Doctor
Who: an incredibly popular, British science fiction TV show, with
a cult following. The protagonist is a humanoid alien time traveller,
who is an ardent Anglophile. He saves the world via his intellect,
rather than with brute power.
Marxism:
a political theory, mainly drawn from Karl Marx’s ,
but also Friedrich Engel’s political philosophy. Marxism, as well
as an ideology, is also a method socio-economic analysis of class
struggle in world society.
Whovian:
anyone who is an ardent fan of Doctor
Who.
Marxist
literary criticism is something which is usually applied to the
Bard’s work. However, why can’t a Marxist critique be applied to
something more current? Whilst as Marxism per
se is no longer in vogue, the
Marxist critique certainly is. However, if Marxism is a credible
method of analysing society, can’t one analyse the current dominant
form of creative entertainment, that is to say television, utilising
such a viewpoint? I think so, for if Marxism truly is dead, then it
can only assess the past, rather than the now.
And
Doctor Who
is very, very now. Actually, it is timeless.
Okay, okay, I apologise for the Whovian jokes. However, as it has
been on television for over fifty years, and as the Christmas special
will air on BBC1 on December 25th,
doesn’t it warrant a philosophical analysis? The answer, of course,
is self-evident.
Now,
my dear reader, please allow me to analyse the protagonist first. He,
like Karl Marx, is Anglo-centric and an Anglophile (The similarities
are quite interesting, both were exiled from their home, and both
chose London as their base to change, and save, the world). Doctor
Who is a very British piece of
science fiction. Most of the plots revolve around Britain, and most
alien invasions occur in London (Why the writers think that aliens
want to spearhead their invasion from a small island in the north of
the northern hemisphere is beyond me). Thus, it is quite obvious that
the Doctor himself has many peculiar British traits.
He
really, really does. However, these peculiarities are confined in
class. The Doctor is representative, in all of his incarnations, of
an eccentric, upper class, British public school educated chap. Not
only is he representative of this, he is also a polymath, adept at
problem solving. Well versed in literature, the classics,
astrophysics and philosophy, he quotes Shakespeare better than
Patrick Stewart at the Globe, and his understanding of time makes
Stephen Hawking look like Joey Essex.
Dedicated
Whovians will argue that Christopher Ecclestone has a northern
accent; however, they are merely southern accent Chauvanists with no
understanding that said actor is a well spoken Yorkshireman. Also,
they may argue that a Time Lord would have such knowledge: I would
argue that Doctor Who is a construct – he is merely a character!
His speech, knowledge and mannerisms are imbued with that of a
British aristocrat, and very few, if any, references are made by him
about the working classes.
Furthermore,
Doctor Who is stridently patriarchal. If you forgive the pun, time
and time again, it is a man who
solves the science, it is the man who dominates the relationship with
his companions, it is the man who, almost always saves the day.
Conversely, his companions (almost always female) seem to be resolved
to screaming, seemingly as high pitched as possible, for his help.
Why wouldn’t a humanoid alien be a woman – or even genderless? Is
it that hard to imagine? It seems quite obvious that Doctor
Who merely reflects the society’s
values of its time.
However,
and there is almost always a ‘however’, Doctor
Who has changed with the times. It
is best to view Doctor Who
within two different time frames: pre 1989 and post 2005 (we shall
forget the 1996 film, for sake of argument). Russel T Davies, though
Oxford educated and British, is openly homosexual. Given the changing
attitude towards homosexuality during this period in British society,
it was almost natural that a gay writer would reflect this in his
writing.
Thus,
Doctor Who
became gay friendly! This fact is epitomised with the advent of the
character Captain Jack Harkness: the first non-heterosexual character
in the whole of Doctor Who (interestingly, British society, which is
far less religious than its American cousin gave birth to a gay
friendly Sci-Fi, whilst Star Trek is sorely lagging behind). Jack
Harkness is a very interesting character; though white, good looking
and an atypical alpha male, he is openly bisexual, and proud of it.
This would have been unthinkable in 1963, with William Hartnell, an
elderly avuncular, asexual Doctor in the role.
Furthermore,
the post 2005 series has an interesting class
difference with the pre 1989 shows; the companions are far more
working class, especially Rose Tyler. She is representative of an
honest, down to earth, exploited proletarian. Without the Doctor’s
Gallifreyan first galaxy privilege, she wouldn’t be able to
self-actualise as a human. As her life would have been bogged down
with work, her ill-educated proletarian boyfriend, and poverty, she
wouldn’t have been able to display her better qualities.
However,
she does
get to show them – she has the tenacity and foresight to defeat the
(rather phallic) Daleks and the Cybermen, as well as saving the
Doctor’s life – not to mention the rest of the multiverse. In
essence, she is elevated to the level of a Goddess, laying clues to
save the Doctor’s life throughout the infinite universe he
protects. This is a metaphor for the working class; work is
intellectual bondage, and as Marx stated, “Social
progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex.”
This
quote is further realised in the case of Martha Jones, who is both
black and female. Despite this, she is a medical doctor – and,
therefore a member of a higher social class than Rose. She, like the
groundbreaking Uhura before her, breaks the mould. From a Marxist
perspective, she can be viewed as either: a member of the bourgeois,
using her class position to develop further, or someone from a
non-traditional power base in the western world, fighting for
equality.
As
this essay has a limit, I am afraid it must end: out, out, brief
candle! Nonetheless, dear reader, let me finish with the iota of
Goethe promised in the title. Goethe (a German polymath) once stated,
“None
are
more
hopelessly
enslaved
than
those who falsely believe they are free." This was hinted upon
in “The Long Game”, in a future Orwellian Earth:
The
Editor:
Create a climate of fear and it's easy to keep the borders closed.
It's just a matter of emphasis. The right word in the right broadcast
repeated often enough can destabilize an economy, invent an enemy,
change a vote.
Rose:
So all the people on Earth are, like, slaves.
The
Editor:
Well, now. There's an interesting point. Is a slave a slave if he
doesn't know he's enslaved?
The
Doctor:
Yes.
The
Editor:
Oh. I was hoping for a philosophical debate. Is that all I'm going to
get? "Yes."?
The
Doctor:
Yes.
Samuel
Mack-Poole
