moonflower77 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
moonflower77) wrote2017-02-01 10:44 am
moonflower77) wrote2017-02-01 10:44 am
Entry tags:
(no subject)
found back on 30 May 2012 here:
http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=3326
it's an interesting perspective on the hidden negative connotations of (re)naming a borg drone. one might remember seven of nine and her insistence that her former name, annika hansen, is "no longer appropriate" and that she be addressed instead using her borg designation, which she apparently sees as her true name.
You, Hugh
Language Subjectification in Star Trek: The Next Generation's "I, Borg"
© Dharmini Patel
September 28, 2006
According to postcolonial translation theory, language carries many associations and experiences with it; therefore, to study language is to study the social, political, and economical ideology of the culture that possesses the language. Star Trek The Next Generation's "I, Borg" reveals hegemonic views that are normatively structured so as to protect and defend the Enterprise's imperial practices.
As a captivity narrative, one uncovers the Enterprise's colonizing tendencies through language subjectification using postcolonial translation theory as a theoretical basis. By investigating the Enterprise's homogeneous linguistic community, the crew overtly excludes alternate forms of identity, such as a collective, from existing, by either assimilating or demonizing cultural differences.
The Enterprise's oppressive actions manifest when 3rd of 5, a Borg, mimics the crew's language, revealing his "othered" self. He fails to represent himself meaningfully to the crew until he adopts their language and refers to himself as Hugh, a name given to him by Geordi La Forge and Beverly Crusher.
This moment reveals the crew inscribing their imperial authority by imposing moral and civic prescriptions on lifestyles; thereby, preserving the continuity of their hegemony on other identity forms, and further exposing the ambiguities in translating one culture's linguistic forms to another while simultaneously subjugating differences in the Other through language.
In the context of the Star Trek universe, the Federation parallels a colonial empire, "an empire is a political system based on military and economic domination by which one group expands and consolidates its power over many others -- usually one nation over many other nations in which their ideology is spread. Empire-building has traditionally been justified on the grounds of . . . moral obligations (tyrannized peoples must be liberated from their oppressors and protected from them)" (Robinson 9).
Clearly this is the case in, "I, Borg" where the crew seemingly protects Hugh from the Borg collective's tyranny. However, just as the Borg's mantra is "resistance is futile" so too, is the starship's, since those who do not succumb to their ideology are either assimilated by Federation politics or constructed as an enemy of humanity.
The term postcolonial, for this paper, refers to the unequal and asymmetrical political and cultural power relations between dominant and subordinate cultures. Translation then, essentially, suggests a transmission of meaning from one culture to another through a linguistic system; hence, translating a "third world language" into a "first world language" is complicitous with imperialism, because translation transmits hegemonic views onto the reader (Robinson 117).
In other words, translation assigns meaning in favor of the dominant culture by transferring ideology onto the subordinate social group. In this context, language translation serves as a channel for colonization, in that it constructs the subordinate group's imagination and begins to shape their thoughts and actions through unequal exchange of meaning within the colonial context. So that in this episode of TNG, Hugh, the Borg, is subordinated by a naming process. In this regard, we see that "translation produces strategies of containment" for one's identity.
For the postcolonial translation theorist, hegemonic culture and ideology are internalized through a process of interpellation and subjectification as theorized by French Marxist, Louis Althusser. He explains interpellation as a process, in which, "ideology 'acts' or 'functions' in such a way that it ‘recruits' subjects among the individuals, or ‘transforms' the individuals into subjects."
Essentially, society members are not true subjects until they are transformed into a subject by society or until the ‘ideological state apparatus' interpellates them. For Althusser, when an individual from a position of authority calls someone something, that person is transformed into the thing that is named (Robinson 23). Thus, subjectification involves an individual who is subject to hegemonic forces via domination and submission.
Geordi, hegemonic force
This same dynamic replays on the Enterprise when Geordi, the hegemonic force, gives the Borg, 3rd of 5, the name Hugh. In this case, language is the means by which interpellation and subjectification work through the individual and create the colonial subject. So then the very act of translation, here the name Hugh, given by the dominant culture, reconceptualizes the colonial mind revealing language's oppressive function.
Because the Enterprise's ideology allegorically represents Euro-American ideology, the translation of "I" is intended for a particular western audience. Analyzing the cultural implications of "I", however, provides insight into the crew's imperialistic tendencies. In the scene between Geordi, Beverly, and Hugh, in which Hugh is named, presupposes that an interpretative linguistic structure pre-exists so that they can understand each other.
Geordi and Beverly assume that Hugh comprehends "I" as a cultural expression of individuality; however, there is no real evidence that he truly comprehends "I" or his name "Hugh". "I" is assumed to be easily translatable into the Other's language and ideology. But in fact, Geordi produces the discourse, and Hugh merely performs it. Clearly, Hugh, never given any time for self-reflection only imitates his oppressors.
3rd of 5, as a captive Borg, articulates his powerless position by mimicking the name, Hugh. Later in an exchange with Picard, language is presented as universally transparent, because Hugh says "I". There is no indication that he fully understands the concept. "I" is non-existent within the Borg mentality, therefore, remains ‘untranslatable'. Hugh only feigns understanding by acting in a participatory fashion in his newly constructed identity. He mechanically reproduces the word without any true thought or reflection of the meaning.
In fact, Hugh's new identity is only a simulacrum of individuality through the subjectification process, since he never linguistically or conceptually understands "singularity." Saying "I" is not a liberating process; but rather, a validation of the crew's power by converting him into a member within their ideology. By saying "I," Hugh reinforces the crew's position and articulates his own displaced position.
It is never his voice that is represented, but the crew's translation of identity. Once the crew removes 3rd of 5's collective voice, they interpellate him into a subject, Hugh. Only through interpellation does he gain legitimacy to the crew. He is now allowed a voice and is afforded the choice of whether he wants to stay on board the ship as an individual or go back to the collective as a Borg. If he did not assimilate, then he would never have reached "voice" or been given any option.
Tejaswini Naranjana in "Siting Translation" claims the colonized are only legitimized when their voice is embedded within Western ideology; therefore, they are never adequately represented, and remain oppressed through translation, because they are positioned within the peripheries of the dominant power.
The Western translator must find new words or adapt old words in order to describe or represent the colonial experience, but this "requires stable differences between [the] two cultures and their languages, which the translator then bridges". From the postcolonial perspective, this position is what Homi Bhabha describes as the "untranslatability of culture" because "cultural difference" is either removed or assimilated (Robinson 27). In this sense, it becomes increasingly difficult to cross the power differentials in a way that makes culture translatable for the colonized. Since the Western translator controls the language through translation, he, in effect, controls the subordinate culture.
Hugh's quandary
Culture is not merely linguistically untranslatable, but conceptually untranslatable as well. So then, Hugh, is translated to mean whatever the Enterprise constructs, not what Hugh truly represents in his own language. As 3rd of 5 he remains unintelligible to the crew, and as Hugh, he remains unintelligible to himself.
Geordi, in his capacity as a translator, becomes the colonial agent for Hugh's subjectification by providing transparent knowledge of individuality.
As the conduit for inscribing hegemonic ideologies, Geordi cannot step out of his own ideology, thereby implicitly colonizing Hugh's mind. The translator must stay within a safe distance so as not to contaminate the translation. Unable to maintain a safe distance Geordi's views about identity are cognitively mapped onto Hugh. As a passive participant, he becomes subjectified because he submissively accepts what the dominant hegemonic community, as represented by Geordi, asks him to accept.
For example, Hugh cannot articulate the lack of voices in his head, so Geordi, as a cultural translator, imposes the idea of loneliness onto Hugh, thus, producing a discourse, which may or may not be intelligible to Hugh. In this instance, Geordi claims authority over Hugh's feelings and maps his own linguistic and ideological constructs into Hugh's imagination. Therefore, mimicking colonial rhetoric without interpreting the meaning behind the rhetoric subjectifies Hugh to the dominant power.
"I, Borg", then, explores humanity through the formation of individual identity. Initially Picard rationalizes Hugh's captivity as a humanitarian effort, thereby escaping censure from the casual observer; however, Hugh, still captive, internalizes his captivity by willfully participating in Geordi and Beverly's experiments. This act is another reason he "falsely" accepts the crew's language. Hugh, removed from the collective, can easily be considered a trauma victim who participates with his oppressors in order to avoid undesirable consequences.
Essentially, the Enterprise naturalizes colonialism and captivity by disguising it as humanitarian. The "civilizing" process of imperialism is evident through the capture, the study, and the assimilation of Hugh into the Enterprise's own worldview. Seemingly infallible in their humanitarian vision, they "scientifically" observe and analyze Hugh so that they can ultimately alter his collective identity and continue their ongoing colonial production of cultural domination.
Not for altruistic means but to impose their ideology. In fact, Hugh's use of "I" reveals the most poignant moment within the narrative that reveals the crew's ideas, ideals, and experiences as the universal standard for all human and "alienkind." Through Hugh, the Borg collective must be civilized through the realization of "singularity".
Thus, difference is not accommodated or legitimized, but rather oppressed in ways that reinforce relations of dominance and submission. Although TNG purportedly supports tolerance of different cultural values in "I, Borg," the standards of right and wrong are clearly defined. Star Trek represses difference by having the crew turn an inhuman Borg, 3rd of 5, into a human, Hugh, and instilling their value system onto him. It is in this example that the crew negotiates identity, subjectivity, and culture in a manner that mimics the civilizing mission of imperialism.
Hence, social egalitarianism, which is part of Star Trek's liberal humanistic ideology, is not extended to the Borg, since their form of identity must be erased. TNG forbids alternate identity forms from existing, because inherent within colonialism is the belief that the colonialist's lifestyle, knowledge, and culture is the only appropriate form of expression. The crew prohibits any other form of social existence, because difference undermines the very nature of their colonizing power.
The Borg poses an archetypal threat, since they represent the obverse of freedom and are not like the crew. By transgressing the Federation's universal ideals, the Borg is unworthy of existing. The Borg, as a collective, infringes upon Western ideological precepts of individuality, hence the hegemonic crew demonizes them, and the Borg's resistance to individuality justifies the Enterprise's intrusion upon the collective through the realization of singularity.
Through the narrative progression of Star Trek The Next Generation's "I, Borg," Hugh moves from physical to mental captivity. The Enterprise, under the guise of humanitarian kindness, physically captures Hugh and removes his Borg identity only to replace it with a false individual identity. Essentially the crew, like the Borg, converts subjects into their own social network by forcing their particular cultural hegemony on alien species.
The crew's institutional codes are cognitively mapped onto Hugh's identity rendering him mentally captive through linguistic imperialism. As a marginalized figure, Hugh's only form of resistance is to return to the Borg collective and forget his new fabricated identity. By disallowing alternate forms of identity from existing, "I, Borg" rationalizes the imperial articulation of conquest and conversion through physical captivity and language translation.
Works Cited
Barad, Judith, and Ed Robertson. The Ethics of Star Trek. New York, NY. Harper Collins, 2000.
Barr, Marleen S. Future Females, The Next Generation. Cumnor Hill, Oxford. Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.
Barrett, Michelle, and Duncan Barrett. Star Trek: The Human Frontier. New York, NY. Routledge, 2001.
Bassnett, Susan, and Harish Trivedi eds. Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice. New York, NY. Routledge, 1999.
Bernardi, Daniel Leonard. Star Trek and History: Race-ing Toward a White Future. New Brunswick, NJ. RutgersUP, 1998.
Currie, Mark. Postmodern Narrative Theory. New York, NY. St. Martin's Press, 1998.
Harrison, Taylor, et al., eds. Enterprise Zone: Critical Positions on Star Trek. Boulder, Colo. Westview Press, 1996.
Niranjana, Tejaswini. Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley, CA. UCP, 1992.
Richards, Thomas. The Meaning of Star Trek. New York, NY. Doubleday, 1997.
Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theories Explained. Manchester, UK. St. Jerome, 1997.
http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=3326
it's an interesting perspective on the hidden negative connotations of (re)naming a borg drone. one might remember seven of nine and her insistence that her former name, annika hansen, is "no longer appropriate" and that she be addressed instead using her borg designation, which she apparently sees as her true name.
You, Hugh
Language Subjectification in Star Trek: The Next Generation's "I, Borg"
© Dharmini Patel
September 28, 2006
According to postcolonial translation theory, language carries many associations and experiences with it; therefore, to study language is to study the social, political, and economical ideology of the culture that possesses the language. Star Trek The Next Generation's "I, Borg" reveals hegemonic views that are normatively structured so as to protect and defend the Enterprise's imperial practices.
As a captivity narrative, one uncovers the Enterprise's colonizing tendencies through language subjectification using postcolonial translation theory as a theoretical basis. By investigating the Enterprise's homogeneous linguistic community, the crew overtly excludes alternate forms of identity, such as a collective, from existing, by either assimilating or demonizing cultural differences.
The Enterprise's oppressive actions manifest when 3rd of 5, a Borg, mimics the crew's language, revealing his "othered" self. He fails to represent himself meaningfully to the crew until he adopts their language and refers to himself as Hugh, a name given to him by Geordi La Forge and Beverly Crusher.
This moment reveals the crew inscribing their imperial authority by imposing moral and civic prescriptions on lifestyles; thereby, preserving the continuity of their hegemony on other identity forms, and further exposing the ambiguities in translating one culture's linguistic forms to another while simultaneously subjugating differences in the Other through language.
In the context of the Star Trek universe, the Federation parallels a colonial empire, "an empire is a political system based on military and economic domination by which one group expands and consolidates its power over many others -- usually one nation over many other nations in which their ideology is spread. Empire-building has traditionally been justified on the grounds of . . . moral obligations (tyrannized peoples must be liberated from their oppressors and protected from them)" (Robinson 9).
Clearly this is the case in, "I, Borg" where the crew seemingly protects Hugh from the Borg collective's tyranny. However, just as the Borg's mantra is "resistance is futile" so too, is the starship's, since those who do not succumb to their ideology are either assimilated by Federation politics or constructed as an enemy of humanity.
The term postcolonial, for this paper, refers to the unequal and asymmetrical political and cultural power relations between dominant and subordinate cultures. Translation then, essentially, suggests a transmission of meaning from one culture to another through a linguistic system; hence, translating a "third world language" into a "first world language" is complicitous with imperialism, because translation transmits hegemonic views onto the reader (Robinson 117).
In other words, translation assigns meaning in favor of the dominant culture by transferring ideology onto the subordinate social group. In this context, language translation serves as a channel for colonization, in that it constructs the subordinate group's imagination and begins to shape their thoughts and actions through unequal exchange of meaning within the colonial context. So that in this episode of TNG, Hugh, the Borg, is subordinated by a naming process. In this regard, we see that "translation produces strategies of containment" for one's identity.
For the postcolonial translation theorist, hegemonic culture and ideology are internalized through a process of interpellation and subjectification as theorized by French Marxist, Louis Althusser. He explains interpellation as a process, in which, "ideology 'acts' or 'functions' in such a way that it ‘recruits' subjects among the individuals, or ‘transforms' the individuals into subjects."
Essentially, society members are not true subjects until they are transformed into a subject by society or until the ‘ideological state apparatus' interpellates them. For Althusser, when an individual from a position of authority calls someone something, that person is transformed into the thing that is named (Robinson 23). Thus, subjectification involves an individual who is subject to hegemonic forces via domination and submission.
Geordi, hegemonic force
This same dynamic replays on the Enterprise when Geordi, the hegemonic force, gives the Borg, 3rd of 5, the name Hugh. In this case, language is the means by which interpellation and subjectification work through the individual and create the colonial subject. So then the very act of translation, here the name Hugh, given by the dominant culture, reconceptualizes the colonial mind revealing language's oppressive function.
Because the Enterprise's ideology allegorically represents Euro-American ideology, the translation of "I" is intended for a particular western audience. Analyzing the cultural implications of "I", however, provides insight into the crew's imperialistic tendencies. In the scene between Geordi, Beverly, and Hugh, in which Hugh is named, presupposes that an interpretative linguistic structure pre-exists so that they can understand each other.
Geordi and Beverly assume that Hugh comprehends "I" as a cultural expression of individuality; however, there is no real evidence that he truly comprehends "I" or his name "Hugh". "I" is assumed to be easily translatable into the Other's language and ideology. But in fact, Geordi produces the discourse, and Hugh merely performs it. Clearly, Hugh, never given any time for self-reflection only imitates his oppressors.
3rd of 5, as a captive Borg, articulates his powerless position by mimicking the name, Hugh. Later in an exchange with Picard, language is presented as universally transparent, because Hugh says "I". There is no indication that he fully understands the concept. "I" is non-existent within the Borg mentality, therefore, remains ‘untranslatable'. Hugh only feigns understanding by acting in a participatory fashion in his newly constructed identity. He mechanically reproduces the word without any true thought or reflection of the meaning.
In fact, Hugh's new identity is only a simulacrum of individuality through the subjectification process, since he never linguistically or conceptually understands "singularity." Saying "I" is not a liberating process; but rather, a validation of the crew's power by converting him into a member within their ideology. By saying "I," Hugh reinforces the crew's position and articulates his own displaced position.
It is never his voice that is represented, but the crew's translation of identity. Once the crew removes 3rd of 5's collective voice, they interpellate him into a subject, Hugh. Only through interpellation does he gain legitimacy to the crew. He is now allowed a voice and is afforded the choice of whether he wants to stay on board the ship as an individual or go back to the collective as a Borg. If he did not assimilate, then he would never have reached "voice" or been given any option.
Tejaswini Naranjana in "Siting Translation" claims the colonized are only legitimized when their voice is embedded within Western ideology; therefore, they are never adequately represented, and remain oppressed through translation, because they are positioned within the peripheries of the dominant power.
The Western translator must find new words or adapt old words in order to describe or represent the colonial experience, but this "requires stable differences between [the] two cultures and their languages, which the translator then bridges". From the postcolonial perspective, this position is what Homi Bhabha describes as the "untranslatability of culture" because "cultural difference" is either removed or assimilated (Robinson 27). In this sense, it becomes increasingly difficult to cross the power differentials in a way that makes culture translatable for the colonized. Since the Western translator controls the language through translation, he, in effect, controls the subordinate culture.
Hugh's quandary
Culture is not merely linguistically untranslatable, but conceptually untranslatable as well. So then, Hugh, is translated to mean whatever the Enterprise constructs, not what Hugh truly represents in his own language. As 3rd of 5 he remains unintelligible to the crew, and as Hugh, he remains unintelligible to himself.
Geordi, in his capacity as a translator, becomes the colonial agent for Hugh's subjectification by providing transparent knowledge of individuality.
As the conduit for inscribing hegemonic ideologies, Geordi cannot step out of his own ideology, thereby implicitly colonizing Hugh's mind. The translator must stay within a safe distance so as not to contaminate the translation. Unable to maintain a safe distance Geordi's views about identity are cognitively mapped onto Hugh. As a passive participant, he becomes subjectified because he submissively accepts what the dominant hegemonic community, as represented by Geordi, asks him to accept.
For example, Hugh cannot articulate the lack of voices in his head, so Geordi, as a cultural translator, imposes the idea of loneliness onto Hugh, thus, producing a discourse, which may or may not be intelligible to Hugh. In this instance, Geordi claims authority over Hugh's feelings and maps his own linguistic and ideological constructs into Hugh's imagination. Therefore, mimicking colonial rhetoric without interpreting the meaning behind the rhetoric subjectifies Hugh to the dominant power.
"I, Borg", then, explores humanity through the formation of individual identity. Initially Picard rationalizes Hugh's captivity as a humanitarian effort, thereby escaping censure from the casual observer; however, Hugh, still captive, internalizes his captivity by willfully participating in Geordi and Beverly's experiments. This act is another reason he "falsely" accepts the crew's language. Hugh, removed from the collective, can easily be considered a trauma victim who participates with his oppressors in order to avoid undesirable consequences.
Essentially, the Enterprise naturalizes colonialism and captivity by disguising it as humanitarian. The "civilizing" process of imperialism is evident through the capture, the study, and the assimilation of Hugh into the Enterprise's own worldview. Seemingly infallible in their humanitarian vision, they "scientifically" observe and analyze Hugh so that they can ultimately alter his collective identity and continue their ongoing colonial production of cultural domination.
Not for altruistic means but to impose their ideology. In fact, Hugh's use of "I" reveals the most poignant moment within the narrative that reveals the crew's ideas, ideals, and experiences as the universal standard for all human and "alienkind." Through Hugh, the Borg collective must be civilized through the realization of "singularity".
Thus, difference is not accommodated or legitimized, but rather oppressed in ways that reinforce relations of dominance and submission. Although TNG purportedly supports tolerance of different cultural values in "I, Borg," the standards of right and wrong are clearly defined. Star Trek represses difference by having the crew turn an inhuman Borg, 3rd of 5, into a human, Hugh, and instilling their value system onto him. It is in this example that the crew negotiates identity, subjectivity, and culture in a manner that mimics the civilizing mission of imperialism.
Hence, social egalitarianism, which is part of Star Trek's liberal humanistic ideology, is not extended to the Borg, since their form of identity must be erased. TNG forbids alternate identity forms from existing, because inherent within colonialism is the belief that the colonialist's lifestyle, knowledge, and culture is the only appropriate form of expression. The crew prohibits any other form of social existence, because difference undermines the very nature of their colonizing power.
The Borg poses an archetypal threat, since they represent the obverse of freedom and are not like the crew. By transgressing the Federation's universal ideals, the Borg is unworthy of existing. The Borg, as a collective, infringes upon Western ideological precepts of individuality, hence the hegemonic crew demonizes them, and the Borg's resistance to individuality justifies the Enterprise's intrusion upon the collective through the realization of singularity.
Through the narrative progression of Star Trek The Next Generation's "I, Borg," Hugh moves from physical to mental captivity. The Enterprise, under the guise of humanitarian kindness, physically captures Hugh and removes his Borg identity only to replace it with a false individual identity. Essentially the crew, like the Borg, converts subjects into their own social network by forcing their particular cultural hegemony on alien species.
The crew's institutional codes are cognitively mapped onto Hugh's identity rendering him mentally captive through linguistic imperialism. As a marginalized figure, Hugh's only form of resistance is to return to the Borg collective and forget his new fabricated identity. By disallowing alternate forms of identity from existing, "I, Borg" rationalizes the imperial articulation of conquest and conversion through physical captivity and language translation.
Works Cited
Barad, Judith, and Ed Robertson. The Ethics of Star Trek. New York, NY. Harper Collins, 2000.
Barr, Marleen S. Future Females, The Next Generation. Cumnor Hill, Oxford. Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.
Barrett, Michelle, and Duncan Barrett. Star Trek: The Human Frontier. New York, NY. Routledge, 2001.
Bassnett, Susan, and Harish Trivedi eds. Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice. New York, NY. Routledge, 1999.
Bernardi, Daniel Leonard. Star Trek and History: Race-ing Toward a White Future. New Brunswick, NJ. RutgersUP, 1998.
Currie, Mark. Postmodern Narrative Theory. New York, NY. St. Martin's Press, 1998.
Harrison, Taylor, et al., eds. Enterprise Zone: Critical Positions on Star Trek. Boulder, Colo. Westview Press, 1996.
Niranjana, Tejaswini. Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley, CA. UCP, 1992.
Richards, Thomas. The Meaning of Star Trek. New York, NY. Doubleday, 1997.
Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theories Explained. Manchester, UK. St. Jerome, 1997.