Abstract
Star Trek: Voyager (1995–2001) represents a metaphor of being lost in the so-called Third World. Through this metaphor, Voyager focuses on two specific motifs: pragmatism1 and race relations. The show begins when the star ship Voyager is transported seventy thousand light years from Federation space. It is estimated that to get back to Earth it would take Voyager 75 years using the propulsion means at its disposal. During the course of its daunting effort to traverse this massive expanse of space, the Voyager crew encounters numerous situations fraught with moral/ethnic quandaries. In facing these quandaries/dilemmas, Voyager has to decide whether to be expeditious (pragmatic) in trying to get home, or to prioritize their ethical/moral principles (thereby endangering themselves and their chances of getting home). The strength of the show, in my estimation, is that the Voyager crew consistently chooses to be ethical even in the face of death (or remaining stranded). Moreover, certain villains in the Voyager series are dastardly precisely because they prioritize pragmatism over principle.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Robert Danisch, Pragmatism, Democracy, and the Necessity of Rhetoric (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2007);
Larry A. Hickman, Pragmatism as Post-Modernism: Lessons from John Dewey (New York: Fordham University Press, 2007);
Alan Malachowski, The New Pragmatism (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010);
Michael Bacon, Pragmatism (Cambridge: Polity, 2012).
Leo Strauss is considered to be a lodestone for American neoconservatives. Anne Norton, Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004); Francis Fukuyama, “After Neoconservatism,” New York Times Magazine, February 19, 2006, 62; Strauss held, “The only restraint in which the West can put some confidence is the tyrant’s fear of the West’s immense military power.” As quoted in James Atlas, “The Nation: Leo-Cons; A Classicist’s Legacy: New Empire Builders,” New York Times, May 4, 2004, sec. 4, p. 1.
Michael Walzer, Thinking Politically: Essays in Political Theory, ed. David Miller (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), chapter 1.
Daniel H. Nexon and Iver B. Neuman, Harry Potter and International Relations (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006);
Daniel W. Drezner, Theories of International Politics and Zombies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011);
Jason Dittmer, Captain America and the Nationalist Superhero (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2012)
Richard Rorty, writing in the early 1980s, argues that societies are based on “intersubjective agreement.” Thus what is required for societal stability is enough consensus on a set of ideas—any set of ideas. Hence what matters is consensus, and not the ideas themselves. Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981);
Michael Bacon, Richard Rorty: Pragmatism and Political Liberalism (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2007);
Neil Gross, Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).
Copyright information
© 2015 George A. Gonzalez
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gonzalez, G.A. (2015). Lost in the Developing World. In: The Politics of Star Trek. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137546326_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137546326_11
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-57755-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-54632-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Media & Culture CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)