Customer Reviews

Meaning in Star Trek

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book, first published in 1977, was the first (as far as I know) serious attempt to analyze the psychology of Star Trek. Karin Blair, herself a Jungian, takes up the question of how characters in The Original Series (TOS) represent various Jungian archetypes in the human psyche. Using specific episodes as examples, she explores authority, masculinity and femininity, inner dualities, outer opposites of good and evil, mind versus emotion, etc. Leonard Nimoy said of this book that it is "thorough, intelligent, and meaningful" (cover blurb.) According to Gene Roddenberry's biography ("Star Trek Creator"), the Great Bird was very impressed with it also -- which is what led me to track down a copy for myself.

Especially interesting to me was Karin's analysis of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad as representing past (McCoy), present (Kirk), and future (Spock.) Although my own analysis differs considerably from hers (mine is based more on kabbalah than Jung), her thesis is carefully thought out and well-presented. For many early Trek fans, Karin's POV became the lens through which they viewed the triad relationships, and it remains so for many Classic Trekkers today.

Non-Jungians and modern feminists may balk at some of Karin's comments about the symbolism of women in classic Trek, especially the "Monstrous Mother" and "Disposeable Female" chapters. But before you throw the book across the room, keep in mind that these are basic themes that occur in many classic mythologies around the world. Star Trek, in turn, drew inspiration from these mythologies for many of its TOS episodes. At the very least, Karin's analysis helps explain where some of these early Trek themes came from, and why they have such wide popularity. (The section on the sex appeal of Spock among women will raise a few eyebrows!) Dated or not, this book was a groundbreaking work in its time, and should be in the library of every serious Star Trek fan.

Essentially, MEANING IN STAR TREK is a really well done version of the class assignment "explain in 50,000 words or less how Carl Jung would interpret the television show Star Trek."

For those not particularly knowledgeable about Jung, the book provides an abbreviated introduction to some of his thinking. More importantly to the Trek fan, the book provides an alternative perspective on what the show "really means" along with some interesting tidbits about the production of the show and its reception by viewers.

One of the few things that sticks in my mind, many years after having last read the book, is Blair's analysis (alluded to in another review) of Spock as a representative of rational masculinity, McCoy as a representative of emotional femininity, and Kirk as a balanced fusion of the two. If I've got this right, Spock has no anima--no internal feminine personality, McCoy is all anima, and Kirk has a well-integrated anima. Her external evidence for this analysis is that the Spock/Nimoy fan club was (in the 1970s) mostly female (attracted by that pure masculinity) while the Kirk/Shatner fan club was roughly gender-balanced.

Intended for a popular audience, not academic lit-critters, MEANING IN STAR TREK hits its points efficiently, has a few "I did not know that!" and "Whoa!" moments, but is ultimately not very deep. It is, however, short and mostly breezy and only disappointing if you expect amazing insights. (Potential readers should note that the book concerns only the original series.)