Star Trek fans were given something they'd been hoping for 12 years on September 24th, 2017. This was the premier of Star Trek Discovery. Sadly, those hopes were quickly dashed with a poorly executed public presentation. Discovery was launched more or less as a commercial to draw in subscribers to the CBS network's streaming service CBS All Access-with no other way to view the show in North America as new episodes aired. Among a litany of other creative matters happening internally, Discovery has proven by far the most controversial Star Trek series I've personally ever seen. A major part of that is a sudden emergence of something that would seem to be an oxymoron: conservative Star Trek fans.
As of this writing, I've seen the entirety of Discovery's first season through my boyfriend's Blu Ray copy. And the first episode of the second season which has been posted on YouTube for free. The series is told from the point of view of Sonequa Martin-Green's Michael Burnham. She winds up being the science specialist on the Crossfield class starship U.S.S. Discovery during a war with the Klingon empire and an accidental journey to the mirror universe's. This all relates to the ships problematic spore drive, which can allow it to materialize instantly anywhere and space and maybe even time. It takes place a decade before the events of TOS. And does so in a glossy, fast paced manner close in appearance to the Kelvin timeline Star Trek movies of 2009-2016.
So where does a conservative fandom play into all this? Discovery has been consistently accused of going strongly against well established Star Trek cannon-both thematically and visually. And its hard to disagree with that. However many viewers of the show have complained that the Michael Burnham character, combined with the progressive social attitudes of Sonequa Martin-Green, is promoting an "SJW agenda". SJW standing for a social justice warrior. And according to this viewpoint, Star Trek's previous incarnations from 1966 onward did not. As my friend and YouTuber Steve Shives pointed out, Star Trek itself was based in Gene Roddenberry's social justice interests. So what ways could a conservative Star Trek fandom such as this have ever developed?
The first reason for conservative Star Trek fans could be based in a superficially ironic fascination. In the mid 1990's, William Shatner himself sometimes described Star Trek's socially conscious story telling as a means for the writers and producers of the show simply to draw in an audience. This in turn led producers to pursue a less story and more action oriented version of Star Trek-at one point even coining the 1996 Trek movie First Contact as "a Star Trek film for people who aren't Trek fans". The result ended up in an audience that viewed Star Trek itself as merely a campy, gimmicky form of entertainment that wasn't enjoyed for genuine, serious reasons by many people.
Another reason has to do with theatrical tropes in film and television since the mid 90's. dystopian cautionary tales have always been part of science fiction in these mediums. Perhaps due to the decaying pop culture zeitgeist of the late 90's and early 2000's, dystopian futurism suddenly became the mainstream of science fiction. This has also tended to define original content during the first decade of streaming services. That leaves the lines between horror, psychological thriller and science fiction bleeding together. Its possible that this notion of the future being something to fear might cause modern sci-fi fans to become convinced that happiness and security can only exist by fully embracing the past. And that is the very definition of conservatism.
This conservative notion of idealizing the past might relate to all the Star Trek related projects of the 21st century so far being prequels. From the premier of TNG in 1987 to the premier of Voyager in 1995, each Trek series leaped a period from decades to years into its own future. And that allowed changes in contemporary reality to have a stronger impact on each spin off of that era. Starting with Enterprise in 2001, events such as post 9/11 censorship and the subsequent Viacom split (both having their own conservative back rounds as well) resulted in Enterprise basically being the beginning of the downfall of Paramount's UPN TV network. And the following Kelvin timeline films nearly bankrupting Paramount itself after its third such Trek film.
Discovery as a series not only deals with both an ironic interest in Star Trek. And the results of excessive dystopian sci-fi. But also, as with Star Trek of the past, mirroring the times around it in its own way. The 2010's found American trying to heal from the scars of that post 9/11 era. And a subsequent war that resulted in thousands of disabled veterans with with limited health care. Or totally lacking in it at all. Then a fascist end of the right wing has forced the people the US to embrace changes in attitudes towards gender equality, multiculturalism and civil rights at an extremely rapid rate-often more than most human beings could handle. So Discovery's human stories of PTSD, childhood trauma and romantic disillusion reflect all of this as its a part of our reality.
The fundamental aspect of how reality of our lives effects Star Trek Discovery is changes in gender roles and understandings. Two of Discoveries male characters, scientists Paul Stamets and doctor Hugh Culber are in a same sex relationship. And security chief Ash Tyler has been a victim of human experimentation by Klingon's-leading to emotional/mental instability and vulnerability. The quality of vulnerability has been historically viewed as a weakness in the male gender. And with both the pro and anti group on male vulnerability now in conflict in US society? That has turned conservative Trek (who generally seem to be male) fans against other Trek fans who are not. This conflict has eroded not only the Trek fandom's internal interactions. But how it views Trek itself.
Star Trek has for over half a century represented the human condition. That has been a mainstay of its fandom since Gene Roddenberry first created it in the mid 60's: people seeing themselves and the society around them in Trek's often topical storytelling. This has not always been true of the shows different creators. Increasingly, the Star Trek universe as become diminished in favor of the term "Star Trek franchise". This essentially completely monetizes what Star Trek functions as in society. And takes its characters and stories out of the hands of truly creative people. And results in all of them becoming a commodity. In the end, that puts Star Trek itself on the road to becoming yet another cultural adjunct of the fiscally conservative philosophy.
If Discovery is not Star Trek in the way someone such as myself recognizes it, perhaps that's because Star Trek cannot exist in this time. Discovery has emerged when the conservative Star Trek fan, budding for decades, is in full flower. This conservatism is similarly noticeable among current Doctor Who fandom as well. Perhaps the solution to Discovery's current woes are not merely in writing/production choices. But in the fact that these creators and fans of Trek might want to rethink their motivations for being interested in Star Trek. To see if Trek's meaning truly suits their understanding. Then, perhaps, fans and show creators might be able to come together to create a new and stronger Star Trek TV series to inspire future generations in this frightening, uncertain age.
