Do you need
a bad side
to be a
great person?
This weekend, at the request of on online friend, I watched two episodes of the original Star Trek TV series to discuss them in an episode of a podcast he plans on producing in the future. It had been a really long time since I sat down and watched the show, which was a staple of my TV diet back in my youth. I was never a “Trekker”, but I know enough of the lore to pass as one to someone who didn’t know better.
That said, I found myself watching the episodes with new eyes–like reading a book you loved as a kid and finding yourself shocked by the nuances you never noticed before. In large part this had a lot to do with the fact that these were earlier episodes in the show and they had that embryonic feel that didn’t quite match with where the characters eventually ended up going.
This was especially true of the first episode I watched–“The Enemy Within”. It’s the one where magnetic ore causes a transporter malfunction that splits Captain Kirk into two separate entities. It’s the kind of episode that definitely justifies my theory that William Shatner’s charisma stems from the fact that he is both a great and terrible actor at the same time–capable of amazing work one second and self-embarrassment the next. I say this because somehow–in a way that is never explained–the split is actually a metaphysical one, separating the captain into one half that represents all that is good inside him and the other representing all that is evil.
And hoo-boy, does he ever let himself go as the evil half. It’s so over the top that it almost borders on genius, until you find yourself laughing hysterically at it. Yet, he is genuinely great playing the good half–who triumphs despite lacking the decisiveness of his evil half, which Richard Matheson’s teleplay insists is a crucial part of what makes him a great leader.
Matheson’s script is ultimately much smarter than I originally gave it credit as I made my way through the episode. I initially thought I had stumbled upon irrefutable proof of Kirk’s repressed homosexuality when his “evil opposite” attempted to rape Yeoman Rand–the attractive blonde crewperson with the single worst hairstyle in the history of television–but had to abandon this when they eventually discovered it wasn’t a mirror-image thing they were dealing with.
But I still find myself questioning its ultimate thesis, which–to sum up as glibly as possible–is that Captain Kirk’s skill, charisma and heroism is a direct result of the fact that within him lurks the heart of a rapist who chooses not to rape. That this “lust and violence” inside him is what allows him to make the big, important decisions lesser men could not handle. This is made especially apparent by the fact that–before it finally counts–his “good” half is presented as a huge wuss who is overburdened by the enormity of the decisions he has to make. Where it not for the climax, it would seem that Matheson is suggesting that “good” equals weakness. I think his script ends up being more nuanced than that, but the intimation still lingers.
Do you think there is anything to this argument? Does a good leader need to be a bit of an asshole inside to inspire and move forward? Does enlightenment lead to indecision? Personally, I don’t think so based on the very scientific argument that this dude existed and that’s that:
I think to a point the episode is spot on, if a bit diluted. Successful leaders are ambitious, bold, and brave enough to take calculated risks. But ambition can be a bad trait when you walk over people or use people to succeed. Bravery borders on stupidity at times. When ambition is tempered by compassion for others it can be a useful and good quality. Separated, traits like lust, rage, and jealousy are evils we have to face, but tempered against our own good judgement, wisdom, and caring can turn those into useful and powerful qualities.
Talked to an ethicist speaking on empathy. If you’re a small unit leader in combat, you may have all the empathy in the world for your men, but somebody has to walk point.