The Politics of Star Trek

Thursday, September 10th, 2015

Star Trek’s moral and political tone traces the evolution of American liberalism since the Kennedy era:

Roddenberry and his colleagues were World War II veterans, whose country was now fighting the Cold War against a Communist aggressor they regarded with horror. They considered the Western democracies the only force holding back worldwide totalitarian dictatorship. The best expression of their spirit was John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, with its proud promise to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

This could have been declaimed by Captain James T. Kirk (played by William Shatner), of the starship U.S.S. Enterprise, who, as literature professor Paul Cantor observes in his essay “Shakespeare in the Original Klingon,” is “a Cold Warrior very much on the model of JFK.” In episodes like “The Omega Glory,” in which Kirk rapturously quotes the preamble to the Constitution, or “Friday’s Child,” where he struggles to outwit the Klingons (stand-ins for the Soviet menace) in negotiations over the resources of a planet modeled on Middle Eastern petroleum states, Kirk stands fixedly, even obstinately, for the principles of universal freedom and against collectivism, ignorance, and passivity. In “Errand of Mercy,” the episode that first introduces the show’s most infamous villains, he cannot comprehend why the placid Organians are willing to let themselves be enslaved by the Klingon Empire. Their pacifism disgusts him. Kirk loves peace, but he recognizes that peace without freedom is not truly peace.

This was not just a political point; it rested on a deeper philosophical commitment. In Star Trek’s humanist vision, totalitarianism was only one manifestation of the dehumanizing forces that deprive mankind (and aliens) of the opportunities and challenges in which their existence finds meaning. In “Return of the Archons,” for example, Kirk and company infiltrate a theocratic world monitored and dominated by the god Landru. The natives are placid, but theirs is the mindless placidity of cattle. In the past, one explains, “there was war. Convulsions. The world was destroying itself. Landru…took us back, back to a simple time.” The people now live in ignorant, stagnant bliss. Landru has removed conflict by depriving them of responsibility, and with it their right to govern themselves. When Kirk discovers that Landru is actually an ancient computer left behind by an extinct race, he challenges it to justify its enslavement of the people. “The good,” it answers, is “harmonious continuation…peace, tranquility.” Kirk retorts: “What have you done to do justice to the full potential of every individual? Without freedom of choice, there is no creativity. Without creativity, there is no life.” He persuades Landru that coddling the people has stifled the souls it purported to defend, and the god-machine self-destructs.

This theme is made more explicit in “The Apple,” perhaps the quintessential episode of the original Star Trek. Here Kirk unashamedly violates the “Prime Directive” — the rule forbidding starship captains from interfering with the cultures they contact — by ordering the Enterprise to destroy Vaal, another computer tyrant ruling over an idyllic planet. Like Landru, Vaal is an omniscient totalitarian, and he demands sacrifices. The natives, known only as “people of Vaal,” have no culture, no freedom, no science — they do not even know how to farm — and no children, as Vaal has forbidden sex along with all other individualistic impulses. This sets Kirk’s teeth on edge. There are objective goods and evils, and slavery is evil because it deprives life forms of their right to self-government and self-development.

What differentiates “The Apple” from “Archons” is Spock’s reaction. In the earlier episode, he joined Kirk in condemning Landru; now the half human/half Vulcan is reluctant to interfere with what he calls “a splendid example of reciprocity.” When chief medical officer Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy (DeForest Kelley) protests, Spock accuses him of “applying human standards to non-human cultures.” To this cool relativism, McCoy replies, “There are certain absolutes, Mr. Spock, and one of them is the right of humanoids to a free and unchained environment, the right to have conditions which permit growth.”

Kirk agrees with McCoy. Spock — who in later episodes invokes the Vulcan slogan celebrating “infinite diversity in infinite combinations” — is comfortable observing Vaal’s servants nonjudgmentally, like specimens behind glass. But Kirk believes there must be deeper, universal principles underlying and limiting diversity, to prevent its degeneration into relativism and nihilism.

Comments

  1. AAB says:

    The early Star Trek episodes are a re-telling of the Garden of Eden story. Captain Kirk plays the role of the snake, who introduces cunning, sentience and consequently death into the world. The ignorant people play the role of Adam and Eve, who are ignorant, sexless, un-creative, docile creatures. And a tyrant plays the role of Jehovah, or the Demiurge if you’re a Gnostic.

    The fact that Captain Kirk, the Snake, is shown as the good guy, and Jehovah is shown as the bad guy is evidence enough that the basic plot is Gnostic, or anti-Christian if you like.

  2. Ashv says:

    Later iterations of the franchise took this seriously and made fun of it, by turns.

  3. Space Nookie says:

    Yeah, you’ve got to look at the scripts in their entirety, Kirk/Spock are there for the audience to identify with as they receive continuing moral education in advanced liberalism through a series of contrived situations. The Organian episode begins with a Kirk/Spock adventure but ends with the revelation that all peoples advance towards pacifism and total moral relativism, and that the Klingons and Federation are moral equals because both are insufficiently pacifistic. Landru clearly represents traditional religion and destroying the computer with a paradox mimics how atheists see themselves battling Christianity with logical argumentation. Even the episode where Kirk gives a spirited reading of the US constitution is a veiled allegory for Vietnam; the bad captain (US) intervenes on behalf of the Comes (South Vietnam) against the Yangs (V.C.), and kills thousands with his superior weapons, but eventually he fails and Kirk discovers the Yangs are freedom fighters and the “Real Americans”.

Leave a Reply