Trek and Rebellion

Let it never be said that Trek is utopian: There is, after all, trouble in paradise. Case in point: Star Trek: Insurrection.

One of the last of films set in the famous TNG era, it has been criticized for its elevation of the values of lassitude. The Bak'u, who lived in peace for years, seemed to many no more than futuristic hippies, stuck in an era of communalism and self-indulgence. But, I submit, Insurrection wasn’t about laziness or lack of ambition at all. It was more about chivalry — the defense of the weak by the powerful -- against the even more powerful.

The film’s main plot element is obvious: Insurrection. Whose insurrection, exactly? Ah, but that’s the rub. Was it insurrection against the Federation? By whom?

You could argue that Dougherty’s forces, including the Federation officials who supported him, were the ones guilty of it; it was they, after all, who defied the Federation’s highest ideals.

You could equally argue that it was Picard and crew who committed insurrection. It was they, after all, who took off their Starfleet badges in defense of the Bak’u.

The question, then, is unsettled.

The point is that there IS conflict — conflict on a very big level. It is conflict that asks you: If everything you believed in were on the line, would you commit yourself to defending the defenseless against your own government? Would you follow your own conscience over that of your official duty?

The Bak’u meant no harm. They were peaceful, pacifist people. They saw an eternity in a moment, and loved life for what it was. They were — far from the hapless hippies of “The Way to Eden” — more like cosmic Buddhists, seeking to go in the mind where few of us have gone before.

Picard saw as his overriding duty protecting the weak and following the Federation’s ideals even when the Federation did not.

This, I believe, was the core virtue of Insurrection: Piety and faith in what is good, what is decent, and what should move us all.