Technology and Utopia

I wanted to open this post by noting that I love Star Trek and am going to be using some of Darko Suvin's "On the Poetics of the Science Fiction Genre" and Tom Moylan's "Scraps of Untainted Sky" to discuss and analyze the futuristic setting of this classic TV series and its sequels (on both the big screen and television). Fundamentally, Star Trek is unique for series from the 1960s in that it appears to sidestep past its major contemporary issues. Much of the readings for the week concern the political commentary possible in Science Fiction works and while Star Trek does incorporate these issues into its narrative, it does so by disguising it as alien.

In the 23rd century, mankind has moved beyond its own petty disputes on Earth over race, gender, and ideology (aka the 1960s) and thus both unified the Earth and joined it and human colonies to the United Federation of Planets. Quite frankly, it is this point in particular that turns Star Trek into a utopian piece as it makes very optimistic (yet desired) assumptions of the outcome of human endeavors over the 250-odd years separating the show's 1960s inception and its setting. Thus the use of actual, relatable humans as the protagonists allows this show the link to our contemporary world while the optimism forces a suspension of disbelief (as in the manner described by Suvin).

While the use of humans as protagonists allowed the audience to more effectively relate to Star Trek as a Science Fiction work, the inclusion of aliens ironically added to this relationship. The existence of sapient life with complex cultures, alliances, and principles is a central reality to the series but this very inclusion also allowed for broader creative opportunities for Gene Roddenberry and his crew. As is now common knowledge, in the original series, the United Federation of Planets appears to symbolize the West while the encroaching Klingon Empire paralleled the Soviet Union. However, the point is not that there is a parallel (as there are debates on Roddenberry's true intentions), but rather that instead of simply setting human problems in orbit, Star Trek made them issues of humans against various aliens, monsters, and secret/terrorist-like organizations. The utopian world of humanity is now set against the less-ideal worlds populated by Klingons and their brethren, allowing not only for the inclusion of an impossible-to-believe foundation, but also for the parallels to the present necessary for good Science Fiction. Tom Moylan described how literature and SF adopted the issues of the present to the their various settings and Star Trek is no exception. If anything, because Gene Roddenberry didn't specifically intend for these parallels, their existence in the series emphasizes the use of Science Fiction to address contemporary issues.

As a side note, Star Trek is unique in that there is only one truly fantastical technology, the transporter. In essence, the Enterprise herself is simply a space-faring exploration/warship while phasers are fancy guns, etc... While one could argue that the TV show was limited by a small budget and thus had to stick to creating technologies which mirrored those in the 20th century, in reality, there is a subtle brilliance to this connection across time. Star Trek is unique in implementation, setting, and technology in that all three contribute both to the "suspension of disbelief" and the necessary parallel(s) to the present so advocated by Darko Suvin and Tom Moylan. So while the viewer must learn to accept these new alien cultures and the technology of space travel, he/she does not have to fully detach from the present, but rather can view and extrapolate on the parallels between the Enterprise's adventures and our contemporary human world.

Technology and Destruction

"And in one of the film’s most pointed gestures toward the unintentionally harmful effects of technology, the police psychiatrist fails to see the Terminator entering the station when his beeper goes off and distracts him just as their paths cross. Lacking any warning, scores of policemen are killed and the station destroyed."


Penley makes the point that the machines in the 1984 setting of 'The Terminator' are an extremely destructive force: " Today’s machines are not, however, shown to be agents of destruction because they are themselves evil, but because they can break down, or because they can be used (often innocently) in ways they were not intended to be used." Further, he points out that however innocuous they are now (1984), they are the origins of the super computer that started the nuclear war. This seems to suggest that technology has some sort of inherent evil, a danger that existed even before the super computer became capable of independent thought and decided to annihilate the human race. However, I'm not sure I entirely agree with this assessment of what the film is suggesting about technology. My doubt originates from a few curious moments in the film that use technology. First, the Terminator, who, according to Kyle is, "fully armored," goes to buy human guns at the gun shop, and he uses them to cause most of the destruction in the film. It just seemed curious to me the Terminator, an advanced Cyborg warrior from the future, would need to use human weapons, cars, and motorcycles to be a fully effective killing machine. Meanwhile, Kyle, who is also from the future, is arguably using more innovative and technologically advanced weapons--he makes those cylindrical bombs to fight the Terminator.
The next moment that makes me question this interpretation of the film's thoughts on technology is how the Terminator is finally defeated. Ultimately, it is a machine that is able to finish him, when Sarah starts the machine and crushes the Cyborg. While there are absolutely many moments in the film when technology allows the Terminator to manipulate the humans and many more moments when technology causes an accidental disaster, I do not think the film entirely condemns it. I don't think it is as simple as a fussy middle aged woman who never made the switch from a land line to a cell phone ranting about how 'technology is making the youths forget how to talk to each other...it's just criminal.' It seems to me that the film is more awed by the potential of technology than terrified by it.

Another aspect of this film that I would like to touch on is how it played on the Cold War anxieties of its then current audience. I think the film makes excellent, albeit not so subtle use of what was the biggest fear for many Americans at the time. Cameron could have invented a completely fictive weapons system for the Super Computer to use; presenting the audience with something unknown or invisible is an extremely effective cinematic fear producing technique. However, Cameron chose to have the super computer using nuclear weapons, starting a nuclear war. With limitless creative license to draw an entirely new method of combat for the future, Cameron used Nuclear weapons. It seems that he understood that this was an extremely real fear for everyone in the audience, and that using it would draw people into the story of the film and might make them more invested in the outcome.