As a member of The Companion, you’re supporting original writing and podcasting, for sci-fi fans, by sci-fi fans, and totally free of advertising and clickbait.
The cost of your membership has allowed us to mentor new writers and allowed us to reflect the diversity of voices within fandom. None of this is possible without you. Thank you. 🙂
Recently, I wrote a piece for The Companion about the relationship between Jean-Luc Picard and Seven of Nine, comparing and contrasting the impact of their respective traumas. Since that piece focused more on Picard’s character arc, and I don’t want to short-change Jeri Ryan’s beautiful work, I’d now like to take a deep dive into Seven’s character – specifically, her character introduction in the Star Trek: Voyager episode ‘The Gift’ (S4, Ep2).
(Yes, I know that’s technically her second appearance in the series. But it’s the first time we get to really dive into her character, so I’m counting it as the true “character introduction.”)
Though wonderfully written and acted, the episode isn’t an easy one to watch. Rarely do we see Trek characters stare down the abyss and grapple with despair, yet that’s exactly what Seven does here. Forcibly assimilated and raised by the Borg from a young age, she now has to deal with another action that deprives her of her agency: forcible removal from the Collective.
‘The Gift’ is essentially a 45-minute play, with dialogue and ethical diatribes providing the drama (in other words, Trek at its best). The fundamental question: Does Captain Janeway have the right to force Seven to reclaim her individuality? The inherent contradictions within that question are obvious, hence the episode’s dramatic arc.
Yet underlying this discussion is an even bigger question: does the Federation’s philosophy bear a moral superiority to that of the Borg? The answer to that question is not obvious philosophically, but it’s one I believe we must address before we can take the episode’s debate seriously.
These questions may seem trivial at first. After all, I’m spending 3,000-PLUS words analyzing an episode of television from the 90s, set in the 23rd century. Yet the questions raised are as relevant today as then. Today, the world questions the virtue of democracy and liberalism—and whether the use of undemocratic and illiberal means to protect those institutions is justified. Diving deep into ‘The Gift’ is indeed a worthy exercise, one that can help us better understand ourselves. After all, that’s what Star Trek is all about.
Should We Even Resist the Borg?
Before we get into the meat of the episode, let’s address the underlying question I raised above. Captain Janeway’s entire argument is based on the premise that the Borg ethical framework holds no weight and does not deserve the same respect as another civilization’s practices. After all, if Voyager had captured a Klingon who demanded to be released back to her people, they would likely comply, no questions asked.
While this may seem obvious to the 21st-century viewer, absolutist claims about Borg morality run contrary to Federation philosophy—the same philosophy that places the Prime Directive at its center. Commander Benjamin Sisko summed up this philosophy up in the Deep Space Nine Season 1 finale:
“My philosophy is that there is room for all philosophies on this station.”‘In the Hands of the Prophets’, Deep Space Nine – S1, Ep19
Under this policy of complete and total tolerance, the Borg philosophy would necessarily be welcomed both on the station—and within the Federation. However, I doubt that when presented with the situation, Sisko would welcome the Borg with open arms. Instead, he would likely argue that tolerance has limits: probably saying something to the effect of this: once your philosophy stops tolerating others, then it is no longer worthy of tolerance.
Of course, if we got the chance to sit down with the Borg Queen, she would probably present a different perspective. To her, human individuality actually prohibits true freedom, which is only achieved when one attains perfection. After all, imperfections hamper the individual from accomplishing the greater good. So what’s the point of freedom if it only enables imperfections to fester?
Under that question, the idea of surrendering one’s individuality to a collective will could be interpreted as a noble one. This is a notion that isn’t foreign to Starfleet officers; they give up some semblance of individuality – they follow orders and wear uniforms – to serve a greater purpose. The difference, of course, between the Borg and Starfleet, is that Starfleet officers choose their fate, and they have the freedom to leave. Not only that, but Starfleet officers don’t totally surrender their individuality. They have off-hours, and are welcome to contribute to debate and discussion regarding the operation of the starship when appropriate.
The question of Borg ethics is, then, twofold: is assimilation justified if forced, and if total?
Let’s address the second part of the question first. Even among the cooperative crews, conflict inevitably arises; conflict that could potentially derail the goal. Now, that may be a worthwhile risk if the goal is to chart a nebula, but it isn’t when achieving something as totally consuming and ostensibly important as perfection itself. Thus, if we can demonstrate that perfection is an ethical goal to work toward, we have to concede that total assimilation in its pursuit is itself justified (more on that later).
As to the first part of the question: is forced assimilation justified? Consider that every collective has limits. There will always arise the need to acquire new skills, technologies, and experiences—all necessary to reach perfection. Now, there are some who would be willing to join the collective of their own free will, but most would not. Thus, the question of compulsory assimilation arises: does the collective have the ethical right to force individuals and civilizations into their collective?
Remember: from the Borg perspective, they do not kill or eliminate individuals, cultures, or species. Instead they absorb them into the Collective, allowing them to live on, contributing their unique strengths toward their common purpose. Although that state of existence is different from that of a free individual, under the Federation principle of tolerance, we have to ask the question: is that state of existence actively harmful to the individual? We come back to the issue of perfection: if perfection is an ethical goal for the individual to attain, then forced assimilation is at least ethically tenable, although not absolutely justified. If not, then forced assimilation is unjustified in any case.
It seems, then, that the fundamental question that we must address is: is perfection an ethical goal to strive toward? If so, then we must accept Borg philosophy as valid, and Janeway’s decision to forcibly remove Seven from the Collective has no justification. If not, then we can proceed to the core debate addressed in the episode.
Before we dive into that question, we should respond to one important objection: what if the Borg were prone to corruption? It’s entirely possible that the Collective could be aimed at a goal other than perfection if its will was corruptible. However, in every encounter with the Borg, they have not strayed from this objective. While the question is interesting, it’s not relevant to the conversation.
Is Perfection an Ethical Goal?
So let’s address that question: is perfection an ethical goal? To do so, we must define what we mean by “perfection.” There are clearly many things that could comprise perfection, too many to define and consolidate into a definition. Even if we did so, surely someone would find objection to that definition.
For the purposes of this discussion, however, we don’t need to go that far. There’s only one attribute of perfection that we need to consider, because it’s the lynchpin that holds the whole thing together. That is: perfection must be, if nothing else, an unchanging state of being. The reason is obvious: a perfect state of being, by definition, cannot be improved upon. Thus, the state of perfection would be unchanging.
If we demonstrate that an unchanging state is an ethical one, then the Borg philosophy has an ethical leg to stand on, although it doesn’t completely justify their position. However, if we demonstrate that an unchanging state is inherently unethical, then we must reject Borg philosophy altogether.
To evaluate this idea, I’m going to engage in three different ethical frameworks. If all of them demonstrate that an unchanging state is unethical, then we can say with confidence that it is.
Let’s begin with utilitarian ethics, which state that the ethical choice is the one that generates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. At first glance, the Borg philosophy seems to fit well within that framework – it’s the most efficient way to bring the greatest number of people into a state of perfection, which would ostensibly result in the greatest happiness. But individuals do not experience happiness passively; in fact, it is by overcoming challenges and growing as an individual that we attain the greatest levels of happiness. In other words, to be happy, we must change. Thus, Borg philosophy is incompatible with utilitarianism.
Second, let’s consider deontological ethics, which can basically be summed up in a simple rule: act in accordance with universal law, or in such a way that you would expect others to behave. This is clearly antithetical to the Borg, as they would never tolerate another species to exist outside the Collective, and there’s no evidence to suggest that they would allow themselves to be assimilated by a greater collective in pursuit of the same perfection. Based on the evidence available to us, the Borg ethical framework is incompatible with deontological ethics.
Finally, there’s virtue ethics, which is the oldest of these three frameworks. It emphasizes the role of personal character in ethics: act as a virtuous person would, and you’ll bring about good consequences. It’s impossible for any individuals in the Borg Collective to act ethically under virtue ethics, as their will have been subsumed into a hive mind. When choice is removed from the equation, virtue is nonexistent. Thus, virtue ethics clearly rejects Borg philosophy.
While these three ethical frameworks are certainly not exhaustive, the fact that all three deem the pursuit of an unchanging state as unethical means that it almost certainly is. This means that the goal of perfection is itself unethical, and thus the entirety of Borg philosophy.
Because of this, Federation philosophy and Borg philosophy cannot be held at equal value. So if we are to challenge Janeway’s decision to forcibly remove Seven of Nine from the Borg Collective, we must do so on grounds other than the ethical nature of Borg existence.
Although unnecessary to reject Borg philosophy, I’d like to consider the most possible scenario in which an unchanging state – the antecedent to perfection – may occur. It almost certainly will not consist in any state of bliss for those involved. In fact, the most likely scenario is the one that occurs after the stars burn out, black holes consume the entirety of the cosmos, and the universe exists in a state of unchanging nothingness. Only then will the unchanging state of perfection be realized – one where existence itself is absent. This includes the existence of the Borg Collective. Thus, its very existence contradicts the very conditions necessary for perfection, making Borg philosophy self-defeatist in nature. It’s yet another reason to reject it wholesale.
Is Resistance to Humanity Futile?
Now we can address the core issue at hand: is Janeway justified in forcibly removing Seven of Nine from the Borg Collective? We’ve already demonstrated that the Borg lead an unethical way of life, so there’s no argument from competing goods to be made here. The only objection to Janeway’s course of action – and the one actively addressed in the episode – is this: In forcing this decision on Seven, is Janeway robbing her of her free will, thereby contradicting her own ethics?
In the opening moments of the episode, it becomes clear that Seven wants to return to the Collective, further complicating the issue. There’s obviously a practical reason for ignoring this request: returning to the Borg would put Voyager’s crew at risk, and having a former Borg among their ranks would serve as a powerful tactical advantage in the future. Of course, if Janeway forced this decision onto Seven purely for the benefit of her ship, it would make her no better than the Borg.
Janeway resists this idea, arguing that returning her to the Collective would be like “tossing her back to the wolves.” From a philosophical perspective, she’s correct; as we just discussed, the Borg act with no regard for Seven’s interests; in fact, it’s not a stretch to say that their behavior is harmful to her. Yet, Seven has explicitly requested – no, demanded – an immediate return to the Collective. Even assuming the harm that the Borg would cause her, does Seven not have the right to self-determination? Should her wishes not be respected in this case?
Of course, given the Federation philosophy, respecting her freedom of choice is paramount, even if it results in self-harm. So long as the decision doesn’t harm Voyager’s crew (which it would not if they left her on a planet with a subspace transmitter), then what reason would Janeway have for rejecting this request?
Her answer comes in a simple exchange with The Doctor (Robert Picardo):
The Doctor: If a patient told me not to treat them – even if the situation were life-threatening – I would be ethically obligated to honor that request.‘The Gift’ – S4, Ep2.
Janeway: This is no ordinary patient. She may have been raised by Borg, raised to think like a Borg, but she’s with us now, and underneath all that technology, she’s a human being – whether she’s ready to accept that or not. And until she is ready, someone has to make these decisions for her.
Here we see Janeway add nuance to the conversation. Because she was assimilated as a child, Seven of Nine lost the opportunity to develop her personality, her individuality – the mechanisms necessary to make free decisions. In a way, she was brainwashed by the Collective; thus, all she’s doing in this sense is repeating a pre-programmed response. As a result, Janeway can’t accept her wishes as valid, since they aren’t actually her wishes, but the wishes of the Borg speaking through her.
Of course, one could easily retort that although Seven didn’t get the chance to fully develop as a human being, it’s not like the Borg have kept her in a child-like state. She has matured into a fully developed human adult, albeit one who mirrors the thought patterns of the Borg. Even though she’s never been exposed to individuality, that doesn’t mean she’s incapable of understanding the concept; thus, her wishes should be respected.
The problem with that argument is that it assumes that to be a Borg is a valid way of existing in the world. Yet the very existence of the Borg is predicated on a philosophy, a philosophy that we have thoroughly debunked above; as such, the Borg’s very existence is one that cannot be validated or respected from any ethical framework.
In essence, by choosing to be a Borg, Seven of Nine is choosing to be something that cannot consistently exist in the world. No one is born a Borg; they have to be made into one. That means that at her core, Seven is human, and as a result is entitled to the freedoms and responsibilities that come with that birthright – even if she herself doesn’t accept them.
Now, let’s not ignore the fact that this conclusion, and Janeway’s decisions, come without risks. In fact, the process of Seven’s deconversion from Borg to human comes at incredible risk. At one point, Kes (Jennifer Lien) has to use her psychokinetic abilities to save her – had Kes not been present, or had her abilities not been developed to that point, then Seven certainly would have died. Is that itself a better fate than being returned to the Collective?
The episode answers this question with a resounding “no.” To be a free individual is to assume some level of risk. But the price of giving up that freedom – becoming something that is inherently self-contradictory and self-destructive– is too high to do otherwise.
Not only that, but if we make choices that circumvent our own personal freedoms, then we inherently acquiesce to others’ personal freedoms being infringed upon, and that’s a problem – whether you’re living by 20th, 21st, or 23rd-century ethics.
At the end of the day, we all have a duty to be human. I use the word “duty” because it implies a sense of drudgery, even unpleasantness. That’s intentional. Shirking our responsibility to our own individuality, our own humanity, may seem pleasant and comfortable for a time. But if we do so, we will each die a little death, until we become automatons.
In other words, to be truly free, we must also take on responsibility.
The episode we’ve been discussing is called ‘The Gift’. And while that title mostly references Kes’ storyline in the episode, I think it also has meaning in the context of Seven’s story. Humanity, freedom, individuality – these are all gifts. We didn’t ask for any of them – and sometimes they may seem like more than we can bear – yet we all must share in them.
It’s in doing this, I believe, where true perfection lies.
Star Trek | Universal Translator Tech Is Pretty Close – So Are Its Challenges
Star Trek | The Hopepunk Case for Deep Space Nine
Timothy Wier is a working writer who started out by writing Stargate spec scripts in high school. Luckily, his writing has dramatically improved since then. He lives in Tennessee with his partner, kids, and cats.