University Writing Program

Home / Write Now! / 2018-2019 / Jacob Knauer / Soldiers on the Street

Soldiers on the Street

How Insecurity Can Justify Authoritarianism

by Jacob Knauer

Lens Essay | UWS 15b: Utopias/Dystopias | Hannah Jung | Spring 2019

About this paper | This paper as PDF : MLA Format

We often hope our government provides us with security, but what happens when this security is in question? How much do we justify our government’s power to make us feel safe? In Star Trek: Deep Space 9, the episodes “Homefront” and “Paradise Lost” illustrate a situation in which their government is faced with these same questions about how far it should go to guarantee security, and in doing so, the episodes reveal the ease with which a dictatorship can not only arise but be justified. Hobbes’s principle founding text of political philosophy, Leviathan, may provide us some clues to understand how and why this is the case. Indeed, Hobbes provides us the basis for examining these Star Trek episodes, in which we can discover not only that fear justifies authoritarianism, but how insidiously fear is related to questions of security and insecurity.

Before any other analysis, it is illustrative to compare the historical context of Hobbes’ writings to that of the Star Trek: Deep Space 9 episodes “Homefront” and “Paradise Lost.” In many ways, Hobbes’s writing of the Leviathan comes as a response to the political insecurity of England in the mid-1600s. During this time, civil war broke out in England, pitting those in support of the Monarchy against those in support of the Parliament. Throughout his writings, Hobbes is in complete support of Monarchy, and he believes assemblies like Parliament correspond with the risk of civil war (101). In many ways, his writing in Leviathan can be interpreted as a philosophical justification for governments with unlimited power, especially Monarchy. Within the context of the Star Trek episodes, Earth has been at peace for nearly hundreds of years. The ruling body, the Federation, has kept the peace, but in this context believes Earth to be under threat of invasion by the Dominion: a species of shape-shifters named “Changelings” (“Homefront” 22:29). The major difference between these two contexts is that in one, Hobbes had witnessed a descent into insecurity as a result of civil war and wrote his Leviathan in large part as a response, while the Federation is starting from a place of security but gaining anticipation that this may be lost. So, Hobbes’ writings can be interpreted as a description of how political institutions are justified and should be shaped towards the goal of maintaining security. Perhaps it is precisely because of the Federation’s longstanding peace that they attempt to control and minimize risks to their security. In this way, Hobbes’s rationalizations for how political institutions can maintain security provide a framework to understand the episodes’ development of the Federation’s response to the growing Changeling threat.

Hobbes builds his political philosophy on a foundation of addressing insecurity, which can be seen in fear’s central role to the thought experiment of the State of Nature. Hobbes believes in a form of equality in the sense that any person is capable of being killed by any other (99). In his thought experiment, he imagines a time when all people are just among each other in nature without any kind of government or society. He imagines that primarily people will be interested in protecting themselves, even if it is at the expense of others. But in knowing everyone else is equally capable, everybody also lives in a state of fear that others might subject them to their whims. As a result, Hobbes believes “there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain,” no place for “culture,” commodities, art, society and only “continual fear, and danger of violent death” (102). It can be seen that in the presence of others in the state of nature, one cannot feel secure that the future will leave their livelihood, of any form, intact; they fear the change and danger others may bring upon them. Indeed, wherever fear is concerned in a political context, Hobbes believes a form of insecurity of this kind is the source. And so, to address fear, security must be established.

To Hobbes, the best guarantee of security comes from the formation of a commonwealth, with a Sovereign at its head. Hobbes believes that people will first seek peace, then if necessary defend themselves, and in pursuit of both of these things people form a “social contract.” This creates some common authority and an agreement to lay down one’s right to everything and instead follow the laws of this common authority which is designated the Sovereign, whose goals it is to prevent conflict. Hobbes believes “if there be no “power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art for caution against all other men” (133). Explicit in this social contract is an agreement to obey the Sovereign as long as security is established, and that the Sovereign must be able to have unlimited power to be able to command complete obedience. Implicit is that while Hobbes is loath to say people have any right to change government, if security is lacking, people looking to re-establish security may try to change or overthrow the Sovereign. Interestingly, Hobbes believes that while the existence of a Sovereign prevents the state of nature within their realm, this state of nature still exists between Sovereigns (103). Essentially, the presence of other countries is an issue of insecurity. To Hobbes, only a Sovereign with unlimited power has the capabilities of protecting their subjects from internal and external insecurity, which is only possible through the complete obedience of its subjects.

However, security is not an objectively measurable feature, but a subjectively charged interpretation of evidence to constitute a risk of danger, and in this way is related to fear. It is this particular role of the government to address fears that is featured in the Star Trek episodes. After gaining suspicions of a Dominion threat to Earth, Sisko is called back by Leyton, and together with Odo, a changeling allied with the Federation, they go to persuade the President to adopt security measures. In the scene where Sisko and Leyton confront the president, Odo is disguised as a briefcase while the other two make their case for blood testing and phaser sweeps (which purportedly reveal changelings). The President is apprehensive about such invasive measures, but only after Odo appears suddenly is it that he finally agrees (“Homefront” 20:59). Indeed the President only changes his mind when Odo’s sudden appearance demonstrates the fear that infiltration is quite possible. As a preventative measure, it doesn’t matter whether or not any changelings have actually infiltrated, but that there is nothing to stop them if they do. As Odo’s sudden appearance reveals, support for such preventative measures arises through demonstrations that utilize fear. And from a Hobbesian perspective, it is natural that the government must have unlimited power so that it can adopt any and all preventative measures to guarantee security. Indeed, Hobbes’s justifications for the unlimited power of the government center on minimizing risks preemptively, only being justified to the extent that people fear a risk to exist.

Relatedly, Hobbes believes only Monarchy to be the best suited government towards being able to completely guarantee security. While Hobbes believes Monarchy aligns the public interest with the monarch’s own private interests (which is arguable at best), he points to one of its greatest strengths: lack of dissention and the constancy of decisions. In any form of assemblies, Hobbes notes that the decision making process is split, so that opinions are divided. He argues this leaves open the possibility of a conflict in the Sovereign, whereas a Monarch’s decision is final. Even if a decision is reached in an assembly, it may simply be overturned in the future, while a Monarch would be more consistent in decision making (149). This Hobbesian argument holds sway in democratic countries despite its anti-democratic roots simply because wherever security is concerned, an assembly is seen as inefficient and transitive, while something more resembling a Monarchy may be more receptive. Indeed, in many countries the executive branch in charge of matters of executing laws and war is often headed by a single person. The same form of government is present in Star Trek where even though Sovereignty is in the Federation, its executive powers are in one leader and in that way resemble a Monarchy.

The threat of the Dominion creates an opportunity for Leyton to manufacture a sense of insecurity, and concurrently use this fear to justify a greater centralized power in the Federation through the installment of a military dictatorship with himself as head. Leyton works to manufacture a crisis in which a world-wide blackout occurs, so that as before, he could demonstrate risk of insecurity to the world in much the same way as the earlier scene with Odo and the President (“Paradise Lost” 13:48). In this, he lays the groundwork for his own ascension to de facto dictatorship, in which he plans to use this insecurity to justify forcible military control of the planet and its leadership, overthrowing or disposing of the President in the process. Sisko learns of much of this, and Leyton feels compelled to explain that “if that’s what it takes to stop the Dominion” he will place Earth under military rule (“Paradise Lost” 18:56). Leyton exploits what is, in essence, a logical loophole in Hobbes’s philosophy. If the relationship between the Federation and the Dominion is like that between Sovereigns in the state of nature, there is inherently insecurity between them. While the Federation has a balance of power between its assembly and executive branch, this power appears inadequate to deal with the Dominion threat precisely because Leyton managed to manufacture a scenario (the blackout) in which the Federation is powerless. Leyton exploits a Hobbesian understanding of government that says it is the government’s responsibility to address these risks through unlimited power, which means bypassing the legal framework of the Federation as a democratic assembly with a President to instead becoming a military dictatorship, a de facto Monarchy.

Even though Leyton wishes to change the Sovereign, there is no recourse in a Hobbesian framework to stop him (even despite Hobbes’s own disagreement with changing the Sovereign). Hobbes would find it questionable that Leyton manufactured a crisis, yet could not reject that such a crisis still demonstrated that an insecurity needed to be addressed. Leyton continues to exploit a Hobbesian understanding of the social contract as obedience when he argues for Sisko to obey his orders and respect him as “without the chain of command, Starfleet would cease to function and we wouldn't stand a chance against our enemies” (“Paradise Lost” 20:05). To obey Leyton would seem to be right for guaranteeing security, yet also questionable for the ends of changing the government. Leyton’s intentions need not be about guaranteeing security but instead about grabbing power for himself. In essence, there is nothing to distinguish in a Hobbesian understanding between whether Leyton was genuine in attempting to address a security threat, or simply wishing to obtain power through a manufactured crisis. For Leyton, the result is the same: a subversion of the Federation, and himself installed as the leader, a Sovereign.

Understanding how Hobbes’s thinking is central to Leyton’s actions and justifications reveals a very real and plausible scenario in world governments today. Hobbes’s perspective prioritizes addressing fear through means of security is not an inherently problematic line of thinking, but it creates a propensity for extreme solutions, especially if this fear can be shown (or manufactured) to be justified by some demonstrated insecurity. Notice that in the Star Trek episode after the blackout, the introduction of soldiers on the streets makes people feel safer (“Paradise Lost” 16:41). Even if the fear is manufactured, Hobbes’s reasoning is that people will hand over their rights as long as the Sovereign promises to demonstrate security. Indeed, in the Star Trek episode, despite martial law, the people are in support of soldiers on the streets. Not only are military coups and a descent into authoritarian dictatorship viable as a result of fear, they are viable precisely because through fear people look for the government to demonstrate its power in attaining security. People support authoritarian leaders because it seems reasonable as a guarantee of security. Even if from the outside we find the fear of insecurity unjustified, overblown, or even based on outright falsehood, from within a society these actions appear reasonable. Indeed, the Star Trek episodes not only posit this dynamic, but utilize the function of the narrative to push the viewer through the very same motions, where Leyton’s actions appear reasonable up until the point we learn they were based on a manufactured crisis. The danger of fear is that authoritarianism seems reasonable in all steps of its entrenchment if it is not exposed as such.

While a Hobbesian understanding alone is incapable of judging Leyton’s actions, Sisko voices a firm critique based on some Hobbesian premises. At one point, Sisko is confronted by a changeling who gloats about the chaos that Leyton is introducing in his efforts to gain power (“Paradise Lost” 21:49). Odo had previously warned that the Dominion would attempt to subvert institutions however they could (“Homefront” 36:39), and it appears that while Leyton’s efforts on the surface appear to be about increasing security, the underlying result is that his actions would lead to destabilization. Hobbes argues that if people cannot trust their sovereign to remain the same — to exist, in the case of Star Trek, as the Federation, rather than a military dictatorship — then they will feel insecure as a result. Sisko voices this criticism of Leyton’s ends most prominently in his final encounter with Leyton, saying, “Do you think other Federation worlds are going to sit back and let the President be replaced by a military dictatorship?” After Leyton acknowledges there will be dissenters, Sisko rebukes, “What then? Are you willing to risk a civil war?” (“Paradise Lost” 34:38). Sisko’s argument that Leyton’s plan to change the Sovereign risks destabilization draws upon the same idea as Hobbes: that military coups introduce insecurity and factionalism, leaving the people to choose sides or lose trust in their government completely. To Hobbes, this scenario collapses into a state of war. Sisko articulates the paradox in Leyton’s goals, that while his actions seem to guarantee security, they essentially result in greater risk and insecurity. Hobbes’s writing alone might consider the irrationality but see no recourse but to continue upon Leyton’s path, while Sisko’s critique is that the paradox alone is a good enough reason to reject Leyton’s plan, even if no alternative is voiced.

Through the lens of Hobbes, it is evident how these Star Trek episodes illustrate the ease with which even a peaceful government can descend into authoritarianism. And though the justifications are irrational in the end in the sense of attempting to guarantee security by creating chaos, they seem perfectly reasonable throughout every step of the actual process up to that point. Though this example appears remote, the warning these episodes provide is that even in the most distant of futures, the most perfect of worlds, or the best of governments, there is an easy risk to descend into a kind of dystopian authoritarianism by way of fear. We should be mindful of this today, especially if we wish to understand the rising appeal of authoritarian leaders around the world, and what role fear, manufactured or otherwise, plays even in our own political landscape. Moreover, we must find suitable alternatives to fear, so that we can even have the tools to reject authoritarianism when it arises, even in our own backyard.

Works Cited

“Homefront.” Star Trek: Deep Space 9, 1996.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by Karl Schuhmann, and G. A. J. Rogers, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brandeis-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1749471.

“Paradise Lost.” Star Trek: Deep Space 9, 1996.

About This Paper

Expand All

Original Assignment

In this assignment you will build on the skills we learned from the close reading assignment. This assignment will require you to examine a television episode through the “lens” of a philosophical text. First, we will examine a two-part “Star Trek” episode from the “Deep Space Nine” series. The episodes (Season 4, episodes 11 and 12) “Homefront” and “Paradise Lost” articulate a utopian world in crisis. Second, we will make sense of an excerpt from Thomas Hobbes’ book “Leviathan,” which offers political solutions to a world gripped by fear and selfishness. You may think these two sources are unrelated and, indeed, they are not explicitly designed to go together. The point of this assignment, however, is to use both of the texts to shed light on one another. Put them in conversation with one another.

Here are some things to think about as you consider both sources:

In what ways is the utopia on earth (and the Federation at large) threatened in these episodes?
What is the role of fear in the “Star Trek” episodes and in Leviathan?
What arguments do both sources make about the optimal social structure?
What is the social cost of maintaining a utopian society? Do the means (reinstating a militaristic regime) justify the ends (utopian society)?
How should utopian societies deal with conflict? Does Hobbes account for a way to resolve conflicts in their utopias? Would this conflict resolution work in “Star Trek”?

Your essay needs to strike a balance between summarizing the brief plot details of your episode and creating a clear argument. You should clearly articulate the central ideas of whichever theorist you choose. Your essay will not only be judged on the merit of your original ideas but also on how accurately you represent and make use of the critical text. Even when you disagree with the author, you must explain why you disagree, and that requires you to fully understand the author’s position.

The Writer's Process : Jacob Knauer

Tell us a little bit about how you formulated your argument for your paper. Did your thesis change at all? Did you ever find it hard to work with the prompt? Was your thesis clear from the beginning?

I knew from the start that I wanted to use Hobbes to highlight the “Star Trek” episodes’ depiction of political (in)security, but at first I did not quite know how. Especially since the source material was in video format, I couldn’t think of a neat way of lining up evidence that did not feel shallow. We were given a short assignment to analyze a scene at one point — which ended up being super helpful, because (a) I didn’t feel like I had to fit it in somewhere in some essay I hadn’t written yet, and (b) as a result, I felt like I could just let the evidence speak for itself. I ended up using this process in refining my thesis as I analyzed key scenes and looked for main themes: in my first draft, I placed an emphasis on power, security and authoritarianism. As I researched Hobbes and built my essay I found that my arguments highlighted fear, and into the final draft I made this the central component to my thesis.

Did you know much — if anything — about this topic before you started?

Well, yes and no. I had previously read sections of Hobbes’ “Leviathan” in other classes, and while I felt more comfortable with it than before, his writing is dense. I ended up re-reading the sections provided in class very carefully to try and pick apart the ideas, so the previous background became very helpful. As for “Star Trek,” this was my first exposure! I had never seen pretty much any “Star Trek” media before this assignment, so I ended up working with what I had — a strong background in Hobbes and a cursory glance at “Star Trek.”

What was the most difficult problem that you encountered during the writing process? Did you find a solution, or are you still wrestling with any logistics?

The hardest part is always just getting started. Sometimes it’s easier if there’s a place to jump off from, like a specific theme or an idea or even just a nice piece of evidence. Still, it’s easy to feel a bit lost. Even if I have found a good topic and have a broad outline (sometimes especially if I have already made a broad outline), I find it difficult to start writing, ending up procrastinating and needing to write most of the paper all at once. One thing that I have noticed is that I can get started writing on anything much easier if I have a pencil and paper in front of me instead of a blinking cursor on a screen. Something about that cursor makes me feel like what I write must be good enough to last, even though all I need at that time is just thoughts thrown on paper.

What part of the writing process, or even the final paper, are you most proud of? Do you have a favorite line?

Honestly, it has been some time since I wrote this paper, and I’m struck by the logical flow of how each paragraph builds atop the others. Of course, I would probably write some parts differently if I were given this assignment today (especially to improve clarity). Near the end of the essay, I wrote: “The danger of fear is that authoritarianism seems reasonable in all steps of its entrenchment if it is not exposed as such.” I feel like this really sums the main point of the essay.

How did your instructor help you with your paper? Did he offer any helpful suggestions or guidance?

I remember the conference I had with my instructor was very helpful. At that point my writing was nearing its final stages and we had a long conversation about the ideas being explored in the essay — as well as topics left out. From that conference, I felt like I had a plan for improving and elaborating on a number of paragraphs (including completely rewriting my introduction).

If you could write a longer version of this piece, in which direction would you take it and upon which points would you elaborate? Do you feel yourself returning to any of the subjects that you addressed in this paper in the future?

One of the things that came up in the conference that I regret not finding more space to explore was a small idea which I came across: “(The “Star Trek” episodes) utilize the function of the narrative to push the viewer through the very same motions, where Leyton’s actions appear reasonable up until the point we learn they were based on a manufactured crisis.” A longer version of this piece would likely explore the role of narration and media in general in privileging a particular perspective through the effect of “leading on” the viewer towards adopting a particular standpoint on the issues at hand. Perhaps in the future I will explore this topic in another paper, as it is applicable not only to televised media but to philosophy, novels and really books of any type.

Q&A With the Instructor: Hannah Jung

Had you taught this prompt before? If so, what made you teach it again? If not, how did you arrive at this prompt/subject in particular?

This was my first time teaching this prompt. I was excited about this assignment because the “Star Trek” episode presents a scenario of utopia gone wrong. It shows us how easily fear leads to societal insecurity. Fear and the threat of instability is foundational to Thomas Hobbes’s ideas about the relationship to people and their government. My hope for the class was that they could explore how Hobbes’s ideas about security, leadership and societal panic echo in the narrative we saw in “Star Trek.” Ultimately, Hobbes and “Star Trek” make different arguments about the social contract and the ideal form of government. Instead of specifying Hobbes as the “lens” of this assignment, I encouraged students to use the ideas in both the sources to challenge and shed light on one another.

What did you anticipate as the main challenges of answering such a prompt? Were there any points in which you regretted recommending any texts?

Many students in the class were already quite familiar with the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, which meant that they were already primed for discussion. On some level, this was a boon for our class because I did not have to spend lots of time explaining the text. I was impressed by the student’s ability to engage with complex texts, and I have thought about choosing something more challenging or lesser known in the future.

How was teaching this assignment different from teaching any other assignments in the class? How would you say that your student rose to the challenge of meeting this assignment?

In the previous close-reading assignment, I wanted to challenge the students to really dig into the text, and I therefore only assigned short passages. This assignment gave the students much more content to use in their essays. Jacob came into this class excited to read philosophy, and he excelled at engaging with Hobbes in this assignment. Something that Jacob does really well in this essay is to contextualize both texts so that the reader understands the historical and narrative background. The essay stood out to me because Jacob put the sources in conversation with each other and, in doing so, shows his deep understanding of the material.