By Danny Nicol
University of Westminster
According to Piers Britton Doctor Who has ethical value by dint of the way in which it can stimulate engagement with vast and deep forms of otherness (TARDISbound, IB Tauris 2011, p.7.) Sometimes, though, Doctor Who can provoke thinking about the Other precisely because the Doctor sides against it. On occasion he very clearly favours “the like” over “the unlike”. When he does so, the degree to which the show encourages viewers to form their own judgment as to the rights and wrongs of his actions is important in making Doctor Who a worthwhile programme.
University of Westminster
According to Piers Britton Doctor Who has ethical value by dint of the way in which it can stimulate engagement with vast and deep forms of otherness (TARDISbound, IB Tauris 2011, p.7.) Sometimes, though, Doctor Who can provoke thinking about the Other precisely because the Doctor sides against it. On occasion he very clearly favours “the like” over “the unlike”. When he does so, the degree to which the show encourages viewers to form their own judgment as to the rights and wrongs of his actions is important in making Doctor Who a worthwhile programme.
Eye-candy of the planet Skaro: companion Ian Chesterton pontificates to the Thals |
The tendency of the Doctor
sometimes to favour the familiar over the unfamiliar has been apparent ever
since the show’s transformatory serial “The Daleks” in 1963-4 where he sided
with the beautiful humanoid Thals against the Daleks. The
show perhaps made an effort to atone for this in 1965 where the Doctor made
common cause with the allegedly-grotesque Rills against the glamorous yet
ruthless Drahvins in “Galaxy Four”.
Not as nice as they look: the Drahvins |
In “The Daleks” there is scant
reflection on whether the Doctor is doing the right thing, questions of
political morality being clouded by his efforts to regain the fluid link, an
essential component of the TARDIS which the Daleks have confiscated. As John Fiske has observed, in classic-era Doctor Who (1963-89) the BBC intended
the Doctor to be clearly good and his opponents clearly bad. (“Dr Who: Ideology and the Reading of a Popular Narrative Text” (1983)
14 Australian Journal of Screen Theory 69).
By contrast, as Gabriel McKee points out, in new Doctor Who (2005-present) the Doctor’s actions are no longer held
up as singularly heroic, so viewers make up their own minds (“Pushing the
Protest Button: Doctor Who’s Anti-Authoritarian Ethic" in Time and Relative Dimensions in Faith, eds A Crome and J McGrath,
Darton, Longman and Todd 2013, p.22). This
trend perhaps reaches a high point in series 8’s pervasive theme of whether the
Doctor was “a good man”.
Bill and alien-Heather make contact |
The limits of the Doctor’s
tolerance of “the unlike” is apparent in the recent episode “The Pilot”
(2017). This story introduces us to the
Doctor’s new companion, Bill Potts. We
had earlier seen the Doctor’s previous companion Clara Oswald depart merrily in a
TARDIS of her own with Ashildr, a woman about whom Clara had previously expressed a
physical attraction. In “The Pilot” Bill’s
lesbianism is treated with similar matter-of-fact tolerance. But when Bill’s love-interest, Heather, is
without her consent transformed into a liquid alien, and invites Bill to
undergo a similar transformation and join her on intergalactic adventures, the
Doctor implores Bill to resist:
Bill gets a taster of life with Heather |
BILL [OC]: I
see what you see. It’s beautiful.
DOCTOR: Bill, let go!
You have to let go! She is not
human any more.
The Doctor does not explain what
is wrong with not being human any more.
But it appears that lesbians are fine, alien liquid lesbians are going
too far. Later on Bill almost expresses
regret at taking his advice:
BILL: I saw it all for a moment. Everything out there. She was going to let me fly with her. She was inviting me. I was too scared.
Instead Bill flies with the
humanoid, solid-form Time Lord, which substantially softens her rejection of
Heather. Whilst one could criticise “The
Pilot” for downplaying Bill’s eschewing of “the unlike” and the seminal part
which the supposedly-tolerant Doctor plays in her decision, it is nonetheless
good that a question-mark is placed – however tersely - over her choice, given
how fear of “the Other” lies at the heart of discrimination.