Star Trek Fandom as a Religious Phenomenon

1 People identify themselves according tO certain "fandoms," such as TV and film fandoms (Quantum Leap, Dr. Who, Star Trek, etc.), science fiction, comic books and other pop culture phenomena (Bacon-Smith 1992:309).

Soaology of Religron 1994, 55:1 27-5 1

Star Trek Fandom as a Religious Phenomenon*

Michael Jindra University of Wisconsin-Madison

This essay is an ethnographic exploration of Star Trek fandorn. Rather than the more common textual analyses of the program, this article examines the history and practice of the fans themselves, on computer networks, at consentions and in tourism, in UStarJleet" fan clubs and in fan literature. All these fan activities canstruct and add to the altemative universe of Star Trek while also connecting it with the present. At a time when scholars are finding religion in nonconventional locations, I argue that Star Trek fandan is one of these locations. Star Trek fandorn involves a sacralization of elements of our culture, along with the fonnation of communities with regularized practices that include a "canon" and a hierarchy. Star TrekfarXn is also associated with a popular stigma, givingfans a sense of persecution and identity common to active religious groups.

Star Trek (ST) fandom is a phenomenon unlike any other. Now over 25 years old, it originated when the original Star Trek television series was threat- ened with cancellation after its first year. Fans immediately sprang into action with a letter-writing campaign to keep it going (Trimble 1983). When it finally was canceled after its third year, the show went into syndication, and ironically, that is when the "fandom" phenomenon really started to take off.l The first convention was in New York in 1972. A centralized fan clearinghouse organization, the Welcommittee, was established in 1972 to introduce fans to ST fandom (Van Hise 1990; Bacon-Smith 1992). At this time, noncommercial fan magazines ("fanzines") were already being written; and books, manuals, and novels were published.

Efforts to revive ST broadcasts in some form continued. An animated series was produced from 1973-1974, and in 1979 the first of the six (at present) ST movies was released. In 1987 Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) was pro-

* A version of this article was presented at the Central States Anthropologixl Society annual meeting at Beloit College in March, 1993 . This research uas begun for an anthropology seminar by Peter Nabokov at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Thanks are due to: Peter Nabokov, Emiko Ohnaki-Tienzey, Vem Visick, David Yamane, the anonymous Sociology of Religion reviewers and editor, tO graduate students tOO numerous to mention, and tO the many Stur Trek fans who took time with rne tO help me understand their role in th s phenomenon. AU responsibility for the interpretations in this article rests with the author.

27

28 SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

duced by Paramount for first-run syndication. Going into its seventh season in Fall 1993, it has achieved its highest ratings yet, often making it the top hour- long show among males 18-49 years of age, and also a top-rated show among other viewer categories, including females.

No other popular culture phenomenon has shown the depth and breadth of "creations" or"productions'} (in the broad sense of"cultural productions") that Star Trek has, both officially and unofficially. The numbers are staggering: over $500 million in merchandise sold over the last 25 years (Paikert 1991), over 4 million novels sold every year (often bestsellers), dictionaries of ST alien languages, institutes that study them, "fanzines" numbering in the thousands, hun- dreds of fan clubs, conventions, on-line computer discussion groups, and tourist sites, plus of course the endless reruns, broadcast in over 100 countries. Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, the two main characters cBn the original series (TOS), are household names not only in the United States but in other English-speaking countries, as is the spaceship on which they travel, the Erlterprise. Other popular culture fads have come and gone over the years, but ST recently celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary and shows no sign of letting up.

There have been numerous explanations for the popularity of ST. Newsweek magazine (Leerhsen 1986) offered nine diKerent "theories" for the popularity of ST, ranging from how it plugged into "sixties" issues, to the "family" feeling it exudes.

A number of academics have focused on the messages of the show. Anthropologist Peter Claus (1976), utilizing Levi-Straussian structuralism, ex- amined the mediation of the nature/culture oppositions in the plots. Karen Blair (1977), using Carl Jung's more psychological approach to oppositions, sees the mediation of internal oppositions such as masculine/feminine, as in Spock's conflict between mind and emotion. Ina Hark ( 1979) regards each story as a moral message, a lesson on relations with "outsiders" or on the dangers of suc- cumbing to computerization.

Others have argued that its success is due to the appeal of the seven original characters and the development of their relationships (Paikert 1991:62). This, however, is disproved as a sole reason by the overwhelming success of the new series, with its entirely new set of characters.

Recently, academics have begun to turn their attention to the hard-to-ig- nore fans themselves. Most recent work published on fandom has come out of a cultural studies framework, which focuses on how active fans use the show for their own purposes. Fans are "textual poachers" (Jenkins 1992; Bacon-Smith 1992), who take the ST universe and create works (stories, art, music, games) that allow them to deal with social issues (e.g., feminism) in the process creating

. . . a ternat1ve commun1t1es. This essay shares some features with this later work, but I will deal largely

with a different body of theory coming OUt of the sociology of religion. Specifically, I will set out to demonstrate that ST fandom has strong affinities with a religious-type movement. Drawing on recent discussions conceming the changing form and meaning of contemporary religion (Luckmann 1991; Swatos 1983; Wuthnow 1992), I will attempt to show that ST fandom is one location in which to find religion in our society.

STAR TREK FANDOM AS A RELIGIOUS PHENOMENON 29

METHODS

The above explanations attempt to look to the show itself for explanations of ST's popularity. I set out, on the other hand, to look at fan "culture" itself, for it is in the practice of the fans that we better understand the nature of any social group. The ethnographic method (mainly interviews and participant/observation) provided by my training in cultural anthropology allowed me to underS take this kind of study and, I would argue, is one of the best ways to understand any group phenomenon, especially a rather diffuse one like ST fandom.

Having a familiarity with ST fandom only through occasional media reports of conventions and so-called "trekkies," I was quite unprepared for what I found. When I mentioned to friends that I was undertaking this project, I was deluged with names of people who were "big" fans of the show. Almost everyone seemed to know someone who was a serious ST fan. I struck up conversations with strangers who turned out to be fans. Soon I had more names of fans than I could possibly interview.

The effort and imagination put into ST and its universe impressed me. It was much bigger than I had ever imagined. I went to the public library and to book- stores and found a whole section of Star TrekSrelated materials, most of which were (of course) checked out. Manuals, books, and novels fill out the ST universe, offering Trek chronologies, descriptions of other planets and aliens, and detailed blueprints of ships. There are numerous guides to fandom itself and memoirs written by the founders of the movement, those who tried to keep the original series on the air. There is a journal devoted to the study of Klingon culture and complete dictionaries of three alien languages. The published guides to Trek merchandise and memorabilia listed so much material that it was impossi- ble to take it all in.

I attended a local ST convention and enjoyed several hours of conversation with fans about ST and why they liked it. I went to meetings of local science fiction clubs. I was also introduced to a ditferent kind of"community," that of the computer on-line networks, and quickly found there was no way I could fol- low all of the ST talk on these nets, for the volume of the ST newsgroups ex- ceeded 1,000 messages every week.

I found this latter type of "electronic" ethnography to be quite unique. One could call it "participant-observation," but without posting anything on the net, one remains only the total, anonymous observer. This observation is of a kind that is almost ideal if one wants to avoid the postmodern problem the observer affecting the participants. It has its disadvantages in that one cannot always know who (gender, social position) is saying what, but spending time on the net allows the opportunity at least to get to "know" some of the more regular contributors.

Even though everyone knows that what he or she writes is probably being read by thousands of strangers, this fact is sometimes forgotten in the anonymity of the medium. As a result the comments are sometimes surprisingly intimate, as we will see later in this essay. I also posted a 28-question questionnaire on a net, from which I received 33 responses, almost all of them through electronic mail. This kind of ethnographic research offers immense opportunities for researchers

2 Using the term religious movement" follows the recent trend in religious studies away from the term "cult" or "sect" with their often contradictory definitions and pejorative connotations. "Religious movements" also allows for a broader definition of religion that avoids the Western model of religion, along the lines of Asad's comments ( 1983 ).


to conduct explorations into all kinds of cultural phenomena, for these on-line services contain discussion groups for a variety of popular and specialized topics.

STAR TREK AS A RELIGIOUS PHENOMENON?

When I undertook this research, my first intention was to focus on how ST draws a picture of the future that is attractive to many Americans. But early on I realized I was dealing with something much bigger and more complex than I had anticipated. Star Trek was not limited to science fiction fans, nor was it just a pop culture phenomenon created for corporate profit, as will be made clear by this essay.

Star Trek fandom seemed akin to some kind of movemerlt.2 It certainly was not a political movement, but it had political aspects. It was something broader than that, more like a religious movement. At first thought this seems rather ludicrous, for ST is a TV show. And yet as I looked at it further, it had features that paralleled a religious-type movement: an origin myth, a set of beliefs, an organization, and some of the most active and creative members to be found anywhere.

It is the activities of these fans that will take center stage in this article. To address ST as a religious phenomenon, however, we first need to understand the place of religion in our society, how it is changing, and what it is changing into.

RELIGION IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN SOCIETY

The "folk" definition of religion, that is, how most Americans think of religion, is that of a system of private, conscious and articulated beliefs set off from the other "spheres" of life such as work, politics or leisure. This view of religion, however, resulted from the peculiarly Western process of societal "differen- tiation" (Tschannen 1991), where institutional religion was given a specific function. In the medieval era, for instance, religious practice was intimately connected to everyday life. Since then, however, the practice of Christianity has often become "abstracted," or disconnected from everyday life (Asad 1983:245). As a result we tend to limit religion to its institutional and confessional form, as seen in the denominations, or to a set of privatized religious beliefs that are only peripherally connected to a person's public life (Bellah et al. 1985). The view of religion as private and conscious also severely circumscribes our understanding of it. Mircea Eliade writes, "To the Western mind, which almost automatically relates all ideas of the sacred, of religion and even of magic to certain historical forms of Judeo-Christian religious life, alien hierophanies must appear largely as aberrations" (1958:10-11). It is also important to note that one's religion need not be articulated as belief, but is more often an ongoing experience, lived out and taken for granted (Pouillon 1982).


"DisFised" Religion

Without its institutional and confessional form, we often fail to recognize religion in our own society, or as Thomas Luckmann puts it, it becomes "disguised" under various political or cultural forms (Luckmann 1991:169). Religion "is different from what it was in the past" (Swatos 1983:329). Or as Robert Bellah states, "the Durkheimian notion that every group has a religious dimension, which would be seen as obvious in southern or eastern Asia, is foreign to us. This obscures the recognition of such dimensions in our society" (Bellah 1974:41, n.1). Eliade argues that "we must get used to the role of recognizing hierophanies absolutely everywhere, in every area of psychology, economics, spiritual and social life" ( 1958:1 1).

Where in our society can we see religious elements? In many people's minds, the world has become "disenchanted" of gods, ancestral spirits and nature deities, "men have become like gods" and science "offers us total mastery over our envi- ronment and over our destiny" (Lessa and Vogt 1979:413, citing Edmund Leach). This modern-day religion is expressed in many areas of our culture, including popular culture, as in the case of ST, I will argue.

This is not an easy argument to make, for "the very manner in which religious concepts are held and expressed leaves them inherently ambiguous and somewhat ambivalent" (Lessa and Vogt 1979:413). Religious change is not sim ply a matter of"belief" or "disbelief" or a "shift in beliefs," but rather, it is a "complex interplay of balance and proportion between conviction and skepti- cism, and seriousness and mere diversion" (Lessa and Vogt 1979:414). This makes religion "difficult to locate and measure."

Religion's Strerlgth

Thomas Luckmann argues that religion is still strong in Western society, in opposition to those who see its steady and eventual demise. He argues that religion "as a part of human life had never weakened substantially and that, in fact, it remained embedded in the lives of ordinary people, even in modern industrial societies" (Luckmann 1991:169, 179).

The "secularization" of Western society does mean the removal of religion to its own separate sphere, but also, Luckmann argues, its replacement with an emergent form of religion, best described as the privatization of religion. An ex- emplar of this is the "New Age" movement, which rejects organization in terms of big institutions, and instead cultivates the "notion of networks," which allow the formation of"commercially exploitable cultic milieus, which are character- ized by varied-generally weak forms of institutionalization.... [T]he New Age and similar representatives of a holistic, magical world view supply individual searchers with the bricks and some straw for further individual bricolage" (Luckmann 1991:176, 178).

Religious practice, in other words, is carried on not only in large institutions, but increasingly in smaller networks, with features and practices that vary from place to place, but with a commonality often fostered by commercialization. Kenneth Thompson argues that symbolic communities are a part of the


"sacralization" that resists processes of secularization. These communities become sacred to the extent they are "socially transcendent," that is, marked off from "the mundane world of everyday routine" (Thompson 1990:179). This essay will seek to demonstrate that ST fandom is among the chief locations of this kind of religious practice and forms a type of "symbolic community" that identi- fies itself in opposition to the "mundane" (in the words of fans themselves) world of non-ST fans.

First, however, I will look at ST as a fixed set of consciously maintained beliefs. This is in part the "folk' conception of religion in our own society, as a fixed set of consciously maintained beliefs. Some ST fans do adhere to ST "philosophies" (Paulson 1991), and others are simply attracted by the world it portrays, a reflection of dominant American cultural themes (Kottak 1990). For both, however, the content of ST provides them with an orientation to the world, and to its (our) future.

SOMETHING TO "BELIEVE" IN: THE WORLD VIEW OF STAR TREK

ST, of course, is to a certain extent a subset of the larger category of science fiction. Frederick Kreuziger calls science fiction a religion in America, with its "central myth" of progress "which helps people live in or into the future" ( 1986:84). It is a universalizing faith, meant for all people everywhere. Much science fiction does not allow for the possibility that people may opt out of the type of society envisioned by writers, for it is assumed all will happily participate in it. Science and technology are the vehicles by which this future will be brought into existence, "and should be understood in religious terms" as that which 'sbreathes new life into humankind" ( 1986:15).

There have been two main genres of science fiction, the utopian and the apocalyptic (1986:100). ST falls solidly into the utopian category. ST history shows that war on Earth eventually stopped} and nations and planets joined together in a "United Federation of Planets" for which the Enterprise is an ambassador, explorer and defender. This "positive view of the future" is one of the most popular reasons fans like the show, as they often state themselves. William Tyre (1977) sees in ST the mythic theme of paradise, one that links past and present, or that disguises the past as present. ST embodies the symbols, ideas and ways of feeling or arguments about the meaning of the destiny its members share, one that is uniformly positive. April Selley (1990) sees in ST:TNG an Emersonian type transcendentalism that is a sort of "naturalism" based on the power of science and humanity's manipulation of it. Faith is placed in the power of the human mind, in humankind, and in science. On ST, threats are normally from alien forces, as problems such as poverty and war and disease on earth have been eliminated. Some have criticized the 'sarrogance" of TNG because of frequent reference made on the show to how far they have "advancedf' over their earth ancestors.

Even Star Trek writer and director Nicholas Meyer states that "ST has evolved into a sort of secular parallel to the Catholic Mass. The words of the Mass remain constant, but heaven knows, the music keeps changing. . . . Its huS


manism remains a buoyant constant. Religion without theology. The program's karma routinely runs over its dogma" (1991:50).

Star Trek is part of American mythology, similar to the frontier myth and the TV show "Westerns" that exemplified it. Anthropologist Conrad Kottak argues that ST is "a summation of dominant American cultural themes . . . a transformation of a fundamental American origin myth" that does not resonate in all societies ( 1990:101-6).

This mythic element of ST is explored more fully (but problematically at times; see Jenkins 1992:13) in The American Monomyth, which compares contemporary myths seen in American popular culture with the heroic myths of which Joseph Campbell was fond of speaking (Jewett and Lawrence 1987:33). ST pop religion takes a central place in this exposition. The authors examine how the Star Trek mythology of progress, discovery, science and egalitarianism is deeply ingrained in our culture, and it is these notions we seek to transmit to others through the world (Dolgin and Magdoff 1976; Kottak 1990). ST exempli- fies this on a literally universal scale.

One cannot talk of central American values, religion or myths, without seeing "progress" at the center of them (Lasch 1991). The origin of notions of progress has itself been a major issue, with philosophers engaging in lengthy and complex arguments over The Legiiimacy of the Modem Age (Blumenberg 1983). Progress underlies our economic policy ("development") and is central in our politics, especially in election years, when the political rhetoric extols the great "potential" of the American people. It is generally agreed that Jimmy Carter lost the 1980 election when he spoke of a "moral malaise" in America, in contrast to Ronald Reagan's endlessly upbeat message of American progress and prosperity.

ST mixes the scientific and technical ideals of America with its egalitarian ideology to produce a progressive world where people from all races work to-

gether in a vast endeavor to expand knowledge. The following was written by a fan about the first public viewing of ST, at a World Science Fiction convention in 1966: "We noticed people of various races, genders and planetary origins working together. Here was a future it did not hurt to imagine. Here was a constructive tomorrow for mankind, emphasizing exploration and expansion" (Asherman 1989:2).

Religion often points us to another world; ST does the same. As we will see below, this world is ambiguously real to many ST fans. In this way it is not different from the tradition of Christian eschatology that sees, in the context of a linear history, a future perfection. Variations on this theme have been adapted by many other Western philosophies, such as orthodox Marxism.

Indeed, the utopian element in Western thought goes back a long way, to

the early sixteenth century, and the immediate post-Columbian period. The utopias of Thomas More and others were created in this period, in comple- mentary opposition with the anarchy and disorder of conceptions of the "savage." Also tied in with utopian impulses is the Western notion of"order" out of which came the "project" of the West, that of universal assimilation (Trouillot 1991:32). On the heels of this impulse have come a number of utopian religious movements (Hobsbawm 1979), and it is this culture-wide ideoS logical inclination upon which ST fandom draws.

Jessica Green

Jessica Green

Jessica Green


The popularity of the optimistic, progressive view of the world has been much stronger than the apocalyptic, pessimistic view. There have been popular SF movies in the apocalyptic vein (e.g., Bklde Rurzeer) but the initial draw of these movies did not coalesce into the popular universe created by the fans of ST. There have continually been segments of society that hold to the pessimistic view of the future (which also goes back to Biblical apocalyptic thought), but this has always been a minority view in the twentieth century, held by segments on both the left and right of the political scale. The vast cultural acceptance of ST demonstrates the mythical resonance of a future universe-wide utopia.

That ST has progress and a "positive view of the future" as central themes is reaffirmed in writing by ST fans themselves (Lichtenberg et al. 1975; Gerrold 1984) and very directly by itS late founder Gene Roddenberry, "the man who created an American myth." In 1991, just months before he died, a 30-page interview with Roddenberry was published in The Humanist, the official magazine of the American Humanist Association, to which Roddenberry had belonged since 1986. In the interview he reveals that he had a very conscious humanist philosophy that saw humans taking control of their own destiny, their ability to control the future. Roddenberry's intention was to express his philosophy in ST, but he had to keep this intention secret lest the network pull the plug on him (Alexander 1991).

Others, like Roddenberry, have used ST to express their philosophy publicly. Jeffrey Mills has taught courses at various colleges on the "cultural relevance of Star Trek." He points to the Prime Directive (forbidding interference in another culture), the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combi- nation), and the governing structure of the United Federation of Planets as the kinds of ideas upon which we need to act if we are to survive into the twentieth century. By watching ST, studying it and applying its lessons, we can make the world a better place, Mills has written. "[I]n this light Star Trek almost becomes a sort of scripture, doesn't it? What the Bible does in 66 books, Star Trek does in 79 episodes.... I can't think of a series that really spoke to the future of humankind with as much clarity and vision as Star Trek" (quoted in Paulson 1991:29). In this sense ST may be akin to an American "civil religion," about which I will speak more later.

ST has strong affinities with a religious outlook, namely an underlying belief and mythology that ties together messages about human nature and normative statements about social life with a construction and presentation of future society.

STAR TREK FANDOM

ST as a religious phenomenon can be understood as a set of beliefs, but the activities of its fans gives us a much fuller picture of its religious potential. To see the origins of the vast activities of ST fans, let us look briefly at the history of science fiction fandom, the precursor of today's widespread ST fandom movement.

ST fandom is in part the culmination of a phenomenon that began in the post World War I era, when science fiction pulp magazines had a small but loyal


readership. From the beginning it had the makings of a group set apart from the rest of society.

The central fact about the science-fiction community, writers and readers alike, was that it was a family. The members shared interests and outlooks that the rest of the world disdained. They thought in terms of science and the future, and when they weren't reading or writing about those things, what they wanted most was to talk about them. In so doing, they gave birth to that unique cultural phenomenon, scienceSfiction 'fandom." It is very difficult to explain science-fiction to anyone who has never experienced it. The closest analogy, perhaps, might be to the "cellar Christians" of pagan Rome, small, furtive groups of believers, meeting in secret, shunned or even attacked by outsiders, or as fans came to call them, the "mundanes" (Pohl 1984:47).

These fans formed a community, at first exclusively male, with females en- tering later: "fans married fans and raised their children to be fans; there are thirdS and even fourth-generation fans beginning to show up these days at the 'cons' a short term for science-fiction conventions" (Pohl 1989:47).

So a precedent was set for ST fandom, and it was out of science fiction fandom that the first ST fans came. The story of the origin and growth of ST fandom has itself attained a level of mythology, as a kind of origin myth of the movement. One of the first showings of ST, at a science fiction convention in 1966, is recounted in the following manner in the Star Trek Compendium. The author talks of the event almost in terms of a conversion experience:

After the film was over we were unable tO leave our seats. We jUSt nodded at each other and smiled, and began to whisper. We came close to lifting the man (Roddenberry) upon our shoulders and carrying him out of the room.... [H]e smiled, and we returned the smile before we converged on him- (Asherman 1982:2 ) .

From then on, according to the author, the convention was divided into two factions, the "enlightened" (who saw the preview) and the "unenlightened."

ST's exposure to a prime time television audience, however, began to give it a wider audience than science fiction ever had. The letter-writing campaigns to save the series are now legendary, as is the leader of this movement, Bjo Trimble, who later published her memoirs ( 1983 ). In it she details the organization of the campaign and the massive numbers of letters that were sent to NBC, which saved the show from being canceled after its first year. The movement became even stronger after the series was finally canceled (largely due to a bad time slot) in 1969 after three seasons. Here is how ST fandom is described by one of its earliest fans:

All in all, fans literally starved for new information, new material, more fuel for their fierf obsession for their almost-religion of a rnore-than-promising future. Because of a lack of material to placate a mind hungry for ST, fans had to be creative.... [E]very fan of ST was family a distant friend we had not met. Conventions were like stepping through an enchanted doorway into another world. The force of fandom was palpable and we longed for rebirth. We believed we could make it a reality so we wrote letters and scripts and reviews and novels. We wished. We dreamt. We bumed with inspiration.


The author goes on to speak of "suffering," which made the revival all the sweeter. ST 'brought hope." It also brought "intolerance and prejudice" against fans. Why? "Probably because Trek somehow threatens their perfect little micro- cosm of existence." The writer then speaks about the "cultural acceptance' of ST. "ST and its fans still have the powerful magic to make an impact on society; even to manipulate the future. That ability has been proven" (Van Hise 1990:1 112).

FAN NETWORKS

Organitaiions

ST fandom is a widespread and complex phenomenon that includes femiS nists and familiest the working class and academicsX Indeed, it seems to revolve around different networks of fans} with some of the main ones being fan clubs, computer nets and women writers (Bacon-Smith 1992; Jenkins 1988).

The fan clubs have grown into a worldwide circuit of clubs, with nearly 200 in several countries, boasting approximately 100,000 members (Paikert 1991), which include both Starfleet chapters and chapters of the newer "Klingon Assault Group" (KAG). A hierarchy of Starfleet clubs is established by naming them afier Star Trek vessels, with larger, more established clubs given status as starships (e.g., USS Excelsior) while smaller ones are called "shuttles."

Hierarchy is established within each club by the titles given to leaders (Admiral, Captain). Biographies are written of the leadership for the Starfleet newsletter (Starfleet Communique), which includes photos of them posing in uniform with their rank and title (e.g., Admiral John Dow, Communications Chief). Members move up the hierarchy by being active in group events, much like the Boy Scouts. Both Starfleet and KAG organizations stress community service projects; this aspect distinguishes them from a mere fan group and underlies the seriousness with which they take their beliefs about building a better world.

Included among the fan organizations is a central clearing house for information called "Welcommittee" that connects fans and introduces new fans to the world of Star Trek fandom. They provide free advice on where clubs are, how to

start clubs, and how to host conventionsv They also provide information on fanzines and just about any other question one might have about Star Trek fin- dom. The ST Welcommittee began in 1972 and now comprises at least fourteen geographic areas, each with its own "captain" and 'screw," working in many states and six foreign countries (Van Hise 1990).

New Star Trek-related groups continue to organizeJ Witness the advertise- ment for a correspondence club:

Star Ships of the Third Fleet is a great way to meet people and to be involved with the details and imagination that we all know of that is included in Star Trek. Everyone from around the country who joins is placed on a ship and assumes a position and is given a rank. Story lines are begun by ship captains and those story ideas are continued independently by the crew members. Story lines can be developed over a period of two to four months and are eventually compiled and published for the contributors tO read.


Besides the ship writing work, you can also take classes at Third Fleet Academy. Third Fleet Academy is based in Rio Rancho New Mexico. By the U.S. mail you can take classes at either B.S+, M.S. or Ooctorate levels and eam degrees in fields such as Starship Operations, Engineering, Medical and even Security. I highly recommend Third Fleet for those of you who enjoy writing Star Trek type of missions and enjoy shating them with others (monthly post on StrekSD listserv).

Computer Networks and Electronic Billboards

Another fan "community" exists in the computer "on-line" networks that have Star Trek billboards or live discussion groups. On these nets, individuals "discuss" the show, posting comments, questions, or responding to other posts. Fans often take on pseudonyms from the characters in the show. There are over 3}000 postingslmonth on the btggest USENET newsgroup that is devoted solely to Star Trek talk, called rec.arts.startrek (r.a.s.).

A similar type network is BITNET, which also has a very active ST newsS group (70-90 messages/day during the academic year). Other computer nets such as Prodigy, Genie, Compuserve, and America-On-Line, all have ST newsgroups or have regularly scheduled live discussion groups. These users work primarily from their homes. Usenet and Bitnet are primarily utilized by institutions, and though the biggest number of users seem to he men, women are also active on the net. Later in this article, I will give examples of postings on these nets, and show how a process of systemization occurs involving the formation of uni- fied beliefs and practices in an ongoing process of forming and maintaining community.

Women

Even though many people think of men as the biggest ST fans, it is actually female fans that have been written about the most by academics (Bacon-Smith 1992; Jenkins 1992; Penley 1992)+ Women, in contrast to the ST male "geek" stereotype, have been leaders in the ST fan movement from the very beginning, have written many of the ST novels? and were also instrumental in setting up the earliest fan clubs (Lichtenberg er al. 1975:ch. 1).

What have women found in the show? Camille Bacon-Smith's recent book, Enterprising Women, is mostly about women writers of "fanzines," ST stories pubS lished privately among a network of fans. These women writers "steal characters" from the show and flesh them out in ways that enable them to live outside the boundaries of a restrictive society. Rather than focusing on the more science and action-adventure aspects of the ST universe, female fans focus on the relationS ships of the characters. According to BaconSmith (1992:293), these fans "re- construct their own reality" and "create a community" under the guise of play, protecting them from the masculine gaze that portrays play as trivial. Through the stories women are allowed to play roles and express feelings that masculine culture does not allow.


COMMUN17sY

Much of ST fandom seems to revolve around certain "communities" (e.g., electronic bulletin boards, women writers) that discuss ST, and remake it in various ways. The local groups such as Star Fleet are face-to-face communities tied into a national organization, much like denominations. The electronic and women's networks are a little more diffuse, yet in some ways deal more with the "philosophical" issues of ST, as will be made clear shortly. Taken as a whole, ST fandom forms a type of "symbolic community" where people seek to form identities distinct from the outside world. As Anthony Cohen describes them (1985:63), symbolic communities "create a symbolic world which is a kind of fantastic reconstruction of empirical society." Communities such as these are often a response to the breakdown of traditional structural communities based more on face-to-face relations between relatives and neighbors. This loss of community allows (or forces) people to choose or construct their own identities (Lash and Friedman 1992:7). People use these symbolic communities to build these identities, in opposition to the culture around them, according to Cohen.

In ST fandom, these identities become quite personal when Starfleet members take on specific ranks and titles and use them in all correspondence of the groups, including signatures on their e-mail posts. The fan's distinctiveness is expressed in their disdain of the "mundanes" who do not consider the alternative worlds and futures that science fiction constructs. ST fandom provides an opportunity for fans to build common links at a time when people's mobility and life- style make this problematic. It is very easy to strike up conversations with strangers about ST, and it is frequently reported among fans that a group of strangers found common ground in their love of ST (Amesley 1989).

As discussed earlier, symbolic communities resist the secularization and ra- tionalization of modern life (Thompson 1990). Yet there is a paradox here, if we seek to apply this to ST fandom, because the ideology expressed in ST and ad- hered to by many of the fans is an expression of rationalistic modernism itself, the progressive belief that we can construct a better tomorrow. Or, comparing with Benedict Anderson's "imagined communities" of nationalism, the ST imagined communities are usually explicitly non-nationalistic, finding their identity not in ethnicity but in adherence to a vision ofthe future. My argument, however, is along the lines of a postmodern critique of modernism, for I argue that the modernism that is exemplified by Star Trek is in the final analysis a faith itself that is practiced in the various types of communities that make up Star Trek fandom.

CONVENTIONS

The different communities described above are rather isolated from each other, but there are opportunities for them to meet at other locations such as conventions and tourist sites, which also serve as locations where serious fans meet casual fans.

ST conventions were among the earliest fan activities. The first ST convention ever held, in New York in 1972, entered ST mythology after 3,000 people


showed up when only 300-400 people were expected (Van Hise 1990:87-88). Since then, conventions have grown until there are now more than 90 annually. They feature trivia and costume contests, artwork, literature, bridge mock-ups, and appearances by actors. James Van Hise, the author of the Trek Fan's Handbook, described a convention in the following way:

If you've never been to a convention, it's an experience that is difficult to explain. It's like being ushered into another world, where every facet of the day has something to do with STAR TREK. It might be seeing the incredible variety of merchandise in the dealers' room or seeing a star of the series in person and having the opportunity to ask questions. To describe it as a time warp would not be far from wrong. You're very much cut off from the real world in a convention. You can easily forget your own troubles as well as those of the world until the con ends and you have to come down to earth again. It's no wonder many people attend as many conventions as they can. It is an intense two or three day vacation and is quite a stimulating experience (1990:90).

Conventions are an opportunity to immerse oneself further in the ST "experience," much as one immerses oneself in ritual. Using the religious language of"immersion" is not just a rhetorical move on my part. Witness the following quote, taken from a questionnaire response:

At a convention I went to a while back they had this thing about the "Temple of Trek." I stayed and watched even participated in the chanting. They had some woman who was there with her baby fairly newbom. And they "baptized" the kid into this pseudo-church. Pretty bizarre even though it was all just a joke. But I must admit I was kind of wondering at the time if everyone there was really taking it all as a joke.

The ambiguity over the seriousness of Trek practice reveals, I believe, its underlying religious potential.

Conventions are often a unique opportunity to observe fandom, for they can be a direct expression of the fervency of fandom and of its relationships with the general public. Conventions often give ST fandom its most public visibility, as the local media usually cover them and many casual fans attend them. One fan expressed to me his distaste of the "not a cluers" as he called them, those fans who are new to fandom and know little of the history or facts of the ST universe.

STAR TREK TOURISM AND "PILGRIMAGE"

In recent years the number of Star Trek places of "pilgrimage" and commemorative exhibitions has been increasing. The twenty-fifth anniversary served as the occasion for some of the exhibitions, such as one at the Smithsonian. The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry has opened a 6Z000 square foot permanent Trek exhibit. Other places allow fans to experience the show. As part of their park in California, Universal Studios has a ST set in which they film selected tourists, in full uniform, acting out a ST plot.

I visited one fan who proudly showed me the video of her visit there. The video spliced footage of the tourists acting out parts with actual footage from one of the movies, giving the appearance that they were actually part of a ST movie.

3 Many celebrity fans are attempting to become part of the ST universe by making appearances on the show. When planning for TNG was under way, Whoopi Goldberg called Paramount in order tO play a part in the series, asking only a nominal fee.


This fan described the experience "as a dream come true" which made the 2,000 mile trip "worthwhile." "We pilgrimage out there; it's our Mecca," she told me. Another fan showed me numerous pictures of her posing in uniform on a mockS up of the Enterprise bridge built for a convention.

Various towns are now taking up the ST theme in order to attract tourists. Vulcan, Canada has turned itself into a ST "theme" town. A town in lowa pro- claimed itself Captain Kirk's hometown (the Kirk character does come from lowa) and has an annual Captain Kirk festival. Though this may be pure com- mercialism on the part of the towns, their success is contingent on their appeal to fans as a place of tourism.

There is actually much to be said for a connection between Star Trek and tourism. In Dean MacCannell's classic The Tourzst (originally published in 1976) he names science fiction and tourism (along with existentialism) as the only "widespread movements universally regarded as essentially modern," akin to a "modern religion." They "are self-conscious collective movements motivated by a collective quest for an overarching (solar or galactic) system, a higher moral authority in a godless universe, which makes of the entire world a single solidary unit, a mere world with its proper place among the worlds" ( 1989:16).

Part of ST's appeal is in the image of society it presents, the future it holds forth. As mentioned before, one of the clearest messages of ST fandom is how much people see it as a sign of hope for the future. The appeal of ST is not for a kind of personal salvation, but for the future of the ST collective "we." "I" will not live until the twenty-fourth century, but "we" certainly will, according to the ST future. It is hope for ourselves as a society, a myth about where we have come and where we are going. Fans want tO be part of forming that destiny.

Participation in science fiction, like tourism, "helps the person to construct totalities from his disparate experiences. Thus, his life and his society can appear to him as an orderly series of formal representations, like snapshots in a family album" (MacCannell 1989:15). The experience of sitting on the bridge in uniform and being photographed or filmed brings one into direct participation in the universe, much as many rituals do, for the only way really tO "connect" with something is to participate in it. Cultural productions can carry individuals beyond themselves and the restrictions of everyday experiences. "Participation . . . can carry the individual to the frontiers of his being where his emotions may enter into communion with the emotions of others 'under the influence' ' (MacCannell 1989:26). It is the fan's dream actually to be on the show, and the closest things to it are bridge mock-ups and studio tours.3 Out of this experience comes a closer identification with the universe they seek.

4 A number of sources have listed the most popular episodes. One that is generally recognized to be among the best, if not the best, is City on dle Edge of Forever &om TOS, which takes Kirk, Spock and McCoy back to the 1930s. The best TNG episode is said by many to be Yesterday's Entnise, which also involved time travel.


LINKING THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE TO THE PRESENT

This universe, however, is not a totally separate, fantastical universe uncon- nected to the present. In various ways, the Star Trek universe is "linkeds' with the contemporary world. The lead-in to every TNG episode ("Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise . . .") begins with a shot of the Earth from close in, and then a gradual "tour" through the other planets of the solar system until it finally focuses on the Enterprise. This se- quence orients the viewer to envision the events as taking place in his own universe.

Other "linkage" is accomplished by some of the Trek manuals and novels. The recently published Star Trek Chronology: A History of the Future (Okuda and Okuda 1993), compiles a history of the world from the present to the time of the latest Enterp7ise in the twenty-fourth century.

This world is a direct projection into the future from the present, for the show continually refers to historical events from the twentieth century and before. Through time travel, many plots actually take place in pre-twenty-first century time. Episodes that have done this are frequently among the most popular.4 One fan I talked to focused on how space and time are manipulated in the plots, especially through time travel, which allows one "a second chance, . . . to set things right again." Time travel allows us this ritualistic recourse, much the same way healing rituals or rituals based on origin myths do. Origin myths often take place "in the beginning" but are really a message for all time, a model to be attained often through reenactment of ritual (Eliade 1958).

It has been suggested that ST is ahistoric. It relates not to any specific time and place but is meant for all time (Amesley 1989:336-37). William Tyre argues the same thing:

Myths no longer link us to the pastX since we know the past is gone and is of historical, not immediate, relevance to the present. Bicentennialism recalls the past. On the other hand, any science fiction can link us to the future.... ST, by disguising our past as our future, puts us in it, not the historical past but the mythic past of our first beginnings.... [T]he series (ST) itself mediates the tension between the past and the present by establishing a third time, that of first beginnings. It is a time with the anticipation and wonder of the future without the anxieties of the present, with the glory and security of the past without its remoteness. By transcending in an ultimately inexplicable way the sum of message and medium STAR TREK puts the fan- become-believer in that time (1977:713, 717).

ST has also affected the fans' lives. Actors often relate how they get letters from fans telling them how the show inspired them to become engineers or doctors, or to do well in school (also see Lichtenberg et al. 1975). ST has given people hope for the future, inspiring them to take control of their lives in the same way many self-help and quasi-religions do (Greil and Rudy 1990).


Fans also want to bring ST into the present time, to order things along the lines of the ST universe. ST fans have had an impact on the United States space program, supporting increased funding and specific space programs involving manned and exploratory space missions. Science fiction becomes science fact (Asherman 1989:151) as "fans actively engineer events to make it true" (Van Hise 1990:14), such as naming the first space shuttle the USS Enise.

In the next section I will examine the attraction of ST by seeing how it is linked with the present world, seen as a "reality," authenticated and kept "consistent," and finally filled out as a complete universe. I will primarily use quotes from the rec.arts.startrek (RAS) newsgroup, most of them posted in January or February 1992+

THE REALITY OF THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE

ST, like many other shows, actively encourages a 'ssuspension of disbelief8' and sets itself up as a reality in which fans can "exist." The reality of this universe is important to many people. Much of the talk about ST revolves around the characters, such as Mr. Spock, the Vulcan character who adheres to a philosophy of logic unaffected by emotion. Cassandra Amesley (1989:330), in an academic article entitled "How to Watch Star Trek," argues that viewers have an "implicit assumption that a person like Spock 'exists"' and that any perceived inconsistency "deviates from his reality" ("Spock wouldn't do that" is a frequent fan comment). This view, however, is different from other ways of reading television characters which criticizes inconsistencies as flawed writing or focuses on the plot and does not bother about inconsistent characters. The "suspension of disbelief8' is particularly real for Star Trek fans "[I] gain a deep experience from watching TOS; the movies and reading the paperbacks. I 'transport' myself tO TOS every time I watch and this is especially true with the movies" (RAS Questionnaire). "1 he officers and crew . . . are not real, but that fact is sometimes overlooked by the fans" (Irwin and Love 1990:47).

This perception is what William Shatner, in a controversial Saturday Night Live skit set at a ST convention, poked fun at when he implored the fans to "Get a Life!" after they asked him questions that assumed the reality of the ST uniS verse. At ST conventions, where cast members of ST are often paid hefty fees to make personal appearances, these actors are sometimes questioned as if they are the characters they portray. Actors have had uncomfortable moments answering such questions as 'What is Vulcan really like7" and "Why did you marry Spock's mother?" (Irwin and Love 1978:69).

FILLING OUT THE STAR TREK UN1VERSE

There has been a virtual industry built up around "filling out" the ST universe. Reference books such as the Star Trek Technical Manual, which lists the specifications of Starfleet ships, and Worlds of tht Federaiion, which details planS ets and the races that live on them, have been among the most popular. Dozens of other books are in existence, with titles such as the Surfeet Marrulge Manual, Starfleet Cook Book, and Starfleet Officer Requirements (Van Hise 1990:41-50).


Languages and dictionaries have been compiled for the Klingon, Vulcan, and Romulan worlds, three of the best known aliens of ST. The entire history, geog- raphy, philosophy and even the actual location of the planet Vulcan has been described, sometimes with the full cooperation of people at academic institutions and even NASA.5 A journal for the study of the Klingon language (HolQed) has also been introduced recently, and one can attend a Klingon language camp. Other literature includes more conventional encyclopedias, handbooks and "crew books" that delve into the characters and actors in the series. Stories in Trek magazine have also filled out the biographies of the characters (Irwin and Love 1990).

The ST universe has been filled out with just about everything to make it a full, consistent reality, to enable one to live within this universe. This is a universe much larger and more complex and complete than any other fictional universe. The only others that come close are the J.R.R. Tolkien novels and the game somewhat based on it, Dungeorls and Dragons, which has spawned clubs, video games, and role-playing. Another fan compared Star Trek with other fandoms:

Consider for a moment why there aren't billboards such as: rec.arts.murphybrown or rec.arts.cheers. (IF there are such billboards and they have anywhere near the volume of R.A.S., I'd be stunned; my system contains 1,406 messages and it goes back only about two weeks.) I think that the reason "rec.arts.startrek" and Trekkies exist is this: Star Trek is an evolving universe of stories, characters and ideas that goes beyond the media. It is part of television, but goes beyond it. Even the worst episodes of Star Trek build on that universe and enrich it. I'm fascinated by the postings on this billbcard by people who have worked to catalog that universe and who point out when the show's writers get lazy and step outside of the established rules.

ST novels and fan literature are big business. Why? They fill out the story. Following is an exchange between two RAS correspondents, one of whom is fed up with the show. The other seems to be counseling him:

Maybe it's the commercial TV medium you're upset at. Perhaps you like novels better because you can use your imagination to conjure up hypothetical situations and mannerisms of the characters more freely, instead of the concrete "that's the way tt is" in 1V land. Maybe you don't like the lack of technical info in the show? Or maybe it's too fake? Describe what you don't like. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the show that the novels tend to fill. My favorite is Troi. Here she is reading the feelings of aliens light years away in one episode but she couldn't figure out what the woman was up to in "Silicon Avatar" when you didn't need to be telepathic to

5 In a July 1991 letter to Sky 69 Telescope magazine, three scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics co-authored a letter with Gene Roddenberry that identified the star 40 Eradani as the sun around which the planet Vulcan revolves. This was based on recent astronomical observations that reveal the age of that star as being compatible with a planet that hosts life, whereas the previously named Vulcan sun (Epsilon Eridani) could not have.

6 In the magazine Trek, there is a column called Star Trek Mysteries Explained" which attempts to explain the technical details of the series.


figure out she wanted revenge. That's pretty poor and its these inconsistencies that make the show hard to swallow."

This person continues in his depressed state:

There are those few who I think would like any show no matter how shitty it was as long as it had "Star Trek" in the title. uStar Trek: The TJ Hooker episodes" or 'sStar Trek: The Partridge Family Generation," "Star Trek meets the Brady Bunch" these would all be in the #1 time slot cause people like me would watch every week hoping that this might be the one that changes my opinion. Just to be let down once again.

THE CONSlSTENCY OF THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE

The fan literature and manuals have brought about the completion of an alternate universe, in which the coherence of the universe must be maintained for fans to continue their "suspension of disbelief." Fans go to extraordinary lengths to do this, for instance, often focusing on the consistency and reality of the technical details of the ship: "The trek universe is possibly the most complex and selfSconsistent fictional reality ever created. We all know how the phaser, transporter, et al. work. We know that you can't beam through a shield or com- municate through 'sub space interference'." 6 A correspondent responds: "That's why we like it because it's so complete. A complete universe is why I'm a ST fan . . . there's so much material that we can always learn something new about it."

In order for this universe to remain a "reality," it must be kept authentic. We eavesdrop on the following conversation over whether the details in the films (as compared to, say, the series) are "true" or not. (The technical manual referred to in the conversation contains the details of the technology in the show. Tech- nical manuals have been among the biggest sellers of all official ST manuals):

I don't think the class of 1701-C was mentioned on the air, so the TNG Technical Manual takes precedence ("Ambassador"). Some people claim it is an "Alaska" class ship, but this is an invention of FASA and therefore worthless. Actually, IMO neither one takes precedence over the other.7 The TNG Technical Manual's speculations could easily be invalidated by the creators of the series, much as early TNG writers' guides have been. And, of course, filmed material can be invalidated in the same way, if the writers decide they want to. Correct-which leaves us with the question of whether the new material is correct (i.e., they've revised the history) or whether they're simply being inconsistent and failing to produce a consistent universe. In general, I tend to take Trek Classic and feature film information over any provided in TNG (or animated Trek; Ilm not sure how I would reconcile inconsistencies

7 IMO/IMHO is net shorthand for "In My (Humble) Opinion." TOS is the original Star Trek series and TNG is the current "The Next Generation" series.

8 ZRegulars" on the net who post reviews and other info.

STAR TREK FANDOM AS A RELIGIOUS PHENONIENON 45

if there are any between animated and feature film Trek). Also, non film material cannot invalidate film material, IMO. Given art inconsistency there, I always take the film version as the accurate one.

It is not historians and anthropologists alone who debate notions of history. This conversation started on the technical classification of the ship and quickly became a debate about correct ST history, or as it is often referred to, the "canon." References to the Star Trek "canon" are frequent on these newsgroups and form the rules for the debate. A regularly posted "netiquette" (which gives guidelines for posting on r.a.s.) gives the definition of canon:

"Canon" means that Gene Roddenberry (or his duly appointed representative) has declared something to be officially part of the "Star Trek" universe. This includes the TV episodes and the movies, primarily. "NonScanon" is everything else (the books, the animated series, comic books, the story you made up when you were playing "Star Trek" with your friends during recess back in Kindergarten, etc.). You can get into some pretty good arguments with people on the net about whether or not something actually "happened" in the Star Trek universe or not. Since Star Trek is science fiction (to most of us, anyway), some people have pointed out that arguing about whether something fictional is "real" or "unreal" involves a lot of nul statements ("Nothing unreal exists" from ST IV: The Voyage Home). Still, can be a lot of fun, when it doesn't devolve into name-calling.

It should be noted, however, that other definitions of canon are offered on the net, which are usually more inclusive than the above. In effect, the "canon" forms the cosmology of the ST world, giving it the coherence that ties together the many fans of the show who devote many hours to discussing the show. Episodes are heavily critiqued after they are broadcast. Fans seem to "reject" some shows and accept others as up to the standards of the show. What is authentic or "pure" Trek is often debated. When one fan proposed a movie idea, he attached an extended prologue on the "philosophical" problems of it:

[B]ut to explain it I need to offer an observation of mine, of the nature of the rec.arts.startrek hierarchy and of trek more generally. (It's probably not a new one, by any stretch of the imagination.) It occurs to me that things are not unlike a religion around here. I've seen debates about Holy Scripture what constitutes it, its authenticity, etc. otherwise known as what is canon? (Which, personally, I can kind of understand the rationale to these debates, but mostly I sort of shrug my shoulders. This is *just* Star Trek. I know, I know, there's no such thing as "just" Star Trek.) We have High Priests and Defenders of the True Faith (e.g., Lynch, Kanamori, etc.),8 who prophesy, reveal and defend what is "true" trek to those of us wandering in the wilderness, etc. (Of course, when the High Priests disagree amongst themselves, we get inquisitions, holy wars, etc.) Then we have God which, of course, is Roddenberry. To the fundamentalists of the net, Roddenberry's word and vision is ab olute. (One of the Ten Commandments of Trek is surely, "Thou shalt not put any images before thy Roddenberry.") Now, Gene Roddenberry was, IMHO, a great man, with a wondrous vision of the future and of what Humanity can be. But, if I can now switch from a metaphorical (and, at least intended, humorous) analysis to the concrete, Roddenberry was NOT God.


The fans of ST have constructed their own world-a consistent utopian world where science has given us control over the problems of life we experience and read about in the papers. In order to complete their created universe, both the creators of the show and the fans have to rely, ironically, on "science/magic." As shown above, the science on the show is one of the most common topics of fan discussion. The technology used is given a veneer of scientific reality, but most fans, even while trying to make it as close to reality as possible, recognize that most of the technology is made up and is thus closer to magic. Science thus turns into magic, a state of affairs that Swatos ( 1983:330) anticipates in new religions where magic/science is relied upon to provide control in areas outside our ability to master.

ST is a body of knowledge that is continually being added to and revised. The on-line comments and novels are oriented to maintaining its reality, to maintaining the coherence of the show. This is fundamentally different from other popular films or series (such as the James Bond or Indiana Jones movies), which have an underlying humor about them. The action in these is often so outrageous that consistency or "reality" is simply not possible, nor do fans expect it. If the same thing were tried on ST, fans would howl in protest.

Fans have shown an enormous ability to be a part of ST, to appropriate it for their own purposes. Says David Gerrold, a writer for the original series and the author of the best-selling The World of Star Trek:

A history of Star Trekfs fans would be a list of enterprising (pun intended) individuals who have built bridge sets, designed blueprints, sewn their own uniforms, written songs and plays, put on conventions, make Star Trek home-movies or written their own Star Trek novels. They've published Star Trek fanzines, drawn cartoons, painted pictures, built models, designed new costumes and makeup for convention masquerades, collected film clips and videotapes and props from the original TV series not to mention all those who have studied Star Trek and analyzed it from this position or that. This then is the essence of the Star Trek Phenomenon: the fans have claimed the show as their own. They are its caretakers. They are the keepers of the dream (1984:xvi).

What can be made of all this creativity this invention and filling out of an entire other universe? I would argue that this is a creation of mythology in much the same way that any Levi-Straussian bricoleur would do it (Levi-Strauss 1966). Levi-Strauss used this term (French for "handy-man") to illustrate the process of creating mythology where bricoleurs use the available "tools" and "materials" of the culture to create a mythological structure over a period of time. In this situation, the bricoleurs act not on their own culture, but on the alternative one they have constructed (but which of course cannot be totally separated). The creation of new plots and stories and the ironing out of existing ones is essentially the mediating of contradictions in the story (universe). In this universe, the contradictions are an affront to the consistent universe that fans so desperately want to see created.

In calling the activities of ST fandom "mythological," I do not intend to eliminate the "playful" or entertainment aspect of ST and claim it is only serious. There is certainly a mix of entertainment and seriousness about Star Trek among fans, but this coexistence is also present in the creation of "primitive"

9 Occasionally someone will get on the ST Usenet newsgroups and direct a "Get a life!" at the fans, eliciting angry responses from those who participate in the newsgroup (RAS "netiquettet' pOSt).


mythology. Do these consumers of mythology take it to be only literally true? Here too, there is a mixture of reality and unreality, of entertainment with mythology, of ambiguity (Willis 1967; Turner 1979). One can see this in rituals that involve masking, where the masked figure personifies the ambiguity of the person underneath the mask and the spirit that is the mask. Participation in a masked performance, as in the ST universe, often involves pretending, but ut- terly serious pretending (Lessa and Vogt 1979:414).

"Play is serious business," as Victor Turner says about ritual and "liminality" among the Ndembu in central Africa. Turner speaks of how play and seriousness have become separated in "industrial" societies, how different "spheres" have been constructed out of the separation of economics, religion, politics, and the domestic. In this process, "meaning, commitment, and symbolism [become] centered on consumption, play and leisure" ( 1984:334). ST fandom, I believe, is an example of play and ritual coming back together, back to their 4'natural" condition of coexistence and ambiguity.

THE STIGMA OF FAdJDOM

Religious movements often have a sense of being persecuted or looked down upon because of their zealousness. And indeed, there is a stigma associated with ST fandom. The stigma is quite real and is one of the most controversial aspects of the phenomenon. Disclaimers on the part of fans that they are not "hardcore" fans are common. Many (if not most) fans want to distance themselves from a segment of fans that they believe to have gone "too far" in their fan activities. There is a "lore" surrounding the most fanatic ST fans, among both fans and nonfans and among the staff of the show. This belief got its most well known encouragement from William Shatner's Saturday Night Live "Get a life!" skit. Jonathan Frakes, who plays Riker on TNG, said on the Arsenio Hall show that some Trek fans are "a little weird," a statement with which actors Wil Wheaton (Wesley Crusher) and John DeLancie ("Q") readily agreed (Uram 1991:22). Both Shatners and Frakes's comments have been controversial, especially the one coming from Shatner, given his position as the iconic Capt. Kirk, and the fact it appeared on SatardWy Night Live, whose fans, I would guess, see themselves as the antithesis of "geeky" ST fans.9 Star Trek director Nicholas Meyer admits "I don't really understand &ndom. I tend to think it's people with too much time on their hands" (Teitelbaum 1991 ).

An astounding 80 percent of fans in one nonscientific poll taken at a con vention said that some fans are "excessively active and devoted." It is believed that these people confuse fiction or entertainment with reality, and neglect "real" issues and sometimes their own material needs in the pursuit of fan activities and memorabilia. Stories are passed around among fans about people who confuse reality with unreality. One person claimed he knew what he called a "Dataite," a fan who would allow no criticism of the character "Data" on TNG.

10 America-On-Line is live because people respond to each other immediately through their computers during a set time. The USENET newsgroup is similar to a bulletin-board system in which messages are posted, to be read and responded to anytime within a few days.


Some argue (Amesley 1989) that there are no real "hardcore" fans out there, that it was all an invention of the media. Yet one local fan I met read Amesley's comment and disagreed with it, claiming that she herself was a hardcore fan. And in the introduction to a live discussion group (called Starfleet Academy) on the America-On-Line computer service,10 the moderator of the group defended their reputation:

A "cool" dude whose screen name won't be revealed here once beamed aboard the Starfleet Academy and, after a few minutes, decided that we were all "nerds." Perhaps we are. Perhaps the true definition of a nerd is someone who enjoys the new and unusual and isn't afraid to let his or her hair down, take on the personality of an alien race and theorize about the future and what's really out in the great beyond.

ST elicits this type of controversy because, I believe, it exists in the liminal area between entertainment and seriousness. Nonfans sense the "seriousness" of Star Trek when they witness fandom activities and react against it because they believe it should remain totally in the realm of entertainment. That people take it seriously offends them. ST fans, on the other hand, want to be respected and understood, and want their devotion to be recognized as legitimate. I believe it is in this interplay between "seriousness and diversion," a common feature of religion (Lessa and Vogt 1979:414), that we see the roots of the tension over ST, its fandom and the general public.

Whether serious ST fandom is becoming culturally acceptable is not certain. Over 50 percent of Americans now say they are fans, but since ST has its roots in an entertainment medium there are likely going to be fans who resent those who take it more seriously, who "transport" themselves to the ST universe through viewing it, discussing it, attending conventions and belonging to fan groups. Were it not for the stigma, we would probably see even higher attendance at conventions and in fan clubs.

CONCLUSION

Is Star Trek fandom a religion, or at least a religious phenomenon? Recently, academics have been exploring different definitions of religion, prompted by the growth of new religions and "quasi-religions." ST fandom does not seem to fit the more restrictive, substantive definition of religion that posits belief in a deity or in the supernatural. It does, however, have some commonalties with broader definitions of religion that come under the rubric "quasi-religions," such as Alcoholics Anonymous and New Age groups. These organizations "ride the fence between the sacred and secular" (Greil and Rudy 1990:221), between religion and nonreligion. The religious content varies according to whom in the movement one talks, and how involved they are.


These new religions often have "no stable organization, canonized dogmas, recruitment system, or disciplining apparatus" (Luckmann 1991:178). They tend to be more therapeutically-oriented, qualifying as "Identity Transformation Organizations" (ITOs), which "encourage adherents to undergo radical shifts in worldview and identity" (Greil and Rudy 1990:226-27). This element is less ex- plicit in ST fandom, but it is there. George Takei (who played Sulu in TOS), one of the more popular convention speakers, usually gives an inspirational-type speech detailing the history of ST and fandom, how they both show the potential of humankind and help inspire people to get their lives together and make career decisions. "For the believer 'Star Trek Lives' is more than a slogan of a TV show that would not die. It is the ritual cry to a world where he belongs, where he has it all together. STAR TREK offers the comfort of religion" (Tyre 1977:717). The Nietzschean turn toward oneself as the source of hope can be found throughout our "therapeutic" society (Reiff 1966; Bellah et al. 1985), and ST fandom is one manifestation of this.

ST fandom, however, differs in some significant ways from the quasi-religions described above. It is more organized than many of these other groups. ST fandom may not have a disciplining apparatus (outside of"flaming" someone on the computer nets), but it does have an organization, dogmas, a low-key recruitment system, and a "canon." The appeal of many of the above groups tends to be limited to certain segments of society. ST fandom cuts across class, gender, and ethnicity more than many other quasi-religions. Fans come both from working- class and academic and professional backgrounds (though what they like about the show often differs). Even though there is a stigma associated with serious fandom, ST does provide a certain commonality and unity of purpose for a wide variety of people.

Indeed, I would argue that ST fandom has strong elements of a "civil religion." Robert Bellah, who popularized the notion of a civil religion, calls it "an understanding of the American experience in the light of ultimate and universal reality" (1974:40) that seeks to become a world civil religion, which is exactly what we seem to have in the assimilationist, homogeneous Earth of twenty- fourth century Star Trek. A civil religion is a "generalizing" of religious belief necessary to have an integrated society, as a counter to "pluralizing" trends that divide society (Tschannen 1991:400). The generalized beliefs involved in ST fandom consist, as detailed above, in putting faith in science, humanity and a positive future. Much of science fiction in general displays the same beliefs, func- tioning "rather like a new civil religion, legitimating anthropocentric attitudes and providing compensators for the alien sterility of the physical world," a pri- mary example being the interesting career of science fiction writer-therapist-religious leader L. Ron Hubbard and his Church of Scientology (Bainbridge 1987:60).

For many fans of popular culture, organized religion seemingly has less relevance, partially hecause they perceive it not as forward looking but as backward looking. Exceptions are, of course, to be found among millennial denominations that speak in specific terms about the future. But for the bulk of the population whose relation to organized religion is more nominal, mainline denominations are often seen either as status-quo and backward looking, or perhaps concerned


too much with present-day politics to provide any real meaning for the future. Americans are traditionally forward looking, and it is events like the space race that animate them. ST fandom embodies this idealism and offers fans reasons to hope.

ST fandom does not have the thoroughgoing seriousness of established religions, but it is also not mere entertainment. This interplay of seriousness and entertainment, I argue, is a sign of its vitality. The communities, both symbolic and geographic, that are formed by ST fandom are evidence of the ongoing sacralization of elements of our modernist culture that express hope in the future. It is a phenomenon that relates to deep-seated American beliefs about the nature of humankind, the world and its future, and encourages the practices that parallel religious processes of codifying, forming a community and developing . . . . . . nstltutlons to gUlC e ltS praCtlCeS.

REFERENCES Alexander, D. 1991. 'tGene Roddenberry." Humanist (March/April):5-38. Amesley, C. 1989. "How to watch Star Trek." Cultural Studies 3:323-39. Asad, T. 1983. UAnthropological conceptions of religion." Man 18:237-59. Asherman, A. 1989. The Star Trek Compendium (updated). New York: Pocket Books. Bacon-Smith, C. 1992. Entetprising Women. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bainbridge, W. 1987. "Science and religion," pp. 59-79 in D. Bromley and P. Hammond (eds.),

The Future of New Religious Movements. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. Bellah, R. 1974 [1967]. "Civil religion in America," pp. 21-44 in R. Richey and D. Jones (eds.),

American Civil Religion. New York: Harper & Row. , R. Madsen, W. Sullivan, A. Swidler, S. Tipton. 1985. Habits of the Heart. Berkeley:

University of California Press. Blair, K. 1977. Mearung in Star Trek. Chambersburg, PA: Anima. Blumenberg, H. 1983. The Legitimacy of the Modern Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Claus, P. 1976. UA structuralist appreciation of Star Trek," pp. 15-31 in W. Arens and S.

Montague (eds.), The AmeTican Dimension. Port Washington, NY: Alfred. Cohen, A. P. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Commuruty. London: Tavistock. Dolgin, J. and J. Magdoff. 1977. "The invisible event," pp. 351S63 in J. Dolgin, D. Kemnitzer, and

D. Schneider. (eds.), Symbolic Anthropology. New York: Columbia University Press. Eliade, M. 1958. Patterns in Camparative Religion. New York: Meridian. Gerrold, D. 1984 [1973]. The World of Star Trek. New York: Bluejay Books. Greil, A. and D. Rudy. 1990. uOn the margins of the sacred," pp. 219-32 in T. Robbins and D.

Anthony (eds.), In Gods We Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Hark, I. R. 1919. "Star Trek and television's moral universe." Extrapolation 20(1):30-37. Hobsbawm, E. 1979 [19591. "Millenarianism," pp. 440 44 in Lessa and Vogt, q.v. Irwin, W. and G. B. Love (eds.). 1978. The Best of "Trek" vol. 1. New York: Signet.

. 1990. The Best of the Best of Trek. New York: ROC Press. Jenkins, H. 1988. bStar TTek rerun, reread, rewritten." C7itical Studies in Mass Communication

5(2):85-107. . 1991. gIf I could speak with your sound." Camera Obscura 23(May):149 76. . 1992. TetuAl Poachos. New York: Routledge.

Jewett, R. and ). S. I>wrence. 1988. The American Manomyi. Landham, MD: University Press of America.


Kakutani, M. 1992. "Novelists make a literary lunge into the future." New York Times (Feb.21):B1. Kottak, C. 1990. Prime Time Soaery. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Kreuziger, F. 1986. The Religion of Science Fiction. Bowling Green, OH: Popular Press. Lasch, C. 1991. The True and Orlly Heaven. New York: Norton. Lash, S. and J. Friedman (eds.). 1992. Mode7ruty and Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Leerhsen, C- 1986. UStar Trek's nine lives." Newsweek (Dec. 26):66-73. Lessa, W. and E. Vogt. 1979. Reader in Cornparative Religion, 4th ed. New York: Harper & Row. Levi-Strauss, C. 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lichtenberg, J., S. Marshak, and J. Winston. 1975. Star Trek Lives! New York: Bantam. Luckmann, T. 1991. "Religion old and new," pp. 167-82 in P. Bourdieu and J. Coleman (eds.),

Social Theory in a Changeng Soaety. Boulder, C. Westview. MacCannell. D. 1989 [19761. The Tounst. New York: Schocken. Meyer, N. 1991. "Star Trek." Ornni 14 (3).48-5 1 . NYT. 1992. "Another final frontier." New York Times (Mar. 3):A6. Okuda, M. and D. Okuda. 1993. Star Trek Chronology. New York: Pocket Books. Paikert, C. 1991. "Special report on Star Trek." Variety (Dec. 2):49ff. Paulson. S. 1991. "Free enterprise." Isthmus. Madison, WI (Sept. 27). Penley, C. 1992. "Feminism, psychoanalysis, and popular culture," pp. 479-94 in L. Grossberg, C.

Nelson, and P. Treichler (eds.), Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge. Pohl, F. 1989. "Astounding story." American Heritage 40 (Sept./Oct.):42-54. Pouillion, ). 1982. "Remarks on the verb 'to believe'," pp. 1-8 in M. Izard and P. Smith (eds.),

Between Belief and Transgression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reiff, P. 1966. The Triumph of the Therapeutic. New York: Harper & Row. Selley, A. 1990. "Transcendentalism in Star Trek: The Next Generation." Journal of Arnerican

Culture 13:31-34. Swatos, W. H., Jr. 1983. "Enchantment and disenchantment in modernity." Sociological Analysis

44:321-38. Teitelbaum, S. 1991. "Nicholas Meyer." Cinefantastique (Dec.):24-34. Thompson, K. 1990. "Secularization and sacralization," pp. 161-81 in J. Alexander and P.

Sztompka (eds.), RetSiinking Progress. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Trimble, B. 1983. On the Good Ship Enterprise. Norfolk, VA: Donning. Trouillot, M.-R. 1991. "Anthropology and the savage slot," pp. 17-44 in R. Fox (ed.), Recapturing

Anthropology. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research. Tschannen, O. 1991. "The secularization paradigm." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

30:395-415. Turner, V. 1984. Process, Perfonnance, and Pilgrimage. New Delhi: Concept. Tyre, W. B. 1917. "Star Trek as myth and television as myth maker." Joumal of Popular Culture

10:71 1-19. Uram, S. 1991. "A trek cruise down memory lane." Cinefantastique (Dec.):19-22. Van Hise, J. 1990. The Trek Fan's Handbook. Las Vegas: Pioneer Books.

. 1991. Trek: 25th Anmsersary Celebration. Las Vegas: Pioneer Books. Willis, R. G. 1967. "The head and the loins," pp. 197-206 in Lessa and Vogt, q.v.

Documents

Star Trek Fandom as a Religious Phenomenon