How each level treats the other levels

Last Friday I wrote about a visit to the Star Trek exhibit at the Henry Ford Museum. I included this:

I’ve talked about a society without supremacy, without a social hierarchy. I saw such a society in what Roddenberry portrayed on the screen.

My sister responded with an important objection. I’ll paraphrase: These starships were run by Star Fleet, the military of the time. Of course, there is a hierarchy. That military chain of command probably carries over into a social hierarchy as well. Even a benevolent society still has a person in charge.

I’ll add to Sister’s objection: A military is inherently about supremacy. It is more than a hierarchy of people, a chain of command. Most of what a military does is project supremacy. One country attacks another, a supremacist move. Yeah, I know a military is necessary for defense. However, in my opinion the last time the US military was justified in its defensive operations was WWII (please, let’s not debate that).

Thanks, sis, for your objection. It is something that needs clarification.

Societies need leaders, someone in charge. On a spaceship the top leader is the captain. There is likely an admiral and generals with varying numbers of stars above the captain. In the US government this is the president. The question is: How does that person lead?

Sister gets to the idea here:

Ranking seems to be inevitable, but how each level treats the other levels is the real distinction in different societies. In the Star Trek world there is more respect than on Planet Earth. Here if all are respectful and grateful for those over or under then, then harmony would exist. Therein lies the problem, humans seem to have a real difficulty with respect to others not the same as themselves. Whether that difference is noticeable like skin color or physical statue (taller ungrateful of the smaller) or not so obvious; wealth or education, there are those who will point out the difference and "pull rank" because of it.

Is the leader in the leadership position because he or she has proven leadership skills? In the military that’s usually the case. Is the leader working for the benefit of the community? Or is the leader in that position because he or she took it by subterfuge or force and is using it to enforce ranking, to oppress part of the population? Under subterfuge I would include inciting hate towards a minority.

In Star Trek there is certainly a hierarchy of personnel. But the captain and senior officers have a mission of exploration, defense, and diplomacy instead of enforcing supremacy. All of Star Fleet has that as its mission. In addition, within the starship the society ignores the markers of hierarchy, it ignores race and gender (though it took a while to get the woman captain and black station commander) and also, in the last movie, sexual orientation (though one had to hunt for it).

Sister concludes:

You are creating an ideal goal, which is necessary in pointing people in the direction of mutual benefit. But there will always be those who don't get the message somehow and mess things up for the rest of us.

Keep dreaming the goal can be obtained and be happy of any progress made.

Thank you.