The Borg Complex: I’m Guilty of this Psychological Fallacy

Unfortunately, I’m guilty of the Borg Complex.

Via Waldemar Ingdahl, I came across the Borg Complex, a term I hadn’t encountered before.

The Borg Complex refers to a spe­cif­ic form of tech­no­lo­gic­al determ­in­ism, but in my case, it’s also a psy­cho­lo­gic­al fal­lacy.

And yes, I’m guilty.
Big time.

Here’s how:

The Borg Complex: A Definition

The term Borg Complex was coined on a whim by L.M. Sacasas:

“A Borg Complex is exhib­ited by tech­no­lo­gists, writers, and pun­dits who expli­citly assert or impli­citly assume that res­ist­ance to tech­no­logy is futile. The name is derived from the Borg, a cyber­net­ic ali­en race in the Star Trek uni­verse that announces to their vic­tims some vari­ation of the fol­low­ing: ‘We will add your bio­lo­gic­al and tech­no­lo­gic­al dis­tinct­ive­ness to our own. Resistance is futile.’”
Source: Borg Complex: A Primer

Do I qual­i­fy in the group of tech­no­lo­gists, writers, and pun­dits?
Yes, I guess I do.

Have I been guilty of expli­citly assert­ing or assum­ing that res­ist­ance to tech­no­logy is futile?
Yes. More times than I can count.

Does know­ing about the Borg Complex change my mind?
Yes, and no.

I still lean heav­ily towards the side of tech­no­lo­gic­al determ­in­ism.
I still think that res­ist­ance, for the most part, is futile.

But wheth­er I’m right or wrong is beside the point — at least in this context.

Symptoms of the Borg Complex

Here are, accord­ing to L.M. Sacasas, some of the symp­toms of the Borg Complex: 

“1. Makes gran­di­ose, but unsup­por­ted claims for tech­no­logy
2. Uses the term Luddite a‑historically and as a cas­u­al slur
3. Pays lip ser­vice to, but ulti­mately dis­misses genu­ine con­cerns
4. Equates res­ist­ance or cau­tion to reac­tion­ary nos­tal­gia
5. Starkly and mat­ter-of-factly frames the case for assim­il­a­tion
6. Announces the bleak future for those who refuse to assim­il­ate
7. Expresses con­temp­tu­ous dis­reg­ard for past cul­tur­al achieve­ments
8. Refers to his­tor­ic­al ante­cedents solely to dis­miss present con­cerns”
Source: Borg Complex: A Primer

Yes, I’ve been known to make such claims without sup­port­ing them with evid­ence. I’ve equated con­cerns to reac­tion­ary nos­tal­gia. And I’ve been known to announce a bleak future on occasion.

Have I been wrong?

Well, it’s not evid­ent that I’ve been expli­citly wrong. Technology has proven to be a driv­ing force majeure in soci­ety. Another way to put it: I could be right.

But being right is beside the point.

L.M. Sacasas puts it bluntly:

“We need more think­ing, not less, and Borg Complex rhet­or­ic is typ­ic­ally deployed to stop rather than advance dis­cus­sion. What’s more, Borg Complex rhet­or­ic also amounts to a refus­al of respons­ib­il­ity. We can­not, after all, be held respons­ible for what is inev­it­able. Naming and identi­fy­ing Borg Complex rhet­or­ic mat­ters only inso­far as it pro­motes care­ful think­ing and respons­ible action.”
Source: Borg Complex: A Primer

Mind Your Technological Determinism

I cel­eb­rate intel­lec­tu­al debate and diversity of thought. I would nev­er seek to silence any­one pro­pos­ing an oppos­ing line of reas­on­ing. Not con­sciously, at least.

But uncon­sciously?
Well.

I’ve been uncon­sciously season­ing my writ­ing with sprinkles of tech­no­lo­gic­al determ­in­ism to close doors instead of open­ing them. Therefore, I think of the Borg Complex more as a psy­cho­lo­gic­al fal­lacy than a per­sua­sion strategy.

Moving for­ward, I pledge to be more mind­ful of think­ing, writ­ing and dis­cuss­ing technology.