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.4th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment