Abstract

The protagonists in most Star Trek episodes and movies ordinarily behave in ways that accord with the franchise’s liberal international ethos. On occasion, however, the protagonists behave in a way that instead aligns more with rudimentary realist principles that international relations theorists trace back to the History of the Peloponnesian War. This paper examines three such instances: “The Enterprise Incident” from Star Trek: The Original Series, “Justice” from Star Trek: The Next Generation, and “Damage” from Star Trek: Enterprise. As this paper argues, it may well be that these exceptions reflect a general understanding that even in an ideal future some of the harsher realities of the human condition are inescapable, realities that Thucydides conceptually alluded to over two millennia ago. This paper concludes by suggesting that it is worth taking up Thucydides on his call to use his work to better understand our own time, obviously not by trying to draw direct lessons from the Peloponnesian War, but by evaluating how far humanity has developed behaviorally since then and by contemplating how much further human behavior needs to progress in the years ahead to reach the lofty ideals projected in works of science fiction like Star Trek—and by questioning whether such aspirations are even realistic.

Introduction

No work of science fiction better idealizes the future than Star Trek does. The various series that comprise the franchise’s canon present a largely promising vision of the distant future, not only in terms of technological innovation, but also in socio-political terms. Humanity’s worst impulses are all but eradicated in the Star Trek universe: gross material inequality, discrimination, and wars of aggression are distant memories, features of a bygone era that ended within two generations of when an alien race made First Contact with Earth in 2163. Earth in this ideal future becomes part of the United Federation of Planets, which grows to comprise over 150 planets that nominally share similar peaceful and tolerant views.1 In this way, then, the Star Trek franchise presents a future of humanity that aligns with the kind of liberal international framework that international relations theorists typically trace back to the work of Immanuel Kant. In his 1795 treatise Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, Kant proposes that peace is attainable if, among other things, each country organizes itself as a constitutional republic, and if countries then band together to forge a “federation of free states.”2 This is not to say that Star Trek presents a purely idyllic vision of the future. Far from it, for wars break out repeatedly over the course of the franchise’s history, and basic realist themes like balance of power and security dilemmas arise in one form or another in each series. Nevertheless, when dealing with other worlds, the protagonists—the Starfleet officers that comprise the main group of characters for a given series—adhere to a code of conduct that aligns with the franchise’s broadly liberal international ethos.

In a few episodes, however, the protagonists behave in a way that runs contrary to Starfleet’s generally peaceful approach, and instead act in a way that aligns more with the kind of rudimentary realist principles that international relations theorists commonly trace back to Thucydides.3 This paper examines three such episodes and the way that each resonates with a particular theme found in the History of the Peloponnesian War. “The Enterprise Incident” from Star Trek: The Original Series presents a scenario that aligns with comments in the History about the growing power of Athens as the reason for Sparta declaring war, which loosely accords with realist claims about the effects of the international structure on state behavior.4 The episode “Justice,” from Star Trek: The Next Generation, partly parallels the way that Thucydides presents the relationship between power and justice in what is commonly referred to as the Melian Dialogue, which is widely seen as emblematic of realist views on morality in an anarchical international system.5 Lastly, the episode “Damage” from Star Trek: Enterprise features behavior that fits with the negative view of human nature found in the History, which broadly accords with realist views of state behavior as being animated by incurably self-interested human nature.6 This paper concludes by suggesting that the fictional account of the ideal future found in Star Trek and the harsh realities of the distant past found in the History of the Peloponnesian War yield insights that can help us better understand the reality of our turbulent present, and our prospects for a better future.

Fear and Preemptive Strikes

A frequently referenced quote from the History when it comes to claiming that Thucydides is a central figure in the history of realist thought comes from his statement about why the war began: “I consider the truest cause, though the one least openly stated, to be this: the Athenians were becoming powerful and inspired fear in the Spartans and so forced them into war.”7 This view that a state’s growing power poses a threat to another state and can thus provoke a preemptive strike accords with a neorealist view of international relations, which holds that the anarchical structure of the international arena necessitates that states prioritize security, since no third party force—such as a police force in the domestic arena—can definitively guarantee protection from another state. This theme of war as a tool to neutralize the threat that another state’s power appears again in the early speeches by agitators trying to rally the major powers to their own side. The Corcyraeans try to persuade Athens to assist them in their war against Corinth, which is allied with Sparta, by warning: “as to the war … any of you who thinks that it will not happen is deluded and is failing to understand the situation: the Spartans are ready to go to war through their fear of you.”8 Similar rhetoric arises when Corinth tries to persuade the Spartans to launch an attack on Athens, warning: “off all the Greeks you Spartans are the only ones to be so passive: you defend yourselves against attack not by the use of power but by being about to use it; and you alone put an end to an enemy’s expansion not in its early stages but when they are twice their original size.”9 Spartan ephor Sthenelaidas concurs with this suggestion and bluntly urges his fellow Spartans to declare war now before Athens strengthens further.10

This kind of thinking about eliminating future threats by preemptive military strikes makes its way into the Star Trek universe on multiple occasions. The most obvious and direct parallel to the account that Thucydides puts forth comes from the Star Trek: Enterprise series, when an alien race called the Xindi begin building a super weapon to destroy Earth after being informed that humans will end up destroying them in the distant future. As the show’s lead character, Captain Jonathan Archer, dejectedly acknowledges upon finding out about this apocalyptic threat: “annihilate us before we can annihilate them.”11 As the story plays out in future episodes, however, the liberal international ethos that underpins human identity in the Star Trek universe is affirmed when the audience discovers that the Xindi are supposed to join the human-led United Federation of Planets that is supposed to emerge in the near future. The audience learns that a hostile alien race from the future has manipulated the Xindi with false information to get them to pursue Earth’s destruction, which would result in the Federation never materializing, and which would thereby enable these hostile aliens to colonize the galaxy in a future without the powerful Federation to stand in their way.

Needless to say, the show’s protagonists in this instance are the victims, not the perpetrators, of preemptive strategic thinking. Although Star Trek protagonists do not ordinarily engage in this kind of aggressive preemptive behavior, one exception does arise in an episode titled “The Enterprise Incident,” from Star Trek: The Original Series. The shows lead character, Captain James T. Kirk, engages in subterfuge to retrieve a new piece of technology from a hostile alien race known as the Romulans. This piece of technology, a cloaking device that makes a ship invisible to enemy vessels, has the potential to dramatically alter the balance of power between the Federation and the Romulans. As Kirk’s first officer, who abets his daring plan, later reveals to the Romulans once this piece of technology is safely in Kirk’s possession: “My duty is to protect the security of the Federation. Clearly your new cloaking device is a threat to that security.” This mission obviously does not fully parallel the Spartan decision to launch a full-scale invasion of Athenian territory, but entering Romulan territory, assaulting guards, and stealing one of the most valuable pieces of technology clearly constitutes aggression.12 Given the first officer’s explanation for this mission, it is evident that this instance represents a rare moment in the Star Trek universe of fear forcing humanity to set aside the perfect ideals that so typically animate the behavior of the franchise’s protagonists and to instead employ preemptive aggression.

Power and the Concept of Justice

Another prominent theme in the History that resonates with realist thinking is the juxtaposition of power and justice. For instance, when the Athenians address the Spartans in an effort to convince them to preserve the peace treaty, they argue that Sparta’s preponderant military advantages have dwindled vis-à-vis Athenian military capabilities. Consequently, the Spartans have shifted from conducting negotiations based on power relations to talking “in terms of right and wrong,” since the changing power dynamic has made it in their interest to do so.13 In yet another instance, the Thebans urge their Spartan allies to harshly punish rival Plataea. In an attempt to appeal to Sparta’s sense of justice, the Plataeans argue: “if you are going to decide questions of justice by such short-term considerations as your immediate advantage … then you will be seen not as true arbiters of what is right but as slaves to expediency.”14 This speech fails to persuade the Spartans, who go on to execute all the Plataean men who cannot demonstrate having ever been useful to Sparta. In this instance, however, the interplay between power and justice is complicated by the fact that Thebes urged Sparta to take this harsh punitive action based on the Plataeans having allegedly executed a group of Theban prisoners whose lives were supposed to be spared.15 In this way, then, the Plataeans had previously placed their own selfish interests over justice—and then fell victim themselves to the same line of reasoning at the hands of the Spartans.16

The most notable instance of this theme is found in the Melian Dialogue, which features Athenian envoys threatening Melos with annihilation if it does not submit to Athens. The Melians appeal to justice, yet the Athenians remain clearly unmoved as they respond: “you understand as well as we do that in the human sphere judgments about justice are relevant only between those with an equal power to enforce it, and that the possibilities are defined by what the strong do and the weak accept.”17 The Athenians later expand on this point, adding: “in the case of the gods we believe, and in the case of humankind it has always been obvious, that as a necessity of nature wherever anyone has the upper hand they rule.” The Athenians press their case by noting: “we were not the ones to lay down this law, nor the first to take advantage of its existence … [we] now make use of it knowing full well that you and anyone else who enjoyed the same power as we do would act in just the same way.”18 The Athenians are thus not merely making a claim about the natural order, but rather, they are seemingly appealing to justice as well, namely, on the grounds that anyone would do the same if given the power that Athens currently holds. The Athenian comments imply that the Melians are, in effect, appealing to justice in a way that suits their current need, and so they are defining justice based on their weak position in this current power dynamic. The Melians ultimately refuse to submit, and Athens does indeed end up laying waste to the city.

The theme of justice appears frequently in Star Trek episodes, but certainly one of the best examples of this kind of analysis is found in the aptly titled episode “Justice” from Star Trek: The Next Generation. The show’s protagonists visit an idyllic planet and come to learn that this world deters all crime by selecting a location at random for what they call a “punishment zone,” wherein any law broken results in the death penalty. The planet’s inhabitants proudly defend the system, noting that no one knows where the “punishment zones” are or when they are in effect, and so no laws are ever broken since no one wants to risk getting the death penalty. The visit takes a dramatic turn when a crew member’s teenaged son accidentally damages some plants while playing with some of the local teens, and then discovers that the plants are in the current punishment zone. Two “mediators,” essentially law enforcement officers, rush to the scene and prepare to execute the offender on the spot by means of lethal injection. The planet’s inhabitants are gentle and simple people, no match militarily or technologically for the show’s protagonists, and so the visiting crew members draw their weapons and easily force the mediators to back down. The offender is then detained while the crew’s captain, Jean-Luc Picard, discusses the matter with the planet’s leaders.

At first glance it appears as though Picard could simply order his crew to transport the offender back to the ship since the planet’s inhabitants are comparatively powerless. As it turns out, however, it is not that simple. First, Picard is bound by Starfleet’s “Prime Directive,” which prohibits him from interfering in the affairs of other worlds. Second, an exceedingly powerful entity that discretely oversees this world from orbit confronts Picard’s ship and warns the crew against interfering with the planet’s inhabitants. Picard thus not only wrestles with the tension between his duty to protect his crew member’s son and his duty to uphold the Prime Directive, but also with the prospect of risking his entire crew by potentially drawing the ire of the incredibly powerful entity. Picard ultimately decides that the Prime Directive should not apply in this circumstance, and he hopes that the entity will understand his decision. The plot in some ways comes off as a case of reductio absurdum, since it seems ludicrously excessive to sentence someone to death for accidentally damaging some plants. It is thus easy for the viewers to agree with Picard’s decision to violate the Prime Directive, and to violate the planet’s legal system. Yet, at a deeper level, this parallels the Melian Dialogue insofar as the asymmetric power dynamic appears to determine how they resolve their disagreement over what constitutes justice. The planet’s inhabitants acknowledge that Picard wields great power, but they plead with him to respect their laws. They genuinely believe that letting this teenager escape punishment threatens to undermine their system of justice and the blissful existence that it creates for them. Picard conversely believes that it would prove manifestly unjust to allow this execution. Arguing that the death penalty is unjust in this situation is certainly reasonable, but Picard fails to persuade the inhabitants and instead ends up using his ship’s advanced technology to transport his crew member’s son back to the ship—meaning that he essentially uses his position of power to enact his concept of justice on their soil.19

The Role of Human Nature

The way that Thucydides writes about human nature in his History appears to accord with a classical realist interpretation of international relations, which posits that fear, a desire for power, and self-interested motivations dictate behavior. The first reference to human nature arises when Thucydides explains his purpose for writing the History: “it will have served its purpose well enough if it is judged useful by those who want to have a clear view of what happened in the past and what – the human condition being what it is – can be expected to happen again some time in the future in similar or much the same ways.”20 Thucydides here is implicitly critical of human nature, and appears to suggest that similar circumstances in the future will likely trigger a similar sequence of escalations.21 The concept of human nature arises again in the History when the Athenians attempt to dissuade the Spartans from declaring war. “There is nothing remarkable or inconsistent with human nature in what we also have done, just because we accepted an empire when it was offered us,” the Athenians argue. They then explain that three motives prevent them from giving up their empire: “honour, fear, and self-interest.”22 Finally, in what is perhaps the most substantive commentary on human nature in the History, Thucydides expresses his views on the subject while detailing the civil strife that engulfed Corcyra. Civil strife will always lead to devastation, Thucydides argues, as long as “human nature remains what it is, though the degree and kind of the damage may vary in each case according to the particular circumstances.”23 Conflict tends to trigger the worst human impulses, in other words, and when these impulses surface it invariably leads to destruction. As Thucydides so eloquently sums up: “war is a violent master: it robs us of the means of providing easily for our daily life and needs, and it usually generates passions to match our circumstances.”24

In the Star Trek: Enterprise episode “Damage,” the main characters struggle as their ship is crippled from military engagements with the previously mentioned Xindi, who are building a super weapon to destroy Earth. The crew has suffered heavy casualties, and captain Archer is recovering from the injuries that he sustained during his brutal interrogation while briefly held captive. A fortuitous encounter with a group of alien explorers in distress presents an opportunity for the crew to obtain the engine parts needed to repair the ship and thereby resume their mission to save Earth. Archer offers valuable knowledge about how to navigate and survive in the dangerous and lawless region where these events are taking place, which is known as “the Expanse,” along with supplies that the aliens need to resolve their own mechanical issues. He asks for components that he needs to repair his ship in return, but the aliens cannot grant his request since giving him the one component he needs most would leave them virtually stranded in the Expanse. It initially appears as though the standard liberal international ethos that underpins the franchise will once again prevail, as Archer, though disappointed, parts ways amicably. With time quickly running out to stop the Xindi, however, Archer realizes that he is out of options, and so he launches a surprise assault on the alien explorers to take the needed component by force. His crew quickly overwhelms the nearly hapless alien explorers, and as they depart with the critical engine part, the alien crew’s outraged and distraught leader asks Archer: “why are you doing this?” To which Archer, clearly taking no joy in what he has just done, tersely replies: “because I have no other choice.”

This course of action stands in stark contrast to an earlier episode titled “Marauders.”25 Set against the backdrop of an earlier time when Archer is still simply exploring new worlds with his crew, he visits a small and completely defenseless colony to obtain fuel for the ship’s engines. The colony’s leader demands an exorbitant quantity of supplies for the fuel and is clearly quite intransigent. Archer in no way uses his overwhelming capabilities as a form of intimidation during the negotiation, and instead reluctantly agrees to what seems like a very unfavorable exchange. Not only that, but upon learning that a hostile group of aliens has been routinely robbing this colony, he even gets his crew to train and assist the colonists in repelling the hostiles. As to why Archer decides to assist the colonists, he states bluntly: “I’ve never liked bullies … not on Earth, not out here.” Archer’s course of action in “Damage,” especially when juxtaposed with his behavior in “Marauders,” thus speaks to the point that Thucydides makes in the History, that “war … usually generates passions to match our circumstances.” Humans in the Star Trek universe are as morally grounded and trustworthy as any alien race could hope to encounter, as the episode “Marauders” demonstrates, and yet as the aliens in the episode “Damage” learn the hard way, these same humans can act ruthlessly against even innocent bystanders when vital interests are at stake. Archer’s adherence to liberal international values ordinarily holds firm, but when facing an existential threat, the civility and principled views that typically prevail when facing manageable challenges are pushed aside. Fear and self-preservationist instincts that are hardwired in the human psyche rise up to meet this unprecedented challenge—thereby transforming the protagonist from a liberal internationalist to a hardened realist.

Conclusion

Star Trek is clearly a product of its time, with each series addressing some of the world’s most pressing issues at the time of its production. The allusion to the Cold War in The Original Series serves as an obvious example, as does the allusion to 9/11 in the story arc that spans the third season of Enterprise. The aspirational message presented in Star Trek offers an escape from these harsh realities, and this escapism has likely contributed to the franchise’s enduring success. Also important is the way that many of the protagonists usually manage to rise above familiar base human emotions and act in ways that align with the franchise’s overarching liberal international values.26 The three episodes covered in this paper, in effect, challenge the liberal international ethos that is so pervasive in the Star Trek universe by having the protagonists act in ways that align more with the kind of rudimentary realist principles found in the History, thereby ensuring that the Star Trek universe does not end up portraying human behavior as being so altruistic as to stretch all credibility. These occasional escapes from the idealist vision of the future may thus reflect a general understanding that some of the harsher realities of the human condition are inescapable—realities that the History conceptually alluded to over two millennia ago.

In this way, then, Star Trek offers a unique setting for the message that Thucydides outlines at the very beginning of his work: he predicts that the events in the History will eventually recur in one form or another, and so he implores future readers to use his work as they see fit to, presumably, better understand their own geopolitical precursors to war and their own behavior during active conflicts. This is not to say that we should draw direct lessons from the Peloponnesian War to comprehend the conflicts raging in the world today, or to imagine how we can bring about an ideal future. Rather, as Quentin Skinner suggests: “The history of philosophy, and perhaps especially of moral, social and political philosophy … can help us appreciate how far the values embodied in our present way of life, and our present ways of thinking about those values, reflect a series of choices made at different times between different possible worlds.”27 In this way, then, thinking about a text like the History of the Peloponnesian War and a work of science fiction like Star Trek makes it possible to evaluate how much humanity has developed behaviorally over the past two millennia and to contemplate how much further human behavior needs to progress in the years ahead to reach loftier ideals—and to question whether such aspirations are even realistic.

Bibliography

Conway, James L., dir. Star Trek: The Next Generation. Season 1, episode 8 “Justice.” Aired Nov. 9, 1987, in broadcast syndication.

Conway, James L., dir. Star Trek: Enterprise. Season 3, episode 19 “Damage.” Aired April 21, 2004, on United Paramount Network (UPN).

de Soete, François. “The Limits of Interpretation and Thucydides: An Analysis of Realist Themes in the History of the Peloponnesian War.” Journal of International Studies 13, no. 1 (March 2024): 33-47.

Frakes, Jonathan, dir. Star Trek: First Contact. Los Angeles, CA: Paramount Pictures, 1996.

Gilpin, Robert. “The Theory of Hegemonic War.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18 (Spring 1988): 591-613.

Kant, Immanuel. “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.” In Kant: Political Writings, translated by H. B. Nisbet, 93-130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Keohane, Robert O. “Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics.” In Neorealism and Its Critics, edited by Robert O. Keohane, 1-26. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.

Kroeker, Allan, dir. Star Trek: Enterprise. Season 2, episode 26 “The Expanse.” Aired May 21, 2003, on United Paramount Network (UPN).

Lucas, John Meredyth, dir. Star Trek: The Original Series. Season 3, episode 2 “The Enterprise Incident.” Aired Sept. 27, 1968, on NBC.

Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948.

Skinner, Quentin. Liberty before Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War Books I-II. Translated by Charles Foster Smith. Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, 1919.

Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War Books III-IV. Translated by Charles Foster Smith. Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, 1920.

Thucydides. The War of the Peloponnesians and the Athenians. Translated by Jeremy Mynott. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)

Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Rex Warner. New York: Penguin Books, 1972.

Vejar, Mike, dir. Star Trek: Enterprise. Season 2, episode 6 “Marauders.” Aired Oct. 30, 2002, on United Paramount Network (UPN).

Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979.