Star Trek’s “Prime Directive:” An Exercise in Cultural Relativism

Image Description: A Star Trek crew looks off-camera. In the center of the image is a large yellow and black question mark made up of the Starfleet logo.

Within the television sphere, sci-fi has long provided a unique opportunity for viewers to engage with the unfamiliar. The genre allows both creators and consumers to explore fictional narratives that are very much grounded in reality, but also rooted in the uncertainty that comes with distant or future worlds. Of course, the long-running Star Trek franchise is one such example. Having first premiered in 1966, the original show follows a crew of Earth-based “Starfleet” officers from the 22nd century as they explore space and encounter new planets, technologies, species, and civilizations. Yet their principal rule, known as the “Prime Directive,” states that under no circumstance is a member of the crew allowed to interfere in the customs or trajectory of any other society–regardless of their own personal judgements. Interestingly, this fictional policy distinctly resembles a real anthropological theory that was developed almost a century before the show began: cultural relativism. 

First suggested by Franz Boas in 1889, then later named and expanded upon by subsequent anthropological scholars, cultural relativism is a methodology which states that the various practices, values, and systems of a society should only be understood in the context of their respective cultures and cultural goals. It argues that the imposition of personal beliefs on a civilization different from one’s own is not only a scientifically flawed practice, but also a morally unethical one. In short, cultural relativism directly discourages individuals from imposing their personal judgements or experiences on cultures that are not their own. 

As evidenced by the now-iconic Prime Directive of the Star Trek franchise, cultural relativism as both an ideology and a practice remains incredibly influential not only in modern interpretations of cultures today, but also in ongoing speculations about the ways in which cultures may evolve and expand in the near future. Following this school of thought, this article examines the ways in which Star Trek’s Prime Directive simultaneously adheres to and breaks from the relativist perspective, while also evaluating the correlation between fictionalized representations of cultural relativism and their direct contributions towards fostering inclusivity within contemporary American society.

Although Star Trek’s Prime Directive eventually evolved into an exploration of cross-cultural exchange, the first series of the franchise originally presented this fictional policy as a guideline to protect the natural process of technological development within a society. In “A Relativist Utopia?: The Politics of Star Trek: The Next Generation,” Mike O’Connor argues that the changing interpretations of “non-interference” between Star Trek: The Original Series (1966) and the Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987) series can primarily be attributed to the shifting landscape of American politics from the early ‘60s to the late ‘80s. As the development of the franchise followed the transition from the Civil Rights era into the Reagan presidency, the series increasingly came to embody the theories of cultural relativism and “counterculture pacifism” which emerged in response to the conservative, militaristic anti-communist measures of the Cold War. Thus, while the more refined Prime Directive of Next Generation does exist as a clear interpretation of cultural relativism through a piece of popular media, its evolution also reflects a larger historical trend of relativism gaining more traction amongst the liberal American population. 

The dynamic nature of both the franchise itself and the context in which it was created lends itself to the very reasoning behind cultural relativism, which argues that the non-stagnant qualities of cultural and societal development necessitate a relativist approach of study, rather than an inflexible universalist one. In this manner, Star Trek’s representation of cultural relativism serves as both an experimental exploration of a theoretical concept and an interesting case study of the circumstances in which such a theory may become particularly relevant. However, by frequently positioning the Prime Directive’s ethical implications as a crucial plot point of many Star Trek episodes, the franchise also recognizes the many complexities which inevitably arise when a concept transitions from theory to practice.

Rather than simply accepting and upholding the idea of cultural relativism throughout the series, Next Generation consistently embraces the tensions that come with presenting the Prime Directive as both a collective and an individual ideology. While every crew member certainly believes in the Prime Directive as an overarching mission statement, the characters also find themselves in scenarios where the practical application of this policy feels personally unjust or ineffective. In spite of the strict nature of the Prime Directive, which is also the highest law of their organization, the characters frequently consider breaking from it. In Next Generation episodes such as “Justice” (1987), “Who Watches the Watchers” (1989), and “Pen Pals” (1989), they even decide to go through with it and disobey their highest policy. Arguably, this is more effective than allowing the concept to go unquestioned; rather than shying away from the complexities of relativism, Star Trek directly addresses and attempts to work through them. This approach generates a deeper understanding of relativism amongst its viewers, and creates a unique space in the television sphere that consistently pushes the audience to engage in critical thinking regarding cross-cultural interaction. Moreover, the show frequently suggests that it is not only unreasonable to assert oneself as the moral and intellectual authority in regards to another culture, but it is also both hubristic and naive to do so. 

When evaluating the legacy of the iconic space drama, it is clear that this same engagement with cultural relativism directly facilitates inclusivity. From the original show’s release in the ‘60s to the content that Star Trek continues to produce today, one of the enduring legacies of the franchise is its remarkably progressive levels of representation when compared to other sources of mainstream American media at the time. While this initially began with the casting of actors and actresses of color such as Nichelle Nichols and George Takei in the 1966 series, it continued into subsequent shows with the expansion of not only the racial identities being represented on screen, but also the gender identities, sexual identities, and disabilities being portrayed. Gene Roddenberry, the creator of the original series, stated in a 1976 interview: “The whole show was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but to take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms.” In his view, Star Trek’s values of open-mindedness extend beyond the Prime Directive, and can be applied to the values and objectives of the franchise itself. Thus, by exploring and practicing cultural relativism in a fictional sphere, Roddenberry saw Star Trek as an avenue of promoting a similar sense of inclusivity in the cultural environment in which it was created. 

However, while Star Trek has certainly been revolutionary in terms of its casting, it is important to note that the franchise nonetheless contains many narrative instances of stereotyping and hypersexualization which further marginalize the very identities that it claims to include. In both the original series and Next Generation, female characters were often dressed in tight-fitting and low-cut uniforms, while characters played by actors and actresses of color were seldom afforded the same highly developed narratives which their white counterparts frequently enjoyed. These ironic yet harmful disparities exist as a testament to how, in spite of the creators’ attempts to imagine distant worlds in far-off futures, Star Trek still very much remains a product of the culture in which it was created–just like any other work of media. Therefore, in order to effectively examine the ways in which cultural relativism has shaped the very structures, disciplines, politics and art forms which it contributes to, perhaps it is necessary to perform such an analysis of relativism from a relativist perspective in itself. After all, just as the practices, structures and values of a particular society and time period are relative, the evolving interpretations and applications of cultural relativism itself remain–and will continue to remain–similarly dynamic.This view directly aligns with the argument that anthropologist Ruth Benedict makes in her book, Patterns of Culture. Benedict argues that one of the most significant merits of the relativist approach is the understanding that there will be change within a society, and that societal values are dynamic rather than stagnant. She addresses that there will not only be differences across various cultures, but that there will also be differences across time as well. Thus, similar to Roddenberry and his aspirations for the Star Trek franchise, Benedict suggests that–despite the challenges that come with the persisting biases of any time period–cultural relativism nonetheless remains a unique and effective pathway to cultivate greater social acceptance. And perhaps, through these same values of open-mindedness and inclusivity, we will discover new experiences that we may be unfamiliar with–but can nonetheless appreciate, and maybe even “delight in.”