Star Trek: The Next Interpretation; Changing Notions of American Citizenship in The Original Series By McKenzie Marie Taranto Honors Thesis Department of English and Comparative Literature University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 2020 Approved: (signature of advisor) ____________________________________________ I. Introduction Writers and thinkers of the 1960s became increasingly interested in defining ethics and morality, outlining desirability character traits that delineate humanity as being complex and multifaceted, requiring creativity, courage, utility, intuition, integrity, justice, respect, compassion, and a duty.1 Infused with these interests, popular media of this period, moreover, became a rich source for depicting and interrogating these qualities. Comprised of three seasons, Star Trek: The Original Series ran from 1966 to 1969. The show follows the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk and his team on the USS Enterprise as they travel through the galaxy exploring new worlds and civilizations under the command of Starfleet, the military force behind the Federation. Believing that individuals had the duty to examine what it means to be human, creator Gene Roddenberry used the show as a platform for exploring the terms and conditions of humanity (Fern 5). Thus, as a response to post-World War II nihilism, Star Trek, in particular, provided direction for baby boomers by defining humanity in terms of American citizenship. As the lead character in the series, Captain Kirk portrays many of the key human qualities above, most significantly in his sense of courage, intuition, integrity, compassion, as well as his strong sense of duty during the commission of his work for the Federation. Throughout the three seasons, Captain Kirk serves as a moral guide for the audience by defining what it means to be a good human and a productive member of American society. According to the show, the ideal citizen has compassion, integrity, 1 I derived this synthesis from a number of contemporary and scholarly sources including Robert Coles, “On Courage”; Louis Rubin, Life Skills in School and Society; John Kleinig, “Mercy and Justice”; Kurt Baier, “Moral Obligation”; David Benatar, Life, Death, and Meaning; Marcia Bok, Civil Rights and the Social Programs of the 1960s. 2 intuition, courage, mercy, and discipline—all of which are essential aspects of Captain Kirk’s personality. While these same basic characteristics are present in all three seasons, series writers transform their application in subtle ways as the show progresses. In the first half of the series, Kirk promotes these traits on an individual level to improve social cohesion and create a sense of community within the USS Enterprise as they encounter alien species on their missions. When issues arise in the first half of the series, they tend to be between individuals, either within the Enterprise crew or between crew members and other humanoid individuals in the alien communities they encounter; in other words, these conflicts are effectively man versus man, even with so-called “alien” life. Kirk models how one should solve these “micro” man versus man conflicts, as he employs all of the above character traits in his decision-making processes and strategies for conflict resolution. In this initial part of the series, Kirk demonstrates the ideals of good citizenship through his actions, which emphasize the moral obligation for compassion, integrity, and courage in the discharge of his duties as commander of the Enterprise. As the series progresses, the show’s emphasis on the above ideals of citizenship change in subtle ways. While Kirk continues to affirm compassion, integrity and courage in the commission of his duty as commander of a starship, his duty to the Federation takes precedence. Thus, by the close of the third season, Kirk’s command of the Enterprise is driven by a moral obligation to do his duty to the Federation, informed, of course, by his compassion, integrity, and courage, but with these traits subordinated to his commitment to upholding his responsibility to Starfleet operations. 3 Accordingly, the focus of the show’s primary conflicts shifts in kind to reflect problems between individuals and institutions and/or the ideology they represent; the conflicts are no longer man versus man, but rather become man versus institution. In these broader “macro” conflicts the same basic characteristics mentioned above are folded into a more deontological praxis or duty-based practice. In this evolution, the focus of the series shifts from instructing viewers on how to be a model citizen through compassion, integrity, intuition, courage, mercy, and discipline to defining citizenship through adherence to regulations and doing a prescribed duty that is informed by these qualities instead of these qualities informing one’s duty. In effect, Starfleet plays a bigger role in overcoming the challenges presented in the show. The show discriminates between “right” and “wrong” in its depiction of Kirk’s shifting emphasis on character trait-informed duty to duty-informed actions, primarily through the use of the following literary devices and plot elements: foil characters and doubling, excessive or extreme personality traits, and mirror/alternative universes. Foil characters and doubling provide two examples of a character, each with opposite personality traits. The show does two things with this device: either both characters are too extreme and fail in the challenges that they encounter, or the character with the more preferable traits triumphs over the other “bad” example. For instance, in “The Enemy Within,” airing on October 6th, 1966, season 1 episode 5, Kirk is literally split into two opposite counterparts when he uses a faulty transporter that is experiencing issues due to 2 the magnetic dust from the planet that the ship is orbiting. This episode plunges the 2 In 1966, American military action in Vietnam is escalating and there is an increasing number of American service members being taken prisoner. The lesson from this episode could connect to American justification for the Vietnam war in the sense that necessary evils may be used to bring about a greater good. 4 viewer into a mirror image of the good and bad of Kirk’s soul, bringing the good-evil dichotomy to life. “Good” Kirk is compassionate, docile, personable, and incredibly dedicated to his crew. However, he cannot make any decisions and is exceedingly insecure in his role as Captain to the point where he is no longer an effective leader. “Bad” Kirk, on the other hand, is selfish, hyper-focused, overly ambitious, violent with men, and a sexual predator towards women. Bad Kirk’s character traits allow him to make decisions for the Enterprise, but his words and actions horrify the crew, who lose faith in him as their leader. In both Good and Bad Kirk’s case, neither double can function properly without the other’s traits, so they both fail in their duty as Captain. This resolution serves as a lesson that in order to be a good human and Captain, Kirk needs both sides of his personality, which he regains by the end of the episode.3 Extreme personality traits work in a similar way, the extreme character fails and Kirk provides some kind of commentary on their plight, offering some insight into why being so extreme is a bad thing. Kirk serves as a focal point through which viewers experience these words and how viewers receive his commentary on how to read these situations primarily through his Captain’s log, but also through his discussions with his officers, Spock and Bones. Finally, mirror or alternative universes, in particular, usually compare a way of life that starkly contrasts with the way that Kirk and Federation civilizations live, which distinguishes the “correct” behaviors and ways of living from the “incorrect” in regards to different values, human qualities, and virtues. 3 This is a strange dichotomy; it suggests something interesting about human nature-- that every man has the capacity for committing violence but his “good” qualities balance or restrain the “bad.” Or at least according to 1960s culture that believed that good and bad qualities were needed to be balanced in order to be a good leader. 5 Mirror universes do not always have to be a literal parallel universe—they can also be two entirely different societies, like the Federation and the Romulans. Both live in the same universe per se, but they exist in entirely different sectors with different values, norms, and cultures, so they serve as contrasting existences. Modern critic Paul Manuel uses season 1, episode 14, “Balance of Terror,” to discuss the role of aliens in the series. He argues that aliens are often structured in stark contrast to the Federation/Starfleet and their customs, traits, and actions. Airing on December 15th, 1966, the episode represents the first encounter between the Enterprise and the Romulans when a Romulan ship undertakes a hostile invasion of Federation territory. In examining Kirk’s interactions with aliens in this episode, Manuel implies that the Federation is set up as having the “right qualities” as they are fighting in order to save innocent people from harm, while the Romulans are taking over because they want more power. The show portrays Romulans as hyper-militaristic, emotionless, xenophobic, and disdainful.4 This allows the viewer to understand that the Federation members’ traits are “right” and those possessed by the Romulans are “wrong” (172-3). Beyond Manuel’s analysis, this episode also provides insight into two entirely different civilizations, ultimately suggesting that the Federation civilization is the “right” way to live, as Kirk and his team are triumphant, while the Romulans perish. As Kirk is engaged in a fight against the cloaked Romulan ship that is attacking the Enterprise, both Captains have to carefully plot out every move. Romulans are just as intelligent as Vulcans, as the two species are cousins, and therefore, Kirk must use his ingenuity to win 4 Broadly, the Romulans could represent communist leaders at the time like Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, and Leonid Brezhnev.