Porter, E. Jennifer and Darcee L. McLaren, editors;
Albany: State University of New York Press. 1999. 315 pp. $21.95 (USD).
[1] Porter and McLaren have compiled articles on the
most popular science fiction television show in thirty-five years, Star
Trek. These articles cover popular views and philosophy on all four
television series and some of the movies. The contributors include Michael
Jindra, Anne Mackenzie Pearson, and Gregory Peterson. The articles vary
in import and weight. The book is divided into three parts, the first
part consisting of the best articles in the book. In the last section,
the evaluations on fans seem incomplete and inadequately researched.
However, for anyone teaching world views, philosophy, and theology,
the book is invaluable.
[2] One of the most compelling articles, written by
the editors McLaren and Porter, neatly outlines a list of popular “isms”
or world views which may either be, as some of the contributors suggest,
preached and created by Star Trek, or as I would maintain, merely
are part of the Zeitgeist and portrayed in the original and subsequent
series. A quotation from the editors’ article “(Re)Covering Sacred Ground”
reveals the tone of the entire book: “The similarities found in the
concepts of rationality, pluralism, or eclecticism, humanism, and individualism
between New Age and Star Trek perspectives provide points of
contact for religious ideas within Star Trek stories” (Porter
and McLaren, 112).
[3] As seen above, the list of “isms” may provide
a clue to the popularity of Gene Roddenberry’s own atheistic world view.
New Age spirituality is not the only position revealed in these examinations
of the Star Trek corpus. The great American dream, or should
one say, the Western dream of “rugged individualism” remains a clue
to the attractiveness of Kirk, Janeway, and, even, Spock. As McLaren
and Porter note, “Individualism is a key component of the American world
view,” referring to David Hess’ book, Science in the New Age: the
Paranormal, Its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1993). This idea, as expanded by the
editors, encompasses not only the individualism of character, work,
or progress, but the democratic imposition of individualism onto one’s
“spiritual path” (McLaren and Porter, 110). This substitution of the
individual’s quest for meaning rivals the rationalism, or the glorification
of reason, as expressed in the articles by Robert Asa, Gregory Peterson
and others in the book.
[4] In his article, “Classic Star Trek and
the Death of God: A Case Study of “Who Mourns for Adonais?” Robert
Asa writes that:
Classic Star Trek has almost unbounded confidence
in the powers of human rationality and science. In this regard, Star
Trek reflects the intellectual foundations of the Enlightenment,
an eighteenth-century philosophical movement characterized by rationalism
(trust in reason), empiricism (trust in the senses), and scepticism
(trust in mistrust-refusing to believe in anything without good evidence)
(Porter and McLaren, 48).
[5] The Enlightenment faith in progress, science and
reason forms only part of the philosophy of Star Trek, however.
The main characters in the original series and in The Next Generation,
such as Spock and Picard, constantly reveal that, along with dispassionate
logic, trust in technological or scientific solutions to problems are
preferable to philosophical or religious answers. Asa notes that in
“Who Mourns for Adonis”, there are no gods, only “pretenders to the
throne”, who are ultimately unmasked and destroyed. The interesting
point in the original series regarding religion is that religion and
science are seen as incompatible. Asa refers to the belief of “scientism”,
“a belief that if something is not knowable by science, it does not
exist” (Porter and McLaren, 49). Peterson, in “Religion and Science
in Star Trek: The Next Generation: God, Q, and Evolutionary Eschatology
on the Final Frontier” examines this religion vs. science theme in more
depth. All of the articles in Part I of the book present compelling
reading on this basic theme of the modern distrust of myth and religion,
and the logical, psychological result, the present fascination of New
Age spirituality. That New Age spirituality is found in the Voyager
attracts creates notice from several authors, such as McLaren and Porter,
and provides interesting reading for the contemporary critic of the
newer series.
[6] Part II carries on the examination of myth, including
the Christian stories and symbolism in the television shows and in the
movies. The most successful of these articles, Ian Maher’s “The Outward
Voyage and the Inward Search”, raises questions on what it means to
be truly human in the Star Trek universe, what is the relationship
of humanity to the rest of creation, and the existential questions of
the meaning of life, death and fidelity to friends. The articles on
myth and Christianity seem to push the parallels beyond what I think
the creators of the shows and movies intended or, even, conveyed. However,
the articles merit attention.
[7] The least convincing section of the book is Part
III, “Religion and Ritual in Fandom,” which contains three articles
that seem contrived. The value of interviewing a few fans, whether Trekkies
or Trekkers, seems a doubtfully serious subject for articles, compared
to the fine scholarship and thought of the articles in the two previous
parts. Also, I sense that at least one author, Michael Jindra, begs
the question as to what came first, the chicken (Star Trek) or
the egg (modernist philosophy). Jennifer E. Porter’s article and Darcee
L. McLaren's articles are interesting in their study of the effect of
the Star Trek philosophies of the “Prime Directive” and “Infinite
Diversity in Infinite Combination” on fandom, but they apply the same
logical fallacy. Modernist philosophy created the series, not the other
way around. What is interesting about these articles is the apparent
lack of depth among some fans, who would base their life’s philosophy
on what is only a television show.
[8] The sections on myth and fandom are less successful;
the articles involving interviews and polls of fans border on the superficial.
However, these articles and the book as a whole are valuable for instructors
of philosophy, theology and film/television studies. As an instructor
in a course on modern world views, I would definitely use Porter and
McLaren’s entertaining, as well as thought-provoking, collection.
Marie A. Dean, Instructor, Living Water Arts College,
Derwent, Alberta, Canada (marieannedean@hotmail.com).
