Michael Westmoreland-White has written a lengthy and thoughtful analysis of life in the Star Trek universe. It's a very liberal view of the future. He uses the term "progressive", which I tend to avoid as somewhat misleading, but, like, whatever. It's still a fine post:But I do think that Star Trek is a fairly progressive/liberal science fiction franchise. It’s a basically hopeful vision of the future. It offers up a future earth that has survived war, terrorism, and ecological disasters and forged a global government of representative democracy (we are never told this, but it must be some form of federalist system to avoid tyranny). Hunger and poverty have been overcome. Most diseases have been conquered and high quality universal healthcare is available for all. Education is free and the world is highly literate with most people going beyond secondary education. It’s a clean energy society that is eco-friendly. (In Star Trek IV, the Enterprise crew in their stolen Klingon ship actually go back in time to the 20th C. to keep whales from going extinct–and in the process save the earth of their future.) There is finally global racial harmony. And, despite the micro-mini-skirted uniforms that reflected the fact that the original series was made in the ’60s, we finally have gender equality, too.
My own thoughts on the subject are here.
21 comments:
I'll be looking for that "gender equality" thing when I see the new movie. I've got my doubts.
We saw gender equality in TNR, Deep Space Nine (except for the Ferengii whose patriarchy is part and parcel with being capitalist pigs), and in Voyager. The original series was more sexist (especially Kirk), but the women's movement had barely begun by Season 3 of its 3 season run, so I tend to cut it some slack. (The women's movement did not really pick up steam until '68, 5 years after the original series was cancelled.)
What is less excusable is that none of the later series really dealt with LGBT issues. There were no openly gay or lesbian characters and the issue of sexual orientation was only dealt with in parable form in a few episodes of TNR--and that was during the '90s. I hope the new film shows a more progressive 23rd C.
John, I use the term "progressive" over "liberal" for several reasons:
1. Classic liberalism, coming out of the Enlightenment, was more like today's Libertarianism than New Deal liberalism.
2. I identify strongly with the Progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th C.s as a predecessor of today's resurgent progressivism.
3. Liberals tend to be ivory tower types. Progressives are deeply connected to movements for justice. Liberals are in favor of universal healthcare. Progressives, knowing healthcare is a RIGHT (deriving from the right to life), are busing organizing to DEMAND universal healthcare and an end to medicine for profit--making for-profit medicine as obscene a concept as for profit fire departments.
4. Liberals, like libertarians, tend to favor personal liberties over communal justice. Progressives demand both liberty and equality--and so economic justice becomes front and center.
For all these reasons, Star Trek may be a liberal vision, but it is definitely even more a progressive vision.
Okay, Michael, you do have something of a point. Especially #4.
I dislike the term "progressive" because sometimes the policy positions of some progressives seem to be anti-progress, as in anti-technology or anti-prosperity.
Aahh, but if "progress" using certain technologies undoes us, is that progress? And is wishing for that sort of "progress" truly progressive?
I'd argue that pushing for the development of technologies and going down that path can be truly regressive (not always, but sometimes).
For my part, I don't see the Amish (for instance) as anti-technology, just wise, cautious and judicious in their limited embrace of technology. Truly progressive in my mind. But then, I recognize that most folk might not agree on that point.
Which is why I don't see progressivism as all that progressive. Progressivism, to be faithful to the word, would advocate the advancement of human freedom and prosperity. The Amish may be prosperous by the standards of 19th Century farmers, but not by the standards of 21st century office managers.
Oh, Michael, I agree that Star Trek rarely addressed homosexuality, and never head on. But there was that semi-lesbian relationship that Dax briefly had in DS9.
Progressivism, to be faithful to the word, would advocate the advancement of human freedom and prosperity.
I would not confuse advancing human freedom and prosperity (which I think progressives do) with advancing mere technology (which I agree, many progressive types hold with at least some suspicion).
Dan, I'd argue that Star Trek also had warnings about technology for its own sake. Because we mostly were out in space, we saw the high tech part of this future vision. But it was also environmental: When Picard visits his home village in France, it is very low tech. His brother, who owns and manages the family vinyards, does everything in a very traditional way and refuses to own a food replicator.
I myself cannot see the answer to today's problems solved with a MASS turning to the Amish way--the population is too great for that. There would be mass starvation.
Our way forward will not be solved only by technology, but technology must play a role. I think we have to have a wide-ranging series of conversations globally and locally. Not everything that can be built should be. Not every "convenience" should be adopted.
But I am among those who believe that humans are, by nature, explorers. Yes, space technology is expensive (although the entire NASA budget wouldn't make 2% of the military budget or 10% of the aid to agribusiness), but I think our failure to continue on with Apollo and make human settlements on Luna, go to Mars, etc. went with the return to regressive politics. NASA was retooled for the militarization of space. We turned inward and regressive, authoritarian politics came back to the fore.
Our way forward will not be solved only by technology, but technology must play a role.
Let me be clear (I thought I was but let me be more clear): I'm not and I don't think at least my type of progressives are anti-technology. I (we) are cautious about technology. My thinking is (again, I think like the Amish) not automatically, "No! This new technology is wrong!" but rather, "Not so fast, let's be cautious about this..."
Although (and here it gets blurry, I admit) this area of the progressive movement is, in fact, quite conservative in its better sense. Prudence weighs heavily in the environmental wing of progressivism, I'd suggest.
I think such prudence is reflected in the Star Trek vision.
But the Amish, for all they can teach us about simple living, community, forgiveness, pacifism, and much else, but they are not progressive. They are patriarchal, homophobic, extremely reluctant to deal with outsiders. They also are not just "cautious about technology." They basically think technology is evil.
As I understand it Amish use of technology is inconsistent. Not at all progressive, imo, but responding with reactive conservatism to maintain some kind of status quo.
"The original series was more sexist (especially Kirk)"
Oh, I don't know. I remember the episode in which Picard transferred his lover off the flagship Enterprise to some other posting because he was uncomfortable assigning her to dangerous missions. Sheesh.
The Amish embrace technology. They use gas powered motors, for instance, to run saws and other tools. They allow that it's okay to ride in cars at times. They may have a pay phone and make use of it somewhere near their community.
All of that is using technology.
It's not a wholesale rejection of technology. It's just that they keep it at arm's length (and then some) and only embrace it inasmuch as it seems useful and appropriate.
"Progressive" is probably the wrong word for the Amish, but my original point was to try to say that rejection of some technology is not necessarily regressive, it can be quite progressive. I'll stand by that.
Dan, how can the rejection of technological progress be progressive?
Would you consider widespread implementation of nuclear bombs-as-defense technology progressive or regressive?
I consider it horribly regressive.
Technological advances to not equal progress.
Progressive. Perhaps unwise and dangerous, but progressive. Why? Because they are more technologically advanced.
Or is progressive simply a label for "what I like"?
Sounds like y'all need to agree on a definition of "progressive".
I'm talking about progressive as in the sense of the first Merriam Webster definition...
of, relating to, or characterized by progress b: making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities
And I think some may be talking about "progressive" in the sense of this fourth definition (as in a progressive cancer, continually getting worse/more severe/more extreme??)...
: increasing in extent or severity (a progressive disease)
And when I think of the first definition, I'm speaking of continuing to make "Progress" as defined by MW...
a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : gradual bettermentProgressive in the sense of a movement towards betterment. Merely having more technology is not a movement towards betterment in and of itself.
THAT's how I am using the word, "Progressive." And I think that's how most progressives would tend to use it, making progress, moving towards a betterment of ourselves and our world. We don't confuse that with mere increases in technology. It would be foolish to do so.
Technology is a tool and can be used for bad or good and is not in and of itself progress.
Seems to me.
After all, if someone had the latest designs in hammers and saws and used them to build a brand new style of chair that only used ONE leg and which tended to fall over (but it looked really cool), I would not call that a progressive design, merely because it was new or because it used the latest tools available.
"Betterment" sounds like it could be very broadly interpreted. One person might, for example, say that society has bettered itself when gays are forced back into the closet, or legally required get "treatment" for their orientation. Another might say that society has bettered itself when gays enjoy no social stigma at all.
Yes, it's kind of like "progress," that way...
Post a Comment