Familiarisation by defamiliarisation

While mixed race have been a current topic in the US back in the 1960's and 70's, it is becoming more and more topical in Europe. For me, those character who came from mixed relationships of sometimes slightly or very different species have always been the most interesting. I wouldn't pinpoint a certain episode, these characters were interesting as they navigated through the series.

The first such character is, of course, Spock. Being half Vulcan and half Human his struggles with his rational and emotional self very much resembles the struggle many people have. In the current corona panic, when emotions have taken totally over in many countries, it is especially topical. I think his character was originally also desigend to bring the issue of Anti-Semitism into the forefront. Apart from the Vulcan hand greeting being derived from the Kohanite hand, Spock is often seen by others as the oh-so-clever guy which can also be considered a reference to Jews, the people of the book. He is mocked for this enough to identify this as an opportunity for defamiliarisation and reflection 

Deanna Troy is another interesting mixed-race, mixed culture character, but while Spock is the archetipical Jew in the series, it is Deanna who has the world's most typical Jewish mother.

Intra-racial marriages also happen, and especially Dax and Worf in Deep Space Nine and  B'Ellana and Tom Paris in Voyager are great opportunities to reflect on the current discourse in Europe about the possiblity of including new cultures or the lack thereof. I think watching Star Trek and discussing these characters can help the discussion on the so much needed change of approach in some parts of Europe. We don't need to look far back: attacks in France in the past few weeks remind us what the price of forceful assimilation policies is.

The Next Generation episode The Chase is one of my favourites and basically reminds us of having the same ancestors even if we are different. 

Photo: intl.startrek.com

Future travel with future engines

I think future, or even already present new technologies can bring us far on earth as well as beyond. While space exploration may or may not have a breakthrough in the near future, technology can support cleaner and far quicker transport on Earth.

The electric car is beyond the experiment phase by now. In the Netherlands, where I live, it has became standard to have chargers at designated parking spaces at every second corner. However, this technology has not yet solved the issues related to long-distance travel.

In Europe, many countries are buliding fast train networks, at crossing the English Channel at 300+ km/h is truly amazing. The bullet trains in China take you from one place to the other at incredible speed. However, this technology is dependent on rails.

I belive that there will soon be technologies available for fast, clean and independent travel. This, at the same time, can raise some concerns. I just want to mention two. One is the easier to solve: how to ensure that people living in countries built solely on oil will continue to thrive even if oil will become unnecessary for economies. The other is highly topical: how to prevent viruses, bacteria, insects, invasive plant seeds from travelling at lightning speed. This means that there is a need to also develop safety systems to protect people and the environment.

Issues of space travel that might be possible with such technologies will face the same challenges: how to ensure that humans do not pollute other, possibly inhibited planets. On top of that, there are several other challenges, some of them have been solved by Star Trek creators in fiction, and they "only" need to be transformed from science fiction to science fact as Dr. Rayman put it in the course video. A small group of people locked in together for a long time may mean a number of community challenges, while there is an additional challenge in them being away from their families and friends for a very long time. This might be partly solved by a space social network, but with the experience of the past months of global closures, we all know that virtual meetings are a very weak replacement. 

Even if engine technology is available, the question is if we will also have the necessary technology for providing proper food, healthy living conditions, opportunities for recreation and social life, or family life on a space or star ship powered by the new engine.

What happens if they find find life? This question opens a whole new chapter of challenges and dangers, too.   

Picture: Captain insignia courtesy of SmithsonianX 

IDIC is further than anytime in the last 30 years

We need to stop the Us and Them discourse for IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) a reality on Earth. And the events of this year, the year 2020, have thrown us further away from it than anything for a long time. The global situation has been worsening ever since 09/11, when this became the main political narrative and governments have been playing - with a lot of support from media - on boosting intolerance.

For IDIC to become a reality we need to have a very strong political will, investment in education and also self-regulation of media in order to build the basis for accepting that people are different - and to stop having groups who are 'nicely different' and others that are 'dangerously different' in the eyes of people, politics and armed forces.

We just had a discussion over lunch about the Black Lives Matter movement. My son said that it was a moment of nearly ending friendship when his black friend told him, the Jewish man from a country that managed to kill nearly all its Jews in 1944-45, that 'you must be black to understand what it is like to be discriminated for what you are born". This, indeed, is only a form of intolerance.

Just the other day, a teacher was beheaded in France. What nobody speaks about is the reason why there are so many attacts there. France has been trying to forcefully assimilate their Arabs into their Christianity-based lay culture.

And I find this the key: inclusive societies must be open for everybody who wishes to be different. Let everybody live their lives as they wish to do under 2 circumstances: 1. they do not try to prevent anybody else from doing so and 2. children's rights to freedom of though and religion are ensured. It is doable. In mixed marriages, good parents introduce them both cultures - be in a language, a religion or something else - and let them make their choices. And of course, accept those choices.

In a small, but multilingual region of the world, like Europe, language is one of the main obstacles to different cultures thriving side-by-side. School enforce their local language, often a first push towards integration or assimilation, rather than inclusion. Until the moment when the universal translator from Star Trek becomes available, we need to find other solutions. In continental Europe, for the time being, the recognition of English as a common language and a plurilingual approach could be the basis. Plurilingualism was present in Europe until WW2. In the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy many people used different languages for family life, for trade or when they appeared in front of a court. They had separate, slightly overlapping vocabularies, but if you traded in Slovakian, you probably couldn't cook in that language.

We also need to stop introducing "blind" approaches. One good example is holidays. Living in Europe you need to understand that for the majority of people Christmas is a holiday. But Christians also need to see that others may celebrate Hanuka or nothing. It is the duty of families, schools and communities to celebrate diversity rather than introducing something that tries to find a common denominator. That approach will not support diversity, everybody will be unhappy with having to act in a grey way. This is one of my favourite features of Star Trek: everybody's personal traditions, beliefs and differences are celebrated. Everybody is given room to do things important for them, and they often invite others to join them that they do, out of respect and curiosity.

Once you are curious to know about the other rather than act upon fear instilled in you by media, politicians or even a bad experience, you are one large step closer to making IDIC a reality.

Picture: Commander insignia courtesy of SmithsonianX 

Different like all of us

Ever since they started a very popular home decoration reality show on German television, the demand for building-related vocational trainings have skyrocketed. Television is an opinion leader, especially for people with lower levels of education - be it for them being young or for lack of opportunities. As Star Trek increased the interest in space travel, for example the Big Bang Theory has proven to raise the interest in STEM - science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

There are lots of excluded people who spend a lot of time watching shows to fill the void of the lack of friends and partying opportunities. In their case a character like them - having a different skin colour, being phyiscally disabled, autistic, fat, etc - depicted in a positive way can boost their self-esteem and can help them to find company and success in real life, too. It helps to set dreams, and you need dreams that drive you to succeed.

I also think that such efforts, if not sweaty, can also help make society more inclusive and open by making charcters from a group that has been depicted as one to be afraid of (like black-skinned people in the US or Roma people in Eastern Europe) or to be shamed (eg. for being fat) really popular. This popularity can subsequently have an impact on the level of acceptance of whole minority groups.

After all, our society is diverse, even if many live in non-divers bubbles. Television has an educational role, too, in showing the complexity of communities.

Should we solve our earthly problems first?

I don't agree with those demanding to solve our problems on Earth before exploring space. One can argue that the budgets used for that could have been used for other causes, but on the one hand the total amount used is still small as compared to the money necessary to even solve one of the most pressing issues, and on the other hand, in many cases, the investment in space exploration has brought forward technology that can be used to provide for earthly needs for much cheaper or better than before.

Space exploration is definitely more attractive for many scientists or young people thinking about taking science careers than many major causes of concern on Earth. This means that it is easier to attract people with creative minds and commitment to inventions to Space travel than to fighting famine. But, imagine somebody actually inventing the replicator, making it possible to have nutritious, delicious meals using whatever is available. This could solve the whole problem of famine. 

It is widely known that there are several inventions that were originally developed in the space race, but actually contributed to solving major societal or environmental issues, or simply making the life of people easier or  more comfortable. From different forms of insulation to solar panels, from artificial limbs that can operate to (for a bespectacled person a real miracle) scratch-free lenses.

Under normal circumstances, money for developing solutions for simple or more complex problems of everyday life is scarce, researchers often spend more time on writing applications for funding than or actual research. With enough funding available for various challenges around space travel, researchers have a peace of mind, they can focus on their real goal, and create solutions. What is more, solutions that work in the extreme circumstances of space may also work on Earth, and their mass production, having less extreme circumstances, might be cheap and efficient. But for that to become a reality, the funding for the extreme, space version is a pre-requisite.  

Picture: Liutenant Commander insignia courtesy of SmithsonianX

Edutopia

Given my professional background, I think the most important global issue we are facing today is the global learning crisis. This impacts not only children, but also adults, and I believe that proper education is a key element of finding solutions for other global issues, too. My television show would depict the life of a few families with children of different ages, and higlight the funniest moments of their learning journeys.

How such a show would be different from existing school-based ones? In many ways. First of all, children in this show would learn in very diverse groups. We are used to diversity depicted with regards to colour, even socio-economic background. But in the school of Edutopia there will be no class and lesson, and children would gather in multi-age groups for various lengths according to their interest. There will be no tests as we know them today, but celebrations of learning outcomes as well as ideas on better learning in case of problems. Most of all, my school will be fun not only in breaks or at moments when students do something behind the back of the teacher, but school activities will be the source of fun.

Another unique feature will be the depiction of teachers. In films and series we know teachers are either respectable "sources of knowledge" or idiots. In my show they will be learners. It is for 2 reasons: on the one hand they do need to learn for their profession and also for other aspects of life, on the other hand this way they offer the role model of a lifelong learner to children.

School would be also very different from the school we know today. It will be a building open at all times of the day and to everybody in the community. You will not be able to tell if activities are taking place in a 'classroom', 'extracurricular activities' or even 'adult education'. School is the learning hub for thte whole community where more or less everybody can learn from everybody else.

And one last thing we have missed from really popular shows: I want to see parents who are not academics, not lawyers or doctors, but mostly happy, successful, content people in various vocations. In the world of so-called educational inflation, it is of utmost importance to show people that traditional academic success is not the only way to life success and happiness, and we need to celebrate learning that is not academic. Ken Robinson has been an inspiration to many of us. In his book, You, Your Child, and School has already described this school. If we make it a fictional reality in an attractive way, we may succeed in making it a reality.

Must-have technologies of Star Trek

Warp drive, transporter, holodeck, replicator - these four technologies have defined Star Trek for me. As mentioned in a previous blog entry, my affair with Star Trek has started with the Next Generation, this is the reason for this trio. While I'm not sure I would personally be interested to take benefit of warp drive technology or similar as I believe I still have a lot to explore on Earth, as somebody travelling a lot, I would love to have a transporter instead of endless and useless queues at security check and waiting for the last passangers to find their seats in the plane. As for holodeck, I haven't yet learnt to like virtual travel, but I definitely would love to have my own 50-m swimming pool behind the pantry door. And I don't think there has ever been a mother or housewife who hadn't dreamt of food, drinks and even forgotten gifts for the in-laws appearing suddenly. Not having to wash up would only be an add-on

For the show itself, warp drive technology is a definitive one. Without the ability to travel faster than light, the whole show would have been impossible. Without interstellar travel, there is no possibility to meet new civilisations. There had been series that took place within our solar system, but possibilities are limited in such cases not only for the number of stories you can make up, but also for the width of sociological, political, philosophical aspects Star Trek covers.

Transporter technology could have been - and often was - replaced by small shuttles to take crew to the surface of a planet, to another space ship, or have visitors on the Enterprise. However, in many cases it was transporter technology that "saved the day". I mean that it was often used to add suspense to the stories that crew members were rescued from dangerous situations last minute. Otherwise there should have been time to reach the shuttle and to start it. Of course, there are examples of that, too, but transporter technology has definitely enhanced the possibilities of suspense.

On the one hand, the holodeck was clearly an answer to the demand of balancing an economical plan for any spaceship and the individual needs of crew members on long-term missions. I belive that it needs a special kind of psychological profile to be able to stay at the International Space Station of today. If the time of space travel as something usual will come, they will surely need to provide for people's recreational needs as well as design space ships in ways that are sustainable. The kind of holodeck available on board or in Deep Space Nine surely would be a solution. Apart from this, I especially loved the episodes where the holodeck and events happening there played an important role. It provided a vast playing field to experiment with ideas not directly connected to space and aliens.  

Replicator technology has seemed to be essential in creating the communist society on Earth, making it possible for everybody to be fed and to be fed well. We have known from history that this is also the basis for fast evolution of technology, arts and nearly all aspects of life. People living on a hands-to-mouth basis have no time and energy to be creative and inventive. Can you imagine Beverly having to shop, cook and wash up after all her adventures? Being relieved of these duties make a lot of things possible. So, I believe that without replicator technology Star Trek would be as interesting and attractive as it is. At the same time, I also like the differentiation between meals as a must and meals as a way of recreation. It offers some very nice moments of proper and old-fashined hospitality. 

As for Artificial Intelligence, I think people will be afraid to create something like Data or the androids in the new Picard series. A holographical format seems more likely to be, because it seems easier to switch off when it becomes frightening. I think we will not live long enough to see who got it right: those who promote articificial intelligence, like Mark Teerlink from IBM Watson, or those with cautionary or red-flag messages, like Stephen Hawking or Harari. Whichever way AI goes, it will be a product of humans, and this is what I am a bit afraid of: humans capable of bad things are nearly always more ready to go to the wall and beyond than those with real good intentions. 

Picture: Liutenant Junior Grade insignia courtesy of SmithsonianX

Captain Picard, who else

This was an easy question to answer: Jean-Luc Picard. On the one hand he has been the first captain I met from the Star Trek universe, and I think it was his way of operating the ship and managing both his crew and missions that made me a fan. Given the period the Next Generation was created in, he is a much less 'knight in shining armour' type of cpatain than Kirk. He is a great negotiator and diplomat in most cases, but we also get to know his flows and mistakes, thus he remains very human. He is not afraid to discuss and have a strong opinion on controversial topics, such as the rights and status of an android. I've always wanted to become a leader similar to him. At the same time, he is also a character who is deeply engaged with culture, another characteristic that resonates deeply with me personally. What I was always curious to know, also as a person travelling a lot for work and thus reading e-books all the time for the last year, where he had kept the great supply of books he was reading. Did they come from the replicator or the holodeck? Or was there a never seen library on board? 

Picture: Lieutant insignia courtesy of SmithsonianX

The role of canon

Canon provides a common framework of reference in any context. A complex fiction universe, such as the Star Trek one, benefits greatly from having a canon and adhering to it. On the one hand, a carefully created, complex word creates the basis for unlimited stories told within its framework. Even if it is just a short or loosely linked story, fans can understand it having the common background of the canon. On the other hand, it makes the life of creators of new series, spin-offs, authors of books taking place in the universe much easier. They only have to focus on their story, the universe, the common framework of reference has been created for them. As we use reality as a common reference framework, a fictious canon can have the same role. Given such a complex framework, it is not difficult to imagine detective stories or even chick lit set in this universe. Why not?

At the same time, fiction writers have experimented with bending the boundaries of the real world, too. Similarly, in order to not have your imagination be bound by the Star Trek universe, you can also create stories that do not adhere to the canon, thus enriching it by introducing the 'what if' into the discussion. We all know that Star Trek is fiction, but as it is taking place in the future, it may even prove to be partly correct. What if mankind will have taken a different route in a few hundered years? Actually, Discovery has already started experimenting with this when creating a fully paralel universe.

Most canons are also formed according to the wishes of the masses. It has happened to Christian biblical canon, but also happens in fiction. Charles Dickens was famous for continuing the story of his serialised novels according to reader feedback. I guess it has happened in the Star Trek universe, too. Probably the most famous such deviation from story line has been the death and non-death of Spock. 

In my opinion, Star Trek is adhering to the canon better than other series, probably as a result of a very complex preliminary world buliding by Gene Roddenberry. Having much fewer discussions on coherence than for example the Star Trek universe, it is far easier to broaden the franchise, and to build a steady fandom.

Understanding network television

It was very interesting to see how network television had worked in the USA. It is a business model very different from what Europe had experienced at that time. At the same time, there are similaries. In the early days of television, the same strategy was applied with regards to audiences. Watching television was a family programme, often an opportunity for many families to gather in one flat that had a TV. Thus, if you look at 1960's and 70's programmes produced in the US or Europe, they target the whole family.

 For the European eye, I have to admit, that the short black out in the middle of important dramaturgic moments for the commercial break still looks a little strange. It is a specific skill to tailor suspense, drama and jokes to the timing needs of these breaks. However, the fact that TV commercials were expensive and were only affordable for products addressing large target group, also made film makers conscious to attract a high percentage of the target group. Commercials made it possible for popular series to be produced and they also drove the way they were structured. The frequency of breaks was also great for attracting young audiences with shorter attention spans.

At the same time, while Gene Roddenberry had a very clear social agenda for Star Trek, I can imagine that he had to put a lot of effort into making his themes acceptable for the customer, who, in the case of network televison, was more the advertising company than the actual audience. I guess commecial needs and the series' success had a two-way impact. It was not only the series that had to be suited to commercial break needs, but with merchandising becoming a growing phenomenon advertising companies also started to adjust themselves to show time.

To some extent I am sorry that this era has ended. Watching the last two attempts at continuing the franchise, I have the feeling that they would have benefitted from a wider audience being targeted by the creators. I think that you need less action and violence to be able to concentrate on the controversial topics that are still at the heart of Star Trek. 

Watching the pilots of these Star Trek series you clearly see the evolution of technology, but from Next Generation onwards also a clear sign to fans: it is still the Star Trek you love. It is interesting to see gender roles and other social standards evolving. From having a relatively passive black protagonist, Uhura, in the Original Series to Captain Cisco in Deep Space Nine and Captain Janeway. From Klingons being the arch enemy to having Klingons in important positions. From Captain Kirk being the typical women charmer to having same sex and non-binary characters. It is also interesting to see how philosophical questions on robots and humans are tackled differently in the Next Generation and Voyager. While the Original Series is clearly impacted by the Cold War in many ways, you can also see a gradual move towards a more complex way of thinking about enemies and tackling complete nations (or in this case rather species) as enemy.

Picture: Ensign insignia courtesy of SmithsonianX

Paddington, the Trekkie

Why not spend those half hours you have free, but in front of your keyboard, with learning something new? Being a lifelong learner, educator, Star Trek fan, but also an author and blogger (using the pen name Paddington), the Smithsonian course on the cultural and technological impact of Start Trek really looked interesting.

Star Trek came relative late in my life. It all started with the Next Generation for me, and I only watched the original series much later. It was the time of free Sky One via satellite in the late 1980's in Hungary. We grew up with the Starship Orion rather than Star Trek original series. It is a German series (Raumpatrouille – Die phantastischen Abenteuer des Raumschiffes Orion) that premiered in 1966, too, and was clearly an attempt to create a European contestant to Roddenberry's brilliant idea. When Sky One delivered Star Trek the Next Generation, I was fascinated by the complex characters, interesting plotlines and the low level of violence. It was interesting to see how the creators saw the future of humankind, as well as other species.

When I started digging into the history of the series, I became really fascinated. Coming from a country that tried and failed to apply the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels on communism, and having heard so much about the American fight against the idea, I was thrilled to realise that the Earth of the United Federation of Planets actually lived in a communist utopia. I had the feeling that premiering such a series in one of the darkest periods of the Cold War is really something. And I also became interested in the sociology, psychology, political science behind Star Trek. 

I must admit that I am more interested in the cultural impact aspect, but it is also interesting to see what technology became a reality since then. And, of course, when I am queuing for a flight or waiting for a bus that is not coming (let alone sitting in my car in a traffic jam), I'd love to say: Beam me there, Scotty.

Picture: my current rank insignia of Chief Warrant Officer (promoted from Cadet), courtesy of SmithsonianX