Was Spock too Critical of Human History ?
- Thread starter DanGussin
- Start date
How about you give us some examples of things he said?
Fair warning: some of us only judge TOS by what was shown on TOS and don't count what later Trek shows retconned.
Spock's criticisms of "you humans" and "your Earth's history" can grate a little. But that was one of Star Trek's angles to work in some social commentary. And it kicked off the franchise archetype of the Outsider, the Other, on our team who at least mildly disdains us. Mr. Data would hit us with "sincere" questions about why humans behave in such a way. Seven of Nine would make a snarky observation about us here and there. T'Pol was from the "Spin-off Vulcan" school that really looked down on us, and even let on that humans smell bad to Vulcans. Gee, thanks, that little dig wasn't gratuitous at all.
Those four were also the "info and answers" characters who knew more about anything than we did, which leant authority to the idea that humans should be humbled. Maybe this whole writing approach came out of Critical Theory, from the Frankfurt School of Marxist theory. Or possibly post-modern critical theory. It boils down to "going negative" on the social structures you want to overthrow, without offering up your own alternative (which could then, itself, be criticized). [Edit: I am not suggesting that Star Trek was Marxist, or that I don't love all of these shows.]
On DS9, Jadzia had the smarts and the information we needed without the disdain for us, while Quark had the disdain without the built-in superiority. That was a nice change that made the interactions fresher. The Orville went back to the Mr. Data model, but Seth MacFarlane found another way to make it fresh in a Year 2 stunner.
Those four were also the "info and answers" characters who knew more about anything than we did, which leant authority to the idea that humans should be humbled. Maybe this whole writing approach came out of Critical Theory, from the Frankfurt School of Marxist theory. Or possibly post-modern critical theory. It boils down to "going negative" on the social structures you want to overthrow, without offering up your own alternative (which could then, itself, be criticized). [Edit: I am not suggesting that Star Trek was Marxist, or that I don't love all of these shows.]
On DS9, Jadzia had the smarts and the information we needed without the disdain for us, while Quark had the disdain without the built-in superiority. That was a nice change that made the interactions fresher. The Orville went back to the Mr. Data model, but Seth MacFarlane found another way to make it fresh in a Year 2 stunner.
Last edited:
Bread and Circuses - Detailing the carnage of Earth's world wars juxtaposed with his comments about 20th century Rome.
The Apple - his comment on how the Feeders of Val had learned to kil as had Humanity.
Space Seed - His conversation with McCoy about the Eugenics War and the scientists who were involved.
The Trouble with Tribbles - His basic distain for the human reaction to inoffensive loving creatures.
The Immunity Syndrome - How suffer the death of thy neighbor might have rendered human history less bloody .and the relative hardness of the Vulcan vs human heart.
Mirror Mirror - how the Enterprise counterparts were splendid examples of humanity
While some of this is of course banter and a means for both the characters and the audience to look at themselves , at times Spock does not seem to connect negative thoughts , emotions and actions to Vulcan's past in the same way that he does with human history.
IMO - It would have been more effective for Spock to mention the difficult path of both Earth and Vulcan and how each world required great effort to grow. Spock himself mentioned that Vulcan had had a difficult and violent past on a few occasions in TOS so for me there is no Recon needed here.
Please note that I love the portrayal of Spock and have no intention of beating up on our beloved First Officer. But to me, he appears a bit one sided one this one issue.
As has been said up thread, Spock as the outsider allowed the writers at the time to make some additional social commentary.
If we go in-universe, although I doubt this was the writers intent back then, perhaps Spock's harsh comments about humanity were also partly motivated by his own inner conflict with his human half, something he wasn't yet at peace with.
If we go in-universe, although I doubt this was the writers intent back then, perhaps Spock's harsh comments about humanity were also partly motivated by his own inner conflict with his human half, something he wasn't yet at peace with.
That's me!
Spock spoke with logic and not sentiment, he was the counterbalance to McCoy who was very sentimental and not very logical. Therefore, his criticisms were not couched in soothing words. Certain episodes the writers did push it a bit beyond naked logic to almost arrogance but he was not so much condemning as much as reporting.
Then I don't really get the complaint? Spock mentioned Vulcan's violent past, but Star Trek is about humanity. Spock is the outsider offering commentary on who we are. No need to muddle it with "Vulcan did it too" every time he made an observation.
At what point was Vulcan's violent past established? Were those early holier-than-thou comments perhaps reflective of a society more peaceful than the flawed planet Vulcan we have come to know in "Amok Time" and the movies, let alone the endless adaptation decay of the sequel and prequels?
I think it's just a bit of Vulcan snobbery to be honest! Vulcan abandoned the concept of war much earlier than humanity had and embraced a new control of their emotions, something that the earth and it's colonies have never understood or been able to replicate! Maybe neither side can really get the other and so we have this condemnation of their respective societies! Spock's smiling which began in The Cage eventually faded away completely even to the extent of Spock's Mother mentioning it in Babel as his never learning to do it despite living amongst humans for years and us knowing that he did do it in the early shows and does do it occasionally but only to his own embarrassment! 
JB
JB
Spock did comment on the fact that his ancestors were savage barbarians while threatening McCoy to protect his relationship with Zarabeth {is that spelled correctly ?}. And we did see him begin to revert back to that state as he had not been processed correctly.
We do see in Amok Time a stand alone example of how Vulcan emotions can run high. And while some of this can be explained by Pon Far , it is also established that T'Pring and Stonn were having an affair for some time that did not seem to be connected to the mating drive. She also made a deliberate choice to put a complete strangers life at risk for her own happiness. On a bit of a side note, I have wondered about the effects of Pon Far on Vulcan females as T'Pring seemed much more at ease than Spock.
And Vulcan's did once kill to claim their mates.
Spock also details the violent past of Vulcan in "Let this Be your last Battlefield".
IMO - Vulcan's past is well established within the context of TOS.
I am not quite clear on your comment about the flawed planet we come to know in Amok Time as many of these flaws seem to have carried thru to the "present Day" as portrayed in that episode.
In Space Seed you had the command "boys" praising up and admiring Khan which Spock couldn't understand.
We get what they meant and there was a bit of teasing there.
However I think humanity deserved a bit blast from Spock in this episode. Yes Khan was a ruthless dictator , performs domestic violence - lets give him the run of the ship because he's cool. What does Spock (aka Debbie Downer) know anyway?
We get what they meant and there was a bit of teasing there.
However I think humanity deserved a bit blast from Spock in this episode. Yes Khan was a ruthless dictator , performs domestic violence - lets give him the run of the ship because he's cool. What does Spock (aka Debbie Downer) know anyway?
Last edited:
Maybe the ancient Vulcans had better reasons to fight and commit murder than the blood thirsty humans! T'Pring and Stonn might have been an item but there's no proof that they were at it like rabbits! Plus just because T'Pring didn't appear to be affected by the Pon Farr doesn't mean that she wasn't and maybe Spock was more under it's influence because underneath he wanted the union with her!
JB
JB
No. It is human(oid?) nature to be more judgmental and critical of others behavior and history than our own. The tendency to aggrandize our cultural history is another prevalent example of that in TOS (Chekov citing everything as being a Russian invention or Mr. Scott's pride in all things Scottish for example). It is an appeal to tribalism.
Possibly.
Spock's people learned it all the hard way and has seen it all before. If he has criticism without emotion and kept on that level, there's no problem. Unless there is, but he's never told a solution or implied that everyone should become Vulcan. Which is what TNG tried to show.
A fun tangent: Remember that episode of that dysfunctional family show sitcom from the 1990s where the kids mouthed to the parents after getting caught with drugs by saying the parents did it too so there was no problem? What the story didn't cover was what happened TO the parents after their drug-doing since the story wanted the parents to waver. There might be topics with a gray area for proper debate or if the drugs in question were ostensibly harmless then that show's narrative could have used a better way... but not when it comes to illicit substances that can arguably damage one's health. It's not like any of the actors on the show would later of drug overdose in real life or anything. Oh, wait...
Spock's people learned it all the hard way and has seen it all before. If he has criticism without emotion and kept on that level, there's no problem. Unless there is, but he's never told a solution or implied that everyone should become Vulcan. Which is what TNG tried to show.
A fun tangent: Remember that episode of that dysfunctional family show sitcom from the 1990s where the kids mouthed to the parents after getting caught with drugs by saying the parents did it too so there was no problem? What the story didn't cover was what happened TO the parents after their drug-doing since the story wanted the parents to waver. There might be topics with a gray area for proper debate or if the drugs in question were ostensibly harmless then that show's narrative could have used a better way... but not when it comes to illicit substances that can arguably damage one's health. It's not like any of the actors on the show would later of drug overdose in real life or anything. Oh, wait...
Or tongue-in-cheek ribbing/mockery to be taken as humor and nothing serious, since there were anti-American sentiments in Russian shows at the time, etc, etc, but I digress. Especially as Star Trek allowed such odd compliments via "I inwented wellies for nooclwear swubmaweens" Chekov, and to a lesser extent drunken ol' Scotty being nothing more than lame stereotype lines that cling to heritages they only pay superficial homage to half the time. But in the context of the 1960s, it was still pretty epic for what it was trying to do despite its misfires - regardless of nationality, gender, etrc, etc, etc. We could all be one big happy unified planet and we'd all still pay romantic platitudes to the fact we came from x, y, or z places in the past regardless of relishing the present. But that's no less hypothetical, if not hyperbole.
Technically, Star Trek was television drama, a discussion for the human condition or psychoanalytical dialogue (when not flapdoodle, like some of my posts
), using aliens as a metaphorical extension of cultures and nothing more. By extension, humanoids may or may not be the same. To actually show genuine alien attitudes might be difficult if audiences decide it's too boring. By TNG, the show changed focus from cultural memes to emotional memes. Still relevant but definitely different.Would other species behave similarly? Perhaps, the extent of which we do not know since nobody has knocked on our door and announced themselves with "Hi, I'm Jack Tripper. And you are?" yet. Or, worse, "We're John and Diana and if you give us chemicals we'll cure your cancer. Just avoid our 5th column, but even they do what we do and we criticize you - not always to your face the way they do as a heavyhanded metaphor for water conservation. Oh, we'll eat you too." But it is a recurring theme, in sci-fi entertainment anyway, that being critical is a common trait amongst all species. That we are aware of and what we do not know we attempt to extrapolate, with a margin of error.
It is interesting to see the difference between the treatment of Spock in TOS and Worf in TNG and DS9.
While Spock was encouraged and even berated a bit to embrace the Human part of his heritage, Worf was largely allowed to remain Klingon in his outlook so long as it did not specifically interfere with his role as a Starfleet officer. Over time Worf was able to make his own choices to embrace or reject aspects of both his Klingon heritage and his Human upbringing. .
On the other hand Spock tended to be under pressure to be more human until someone needed him to preform a mind meld or do time travel equations in his head and let his Vulcan side out.
We have to wonder what Kirk's reaction to Spock refusing to give his blood to save a dying enemy would be as opposed to Picard allowing Worf to refuse this course of action and perhaps start an interstellar incident.
While Spock was encouraged and even berated a bit to embrace the Human part of his heritage, Worf was largely allowed to remain Klingon in his outlook so long as it did not specifically interfere with his role as a Starfleet officer. Over time Worf was able to make his own choices to embrace or reject aspects of both his Klingon heritage and his Human upbringing. .
On the other hand Spock tended to be under pressure to be more human until someone needed him to preform a mind meld or do time travel equations in his head and let his Vulcan side out.
We have to wonder what Kirk's reaction to Spock refusing to give his blood to save a dying enemy would be as opposed to Picard allowing Worf to refuse this course of action and perhaps start an interstellar incident.
Spock refusing to help someone in danger of losing their life would be against the characters traits.
Absolutely agree that Spock would never choose that course of action.
I was simply using it as an example of the differing treatment of Spock and Worf by the people around them.
Didn't Spock refuse to donate his blood to save a dying man?
And wasn't he berated by everyone including his own mother despite it being a fairly risky operation to himself.
Which I suppose proves your point that humans tended to criticise Spock for his Vulcan logic but Worf was generally given a free pass.
And wasn't he berated by everyone including his own mother despite it being a fairly risky operation to himself.
Which I suppose proves your point that humans tended to criticise Spock for his Vulcan logic but Worf was generally given a free pass.
Similar threads
