The evolution of cultural arrogance in Star Trek

[Darth Wong]

Has anyone ever noticed that Star Trek features more cultural arrogance over time?

Consider TOS: most of the time, when they encountered a highly advanced species, the humans ended up looking ignorant, backwards, and primitive. Only through some heroic effort on the part of an individual like Kirk or Spock would they be kept from taking actions that in hindsight they discover later to have been wrong. Superior species usually seemed to be wiser, not just stronger.

Then we move to TNG: some of this theme remains. But this time, the Federation is painted as an enlightened culture, with "evolved sensibilities". Over time, it begins to look like its sensibilities are superior to those of all other species in the quadrant. The Romulans are dishonest, the Ferengi are thieves, the Klingons are violent sociopaths. Even Q, initially portrayed as a superior being trying to teach us a lesson, eventually becomes a boorish, petulant child. Like everyone else, he has to learn from the shining example of mankind.

On to DS9. All of the exaggerated one-note depictions of other species continue apace, and become even more exaggerated over time (particularly those of the Klingons and Ferengi). The Bajorans become big players, but are portrayed as irrational fruitcakes and never really amount to anything. Even at the climax of the Dominion War, they just sort of sit there, farting around with their religious beliefs instead of doing anything or even taking sides. The Prophets are stylistically portrayed as superior beings, but also as grossly ignorant beings; they need Sisko to teach them the concept of time, even though they travel through it. And they never intervene in the Dominion War until (again) Sisko asks them to. They exist not as characters (or lessons about mankind's imperfection) but as a mere deus ex machina. Even the Vulcans no longer escape the cultural nerfing, as they are brought down from a race which embraced logic to a bunch of petty racists.

Now Voyager: we get to discover that not only are humans more enlightened than pretty much every single goddamned species in the entire Delta Quadrant (including the reptilians who have been there for tens of millions of years), but we're so fucking special that even the Borg are secretly obsessed with us and consider us unique in the galaxy. Yippee, and then Q reveals that the entire Q continuum is lacking in something that WE HAVE. And not even the best of us, but fucking Janeway.

I haven't watched Enterprise, but in the rest of the series, it's a fairly consistent pattern. Where once Star Trek featured man "humbled by the universe", modern Star Trek features man puffed up with arrogance, confident in his moral superiority to every other lifeform he encounters in the universe. What does this say about Trek? Or perhaps the direction of modern pop culture?

[dragon]

It is true that things seems to have gooten worse as time went by. Truthfully its most likely due to the opinions of the writers and directors. It seems like they were projecting the arragonace of the armericans into the project. After all look at the U.S. we seem to think that we are better than every one else we are always critising other countries for their problems but we over look are own even when someone points out the problem.

[Spacebeard]

I haven't watched Enterprise, but in the rest of the series, it's a fairly consistent pattern. Where once Star Trek featured man "humbled by the universe", modern Star Trek features man puffed up with arrogance, confident in his moral superiority to every other lifeform he encounters in the universe. What does this say about Trek? Or perhaps the direction of modern pop culture?

I'm not sure that this is a matter of Star Trek reflecting trends in larger pop culture. It could also be seen as a throwback to the days of classic space opera sci-fi of the 1930s and 40s, in which humanity was almost always seen as superior in some way to the aliens we encountered, who would typically either be savage barbarians or stagnant, arrogant elder races who fear humanity because we're faster and smarter than them.

Of course, this was usually found mostly in American sci-fi, so it's quite fair to link Star Trek's cocky superor humans to the writers' nationality, but this attitude really isn't anything recent.

[Tommy J]

I haven't watched Enterprise, but in the rest of the series, it's a fairly consistent pattern. Where once Star Trek featured man "humbled by the universe", modern Star Trek features man puffed up with arrogance, confident in his moral superiority to every other lifeform he encounters in the universe. What does this say about Trek? Or perhaps the direction of modern pop culture?

You've said it on your own Website. Gene Roddenberry had an agenda that seemed to strengthen as he got older, secular humanism and atheism. He obviously was also opposed to rapid capitalism. Perhaps like so much in Trek, this became a Brain Bug as well. The writers started to believe that a secular humanist, quasi communist/socialist, and spiritually enlightened society was 'evolved.'

The Hollywood establishment also has it's own propaganda machine you're well aware of as well. I imagine Gene's utopia and a sprinkling of Hollywood morality equals Star Trek's strange evolution over a period of years.

I'm curious though. You yourself being a secular humanist is some what critical of this part of the writing style, plots, and sub-text of Trek. I would think that its portrayal of a essentially religion free society as being enlightened and superior, as well as a society that holds science [tossing aside the technobabble] as superior would be attractive to you. Why isn't it?

[Darth Wong]

I'm curious though. You yourself being a secular humanist is some what critical of this part of the writing style, plots, and sub-text of Trek. I would think that its portrayal of a essentially religion free society as being enlightened and superior, as well as a society that holds science [tossing aside the technobabble] as superior would be attractive to you. Why isn't it?

Because they DON'T hold science as superior; they just pay it lip service. Watch the fucking show. They treat it as nothing more than a source of mindless technobabble, and they treat the engineers as reckless kids playing with toys. And the real cultural arrogance only sets in after Roddenberry lost control of the show anyway, so I don't know if I would blame him for it.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think modern star trek does have a sense of cultural superiority in it's depiction of the federation. Maybe it's a product of the author's mentality. Maybe that's the way he sees civilization? Some books I have read depict humanity as that--almost like a second "Enlightenment" or something.

[Uraniun235]

I think the problem is, once again, the fact that by late-TNG there weren't any science-fiction writers left on the Star Trek payroll.

[Patrick Degan]

I think the problem is, once again, the fact that by late-TNG there weren't any science-fiction writers left on the Star Trek payroll.

Worse than that, there weren't any writers on the payroll with any experience of the world beyond writing TV in Hollywood. The original TOS writers had a broader education, if not in university then certainly in the world abroad, than the TNG/DS9/V'ger writing crew. Some of them had fought either in Europe or Korea, and almost certainly grew up during the Depression, and the actual SF authours on the payroll had extensive careers in print SF before being tapped to pen scripts for television. They may have all loved America and American culture, but they knew it wasn't the universe and they knew it had its problems —especially given that period in history during the civil rights struggles, the McCarthyite witchhunts, the omnipresent threat of the Bomb, and the growing spectre of Vietnam looming on the horizon.

By contrast, I believe many of the later writers have lived in a bubble-reality with no clue about the world outside that bubble, and they never bothered to find out about anything outside that bubble either. They knew nothing about science because it wasn't important in the Hollywood Continuum. They knew nothing about literature, history, or politics (substantively) because it wasn't important to anything or anyone in TV-world. And that ignorance is telling in just how empty, uninformed and facile their scripts were and where I believe a lot of that cultural arrogance sprang from; in an overwhelming belief that their microscopic slice of the world was The World and anything outside it was either inferior or insignificant in comparison.

[xammer99]

Sorry, but the world presented in ST doesn't have much at all to do with modern America.

If it did, then those people woulda kicked off the immortality planet in a hot second instead of the 2hr socialist pontificating we got; the various other researched immortalities found would have been refined for mass consumption; the Federation would have a clue to how to fight a war; and there would be a capitalist economy at the core of it.

Star Trek is instead clearly European in its contextualization. It's apologist; it's determined to maintain its status quo; it's militarily weak and proud of it; it thinks a hell of a lot of itself for no apparent reason and expects the rest of the universe to agree; and it portrays the more American-esque folks as villains (the admiral who wanted to save billions and billions of lives by sacrificing the immortality of a couple hundred & the capitalist feringi who started off being characterized as "Yankee Traders").

[Jon]

Sorry, but the world presented in ST doesn't have much at all to do with modern America.

The whole 'we're superior to everybody else and our way is best' theme in Star Trek does remind me of the attitude of a majority in a certain country where the show is produced.

[NecronLord]

<Snip>

I believe he reffers to the reseblance of the neo-conservative view of American Manifest Destiny compared to the similar post-TNG UFP ideas.

[Junghalli]

Star Trek is instead clearly European in its contextualization. It's apologist; it's determined to maintain its status quo; it's militarily weak and proud of it; it thinks a hell of a lot of itself for no apparent reason and expects the rest of the universe to agree; and it portrays the more American-esque folks as villains (the admiral who wanted to save billions and billions of lives by sacrificing the immortality of a couple hundred & the capitalist feringi who started off being characterized as "Yankee Traders").

I agree, and I'm not surprised. Roddenberry was an anti-capitalist so he probably thought the US should try to be more like Europe. Western Europe is basically the model for what lefties in America consider to be the best possible society in the world at this moment (the fact that it has quite a few problems generally escapes them, as it's not capitalist and capitalism is teh Ev1l in their minds). Any surprise Roddenberry modeled his "ideal" future on it?

[Jon]

Did I misinterpret or did you just say Western Europe isn't capitalist? Could have fooled me, fella.

[Junghalli]

Did I misinterpret or did you just say Western Europe isn't capitalist? Could have fooled me, fella.

It's less capitalist than the US IIRC.

[NecronLord]

It's less capitalist than the US IIRC.

Uhuh. It has different policies by the government in some ways, but is still as capitalist as one can realistically be.

[Mange]

It's less capitalist than the US IIRC.

Uhuh. It has different policies by the government in some ways, but is still as capitalist as one can realistically be.

I think that should be "by the governments". Don't forget that Western Europe is comprised by quite many countries. Living in one of them (Sweden), I can guarantee that this particular country is much less capitalist than the U.S.

[Nephtys]

Sorry, but the world presented in ST doesn't have much at all to do with modern America.

The whole 'we're superior to everybody else and our way is best' theme in Star Trek does remind me of the attitude of a majority in a certain country where the show is produced.

And what kind of attitude is that? Sure, plenty of Americans are ignorant wastes of flesh who do believe that, but isn't it equally wrong to assign a character for a nation based on one particularly loud aspect?

I personally blame the problems of Star Trek on uninspired, complacent writing. They've come to the point where they no longer even care about quality of scripts, as long as they can slap the borg getting blown up by the (flavor of the week) in crapilly-made (movie of the week), where Humanity wins and we all learn a shallow fairy-tale lesson.

So really, I believe that the utopia, we-are-better-than-you attitude is partially caused by the inconsequencial episodic format of the show. It's going to make tons of money no matter WHAT you do. With a fan-base willing to accept most anything, it still is a better business investment than actually promising or good shows, like Neo-BSG, or SG-1, or B5.

[NecronLord]

I think that should be "by the governments". Don't forget that Western Europe is comprised by quite many countries. Living in one of them (Sweden), I can guarantee that this particular country is much less capitalist than the U.S.

I happen to live in one too you know. And here, it most certainly is not.

[Mange]

I think that should be "by the governments". Don't forget that Western Europe is comprised by quite many countries. Living in one of them (Sweden), I can guarantee that this particular country is much less capitalist than the U.S.

I happen to live in one too you know. And here, it most certainly is not.

As I pointed out, there are many countries (and thus many differences). But I see your point.

[Spacebeard]

Sorry, but the world presented in ST doesn't have much at all to do with modern America.

For one thing, you're forgetting that most of ST was not created in modern America, it was created in 1960s and 1980s America.

If it did, then those people woulda kicked off the immortality planet in a hot second instead of the 2hr socialist pontificating we got;

Uh, let's see here:

The Federation wanted to forcibly remove the Ba'ku from their property in order to harvest the planet's radiation for the greater good of the people.

Picard wanted the Federation to respect the property rights of the Ba'ku, and took up arms to prevent the government from seizing their land.

Which position is the "socialist" one, again?

the admiral who wanted to save billions and billions of lives by sacrificing the immortality of a couple hundred

Again, he wanted to "take something away from [the Ba'ku] for the greater good". Perhaps you remember who I am paraphrasing and what reaction the American right-wing had to these words. Please explain how this position is "more American-esque" and opposition to it is "socialist pontificating".

[Uraniun235]

Sorry, but the world presented in ST doesn't have much at all to do with modern America.

For one thing, you're forgetting that most of ST was not created in modern America, it was created in 1960s and 1980s America.

Err...

Three seasons of TOS in the 60's.
Three seasons of TNG in the 80's.

vs.

Four seasons of TNG in the 90's
Seven seasons of DS9 in the 90's
Seven seasons of Voyager in the 90's/00's
Four seasons of ENT in the 00's

No, most of Star Trek has been produced in modern America.

So really, I believe that the utopia, we-are-better-than-you attitude is partially caused by the inconsequencial episodic format of the show. It's going to make tons of money no matter WHAT you do. With a fan-base willing to accept most anything, it still is a better business investment than actually promising or good shows, like Neo-BSG, or SG-1, or B5.

It's not impossible to write good episodic television. Law and Order is a very good example of good episodic television. I'm getting sick of the "omg ST is episodic therefore it blows" shit because it's simply not true; if the ST staff tried a story-arc in Voyager or Enterprise, the stories would probably suck just as much as if they hadn't done an arc.

Oh wait. They did try that with Enterprise. And they failed horribly at it.

It's like if you've got a kid who sucks at playing the trombone, and you decide "well this classical shit sucks, let's get him playing some jazz." He's still going to suck at playing the trombone.

You can't blame the format because it's worked before; see TOS. You can't say the format is dead because Law and Order disproves that every week. The problem is that the whole goddamn writing staff is shot through with incompetence and it needs to be changed. Quit trying to ram through your preference for over-arching plotlines by blaming Trek's problems on the format.

[Spacebeard]

Sorry, but the world presented in ST doesn't have much at all to do with modern America.

For one thing, you're forgetting that most of ST was not created in modern America, it was created in 1960s and 1980s America.

Err...

Three seasons of TOS in the 60's.
Three seasons of TNG in the 80's.

vs.

Four seasons of TNG in the 90's
Seven seasons of DS9 in the 90's
Seven seasons of Voyager in the 90's/00's
Four seasons of ENT in the 00's

No, most of Star Trek has been produced in modern America.

I wasn't including the 1990s in "modern America", because xammer99's view of modern America and Europe seems to be a product of the year 2002 and onward, and it's one which Enterprise started to mimic at the end of its second season (when I stopped watching): the evil Vulcans were trying to stop the righteous humans from going to war.

I should have been more clear and put "modern America" in quotation marks and mentioned the 1990s, sorry.

[Nick Lancaster]

Certainly, there are talented writers who have worked on TNG, et al who know their trade and shine outside the intellectual swamp that is the franchise. Ron Moore has, by members' comments, done reasonably well with Neo-BSG. Naren Shankar's name shows up regularly on CSI.

Mike's initial post raises the question as to whether it is merely a different viewpoint, or a decline in basic teleplay writing skills. Back when dinosaurs walked the Earth (that is, when I was in college), we were taught that the basic formula of television drama is, 'Man vs. X'.

Man vs. Man. Man vs. Technology. Man vs. Nature. And so on.

Furthermore, people generally read/watch that which confirms their existing views. For example, it seems conservatives really dig Michael Crichton's latest book, while liberals won't even crack the cover. (I have to admit, someone loaned me the book about two weeks ago, and I really don't have any interest in reading it because of the premise.)

The rise of arrogance in Trek shifts the balance. In TOS, superior races usually held off their wrath because humans had demonstrated some redeeming quality - not imagined moral or cultural superiority. The Metron in TOS:Arena merely tells Kirk that we're 'promising.' In TOS:Errand of Mercy, Kirk and Kor are ready to pitch a temper tantrum, insisting on their 'right' to kill each other, before the Organians give them a time-out.

But as we get to later-season TNG episodes and into DS9/VOY/ENT, suddenly ... humans are perfect. Humans are the pinnacle of achievement. Enterprise's failing was that this is before TNG, but they hold the same 'know it all' mentality - inconsistent with a culture just setting forth. They didn't have the intellectual hunger, the drive to know more, go faster, explore further, that they should have.

Instead, we get brilliant episodes with starship captains threatening to piss on another culture's sacred tree, or some such silliness. We get time-travel to the point that it would seem the past only exists because the future made it so (which has an element of arrogance in itself, the past is all screwed up, we know better, we're gonna go fix it). We get Space Nazis and sappy lessons in morality.

Improve the basic writing model, and this could change. Though with lackwits like Berman & Braga at the helm, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Nephtys]

So really, I believe that the utopia, we-are-better-than-you attitude is partially caused by the inconsequencial episodic format of the show. It's going to make tons of money no matter WHAT you do. With a fan-base willing to accept most anything, it still is a better business investment than actually promising or good shows, like Neo-BSG, or SG-1, or B5.

It's not impossible to write good episodic television. Law and Order is a very good example of good episodic television. I'm getting sick of the "omg ST is episodic therefore it blows" shit because it's simply not true; if the ST staff tried a story-arc in Voyager or Enterprise, the stories would probably suck just as much as if they hadn't done an arc.

Oh wait. They did try that with Enterprise. And they failed horribly at it.

It's like if you've got a kid who sucks at playing the trombone, and you decide "well this classical shit sucks, let's get him playing some jazz." He's still going to suck at playing the trombone.

You can't blame the format because it's worked before; see TOS. You can't say the format is dead because Law and Order disproves that every week. The problem is that the whole goddamn writing staff is shot through with incompetence and it needs to be changed. Quit trying to ram through your preference for over-arching plotlines by blaming Trek's problems on the format.

The format is only one part that makes the shows mostly garbage. I said inconsequencial throw-awayness of the episodes combined with the fact that they were many cases of terrible TV execution are the cause of most problems. True, Episodic can be done well. But in ST, it's degenerated to the point where they can put out an endless number of episodes over X years, and people will still eat it up, thus reducing the incentive for producing quality episodes. If you make the same if you try, or slack.. why ever work?

[Jawawithagun]

By contrast, I believe many of the later writers have lived in a bubble-reality with no clue about the world outside that bubble, and they never bothered to find out about anything outside that bubble either. They knew nothing about science because it wasn't important in the Hollywood Continuum. They knew nothing about literature, history, or politics (substantively) because it wasn't important to anything or anyone in TV-world. And that ignorance is telling in just how empty, uninformed and facile their scripts were and where I believe a lot of that cultural arrogance sprang from; in an overwhelming belief that their microscopic slice of the world was The World and anything outside it was either inferior or insignificant in comparison.

I think even more important, they did not know how to write dramatic TV. AFAIK many of the TOS writers (and directors) were TV professionals and Studio Writers that worked on a crime show this week, on Star Trek the next one and on a western the week after. Nowadays with a staff of writers working for only one show etc., well not much experience there, is it? And the character of most shows produced parallel to ST is also very different from the 60s.

IIRC Roddenberry too moved from writing episodes for WWII shows on to ST.