The Politics of Doctor Who - Essay Example

?The Politics of Doctor Who Introduction In the television series Doctor Who, there are allegories which correspond to the real world. Some would saythat the show is very political – both Alec Charles and Marc Dipaolo, in their essays listed below, see that the allegories are decidedly liberal and offer a critique for not only the neoconservatives who goaded much of the world into the war wi th Iraq, but also provide critiques for other aspects of conservative politics – such as the corporatism, racism, and pursuit of materialism over the good of the world. However, McKee (2004), who studied fans of the series, found that the series appeals to people in all parts of the political spectrum, and that these fans did not see the series as being political. Therefore, there was a way for each of these fans to read their own political preferences into the series. This essay will examine these three articles. Discussion In the article “War Without End? Utopia, the Family and Post-9/11 World in Russell T. Davies Doctor Who,” author Alec Charles (2008) explains how Dr. Who responds to the contemporary world. One of the major events of the 21st Century was 9/11, and Doctor Who is reflective of this event. In fact, the 9/11 tragedy has been reflected in popular culture, including movies such as The Day After Tomorrow, Cloverfield, I Am Legend, and War of the Worlds. All of these films feature the destruction of New York City as their motif. This has been a trend that has always been popular, explains Charles (2008), as media science fiction has always tried to not only reflect popular trends, but to predict new ones. To be on the cutting edge of a trend, so to speak, while also reflecting what has gone before. As an example of this, Charles (2008) points to Star Trek: The Next Generation, which featured a peace achievement between the Federation and the Klingons’ Evil Empire, which was reflective of the peace that was to occur between the Soviet Union and the rest of the world, at the end of the Cold War. These are a few of the examples of science fiction echoing real life, and commenting upon the political issues of the day, while looking to the future to political issues of tomorrow. It is in this context that Charles (2008) locates Doctor Who. Specifically, the new incarnation of Doctor Who is modern, where the previous version was archaic. The previous version, which ran from 1963-1989, featured an older actor playing the titular role, and the series became outmoded by the end of its run. In the new version, the titular hero is played by a younger man in a leather coat, who shares a kiss with a bisexual male companion, stirring up controversy and locating the series squarely in the 21st Century. This is not the only touch that brings it up to date. The show also features pop cultural references – game shows, reality TV, soap opera, news, music and politics – which puts the individual into a historical context, in that the history that is being referenced is recent history. In fact, the show also exemplifies the axiom put forth by the head show writer, Russell Davies, who believes that there it not “history, there’s just people” (p. 453). Charles (2008) states that this contextualizes Doctor Who, while putting the titular character into the New World Order. Davies has made the show contemporary by not only featuring modern storylines, a modern character, and modern popular culture relics, but also features modern political concerns. This is what ties the show to the post 9/11 culture. It is a feature of the post 9/11 culture that there is, or was, a concern regarding chemical weapons that might be used against citizens of the West. To this end, Doctor Who has featured direct storylines that echo this concern about chemical weapons, as well as our concern regarding internment tactics. These are not the only allusions to popular and current events. Other references concern whether America is at war with Europe – In “Voyage of the Damned” (2007) an alien species comes down to ask if America is at war with Germany, France and England, and Dr. Who states that one could argue about whether or not this is the case. Considering how America, at least conservative America, tends to treat European practices with such contempt, it is arguable that America might be at war with these countries. There is another reference which is more indirect, in “The Christmas Invasion” (2005) regarding Prime Minister Blair and his fatigued appearance during the Malvinas Conflict in 1982 – in this case, the allegory for the conflict is that the British Prime Minister orders the destruction of a defeated spaceship, and the Doctor states that the Prime Minister “looks tired” (p. 454). Moreover, Doctor Who is also reflective, according to Charles (2008) of the idea of a New World Order that would be created on earth after the destruction of the planet. This, too, is allegorical. The destruction of the planet and the rebuilding reflects what occurred in 9/11. Then, there was an attempt by the United States and other Western Country to “rebuild” in a sense, after “destroying” Iraq. The thought was that, after Iraq was destroyed, and Hussein was deposed, that we could rebuild the area as a flowering of democracy. A Utopia, so to speak. However, we ended up doing more harm than good in the area. We broke it, but did not rebuild it, so Utopia never flourished there. The Doctor Who’s storylines also reflect this. After the planet is destroyed in Doctor Who, in “New Earth” (2006) what replaced the planet was worse than what came before. Human vivisection, drug trafficking and traffic gridlock marked the beginning of this New World Order, and the human species had been reduced to bloodthirsty and subhuman creatures. Anarchy prevails. Charles (2008) argues that this is parallel to the post war reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. What happened there is that the region has descended into chaos, and peace and democracy – the “Utopia” that was sought by the people in the Doctor Who episode – has turned into a dystopia instead. The series also introduces people who seem to have the best of intentions – what Charles (2008) refers to as “philanthropic fundamentalists” (p. 456), as people who induce the dystopia by their attempts to reconstruct the world in the image that they imagine. Charles (2008) implies that there is little difference between the neoconservatives and the jihadists in this regard – each of these groups see a world that is perfect in their own minds, and use force to make the world over into this image. Doctor Who has such characters in the show – religious zealots (Doctor’s Daughter, 2008) and headmasters who want to make over the world (School Reunion, 2006), and end up making the world dystopian. Charles (2008) makes the point that one person’s utopia is another’s dystopia, therefore the attempts to make over the world in one’s own image will never result in a utopia for all. The jihadists have a vision for the world that is very different than what the Western version of Utopia would be. Likewise, the Western version of Utopia would involve making the Middle East into its own image of how a society should be, and this vision would surely be dystopian to them. This is shown in Doctor Who, as the show emphasizes that fundamentalism may only lead to endless war. Charles (2008) would argue that Doctor Who is political, in a sense, in that it presents allegories to our present political situations, while locating the series itself in our contemporary times through the use of popular cultural references and sly references to actual events. This would mean that the series shows that it is timely and contemporary, which presumably make the allegories that it presents more realistic to the viewing audience. McKee (2004) agrees that the show is political, but that its message is not homogeneous. Charles (2008) sees the show as more of a political protest against the West’s interference in the Middle East, showing that the people who instigated that conflict are no better than the ones who attacked New York City on 9/11. Thus, in Charles’ (2008) view, the show is a direct attack against the neoconservatives, who are the leaders behind the United States and Britain’s invasion of Iraq. However, McKee (2004) sees the show as being more a show that is a show that is reflective of anybody’s politics, because people from every direction of the political spectrum see different things in the series. The Liberal Democrats of the UK see the series, and think that the series speaks to them, because the Doctor believes in interfering with societies only to stop people from harming one another. Moreover, there are other messages that are in the show that speak to them – tolerance messages, messages about ecological warnings and the way that totalitarianism is attacked. McKee (2004) studied the fans of the show, however, and found that the fans came from a range of political backgrounds – from the extreme right wing to the moderate left wing to the Green political party. McKee (2004) asked the fans who Doctor Who might vote for in the last British election. Most of the people polled said that the Doctor would not vote for anybody at all – that politics would not be his thing. Another question was who the Doctor would be fighting for. The interviewees saw the Doctor as fighting more for the individual than for any one political project, and that he is reactive, not proactive. This means that he responds to events, and does not create them. The interviewees did not see the Doctor as being political, at all. Because of this, audiences from across the political spectrum enjoy the show, as it does not explicitly insult any one person from a particular political persuasion. Where Charles (2008) sees the show as being political, in the sense that it indirectly indicts the neoconservatives who rushed several countries into war with Iraq, McKee (2004) sees the show differently, and states that the audience does not think that the show indicts any one political group, because the doctor himself is explicitly non-political. This would mean that the people of different politics may see themselves in the show, and would be able to interpret the show according to his or her own individual values system. This may all be compared and contrasted to Marc Edward Dipaolo’s essay titled “Political Satire and British American Relations in Five Decades of Doctor Who” (2010). DiPaolo (2010) sees that the show is more in the vision of Charles’ essay, which argues that the show, in essence, portrays a liberal ethos, indirectly, as it criticizes the neo-conservatives in subtle ways. DiPaolo (2010) states that the liberal ethos is more direct and deliberate, because the writers for the show have been, by and large, people with liberal outlooks on life. These liberals have used the show, and the political allegories, to extend their agendas into the audience. For instance, as Charles (2008) shows, some of the characters are the type who are “shoot first, ask questions later” – the people on the show want to kill aliens, instead of trying to negotiate with them. In other episodes, such as one episode called “The Caves of Androzani,” (1984), the villains are greedy corporate moguls who bear the responsibility for the violence in the Middle East. The conflict in the Middle East keeps the price of oil high, which is good for these corporate moguls on this episode. Moreover, keeping the people buying guns is also good for corporations. The corporations who produce and market guns and oil stand to profit from the Middle East’s conflicts, so says this episode, therefore these corporations want to keep the conflicts going. The modern incarnation of Doctor Who, argues DiPaolo (2010), continues this liberal tradition. This is because of the politics of Russell Davies. The Doctor Who has messages regarding corporate polluting of the environment, against a media which fosters a “hawkish, commercialized culture of ignorance and regularly attacks American President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for their imperialist policies” (p. 971). However, Davies also skewers other elements of our popular culture – one episode, titled “Rose” (2005) deals with a girl who wants to watch television while the world is at war around her. Another episode (“The End of the World, 2006) deals with the ethos and ubiquity of plastic surgery, as an episode deals with a woman who murders a tree to pay for her next round of cosmetic enhancement. The message is that the humans, especially Americans, as so concerned with trivialities – plastic surgery, television programs, fast food and the like – that they cannot be made to care about the world around them, including the fact that the world is heating up and that there are ecological disasters in the making. And, in an anti-corporatist episode which echoes the “Caves of Androzani” episode of the earlier incarnation of Doctor Who, the new Doctor Who features an episode in which a greedy billionaire owns the cure for the common cold, but will not distribute it to the people, because the man is making too much money off of selling palliatives. Still another episode features a liberal ethos - “Midnight.” This episode is allegorical, and is used to show how our society is stupid, racist and paranoid – an alien attacks a tourist shuttle, and the people on the shuttle almost murder Doctor Who because he is different. The allegory here is undeniable – just like our society treats Muslims like all of them are terrorists, so these people treat Doctor Who like a criminal because he is different from them. DiPaolo (2010) states that these episodes specifically make fun of American public policy, or provide a critique for the policy and the people of America. Other episodes continue this critique, such as the episodes featuring the Daleks as zealots with blind allegiance to their leader (“Dalek,” 2007). This was seen as an allegory for the religious zealots of America who revered President Bush as a type of Messiah. Conclusion Although the study by McKee (2004) states that the fans of the series Doctor Who do not see the show as being political, it is evident that the show is political and offers a specific critique for a specific political point. Namely, that corporatism above all else is bad, as is the fact that we rape our environment, and pursue materialistic things while the world around us burns. The series also critiques the neoconservative view that we need to impose our vision of the world on the rest of the world, whether they want that or not. Racism, especially against Muslims, is another avenue that the series explores. This series is effective in delivering these critiques, as it does it with imagination, insight and humor, and updates the stories so that they are relevant to the audiences of today. Bibliography Charles, Alec. “War Without End? Utopia, the Family and the Post-9/11 World in Russell T. Davies’ ‘Doctor Who,’” Science Fiction Studies 35.3: 450-465. DiPaolo, Marc. “Political Satire and British-American Relations in Five Decades of Doctor Who.” The Journal of Popular Culture 43.5 (2010): 964-987. McKee, Alan. “Is Doctor Who Political?” European Journal of Cultural Studies 7.2 (2004): 201-217. Read More