Is the Federation a "benign" or "kindly" empire that insidiously wins over new members and protects its turf by establishing itself as the "good guy"?
Is the Federation an Empire?
- Thread starter JeffinOakland
- Start date
Don't think you need the scare quotes there. Star Trek was originally riffing on naval stories of the British Empire and clearly portrays the protagonists as serving a benign and kindly entity that wins over new members and protects its turf by establishing itself as the good guy. Which is how the US tends to see itself, not coincidentally. This is essentially a vision of benign imperialism (some people would insist on the word "hegemony" but it's a distinction without much of a difference).
It's kind of like my friend that way. He comes at you all nice and tells you all the great things his friendship can offer, and then before you know it, he's annexed my den.
No. Voluntary membership, rules of conduct when dealing with non members, a defensive military force. The Federation is not an Empire. The closest non-governmental analogy would be an exclusive club that opens a new chapter on a semi-regular basis.
Even before DS9 and the Ferengi introduced overt cynicism concerning the Federation, I thought of the Federation, particularly humans, as "humble megalomaniacs".
A direct contradiction in terms.
The Federation is an interstellar federal republic, with semi-autonomous members who joined willingly, and are equal in the eyes of the law.
It would take an enormous stretch to classify the Federation as even vaguely imperial in nature.
"The Federation is an interstellar federal republic, with semi-autonomous members who joined willingly, and are equal in the eyes of the law."
That's what the Fed says it is. Sayin' and doin' are two different actions.
That's what the Fed says it is. Sayin' and doin' are two different actions.
An Empire is basically a 'Parent country' imposing political and military control over colonies. It's not a relationship between equal members, it's some countries being absolutely subservient to other countries.
The Federation membership is a voluntary arrangement between equals.
The Federation membership is a voluntary arrangement between equals.
The Delian League was in theory a confederation of equal and voluntary Greek city-states, but in practice was an empire of the strongest city-state, Athens.
A lot of examples of theoretically "voluntary" hegemony work the same way, with the arrangement becoming a de facto empire of whichever member holds the most economic and military power. In the Federation this is typically implied to be Earth.
A lot of examples of theoretically "voluntary" hegemony work the same way, with the arrangement becoming a de facto empire of whichever member holds the most economic and military power. In the Federation this is typically implied to be Earth.
I will respond to you in a serious vein one last time, as it seems this is perhaps a ironic/humorous thread.
Actions do speak louder than words, so the complete lack of examples of the Federation:
1) Conquering a planet
2) Treating a member planet like a subserviant imperial colony
3) Refusing to allow a member planet to leave the Federation
show that the Federation is not a hypocritical intergalactic government.
Earth does not hold any more power in the Federation government than does any other member planet, BigJake, even though the various Federation capital buildings are located there.
You're being far too literal. The Fed does function as (at lest) a soft empire with imperialistic leanings and goals throughout all of ST. You don't even need to "read into" the series to figure that out.
The Federation of course never needs to invade anyone or quash resistance on any member planet, because the franchise's main conceit is that its goodness is genuine and those circumstances therefore never come up.
(Well... there's the occasional failed colony, and there are all those Federation agents or officers that are always cocking things up on nearby planets that the Enterprise has to then go and fix, like in "Patterns of Force" or "Too Short a Season." But other than that.)
(Well... there's the occasional failed colony, and there are all those Federation agents or officers that are always cocking things up on nearby planets that the Enterprise has to then go and fix, like in "Patterns of Force" or "Too Short a Season." But other than that.)
Declarative sentences don't become facts simply because they are repeated.
Perhaps it would be beneficial for all involved in this discussion if you provided examples that support your viewpoint.
BigJake, if you consider the idea that in the future a peaceful union of planets can exist and thrive without resorting to conquest, inequality, and oppression despite near constant assault and resistance from a host of deadly enemies a "conceit" then yes that's the Federation on the nose.
I think the only reason it appears that way is because the writers need to make Earth the center of things in order to make the audience relate to it more. From a neutral observer in the ST Universe they may observe other planets to be equally powerful and important.
The Federation is expansionist, but it's diplomatically expansionist rather than militaristically expansionist.
I understand the tendency to make analogies between fictional governments and alliances, and real governments and alliances, but comparing Earth's role in the Federation to the role of the United States in NATO fails at every level.
^ Comparing the Federation to the actual existing NATO of course would fail at every level, because NATO is a product of real-life economics and politics with complexities that are abstracted out of something like the Federation for the sake of making it more approachable and sympathetic.
Comparing the Federation to the mythical self-image of NATO, and America-within-NATO? Not a fraction as hard, since that was the starting point of TOS. The Enterprise is explicitly likened in one of Roddenberry's writer bibles both to a Royal Navy ship but more importantly to being an analogue of an American missile cruiser. The intention that Starfleet is essentially the US Navy in space is all over the product, right down to ships named the USS Suchandsuch and naming the hero ship after a famous American capital ship from WWII. They couldn't have made it much more explicit unless they'd called the Federation the "United Space Alliance" or something.
On Earth:
Well... the Federation President resides on Earth. The Federation assembly appears to meet on Earth. Starfleet is headquartered on Earth and most references to shipbuilding come from our solar system. The attempted coup in DS9 is focused on controlling Earth. When alien entities attack the Federation with the intention of controlling it, they generally focus on Earth.
It's pretty hard to see how a neutral observer could reach any other conclusion than that Earth is the most politically important world in the Federation.
Comparing the Federation to the mythical self-image of NATO, and America-within-NATO? Not a fraction as hard, since that was the starting point of TOS. The Enterprise is explicitly likened in one of Roddenberry's writer bibles both to a Royal Navy ship but more importantly to being an analogue of an American missile cruiser. The intention that Starfleet is essentially the US Navy in space is all over the product, right down to ships named the USS Suchandsuch and naming the hero ship after a famous American capital ship from WWII. They couldn't have made it much more explicit unless they'd called the Federation the "United Space Alliance" or something.
On Earth:
JirinPanthosa said:
Well... the Federation President resides on Earth. The Federation assembly appears to meet on Earth. Starfleet is headquartered on Earth and most references to shipbuilding come from our solar system. The attempted coup in DS9 is focused on controlling Earth. When alien entities attack the Federation with the intention of controlling it, they generally focus on Earth.
It's pretty hard to see how a neutral observer could reach any other conclusion than that Earth is the most politically important world in the Federation.
Last edited:
If anything, it is a Confederacy of various planets with mutual interests. The Federation is not interested in conquering worlds, but it does seek to add worlds to its mutually beneficial relationship. The way I see it, it is fear of its prosperity or a desire to have absolute power that make other powers want to keep separate.
The nicest way to describe a Empire would be "an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority," So the question would come down to how much power does the Council actually have? And how much (if any) rest with the individual Members. If your world is required to surrender everything to obtain a seat on the Council then the Federation would be a Empire.
The whole show being run by a central power.
We don't really know if all the Federation Member are in fact "equal." Some of them could have more power on the Council than others. Vulcan seenms to hold a powerful and influencial position.
Even if one were to acknowledge that Roddenberry wanted the Federation to be modeled after the British Empire or the American "Empire" simply because he compared the Enterprise to a Royal Navy ship or that he and other writers uses USS as a prefix when naming Starfleet vessels (which again is a MONSTER stretch) his supposed intent did not make it's way into the actual depictions and in-universe structure of the Federation.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
