Star Trek and Idealism vs cynicism

[trappedslider]

Some of the discussion about the section 31 movie got me thinking and i figured it should be it's own thread. We all know that when roddenberry started the Star Trek universe, it was meant to be hopeful and very idealistic about humanity's future (along with a commentary on contemporary issues) but then things slowly started to change.

I think how you feel about the existence of S31 comes down to how idealistic you think ST should be overall.

I liked how DS9 showed that everything outside the core of the federation wasn't all sunshine and rainbows and that it asked the question "What does it take to keep it that way?"

So, how do you feel about Star trek leaning into cynicism?

 

[monsmord]

No thanks. I watch these shows for the escapist adventure, exploration, hope, magical science, occasionally truly thoughtful philosophy, and more occasional larf, but definitely not for Realpolitrek.

 

[MGibster]

In the original series, we were presented with a version of humanity that was better than we were in 1967. The foremost expert on computers in the Federation was a black dude, in "Court Martial," we see a black officer, Commodore Stone, who is a higher rank than Kirk, and then of course we have Lt. Uhura serving on the bridge. This doesn't seem like a big deal today, but back when I, Spy started airing in 1965, Southern television stations refused to broadcast it because it had a black and white protagonist who treated one another as equals. When Seasame Street debuted in 1969, the last season of TOS, Mississippi refused to show it because it depicted people of different races all treating each other equally.

But humans weren't perfect. In "The Arena," Kirk intends to kill the captain of the Gorn vessel, until he learns the Gorn attacked because Federation outposts were encroaching on their territory. In "Balance of Terror," we see some anti-Vulcan bigotry from Lt. Stiles and Kirk tells him to keep that baloney off his bridge. So even in the future, humans aren't perfect, they're just in a better place than we were and they're still striving to do better.

I don't mind a little cynicism, but presenting Section 31 as a necessary component of "paradise" just means your system is a facade. It's a lie. I liked DS9, episodes were Sisko wrestled with right and wrong made for good drama, and it didn't go too far from what Trek was meant to be. I wish they had never introduced Section 31.

 

[pukunui]

Yes, I’m fine with individuals (and even some groups) being less than utopian. What bothers me about Section 31 is that is suggests that humanity as a whole – human society – can’t change for the better. It puts the lie to the utopian future. And that’s the main reason I strongly dislike it and don’t want it in my Trek.

Star Trek is all about hope for the future. About people striving to be better. To be intelligent and reasonable instead of always resorting to violence. It’s idealistic and I like it that way.

Section 31 is anathema to that.

 

[Mort]

So, how do you feel about Star trek leaning into cynicism?

I dislike it. There is a whole lot of cynical sci-fi out there, I've always preferred Star Trek when it's NOT that. There are many, many great stories to be told about overcoming cynicism and I much prefer Star Trek leaning into THAT.

I really dislike Section 31. It's existence as anything but out and out villains implies that the brightness and enlightenment of the Federation is an illusion. Only possible because someone behind the scenes is willing to get dirty and "do what it takes." It COMPLETELY undermines the message that humanity has moved forward and truly bettered itself.

 

[Piperken]

So, how do you feel about Star trek leaning into cynicism?

Not focused on Section 31, but something that might merit consideration:

Cynic: A person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. A person who questions whether something will happen or whether it is worthwhile.
-- Oxford American Dictionary

Cynicism leads to people (and their various communities) giving up on anything positive. Why bother, because the cynic believes that no one acts beyond their own self-interest. There are no people who are altruistic, who do things genuinely.

The cynic says, everyone cheats, so whoever wins is the person who cheats the best! This leads to everyone cheats, therefore it is justified. That is dangerous. That leads to people giving up.

Once enough people give up, then there is no longer any constructive effort towards what we may aspire towards -- Things are this way because they are this way. It doesn't matter. Don't delude yourself.

By the same token, what could be of benefit in communities will never be perfect; like MGibster mentioned above, that TOS reflected, people are themselves imperfect, so all one can do is push the needle in the ways they are able too.

Plainly, people who have pushed that needle towards what is aspired too, do not spread cynicism.

More personally, cynicism is nothing more than a kind of intellectualized self-pity; it masquerades itself as strength, when it is not.

 

[payn]

I don't mind a little cynicism, but presenting Section 31 as a necessary component of "paradise" just means your system is a facade. It's a lie. I liked DS9, episodes were Sisko wrestled with right and wrong made for good drama, and it didn't go too far from what Trek was meant to be. I wish they had never introduced Section 31.

I thought S31 was excellent in DS9 becasue the idealist redeemed the philosophy at the end. I agree with you now because of what NuTrek has done with S31.

Yes, I’m fine with individuals (and even some groups) being less than utopian. What bothers me about Section 31 is that is suggests that humanity as a whole – human society – can’t change for the better. It puts the lie to the utopian future. And that’s the main reason I strongly dislike it and don’t want it in my Trek.

Star Trek is all about hope for the future. About people striving to be better. To be intelligent and reasonable instead of always resorting to violence. It’s idealistic and I like it that way.

Section 31 is anathema to that.

I think DS9 was excellent becasue we got to see the Federation from the galaxy's eyes, and the Federation won every time. I think an internal struggle, even a clandestine one, was a very interesting angle to approach from. I am glad they were able to maintain, imo, the heart of Star Trek despite a few dark departures.

I dislike it. There is a whole lot of cynical sci-fi out there, I've always preferred Star Trek when it's NOT that. There are many, many great stories to be told about overcoming cynicism and I much prefer Star Trek leaning into THAT.

Which is exactly what DS9 was.

I really dislike Section 31. It's existence as anything but out and out villains implies that the brightness and enlightenment of the Federation is an illusion. Only possible because someone behind the scenes is willing to get dirty and "do what it takes." It COMPLETELY undermines the message that humanity has moved forward and truly bettered itself.

Since NuTrek, yeah.

 

[MarkB]

Section 31 works fine as a villainous group of Federation extremists who've lost their way. It only stops working when it stops being treated as the outright villain. Having it be a known part of Starfleet as of the Discovery era was a mistake, and contradictory to the way it was originally portrayed, and the idea of setting an entire series around it always seemed ridiculous. Which seems to be borne out in their failure to pull off even a decent movie of it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I thought S31 was excellent in DS9 becasue the idealist redeemed the philosophy at the end. I agree with you now because of what NuTrek has done with S31.

Yeah I'd actually go as far as to say the DS9 take on S31 was kind of important, because it addressed a RL cultural idea (still sadly knocking around, albeit more scuffed than it was) that you needed "hard men making hard decisions" and covert agencies just going around murdering and disappearing people (probably including your own citizens, see COINTELPRO etc.) for "democracy to be safe". Post-2001 that idea got pushed even harder, as ever DS9 was prescient on this. I think it was important for Star Trek that DS9 picked up the idea, examined it, and showed how it was dodgy despite superficial appeal and short-term-ist advantages.

Trying to make S31 into "the good guys", even in a Suicide Squad kind of way, is nuts. And further, it's dumb!

If you want sci-fi about an apparently utopian universe that's actually engaging in some pretty brutal spycraft and so on, there's the entire The Culture setting by Iain M. Banks! It's literally about this, the main focus, the most common meta-subject/question of Culture books is whether it's right or wrong that they're interfering, and how they're interfering, and The Culture was always conceived as a sort of more cynical take on the Federation (but not without hope/optimism). Consider Phlebas is still begging for a real high-budget adaption by a director who actually gets it (Tony Gilroy would, but he's already done Andor and I suspect is unlikely to do SF again).

 

[Ryujin]

"Star Trek" needs to be idealistic and forward-looking, to be "Star Trek." We have more than enough dystopian and dark fiction out there. We need something to aspire to.

I started watching TOS in 1966. I was too young to really internalize the barely hidden messages in it, but they affected me anyway. My first exposure to the US Constitution, as a Canadian, was via "The Omega Glory." It set the tone, for me. A few years later, when I was busy spotting the mistakes and assumptions in "Chariots of the Gods", the irony of a Canadian telling Americans that their Declaration of Independence needs to be more than just words on a page finally struck me. E Plebnista.

TOS was never about perfect people, in a perfect society. It was aspirational. Utopias can't exist because people are imperfect, so they can't maintain a perfect society. The Federation is a structure in which people can aspire to be better and actually get there. It shows us that we can aspire to be better, and be better, making society better as a result.

Several others have said it: The existence of Section 31, as a necessity to The Federation, makes all of that a lie. "You can be who you are because we do the dirty work, that you won't." The only way that Section 31 could have any value, in my Star Trek, is if it's shown to be an absolute bald-faced lie, perpetrated by power hungry people who can't get what they really want out of The Federation. They need to be rooted-out and expunged from existence.