I have been thinking about this for a while, but Steve Shives posted a video yesterday on the question, “Is Star Trek a military?” and given thats relevant to what I want to say, I think now is a good time to gather my thoughts and extrude them unto the internet. Many people have criticized recent Star Trek entries for being overly dark and dystopian, citing precedence and statements by Gene Roddenberry that Star Trek is supposed to be utopian. I used to be one of those people, in fact, and although I would say my opinion is more nuanced now, I do often feel like modern Star Trek fails to feel like Star Trek and its darker tone definitely contributes to that vibe. I do, however, think that one must ask, can Star Trek actually be utopian in this day and age, and what would it mean for it to be so?
I’ve previously discussed how Starfleet is often a thematic stand in for the US Military. As a kid I objected to this interpretation, because I felt that Starfleet, as a utopian future state heavily implied to be socialist in nature (and arguably confirmed to be socialist in Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds), could not possibly represent the present day United States, because we are rapaciously capitalist. We’re like, the Ferengi or something, surely not the Federation. But as stated in previous blog posts, there is little denying Starfleet is often intended to be read as such, whether it being in Balance of Terror where Kirk and a Romulan play at US and Soviet submarine fights or Sisko committing war crimes to combat terrorists in For the Uniform. The Federation may be intended to be a socialist utopia, but it is nevertheless a utopia grown out of western traditions, western values, and a western model best represented by the United States. It is supposed to represent the best of what the United States could be, and to that end in the past I’ve questioned whether or not its reasonable to continue representing it as is when the path from where we are in the United States right now to a future utopia - at least one that is in any way similiar to the present day United States - has never seemed more impossible.
Episode 8 of Season 3 of Strange New Worlds, “What is Starfleet?” seems posed to answer that question. Beto opens his documentary highlighting the intense militarism of Starfleet and asks, is Starfleet a colonizer? Honestly hearing him ask that out loud can only be characterized as cringe, and I’m someone who kind of loathes the idea of cringe. Not because it’s a ridiculous question, but because it really feels like the writers deliberately catering to leftists by using buzzwords. This impression is only solidified when the episode comes to the only conclusion it can, being that it is a prequel and Starfleet is going to continue existing as a heroically identified institution for hundreds of years to come, that Starfleet is fine, actually. It premises that on the fact that it has the best people, who intend to do good, and work hard to do so. The message of the episode seems to be that you should not judge judge a government for its actions but only for the intentions of the people involved, or at the very least you need to ignore problematic warning signs as long as the bottomline is good - something to that effect, the ambiguity being because the episode simply does not actually articulate a coherent argument, only making clear that Starfleet is good, actually, for some rather vague reasons.
I think this episode might have been fine twenty years ago, or at the very least, would not have raised any eyebrows. It’s a very liberal perspective on the world - trust in institutions, trust in bureaucrats and science and experts, and everything will be fine. Unfortunately under Trump its become clear our institutions are far more fragile than we thought, and those trustworthy bureaucrats and experts can be fired at the drop of a hat by an unelected tech oligarch appointed to a fake meme position. If thats the only reason to trust Starfleet, Starfleet is a tissue paper wall waiting to be ripped through. The episode does not actually address any of the criticisms it raises of Starfleet - that its a military, that it imposes its will on others using force, that it colonizes, neither by refuting them nor justifying them. I think you can probably attempt to do either, but I am not interested in doing so, because I think those criticisms of Starfleet are justified, at least from a viewers perspective.
What do I mean? In universe, it may be true that Starfleet is great and isn't actually militaristic (even tho it absolutely fits the definition of a military, as Steve Shives concludes in his video). Steve suggests that the show should lean into this tension and explore how Starfleet’s self-identification as a science and exploration organization is in direct conflict with their plain faced actions as a military, and I agree with that, as its an obvious tension and would made for some very good, very Star Trek-esque episodes. But I think it is important to recognize, Star Trek is fictional. It is being written a particular way, but it does not have to be written that way. If Star Trek is suppose to present a hopeful, utopian vision of the future, we should be asking, does it? And if not, why not?
Starfleet is a military. I think Steve proved that, but even if you disagree, I don’t think one can fairly disagree that it is military-shaped. The Federation colonizes planets - maybe it does not colonize inhabited ones, but it definitely does colonize uninhabited ones (and at least sometimes later finds out they are inhabited by sentient races, like the salt vampires in the very first episode). The Federation may may not call itself an empire, but it is a federation, meaning a union of disparate states with a strong centralized government that asserts dominance over member states, so it does indeed impose its will on member states, sometimes even to the point of breaking as we see in the later seasons of Discovery when so many planets leave the Federation prior to and following the Burn. When we envision a future utopia, is that what we picture now?
I think its fair to say that in the sixties, it would be reasonable at least for mainstream America to imagine a utopian future where America is better and things are more equal but the US military still exists in space doing military things, but maybe a little less awful than now. But sixty years later, that does not feel like utopia anymore, at least not to me, and increasingly not to many Americans. I’m honestly not sure you can sell a militarized future as utopian anymore, and demanding that a show depict both 1) a version of Starfleet that is fundamentally the same as its always been, a nicer stand in for the US military and 2) that it be utopian is, at its core, a conservative demand. If your version of utopia includes the US military, your vision of utopia is a conservative one. Star Trek was meant to be a progressive future though - I always phrase it that way, rather than socialist, because although Gene Roddenberry self identified as a socialist, and later Star Treks have made it increasingly clear that it is socialist, but earlier Trek was far cagier, and I think that is on purpose - because the idea that a utopian future is a socialist one would not have been believable in the sixties, just as I feel the idea of a utopian future that is militarized is increasingly unbelievable now. Star Trek need not depict any particular version of the future, in my opinion, what is important is that that version of the future be better than the present, and better due to social progress, because of diversity and inclusion and scientific progress and respect for knowledge and freedom and human rights, not better because of harking back to the halcyon days of yore or authoritarianism or conformity. Thus, fundamentally, I think its just not possible to write a progressive show with Starfleet as a military anymore, like it was in the sixties - the shine has rubbed off of the US military and the American project, and we are never going to get to utopia while they still exist, so their presence in the future is an unsolvable problem.
I had previously made a similar argument where I concluded the next Star Trek should be about overthrowing the Federation. I think that is one way to handle it. I think you could also handle it different ways, though - I think Discovery and Lower Decks both grappled with this problem in different ways to varying degrees of success. Discovery took the tack of simply making the Federation more dystopian and our protagonists fighting to improve it, which I think does at least position you to tell progressive stories, but does always constantly beg the question, why are our heroes defending this clearly broken system? Lower Decks kept the basic idea that the system is at least striving towards utopia, but deconstructed it, exposed the inequalities in existence, such as privileges of rank, racism against aliens, etc, etc and highlighted how despite its claimed utopian principles, it was not yet there. Both of these though work best if that is your actual opinion on what the Federation is a thematic stand in for, the United States. Going forward, I do think that the show probably needs to take a look at itself and at our country and say, if Star Trek fundamentally stands for the idea that a better future is possible, what do we think that would look like, and how do we get there, narratively, from where Star Trek is now. It can mean the next Star Trek needs to be a revolutionary story. It may mean we need a reboot where Starfleet is clearly NOT a stand in for the US military and thats made clear from the start. It may mean depicting Star Trek as dystopian and reforming it through non revolutionary means. But I do think this is an issue that Star Trek needs to address before it can move forward as a franchise that from its inception has always been equally about its messaging as about its science fiction setting. Star Trek cannot be utopian anymore, because militarized colonial empires are not utopian, and like it or not, the Federation at the very least rhymes with one.
No comments:
Post a Comment