for sanitizing than removing the mechanical aspects of hand washing.

          • Re:Not many morals in the federation really (Score:5, Insightful)

            by shani ( 1674 ) <shane@time-travellers.org> on Saturday September 05, 2015 @10:09PM (#50465323) Homepage

            An automatic dishwasher is more for sanitizing than removing the mechanical aspects of hand washing.

            There are two schools of thought about dishwashers. This is one.

            The other schools is that a dishwasher is to replace hand washing.

            I had a friend who was of the 2nd school, and his girlfriend was of the 1st school. He basically tied her down to a chair, loaded the dishwasher his way - without pre-washing, just shoving everything in. He started it.

            They waited.

            In the end, they opened it... AND THE DISHES WERE CLEAN.

            I recommend you try the experiment. It might not work with your dishwasher (especially if you are an American and have a rental property, as landlords in the US put in the cheapest shit they can). But it might!!! Think of the hours of your life you'll get back....

            • I recommend you try the experiment. It might not work with your dishwasher (especially if you are an American and have a rental property, as landlords in the US put in the cheapest shit they can). But it might!!! Think of the hours of your life you'll get back....

              ^ This is the truth...

              I've used the $250 dishwashers, and yes, they generally are... cheap...

              Get a $1,000 dishwasher and it'll clean almost anything. Much quieter to boot, and it comes with more wash settings.

              But of course, most people buy on price, rather than quality these days.

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by Twinbee ( 767046 )
                I just use one plate/bowl/spoon/fork/knife for myself, rinse them each time after use and only bother with multiple dishes/cutlery when visitors/family/friends are round. Saves space, looks tidier, and when you include the fixed time costs, is probably around equal or better to using a dishwasher.

                • That may well be a reasonable solution for a single person, assuming you make sure to get the water hot enough.

                  Generally the water coming out of the hot tap is often not hot enough to kill everything on the plate, a dishwasher is because it heats the water further.

                  Get a wife/husband, 2 to 4 kids, and the dishwasher becomes a "must have" thing. :)

              • There's a wide range of mid-priced dishwashers that all have exactly the same wash system, the only differences being sound insulation, tub and face material, and rack configuration. They work fine at cleaning the dishes.

            • It does not work well with the plates covered with dried food, and it requires regular clearing of the debris traps on the dishwasher. It also tends to clog the holes in the spray mechanisms, which will need regular clearing and are awkward to access.

              Yes, I've worked in as dormitory staff, in shared apartments, and workplaces where the students and my work colleagues followed your approach. Their mother didn't work there, but I did, which is why the dishwashers still worked.

          • If interviewing you to join my my workforce, or evaluating you as a potential friend or spouse for anyone I know, I would award you many, many points for such a sensible belief. It's too rare!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by amiga3D ( 567632 )

          It's normal to want more. I think the difference is in what you're willing to do to get it. I'd like to have a million dollars in the bank and I could have had it but I was unwilling to work and sacrifice to get it. I live comfortably and have plenty of spare time to enjoy life.

        • You're talking about technological devices. In a post-scarcity society, these things would be basically free, because there'd be no almost cost to make them. With enough automation, the amount of labor in each device would be almost nil (it's getting that way already in our factories), and with the capabilities of a starfaring civilization, the raw materials would be basically free. You're just not understanding the ramifications of a post-scarcity society.

          The main things which would be scarce in such a

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Kohath ( 38547 )

            I was responding to a guy who said "the majority" is happy with "enough". Clearly, "the majority" wants a smartphone, even though a feature phone is "enough", so he's 100% wrong and it's 100% obvious. That's the entire point.

            If he wanted to claim "the majority" would be happy with a very high degree of luxury and wouldn't yearn for extreme luxury, that wouldn't be so easily refuted with such obvious real world examples.

            Even on Star Trek they had to reserve holodeck time. There were never enough holodecks

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by shani ( 1674 )

              I guess you're suggesting the future is WALL-E, not Star Trek? ;)

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Kohath ( 38547 )

                Bladerunner. But seriously, the most likely future extrapolates from what we have now. People are healthier now than 50 years ago, we have much more material wealth, scarcity is a smaller problem for a smaller fraction of the population, the environment is cleaner, travel is more common for more people, etc. Add 50 more years, extrapolate the trends in the same general direction, and you'll get a good guess. It's not a dramatic adventure story though, so expect a lot of storytelling between now and then

        • public transportation is not that bad it's just that in lot's of area have limited routes, limited times / 1 train per hour at times / getting to places can take many transfers

          driving can be faster but in some city's you can get by with a car

      • Re:Not many morals in the federation really (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ThatAblaze ( 1723456 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @08:30PM (#50464911)

        I always took the lack of money thing to mean that the show was following a military vessel, and that the "star fleet" military had a rule against it's members using money. I know that is not exactly what they claimed was happening, but all their actions seemed to indicate that if you weren't in star fleet then you had and used money. I seem to remember a science outpost that talked about not having enough funding to buy all the equipment they wanted.

        DS9 talked about money all the time.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          Hint Hint, DS9 was not a Federation star base it was a neck dudes base and then got taken over by the ear ring people (off the top of my head, I am not that fanatical). Just had a star fleet command crew.

    • Re:Not many morals in the federation really (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TWX ( 665546 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @08:01PM (#50464817)
      I don't know that I'd be that concerned about a rationing of Transporter Credits. That would be like if now, air transport were free but one was only allowed to use it so often; it would in-part be a function to limit demand to the available supply.

      It's a lot more of an academia-universe in how I see it- there are several stories where things are being done by otherwise ordinary people becuase they proposed an idea and are being given the resources to pursue it. That indicates that despite there possibly being limits on resources, those limits are in place to prevent wasteful consumption more than because real scarcity limits are causing strife. If anything, in DS9 episodes, Sisko's father is shown to be a successful New Orleans restauranteur despite being a little crazy and very combative; if society were Communist and dealing with scarcity I don't think he'd have access to the resources to make that happen.

    • We are told that they don't need money.

      I'm wondering, who told you that? I just watched ToS for the first time, at night when I was up the newborn and there's certainly plenty of references to money, getting rich, earning your paycheck for the week, etc. If the Federation was supposed to be without money, it certainly didn't happen in the original series.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swell ( 195815 )

      "But the two fundamental rules of economics are:
      1. We are in a universe of scarcity
      2. People have ever increasing unlimited desires and wants"

      Hogwash. You are obviously referring to the Science of Economics as taught to 7th graders. As adults, we now know that there is no such thing.

      1- Scarcity appears not to exist for the Federation people. Your universe may differ.
      2- Unlimited desires are a product of deficient education and excessive ego. Your universe may not have reached that level of maturity.

      Yes, the

      • Yes, there are hints of communism, but note the badges and other indications of rank aboard the Enterprise. People may be equal, but some are obviously more equal.

        The USSR had a military too, and people there had ranks just like any other military. That's just how militaries work. Starfleet is a military entity; their mission is largely exploration and diplomacy as well as other tasks (transporting medicines to colonies, disaster relief, etc. The US military does disaster relief from time to time too so

    • i never understood this braindead attitude where the only systems in the world are social darwinistic capitalism, and communism

      nothing in between

      when of course there are thousands of systems in between. in fact the richest and happiest countries in the world, the nordic countries, pretty well balance social safety nets and capitalism. that's actually the ideal society

      but if you view everything as capitalism and communism, nothing else, your ideology and philosophy is childish and facile. you haven't given an intellectually honest thought to the subject matter you inject your uneducated opinion into. you're a propaganda victim

      this not a baseless insult

      you present it as binary: capitalism or communism. when it obviously isn't binary. there are thousands of shades in between, in fact, the best system most definitely is not pure capitalism. objectively, as a function of the most successful societies today, and their economic and political systems

      furthermore, the economic, political, social, and cultural systems of the federation are categorically, factually, not communist. define communism. then define the federation. and they do not match, they are far apart

      but because it is not pure capitalism, you have to call it communism. because those are the only two extremes you understand. you're a simpleton, an ignorant on the topic

    • 1. We are in a universe of scarcity

      Except when it wasn't and the replicators and holodecks could create anything anyone would ever want.

      Mostly it was inconsistent.

    • Trading money (gold pressed latinum?) was never illegal, just that the only people much interested in it were Ferengi (Space Jews).

    • ...and maybe holodecks, if you want to include more recent series?

      I'm not a fan enough to know the theorized limitations of replicator technology, but the Wikipedia page makes it sound like the limitations were very few. If you own or even have access to a replicator it doesn't sound like many of your needs would be unmet by the replicator. You want a bone-in filet mignon for dinner? Push a button. A molecularly perfect rare wine? Push a button.

      Those wants that wouldn't be met by the output of a replic

  • The people asked for Circuses... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @07:18PM (#50464671)

    The article traces through episodes at each phase of the franchise, exploring literary allusions and lamenting that "Star Trek's latest iterations — the 'reboot' films directed by J.J. Abrams — shrug at the franchise's former philosophical depth."

    Because at that point it stopped trying to be real science fiction. It was just another franchise to be used for monetary gain by the rights-holders. So, out with any social commentary, no deep thinking -- this is Summer! It's time for an action flick -- in SPAAAAAAAACE!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Socguy ( 933973 )
      True, true.

      I still enjoy the original for the reasons outlined in this article, it's like a time capsule for thought. Side note: I'm glad that Abrams switched to Star Wars. He was so right when he said that he didn't get Star Trek, specifically that Trek wasn't about guns.

    • and that's fine. because it sells tickets

      i agree it ruins the spirit of star trek, but so what? all franchises die. look at the last 3 star wars movies

      now movie 7 of star wars is being helmed by the same guy who watered down star trek. so it will be an equally disneyfied plastic semblance of what it once was. everyone is excited but look at what abrams pumps out and the writing is on the wall: safe, middle of the road

      and? so what?

      fanboys need to understand something: everything dies. everything is ruined an

  • Whatever (Score:3)

    by willworkforbeer ( 924558 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @07:48PM (#50464787)
    Whatever the supposed ST politics / economics, it was a system that the Picards to keep a vast private family estate for hundreds of years. So there's no "money," but they have private property so, huh?

    Roddenberry lived a lot like the Picard family IRL, so whatever his alleged socialist sympathies, he lived the free market.

  • Devil in the Dark (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mtrachtenberg ( 67780 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @08:15PM (#50464869) Homepage

    The Gene L. Coon episode The Devil in the Dark, in which a bunch of miners have come under attack by a strange stone-like creature, made an indelible impression on me, certainly more than any bit of religious scripture I've encountered. The lessons in that magnificent episode included the need to understand the other, the danger of assuming you are in the right, the dangers of an ill-educated mob, and the power of fear. I wish W and President Cheney had been forced to watch it before they were unleashed on the world.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jdavidb ( 449077 )

      The Gene L. Coon episode The Devil in the Dark, in which a bunch of miners have come under attack by a strange stone-like creature, made an indelible impression on me, certainly more than any bit of religious scripture I've encountered

      For what it's worth, Sunday afternoons after church we watch Star Trek with our kids over lunch. Seen The Devil in the Dark with them twice. :)

  • Yep, it was easy to miss (Score:3)

    by russotto ( 537200 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @08:17PM (#50464877) Journal

    I especially liked the subtlety of such episodes as "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", on the surface a story about two aliens who differ only in which side of their face is black and which is white, but which is actually an allegory about racism and tribal hatred.

    • Re:Yep, it was easy to miss (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @09:43PM (#50465217)

      Or the subtlety of TNG episode where everyone on an alien planet is genderless, but some of them lean more towards one gender or another. Or the subtlety of the entire Ferrengi race, for that matter, which was almost a literal demonization of capitalism (greedy, deceptive, ugly, backstabbing, cowardly, and sexist to boot).

      Star Trek writers could have used a bit of restraint in creating these ham-handed scenarios and caricatures. I liked Star Trek in spite of its ridiculous political and social preaching, not because of it.

  • In my opinion, what makes Trek great is the characters and how they interact to make difficult decisions. Trek politics on a bigger scale is waffly and inconsistent such that it should be viewed as supporting a story rather than being the story. The fact that Picard likes hippies more than Kirk is fine by me. They are different people.

  • Horseshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RubberDogBone ( 851604 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @08:56PM (#50464993)

    Much of what people think of when they think about Star Trek's grand concepts of the Federation of Planets and many other things were ideas thought up by Gene Coon, not Roddenberry. Bob Justman also had a hand in those ideas, as did D.C. Fontana and many others tossing in various tidbits.

    The book series "These are the voayges" go into extreme detail of who thought up what, which writers and directors invented things taken for canon and so on.

    An awful lot of Trek lore taken for granted happened by accident or because Coon or Justman were trying to save money. There was no grand political scheme running behind the scenes. It was all about how to tell a story without having to actually show it. So they invented stuff that could be dialog.

    The idea of having a "Starbase" came from the need to show planets per NBC but cheaply so it could be a redressed existing set, and then script mentions there's more than one base. Viola you've expanded the Star Trek universe without having to show it. Coon was a master of this stuff, dropping in mention of the Federation to explain away another loose end. He freaking invented it as a throwaway script change.

    Fontana in turn made the characters who we know them to be and kept the thing going in the right direction. She was the bullshit detector and derailed a lot of crap that would have made the show into a joke. Roddenberry mostly sat around and screwed starlets and offered up lousy script rewrites.

    The OTHER unsung hero of Star Trek is Lucille Ball, who went to bat for the show many times to keep it funded, until doing so help cost her ownership of the company. She gave her all for Star Trek, Nobody remembers it.

    These Are The Voyages books are very highly recommended for anyone who wants to know what really happened and how, It is a lot like seeing how sausage or laws are made but it's important to see how hard these people worked and what they put into the show.

  • Factions and their real world representations (Score:5, Interesting)

    by psycho12345 ( 1134609 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @08:58PM (#50464997)
    I always felt Star Trek politics were pretty cut and dried, as each race either directly represented a specific country or ideology Federation: Western world, especially the US, given the diversity of participants. Romulan Empire: Soviet Union, semi paranoid society, fairly closed, state security is fairly powerful and ever present (Tal Shiar = KGB). Mix of military power and secrecy to further their agenda (The plot line of supplying weapons to the Duras is straight out of the Soviet playbook of arming allies with Soviet weapons, AK-47's being the most common). Cardassian Empire: East Germany. Odo is quoted as saying "Not even the Tal Shiar can match the Obsidian Order" in the episode The Wire. Poor, even more paranoid, uses miltary expansion to acquire resources. Obsidian Order = Stasi Ferengi = Captialism/Wall St. where everything has a price. Tholians = Japanese. Exotic technology, very advanced, but xenophobic to the extreme. Borg = China. More intent on taking then innovating, seen as homogeneous mob. Suppresses dissent for the collective/society good. Dominion = Middle East. Average religious fanatic = Jem Hadar (believe in a god and is willing to die for them). Vorta = Mullahs (use the belief of the founders to enforce their will). Founders = Typical Middle East dictator/monarchy, who use religion purely as an excuse to maintain control, and don't care what so ever about their people and throw them away with little regard. Bajorans = Israel. Home occupied, people murdered, scattered to the wind. Rebuilds. Klingon Empire = Probably West Germany, due to overarching militarism, and pride. As seen in TNG, battleground for the ideologies of Romulans and the Federation, similar to the ideological battles in Germany, symbolized by the Berlin Wall. But really any place where there was combat over the ideolgies could represent here (Vietnam, Korea)

    • Star Trek practically invented Planet of Hats [tvtropes.org]. Each race encountered is distilled down to a base stereotype. Even the later series were largely falling in to this.

      Also your post would have been possible to read if you had used line breaks.

    • Just for fun, who do you see playing the role of the Pakleds?

  • Right and wrong vs. tolerance (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @09:01PM (#50465013) Homepage

    This article hits the nail on the head. In the 60s, there was culturally an understanding that there are some things that are right and wrong, moral and immoral. Slowly, this understanding was replaced by the notion that only tolerance matters, and the only evil is intolerance. This idea is embodied in the Prime Directive. It is fitting, reflecting our culture, that the Young Kirk movies lack any kind of notion of right and wrong OR tolerance, emphasizing only drama and special effects.

  • He missed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @09:08PM (#50465051) Homepage Journal

    What Kirk objected to was a lack of liberty. His objection to Vaal and Landru was that they imposed themselves upon the people. The same for the plant spores. For that matter, that was his objection to the Klingons. I don't think he would object all that much to a society that voluntarily forswore technology and exploration (since apparently, the people were free to leave if they wanted) even if he might not understand it or want it for himself.

  • Never understood with energy being near free and materials being near free, why wasn't everyone and their cousin flying around in space ships, unless of course the government squashed any thoughts about having your own star ship and only properly certified and licensed captains could fly them. Don't like it, then join Star Fleet....here see if this red shirt fits.

  • Did any of the feature films convey the politics? (Score:3)

    by Ihlosi ( 895663 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @09:46PM (#50465241)
    Did any of the Star Trek feature films convey a detailed picture of the politics of the Star Trek universe? I don't think so.

  • JJ Abrams is not that kind of director (Score:3)

    by RichMan ( 8097 ) on Sunday September 06, 2015 @07:22AM (#50466461)

    JJ Abrams was not hired for his cultural sensitivities. The producers selected Abrams because of the type of movies JJ Abrams directs. Either the producers were not aware of the cultural commentary Star Trek presents or wanted to ignore it. In either case it shows the current holders of the Star Trek production leash do not really have a concept of what the show embodied.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Your stupidity, Allen, is simply not up to par." -- Dave Mack (mack@inco.UUCP) "Yours is." -- Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.sigma.com), in alt.flame

Close