Historicism in Star Trek: A Creative Way to Break Out of the Series Canon?

J.J. Abrams may have done it to the dismay of long-time Star Trek fans, but is historicism a creatively valid way to break out of the Star Trek series canon?


By: Ringo Bones


Any work of Star Trek not adhering to the established series canon is often seen as an anathema by long-time Trekkies and Trekkers and is more often than not dismissed as nothing more than an aberration usually relegate to the dustbin of failed Star Trek concepts. J.J. Abrams’ rework of the established series canon in the recent Star Trek motion picture may have received howls of derision from veteran Trekkers but its state-of-the-art visual effects allowed it soldier on instead of being relegated to those Star Trek works deemed “too unconventional” for mainstream consumption by self-respecting Trekkies and Trekkers. But can there be a “creative” way to break out of the established Star Trek series canon while still embracing the “soul” that made long-time Trekkies and Trekkers fell in love with Star Trek in the first place?

Historicism is a not so oft used concept that may be already be used in the past – although not very often – Star Trek TV episodes. Historicism is a term derived from the German Historismus, which was first used in 1879 to characterize the mindset of Giovanni Battista Vico. It denotes an attitude which interprets all human concepts, values, and institutions as entirely the products of some individual and unrepeatable historical development, and hence limited and relative, without claim to universal meaning.

Historicism arose during the 19th Century in conscious opposition to the attitude of the Enlightenment, which had emphasized the constant and universal features of human life, and, as David Hume said, wrote history only to exhibit them. Historicism received its primary impetus from the Romantic Movement and was fostered in subsequent years by the great development and increasing specialization of historical studies throughout the civilized world.

Historicism’s impact upon philosophical thought had taken three main forms: a) it impugned the classical philosophy of history, which envisaged human life as a unitary development in time, realizing universal values of exemplifying universal laws; b) it urged that the logic of historical inquiry must differ from that of natural science, for the general laws by which natural science explains repetitive – or repeatable – physical events; c) its assertion of the relativity values seemed to threaten the capacity of mankind for strong conviction and decisive action.

The problem with historical relativism exercised many thinkers, in particular Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923). On the other hand, Benedetto Croce (1866-1952), a well-known historicist, denied the reality of the problem of historical relativism. In Croce’s view, historicism – far from being a threat to values – protects them from being from abstraction and convention, and assures their continuous efficacy within the living current of history. From the view of pragmatic science fiction creative writing, does historicism have any useful applications?

An aspect of historicism that’s been used in Star Trek storytelling is that particular Next generation episode when the android Lt. Commander Data refused to allow top scientists form the United Federation of Planets to reverse-engineer his positronic brain citing that they may not be able to put him back together again, citing that his sentience and overall cognition is entirely the product of his own individual and unrepeatable historical development. Does this too apply the debate between Nature versus Nurture when it comes to human development?

Another concept found in the Star Trek universe that hopefully has not yet invaded ours is the reality of time travel. Time travel – as seasoned science fiction already know – tend to deny the reality of an unrepeatable historical development. As evident in Star Trek: First Contact where Captain Picard travels back in time to undue what the Borg did when they changed the timeline. The time travel incident behind Star Trek: First Contact somewhat made the established series canon of Star Trek somewhat gain a modicum of flexibility. Like how the last Enterprise series was structured. It looks like historicism might be the useful tool needed to sort out a tangled timeline if time travel ever becomes routine.

Is There Still A Need For A Proper Star Trek Canon?

Given J.J. Abrams somewhat “overtly liberal” rendition of the recent Star Trek motion picture, is there still a need to follow the proper established series’ canon?


By: Ringo Bones


The latest Star Trek movie did manage to earn serious money, but given that it has alienated a significant number of long-time Trekkers by deviating from the long-established Gene Roddenberry canon, can the movie be still considered an indisputable success? After all Trekkies / Trekkers are probably fed up with that “it’s all that we have” excuse, aren’t we?

This hitherto unprecedented breach of established canon had many long-established Star Trek fans up in arms over the latest Star Trek movie despite of its indisputable box office success. J.J. Abrams attempt at a “metaphysical” retelling of Star Trek’s most influential characters – i.e. James T. Kirk has not been to everyone’s taste. James Joyce’s Ulysses it is not, as some fans put it. Some Star Trek fans even suggested using the planned sequel to use as a “metaphorical” platform for the Free Tibet movement, given that the US Government is unable to take a justified stance on the Tibet issue because it is now beholden to the People’s Republic of China’s bond holders. No thanks to the malfeasance of the Bush-Cheney consortium that ran a disastrous “War on Terror” campaign.

If we don’t follow the Star Trek canon established by Gene Roddenberry (even those independent Star Trek-based novels tried to follow it), Spock could easily break out into song by singing the Ballad of Bilbo Baggins or is it the Ballad of Frodo Baggins. Especially during that famous campfire scene in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier just because Leonard Nimoy is a big fan of The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. Or Captain Kirk singing William Shatner’s “famous” songs committed to vinyl during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Or what about Keith Carradine’s appearance on Star Trek: Enterprise. Does he have to sing a few songs from his I’m Easy album, which was released back in 1976? Maybe, I’ll subject this particular Keith Carradine musical opus to a music review once I get hold of a copy of I’m Easy – hopefully on the much-soulful vinyl format.

In my opinion, the established Gene Roddenberry canon is more than probably what makes those Star Trek TV episodes and movies that had been done before claim the upper echelons of the science fiction universe. J.J. Abrams’ use of inexplicable musical montages – i.e. the extremely youthful James T. Kirk’s joyride with The Beastie Boys’ Sabotage playing in the car stereo to poke fun at the latter Captain Kirk’s somewhat odd pronunciation of the word Sabotage – may work on an episode of Family Guy. But it will not work on a main feature of Star Trek.

Given that the J.J. Abrams Star Trek managed to earn serious money during the summer 2009 season and with a sequel in the works, Abrams could well be directing it. Because the taskmasters at Paramount are still very reluctant to risk hard earned money, especially during the recovery period of an economic recession. Maybe we’ll just hope that the storyline of the sequel will return Star Trek to the original Gene Roddenberry established canon, if not, we’ll there are those DVD remasters of the “glory day” episodes that we’ve grown to love over the years.