The show has a lot to recommend it: compelling story lines, mostly good writing, progressive politics, and the brilliant acting of Patrick Stewart meshed with the commanding character of Captain Jean-Luc Picard. I especially appreciate how Star Trek TNG improved on the worldview of Star Trek TOS. I remember reading about this when the show premiered in the late 1980s, especially how the role and status of women had been updated, but I didn't realize how far it went. The show is actually anti-sexist.
That's why the absence of any gay or lesbian characters, or any same-sex relationships whatsoever, is such a glaring omission.
A quick search online revealed that this topic has been well-discussed. (No surprise there.) On TrekMovie.com, a Star Trek writer and producer explains that same-sex relationships were excluded because Star Trek was "a family show", which I find more offensive than the het-only love itself. The best response I found was from Autostraddle, "Gay Me Up, Scotty: How Star Trek Failed To Boldly Go There".
Berman was afraid that parents would freak out about their kids watching gays on afternoon reruns and so, under his direction, TNG began what would be a long and illustrious tradition of awkwardly bumbling around gay issues but NEVER DIRECTLY MENTIONING GAY PEOPLE AT ANY COST.So far, I've seen three episodes that "bumble around" and miss grand opportunities.
In "The Host," Dr. Beverly Crusher falls in love with a Trill, a life form that lives in a symbiotic relationship with a humanoid body.* When Crusher and the Trill Odan fall in love, the host body is an attractive male. Later, after all the drama has died away, the Trill lives in a female host body. Does Beverly Crusher realize that she can love this person no matter what its gender? Does she even consider it? She does not. Indeed, the emotion and passion of the earlier scenes has completely disappeared. Crusher says she can't "keep up," continually adjusting as the Odan inhabits different bodies, but seriously, she doesn't even try. Once her lover has become female, she can barely eke out a polite goodbye.
At the end of the episode, female Odan lifts Crusher's hand and kisses her wrist. Crusher is shocked. Really, Dr. Crusher? It's the 24th century, and a kiss on the hand from another woman shocks you? Crusher may not be bisexual; fine, whatever. But the straightest women I know wouldn't look so astounded.
|"Prepare to be shocked! My lips will touch your wrist!"|
(Image from Autostraddle)
The episode "The Outcast" is an obvious metaphor for the repression and criminalization of gay and trans people. (Obvious metaphor, a redundancy in science fiction.) But the norm on the planet J'naii is androgyny, and Commander William T. Riker falls in love with a "misfit" who identifies as female. So Riker loves a woman, as he usually does, and the potential for something different and expansive is lost.
On the episode "The Masterpiece Society," a genetically engineered society defends its planned perfection against the chaos of outsiders. The denizens of this society are thoroughly multicultural, just so we're clear that this is not Nazi-style perfection. But as the black, white, and Asian families drift happily by, not one same-sex couple or family is seen. Another lost opportunity.
Why is this noteworthy? Because Star Trek TNG is a show that aggressively embraced an all-inclusive ethic - as Wired put it, "infinite diversity in infinite combinations". In this vision of our future, war is a last resort, imperialism is the greatest evil, women and men live and work as equals. Monogamy is not especially valued. Even animals have been liberated; as Riker explains, "We no longer enslave animals for food purposes". The concept of my favourite Star Trek TOS episode, "The Devil in the Dark" - life in completely foreign forms, all deserving of respect and compassion - is creatively pursued in nearly every episode.
In this context, the absence of normalized same-sex relationships is one gigantic elephant in the room.
The show I'm watching aired from 1987 to 1994, but apparently this LGBT void still has not been filled. In 2010, Autostraddle wrote, "Star Trek has yet to acknowledge the existence of LGBT people and, in my opinion, has slowly died because of it." An excellent Wired story from only a few months ago, "Star Trek’s History of Progressive Values - And Why It Faltered on LGBT Crew Members," explains why it matters.
The invisibility of gay characters isn’t neutral; it’s negative, and represents a glaring double standard. After all, many a heterosexual romance has played out on the Star Trek screen, often involving notorious ladies’ men like Kirk and The Next Generation‘s Commander William Riker. The omission of a simple homosexual storyline, regardless of how many interspecies or interracial or almost-homosexual romances have been featured, is still very much a point of concern. We are, after all, still living in the 21st century, not the 24th, and it would still be significant to see an LGBT officer serving on the bridge today, much as it was to see a black woman in the ’60s when civil rights battles were being waged.Thinking about this conspicuous omission has made me (once again) realize the sea-change gay liberation has achieved in my lifetime. Few of us would fault Star Trek TOS (1966-1969) for not including a gay character. If Star Trek TNG (1987-1994) had done so, it might have been daring. It certainly would have been noteworthy. By now, the absence of any gay character or theme seems bizarre, even homophobic.
* The internet tells me that this life form, Trills, becomes an important feature in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine". No spoilers, please!
Post a Comment