Star Trek’s Prime Directive Vs Real World Cultural History

Let’s be honest: Starfleet General Order #1 is nothing more than a cheap plot device, a way to restrict the writers and cause moral drama. As we’ve gone over in previous explorations (which sadly did not include the above novel as it really didn’t cover it, and I found that depressing in my Chapter By Chapter review), there are two reasons listed for the Prime Directive to be ignored: the needs of Starfleet, which can be interpreted in different ways to work around the spirit of the Directive, and the safety of the ship, which suffers the same problem.

In universe and in the mind of Gene Roddenberry, the goal of the Prime Directive is to push back against a colonialist action, intentional or otherwise. Colonialism may not have been the best thing for the indigenous people and in some cases didn’t do the colonizers much good, either. In practice, however, is it possible that in fact the Directive is part of an outdated view of culture and other civilizations based on a self-interested view of culture and our own hubris?

This is the argument made by the host of YouTube channel Trekspertise in the following video. By looking at the actual history of colonialism in the real history of the real planet Earth, the host goes into why the Prime Directive is based on outmoded views of human culture and cross-cultural interaction in the past…and might be a bit racist, or at least culturalist, as well.

In science fiction, every planet seems to share a culture, as they tend to represent either one of our cultures on real Earth or are required for some message the writer or writers want to make. Some of that is heavy handing preaching and some of it is more open teaching, but the goal is to create the culture that makes your story’s point. That’s why in sci-fi we’re the only planet that has more than one culture, and even that can be changed to whatever culture the writer is from or supports winning out in the end. None of it is malicious, just a means to an end. It’s how you create a story.

Still, you’d think that a franchise that creates new cultures all of the time would have a better understanding of it and what it means to societies that aren’t us. You can still have general similarities to enlightenment. The Vulcans chose pure logic while the Romulans went the opposite direction, later revealed to have an ancestral connection as the Romulans’ predecessors rejected Surak’s teachings, went off into space, and didn’t so much perish as create an entire empire…until their new home planet exploded (probably a Monday). In a way the Romulans rejected Surak’s pacifism and logic, started a culture based on war and passion, and despite the direction the Vulcan society was going in their warrior’s path proved them wrong and found a way to prosper. It was just at the expense of the planets they conquered. Who knows if the Vulcans really would have gone extinct before Surak or if they would have actually pivoted like the Romulans did?

Kirk may have had an issue with people worshiping machines, but you could make the case that many of us do that already. Still, the host had a point that using the wheel, or rather warp drive, is not the best indication that a planet is ready to join. In Star Trek and other science fiction franchises, including the Trek inspired lightheared sci-fi counterpart The Orville, that races can go into space and be either warmongers like the Romulans, xenophobic holy warriors like the Kaylon, opportunists like the Reach in the DC Universe, seekers of a particular food supply like the V franchise, and a host of other reasons to be threats to the galaxy rather than joining the “galactic community”. Having an enemy force is part of how the drama and action comes about. Some are openly hostile like the Cylons and Romulans and some are more sneaky about it like the Reach and Visitors. They aren’t meant to represent one group over another in our world (unlike the Ferengi or something) so much as using existing societies as a jumping off point for an original culture from an original species.

Overall, though, the Prime Directive is kind of a mess. I follow the words of Chuck of SF Debris in his breakdown of the Prime Directive. It’s the second video and I’m not able to embed so please check it out when you can. The Prime Directive may be well intentioned but using it as an excuse not to act when you should is not a good thing either, nor is ignoring it when you shouldn’t. Because the concept is merely there for human drama and moral exploration, it fails at the latter for the sake of the former. The writers really don’t know what to do with it because they tend, being of a joint persuasion in Hollywoodland, to immediately shirk away from colonialization (James Cameron’s Avatar series is specifically a slam against it) without thinking of other responsibilities. There are ways to help others without being noticed and corrupting an alien culture in the world of Star Trek. “Pen Pals” from TNG does that after exploring the Directive. You don’t know the planet will someday become like the Kaylon but you don’t know that they won’t become the Green Lanterns without the hubris. The planet you save may save the universe just as much as they might doom it.

Whether or not the Directive is racist or cultureist or whatever, the real problem is the writers don’t really think about it. They’re either bound by their story, their message, or their inability to challenge their own worldview. The real problem with the Prime Directive is that they don’t really think about it. It’s just a plot device treated as the most important thing in the universe. It needs a re-examine in universe based on their own “sheer @$%#$ing hubris” and in the writers room to be as important as they think it is rather than a roadblock for the characters to work around.