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."
And to reinforce those in each generation.
Myths tell us what is "good" and what is "bad".
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...
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.