Spoilers Let’s talk about the destruction of Trek utopia…

[Maurice]

I think an optimistic Trek would include trying to find those Section 31s and dismantling them, not accepting that they're always going to be there. The one chit I will give "Into Darkness" (execution aside) was that it was nominally about realizing the dark road some factions of Starfleet had gone down because of past tragedies and deciding that wasn't the right path.

If Picard is actually about doing what's right, then it'll address these flaws in Starfleet as well as in its enemies. If it accepts them as the cost of doing business then there's your broad answer about dystopian v. utopian.

 

[cooleddie74]

I would love to hear that Starfleet post-Dominion War dismantled and outlawed Section 31 once Federation leaders learned that the organization had planned to commit genocide not only against the Founders but in the mid-23rd century against the Klingons. It really shouldn't exist anymore after the carnage of the most recent war and the underhanded way it tried to manipulate events.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree that S31 should be uncovered and dismantled and outlawed. I would love such a series to explore it.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Sorry, dude, but that’s something a fascist would say. I know you’re just saying it to defend yourself, but really take in what it means. I’m out. Goodnight.

This isn't an airport. No need to announce your departure.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Star Trek has always shown elements of that are down or less than ideal or glum, so this is not new.

I still don't know how this fits dystopia: an imagined state or society in which there is great suffering or injustice, typically one that is totalitarian or post-apocalyptic. We haven't seen evidence that the Federation as a whole is suffering or enduring great injustice.

So you're saying it's Star Trek?

That's true. And I think that even though most of this is occurring outside of Fed space, the show may still be suggesting something of a dystopian setting is happening. And it's drawing Starfleet and the Federation in. Stewart and Jerri Ryan have suggested this in interviews. Goldsman is said to implied that the Synths are victims of injustice and exploitation (disposable people).

Things are generally fine. Humans are still post scarcity, the technology, government and social unity is still there, but it is suggesting that something isn't right.

At the very least, the characters have their own personal dystopian thing going on. Just about every main character, (even the minor ones) have been affected by tragedies that are basically all related to the same thing. The Synths or Romulan crises.

The Rikers lost their son because of the Synth ban. Rio saw his captain blow his brains out after killing two innocent Synths. Raffi got fired and became an alcoholic for being associated with Picard, who resigned because of Starfleet refusing to aid the Romulans.

In the older shows, there were imperfect people, Starfleet officers that were villains, etc, but ultimately they were surrounded by a larger, moral Starfleet or heroes that always made sure things turned out right. But now the community is not as surrounding as it could be, and the heroes don't have the power to make everything right like before.

This may be a redemption from dystopia story. To make everything right.

I'm just thinking, based on what I've seen so far though, I wouldn't be surprised if this the direction the producers or studio is going.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Star Trek has depletable [necessary] natural resources. It's not post-scarcity.

 

[AresB]

We've seen before the utopian society of the Federation and its member planets isn't infallible, but needs to be taken care of and sometimes restored. TOS: The Conscience of the King, TNG: Conspiracy, DS9: Homefront and Paradise Lost, Insurrection, et al. And I'm trusting it will happen eventually. The story isn't finished yet.

With replicator technology and clean, practically limitless power sources, the Federation is post-scarcity for its citizens. Depletable natural resources are needed for building and running ships and starbases, but not for everyday life on the member worlds.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

If you say so. But the Ira Behr called section 31 “Why is Earth a paradise in the twenty-fourth century? Well, maybe it’s because there’s someone watching over it and doing the nasty stuff that no one wants to think about.” Nasty stuff being a necessity is the definition of pessimism. What does what Kirk and Picard’s deeds and speeches mean if everything they do is followed by a secret, unelected, inculpable organization doing the opposite? Conspiracies are anti democratic and often racist. And here we have a diaspora of people in the Romulans experiencing a tragedy and are not appreciated or wanted, but they are also infiltrating civilization and causing major upheaval. It’s literally Czarist fever dreams come true. I honestly find all of this offensive as a member of a belittled diaspora who has suffered from this kind of thing. “They’re coming to get us” fantasies are the thing of kristallnachtes and holocausts and Star Trek is currently telling us they are possible. I’m sorry, but this kind of story telling is not for me. And I don’t care if TNG: Conspiracy did something similar. Pod people stories aren’t the same thing and even if they were it was a one episode blip that they dumped, not the whole show arc.

We haven't seen a single member of the Zhat Vash infiltrating the Federation as refugees. You are seeing things in the show that literally aren't there.

Narissa pretended to be human. Narek never infiltrated the Federation at all. Oh is Vulcan and was infiltrating Starfleet long before there were any refugees at all.

The only refugees we've seen who were in the Federation were Zhaban and Laris who were entirely genuine and clearly good people.

 

[SJGardner]

My main gripe with this tendency to use Section 31 (and as a corollary, DS9) as a convenient punching bag that "ruined utopia" and paints the entire setting as dystopian is the built-in assumption that the mere existence of Section 31 makes the Federation as a whole as well as every single one of its citizens complicit in all of their crimes, or at least morally compromised by tolerating their existence. How could that be so when most people don't even know they exist and never have to deal with them? Not to mention, the only times we saw Section 31 in the 24th century other than recruiting Bashir were centered on attempted genocide to eliminate an outside threat (which is, of course, antithetical to everything the Federation stands for, that's out of the question) and an operation to politically discredit a Romulan politician whose activities were detrimental to the Federation-Romulan alliance as well as Section 31's infiltration of Tal Shiar. It can be seen very easily that Section 31 gets involved mostly when they decide that official foreign policy is insufficient to safeguard the Federation's geopolitical interests. They were never portrayed as something that controls every aspect of the Federation from behind the scenes. And as the Dominion War ended with Odo freely sharing the cure with the Founders, they were even proven wrong at the end in the affairs they did meddle in.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Star Trek has always shown elements of that are down or less than ideal or glum, so this is not new.

I still don't know how this fits dystopia: an imagined state or society in which there is great suffering or injustice, typically one that is totalitarian or post-apocalyptic.

We haven't seen evidence that the Federation as a whole is suffering or enduring great injustice.

We can also reverse the equation: being bright and cheery does not automatically make Star Trek not dystopian. Brave New World was supposedly a cheery world in which the senses were manipulated in order to control thought. Individual agency was curtailed, and a mentality that discouraged taking action was commonplace. As much as the world of 1984 was oppressive, the society of BNW seemed to provide humanity its basic needs in a way that was overwhelming and suggestively positive. Indeed, haven't we seen Kirk et al regard this type of pleasurable society as dystopian: "Maybe we weren't meant for paradise."

 

[Bad Thoughts]

My main gripe with this tendency to use Section 31 (and as a corollary, DS9) as a convenient punching bag that "ruined utopia" and paints the entire setting as dystopian is the built-in assumption that the mere existence of Section 31 makes the Federation as a whole as well as every single one of its citizens complicit in all of their crimes, or at least morally compromised by tolerating their existence. How could that be so when most people don't even know they exist and never have to deal with them?

Section 31 does not control society. It is an organization that exists on the fringes of political institutions, not entirely governmental. It's existence does not upend the entirety of society's beliefs. It does, however, cast doubt on the decisions that the society makes with regard to diplomacy and war. It may appear too often as a storytelling device, but it serves the purpose of forcing the characters to re-examine why they are doing things: are they acting in good conscience? are they acting in accord to their better values? or are they letting the cynicism of the few conduct them? Ironically, Section 31 ought to be considered a good device for delineating progressive from regressive by showing the process by which political motivation are analyzed and interpreted: for what reason are we doing what we do?

 

[Lord Garth]

I'd bet money we're not going to see or hear about Section 31 at all in Picard. Primarily because they were just on Discovery, they're getting their own series, and it's too easy to use them as a scapegoat in this series. I also think this show wants to look squarely at the shortcomings of Starfleet itself, by people who are now outside of it. And besides everything else, the Zhat Vash already fill the role S31 would've here. So Section 31 in Picard would be redundant.

 

[Racefuel]

Sorry, dude, but that’s something a fascist would say. I know you’re just saying it to defend yourself, but really take in what it means. I’m out. Goodnight.

DOGWHISTLE ALERT

 

[fireproof78]

They were never portrayed as something that controls every aspect of the Federation from behind the scenes. And as the Dominion War ended with Odo freely sharing the cure with the Founders, they were even proven wrong at the end in the affairs they did meddle in.

Indeed. One aspect of Section 31 that always intrigues me is this idea that it is a human need to control things that largely are outside of their control. Section 31 seems focused on outside influences that would threaten the Federation's way of life without realizing that they themselves are becoming that thing they fear would happen, i.e. the Dominion taking control.

For me, it is a fascinating look in to Federation life, that is largely cosmopolitan, meaning that all types of points of view can be expected. This includes some people who maybe experience more anxiety or fear and feel to need to assert more control, and makes Section 31 more appealing.

 

[AlanC9]

All the sloppiness around the use of "dystopian" makes me think that we need a new term. Usually a word gets consistently misused like this when there isn't anything handy which fits the concept actually being referenced. (Pity this isn't a German board; we could just start mashing words together until we got the mix right.).

 

[Phily B]

Discovery's portrayal of Section 31 was awful, I don't want Picard to have anything to do with S31 other than perhaps a name. DS9 was the first and last time we should have heard of them, not everything is down to S31, nor are they all seeing and all powerful as people seem to think.

 

[cooleddie74]

ENT showing Agent Harris and implying Malcolm had been recruited out of Starfleet was serviceable as it moved the Klingon Augment plot along and provided a covert reason why Earth would be involved in the incident and it gave us something of a background for the organization, describing that the Earth Starfleet Charter is where the concept for Section 31 originated. But other than that, yeah, I agree. DSC really went overboard on the Section 31 thing and if plans for the Section 31 series don't come to fruition I for one will be glad.

It just sounds like a terrible idea. I'd never have given it the green light for development.

 

[fireproof78]

All the sloppiness around the use of "dystopian" makes me think that we need a new term. Usually a word gets consistently misused like this when there isn't anything handy which fits the concept actually being referenced. (Pity this isn't a German board; we could just start mashing words together until we got the mix right.).

Agreed.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

All the sloppiness around the use of "dystopian" makes me think that we need a new term. Usually a word gets consistently misused like this when there isn't anything handy which fits the concept actually being referenced. (Pity this isn't a German board; we could just start mashing words together until we got the mix right.).

We may not need so much of a new term as a better handle on the current terms and how they are used. I think that referring to major literary examples of dystopian societies serves to illustrate what characteristics are present and how we don't really see them in Picard. We can also apply them in different ways. Star Trek may not be dystopian, but it has visited those types of societies. TOS had the Enterprise interacting with societies of different dystopian types, like in Return of the Archons and This Side of Paradise. Moreover, it is worthwhile pointing out how Star Trek tends to work. More often than not, the characters are traveling through areas with unique social problems that must be understood and solved. Funny thing is, the better word for what Picard is seeing and reacting to is Post-Apocalyptic, not dystopian, albeit in a rather mild form. He is encountering the remnants of a society that has experienced some form of collapse. And as I and others have said, he believes that it can be fixed.

 

[Lt.Smokey]

All the sloppiness around the use of "dystopian" makes me think that we need a new term. Usually a word gets consistently misused like this when there isn't anything handy which fits the concept actually being referenced. (Pity this isn't a German board; we could just start mashing words together until we got the mix right.).

Yes, this series is sooo far from dystopian sci fi. It may be a bit darker, but the terminology doesn't fit at all.