How Do Social Conservative Star Fans Enjoy Star Trek?

[fireproof78]

Under that definition, I'm probably still a conservative. Not red or blue or even purple, but sort of a... mulberry hue.

Unfortunately, in most circles these days "conservative" means "Trump follower".

A term that now only serves as a barrier.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I find it interesting that a number of the repsonses appear to be overlooking a key word in the thread title. The OP asked specifically about *social* conservatives, but a lot of the replies appear to just be framing things around conservatism in general.

I'll quote from Wikipedia here, as I'm sure they can say it better than I can.

Social conservatives organize in favor of duty, traditional values and social institutions, such as traditional family structures, gender roles, sexual relations, national patriotism, and religious traditions. Social conservatism is usually skeptical of social change, instead tending to support the status quo concerning social issues.

Social conservatives also value the rights of religious institutions to participate in the public sphere, thus often supporting government-religious endorsement and opposing state atheism, and in some cases opposing secularism.

Their preference for traditional families, gender roles, sexual relations, etc., in addition to resistance to societal change, is baked right into the definition. So when I see replies like:

Acceptance of others regardless of race, gender etc. IDIC.
My parents were born in the Early 40's, accepted everybody regardless of any differences.

My harshness of Discovery isn't directed at the inclusion of LGBT+ characters, I thought that there inclusion was well handled and had a good story. mainly because it wasn't Shout at the Ceiling, it was handled as a normal life, as it should be, a bit of indifference, as in, this couple is gay.. And? there a couple, living there life, nothing weird or wrong with that., moving on.

I am confused, because, although the stance is admirable, it does not align with typical social conservative values. Now, of course, you are free to identify as a social conservative if you wish, but this kind of viewpoint would certainly be in the minority in that group.

There is, of course, nothing in that stance that contradicts *general* conservative values.

My biggest thing is I don't trust the government.

I would argue that less government intrusion into the lives of people is a conservative value, but not specifically a social conservative one.

I value those things, as well as individual freedom, choice and responsibility.

Again I would say these are just general conservative values, and don't necessarily have anything to do specifically with social conservativism. (I would even go so far to say that many social conservative values are in opposition to these values, but I don't want to go too far afield and make the GTD mods mad at me. )

So my point is that I have no trouble seeing how a conservative could enjoy Star Trek, but I share the OP's confusion as to how a social conservative could enjoy Star Trek. A progressive future with gender equality and full acceptance of all sexual orientations should be something that sets them on edge.

It's possible this distinction is more significant to me because of my home country. Conservative support is generally in the low 30% range, and social conservatives are a subset of that. (I'm having trouble finding exact numbers, but anecdotally it seems to be at most 50%, probably lower. There always seems to be friction in the various conservative parties between the more progressive conservatives and the social conservatives.) Conversely, my understanding is in the US, conservative support is right around 50%, and recent data shows that 74% of them identify as social conservative. So perhaps the difference isn't as meaningful at a practical day-to-day level in an American context, and that's why the thread seems to be discussing conservatism in the general sense, rather than the more specific social conservatism?

(Sorry to @valkyrie013 and @fireproof78 for referencing your posts specifically; they just seemed the best examples to quote for the points I was trying to make. )

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Pew pew .. pew pew pew ... zoom ... bang! Kaplowie!

"There's more to being a woman than ... women are made for love [aka, bending to the will of a virile man]."

Add some high shots of Marina Sirtis and low shots of Nana Visitor, and social conservatives are glued.

 

[James Cole]

It's possible this distinction is more significant to me because of my home country. Conservative support is generally in the low 30% range, and social conservatives are a subset of that. (I'm having trouble finding exact numbers, but anecdotally it seems to be at most 50%, probably lower. There always seems to be friction in the various conservative parties between the more progressive conservatives and the social conservatives.) Conversely, my understanding is in the US, conservative support is right around 50%, and recent data shows that 74% of them identify as social conservative. So perhaps the difference isn't as meaningful at a practical day-to-day level in an American context, and that's why the thread seems to be discussing conservatism in the general sense, rather than the more specific social conservatism?

Whenever this comes up somewhere online, especially with people from outside the country interested in US politics, I always link to studies about political typology. Hidden Tribes and Pew have been cited by both left leaning and right leading media in case anyone is interested... Pew is much more recent... 10% of the population are "faith and flag" conservatives, 7% "committed conservatives", and 11% "populist right".

On the other end, only 6% are "progressive left".

 

[fireproof78]

Their preference for traditional families, gender roles, sexual relations, etc., in addition to resistance to societal change, is baked right into the definition. So when I see replies like:

I'm resistant to change in general. I value those things but not to the point that I eschew other points of view because I value relationships over those.

I have my preferences sure. But, I'd rather connect with people than fight over terns.

 

[Oddish]

Indeed, social conservatism and Star Trek do see to be farther apart... but not totally mutually exclusive. The following Trek precepts do fall in line with it:

Marriage as a meaningful commitment, and the value of the family unit. Not a lot of marriages in Trek, but those who were married typically took their commitments seriously, and cared for their children.

Freedom of religion, even if the Federation itself is secular. The Klingons, Vulcans, and Bajorans all had their religious traditions.

The importance of courage, and opposition to bullies and tyrants. This goes with duty and patriotism, mentioned as tenets of social conservatism.

The paramount value of professional ethics, especially among physicians: We saw a lot of this among the doctor characters. Most of them had their medical ethics challenged at certain points.

Traditional gender roles: In original Trek, there was an element of this ("Turnabout Intruder" was the most egregious example). Even as late as TNG, the main females were in "caring for others" roles. And even when they made a woman captain, there were some concessions: her rejection of "sir", her feminine hairstyle. And, in the casts of the first six Treks (counting TOS and TAS seperately), male characters outnumbered female ones about 3 to 1.

 

[Shawnster]

I personally equate Kirk with Kennedy (a Democrat) and I think Picard looks like Eisenhower (a Republican).

But, would a solid Kennedy supporter identify as a Democrat or Republican today?

If you think about it, liberals will eventually become conservative, at least based on the basic definition of the terms. Liberals typically want change or push for change quickly while conservatives resist change or prefer change to happen slowly. So, once a liberal sees or realizes the change they hope for become a reality, they stop pushing for further change and begin to prefer the (new) status quo.

Remember, it was the Republicans that freed the slaves. The Democrats were the ones supporting succession and the CSA. It was only after the Civil War that the Republicans dropped the racial equality fight and the Democrats picked up the banner.

The NRA used to be about gun education and safety as their primary message. Now they are focused first and foremost as gun rights and Second Amendment protection.

That's not him "being a snowflake." That's just him moderating his page.

I used to devout Steve Shives Star Trek commentary, spurred on by the Ensigns Logs podcast cohosted by Jason Harding. In one of Shives' Trek YouTubes he came right out and said basically "if you are a conservative, stop listening to me." He made it clear he wanted absolutely no dialog with anyone who expressed conservative viewpoints. He was not interested in any opposing views.

In short, he expressed intolerance towards any views contrary to his.

Im sorry, but that's not Star Trek. If Trek has taught anything, it's the evil of painting everyone with the same brush. Not all liberals are Marxists and not all conservatives are Trump supporters. There are loud and proud homosexuals that vote Republican (or did prior to Trump).

Some people are socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

I used to watch the TV police procedural "Lincoln Heights". I one episode one of the main characters states "being black is not a monolithic experience". The same is true about being LGBTQ, Conservative, Liberal, or whatever.

How Do Social Conservative Star Fans Enjoy Star Trek? The same way social liberals do. They watch the show, draw from it what appeals to them, and tolerate what doesn't.

Not every conservative is a homophobic mysoginistic bigot.

 

[valkyrie013]

I find it interesting that a number of the repsonses appear to be overlooking a key word in the thread title. The OP asked specifically about *social* conservatives, but a lot of the replies appear to just be framing things around conservatism in general.

I'll quote from Wikipedia here, as I'm sure they can say it better than I can.



Their preference for traditional families, gender roles, sexual relations, etc., in addition to resistance to societal change, is baked right into the definition. So when I see replies like:



I am confused, because, although the stance is admirable, it does not align with typical social conservative values. Now, of course, you are free to identify as a social conservative if you wish, but this kind of viewpoint would certainly be in the minority in that group.

There is, of course, nothing in that stance that contradicts *general* conservative values.



I would argue that less government intrusion into the lives of people is a conservative value, but not specifically a social conservative one.



Again I would say these are just general conservative values, and don't necessarily have anything to do specifically with social conservativism. (I would even go so far to say that many social conservative values are in opposition to these values, but I don't want to go too far afield and make the GTD mods mad at me. )

So my point is that I have no trouble seeing how a conservative could enjoy Star Trek, but I share the OP's confusion as to how a social conservative could enjoy Star Trek. A progressive future with gender equality and full acceptance of all sexual orientations should be something that sets them on edge.

It's possible this distinction is more significant to me because of my home country. Conservative support is generally in the low 30% range, and social conservatives are a subset of that. (I'm having trouble finding exact numbers, but anecdotally it seems to be at most 50%, probably lower. There always seems to be friction in the various conservative parties between the more progressive conservatives and the social conservatives.) Conversely, my understanding is in the US, conservative support is right around 50%, and recent data shows that 74% of them identify as social conservative. So perhaps the difference isn't as meaningful at a practical day-to-day level in an American context, and that's why the thread seems to be discussing conservatism in the general sense, rather than the more specific social conservatism?

(Sorry to @valkyrie013 and @fireproof78 for referencing your posts specifically; they just seemed the best examples to quote for the points I was trying to make. )

I generally frown on Wikipedia definitions as they can be subject to random people changing, but lets go with it.
There are many types of conservatism, social would be one definition, if we are quoting labels, I'm generally not fond of labels because they never really define the real person as there never really completely right.

So, basically there more religious, more family oriented, and not fond of straying from bible teachings on the LGBT+ stuff. To be honest, there's not a large percentage of those, I would venture more toward far right rigid people. Most conservatives are like us that have been posting, tolerant, wanting a good story etc. if there's an LGBT+ character or story, owell, hope its well written.

But, as said before, not much in Star Trek really breaks from those teachings, like Odish has said, family are strong, religion is respected, so is personal opinion. Not much in Tos or Berman era or even JJ era stuff really treaded on anything to verboten.
Now the modern era, you may have some that oppose certain LGBT characters or characterizations, but as said, they'd probably just watch what entertained them and ignore, or go shitpost somewhere on what they found wrong, which isnt far from some of this boards strongly held opinions on various subjects.

But as evidence on this thread, how those left leaning think of conservatives with a very wide brush and just mock or brush off them as low intelligent hicks, or bible thumpers etc. or what right leaning think of Left leaning.. when most of the time were really not that far apart. Just as said, Hyper partisanship that leaves people intolerant on both sides.

Its shows like Star Trek that have probably changed peoples opinions and opened peoples minds on acceptance, etc. so i hope alot of people from all walks of life watch!

 

[Citiprime]

I think it's possible to enjoy and find interesting something that where you don't share the philosophy of the material. For example, there have been arguments for DECADES over the message within Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, and it's possible to find the book and story fascinating while thinking the meritocracy and system it advocates is complete crap.

On the other hand, I do think there's a line where I feel like a material's underlying philosophy gets in the way of enjoying it to me. Like its hard to ignore what Ayn Rand is advocating if you're reading Atlas Shrugged or not to think of Scientology if its L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth.

Or if it was a PureFlix religious movie that came at social problems by saying only a belief in Jesus can make marriages and families work. Well, no, I don't believe that, so it's going to get in the way of me enjoying the movie as a movie or the book as a book if I think the underlying philosophy it's espousing is awful.

And I've always thought of Star Trek as wearing its philosophy on its sleeve to a degree like those works, where Roddenberry wanted the franchise to fundamentally say something about human nature and human society, that I would wonder how it couldn't step on some toes while watching it if you're a social conservative? The fundamental message that holds over all the iterations of Star Trek is acceptance and tolerance of people who are different from each other, a respect and desire to accept people as who they are and what they want to be, as well as their personal autonomy to do what they want with their own body and their life. That's been true whether it's Data in TNG or Adira in DSC.

So if you're a social conservative currently, given what social conservatives are currently advocating, personally I think it is a a bit jarring to me how people can be a fan of a franchise that has that underlying message and then when you turn it off support the people who think 10-year-old rape victims should be forced to carry their rapist's fetus to term instead of being able to choose to have an abortion, or that one of the biggest problems in our society is that a transgender girl might be able to play sports in high school. And that's even before getting into what are generally held views among social conservatives when it comes to issues like climate change and other forms of science denial that directly conflict with Trek's view of scientific reasoning being more important than ideology.

At that point, maybe people have divorced the messages of the show from any reflection of their own personal worldview, and they're watching it for other reasons (e.g., the action and the fiction).

 

[fireproof78]

Here's my thing: I might have preferences in my values bot nowhere does there have to be a hiding away from other points of view.

The biggest damage I see from reactionary social values is a cloistered effect so that conversation is restricted those who think like oneself. That's not what I was raised to do, and no matter what one might think of social conservatives, I was also raised to respect all, disagreements or no, and Star Trek represented a cooperative future that celebrated differences not restricted them.

But as evidence on this thread, how those left leaning think of conservatives with a very wide brush and just mock or brush off them as low intelligent hicks, or bible thumpers etc. or what right leaning think of Left leaning.. when most of the time were really not that far apart. Just as said, Hyper partisanship that leaves people intolerant on both sides.

Its shows like Star Trek that have probably changed peoples opinions and opened peoples minds on acceptance, etc. so i hope alot of people from all walks of life watch!

Indeed, yes. I would rather have this, even if I adamantly disagree. We're still fucking humans and should be kind to each other. For fuck's sake.

 

[DrMike]

I'm not a social conservative by any stretch, but I've noticed a phenomenon regarding art in general, including television and movies:

What one person interprets as an endorsement of a principle, event, etc, can be interpreted by another as satire or critique, regardless of the intention of the creator, leading to polar opposite interpretations of the exact same work.

I mean, there were a significant number of fans of the Colbert Report who saw themselves in the character and did not interpret it as satire. They enjoyed seeing someone say the things they thought in their head and interpreted the laughter as "laughing with" instead of "laughing at."

So when a social progressive sees the character of Captain Angel on TV, they might celebrate the casting of a transwoman as a declaration of acceptance and equality. A social conservative might interpret her character as a warning that someone can present as one thing (a humanitarian) while truly being another (a pirate aiming to steal the ship and abduct Spock), with disastrous consequences for those who took them at their word.

So, simultaneously, that character might appeal to both social progressives and social conservatives, for entirely different reasons.

The two fan groups could connect deeply with the message they read into the episode, regardless of the intentions of the writers or casting directors.

So I think you need to keep in mind that your perspective on Star Trek might be drastically different from certain other fans. That goes for anybody reading this.

Me? I'm an egalitarian, and always admired ST as a depiction of what could be accomplished if we were to rise above our petty differences.

But I can also guarantee there is at least one fan out there who loved when Klingons were played by white actors in blackface, or when Jewish actors were cast as sniveling, greedy, untrustworthy Ferengi. They might have reveled in a show "getting away with" some things that would be frowned upon in a less fantastical context.

Do those perspectives disturb me? Deeply. But I can't deny that they exist.

So, I don't think you can ask really any given "social conservative" to defend their fandom, because there are many different worldviews that might all be labeled as such, and because they all might see messages in Trek content that you don't.

 

[Lord Garth]

But, would a solid Kennedy supporter identify as a Democrat or Republican today?

Anyone I knew who voted for Kennedy in 1960 is dead, so I can't ask them. All I know is that some Kennedy voters became "Reagan Democrats" in the '80s and just plain old Republicans in the '90s/'00s, long before Trump. But that's only some. The rest stayed Democrats. My father's a Republian but refuses to vote for Trump. He's a Never Trumper. My mother, when she was alive, was also a Republican. To the point where she defended Nixon and wrote a letter in support of him during Watergate. But I can't picture her voting for Trump. She'd probably think what Barbara Bush thought, "How can anyone vote for him?"

All I can really do for myself is look at Kennedy's platform in 1960 and compare it to Romney's platform in 2012. Then look at where Kennedy and Romney are similar and different. I'm not even going to bother with looking at King Orange's "platform".

Then, to circle this around back to Trek: look at "What would Kirk do?" and "What would Picard do?"

 

[fireproof78]

Me? I'm an egalitarian, and always admired ST as a depiction of what could be accomplished if we were to rise above our petty differences.

I've become more like this as I get older.

Also, what would Pike do?

 

[Lord Garth]

Also, what would Pike do?

I can't really do that one, because I haven't seen every episode of SNW and, of the ones I've seen, I've only watched them once.

Kirk and Picard, I know like the back of my hand, and I don't even have to think about it.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Freedom of religion, even if the Federation itself is secular. The Klingons, Vulcans, and Bajorans all had their religious traditions.

That's an interesting take. I tend to think that allowing for people to practice their own religion/faith is something (generally) supported by both conservatives and liberals. I think the difference tends to come in over how much that practice should be able to encroach into the public sphere.

Traditional gender roles: In original Trek, there was an element of this ("Turnabout Intruder" was the most egregious example). Even as late as TNG, the main females were in "caring for others" roles.

Ugh, I have to concede that one, I guess. Whereas I might see it as a failure of the show to live up to its own ideals, based on the the society and the television industry at the time of filming, I can see how a social conservative could look at that and see it as reinforcing their world view.

I generally frown on Wikipedia definitions as they can be subject to random people changing, but lets go with it.

Fair point.

There are many types of conservatism, social would be one definition, if we are quoting labels, I'm generally not fond of labels because they never really define the real person as there never really completely right.

Sure, people aren't going to necessarily fit nicely into every definition or check every box. But I was just trying to approach it from a general "poli sci" kind of definition-based perspective. The Wikipedia definition seemed to fit the context of how the term is generally defined when I hear it discussed around here.

Its shows like Star Trek that have probably changed peoples opinions and opened peoples minds on acceptance, etc. so i hope alot of people from all walks of life watch!

Thank you both for the thoughtful replies. I know I didn't respond directly to each point made, but I did appreciate reading the responses.

 

[Oddish]

So if you're a social conservative currently, given what social conservatives are currently advocating, personally I think it is a a bit jarring to me how people can be a fan of a franchise that has that underlying message and then when you turn it off support the people who think 10-year-old rape victims should be forced to carry their rapist's fetus to term instead of being able to choose to have an abortion, or that one of the biggest problems in our society is that a transgender girl might be able to play sports in high school. And that's even before getting into what are generally held views among social conservatives when it comes to issues like climate change and other forms of science denial that directly conflict with Trek's view of scientific reasoning being more important than ideology.

Consider this: I am pro-life (though I would have made an exception for that poor kid) not out of misogyny, but rather because of my knowledge of human prenatal development. I think women's sports should be XX-only not because of issues with trans people, but because of my knowledge of sexual dimorphism in humans. These are as much science as climate change is.

So when a social progressive sees the character of Captain Angel on TV, they might celebrate the casting of a transwoman as a declaration of acceptance and equality. A social conservative might interpret her character as a warning that someone can present as one thing (a humanitarian) while truly being another (a pirate aiming to steal the ship and abduct Spock), with disastrous consequences for those who took them at their word.

I just see an actor playing a character, and evaluate them based on acting/performance skill, not identity.

Also, what would Pike do?

Cook something tasty.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nu-Trek has forgotten how to do ‘allegories’. Allegories were often a part of Star Trek’s charm, IMHO. I only realised that Star Trek was allegorical earlier this year… I was still charmed though, nonetheless.

Allegories are outdated. They came from a time when you COULDN'T depict various things on television. You can now, so they do.

 

[BillJ]

True.

Trek rests on laurels that are not 100% true. 90s Trek was far less progressive than even comedy shows like Night Court or Golden Girls. Far more open in the conversation than the couched language of TNG or VOY.

Trek was no longer a low rated 60’s sci-fi show, it was a franchise and Paramount wasn’t going to do anything egregious to damage the cash cow.

 

[Oddish]

Trek was no longer a low rated 60’s sci-fi show, it was a franchise and Paramount wasn’t going to do anything egregious to damage the cash cow.

This. I think that the "Rejoined" kiss might have been a sort of a "test the waters" thing, especially in light of several Trek actors (Jonathan Frakes, Kate Mulgrew) suggesting that Trek be more inclusive in that regard... it was presumably controversial enough that we didn't see any more of it in the Berman era.

 

[Timofnine]

Allegories are outdated. They came from a time when you COULDN'T depict various things on television. You can now, so they do.

Allegories are an age old storytelling method, being a form of creative literary art in itself, not a form of censorship. Allegories have existed since the dawn of humanity all around the world in our many shared cultural stories, texts and literatures. After thousands of years, who suddenly gets to decide that allegories are outdated for storytelling?

Aesops fables were allegories of sorts and were written a very long time ago circa 600 BC. Many other old stories and legends are allegorical, another early example is the medieval Everyman and the Faire Queene. More recent examples include Animal Farm written by George Orwell which is an allegory of the Russian Revolution, and also Lord of the Flies written by William Golding which is an allegory of the fine line between savagery and civilization. I stand by the idea that the concept of allegories in Star Trek is an important creative story writing method, not an outdated literary art style or form of censorship. Star Trek has the ‘props’ in which to express allegories, making subjects accessible to a wider audience and encouraging discussion. I believe that it takes a lot of creativity to write an allegory and that this story telling method should not be consigned to television, or Star Trek’s, past.