Slashdot Mirror
Star Trek PhD Thesis Wins Academic Prize
An anonymous reader writes "A PhD thesis based on Star Trek has won an Australian university's top academic prize. Dr Djoymi Baker's 90,000 word dissertation 'Broadcast Space: TV Culture, Myth and Star Trek' was awarded the University of Melbourne's Chancellor's Prize for Excellence in the PhD. Dr Baker watched over 700 Star Trek episodes — more than 624 hours — to investigate the relationship between ancient mythology and today's popular culture. American academics thought her research was 'superlative' and suitable for teaching."
I did a cursory search for it, but only found references. Wether you like ST or not, it might be interesting given the title.
Someone hates these cans.
...is the idea that you could learn much about the relationship between anything and today's popular culture from the Star Trek TV franchise, which had been struggling to remain viable on any basis but nostalgia for years before it finally died.
Star Trek and the like are at least Science Fiction: not based upon the supernatural, but instead upon testable, and currently tested theories and ideas.
Star Trek based on science? Muahahahah, *wipes eye* that was hilarious. It's like the definition of unrealistic and unscientific sci-fi, a fantasy series with a weak blanket of "science" shoved on top.
How is this any less valid than a PhD surrounding the works of Shakespeare? It could be reasonably argued that the collected episodes of Star Trek represent a far larger body of work, that they do indeed influence pop culture substantially and serve as a superb mirror for the social attitudes of contemporary society.
Mind, my PhD is in Computer Science, so all that humanities stuff is more or less the same to me. If you can't code it, it isn't good enough!
And to reinforce those in each generation.
Myths tell us what is "good" and what is "bad".
There was nearly no over-arching Myth, but many of the episodes had mythic elements, some altogether too literally. (Remember when our intrepid crew encountered the actual, factual Greek God Apollo?)
But you miss the main point, which is thanks to the magic of Deconstruction, you can read anything you want into anything you want. So of course Star Trek has embedded myth, any embedded myth you want. It also contains deep wisdom about how post-feminist transgendered dialogs can be resolved in a quasi-imperialist milieu steeped in the rhetoric of oppressive patriarchial systemic dynamics in a quantum mechanical universe, if you look hard enough.
Isn't literary criticism fun?
Star Wars mostly ignores science. Star Trek actively butchers it at every opportunity.
Culture is culture. If no one looks at culture of the present day, we lose a lot of valuable information. You're basically saying it's OK to abolish the study of culture at the university level. And while I am not personally interested in Star Trek, I do think that it has had an amazing influence over a large portion of the general population, and studying that effect is definitely worth the effort. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't look at the effect of the Simpsons on our civilization. Ignoring the mundane details that describe our culture means ignoring the essence of culture as a whole.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
I dunno, your analysis seems to dismiss Dr. Baker (who is a fox) and her research just because it is in a modern cultural field. Yes, something like a medical advance is extremely useful to humanity, but when he isn't studying immunological facotrs relating to the herpes virus, what does Dr Christopher Smith watch on TV while he relaxes? Why does he watch it, and what does it say about the greater cultural forces surrounding him? If he responds to the Borg, for instance, as effective villains, why is that? Is it because they are ugly and their mechanical elements makes them intimidating, or is it because they represent the polar opposite of the Thatcher-esque mode of thinking that has come to define modern capitalist nations? (Thatcher once said there is no society, only individuals. The Borg are the exact opposite.)
I could go on a rant about how medicine may allow us to live, but culture makes life worth living, but it would be a stretch to say that Dr Baker is producing culture. What she is doing is helping us understand our own culture. When we foster a society that can engage critically with its own culture and media, we have a culture that is less susceptble to the influence of those who would use media to control the public. We gain understanding, or at least perspective, on the other cultures surrounding is and the cultures that preceded us, and we also open doorways to a brighter future. How many people do you think became engineers or scientists thanks to watching Star Trek as children? Couldn't Jules Verne and Meliés deserve some credit for inspiring certain elements of our journeys to the mood and beneath the oceans?
As someone currently in college, currently studying animation (but finding myself drawn away from the practical side and towards the theoretical side) I often grapple with the feeling that I'm devoting a lot of my time, my youth and my mental energy to something that could quite possibly be considered irrelevant. On some level it's possible to say that research using Star Trek is fairly inconsequential, but ultimately, devoting research to it goes back to one of my favorite adages of philosophy, Socrates. The unexamined life is not worth living. If no one examines Star Trek, is it worth watching?
Yup...
Seems like a wee bit more serious and useful work.
Dunno.
It's been famously stated that those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it. I'd suggest that those who do not study myths are condemned to act them out.
Many of may have been taught abouth myth in this way: Myth is obsolete science. Zeus is just a primitive mind's way of explaining lightning without the benefit of understanding electricity. I know I was taught this way. However, if you look at a myth like Cupid and Psyche, it's obviously not the product of a primitive mind. Myths are what they are, but the do serve a very practical purpose in allowing us to relate the world to the subjective experiences and responses that make up our identity.
We're currently fighting a war whose root causes are clearly in the economics of petrolum and regional politics. But what sustains the war (on both sides) by a mythical theme: the alien who wants to destroy our way of life. This is the alien of "War of the Worlds". This is "the Hun". This is not the alien from ET.
One of the most popular terms in US political discourse these days is "islamo-fascism". Notice that while this term is technically inaccurate when applied to Al Qaeda's goals, it is mythologically potent, combining the alien (islam) and the threatening (fascism). This is not to say Al Qaeda isn't alien and threatening! It's just to say the term is more emotionally loaded than technically accurate. Framing your thinking in terms of the mythical theme of alien invasion means you mischaracterize the other's intentions. The other party's real intentions may be just as bad, or even worse, but it doesn't change the point: allowing one mythical theme to dominate your thinking about a situation means you act more in accord with the mythical paradigm than specific facts of the case.
What does this have to do with Star Trek? Well, it doesn't necessarily have to have any immediate use. There is no immediate use for studying the genetics of a fruit fly, but the knowledge gained from that study is valuable indeed. It's clear to me that TOS and TNG have connected with many people, many intelligent people, in a deep way, a way which subsequent series like Voyager and Enterprise failed to, although individual episodes may fall below or rise above the others in any of the series. This in itself is no doubt mysterious to the company that produced them. Which means we are in some sense in a state of ignorance, the wealth of theories regarding this notwisthstanding. There are always plenty of theories available when you are in a state of ignorance. So serious scholarship is certainly called for. It may provide useful fundamental results, or it may not, but it is at least of interest to those whose jobs it is to provide mythologically potent entertainment.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Not knocking this; but this theme goes back to the very first SF story, Frankenstein (1818). And more recently, Isaac Asimov's robot stories in the 1940s and 50s. Trek is fun, but not highly original in its storylines.
This was the first really good TNG episode. Unfortunately, it was spoiled somewhat by the final speech of the judge, in which she started to raise the question whether or not Data has a soul. A soul is a metaphysical construct that has nothing to do with the facts that were presented by either Picard or Riker, and does not belong in a court of law. The judge finally awarded victory to Data because she felt she was unable to decide whether or not he has a soul, so she gave him the benefit of the doubt. But think of it: if it could be proven that Data actually has no soul, does that mean he would have been handed over to Starfleet and be dismantled? Urgh.