Should old SciFi be judged by today's standards?

[Yukaphile]

I do agree to cultural relativism, however, where and when you should suspend it due to a difference of time period is really up to individual interpretation. And of course, propaganda back then was much stronger than it was today. After 1945, other so-called democratic nations started becoming aware of the myths we perpetuate in order to make ourselves look better, and a few of the more learned members of our society tried to change it.

[Formless One]

I think if you look throughout history, you will find that propaganda has been huge from the very beginning of mass-communication. Even in Roman times, many of the great surviving works of art were intended to send a distinct message, like Trajan's column. And while I don't want to get dragged down into an argument over specific examples from today, propaganda is very much alive and well in the 21'st century, with more examples out there than I could hope to list even if I wanted to. That's part of why I don't think Cultural Relativism is an agreeable stance when applied to the past, because people with power have always used whatever available forms of media that were accessible to them to push agendas, or alternatively, to silence them. That's why censorship was invented hundreds of years ago and not yesterday, after all.

To give one (abstract) example, no one is born racist. You become racist by being surrounded by a culture of racism, and accepting that culture's attitudes uncritically. No one is born misogynistic, but being surrounded by sexist messages absolutely has an effect on your attitudes towards women and femininity. Again, we can understand this fact when looking at older works written and filmed by people who were simply accepting of an older value system, but to give them a pass simply because of the relative acceptance of those attitudes at the time puts us at risk of accepting those attitudes uncritically when we later see them in more 'modern' works. We can still be influenced by the propaganda of the past, is what I'm saying. The solution is to apply the same critical perspective to old stories as to new ones, and not letting nostalgia get in the way. People have always had to do this. But some people forget, and thus have to relearn old mistakes the hard way.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

A lot of the time I'm not even sure how it becomes an all or nothing commitment to either condemning a piece or giving it a pass for cultural relativism.

[Yukaphile]

Well, here's something to support his argument. Take Doctor Who's serial for the First Doctor, "The Romans." Barbara is being chased around by the insane Emperor Nero who demands a "kissy-kissy," though in actuality, he probably wants FAR worse, and no, this wasn't a case of rape being acceptable even back then, so much as that was the agenda the establishment was pushing on us through our carefully censored entertainment and so on and so forth. Mostly by religious and powerful white men. Today, showing that on TV or in the movies would have a far different context, as it should. That's horrifying, it's a prelude to a permanently traumatizing, "your worst nightmare" type situation being made manifest, not one that should be treated for fucking laughs!

[Formless One]

A lot of the time I'm not even sure how it becomes an all or nothing commitment to either condemning a piece or giving it a pass for cultural relativism.

Who said either of those things? I'm merely arguing that works can and in fact are judged using modern standards. Being judged does not automatically mean being condemned. Again, I point out the fact many people prefer the special effects of yesteryear before CG became the easy way. And modern day works don't always hold up to modern day standards. And its often by degree. Star Trek (TOS) doesn't come off perfectly in its portrayal of women, but its representation of racial diversity still holds up and indeed was stronger than many shows since then. People have often noted that the Star Wars original trilogy fails to pass the Bechdel Test while the prequel films pass it, but then others would argue based on the actual strength of the female characters in each that it really just shows a limitation of the test rather than saying the prequels do a better job of portraying women. And this is just the social values aspect of the question-- if we go by other aspects, like Science Fiction's unique ability to make predictions about the future, some shows will be notably more accurate in their predictions than others. The ones that were accurate are often the ones that are more compelling in the long term, unless something else (like plain old bad storytelling) holds it back. After all, people tend to enjoy a story more the easier it is to relate the events within to their own lives; and as technology and science moves on, so too does our way of living.

[Yukaphile]

Especially if, as I pointed out with the Doctor Who example, it's something that's being shown on TV or in the movies that wasn't even acceptable for the time it was being shown in. Remember that in the wake of the Red Scare, censorship was pretty damned high in the West. And who decided and shaped what it was that we were seeing in our popular entertainment? Christian white men, who felt God had ordained us to save the world from the godless Communists.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

A lot of the time I'm not even sure how it becomes an all or nothing commitment to either condemning a piece or giving it a pass for cultural relativism.

Who said either of those things? I'm merely arguing that works can and in fact are judged using modern standards. Being judged does not automatically mean being condemned. Again, I point out the fact many people prefer the special effects of yesteryear before CG became the easy way. And modern day works don't always hold up to modern day standards. And its often by degree. Star Trek (TOS) doesn't come off perfectly in its portrayal of women, but its representation of racial diversity still holds up and indeed was stronger than many shows since then. People have often noted that the Star Wars original trilogy fails to pass the Bechdel Test while the prequel films pass it, but then others would argue based on the actual strength of the female characters in each that it really just shows a limitation of the test rather than saying the prequels do a better job of portraying women. And this is just the social values aspect of the question-- if we go by other aspects, like Science Fiction's unique ability to make predictions about the future, some shows will be notably more accurate in their predictions than others. The ones that were accurate are often the ones that are more compelling in the long term, unless something else (like plain old bad storytelling) holds it back. After all, people tend to enjoy a story more the easier it is to relate the events within to their own lives; and as technology and science moves on, so too does our way of living.

Well none of that sounds unreasonable.

I'm pretty sure I just don't understand or am not sure what people are objecting to when they say that Star Trek isn't excused for its misogynistic undertones in its day. Like, are there people that are saying that Trek wasn't misogynistic. What's the discourse pertaining to that circumstance, if you will?

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

I think I tend to disagree with the majority here when I say that yes, absolutely you can judge older works by modern standards and in fact will go so far as to say that even people who say that they suspend judgement are almost certainly going to judge anyway subconsciously.

I don't know what it would even look like to "suspend judgment" on a work. You're always going to have an opinion. But automatically assuming that whatever film style, technique, or thematic material is current trending is objectively superior to past trends is just a poor way to go about analysis. I get that this isn't exactly what you're saying, but that's why the point others were making earlier in this thread is important- what are "today's standards?" Even if there were agreement that they should be adhered to, no one would agree on what they are. Some directors like to use as many practical effects as possible. Other's don't. Which is the modern standard?

Identifying context and the goals of a work are fundamental pieces of any "judgment," be it a past or present work. The only difference is just how much unpacking you have to do to understand it. It's interesting to think that no one who first saw The Wizard of Oz as an adult saw it when it was on the cutting edge of what was technically possible, not unless that person is pushing 100. And yet some timeless quality has continued to attract audiences for decades.

If someone just wants to sit and be entertained for a couple hours, that's perfectly fine. But there's a difference between being personally entertained and claiming to have a standard of quality to judge things by. And personally, trying to contextualize a work and take it on its own terms allows me to enjoy and (hopefully) understand a much wider variety of works than I would if I ignorantly and arrogantly assumed that whatever was popular last week or last year is "the standard." Which, again, is not what I take to be your point or your position.

As far as things like racism and sexism, that at least is (or can be) a more concrete criticism of some older works, but even there I think it's important to make some distinctions and decide how exactly you're approaching things. Wolf in the Fold, on the one hand, is pretty darn sexist, and I'd have a hard time defending it even if I had the inclination. Space Seed? I'm not as sure. Do we have to take Marla McGivers as a statement about all women or is she just a weak character? Every character feels Khan's charm and magnetic presence, and it's established pretty early on that McGivers has some predispositions in his favor and even an obsession with him in particular. If it were made today, it would be made differently, but I'm not sure that should be counted against the episode.

[Yukaphile]

That's why I say you have to go with a "pick and choose" mentality. Gauge by what was appropriate and what was not then, what is being shown on the screen that clearly was NOT appropriate even by the standards of the time versus what was, or what was being pushed as a political agenda or propaganda. That's what I've been doing with early Doctor Who. Again, "The Romans." It's played for laughs, and the Doctor just smirks and chuckles at the Emperor's "healthy libido..." a seemingly modern man from a super-advanced alien culture... not funny. Not funny at all. The mindset from the powerful religious white men in charge is obvious. "Boys will by boys, and that's hilarious!"

[clearspira]

There is always that nice little comfy headcanon.

We're Star Trek fans, headcanon is what we do due to frequent bad writing. And fortunately in this case, ''Janice Lester is insane'' is clear.