Star Trek--Where No Man Has Gone Before

One of the topics that fascinated Americans in the 1960's and 1970's was something called ESP. Short for Extrasensory Perception, this little concept became a topic of study for legitimate scientists and a subject of interest for the general public. Could it be possible that a human being could develop the ability to manipulate objects with his or her mind, to reader others' thoughts, or even to influence others' thoughts? As we seem to have discovered, the answer to that question is a clear, "no," but the fact that we asked the question at all indicates the extent to which we as human beings find our existence--particularly our mortality--to be stultifying. To be designed for purposes beyond our control--beyond our permission--is a fact of life that most of us either can't or don't want to handle.

It is for that reason that Gary Mitchell, the villain in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," is both a mirror of man's innate evil and also a hero. Obviously, as we can see in the episode, Mitchell (for all his newfound godhood) exhibits greed, jealousy, and selfishness, and he is willing to strangle and kill former friends and colleagues in order to obtain what he wants. In many ways, this episode of Star Trek paints the human condition in its truest form, the "frailty" that Kirk so often references in his exchanges with Mitchell and other crewmen showing up vividly in Mitchell's destructive behavior. However, as I watched this episode for what, to me, was probably the twentieth or thirtieth time, I was astonished at something else entirely--the guttural savagery of Kirk's attempt to take Mitchell apart with his bare hands. This is violence that would have doubtless been acceptable in many Western movies at the time, but as a viewer, I found it fascinating that when the opportunity strikes for Mitchell to be subdued, Kirk chooses not to go for his phaser rifle (which could doubtlessly kill Mitchell in a matter of seconds) and instead opts to beat him with his fists, then attempt to cave in his skull with a nearby rock. I think the producers of the show (their second pilot episode, in fact) probably hadn't considered this little detail when they were trying to put together a gripping fight scene for their audience, but it says something to me that they chose to present violence that atavistic rather than something more civilized, especially when I consider that network executives of that era were far more concerned about what they might be showing children in prime time than network executives are now.

Also, I was struck that the key female supporting lead--Dr. Danar--is a cold, calculating Nazi-type figure who sees the development of an ESPer race as a climactic evolutionary achievement for the human species. (In other words, she's a character who--2 decades removed from World War II--audience members of that era could "love to hate.") In particular, I was struck by one line of dialogue in which the good doctor apologizes for her "freezer"-like behavior toward Mitchell by saying that women who are career-minded tend to "overcompensate" a bit. Mitchell--before his transformation into a godlike being--attempts to flirt with her, only to receive a withering rejection. Now, sitting in Sick Bay, he enjoys the opportunity of hearing her say that she was "overcompensating" in order to fulfill her career role. This brings up an important point about feminism and sexual relations that I want to explore in more detail here, because it informs much of what we see on television.

When people flirt with members of the opposite sex, what is their main aim? Obviously, it is to consummate a sexual union, right? Well, what is the main purpose--biologically--for a sexual union? Reproduction, isn't it? I'm not saying that sex itself isn't fun or pleasurable--of course it is--but I AM saying that the main AIM of sex is procreation.

Now, let's go back to the scene with Mitchell and Danar. Now, what is Danar "overcompensating" for? She's (obviously) overcompensating for her drive to cooperate with Mitchell (or any member of the opposite sex) for procreation, right?

This is my point. The "professional" woman, the woman who wants to pursue a career, is often opposed to the "obedient conservative housewife" in the popular imagination, largely because the two images are opposed to each other ON TELEVISION. Think about it--is there any reason why a Christian man should be concerned that his wife might be interested in pursuing a career of her own? Of course not. Husbands and wives can work together, and I think they SHOULD work together, if for no reason other than that working together strengthens the marriage bond. However, our society would have it otherwise. We have all grown up in a society that tells us--again, largely through television--that to be a professional woman is fundamentally opposed to being a wife and mother, and this ridiculous idea has probably resulted in the ruin of more marriages and relationships than any other single cultural motif. Why should a woman consider having children at odds with having a career? After all, if MEN have had both children and careers for 6000 years, then I certainly don't believe that WOMEN would find it any more difficult. (Yes, there is pregnancy, but come on, ladies and gentlemen. Any good man is there with his wife through the whole thing, right? It isn't like the coming of a new baby would change HIS life any less than it would his wife's.)

As I pointed out in one of my early posts, there was a time in human history when women vied for the privilege of having babies. Today, we train women to run away from this one singular aspect of their lives that they can experience in a deeper, more powerful way than men can ever imagine, and as a result, childbirth has become almost a curse in certain sectors of our society. This is a far cry from the attitude of the Bible writer who said that children are a blessing from the Lord, and it is a far cry from the kind of attitude that Christians should be fostering in their children. This one aspect of our culture, this antagonistic stance toward one of the human race's greatest joys, is something that permeates television right down to its core. The more we refuse to see this cultural value for what it is, the more we will see ourselves adopting the teachings of our television set--at the cost of our families, our children, and our spiritual well-being.