Why the Resistance to Starfleet as a Military?

[AstroSmurf]

@YARN: This isn't about what newtype_alpha may or may not have done. If I felt I needed to address his behavior I would have. I am addressing you specifically. Two consecutive posts I can overlook but making four posts in a row are just too many to ignore.

Make multiple posts like that again I will warn you for spamming. Any further comments about this issue need to be done by PM rather then derailing this thread.

 

[Vincent Law]

I tire of these long drawn out posts. Argument about whether Starfleet is a military or not is rather pointless, newtype_alpha, and in fact it only serves to underline that Starfleet is a military. But that doesn't even have to be the case, because that was never the question to begin with. The question was, why do fans, as in a person such as yourself, resist the very idea that Starfleet is a military? It doesn't matter whether you personally think it is a military or not, only why you dislike the idea. Can you or can you not answer this one simple question?

And I'm not trying to be patronizing; I am truly interested in what your response would be.

 

[YARN]

Smurf,

I appreciate that board moderation is a necessary aspect of maintaining a healthy forum. Without moderators a forum would be overrun with pornography, spam, flame wars, and other digressions that would unhinge our discussions.

Unfortunately, being a moderator is much like being life guard at a pool. The moderator has a job to do (often a boring one) while everyone else gets to frolic in their recreation. In an important sense, however, the two roles are NOT the same. When a lifeguard saves a drowning swimmer he or she is sure to receive sincere thanks. When a moderator intervenes to save a drowning discussion, on the other hand, he or she can expect to be abused for having done so. The moderator can expect to be accused of being petty, or power hungry, or violating free speech, etc., etc.

I agree that we should not derail this thread with an argument about forum etiquette. What I propose, on the contrary, is to explore your comments in those ways which pertain to this thread – which is to say, those ways which allow us to consider the ways in which we might say Starfleet is a military, and why it is that fans might be resistant to the idea.

@YARN: This isn't about what newtype_alpha may or may not have done. If I felt I needed to address his behavior I would have. I am addressing you specifically.

And I am addressing you specifically as well. But there is a difference here, isn't there? The difference is one of power. You have institutional power or what French and Raven call “Legitimate Power.” Ultimately, you could ban me -- that is, you have the power to literally remove me from any discussion at this website. You could use force. I have no such resources at my disposal, and therefore can only make use of words.

Institutional Power is a subspecies of coercive power. Coercive power is the raw power to simply take what one wishes by exertion of physical force. Caveman likes woman, so caveman clubs woman on head and drags woman back to cave. Institutional power is coercive power which is conferred and backed up (this bit is what really counts) by societal institutions. It is created by groups of people. It reflects the entitlements and duties that come with different roles and titles. Cops, kings, managers, and moderators have institutional power. In truth, institutional or “legitimate” power is merely a subspecies of coercive power. Why does one obey a cop? Because even if you could overpower a police officer, that officer is backed up by the coercive authority of the state. If you overpower a police officer, you can expect to have more officers come your way. And even if you could overpower a police force, you could then expect the military to be called out against you.

In the military, Institutional Power is carefully guarded and groomed commodity. “You salute the rank, not the man” is a common saying among soldiers. “You do not follow orders because they are right, but because it is your duty” is another common sentiment. And yet we tend to resent this sort of power. Whenever a higher ranking officer boards the Enterprise, you just know that the guy is going to be an idiot and cause problems – and the crew won’t do anything about it, because that person has legitimate power.

Reference to Institutional Power is a way to bypass Symbolic Power. When Commodore Decker (senior idiot officer of the week) refuses to listen to Mr. Spock’s recommendations to avoid the Doomsday Machine, Decker does so on the grounds of legitimate power. Ultimately, he asserts that he is lawfully in command of the ship and that therefore it is his right to command (which bypasses the issue of whether he is actually right in the way he exercising his rights).

This is precisely what occurs in the opening line of your post. It makes reference to what you are doing (make note of the repeated assertive use of the word “I”). You have no need to consider my reasons, precisely because you have institutional power. You state, “If I felt I needed to address his behavior I would have” which reiterates your institutional role – you are the one decides whether or not something is relevant. Your words make it clear that you are not one who is addressed, but the one who does the addressing. Your institutional power does not need to respond to my symbolic power, because you are Master and Commander of the forum—you are the law. In parent-child conversations this appears in the response “Because I am your mother. That’s why you have to do it.”

Institutional Power has limits though. Because it is socially conferred, it may also be socially removed. Consequently, this sort of power is not absolute, but must answer to the rules and conditions laid out by those who confer that power. And it is here where Symbolic Power must be addressed – or at least where one with Institutional Power must to some extent answer to reasons larger than the agent exercising the power. Not surprisingly this appears in your next line.

Two consecutive posts I can overlook but making four posts in a row are just too many to ignore.

Perhaps I shall restrain myself next time to three posts?

This is, nevertheless, an important stage in our asymmetrical discussion. It is asymmetrical because you have the option of using force against me (e.g., deleting, warning, banning), where I only have the resources of language -- this is very much like the situation of Starfleet contacting and then negotiating with less advanced cultures. In the TOS episode “Mirror Mirror,” for example, we open with Captain Kirk negotiating for dilithium crystal mining rights with the Halkans and Tharn observes the asymmetry in the situation:

THARN: The council will meditate further, but do not be hopeful of any change. Captain, you do have the might to force the crystals from us, of course.

KIRK: But we won't. Consider that. Enterprise. Transporter room, energise.

Kirk promises that he will not use force against the Halkans. This bespeaks of the land of reasoned discussion where parties cooperate as a result of symbolic influence and agreement rather than the coercive influence of military power.

This sounds good, but when the need is felt deeply enough, when it really frustrates the interests of Starfleet characters, they often return to the caveman’s club. Starfleet has other sources of dilithium, so Kirk can play the role of the patient diplomat with the Halkans. When the need, however, is more pressing, as is the case in “Requiem for Methuselah,” Kirk moves directly to the threat of force:

FLINT: You're trespassing, Captain.

KIRK: We're in need! We'll pay for it, work for it, trade for it.

FLINT: You have nothing I want.

KIRK: But you have the ryetalyn that we need! If necessary, we'll take it.

In the first excerpt of text Kirk asserts that Starfleet only proceeds on the basis of mutual agreements facilitated by reasoned dialogue. In the second excerpt, Kirk asserts his need and his power to take what he needs as the bedrock justification he needs for Flint to cooperate with him.
One cannot help but suspect that Kirk would have similar words for Tharn if the safety of his ship depended on the procurement of Halkan dilithium. And if this is the case, one cannot help but think that Starfleet may be a fair weather organization: diplomatically passive in matters that are of no consequence, militarily aggressive in matters of greater import.

The suspicion that, when it is all said and done, coercive power trumps everything is expressed in the Melian Dialogue – a negotiation which took place in the 16th year of the Peloponnesian war. Athens was at war with Sparta and demanded that Melos join Athens in the fight. Melos wished to stay out of the affair, but Athens informed them that they had no such choice. They would either accept Athenian rule and fight against the Spartans or they would be themselves destroyed by Athens.

Thucydides tells us that it went down like this:

Melians: ...all we can reasonably expect from this negotiation is war, if we prove to have right on our side and refuse to submit, and in the contrary case, slavery."

Athenians: …we shall not trouble you with specious pretences… …since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

@Make multiple posts like that again I will warn you for spamming. Any further comments about this issue need to be done by PM rather then [Sic] derailing this thread.

Much as the Athenians speaking to the Melians, we find here the suggestion that dialogue is itself pointless and in fact already over with. The order of things is that the stronger party will do what it can? And yet… even though the Athenians inform the Melians that they have no choice, even though Kirk tells Flint that he has no choice, and even though you tell me that I have no choice, what do we find? In each case, we have an attempt at symbolic influence. In each case, the more powerful party is hoping for voluntary compliance on the part of the weaker party. Words still matter even though in each case the more powerful party claims that words are moot. And this is a telling point.

Coercive Power and Institutional Power can never comfort themselves with having produced voluntary compliance in the way the Symbolic Power can. As much as Institutional Power will threaten Symbolic Power, putting an end to dialogue when the dialogue does not go as the more powerful party wishes, it is apparent that Institutional Power itself feels threatened by Symbolic Power since only it can lay claim to the TRUE and the GOOD. Institutional Power can only appeal to the way things are (e.g., I can fire you because I am the boss). The topoi of institutional power are strictly the topoi of practicality which are of less dignity than the topoi of principle.

In other words, when a state or culture finds itself making use of coercive force, it will, nevertheless still feel the need to justify itself in terms greater than force itself. Every state or culture will find that it needs to assert (even if it does not possess) Symbolic Power—the justified right to do something. Every state needs propaganda. This should, therefore, give us a pause in judging Starfleet by its own claims. Even if Picard claims that Starfleet is not a military, we might find that he is selling is a necessary bit of propaganda that he must sell even to himself. Even an abusive father will offer justifications for his abuse. He will not merely say that he does what does merely because he can.

As for the question “Why do audiences resist the idea?” I think the answer is simple. Starfleet is our surrogate in this world. The word “military” puts a bad taste in our mouths. If our explorers are military explorers, then they are explorers who use force. They are just another band of adventuring colonialists, pillaging what they can from less advanced cultures. Also, Star Trek audiences are Vietnam and post-Vietnam audiences. We are a people who have lost faith in the rightness of our cause and this has embarrassed us with regard to the ways in which we use coercive force. In short, military has an important pejorative connotation in the post-Vietnam age. It is not that we are watching Picard to find out if he is justified. We identify with Picard. We are Picard and we are watching him to be assured the WE are justified and that we are right. This is why our heroes must always be reluctant heroes. They must never act without provocation and they must be righteously be provoked before they fire their phasers (at which time we are perfectly happy to see enemy ships blow up – they are, after all, “the bad guys” and our heroes had no choice). If our futuristic heroes are military heroes, this suggests less that they are less reluctant, but are more like swaggering Athenians dictating to puny neighbors.

And yet, even though we may not like the idea, even thought we may not like to have it suggested, this does not mean that it is not the case. I think those of us who are comfortable with Starfleet as a military may tend to be those (which is not to suggest a silver-bullet explanation, but rather a tendency or influence) who are either more skeptical by nature or are those people who are more comfortable with the word “military.” I am a bit of both, so it does not threaten my entertainment to see that our heroes are military. The best reason, of course, to hold that Starfleet is a military is because it IS a military – and I make absolutely no objection to that claim.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Smurf,

I appreciate that board moderation is a necessary aspect of maintaining a healthy forum. Without moderators a forum would be overrun with pornography, spam, flame wars, and other digressions that would unhinge our discussions.

Unfortunately, being a moderator is much like being life guard at a pool. The moderator has a job to do (often a boring one) while everyone else gets to frolic in their recreation. In an important sense, however, the two roles are NOT the same. When a lifeguard saves a drowning swimmer he or she is sure to receive sincere thanks. When a moderator intervenes to save a drowning discussion, on the other hand, he or she can expect to be abused for having done so. The moderator can expect to be accused of being petty, or power hungry, or violating free speech, etc., etc.

I agree that we should not derail this thread with an argument about forum etiquette. What I propose, on the contrary, is to explore your comments in those ways which pertain to this thread – which is to say, those ways which allow us to consider the ways in which we might say Starfleet is a military, and why it is that fans might be resistant to the idea.

@YARN: This isn't about what newtype_alpha may or may not have done. If I felt I needed to address his behavior I would have. I am addressing you specifically.

And I am addressing you specifically as well. But there is a difference here, isn't there? The difference is one of power. You have institutional power or what French and Raven call “Legitimate Power.” Ultimately, you could ban me -- that is, you have the power to literally remove me from any discussion at this website. You could use force. I have no such resources at my disposal, and therefore can only make use of words.

Institutional Power is a subspecies of coercive power. Coercive power is the raw power to simply take what one wishes by exertion of physical force. Caveman likes woman, so caveman clubs woman on head and drags woman back to cave. Institutional power is coercive power which is conferred and backed up (this bit is what really counts) by societal institutions. It is created by groups of people. It reflects the entitlements and duties that come with different roles and titles. Cops, kings, managers, and moderators have institutional power. In truth, institutional or “legitimate” power is merely a subspecies of coercive power. Why does one obey a cop? Because even if you could overpower a police officer, that officer is backed up by the coercive authority of the state. If you overpower a police officer, you can expect to have more officers come your way. And even if you could overpower a police force, you could then expect the military to be called out against you.

In the military, Institutional Power is carefully guarded and groomed commodity. “You salute the rank, not the man” is a common saying among soldiers. “You do not follow orders because they are right, but because it is your duty” is another common sentiment. And yet we tend to resent this sort of power. Whenever a higher ranking officer boards the Enterprise, you just know that the guy is going to be an idiot and cause problems – and the crew won’t do anything about it, because that person has legitimate power.

Reference to Institutional Power is a way to bypass Symbolic Power. When Commodore Decker (senior idiot officer of the week) refuses to listen to Mr. Spock’s recommendations to avoid the Doomsday Machine, Decker does so on the grounds of legitimate power. Ultimately, he asserts that he is lawfully in command of the ship and that therefore it is his right to command (which bypasses the issue of whether he is actually right in the way he exercising his rights).

This is precisely what occurs in the opening line of your post. It makes reference to what you are doing (make note of the repeated assertive use of the word “I”). You have no need to consider my reasons, precisely because you have institutional power. You state, “If I felt I needed to address his behavior I would have” which reiterates your institutional role – you are the one decides whether or not something is relevant. Your words make it clear that you are not one who is addressed, but the one who does the addressing. Your institutional power does not need to respond to my symbolic power, because you are Master and Commander of the forum—you are the law. In parent-child conversations this appears in the response “Because I am your mother. That’s why you have to do it.”

Institutional Power has limits though. Because it is socially conferred, it may also be socially removed. Consequently, this sort of power is not absolute, but must answer to the rules and conditions laid out by those who confer that power. And it is here where Symbolic Power must be addressed – or at least where one with Institutional Power must to some extent answer to reasons larger than the agent exercising the power. Not surprisingly this appears in your next line.

Two consecutive posts I can overlook but making four posts in a row are just too many to ignore.

Perhaps I shall restrain myself next time to three posts?

This is, nevertheless, an important stage in our asymmetrical discussion. It is asymmetrical because you have the option of using force against me (e.g., deleting, warning, banning), where I only have the resources of language -- this is very much like the situation of Starfleet contacting and then negotiating with less advanced cultures. In the TOS episode “Mirror Mirror,” for example, we open with Captain Kirk negotiating for dilithium crystal mining rights with the Halkans and Tharn observes the asymmetry in the situation:
THARN: The council will meditate further, but do not be hopeful of any change. Captain, you do have the might to force the crystals from us, of course.

KIRK: But we won't. Consider that. Enterprise. Transporter room, energise.

Kirk promises that he will not use force against the Halkans. This bespeaks of the land of reasoned discussion where parties cooperate as a result of symbolic influence and agreement rather than the coercive influence of military power.

This sounds good, but when the need is felt deeply enough, when it really frustrates the interests of Starfleet characters, they often return to the caveman’s club. Starfleet has other sources of dilithium, so Kirk can play the role of the patient diplomat with the Halkans. When the need, however, is more pressing, as is the case in “Requiem for Methuselah,” Kirk moves directly to the threat of force:

FLINT: You're trespassing, Captain.

KIRK: We're in need! We'll pay for it, work for it, trade for it. FLINT: You have nothing I want. KIRK: But you have the ryetalyn that we need! If necessary, we'll take it.

In the first excerpt of text Kirk asserts that Starfleet only proceeds on the basis of mutual agreements facilitated by reasoned dialogue. In the second excerpt, Kirk asserts his need and his power to take what he needs as the bedrock justification he needs for Flint to cooperate with him.
One cannot help but suspect that Kirk would have similar words for Tharn if the safety of his ship depended on the procurement of Halkan dilithium. And if this is the case, one cannot help but think that Starfleet may be a fair weather organization: diplomatically passive in matters that are of no consequence, militarily aggressive in matters of greater import.

The suspicion that, when it is all said and done, coercive power trumps everything is expressed in the Melian Dialogue – a negotiation which took place in the 16th year of the Peloponnesian war. Athens was at war with Sparta and demanded that Melos join Athens in the fight. Melos wished to stay out of the affair, but Athens informed them that they had no such choice. They would either accept Athenian rule and fight against the Spartans or they would be themselves destroyed by Athens.

Thucydides tells us that it went down like this:

Melians: ...all we can reasonably expect from this negotiation is war, if we prove to have right on our side and refuse to submit, and in the contrary case, slavery."

Athenians: …we shall not trouble you with specious pretences… …since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

@Make multiple posts like that again I will warn you for spamming. Any further comments about this issue need to be done by PM rather then [Sic] derailing this thread.

Much as the Athenians speaking to the Melians, we find here the suggestion that dialogue is itself pointless and in fact already over with. The order of things is that the stronger party will do what it can? And yet… even though the Athenians inform the Melians that they have no choice, even though Kirk tells Flint that he has no choice, and even though you tell me that I have no choice, what do we find? In each case, we have an attempt at symbolic influence. In each case, the more powerful party is hoping for voluntary compliance on the part of the weaker party. Words still matter even though in each case the more powerful party claims that words are moot. And this is a telling point.

Coercive Power and Institutional Power can never comfort themselves with having produced voluntary compliance in the way the Symbolic Power can. As much as Institutional Power will threaten Symbolic Power, putting an end to dialogue when the dialogue does not go as the more powerful party wishes, it is apparent that Institutional Power itself feels threatened by Symbolic Power since only it can lay claim to the TRUE and the GOOD. Institutional Power can only appeal to the way things are (e.g., I can fire you because I am the boss). The topoi of institutional power are strictly the topoi of practicality which are of less dignity than the topoi of principle.

In other words, when a state or culture finds itself making use of coercive force, it will, nevertheless still feel the need to justify itself in terms greater than force itself. Every state or culture will find that it needs to assert (even if it does not possess) Symbolic Power—the justified right to do something. Every state needs propaganda. This should, therefore, give us a pause in judging Starfleet by its own claims. Even if Picard claims that Starfleet is not a military, we might find that he is selling is a necessary bit of propaganda that he must sell even to himself. Even an abusive father will offer justifications for his abuse. He will not merely say that he does what does merely because he can.

As for the question “Why do audiences resist the idea?” I think the answer is simply. Starfleet is our surrogate in this world. The word “military” puts a bad taste in our mouths. If our explores are military explores, then they are explores who use force. They are just another and of adventuring colonialists, pillaging what they can from less advanced cultures. Also, Star Trek audiences are Vietnam and post-Vietnam audiences. We are a people who have lost faith in the rightness of our cause and this has embarrassed us with regard to the ways in which we use coercive force. In short, military has an important pejorative connotation in the post-Vietnam age. It is not that we are watching Picard to find out if he is justified. We identify with Picard. We are Picard and we are watching him to be assured the WE are justified and that we are right. This is why our heroes must always be reluctant heroes. They must never act without provocation and they must be righteously be provoked before they fire their phasers (at which time we are perfectly happy to see enemy ships blow up – they are, after all, “the bad guys” and our heroes had no choice). If our futuristic heroes are military heroes, this suggests less that they are less reluctant, but are more like swaggering Athenians dictating to puny neighbors.

And yet, even though we may not like the idea. Even thought we may not like to have it suggested. This does not mean that it is not the case. I think those of us who are comfortable with Starfleet as a military may tend to be those (which is not to suggest a silver-bullet explanation, but rather a tendency or influence) who are either more skeptical by nature or are those people who are more comfortable with the word “military.” I am a bit of both, so it does not threaten my entertainment to see that our heroes are military. The best reason, of course, to hold that Starfleet is a military is because it IS a military – and I make absolutely no objection to that claim.

Cut the bullshit.

From the Board Rules (as listed in the FAQ):
Do not post more than twice in a row in the same thread. If you need to answer more than one person in the thread, please use the quote function.

 

[YARN]

Cut the bullshit.

From the Board Rules (as listed in the FAQ):
Do not post more than twice in a row in the same thread. If you need to answer more than one person in the thread, please use the quote function.

I contest neither the rule nor its enforcement. On the contrary, I look forward to carefree double posting and promise to cease and desist quadruple posting. Moreover, I respect the restraint that moderators have shown in this matter. I am grateful to have been corrected in this matter without penalty.

Now, with regard to the Prime Directive, I argue that it does not establish Starfleet as a nonmilitary agency. As an ultimate rule, it confers legitimacy upon Starfleet as a non-coercive agency (and therefore asserts that it is nonmilitary in nature), but that this legitimacy comes at a price of rationality in some cases.

Institutions (and institutional power) are not simply unregulated bases of power. If there were no limits, then the very identities institutions confer would lose meaning in the institutional structure -- everyone would be a law unto themselves and we would be returned to simple coercive power.

The invocation of any "Rule" does two things worth noting. First, (as noted above) they provide us with clear cut roles and identities -- if a cop were expected to possibly put out fires, she would not be a cop but a firefighter. That the cop has a limited jurisdiction identifies her role. Only one person can have unlimited power - and that person is a King or an absolute dictator - but this is an identity that only one person can inhabit. If two people were king, then neither would have unlimited power. King A might find his interests curtailed or challenged by King B. In actual practice, of course, even kings find themselves constrained, by law, tradition, religion, and popular sentiment. Institutions cannot confer the identity of "king" to more than one person, so social roles are necessary limited for the vast majority of us -- as a matter of logical/conceptual necessity. Second, rules confer legitimacy upon on the institution itself. Even if a rule is arbitrary, the fact that everyone to whom the rule applies must abide it contains a kernel of justice -- treat equals as equals. More importantly though, codified rules suggest an underlying rationality that can be justified by Symbolic Power. The mere fact that there is an official rule suggests that people have thought about it and that it has been tested. Even an arbitrary rule -- once written in official language gains an imprimatur of a rational legitimacy.

When Symbolic Power, therefore, challenges the system, an Institutional Power-user can respond with the deployment of an official rule. This short-circuits discussion in three ways. First, it offers an observation of "how it is" - the practical reality which trumps the principled objection. Second, it adds a halo of rationality for the system. Third, it depersonalizes the discussion. The Institutional Agent need not justify himself, but can let the rules speak for themselves. When one person no longer needs to justify himself directly to another in dialogue, that dialogue is shut down/short circuited.

There are, as one might expect, dysfunctions associated with the deployment of rules as a way to skirt challenges to the rationality of an institution. In Star Trek, for example, we have seen posters make very good arguments to the effect that the Prime Directive functions as a fetish in TNG. Although the rule is designed to protect developing cultures it often does the very opposite. In many of those cases, the intention of the rule would have been better served if the rule itself had been discarded.

It is no accident, I think, that in the character of Picard we find not only his claim that Starfleet is not a military, but also an occasionally irrational and dogmatic commitment to his ultimate rule, the Prime Directive. For Picard, the reassurance that Starfleet is Just and Fair, that it is not coercive, but only acts after its Symbolic Power is dialectically and voluntarily assented to by outside parties is supported by this all-important rule. The Prime Directive is also what assures us (the viewer) that Picard is a reluctant hero.

Unfortunately, the Prime Directive also short-circuits discussion in some episodes where more discussion really would have been warranted. It functions as a conversation killer that squashes rationality. Consider those cases where the less advanced culture pleads for help from Starfleet in the attempt to use their own Symbolic Power. When Picard washes his hands in the name of the rules, he effectively denies the rationality of the "less advanced" culture. “The Prime Directive knows best, sorry.” And herein lies a troubling tension. Just as the military use of coercive power silences the voices or those less powerful - so too does the invocation of the institutional power of Prime Directive! In both cases, the less privileged other is excluded from exercising Symbolic Power. They wind up, not as conversational partners in an open dialogue, but as subjects under the rule of a directive they themselves did not select. Even if the Prime Directive offered evidence that Starfleet is not a military (a notion I would object to since militaries need serious rules more than other institutions – who would run up a hill or storm a beach to secure a position if an order were merely a suggestion?) this evidence would only secure a pyrrhic victory as Starfleet would still be guilty of squashing the rationality – the symbolic power – of its dialectical partners. The point would be moot. Instead of Athens squashing the poor Melians – killing all the men and enslaving the women and children we would we would find America standing by idly while genocide ravages Rwanda.

 

[AstroSmurf]

You just earned yourself and infraction for spamming YARN. Comments to PM.

And I would suggest everyone get back on topic.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The question was, why do fans, as in a person such as yourself, resist the very idea that Starfleet is a military?

And the answer, to repeat for the fifth and last time, is that many fans--such as myself--do not believe Starfleet is a military for reasons which have been exhaustively covered throughout this thread. Specifically because:

1. The focus of Starfleet--and the focus of the show itself--has been peaceful exploration of the galaxy, much like its real-world counterparts in NASA and Roskosmos

2. Various characters at various times have stated that Starfleet is not a military organization.

Can you or can you not answer this one simple question?

It has been thoroughly answered on multiple occasions now. OTOH, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why you so badly need to believe that Starfleet IS a military organization.

 

[Vincent Law]

You have once again side-stepped the question. This is like asking someone why they don't like the color pink only to be told that they don't believe it's the color pink.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You have once again side-stepped the question. This is like asking someone why they don't like the color pink only to be told that they don't believe it's the color pink.

But that wasn't the question, was it? You didn't ask why he didn't LIKE the color pink, you asked why he RESISTED the idea that the thing in question was pink.

In other words "Why do you refuse to see that my car is pink?" to which he answers, "Because it doesn't look pink." Then you turn around and say "You just avoided the question! Why don't you like my pink car?" Then you get all annoyed when he answers "I like it just fine... it's just that it doesn't look pink."

I mean, if I pointed to a dark blue car and asked you "How come you can't admit that that car is hot pink" how would you answer that question?

Or maybe you could answer this one:
Why do you so desperately need Starfleet to be a military?

 

[Sci]

2. Various characters at various times have stated that Starfleet is not a military organization.

No. ONE character has said the Federation Starfleet is not a military, and only once. Two characters claimed the UESF is not a military, and therefore a complex, convoluted backstory explaining that the UESF and Federation Starfleet are the same organization had to be invented, with no actual evidence for such a supposition.

OTOH, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why you so badly need to believe that Starfleet IS a military organization.

'Cause it does all the things a military does, it fits the legal definition of a military, and it's been called a military numerous times.

 

[Saito S]

You have once again side-stepped the question. This is like asking someone why they don't like the color pink only to be told that they don't believe it's the color pink.

But that wasn't the question, was it? You didn't ask why he didn't LIKE the color pink, you asked why he RESISTED the idea that the thing in question was pink.

In other words "Why do you refuse to see that my car is pink?" to which he answers, "Because it doesn't look pink." Then you turn around and say "You just avoided the question! Why don't you like my pink car?" Then you get all annoyed when he answers "I like it just fine... it's just that it doesn't look pink."

I mean, if I pointed to a dark blue car and asked you "How come you can't admit that that car is hot pink" how would you answer that question?

Or maybe you could answer this one:
Why do you so desperately need Starfleet to be a military?

If I may... it seems like what both sides are trying to say at this point is this:

"I'm not 'desperate' to prove my side is correct, but I believe my side IS correct, since I believe the body of evidence in the shows supports it. And the evidence/reasoning presented by the 'other side' hasn't convinced me, so I continue to retain my original viewpoint."

Now, we can continue the debate ABOUT said positions and said evidence, if we so choose, but both sides are basically saying "This is just how I see it, thus, I am arguing for it."

Any of the parties involved in this are free to correct me if they feel I'm mischaracterizing their stance.

2. Various characters at various times have stated that Starfleet is not a military organization.

No. ONE character has said the Federation Starfleet is not a military, and only once. Two characters claimed the UESF is not a military, and therefore a complex, convoluted backstory explaining that the UESF and Federation Starfleet are the same organization had to be invented, with no actual evidence for such a supposition.

Indeed, and there remains a glaring contradiction between the attitudes displayed by Picard and Riker in regards to the idea of tactical exercises during that oft-mentioned "Peak Performance" scene, and the attitudes displayed by every crew member involved with the thing once the exercise is underway (including, of course, Picard and Riker).

Now, it isn't inherently invalid to choose the dialog from the earlier scene over the actions of the later scenes, but it's no less valid to choose the later scenes and chuck the earlier dialog. And that choice does happen to flow with the fact that Starfleet acts like a military in SO many ways: it's the only official agency to respond in a military manner to threats to the UFP, it operates the ground forces seen during DS9's war eps, etc etc.

Plus, another thing about the scene. Riker refers to "combat skills" as being a "minor province in the makeup of a starship captain." Whether or not one thinks Starfleet is a military, and whatever you make of Picard's dialog in the scene, this particular statement is patently absurd. Starfleet and the UFP place a high degree of importance on the exploratory and scientific sides of their existence, but the notion that combat and tactical skills are of only "minor" importance is flatly contradicted by TOS, TNG up to that point, and the movies up to that point.

Finally, whether or not the Earth Starfleet in ENT is or isn't a military still seems to me to be completely irrelevant when discussing whether or not the Federation Starfleet is a military.

OTOH, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why you so badly need to believe that Starfleet IS a military organization.

'Cause it does all the things a military does, it fits the legal definition of a military, and it's been called a military numerous times.

And during the Dominion War (fought entirely by Starfleet as far as the UFP's contribution), several characters refer to themselves as "soldiers." And something else I thought of: TNG "The Measure of a Man" and DS9 "Tears of the Prophets" establish that Starfleet gives out medals for valor, with names like "Legion of Honor", and "Christopher Pike Medal of Valor."

Plus, as I said above, I think the "desperate" need to believe in anything is perhaps being overblown (by both sides). This is a debate about the nature of a fictional organization in Star Trek. I don't think anyone is (or at least, shoud be) taking it THAT seriously.

 

[Vincent Law]

I am simply curious why some fans so dislike the idea that Starfleet could be a military. So far the only impression I've gained is that those who don't simply dislike the military, and so don't want Starfleet to be one. I was hoping to see some variety, and perhaps even something less shallow, which isn't based on an irrational negative bias. Unfortunately I'm not seeing any of that; in fact, the most vocal position seems to be one based entirely on the premise that Starfleet isn't a military, and all based on a few lines of dialog, in the face of everything else seen on the show, while arguing from faulty premises in order to justify this stance. This almost reminds me of a Cogito infected AutoReiv.

 

[CoveTom]

^ I am one who firmly believes that Starfleet is most definitely a military, and in fact the military of the UFP. So count me in your camp on that.

However, from my perspective, I believe that the idea against Starfleet being characterized as a military has always been simply the idea that a military's primary duty, regardless of what other duties it may undertake, is defense and, by extension, combat. Whereas many would prefer that Starfleet's primary duty be scientific and exploratory in nature.I do not understand, though, why the two missions cannot co-exist, as they obviously do in every Trek incarnation.

 

[C.E. Evans]

^^^
They do co-exist onscreen. Starfleet is whatever a story demands it to be.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I am simply curious why some fans so dislike the idea that Starfleet could be a military. So far the only impression I've gained is that those who don't simply dislike the military, and so don't want Starfleet to be one.

So no matter WHAT I say, you're just going to pull your own answer out of your ass and put it in my mouth.

Next thing I know you'll be accusing me of spitting on soldiers at airports.

However, from my perspective, I believe that the idea against Starfleet being characterized as a military has always been simply the idea that a military's primary duty, regardless of what other duties it may undertake, is defense and, by extension, combat. Whereas many would prefer that Starfleet's primary duty be scientific and exploratory in nature.I do not understand, though, why the two missions cannot co-exist, as they obviously do in every Trek incarnation.

It isn't so much the depiction of Starfleet vs. real world militaries (though that is part of it) but Starfleet vs. other Sci-fi militaries; the UN Spacy, the UNSC, the Colonial Marines, the Terran Confederation, even the BSG colonials (both versions). Sci-fi militaries are often romanticized depictions of real-world militaries, but whatever else their depiction there's always one line item at the top of the job description: "Professional distributor of concentrated whupass." THAT is consistent with a military organization for me, and with everything and everyone I've known to be associated with it.

That just doesn't taste right on Starfleet. It makes alot more sense to me as an exploration fleet with a paramilitary role than as a touchy-feely "Put down your weapons and let's talk about our feelings" military-lite (all the same firepower at only one-third the calories). You can either approach this as "the military is evolving into Starfleet," which frankly I don't buy, or "Starfleet is evolving into a military" which seems to fit a bit better.

But like I said, until further notice it's a completely different story in the Abramsverse where Starfleet DOES appear to be a regular military with a heavier-than-normal exploration role. And I might say the same for the TOS movies if I could just a find a way to separate the rest of them from TMP without violating teh canon.

 

[Vincent Law]

Not at all; I didn't answer for you, I simply listed the most common reason that I've seen so far. The only thing I've said about you is to lament the lack of an answer which could have proved to be different and perhaps more interesting than the standard "the military is evil" response that I've typically seen in regard to this question.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Not at all; I didn't answer for you, I simply listed the most common reason that I've seen so far.

And who ON THIS THREAD ever listed that as a reason?

 

[Vincent Law]

You don't think this question has never been asked on any other forum by anyone else?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You don't think this question has never been asked on any other forum by anyone else?

I don't doubt that for a minute... but that's not what I asked you, is it?

This thread is now 26 pages long, Vincent. In those 26 pages, how many people cited ANY negative aspect of the military as a reason for why Starfleet wasn't one? Honestly, I'd really like to know, because as I stated almost two weeks ago, the only time I have ever heard that reason listed it has always been as an accusation from people who wanted Starfleet to be "U.S. Navy in space."

 

[Vincent Law]

I honestly can't be bothered to go back and look, but that is in point of fact irrelevant to the statement I made, which is that the only answer to the question I posed that I've ever seen has had to do with a dislike or hatred of the military. I don't understand why you would be offended by this statement of fact when you are not counted among these responses given your non-response to the question. And to be frank, it is pointless to become agitated over a discussion on a discussion board about a non-existent organization. If you do not wish to participate, that is entirely up to you.