A Flawed James Bond

The politics of culture is a multifaceted ideal of attitudes, beliefs and consensus of the greater population that contribute to societal roles.  Collectively, public events and private experiences broadly define culture politics as power; both the power to create and name to the power to represent the social world (Chris Barker Cultural Studies 462).  Power within a culture that shows dominance by a particular social group can be defined as hegemony.  Hegemonic societies are not created by a dictatorship, rather they are chosen by the upper echelon of a society that set the cultural practices and politics of that particular society and maintains authority over subordinate groups based on race, religion and gender.  As a result, discursive thought develops that is not within societal norms, causing inequalities and prejudices within the inner workings of society.  Right or wrong, mainstream media play an overly inflated role in disseminating hegemonic ideals to the mass population.  A perfect example of such display is the James Bond series of novels created by author, Ian Fleming and made famous by the movie adaptations of the same name.  The main character is also laced with class and racial prejudices not to mention chauvinistic and sexist attitudes. 

                Set on the backdrop of a conflicted England, the character of James Bond is a top spy agent within a highly secretive agency in Britain.  The Bond series was defined as a literary spy thriller that was originally designed to be read as literature (Tony Bennett and Janet Woolacott “The moments of Bond” 13).  Even the author himself, according to Bennett, believed that the series appealed to the class A reader and the sophistication of the characters and novels would be incomprehensible to members of the  B and C class (13).  Marketing strategies for the novels were “largely restricted to metropolitan literary intellectuals” (Bennett 14), which resulted in moderate success.  In spite of the modest achievement that was enjoyed by Fleming for the novels, the movie adaptations gained a wider audience that transcended across class differences.  According to Bennett, “by comparison with the Bond novels, the Bond films were instantly and have remained quite spectacularly successful in terms of box office receipts, their rate of profitability, and the size and composition of the audience they have reached” (20). 

On paper and in film, James Bond, the character, represents the perfect man.  He is both well-dressed and handsome as well as cultured and educated.  He enjoys the finer things in life and is a member of culture from above that dictate societal norms.  He drives expensive cars, dresses impeccably, consumes sophisticated libations, and enjoys the company of many beautiful, modelesque women.  He is a white dominant Caucasian, successful, inventive, self-sufficient, and an overall mirrored image of the hegemonic leaders of England’s society.  He is not a free spirit or independent thinker.  Yet, his existence most likely contributes to increasing problems and rising decadence throughout the world.  (Jeremy Black “The Politics of James Bond” 2). The idea of living in excess was forming in Britain’s mainstream society resulting in “Swinging England” which had fast become a trendsetter for the world; and Bond was at the center of the self-indulgence and narcissism.

In this narcissistic image, James Bond was created to resist the threat to the Empire, more specifically, the British Empire. Many, if not most, of Bond’s enemies or sinister foes include any race or ethnic group that threatens the security and integrity of Mother England.  Cynthia Baron writes in her essay “Doctor No: Bonding Britishness to racial sovereignty” that “Britishness is defined in terms of an absolute difference between white and non-white” (136) and it is Bond or 007’s mission to recreate the grounds for racial sovereignty through his “license to kill” policies.  

During the 1950’s, Britain relied heavily on the military force of the United States and the “license to kill” reactivates the power of the British Empire (Baron 136).  James Bond’s chauvinistic attitudes towards Mother England are unparalleled to any other form of nationalism displayed in any other movie or television series which represents a bandage at an attempt to heal mistakes made by England’s military.  Either way, Bond’s love of his country signifies and contributes to his success, yet a Bond movie or story would not be complete with a beautiful woman, a Bond Girl.  By nature, Bond Girls are free and independent, beautiful and smart, not to mention sexually tailored to suit Bond’s needs in every way (Baron 24).  Bond girls represent a conquest for Bond; a playful sexual game of domination and submissiveness.  Together, Bond and his girl, possess a strong sense of both masculine and feminine qualities, and they take to defining their gender relations with passion that is driven by sexual tension until the act of sex actually occurs.  Bond is the ultimate womanizer and is representative of the sexual nature of how male dominants see females. 

James Bond is not the perfect man.  He is, in fact, flawed to the extent the societal norms no longer follow him.  The storylines of the movies and books have become fantasy and unrealistic; rather than the model of a leader in a hegemonic society. 

Sources:

Barker, Chris.  Cultural Studies.4^th edition.  Sage Publications. London. 2012.  Print

Baron, Cynthia.  “Doctor No: Bonding Britishness to racial sovereignty”.  pp 135-149

Bennett, Tony and Janet Woollacott.  “The moments of Bond”.  pp 13-33.

Black, Jeremy.  “The Politics of James Bond: from Flemings novels to the Big Screen”.  Westport Prager.  2001.  Web. 3 August 2014.