Trek's Diversity

[Fish1941]

While reading this review( http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2009/05/star-trek-90210-or-star-trash-or.html) of "STAR TREK", I came upon this interesting passage that criticized the franchise's portrayal of cultural or ethnic diversity in the fictional 23rd and 24th centuries:

Because despite the assertions of Star Trek’s countless producers and myriad fans, the entire franchise (but mainly the original series) has always been about underlining 20th century prejudices, but on a cosmic scale. The only species not defined by an overarching, stereotypical character trait is the humans. All others can be described with one word, and one word only: Vulcans are soulless, Klingons are aggressive, Ferengi are sly, etc. The arrogance on display is palpable: Only Homo Sapiens have the right answers, the rest of the races littering the galaxy are somewhat primitive, despite their mastery of space and time well in advance of us. The ones that are slightly more well adjusted, like Spock or Worf, have all adapted to our ways: this is not integration, it’s assimilation

I hate to say this, but the author had a point.

 

[Tharsis]

I think its more accurate to say that the alien species of trek are meant to reflect different aspects of human nature. Each species highlights some aspect that is negative that we should aspire as a race to avoid. Having species like that in Trek set a clear distinction between what should be (24th century humans) and what could be (24th centruy Ferengi, for example). I think you need that to tell a good story, everyone can't be super friendly and without flaw. Its just nice for a change that a sci-fi franchise chose humans to carry the torch of morality and dignity.

 

[DarKush]

Everyone can't be without flaws, but it never set well with me that humans are so perfect and everyone else isn't. I liked how other sci-fi franchises portrayed humanity, just as flawed as the rest of the universe.

There was far too little complexity given to the alien races on Trek, and too much was made of how the aliens who spent time with humans were reformed or even became more human, which on Trek is the aspiration, the highpoint of existence it seemed.

What I would've loved to see was humans who adopted more alien ways, like Jono from that Talarian episode, or the Asmund sisters in MJ Friedman's Stargazer series. The idea that Archer possessed Surak's katra and didn't seem changed by it at all, or gaining a better acceptance or respect of Vulcan tradition/culture was crazy, or just the result of poor writing. I thought the Vulcan Reformation could've been a great moment for Archer, who had been biased toward Vulcans, to have a change in how he saw them due to the katric experience.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think Archer kind of got over the whole "Vulcan's suck" thing before that particular arc. Hanging out with T'Pol more or less softened his attitude.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

He's right but its more of a sympton of the "homogenization" that Rick Berman brought to Trek.

The new movie had different styles of Vulcans. They had bullies, they had people like Sarek (who flat out said, I married her because I loved her), Spock, etc.

 

[captcalhoun]

aliens who have more than one member depicted are rarely monolithic. The Klingons aren't (Kurn, Duras, Martok, Worf, Gowron), the Ferengi aren't entirely (Rom, Nog, Quark), the Cardassians aren't entirely (Garak, Dukat and Damar).

the races where it's harder to make that assertion are ones where we only got to know one or two examples well, and not a large enough number to contrast (like the Andorians, we only really got to know Shran)

 

[Michael]

I'd say the author of this review greatly misses the point of the species as presented in Star Trek. In most cases they serve the purpose of mirroring an aspect of our own culture. They function as a means which enables the writers to comment on the human condition. Maybe the author of this review should gen up on Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels.

 

[Myasishchev]

I think its more accurate to say that the alien species of trek are meant to reflect different aspects of human nature. Each species highlights some aspect that is negative that we should aspire as a race to avoid. Having species like that in Trek set a clear distinction between what should be (24th century humans) and what could be (24th centruy Ferengi, for example). I think you need that to tell a good story, everyone can't be super friendly and without flaw. Its just nice for a change that a sci-fi franchise chose humans to carry the torch of morality and dignity.

Perfectly said, and I'd like to echo others who have pointed out that only the civilizations we don't really know that much about are true monocultures.

For what it's worth, humanity is probably presented, on a percentage basis, to be just as monolithic or more than the alien species, as a penniless gang of curious, semi-bumbling self-improvers.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Humans are just as one-dimensional as the rest when compared with the characterization of Cardassians, who ironically enough, are Trek's most well rounded species. Humans are boring stuffed shirts compared with the dynamic and colorful aliens surrounding them - it's the dreaded Starfleet Effect.

Humans who are in Starfleet, and that's pretty much all of them that we ever see, must be dull paragons of virtue and only become fun in combo with kicky aliens (Sisko and Garak vs Sisko alone, for instance). And even the cliched Ferengi and Klingons got some fleshing out by DS9.

I suspect that writer isn't as familiar with DS9 as he should be. I still havent' seen the movie (Monday's the day! ) so I just skimmed the article but didn't see a mention of anything but TOS, so no wonder he's got it wrong. If he only watched TOS and TNG, no wonder he thinks aliens are a bore.

I think its more accurate to say that the alien species of trek are meant to reflect different aspects of human nature.

That's a good starting point. Cardassians started as a representation of the self-defeating and tragic human will towards power, but after a fair amount of storytelling had been devoted to them, they became far more complex than just that. Dukat, Damar, Garak, Enabrain Tain, Tkenny Ghemor, Amon Marritza, etc were all highly individual characters, who recognizably came from the same society yet were as varied as any group of humans, and more varied in their capacity for good and evil than the humans of Starfleet.

And here's hoping the Romulans get the "Cardassian treatment" next. They have stupendous potential.

For what it's worth, humanity is probably presented, on a percentage basis, to be just as monolithic or more than the alien species, as a penniless gang of curious, semi-bumbling self-improvers.

Yep, the humans of Star Trek are very monolithic compared with the humans of today. Their capitalistic qualities, for instance, seem to have migrated across space and been absorbed by the Ferengi. The will to power has been absorbed by the Cardies and all the fun, wild qualities are now the property of the Klingons. So really what's happened is that humanity has lost a lot of their color which has been distributed to the various alien races. That's why they need to stick close to the aliens, so we aren't all bored to death by having nothing but Starfleet bores to watch.

But all this is okay, if you take it as a starting point. I love the idea that Star Trek humans are very different from the humans of today. They are commie hippie pollyannas/cultural imperialists/optimistic goonie birds. To delete many of humanity's characteristics, focus only on the remainder, and then spin things off from there, gives Star Trek a distinctive feel. Humans just need to not get stagnant - everyone, including humans, need the "Cardassian treatment."

 

[Tentacle]

To quote Michael Eddington "You know In some ways you're even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it."

All the well rounded character as the writer puts it all got assimilated into human culture. But that is done deliberately to make them more relatable to the viewers. I always figured if you ever did meet an alien, they were be too "alien" for anyone to relate to them on a human level.

So it all goes back to the point that the aliens on trek are all personifications of humans, because it is hard to write for a well rounded alien when you have nothing to base your writings on.

To quote Quark: "The thing about root beer is, if you drink enough of it you begin to like it. Its insidious"
Garak: "Just like the federation"

 

[CoveTom]

Everyone can't be without flaws, but it never set well with me that humans are so perfect and everyone else isn't. I liked how other sci-fi franchises portrayed humanity, just as flawed as the rest of the universe.

Humans in TOS weren't without flaws. In fact, they were presented as quite flawed. That was one of the things TOS used to its advantage, in fact: showing how, although humans would always remain flawed, we were able to achieve despite that.

It wasn't until the time of TNG that Roddenberry had developed this notion that somehow humanity could evolve beyond all our flaws and achieve some level of utopian perfection. And that's when the characters in Trek also got alot more boring.

 

[TS-1838-SWATH]

It wasn't until the time of TNG that Roddenberry had developed this notion that somehow humanity could evolve beyond all our flaws and achieve some level of utopian perfection. And that's when the characters in Trek also got alot more boring.

That has been a BIG problem with TREK
I can get my head around them acting better to wards each other that people at present do but tis gone too far in one direction

 

[Sci]

The review of the new movie is mostly bullshit -- obsessive nitpicking over minor quibbles from someone who obviously went into the movie wanting to dislike it.

Having said that, the point that the reviewer makes about Trek's idea of diversity is valid. Others have defended Trek by saying that the aliens are meant to represent aspects of humanity -- but if that's the case, then Trek has an obligation to represent both the positive and negative aspects of those traits, not to just paint every species with a broad stroke. Further, Trek should also make it a point to depict diversity within these alien societies, and it should depict the positive contributions to overall Federation culture from all of those factions within alien societies. Humans shouldn't always be the wise ones that everyone else should want to be like.

 

[SummerDream]

It wasn't until the time of TNG that Roddenberry had developed this notion that somehow humanity could evolve beyond all our flaws and achieve some level of utopian perfection. And that's when the characters in Trek also got alot more boring.

That has been a BIG problem with TREK
I can get my head around them acting better to wards each other that people at present do but tis gone too far in one direction

I dont see that as a problem. Childrens shows also show those getting better - stories.

 

[RandyS]

It wasn't until the time of TNG that Roddenberry had developed this notion that somehow humanity could evolve beyond all our flaws and achieve some level of utopian perfection. And that's when the characters in Trek also got alot more boring.

That has been a BIG problem with TREK
I can get my head around them acting better to wards each other that people at present do but tis gone too far in one direction

I would still rather see that the New Galactica's messy depiction of humanity. They wasn't a single redeemin character on that joke of a show, and I hope they all died in the end. Painfully.

 

[CoveTom]

^ Well, Ronald D. Moore always did complain about Roddenberry's edicts concerning the characters and thought they were lousy ideas. He had always wanted Trek to break free of them, and apparently took that opportunity with Galactica.

As opposed to Michael Piller who, while still acknowledging they were a difficult framework to work within, took them as a challenge and always managed to find a way to make the story work. Which is one reason why, despite the adoration found on this board for Moore, I still think Piller was the superior writer.

 

[Sci]

^ Well, Ronald D. Moore always did complain about Roddenberry's edicts concerning the characters and thought they were lousy ideas. He had always wanted Trek to break free of them, and apparently took that opportunity with Galactica.

I think it's a mistake to take Moore's work on Galactica as an indication of what a Moore-run Trek show would be like. Moore himself has said that if he were doing Star Trek, it would not be as dark as BSG and that he'd approach it with a more optimistic mindset.

As opposed to Michael Piller who, while still acknowledging they were a difficult framework to work within, took them as a challenge and always managed to find a way to make the story work.

Yeah, but in the process he produced stories that were significantly more shallow than they could have been.

Star Trek should have had people who were people. People who'd made the choice, as individuals and as a culture, to be better than they do today, but not people who were just inherently morally superior to us today.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Indeed, Temis...you speak truth when it comes to the Cardassians! The irony is, they come from THE most totalitarian society we know of short of the Borg, in the Trekiverse, yet they still manage to be so diverse as people. Yet those in the "freest" society...they are awfully conformist. Frighteningly so. Makes you wonder which species actually has something in the water, doesn't it?

There's a great essay on this subject over at Ex Astris Scientia...

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/monoculture.htm

 

[CoveTom]

Star Trek should have had people who were people. People who'd made the choice, as individuals and as a culture, to be better than they do today, but not people who were just inherently morally superior to us today.

I agree. I think that's what TOS did, and actually what DS9 did as well, but in his later years it was not what Roddenberry wanted. I don't agree with him, but it was his baby at the time. My point was simply that Piller was able to find creative ways to work within the Roddenberry framework while Moore always chafed against it. Don't get me wrong. Moore turned out some fine TNG stories which stayed within the Roddenberry guidelines. But I think he had alot more difficulty doing so.

Let me put it another way. Roddenberry's later life vision of Star Trek is to me very similar to 2001: A Space Odyssey. In fact, TMP has often been compared in some respects to that film. By that I mean that it seems he wanted the stories to be about some particular idea or ideas and not about the characters. The problem with that is that while that may work for a high-concept intellectual sci-fi film, it's very difficult to execute week after week, month after month, year after year in series form and make interesting. But Piller tried, at least on TNG, because that was Roddenberry's baby and he respected that.

I have no problem with DS9 taking the direction it took. I think the greater character conflicts, the darker tone, the war elements... all of that worked well and were a needed paradigm shift for Trek. But I don't think they would have worked for TNG, nor do I think they were needed there. Piller's style worked better on TNG; Moore's style worked better on DS9 and BSG. That's really all I'm saying.