Social Commentary in this new Star Trek show

[fireproof78]

There is the example of Picard and his asinine " we so much better than you" attitude.I wasn't advocating "wacky sci-fi," but rather that the federation still has powerful social schisms centuries after it's creation, there is no defined "group philosophy" among the membership. In addition, new members are constantly being introduced, with all the cultural baggage they bring with them. Personnally I would find this a interesting continuing minor plot in the new series. Star Trek had stories about terrorists long before 9/11.

The concern that I have is that, in a TV setting, that any disagreement gets marginalized as "wrong" and/or "unenlightened." I don't mind seeing the Federation as going through some growing pains and encountering bumps in the road, but I also know that the TV format can limit dialogue to arbitrary lines.

Real world politics do not play out nice and neatly like they do in fictional politics. One of the reasons I get frustrated by Star Trek is the presentation as "utopia" and yet there are so many points of view that I don't agree with. If they are going to explore them, I would like to see more of an actual discussion rather than declaring something right and anyone who disagrees as wrong, flawed, unevolved, etc.

 

[TwoJakes]

The discussion in Penpals where the senior officers voiced their opinions on the prime directive was a good example of how that could be handled, it turns out that the officers had a widely differing points of view on the subject.

Insurrection is the opposite, not one Enterprise officer voiced opposition to Picard's viewpoint or choice of actions.

 

[Kegg]

The Federation having problems is interesting, but they shouldn't be less socially evolved than we are, which would be the case if we learned there was an anti gay ban in Starfleet.

The Federation has had problems - even in the Next Generation and when Gene Roddenberry was still alive, which is around the high water mark for the franchise's utopian inclinations. Data, who was clearly an intelligent being, was not considered to be a person, and it took an infamous court case for Picard to succeed in getting him recognised as one - and even then, this provisional acknowledgment didn't stop Starfleet from trying to take away his daughter a year later; and Picard had to be convinced by Data to be given a temporary command (where one of the Starfleet officers was quite frankly bigoted against androids as commanders.) Data later found himself advocating for and having to prove the sentience of another group of machines.

Concurrent with this we had the Enterprise crew effectively throwing up their hands over the matter of what to do with the intelligent hologram Professor Moriarty, which prefigured Voyager's fairly consistent suggestion that clearly intelligent even empathetic holograms were considered as little more than appliances (with their legal standing remaining unclear as the show ended and many still effectively worked as slave labour, the grim future Guinan once saw for androids being given a holographic form.)

There was also a prejudice on Deep Space Nine within the Federation member world the Trill against relationships from past lives being resumed, a taboo Jadzia Dax broke to no mild amount of controversy.

Now none of those are real world problems; but that's the mixture of optimism and allegory: The problems that plague us have been solved, but other problems analogous to what we have had in our present concern people in this imaginary future.

 

[TwoJakes]

Agree absolutely. It'd be like if they said: "But hey wait you can't have female captains!" it would be so retrograde and stupid ...

History and social development don't move in a perfect straight line, aspects of social development might wax and wane through the centuries, so there were no female captains (and really few females above lieutenant) during TOS, but a couple of decades later there were.

If you were to bring all the cultures of the world today into some kind of one world group consensus, many "western" ideas would be suppressed or disappear completely. The federation has many members. Vulcan for one has been shown to be culturally quite different than Earth, and to be dismissive of Humans.

Why would the federation be based on Earth concepts?

in light of the fact that we *already* have female Captains

Currently (iirc) the US Navy doesn't have any female officers in command of warships. Althought there have been a small number from time to time.

when they are supposed to be a more enlightened humanity.

The whole "more enlightened" thing should be dropped, have the show feature average normal people from multiple species. Warts and all.

 

[JD]

Agreed. In my view, the gay characters have always been there, they just haven't been the focus of any stories yet. You don't need to write a mistake on the part of the writers with some wacky sci-fi explanation. Just bring them into the universe, they way we always knew they were.

There is the example of Picard and his asinine " we so much better than you" attitude.I wasn't advocating "wacky sci-fi," but rather that the federation still has powerful social schisms centuries after it's creation, there is no defined "group philosophy" among the membership. In addition, new members are constantly being introduced, with all the cultural baggage they bring with them. Personnally I would find this a interesting continuing minor plot in the new series. Star Trek had stories about terrorists long before 9/11.

Some members could be socially like us, while others have different views on various matters.

All get a vote in the council.

I have a feeling any races who had serious issues with something as common as homosexuality probably wouldn't be allowed in the Federation until such issues were worked out.
With us already making huge strides in the acceptance of gay people in our modern society I don't see how we could plausibly regress to such a point that they were being discriminated against so badly that we never saw them. I could maybe see if this was some kind of very modern or even dystopic future, but it just wouldn't be believable in Trek's very positive, "more enlightened" future.
The Star Trek novels just started putting gay characters into the book without any kind of acknowledgement that we hadn't seen them before, and I really don't think the new show should be any different.

 

[TwoJakes]

I have a feeling any races who had serious issues with something as common as homosexuality probably wouldn't be allowed in the Federation until such issues were worked out.

I guess this would depend on where the federation started from on day one. If (in a hypothetical) two of the founding members had no legal restrictions on gays, but the other four did, then the absence of legal restrictions wouldn't be a litmus test for subsequent entries. The Doctor (VOY) did say the Vulcans had a very Victorian attitude towards sex.

It would be like not admitting Betazed into the federation owing to possessing childhood arranged marriages, obviously Vulcan's representative wouldn't allow that, because Vulcans have that too.

The social class system on Ardana didn't keep them out, perhaps because such class systems are quite common among federation members.

Where will the federation's rules and laws come from? Collective decisions of the membership, in open transparent council. Or will they come from some elite close door council, who impose what's "progressive," regardless of the will of the people.

With us already making huge strides in the acceptance of gay people in our modern society

In western countries yes, but in the most heavily populated part of our world no. In many African, middle eastern and south-east Asia countries, acceptance is a small fraction of the populations. And in France and some eastern European countries acceptance is slowly sliding to the negative.

This is sad, but it is also the truth.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

 

[JD]

But part of the big appeal of Trek is the positive better future, and that idea that by the time of the series we've moved past all of that kind of shit.
As for some of the examples you pointed out, I thought that part of the whole thing with Cloud Minders was that the Federation didn't realize what was going on there.
I don't know if I'd put arranged marriages at quite the same level as discrimination against homosexuals, unless we're talking about child/adult statutory rape, pedophile arranged marriages, which would be worse.

 

[borgboy]

For what it's worth, it seems pretty obvious that Betazoids are free not to go thru with the arranged marriage without any kind of punishment. If there was a lack of personal choice in the matter, then I could see the Federation taking a position against it.
The same with Vulcans. Their culture may be sexually repressed, but we have no reason to believe there's a bias against gays. Although the Vulcan arranged marriages in the 23rd century were pretty rigid and sexist, but it was also pretty clear that the Vulcans were so secretive that the Federation didn't really know much about it. I would support a story that dealt with that issue.

 

[TwoJakes]

But part of the big appeal of Trek is the positive better future, and that idea that by the time of the series we've moved past all of that kind of shit.

I would say that no, "all" that shit hasn't been moved past. Frequently we see that the future society is far from perfect, in one episode of TOS, the Enterprise was on a mission to establish a "treaty port" on a non-federation planet. In the same episode, a government official implied that he could send Scotty to a penal colony without a trial.

I thought that part of the whole thing with Cloud Minders was that the Federation didn't realize what was going on there.

Kirk apparently didn't know the situation with the labor dispute, how ever the existence of a labor class known as the Troglytes was known, Spock was able to refer to them by name prior to encountering any natives.

The same with Vulcans. Their culture may be sexually repressed, but we have no reason to believe there's a bias against gays.

Describing their sexual attitudes as "victorian" does suggest just that. During the early part of victoria era in Britain, engaging in homosexual activity carried the death penalty,

Remember, these are the same people who send their seven year olds into the wilderness, to see if they later come back.

the Vulcan arranged marriages in the 23rd century were pretty rigid and sexist, but it was also pretty clear that the Vulcans were so secretive that the Federation didn't really know much about it.

Vulcan were secretive about pon farr, in the 22nd century T'Pol very casually mentions arranged marriages to one of her friends.

This was before the formation of the federation.

 

[borgboy]

Vulcan society is really messed up, no doubt. But Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations is also a cornerstone of their society.
The reason we never saw gay people in Trek is real world homophobia. I have no doubt the new series will have LGBT characters.
The excellent novel series has had lots of LGBT characters for over a decade.
I don't understand why any Trek fan would be so invested in the Federation always being a place of hypocritical homophobia. There are many examples of our lead character showing opposition to discrimination with metaphorical minorities such as with Soran, Riker's lover, the oppressed third sex that Enterprise meets, etc.
The Federation was always better than that even if Trek's producers weren't.

 

[TwoJakes]

Vulcan society is really messed up

I wouldn't call it messed up, I would use different. Alien societies wouldn't have to be copies of our own. In fact I would prefer that they were each distinct from us and each other.

But Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations is also a cornerstone of their society.

Not really. While they did seem to give it passing lip service, it would hard to claim that IDIC is the "cornerstone" of Vulcan society. Certainly not for the majority of Vulcans.

 

[fireproof78]

Where will the federation's rules and laws come from? Collective decisions of the membership, in open transparent council. Or will they come from some elite close door council, who impose what's "progressive," regardless of the will of the people.

This is my concern that any disagreement will be shot down without any comment or discussion. As pointed out above, "Pen Pals" illustrates perfectly the different crew members having a discussion and disagreeing. Contrast that with episodes of VOY, such as "Real Life" in which there is no other point of view. Everyone agrees that the Doctor must go through the pain of losing a child. There are other examples, and arguments to be made on both sides, but my concern is that any "enlightened" position will be held by the heroes, while any conflicting argument will be dismissed as fearful, ignorant, hateful or evil.

 

[TwoJakes]

but my concern is that any "enlightened" position will be held by the heroes, while

For every hero character who whole-heartedly advocates an "enlightened" philosophy, there should be another hero (same crew) who believes it to be complete foolishness and can verbally dismantle it point by point.

There should be federation members who are astonished that Human males are allowed to serve on starships at all, and sometimes even command them !

The Federation was always better than that even if Trek's producers weren't.

What we saw in Journey to babel should be the standard depiction of federation politics

There are many examples of our lead character showing opposition to discrimination with metaphorical minorities such as with Soran

The situation with Soren didn't seem to bother Picard at all, and if Riker hadn't found her attractive would he had tried to "rescue her."

 

[JD]

I would think Picard's stance was probably more due to not wanting to interfere in another world's society, not because he was OK with what was happening, but I haven't watched the episode in a while, so I don't remember exactly what was said by who.

I would say that no, "all" that shit hasn't been moved past. Frequently we see that the future society is far from perfect, in one episode of TOS, the Enterprise was on a mission to establish a "treaty port" on a non-federation planet. In the same episode, a government official implied that he could send Scotty to a penal colony without a trial.

A) Was he a Federation official or one of the planet's officials? Because the threat made by an official from a non-UFP planet wouldn't indicate anything about the UFP.
B) Just because an official might think they can send someone to prison without a trial, doesn't really indicate anything about their government's attitudes towards other groups like gays. A government could be corrupt as hell, and still not discriminate against different groups.

Kirk apparently didn't know the situation with the labor dispute, how ever the existence of a labor class known as the Troglytes was known, Spock was able to refer to them by name prior to encountering any natives.

Knowing a group exists doesn't mean you know how that group is being treated by other people.

 

[TwoJakes]

Was he a Federation official or one of the planet's officials?

Special Ambassador for the United Federation of Planets.

Just because an official might think they can send someone to prison without a trial

Ambassador: I can have you sent to a penal colony for this.
Scotty: That you can, sir.

It's an example that the future society is (as pointed out) far from perfect, and less than Humanitarian, although maybe this is their version of "enlightened."

 

[Rollar]

I don't see how we could plausibly regress to such a point that they were being discriminated against so badly

It wouldn't have to be "us." If the majority of the governments in the Federation held a opposing position on a legal matter than Earth's (not just gay rights), then Earth's position could be drowned out (voted down) in the Federation Council. This wouldn't effect things on Earth, but could have a influence on Starfleet ships, even thoses with mostly human crews. Recruiting practices, staffing, assignments, promotions.

Today these things are influenced by public sentiments and politics, why not in the future too?

Where will the federation's rules and laws come from?

Military navies are controled by civilian leadership, rules and regulation inside of militaries are vetted by committees of civilians. And in a democracy civilian leadership can't be totally isolated from the will of the populace.

But part of the big appeal of Trek is the positive better future

For some of the fans I'm sure that's the case, however I think "the big appeal" is more the action adventure in space and life in the future. The politics of Gene Roddenberry is probably not the main reason to watch the show.

Vulcans --- we have no reason to believe there's a bias against gays

The Vulcans have never impressed me as being the most open minded of people. Within their repressed traditionly ordered society I could see them having a "old fashion" position on gays.

I don't understand why any Trek fan would be so invested in the Federation always being a place of hypocritical homophobia.

I've heard fans comment on a undercurrent of bigotry towards Spock in the original series, personally I never saw it. This was mentioned in one of the first novels. There is definately sexism in the 23rd century. Many feel that Archer got the captaincy of the NX01 partually through favoritism, stemming from who his father was (and not his own abilities). In the 24th century, the prime directive says it better for entire races to die, rather than run the risk that the Federation might screw up attempting to save them.

Point I'm making is, maybe you should consider that your opinion of the Federation (the one in the series and movies) isn't based on the evidence being presented. Don't get me wrong, it is a technological advanced civilization, but you seem to be investing it with attributes that it doesn't possess.

It's never been perfect.

 

[Jonny]

I would like to see a Kahn Noonien Trump type figure. Very topical.

"We're gonna make the Federation Great Again"

"We're gonna build a wa----a force field! It's gonna be a BIG force field"

"Klingons are comin' over here smuggling blood wine into our Federations! The kids are all getting hammered on blood wine! Look, I love the Klingons! I've got Klingons working for me! They're great! But we gotta put a stop to these Klingons comin' across the neutral zone until we find out what the hell is going on!!!!!

"We don't win anymore! We are losin' to the Ferengi, very clever leaders on Ferenganar, I love it over there! But they're screwin' us so bad on trade!"

"Let me tell you about the Cardassian deal. Terrible deal! We gave away everything! Worst deal I have ever seen. THAT will NOT happen under Kahn Noonien Trump!!"

Nice one.

I'll be very surprised if there isn't a regular gay cast member. Hopefully the captain.

Whether it's the Captain or not I'd be very surprised as well if there wasn't at least one regular LGBT character. Wait and see I guess.

 

[JD]

For some of the fans I'm sure that's the case, however I think "the big appeal" is more the action adventure in space and life in the future.

Sure, but there's plenty of that out there, one of the biggest unique features of Star Trek has always been that it's a more positive, optimistic view of the future.
The whole reason they had Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov on the bridge of the Enterprise in the original series was to show that bigotry was no longer an issue in this future, I think it's time they do the same thing for gay people.

 

[TwoJakes]

I would like to see a Kahn Noonien Trump type figure. Very topical.

Nice one.

I too would like to see a Trump-like political character on the show, although for different reasons than you have.

Perhaps as the president of the federationn council. The small number of presidents we've seen up to now haven't been very impressive, and it would be good to see a strong Trump-like president on screen.

And in a democracy civilian leadership can't be totally isolated from the will of the populace.

Just this, while I wouldn't want a "west wing" type Star Trek series, some view into the civilian decision making process would be interesting.

Preferably it wouldn't be a simplistic clone of a modern day governing body, but be more of a alien inspired group. One that Earth finds itselves a part of.

 

[TwoJakes]

The whole reason they had Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov on the bridge of the Enterprise in the original series was ...

Your example really works only in the case of Sulu.

NBC told it's producers that it wanted more Blacks seem on screen in NBC programming. And Uhura was hardly featured, something that Nichelle Nichols has commented on.

Chekov was introduced onto the show not to showcase a "progressive" future, but to put a Davy Jones like character in the mix in an attempt to draw a youth demographic, something the studio (and advertisers) wanted more of.