About a year ago I was having a conversation about the better Star Trek captains. It eventually devolved into an argument, not because of different captains but different stories around the same one; Captain Jean Luc Picard. Why am I thinking about it a year later? It’s not because I’m obsessed. No, I was actually riding the bus about few hours ago and that memory popped into my head and refused to leave; couldn’t stop thinking about it. I even tried to get my mind off the subject with a good dose of Star Wars. So without anything better to do (and because I want to get active on Facebook again) I picked this subject for a superpost, which I haven’t done in a while. The whole “debate” centered around Picard’s character in “Star Trek: Insurrection” (one of the movies) and his behavior in an episode of Star Trek: the Next Generation (ST:TNG). Insurrection features Picard at his most high minded, which my friend not only found more than a little preachy; he said it conflicted with his character from earlier in the ST:TNG series. The episode I think he was referring to is called “Journey’s End” (S:7 E:20) and it shares some parallels to “Insurrection”. Without delving into the plots (for now), both scripts feature relatively small groups of people who are being forced to relocate for one reason or another and both scripts featured a forced relocation that were kept secret from the affected groups only to be revealed later. Where they differed is that in “Journey’s End” Picard concocts the secret plan for forced relocation when public attempts at relocation fail, while in “Insurrection” the forced relocation (which he didn’t know about at first) is not only planned but is underway and continues even when the secret is revealed. Another difference is how they’re stopped; in “Journey’s End” Picard achieved an outside-the-box solution, but in “Insurrection” he actively foils the plan himself (although he does have some help). In “Journey’s End”, Picard at first publicly tries to relocate a group of Federation colonists who, because of a treaty with Cardassia, are now on a Cardassian planet. When this attempt fails he and his crew secretly develop a way to do a forced relocation without telling the colonists. But his plan is foiled by a whistleblower who was in the know and who later appealed to the captain’s sense of decency and urged him to find different solution that was less morally ambiguous. The reason I pick “Journey’s End” as the probable target of my friend’s attentions is this; Picard has a strong sense of duty which includes following orders. But one of the diciest excuses you can give to history is, “I was just following orders”, because the merit of it is open to extreme interpretation, much of it negative. But this was precisely Picard’s reasoning in “Journey’s End” and his obligation to those orders, and his strict translation of them, was strong enough that it compelled him to try a morally questionable plan. And when his plan is revealed his first impulse is to berate the subordinate for insubordination. However, he does reconsider his choices and arrives at a less morally ambiguous solution. It is interesting that his ultimate solution required extensive understanding of and collaboration from the aforementioned colonists which if he had sought earlier, might have made the job easier. This has changed by the time of “Insurrection”. By that point, simple orders aren’t enough for Picard anymore. He still has a strong sense of duty, but that duty is no longer the sole property of the chain of command (if indeed it ever was). Instead he also feels a duty to his ideals, which are supposed to be the ideals of his boss, the United Federation of Planets. But the Federation of “Insurrection” is a little more jaded than the idealistic one we’re familiar with and Picard finds this out when his superior lets on that it is the Federation Council, which Picard is charged to defend, that is responsible for the secret order to relocate the Ba’ku (the small group being relocated in “Insurrection”). He makes a moral choice to defy the orders given to him and help the Baku retain their planet. If Picard and his crew can alert the Federation at large, in public, of the plight of the Baku and his heroic efforts on their behalf, the conspiracy will lose its greatest weapon, its secrecy, and will be finished. His enemies actually make a similar assessment of the situation and go on the offensive for this very reason, and because of their material superiority, they do reasonably well. If we put these two incidents in a timeline, it is possible to chart the moral progress of Captain Picard when it comes to authority. In “Journey’s End”, Picard is considers forced relocation an option provided the orders give him the license. In “Insurrection” he has arrived at the conclusion that all forced relocations (especially secret ones) are morally wrong, justifying the defiance of his orders. This opinion is shared by his command crew and probably the majority of his ship, considering their willingness to follow his orders and even help him in the commission of what Starfleet would consider a criminal act (insubordination is a big no-no in military style organizations). And while this not Picard’s only moral conundrum (not by a long shot), it is one of the few where we get to see him blatantly defy authority. This is a side of Picard we don’t often get to see in ST:TNG because there are not a whole lot of occasions where it has popped up. This is because in the series, but for a few exceptions, the episodes start with Picard having already received the orders and the entire episode is him trying to follow them. They may be mentioned as a plot point, but otherwise he gets to spend the entire episode at the top of the ranking pyramid. While these two instances would suggest a contradictory attitude on the subject, it is important to note that these events occurred at difference times. If we use the references in the movie as a guide, you have to figure at least three years have gone by, probably more. In light of this, the character development between “Journey’s End” and “Insurrection” is in fact linear since Picard had a disparaging view of forced relocation by the end of “Journey’s End” that has become downright hostile by “Insurrection”. So Picard’s nobility is not only intact, it is shown to have evolved naturally over the course of his career. Or has it? First the Ba’ku; here is a race numbering about 600 who are living on a planet possessing a resource that could potentially be used to help billions but to harvest it would effectively kill the planet and make it uninhabitable, necessitating a relocation. But the Baku are unwilling to leave and they don’t talk about their unique planet until Picard literally shows up in the middle of the night and reveals that he’s figured it out by himself. From a utilitarian standpoint (one of the stances considered originally) the Ba’ku are selfish elitists hoarding the treasure for themselves (or at least the planet the treasure is on) since to have them remain on the planet would limit the benefits to them and whoever they decided to let stick around. But on the other side of the coin are the Son’a and Picard’s employers, the United Federation of Planets. The Son’a are the natural enemies of the Ba’ku, however the United Federation of Planets is a different beast. It is an organization very much like the USA in that on paper it acknowledges the rights and customs of every alien it meets. This should theoretically include the Ba’ku but the moment the Federation finds something that would benefit it, it forgoes negotiating for it (which is what it’s supposed to do) and instead embarks on a secret plan meant to deprive the Ba’ku of their freedom of choice and force them into an evolution or an extinction they would literally have no knowledge of until it happened. Where’s Picard in all this? Picard not only takes a high road but he get’s awfully high-handed too. He refuses to listen to a very logical argument (albeit it probably wasn’t worded the best) as to the Federation’s plans and adopts the Ba’ku cause almost without question. It engenders a lot of trust but the decision is philosophically shaky. However, compared to what the Federation Council, Starfleet, and the Son’a are up to, Picard made the morally superior choice because it respects the wishes, or the choices, of the Ba’ku and holds true to the Federation charter that he feels beholden to. This point is driven home by the fact there is the very real possibility that Picard could in fact lose. The Son’a possess material superiority and greater numbers. There is also the fact that the Ba’ku are exceedingly passive technophobes while the Son’a are technophiles and more than just a tad aggressive. Picard is on the defensive from the get go and this makes his stand with the Ba’ku and that of his crew all the more heroic. And being heroic is really what “Insurrection” was about. Where does this leave me and my friend? The result of the debate was ultimately undecided. One side did not like Picard’s behavior in “Insurrection” while the other side did. After some deliberation, I have concluded that both sides may in fact have a point for a variety of reasons. We were trying to argue between pragmatism and idealism and when we get to that, it really is like trying to compare apples and oranges. These are my thoughts on the subject. How about yours?
Posted on: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 08:10:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015