Can a Real Trekkie NOT Be ‘Woke’?

I’m not a confrontational person. I don’t go lookin’ for fights. But, I do occasionally make comments on Facebook threads that some people don’t like and feel obligated to respond to, sometimes quite harshly. Such is the nature of social media….

A while back, I was (briefly) part of a FB discussion in a Star Trek group, where one or more of the newer generation of shows was the topic. A few people were complaining about “woke” aspects being heavy in these new shows, and I also made some comment indicating I was concerned about that stuff. Others clapped back, stating that Star Trek was always “woke” and essentially declaring that anyone who objects to the progressive values Roddenberry instilled in the show from the beginning — sometimes represented by the IDIC (infinite diversity in infinite combinations) concept in Vulcan philosophy — wasn’t a true Trekkie (i.e., Star Trek fan).

They did have a point about Trek having addressed societal issues (though sometimes metaphorically) from the beginning. This is something I have touched on before. Since Roddenberry and many other Trek writers/producers have been, shall we say, socio-politically leftward-leaning, aspects of those stories have typically been from a “progressive” perspective. Earlier series did indeed reveal a sensitivity to certain cultural biases and prejudices but could only go so far and still pass muster with the network censors.

But, the “woke” messages of today — e.g., radical feminism, normalization of LGBTQ+, anti-capitalism, anti-colonialism, cultural Marxism, critical race theory — are increasingly more strident and in-your-face, thanks to recent “progressive” trends and socialization. (This is true in entertainment media in general, not just Star Trek series.) They can be provocative and distract from enjoyment of the story. Does a “real” Trekkie have to buy into all of that?

Incidentally (and similar to what I said in my She-Hulk review), contrary to what some have assumed or accused us of, we non-woke folk — except for maybe a few on the fringe — do not generally have anything against strong female characters, starship captains or otherwise. Same is true regarding people of color.

As long as we’re asking questions… What makes someone a “real” Trekkie? Do they have to agree with every tenet that the Federation and Starfleet operate under? Do they have to accept every “lesson” taught, every philosophical view held by Roddenberry? What about the other writers/producers? Even they didn’t/don’t all agree (e.g., see controversies over tone and topics in DS9), and neither do the characters themselves (e.g., see multiple, intentional violations of the Prime Directive, as well as other ethical conundrums). Ironically for one with a great respect for “established canon”, I have mixed feelings regarding how closely to adhere on some of these matters. (For example, I was in favor of the wars and other “dark” themes in DS9, even if Roddenberry wasn’t, as I thought they were more realistic and allowed for some great storytelling.)

So, am I a “real” Trekkie?

Spock’s IDIC pin

I love Star Trek for many reasons…

I love the whole Trek “universe” that was created, with the Federation and Starfleet and innumerable non-human races/species from other worlds, other civilizations. (See what I did there?) I enjoy them despite believing that such things — from alien intelligences to socialist utopias — are extremely improbable in reality.

I (generally) love the designs of the starships and the advanced technology — transporters, tricorders, replicators, holographic emitters, various offensive and defensive weapons, the occasional android, etc. Again, even while being skeptical of their real-world feasibility. (This is science fiction, after all.)

I love that the best of the writing can tackle important, complex issues without being ham-handed, such that I can enjoy the episode/storyline even if I disagree with the final “message”, philosophical assumptions, or actions taken by our heroes.

I love the mix of space battles, scientific discoveries and inventions, first contact missions, political intrigue and thorny diplomatic issues, areas of character development, etc., even if personally I might not handle things the same way as the characters do.

Speaking of which, of course, I enjoy the many, complex characters and the performances by talented actors, all while trying to keep things like the actors’ personal politics, sexual preferences, and other views — assuming I even have an idea what those are — outside of my assessment.

I might also add that for many years I read Star Trek novels, attended Star Trek conventions, collected Trek autographs and other collectibles (though not nearly to the extent some fans do). I love the camaraderie among the fans and the shared joy talking about a beloved, though fictional, universe. Even the friendly disagreements. I never went to cons or movie showings in costume, though. Not my thing. And, of course, I have watched various Star Trek series — or, at least, episodes of series — and films multiple times (though, again, not nearly to the extent some fans do).

All of that being said, yes, I will still criticize certain episodes, movies, characters, plot-points, themes, characters, stereotypes (especially negative ones), canonical inconsistencies, and (usually leftist/”woke”) agenda-driven stories. Sometimes I am more critical, and other times I am willing to swallow some questionable, even controversial, content despite my distaste for it. Why? Because, for nearly 50 years, I have enjoyed and been a huge fan of the franchise. I care about it and the direction it goes.

Up until a few short years ago, the above facts would have qualified me as a true, or “real”, Trekkie in most people’s eyes. (It certainly would have been the “tolerant” view. Especially if one believes in IDIC, right?) Contrary to what certain self-appointed gatekeepers say, I think it still does.