Was Star Trek Wallowing In Arrogance, Or...?

[stj]

Sometimes the Federation/Starfleet really is US ueber alles, where the supposed aliens are inferior nations or races or social classes or political ideologies or what have you. Other times, the Federation/Starfleet is more of a metaphor for true human values. When Kirk is saying we don't have to kill today, he is not reserving the killing for holidays, he is saying that despite human "nature," the enlightened mind can choose the path of virtue, which is not even a sacrifice but the real path to happiness. This presupposes the notion of true moral knowledge.

Some people deny the possibility of such a moral authority. A story which does not elaborately justify the ethical presumption is regarded as failing to come to grips with the thematic content, thrusting it upon the viewer. These viewers, and those who simply do not agree with humanitarian values, feel themselves being attacked by those stories. The notion that virtuous people could be happy people offends their deep rooted belief in the actual necessity of strife and struggle and wicked deeds. And that virtue is not how people get along and live better because they get along, but a chain on their free spirit and a sacrifice of pleasure.

Modern Trek in general tended towards this view (modern being, near as I can tell, everything after the Klingons were turned into cool dudes, unencumbered with excessive intellect, instead of being a gentle satire on militarism.) It tended to give more and more lip service to noninterference, nonjudgmentalism, equal validity of all views and similar claptrap. My opinion is that this idiocy deeply weakened modern Trek's thematic honesty.

Voyager coped best I think by occasionally focusing on very basic themes of death, and the value of art, where a limited understanding of real people in real societies had less damaging effects. (And by emphasizing humor, even frivolity.) DS9 did appear to buy into the bullshit more. It is no accident that the Klingons and the Ferengi, by any rational lights both impossible and disgusting societies, were mostly adored by DS9. Or that religion was uniformly regarded as a totally unifying force, free of sectarianism, or even much boring talk of theology!While the Founders and the Vortas and the Jem Ha'dar and, essentially, the Cardassians were regarded as pretty uniformly evil, just because.

What it boils down to, is a drama based on Social Darwinian or religious morality assumptions truer about reality than one based on enlightenment assumptions about human equality? History says the latter.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Counselor Deanna Troi:

"I'm only half Betazoid. My father was a Starfleet officer"

Troi doesn't explain why having a Starfleet would make her half Betazoid.

She didn't identify the planet her father was from.

Troi's father is human. It's as if Starfleet is assumed to be represented by humanness and that all.

Funny because some of the other cultures seemed to have made it unto space much longer before earth did.

But to be fair the last Federation president we saw was alien.

 

[Patrickivan]

Look- Realistically, Star Trek focused on humans because of budget contraints and it's target audience. Humans. It's about humanity's growth and evolution. It would have been great to see more aliens in general, but there are real world monetary reasons why they couldn't do it.

As for Picard. People have to stop ragging on him so much. As rigid as he was, in the true sense of the stereotypical British Naval Commander, he broke Starfleet and Federation protocols all the time. And his character evolved as well. He embodied the old Kirk and Spock values in a lot of regards, but over time, like them, he became more relaxed with himself and the people around him.

A few example of his disdain for rigid rules comes to mind. The episode where he is being forced to relocate a Native (Terran) colony because of a Cardassian Peace Treaty that gave them the planet. Picard was severely opposed and greatly argued against the Federation's position on the matter. Though he was bound to follow the rules, he found away around them by getting the Cardassians to allow them to stay.

There was Insurrection as well. Pretty much the same thing...

And as for Worf's little reprimand. He is a Starfleet officer. He swore an oath to uphold the values and rules set in place. Though Picard had given him leeway on many occassions! A reprimand was more a formality then a dismissal of Worf's culture.

 

[Anwar]

And Sisko did the same thing in DS9 when he stopped Worf from helping Kurn with the assisted suicide.

 

[BillJ]

Let's also not forget how dismissive the gang was of Worf's culture in Ethics.

 

[BillJ]

Look- Realistically, Star Trek focused on humans because of budget contraints and it's target audience. Humans. It's about humanity's growth and evolution. It would have been great to see more aliens in general, but there are real world monetary reasons why they couldn't do it.

You're just making excuses here, people are showing example after example of where Star Trek stumbled in this regard.

So Star Trek showed humanity as a whole doing what groups of humanity had done best for thousands of years, being dismissive of those different from themselves.

And as for Worf's little reprimand. He is a Starfleet officer. He swore an oath to uphold the values and rules set in place. Though Picard had given him leeway on many occassions! A reprimand was more a formality then a dismissal of Worf's culture.

At worst, Picard should have placed a reprimand on Worf's record for being AWOL. Which would have allowed Picard to express his displeasure without passing judgment on Worf's actions in the context of his culture. Which did not take place on a Federation/Starfleet vessel, base or planet.

And let us not forget that Worf did the Federation a HUGE favor eliminating Duras. I didn't see Picard looking around for any other challengers to take the place of Duras, he placed Gowron on the throne and was done with it.

 

[Patrickivan]

So it sounds like what people are saying here is that the Federation is nothing more then an expanionist empire with goals of conquering the galaxy through assimilation...

You know, there's something to be said about intent here. They claim to be peaceful (though willing to defend of course). They claim to be open minded. They welcome like minded worlds into their fold while still allowing them to maintain their own cultures.

But when you DECIDE to join a group, you follow that groups rules. The Federation isn't telling any member world to say, stop assisted suicide. But when let's say, on a Starfleet Vessel, you are bound by their rules and regulations, regardless of your cultural beliefs. In some cases there is room for negotiation, but in general, if your culture doesn't jive with Starfleet's rules, then you have to resign, go home, and do what you want there.

I'm not making excuses. I'm presenting my side of the arguement.

Look at it like this... The UN has member nations. Each nation has (on paper anyway) decided to abide certain UN protocols, decided upon, and agreed upon, through a consensus. Newer nations who were invited had to abide by those rules, but now have a say in making changes.

And despite these rules, each nation has it's own independant laws and cultural beliefs that they are fully within their right to live by... This is the same principal of the Federation...

Now does the UN go courting Afghanistan to join, or do they? No. Because they are too different right now. In the future, that may change. At the same time, as long as Afghanistan doesn't threaten UN member nations in the future, they can go on living their own lives for the most part.

The Federation isn't about taking over the galaxy. And why can't there be good guys in the future? Why is it so unbelievable that humanity is striving to become as a whole. Better then they are now? And why is it so unbelievable that extra terrestrial civilizations couldn't share similar values?

 

[BillJ]

The Federation isn't about taking over the galaxy. And why can't there be good guys in the future? Why is it so unbelievable that humanity is striving to become as a whole. Better then they are now? And why is it so unbelievable that extra terrestrial civilizations couldn't share similar values?

But in order to survive... they have to be. To ensure that, the Federation is in a race with the Klingons, the Romulans, the Cardassians and every other mid-major race out there for resources and to win the hearts and minds of the populace (as more member worlds equal more soldiers to fight the battle).

It is great that humanity is striving to better itself. But in Modern Trek, it seems to only respect its own values and diversity. It is very unbelievable that extra-terrestrial species would share our values... why would they? The world they live in will shape their morality.

I'll finish this post with this thought/question: why is eugenics/genetic engineering banned throughout the entire Federation when it seems that only Earth had a disastrous flirtation with it? We learn in Enterprise that Denobulans had been doing it for centuries without ill effect.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

In the original series, we got the impression that the Federation was a rather weak organization, comparable to today's United Nations

We did? I didn't! The Federation is far more powerful than the UN, since Starfleet is an effective military organization that fights serious wars, whereas the UN is hamstrung from ever having anything remotely equivalent because member nations always putting their self interests first. Nobody on planet Earth who has any power seriously wants the UN to be an effective fighting force a la Starfleet because that's a threat to every nation's sovereignity.

How Starfleet gets away with it is a mystery. The Federation worlds appear to have no self interests that extend beyond Federation borders. What if Andoria had important trade agreements with the Cardassians, and did everything possible to sabotage the efforts of Starfleet to prosecute the Dominion War, putting its interests ahead of the Federation's? That would be a more accurate parallel to how the UN operates in the world. Peacekeeping missions are possible only to the extent they're not stepping on any powerful toes.

The other factor that really messes up the metaphor is that the UN is to Earth as the Federation is to the member planets within the Federation. Starfleet protects the Federation from external threats, but there are no alien invaders for the UN to fight (holy cow, that would be a sight! )

Realistically, Starfleet should be doing battle with powerful Federation member worlds at every turn and be prevented from doing pretty much anything. But that wouldn't make a fun story, would it?

But how can the establish set of principles, that were established by a hand full of races two centuries in the past, still be the principles of the Federation? With each new member the composition of the council alters, the Federation should change over time. The beliefs of the original five or six races should have long ago have been buried under the beliefs of the one hundred and fifty races that followed.

Star Trek's schitck is that everyone in outer space thinks like Americans, when they're right. And the ones who don't think like Americans are wrong, until they start thinking like Americans, or at least close enough for horseshoes, at which point, they're right. Case in point: the Klingons.

Therefore, new member worlds are admitted to the Federation only to the extent that they learn to think like Americans, and the values of the Federation never change.

So it sounds like what people are saying here is that the Federation is nothing more then an expanionist empire with goals of conquering the galaxy through assimilation...

From the alien perspective, that's exactly what the Federation is. But the expansion happens chiefly because of the aggressive tendencies of Starfleet to "explore peacefully." Maybe that's why the member worlds give Starfleet a free hand. They benefit from the continual expansion, and the humans serve as the cannon fodder.

It is great that humanity is striving to better itself. But in Modern Trek, it seems to only respect its own values and diversity.

Because Trek's philosophy is that the betterment of humanity = everyone learning to think like Americans! Where is everyone getting the idea that Trek has anything to do with "multiculturalism"? It routinely invents cultures like TOS-era Klingons, Dominion, Borg, Ferengi, etc for the purpose of casting them as the enemy because they are culturally different from the Federation, as represented by Starfleet (we actually don't have much direct evidence what the Federation's culture is, other than Starfleet). Star Trek's message is that multiculturalism is bad!

 

[T'Girl]

why is eugenics/genetic engineering banned throughout the entire Federation when it seems that only Earth had a disastrous ...

I don't see it as being banned for everyone, just Humans. Other than Humans when did Star Trek ever indicate there was a prohibition for any other species?

I believe that it's against Human law and the federation observes that and also enforces it outside of United Earth territory but within federation territory.

Starfleet also observes it and has regulation forbidding Human Starfleet personnel from engaging in such activities. But not personnel from other species, how this would work for mixed species is hard to say.

 

[BillJ]

I believe that it's against Human law and the federation observes that and also enforces it outside of United Earth territory but within federation territory.

I'll grant it's one of those things that can be interpreted differently by different people.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Janeway and Tuvok defends in favor of assisted suicide, vs Sisko's interference and prevention of one.

Worf got a strong verbal reprimand.

Vs Picard's general acceptance of Worf wanting to perform ritual assisted suicide.

Vs Sisko's anger at the Prophets from preventing him from committing certain suicide by trying to fight 2,800 enemy ships inside the wormhole-The Prophet's territory.

Picard reprimands Worf for Killing Duras (close to being leader) regardless of whether it was cultural or not (Picard acknowledges that technically it was a separate cultural matter).

Vs Sisko inadvertently encouraging Worf to kill Gowron (Leader of the Klingon Empire) by saying something had to be done about Gowron's dangerous decisions and behavior.

Worf is not reprimanded. It is considered an internal cultural matter.

All of these instances take place on a Federation station or ship. And they all have something to do with different cultural ideas and limits.

It looks like different approaches by different people under different circumstances.

One common theme is that when the safety of everyone is threatened, sometimes the authorities look the other way (but let's face it, who can blame them?)

All in all I think the Federation concept of unity and brotherhood is pretty fair...

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

It's been suggested that various incarnations of Star Trek have been nothing short of white men taking over the proverbial world.

That those in the Star Trek universe imposed their morality on a whim feeding nothing more then their own desires to conquer the universe.

I susbscribe to a different point of view. One were the intent from the start was one of honourable intent. To Seek Out New Life and New Civizations. To Bodly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before!

Those words were meant to be inspirational. It was meant to set an example showing that humanity was more then it's sum. It was part of the universe and all that occupied it.

Joining the Federation wasn't about the Federation impossing it's moral values. It was voluntary to join. For like minded cultures to seek friendship with one another and form a strong union. And like many cultures, when they join one another, some aspects of those cultures remain the same and independent, and some assimilate various aspects of those cultures, thereby making a new culture in a sence.

It wasn't about conquering or impossing values. There may have been instances where sometimes that happened, but really, that Starship Captain is out on his own for the most part and has to make some hard choices. But for the most part, the point was to grow in a positive way.

Now who is to say who's point of view is right? It really all depends whose side you're on, doesn't it?

Here are the comments from the Trek Art Forum that prompted me to start this.

Nerys Ghemor wrote:
You know, that really IS one of my biggest Trek pet peeves right there. The ARROGANCE! And Cell's repudiation of that attitude...AWESOME.

Hawku wrote:
Yeah, I noticed that too. It felt like there was a bit of arrogance in later years of Trek.

Patrickivan
I don't want to take away too much from these fun comics. But trek was always arrogant in a sense. But that arrogance was based on the belief that humanity can be better then it's past. And really, what the fuck is the matter with that?

Nerys Ghemor wrote:
Thinking that you're perfect is what's the matter, and being blind to your own moral hypocrisy.

Herkimer Jitty wrote:
Working to better yourself is fine, but claiming your evolved sensibility is the only evolved sensibility is definitley arrogant. Supremely arrogant is the idea that you can meddle with cultures before you make "official first contact", which feels too eerily like a cold war maneuver to me, rather than something some evolved Federation types would do out of the kindness of their hearts.

There's a "spreading our culture across unknown lands" aspect to Trek in its many incarnations that I find unsettlingly imperialistic.

patrickivan

This arguement is for another thread. I'll start one because really, I find your positions to be precariously balanced over bullshit.
__________________
My opinions are based on the facts I have access to. If I don't have access to any facts, I'll make it up.
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com

Mmmkay, the point I was making was that the Federation often came across as arrogant at various times during the show. It was rarely intended that the Federation actually be ignorant, with the exception of DS9 and a select few episodes from other series. The "cold war" thing is really only a natural progression from the Federation's tensions with the Klingons and Romulans, as well as the topical nature of TOS. All three factions, BTW, are just black boxes, vageuly filled in with a few details to provide a few excuses for the Enterprise to be out there, which is really the important bit when it comes to Trek.

Wallowing in ignorance? No. Maybe a couple of the dishes prepared might have had a light arrogance sauce, but the Federation really isn't the Galactic Empire.

 

[neozeks]

Me thinks people are exaggerating the Federation's flaws here quite a lot...

But in order to survive... they have to be. To ensure that, the Federation is in a race with the Klingons, the Romulans, the Cardassians and every other mid-major race out there for resources and to win the hearts and minds of the populace (as more member worlds equal more soldiers to fight the battle).

Of course, the big difference is in how they do it. I'd hardly call colonization of uninhabited worlds and voluntary membership 'taking over'.

It is great that humanity is striving to better itself. But in Modern Trek, it seems to only respect its own values and diversity. It is very unbelievable that extra-terrestrial species would share our values... why would they? The world they live in will shape their morality.

And why wouldn't some of them have the same values, at least in part? I'd say some things and values are universal and derive from the simple fact of being sentient and rational, (but then, I don't believe in cultural relativism). Is it that hard to believe some aliens will have a 'thou shalt not kill' rule? And, as is obvious, Trek sentients aren't all that different from humans in the first place. There are differences, of course, but I'd hardly say they are supressed or disrespected. Vulcans value logic above everything else. Has anyone forced them to give up on it? No. Their logic is just as much a part of Federation values as are human values. Has anyone stopped the Bajorans from worshiping the Prophets? No. I doubt Denobulan poligamy has been banned or something, either.

I'll finish this post with this thought/question: why is eugenics/genetic engineering banned throughout the entire Federation when it seems that only Earth had a disastrous flirtation with it? We learn in Enterprise that Denobulans had been doing it for centuries without ill effect.

Who says only humans have had problems with genetic engineering? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. For all we know, the Denobulans might be the exception to the rule.

Because Trek's philosophy is that the betterment of humanity = everyone learning to think like Americans! Where is everyone getting the idea that Trek has anything to do with "multiculturalism"? It routinely invents cultures like TOS-era Klingons, Dominion, Borg, Ferengi, etc for the purpose of casting them as the enemy because they are culturally different from the Federation, as represented by Starfleet (we actually don't have much direct evidence what the Federation's culture is, other than Starfleet). Star Trek's message is that multiculturalism is bad!

I point you to my examples in regards to Vulcans, Bajorans and Denobulans above. How is that not multicultural? This whole 'Federation values = human values = American values' thing seems to me to be very similar to defending human rights abuses with 'their culture is different'. The Klingons, the Borg, the Dominion aren't bad just because they have a different culture, they're bad because they are conquerers! True, I guess that's a value judgment in of it's self, but is anyone seriously suggesting it isn't the right judgement, one that would be shared by most sentient species? Is it that hard that to think that most developed sentient species in Trekverse will agree that the male Ferengies treating their biologically/capabilities-wise equal females as slaves is wrong?

And Nightdiamond makes a good point with those examples. Why are we even talking about Federation and human values as some monolitihic block when three humans, Federation citizens and Starfleet officers, Picard, Janeway and Sisko, can't even agree among themselves what these values are? As is entirely logical with ethically fuzzy questions like assisted suicide and similar.

 

[T'Girl]

... and the humans serve as the cannon fodder.

This might be closer to the truth than some would be comfortable with. Humans do represent the largest single observed group in starfleet. It not unusual for members of a military force to come from a single or small demographic group, most US military are middle class whites from (forty percent) the south eastern portion of American. Most United Nations (closest example we have to a "Federation") peacekeepers come from just ten countries, although one hundred and thirty plus countries contribute personnel (less than one percent come from America).

there are no alien invaders for the UN to fight

The UN would likely just wait around for a bribe from the aliens.

The Federation worlds appear to have no self interests that extend beyond Federation borders.

One interesting exception was Journey to Babel, the Coridan Worlds were outside the Federation at that time and various Federation members were very self-interested.

Now does the UN go courting Afghanistan to join, or do they? No. Because they are too different right now. In the future, that may change. At the same time, as long as Afghanistan doesn't threaten UN member nations in the future, they can go on living their own lives for the most part.

Wow, where to start. First, Afghanistan has been a UN member since mid November of 1946. Second, being different doesn't seem to be a detriment to joining the UN, only if a powerful existing member claims your country as their own or if you're a relatively new country can you not join. Third, powerful forces in the Afghanistan region do want to re-establish themselves in control of Afganistan and threaten UN member nations in the future, so that country doesn't get to go it's own way.


T'Girl

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I point you to my examples in regards to Vulcans, Bajorans and Denobulans above. How is that not multicultural?

They're closer to Earth culture than the enemy cultures are.

 

[neozeks]

I point you to my examples in regards to Vulcans, Bajorans and Denobulans above. How is that not multicultural?

They're closer to Earth culture than the enemy cultures are.

How so? Klingon warrior philosophy has some clear paralells with real life Earth cultures (and the Andorians it seems). Vulcan emotionless logic, telepathy, pon farr etc. don't, as far as I know. Klingons (and Romulans, etc) also seem to be monogamous, like humans and unlike the Denobulans. They're also religious, like most Bajorans and unlike most humans. And so on. In some ways they are more similar, in some ways they clearly aren't.

And even if they are closer in some ways, isn't that sort of logical? That's why they are able to coexist in the Federation and the Klingons and others are not. There have to be some values that are shared by all members for a construct such as the Federation to exist. That doesn't make it mono-cultural.

 

[stj]

Sometimes in Trek, evil alien cultures are symbolic projections of our flaws or fears. The original Klingons were projections of fears of a remorseless, determined enemy and their role in stories was for us to make peace with. Rejecting their militarism is symbolically rejecting it for ourselves. It would be foolish to slam Star Trek Klingons as one note caricature devaluing other cultures.

Modern Klingons on the other hand are admired, precisely for their backwardness. Accepting their culture is to symbolically forgive ourselves for those flaws, even reject the notion violence and lack of self restraint are wrong. Similar processes are at work in Ferengi and Bajorans. Modern Vulcans are uniformly rationalizing sobs as a way of dissing reason itself. Cardassians, the Borg and the Dominion are pretty much one note villains, though modern Trek like to fantasize about genocide rather than peace.

The thing is, that the postmodernist attack on the Enlightenment in general (and Marxism in particular) requires the notion that there is no possible way to know right from wrong, not even in the natural sciences. It's all convenience in the end. This lip service is entirely contradicted by the ways the recurring/main "races" are treated.

The peculiar misunderstanding is the idea that the arrogance is displayed in episodes where an ideal projection in the Federation/Starfleet is set against the ugly reality projected in the so-called aliens. Those are the self-critical episodes, which is why they are so irritating to those who dislike self-criticism, or reject the humanitarian standards espoused by Star Trek. It is the episodes that treat the aliens with conspicuously depraved cultures (Ferengi, Klingons, Bajorans) as acceptable that display the self-congratulatory arrogance. They are approving such behavior in ourselves.

No one gets irritated at the arrogance of the Federation in deciding the Borg are worthy only of death. (Since the Borg function basically as symbols of Communism, this is only to be expected in the reactionary modern Trek.) This shows it's not the arrogance, it's whose philosophical ox gets gored.

 

[Arpy]

So let me understand this. The Federation is an evil conquering force because when aliens discover it, they like it.

 

[BillJ]

We'll give you technology and protection, all you have to do is give up whatever makes your world unique and give us soldiers for our 'peaceful' exploration.