The Cogenitor *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*

[Tallis Rhul]

Is it just me or was Trip especially naive in this episode? I was watching it thinking "er, no, you've actually gone a bit bonkers now haven't you."

Archer's guilt trip at the end of the episode was perfect, and one of the first times I've been 100% in agreement with how he runs the ship! (Obviously my years as a starship captain enable me to comment...)

I actually like Trip as a character too, but man did he deserve to get his ass kicked.

What did you guys think of the episode?

 

[Pemmer Harge]

This is probably the best episode of Enterprise I've seen so far. Unlike, say, Dear Doctor, the moral dilemma here was actually real and it raised interesting issues about how we would relate to aliens. I agree that Trip was naive, but I find that I like him best when he's being clueless but well-meaning. He certainly had a point about the treatment of the cogenitors, even though his actions were unwise. I liked the fact that Archer had to make a genuinely difficult decision and that that decision had consequences. I actually thought Archer could have been a little more sympathetic towards Trip at the end, but I can certainly buy the idea that he wouldn't be. I also loved seeing Andreas Katsulas as the Vissian captain and liked the relationship he built up with Archer.

Oh, and in context "They don't want me to climb mountains." is probably as heartbreaking as any line in Star Trek for my money.

 

[JiNX-01]

So many fans focus on Trip's behavior.



I love this episode. I thought it was well done with one exception (or should I say exclusion?).

I think there should have been a scene where Archer struggles with the question of Charles' asylum request. He wonders what humanity's role should be out here. Teacher? Student? Partner? Do we leave behind our sense of fairness, honor, justice and equality when we depart the solar system?

I want to know what made Archer tick in this episode. If he had met the cogenitor before he met the captain, how might that have changed the outcome?

That's what bugs me about this episode (as good as it is) ... we never get that Kirk/Picard "speech" about not abandoning who we are and what we stand for.

 

[Tallis Rhul]

I think it illustrates the fact that Archer actually has to guess about what's appropriate a lot of the time. T'Pol is there to guide his hand, but he often doesn't want to approach things in the same way as the high command, which by the time we get to The Congenitor could also be said of T'Pol.

I agree that Trip's will to help the Cogenitor was well-meaning and probably something I should have done, but sneaking into quarters and what have you should have rung some alarm bells for him. And you're quite right, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Archer and Trip had reversed roles for that episode!

 

[JiNX-01]

I think it illustrates the fact that Archer actually has to guess about what's appropriate a lot of the time. T'Pol is there to guide his hand, but he often doesn't want to approach things in the same way as the high command, which by the time we get to The Congenitor could also be said of T'Pol.

I agree that Trip's will to help the Cogenitor was well-meaning and probably something I should have done, but sneaking into quarters and what have you should have rung some alarm bells for him. And you're quite right, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Archer and Trip had reversed roles for that episode!

I can see how Trip's behavior in this episode raised alarms for many fans. But consider this: Do you think slavery would have ended had it not been for the Underground Railroad, which was the secret work of abolitionists. And it was illegal to teach slaves to read.

Trip is a kind person and the more he learned (and I'll concede that he should have made more of an effort to learn more about the origins of the segregation of the cogenitors) the more disturbed he became about the Vissians' attitudes.

I really wish there had been a followup connection with the Vissians. I would like to know more about the nature of Vissian society.

The Vissian engineer says cogenitors make up 3 percent of the global population. I want to know if that is the natural order on Vissia. Or was it by genetic manipulation in ages past as a population control measure? Or is it the consequence of abortions sought by parents who want a child whose future isn't predetermined by sexism/bigotry?

 

[bluedana]

I can see how Trip's behavior in this episode raised alarms for many fans. But consider this: Do you think slavery would have ended had it not been for the Underground Railroad, which was the secret work of abolitionists. And it was illegal to teach slaves to read.

That analogy doesn't really work because it's not as if abolitionists and slave owners had only known each other for a minute. They were part of the same overall society, and so each had, they thought, some moral ground to stand on in defending their positions.

What to me is so sad about this episode, beside the outcome, is that the moment Trip disobeyed orders/suggestions and started sneaking around (and yes, he did know that he was going behind everyone's back), the humans lost the moral high ground to say, this is how a civilized society behaves.

 

[JiNX-01]

I can see how Trip's behavior in this episode raised alarms for many fans. But consider this: Do you think slavery would have ended had it not been for the Underground Railroad, which was the secret work of abolitionists. And it was illegal to teach slaves to read.

That analogy doesn't really work because it's not as if abolitionists and slave owners had only known each other for a minute. They were part of the same overall society, and so each had, they thought, some moral ground to stand on in defending their positions.

I agree in part with your argument, however I can't picture the moral ground slave owners held (maybe it's just my 21st century sensibilities ). They raped, brutalized and murdered fellow human beings to further their own enrichment and pleasure (and yes, I know some slave owners were humane, but they still held ownership of people).

What to me is so sad about this episode, beside the outcome, is that the moment Trip disobeyed orders/suggestions and started sneaking around (and yes, he did know that he was going behind everyone's back), the humans lost the moral high ground to say, this is how a civilized society behaves.

I disagree that Trip's behavior cost the humans the "moral high ground." The test of a just civilization is in how it treats its weakest members. In my view, the Vissians were the inferior society.

And I disagree that Trip was "going behind everybody's back." He made it clear to T'Pol and to Phlox that he took issue with the treatment of the cogenitor and was acting on it. And Phlox even supplied Trip with a device to measure the learning capabilities of both the cogenitor and its "superiors." The doctor then provided the analysis of the readings.

Archer's record up to "Cogenitor":
Fight or Flight: Endangers his own crew to get shipload of dead aliens back to their homeworld.
Andorian Incident: Ignores his Vulcan hosts' entreaties to just leave P'Jem during a hostage situation. He insists on helping them and endangers everyone involved despite the fact that they didn't want his help.
Dear Doctor: Valakians ask for help and initially Archer accommodates them until Phlox says they need to become extinct so an ascending species can thrive. Then Archer lets Phlox withhold aid even as they acknowledge that the Valakians could end up getting help from someone else. Apparently, Archer was OK with letting a species fade away despite Phlox's own observation that the Menk were already advancing intellectually in spite of the Valakians' interference.
Sleeping Dogs: Archer goes to the aid of a Klingon vessel that didn't ask for help and endangers members of his crew in the process.
Marauders: Miners decline to sell deuterium to Archer. He learns they're being pushed around by rogue (but wussy) Klingons and insists on helping them fight back -- even tho' they didn't ask for help. He has to talk them into it.


Trip honestly believed -- based on his own observations of Archer's conduct -- that the captain would back him up.

He was shocked that the captain was more concerned about the opportunity to obtain advanced technology from the Vissians than the moral repugnance of unequal, unjust treatment of a sentient individual.

And frankly, so was I.

 

[SFRabid]

Is it just me or was Trip especially naive in this episode? I was watching it thinking "er, no, you've actually gone a bit bonkers now haven't you."

I don't like this episode because he is so out of character. Otherwise, good concept for a story.

 

[lceb]

Is it just me or was Trip especially naive in this episode? I was watching it thinking "er, no, you've actually gone a bit bonkers now haven't you."

I don't like this episode because he is so out of character. Otherwise, good concept for a story.

I don't think Trip acted out of character. He saw something that he considered wrong and acted on it and that's what he usually does. Maybe he was naive to think that Archer would back him.

I disagree that Trip's behavior cost the humans the "moral high ground." The test of a just civilization is in how it treats its weakest members. In my view, the Vissians were the inferior society.

And I disagree that Trip was "going behind everybody's back." He made it clear to T'Pol and to Phlox that he took issue with the treatment of the cogenitor and was acting on it. And Phlox even supplied Trip with a device to measure the learning capabilities of both the cogenitor and its "superiors." The doctor then provided the analysis of the readings.

Archer's record up to "Cogenitor":
Fight or Flight: Endangers his own crew to get shipload of dead aliens back to their homeworld.
Andorian Incident: Ignores his Vulcan hosts' entreaties to just leave P'Jem during a hostage situation. He insists on helping them and endangers everyone involved despite the fact that they didn't want his help.
Dear Doctor: Valakians ask for help and initially Archer accommodates them until Phlox says they need to become extinct so an ascending species can thrive. Then Archer lets Phlox withhold aid even as they acknowledge that the Valakians could end up getting help from someone else. Apparently, Archer was OK with letting a species fade away despite Phlox's own observation that the Menk were already advancing intellectually in spite of the Valakians' interference.
Sleeping Dogs: Archer goes to the aid of a Klingon vessel that didn't ask for help and endangers members of his crew in the process.
Marauders: Miners decline to sell deuterium to Archer. He learns they're being pushed around by rogue (but wussy) Klingons and insists on helping them fight back -- even tho' they didn't ask for help. He has to talk them into it.


Trip honestly believed -- based on his own observations of Archer's conduct -- that the captain would back him up.

He was shocked that the captain was more concerned about the opportunity to obtain advanced technology from the Vissians than the moral repugnance of unequal, unjust treatment of a sentient individual.

And frankly, so was I.

I agree to that. I think that Archer was more out of character, because he is always shown as an idealist and here he is suddenly a pragmatist and an opportunist at the same time.

What I really like about this episode is that although I morally agree with what Trip did, it is not clear what would be the "right" approach to a similar situation and unfortunatelly this is a question that applies to human life in the present, will apply in the future and will not ne answered for a very long time.

(On the other hand, out of Charles' personal tragedy something might start changing in the Vissian society, but maybe it's the optimist in me that thinks so.)

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Trip did strike me as "Broken Bow"-naive in "Cogenitor." Remember in "BB" when he sees that child fighting to breathe, and he automatically assumes the mother is abusing him and is ready to go over there and save the kid...but it turns out he's dead wrong? "Cogenitor" had that same vibe. Except Trip blows off T'Pol's caution ("It's not our place to judge the customs of other cultures"), as well as Phlox's caution ("It's not a question of right or wrong"). Even the cogenitor tries to stop Trip when he brings that book to it, unbidden, and tells it about all the rights it's entitled to (oh yeah, if it were human, which it isn't). Its response is, "It's wrong for me to read"..."You shouldn't be here"..."That may be true on your world, but not on mine"..."You don't understand."

For a guy who had the maturity to command effectively during "Cease Fire" and keep the Vulcans and Andorians from starting a war right then and there, such bull-headed denseness does seem out of character to me. I think the point being made was that Trip was still prone to being impulsive and not considering the consequences of his actions. But it was still a step backwards for the character Trip had become.

It would have been great to know what led to the subjugation of the cogenitors on Vissia. Some past medical disaster in which the ability to reproduce was almost lost? A failed attempt by the cogenitors to take over the government? We don't know. But it didn't matter for the purposes of the story. The Vissians were treating the cogenitor correctly from their POV, and Trip believed they were wrong.

I disagree that Trip's behavior cost the humans the "moral high ground." The test of a just civilization is in how it treats its weakest members. In my view, the Vissians were the inferior society.

Whether they were or not, that didn't give Trip the right to pass judgment on them, using human standards of morality, without even bothering to learn anything about their history or culture.

And I disagree that Trip was "going behind everybody's back."

Well... he went to the Vissian couple's quarters to teach the cogenitor to read, after telling the engineer he was going to the mess hall for lunch. During a later reading session, Trip tells the cogenitor "they think I'm in Astrometrics." And when he sneaks it aboard Enterprise, putting it at risk of punishment, he says that they'll have to make sure no one spots them.

Archer's record up to "Cogenitor":

Every discussion about "Cogenitor" seems to turn into an Archer bashfest sooner or later. He wasn't even on Enterprise for most of the show. To me, this story is about Trip, and a dilemma with no clear "correct" solution.

Of course, in Season 1 (four of your five examples), Archer had a tendency to barrel in when he saw someone needing assistance. From the looks of "Dear Doctor," he was really struggling with the issue of non-interference, since there was no Prime Directive yet. I thought it was cool to show that, once upon a time, starship captains had to wing it, and official guidelines were needed. Never mind that Trek is famous for ditching the Prime Directive whenever needed. "A Taste of Armageddon" and "The Apple" come immediately to mind.

I could totally buy that Archer's impulsiveness had waned by late Season 2, in favor of weighing the issue of doing what he thought was right vs. interfering with other species, as he put it. That shift toward a more objective, "prime directive" attitude would seem to be a logical and necessary step for a maturing commander.

Watching this episode was really uncomfortable and sad for me, because I like Trip, and he seemed written to be all heart and no brains in this one. The ending was tragic. But if the cogenitor had been granted asylum, that would have been a tragedy for the Vissian couple, and countless other couples. lceb has a point: the cogenitor's death might have compelled the Vissians to re-examine their long-held views, just as the deaths of Romeo and Juliet were a wake-up call to the feuding Montagues and Capulets.

 

[bluedana]

I think HR has hit it on the head. It's that complexity that makes this one of my favorite episodes - and at the same time one that I only watch when I'm in a certain mood. It gets me thinking and makes me sad.

I think there's a huge difference between "acting out of character," and "not making the same or similar decision in arguably similar circumstances." If people made cookie cutter decisions, they'd be programmable robots. So, frankly, I think the examples you give, JiNX, are not completely supportable.

Do we really want to root for a guy who sees a ship trapped in a planet's atmosphere, with lifeforms aboard, and who shrugs and says, Oh, well, sucks to be them? Once he committed to seeing what the crew might be able to do, and they got marooned there by the irrational Klingon officer, he kind of had to follow through with the rescue. In Andorian Incident, it's convenient to forget that in that first scene with the monks, it's T'Pol who becomes concerned that something is very wrong there. Also convenient to pass over is the fact that in Dear Doctor, it's Phlox that convinces Archer to do something that he otherwise would not have done - the arrogant captain actually taking advice from his worldly-wise CMO. I think he made the wrong decision, but, as HR says, he was really struggling with it. It's a different outcome from Flight or Fight, where he resists the notion that he needs to put aside the compassion that he believes makes him human, but as I said, people make different decisions in different situations. It all adds up to a compelling character who keeps our interest in what he's going to do. (I can't speak about Marauders, because I've resolved never to watch that episode again.)

I don't think Trip acted out of character, either. He just made bad decisions and put the captain in a no-win situation.

I disagree that Trip's behavior cost the humans the "moral high ground." The test of a just civilization is in how it treats its weakest members. In my view, the Vissians were the inferior society.

That's not really the point I was making. Had Trip openly discovered Charles' intelligence, Archer might have been able to defend its putative right to learn and be independent. As is was, that conversation would be shut down effectively by the Vissians' saying, Your guy snuck onto our ship and stole our cogenitor, then interfered with its relationship with its keepers, and you're going to lecture us about what's right and decent? Really?

I can't picture the moral ground slave owners held (maybe it's just my 21st century sensibilities ). They raped, brutalized and murdered fellow human beings to further their own enrichment and pleasure (and yes, I know some slave owners were humane, but they still held ownership of people).

Yes, I get that slavery was (and is) bad. I really do. But, again, the point is that the abolitionists and the North, generally, did not have clean hands. If you read the debates surrounding the signing of the Declaration of Independence (where John Adams vociferously argues that abolition of slavery should be included - he lost) and the Missouri and other compromises prior to the Civil War, you see that the South's agrarian economy, slavery included, was a lynchpin of the North's industrial economy and foreign policy. For the North to say, You are bad, and then go back to their nice homes paid for by import and export, and have a nice rum cocktail, was hypocrisy.

Back on topic, Archer has a consistent approach to dealing with underdogs - he's always going to offer to help. He's usually going to try to convince them to accept his help. And when he decides to walk away, he's very unhappy about it. Trip is pretty much the same way, but in Cogenitor, in my opinion, he doomed his own effort by going about it the wrong way.

 

[JiNX-01]

Trip did strike me as "Broken Bow"-naive in "Cogenitor." Remember in "BB" when he sees that child fighting to breathe, and he automatically assumes the mother is abusing him and is ready to go over there and save the kid...but it turns out he's dead wrong?

There's a difference between being naive and taking your principles with you. You see someone you believe is being harmed, you do something about it. Trip and Archer were cut from the same cloth -- they're men of action who stand up for the weak and helpless. I honestly believe that if Archer had befriended the cogenitor before meeting the captain, he would have tried to help it. I'm not saying he would have mishandled it the way Trip did, but he certainly would have wondered at the treatment of the cogenitor in such an apparently enlightened society.

The "Cogenitor" had that same vibe. Except Trip blows off T'Pol's caution ("It's not our place to judge the customs of other cultures"), as well as Phlox's caution ("It's not a question of right or wrong").

I've always been troubled by the argument that the application of unequal treatment based on arbitrary standards (sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnic origin, skin color) is somehow relative. If it's wrong in Singapore, how can it be OK somewhere else?

Even the cogenitor tries to stop Trip when he brings that book to it, unbidden, and tells it about all the rights it's entitled to (oh yeah, if it were human, which it isn't).

It's funny that this keeps coming up. You know why? Because someday there's going to be this Federation (founded under the leadership of Captain Archer ), and all of its member worlds -- regardless of who lives there and their "cultural practices" -- will be expected to adopt the principles Trip is defending in this episode: equal and just treatment of all individuals within the society. (See: TNG, The Hunted).

Its response is, "It's wrong for me to read"..."You shouldn't be here"..."That may be true on your world, but not on mine"..."You don't understand."

Yup, the cogenitor repeats what it has been told by its masters. And yet, with just a little encouragement, look at what becomes possible when it breaks with custom.

For a guy who had the maturity to command effectively during "Cease Fire" and keep the Vulcans and Andorians from starting a war right then and there, such bull-headed denseness does seem out of character to me.

Bull-headed? Yes. Dense? No. He disagreed with T'Pol and Phlox. He didn't see the treatment of the cogenitor as an exercise in philosophical differences.
As for his handling of the situation in Cease Fire, Trip was backing up his captain. He knew he had to buy Archer and Soval time to work out a truce which wasn't going to happen if a space battle broke out.

I think the point being made was that Trip was still prone to being impulsive and not considering the consequences of his actions. But it was still a step backwards for the character Trip had become.

I don't recall a single episode up to this one where Trip's actions yielded serious consequences for anyone. So why would it occur to him that he was playing with fire in this instance?

It would have been great to know what led to the subjugation of the cogenitors on Vissia. Some past medical disaster in which the ability to reproduce was almost lost? A failed attempt by the cogenitors to take over the government? We don't know. But it didn't matter for the purposes of the story. The Vissians were treating the cogenitor correctly from their POV, and Trip believed they were wrong.

I disagree. I think it does matter why the cogenitors are subjugated. And I consider it a failing of the writers to leave the explanation as merely a "cultural practice." And if it's just a "cultural" thing (like they way they dress and the music they listen to), then why does it hold such enormous importance to them?

I disagree that Trip's behavior cost the humans the "moral high ground." The test of a just civilization is in how it treats its weakest members. In my view, the Vissians were the inferior society.

Whether they were or not, that didn't give Trip the right to pass judgment on them, using human standards of morality, without even bothering to learn anything about their history or culture.

See above.

And I disagree that Trip was "going behind everybody's back."

Well... he went to the Vissian couple's quarters to teach the cogenitor to read, after telling the engineer he was going to the mess hall for lunch. During a later reading session, Trip tells the cogenitor "they think I'm in Astrometrics." And when he sneaks it aboard Enterprise, putting it at risk of punishment, he says that they'll have to make sure no one spots them.

I have to agree. Lying about his whereabouts and visiting their quarters without their invitation or knowledge was pretty damn rude of him.
I would have preferred that he would ask more questions that might have led to a discussion of humanity's own struggles with similar issues over equality for all.

Archer's record up to "Cogenitor":

Every discussion about "Cogenitor" seems to turn into an Archer bashfest sooner or later. He wasn't even on Enterprise for most of the show. To me, this story is about Trip, and a dilemma with no clear "correct" solution.

I didn't intend for the list to be a bashfest. I was making the point that even tho' the cogenitor didn't ask for a reading lesson or enlightenment, Trip legitimately believed he was following in his hero's footsteps.

Of course, in Season 1 (four of your five examples), Archer had a tendency to barrel in when he saw someone needing assistance. From the looks of "Dear Doctor," he was really struggling with the issue of non-interference, since there was no Prime Directive yet. I thought it was cool to show that, once upon a time, starship captains had to wing it, and official guidelines were needed. Never mind that Trek is famous for ditching the Prime Directive whenever needed. "A Taste of Armageddon" and "The Apple" come immediately to mind.

Yeah, I understood that he was winging it in S1 which is why S1 was, IMO, more interesting than S2.

I could totally buy that Archer's impulsiveness had waned by late Season 2, in favor of weighing the issue of doing what he thought was right vs. interfering with other species, as he put it. That shift toward a more objective, "prime directive" attitude would seem to be a logical and necessary step for a maturing commander.

I guess Trip didn't get the memo.

Watching this episode was really uncomfortable and sad for me, because I like Trip, and he seemed written to be all heart and no brains in this one. The ending was tragic. But if the cogenitor had been granted asylum, that would have been a tragedy for the Vissian couple, and countless other couples. lceb has a point: the cogenitor's death might have compelled the Vissians to re-examine their long-held views, just as the deaths of Romeo and Juliet were a wake-up call to the feuding Montagues and Capulets.

Interesting idea.
I always hoped to see the Vissians pop up again so we could learn more about their society and how it evolved.

 

[SFRabid]

Of course, in Season 1 (four of your five examples), Archer had a tendency to barrel in when he saw someone needing assistance.

It just hit me after reading this. Trip IS season 1 Archer for this episode. That's what is wrong.

Watching this episode was really uncomfortable and sad for me, because I like Trip, and he seemed written to be all heart and no brains in this one. ...

This time I will say it. It's scarry how we are thinking alike lately.