Monday, February 3, 2014

Going Full Nerd: Star Trek, Sovereignty, and Billiards

So this week has been full of interesting readings, but a couple of things that really grabbed me were a couple of comments Dr. Jackson made; one, an off-hand remark about Star Trek; and two, the concept of billiard balls.

In the Star Trek example Dr. Jackson holds up its supposedly utopian ideal of a unified world government, a system of government moving past and ignoring sovereignty. Except… It’s the United Federation of Planets i.e. planets either colonized by humans or who share similar ideas and values with the humans they’ve come into contact with as this federation has explored and expanded. In the Star Trek universe, there are numerous other empires, independent planets, etc., who are themselves sovereign. The concept of sovereignty still very much exists in the Star Trek world, with various planets and empires vying for power, resources, and influence and with no higher system controlling or governing them; its just sovereignty at the intergalactic level, not the global. In fact, it seems to be a much more Hobbesian existence than our world is at present. AS someone who saw just about every series and season by virtue of a certain parent, I’m confident that there isn’t a Star Trek equivalent of the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, NATO, or any other international organization. Gene Rodenberry, and those who kept the franchise alive after his death, were very much products of their environment and conceived of a universe very much like the much smaller, single planetary one they inhabit(ed). It would appear that even utopia is only based on the ideas that we exist in.


Another, separate idea proposed in the soliloquy is the idea of billiard balls, bouncing off each other at the intersection of hard boundaries and autonomy.  The analogy is provided to describe the concept of sovereign states unable to avoid each other in an anarchic world and being driven to war by structure, not by choice (the billiard balls smacking in to each other). The problems I had with the analogy are that 1) billiard balls don’t move independently and 2) the balls are static until something hits them. In reality, there is always an outside force driving them towards each other, be it via cue, the side of the table or a hand. Even when they aren’t moving, gravity holds them in place on the table. In fact, some combination of those forces competing with each other to determine where the billiard ball winds up after any given action. To the second point, no country is in stasis while only one moves around. Countries are continually moving, adjusting, tweaking or outright changing polices, positions, and procedures and in some extreme cases, systems of government, in response to or independently of the activities of other countries and institutions. The example is well intentioned, but a little to simple to describe the interactions of states and institutions with each other.

No comments:

Post a Comment