The Prime Directive

So I've been watching a lot of Star Trek this year, and as I'm sure everyone who watches knows, there is a *very* anthropological basis for the show. I've always believed that Captain Picard most embodies the theories and aura of an anthropologist best with his strong belief in The Prime Directive. Although he may also be compared to anthropologists of the past and 'arm-chair' tendencies with his stoic and seemingly detached facade, usually sending away missions sans Captain. Kirk may be compared to an even earlier version of anthropologists, such as the early explorers, before we adopted complex theories of culture and society and modern applications. Janeway is way too erratic and sassy (and no, not because she is a woman) to even BE a good anthropologist, but I admit, she takes the temporal Prime Directive very seriously...especially with her numerous encounters with past or future selves and friends. Archer is just too new to me and doesn't have the rapport or presence of Picard (obviously), but he is a great contemporary explorer and down to earth captain, comparable perhaps to up-and-coming graduate anthropologists.

I have been pondering the similarity of this epic theme and current anthropology for a long time, but never felt I had a strong grasp of relevant contemporary theory to comment on it knowledgeably. It recently occurred in daily discussions that the subject of cultural relativism in relation to ethics and moral behaviour appeared.
Cultural relativism is generally considered the theoretical antidote to ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is a phenomenon that happens, more often than not, by accident. It is when "we" impose culturally constructed values on "the other", insisting that it is the better way. The intrinsic nature of culture is that it is being constantly constructed when individuals grow up learning specific traditions of knowledge and beliefs that are passed from generation to generation, being contested and changed with time (Clifford and Marcus 1986). It can become what some people call "human nature/instinct". Many people justify behaviours, such as violence, as one of these "instincts". In blaming our ancient predecessors and closest relatives and their wild and unpredictable behaviours, people feel ok about the atrocious actions of human beings by attributing them to biological blueprints from our ancestral DNA.
You may be wondering how this relates back to Star Trek, but The Prime Directive addresses the idea of whether or not to intervene in the affairs of other cultures (although in Star Trek, a temporal aspect is also a concern, since we don't have the technology for everyday time travel...yet). This ethical dilemma has been a huge part of the controversial involvement of anthropologists in Iraq since some claim that by doing this, the army has enlisted double agents to help them be more successful in the war (if success is even possible). Others, including these Army Anthropologists, see the value in having a cultural mediator and interpreter to help reduce the number of deaths due to misunderstandings in this "quagmire". One might think that all soldiers and foreign correspondents, such as journalists, should sit in on Anthropology 101.

So do we interfere because we think it's wrong? Or do we let it slide because it falls under that cautious category of cultural belief? Can we boldly go where no one has gone before? Just like Star Trak has demonstrated time and time again, there is no textbook answer. It's all relative to the severity of the actions being interfered with and the way the person interfering approaches the issue.
In the end, anthropology is the final frontier.