Dr Who - right and wrong

In 1973 two writers closely associated with the series at that time wrote a book called 'The Making of Doctor Who'. The book included chapters detailing the Doctor's adventures and describing the making of the programme. In this book was a short piece by a clergyman entitled 'Honest to Doctor Who'. The writer suggests that,

'There is . . . in the Doctor Who serials a recognisable morality, a normal recognition of good and evil. Doctor Who, as a character, is essentially a good man and . . . Good in the end triumphs over evil.'

He has recognised that the Doctor fits in with the traditional Christian ideas of the hero as moral exemplar and the triumph of Good.

Moral force

Christopher Eccleston who played the part of the Doctor in the new series describes him more succinctly as a 'moral force'.

However these moral qualities were not originally parts of the Doctor's character. In the very earliest episodes, the Doctor was tetchy and selfish. His heroism only gradually emerged, though by the late sixties it had become a central part of his character, alongside the curiosity and sense of wonder that had been there from the beginning.

Eccleston sums up by saying,

'The Doctor is in love with life.'

Somehow the morality seems to emerge from this sense of wonder, as if the Universe in general, and human beings in particular are so wonderful the Doctor cannot bear to see them destroyed or marred by evil.

Freedom fighter?

Just as the Doctor's motive in fighting evil arises from his character, so too do his methods, and even the kind of evil he opposes. The Doctor values the beauty of the Universe; he also values the freedom that enables him to enjoy this. So his striving to retain his own freedom spills over into his fight for the freedom of others.

When the series had been on air for six years the Doctor's origins were revealed, and we got a new insight into this search for freedom. The Doctor belonged to a race called the Time Lords, a powerful but pompous people who follow a rule of non-interference in the affairs of the cosmos. He stole the Tardis and ran away because he was bored with the detached attitude of his own race and wanted to experience the cosmos at first hand. He is punished by being exiled to one planet and time period (our own as it happens) and thus loses his treasured freedom and some of his right to self determination.

Authoritarianism vs. self determination

So we find that evil is identified with authoritarianism and a desire for power, while good is equated with liberty and the right to self determination. Just as the Doctor is an eccentric individualist, the monsters and villains devalue individuality and desire uniformity. So the Daleks want to destroy all other life forms, and the Cybermen want to convert human beings into Cybermen, emotionless and uniform. In the new series the Time Lords have been wiped out in a war with the Daleks; the Doctor is now the last of his race. This seems to symbolise the loss of cosmic authority. The Doctor is rather like modern man, who mourns for the gods who, when they were alive were merely a nuisance.

Weapons?

It is a defining characteristic of the Doctor that he does not carry a gun and is wary of weapons. This is faithfully reflected in the new series. However he is willing to use force and can befriend and work with those who are comfortable with and depend on military technology. To make the new series work the writers have had to introduce characters who are comfortable toting weapons in their fight against evil, just as in the classic series the Doctor was often allied with the military.

For the Doctor moral principles always override expediency. He is not a pacifist, but strives always to limit the use of force and to seek non violent solutions. The new series faithfully reflects the attitude of the classic series when the Doctor condemns the British Prime Minister for commanding the destruction of an alien spacecraft that is already in retreat. The Doctor never had any truck with political or military pragmatism.

Good government?

Among Christians there have been two traditional approaches to the authority of governments:

• One tradition associated with Augustine of Hippo sees government as being necessitated by sin
• The other associated with Thomas Aquinas sees government as part of the structure of creation, spoiled by sin, but good in itself.

The Doctor would be with Augustine on this one. He dislikes power and its potential to take away the freedom of the governed. In the classic series, when he is offered the chance to become ruler of Earth, he vehemently refuses and asks that the human race be given the freedom to develop. When he is elected president of his own people he simply runs away.

Where the Doctor differs from Augustine (and Aquinas) is in his optimistic view of human nature. He takes an almost anarchist view that just removing constraints is enough on its own to cause good to emerge. The new series questions the validity of this approach by sending him back a hundred years after one of his quick fixes to see the mess he has made.

Dave Ferguson, July 2006