The HMSS Weblog

Her Majesty's Secret Service, a weblog dedicated to James Bond, recently (as in today) issued a blurb about my previous post on neoliberalism and Bond. Just thought I'd return the favor in the blog world!

The HMSS Weblog

An Unbreakable Bond: Final Paper

Bond – the man men look up to, the man women want. He idolizes the essence of the Britain, and thus portrays what Britain has come to think of itself. “The novels and early films charted a period when Britain was making adjustments to her world status…” (Black). Fleming’s Bond was a Bond to protect Britain from the evils of the world. He filled the void of a much needed hero for their time, which is why Britain connected to his image easily. But Bond has changed since the 1962 release of Dr. No. Today Bond represents something bigger – more universal. He’s transcended Fleming’s intended image and become a hero for the entire western civilization. He is now not only a protector to Britain, but he defends the western way of life.

James Bond is the ideal symbol of the West’s grandeur simply because he is unbreakable. Geoffrey Peterson said in a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association that “always cutting edge, the Bond films have never shied away from the salient, even trendy, issues of their time.” Bond captivates his audience with his good looks, wry humor, cunning wit and the illustrious Bond girl we have come to expect and know in each novel and film. If it is true that Bond films emulate current world issues and represent an image of the West, the West should be seen as conceited and self-absorbed. An unbreakable Bond is an homage to our unbreakable Western force seemingly “conquering the world” as James Bond does.

Nowadays, the West, can be represented (stereotypically) as corporate nations. How did this negative look upon western culture come about? The answer could be neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism is "the suppression of a people by the privileged (upper class) in the name of freedom," (Harvey). Under neoliberalism corporations are under no governmental restrictions and are allowed to pursue their motives of expanding and gaining profit without limitation. It “is the desire to intensify and expand the market, by increasing the number, frequency, repeatability, and formalisation of transactions,” (Treanor). Originally conceived in Latin America, this not only economic philosophy, but political and social philosophy, has spread rampant across the West.

In Marc Forster’s 2008 Quantum of Solace, James Bond returns to the screen under a new guise and new story, not of Ian Fleming’s novels. Why create a new story? Possibly to continue Fleming’s perceptive series to a modern issue, so as to relate to the current audience. Fleming’s audience of a Cold War nation no longer holds any grasp or full appreciation of the issues he submerged into his novels and their then-current film adaptations. The movie deals with Dominic Greene, the chairman of an ecological organization, helping put a general in power of Bolivia in trade of a spot of desert. The audience comes to find out the land holds a fresh water river deep below its surface, and that Greene’s organization intends on blockading it and selling it back to Bolivia which was beforehand a free resource. Since Greene put this new general in power, there’s no way of prohibiting him from carrying out his plan. In steps Bond and suddenly Greene and the general are assassinated and all problems are therefore solved.

The interesting aspect of this movie is the fact that an event very similar to the conflict in Quantum of Solace took place in Bolivia called the Cochabamba protests of 2000, also known as "The Cochabamba Water Wars," because of the privatization of the city’s water supply (Schultz). This adds a tremendous amount of current world culture and issues to the movie, which then carries out with the audience.

The corruption of Greene’s company in the movie can easily be linked to neoliberalism. Within the free market, the government has no control over the boundaries of a corporation. Therefore, they’re able to expand and profit perpetually even at the cost of putting a city’s people into poverty. “Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs,” (Martinez, Garcia). In the movie, Greene’s actions nearly identically mirror those of a corporation under neoliberal law.

Quantum of Solace portrays Bolivia as an abundantly poverty stricken country. With neoliberalism, the poor become poorer, and the rich become richer. According to the United Nations Development Program of 1996, the 358 richest people’s net worth was “equal to the combined income of the poorest 45% of the world’s population – 2.3 billion people.” Again in 1999, the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Report said “the world’s 200 richest people more than doubled their net worth in the four years to 1998, to more than $1 trillion. The assets of the top three billionaires [were] more than the combined GNP of all least developed countries and their 600 million people.”

We can now see that neoliberalism affects those who are not the successful bourgeoisie in a negative way. Normally, the bullying of the neoliberalists comes from outsourced companies to already deprived countries. This connects to why the West can now be stereotyped into big businesses destroying the world. Globalized companies such as Coca-Cola, Nike, Wal-Mart, Exxon, Toyota, and possibly hundreds of others outsource their product. Some would argue it creates more jobs for the poor in those countries, who would otherwise have no job at all. But it’s difficult to sympathize with that argument when the working conditions they provide are distressing compared to the pay they offer. Sure someone can now afford a diminutive dinner for their family, but I doubt the company heads are considerate towards this outcome.

Neoliberalism and globalization can also affect those of us within the United States. “Outsourcing hurts Americans. It takes away real jobs- both blue and WHITE collar jobs,” (Tek). Neoliberalism also creates a greater divide between the upper class and lower class, eradicating the middle class altogether. Some could blame neoliberalism for the current economic crisis we’re facing. Without any government barriers for the banks, they were able to give loans to people unable to afford the payoffs (Tanneeru). This in turn causes banks to crash, businesses to go bankrupt, and jobs to be lost. Being the slippery slope it is, it ends up affecting people personally as jobs become scarcer and money becomes harder to come by.

Another thing to consider when analyzing our country’s current situation is the oil companies, as they could possibly be the best example of neoliberalism and globalization. Outsourcing their company to the Middle East for free reign on their product (Smith), without the restrictions of our government imposed on them. Meanwhile, they can drive the cost of gas upwards for the consumers, creating more profit for them and causing our money to diminish from our pockets. This widens the gap between the rich and poor – perfecting the definition of neoliberalism linked to these oil companies.

Neoliberalism, then, mustn’t continue as our (or any nation’s) government philosophy. It drives the poor into desperation – stealing and murdering others. Bruce Weinberg, co-author of the study and associate professor of economics at Ohio State University said the reason crime rate is so high amongst the poor is because it “increases the relative payoff of criminal activity…Wage declines are responsible for more than half of the long term increase in both property and violent crime,” (Grabmeier). The longer neoliberalism lingers in our country, the deeper parts of it will fall into desperation and poverty. The gap will continue to widen, and crime will continue to rise.

The government needs to regulate some of the market for it to be successful without driving some of it into the ground. David Harvey, author of A Brief History of Neoliberalism, called neoliberalism “…a case of senseless pursuit of a false utopia…”

Thinking back to James Bond in Quantum of Solace, we can analyze his attack on Greene’s company as an attack on neoliberalism. Could Bond represent a message to the West, telling it to rid itself of this philosophy? It’s quite possible Marc Forster, et al, had alternate motives in the message behind their movie. It might not just be Bond defending a country for the better good of the world, but attacking the tradition the world is currently in. Think of it as Bond representing the West, attacking the West, for the better good of the West – a critical look at ourselves from a hero’s point of view.

Works Cited

1. Black, Jeremy. The politics of James Bond: from Fleming's novels to the big screen. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2001.
2. Grabmeier, Jeff. “Higher Crime Rate Linked to Low Wages and Unemployment, Study Finds.” Ohio State University. 10 April 2002. 14 May 2009. .
3. Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
4. Martinez, Elizabeth and García, Arnoldo “What is "Neo-Liberalism?” Global Exchange. 28 October 2007. .
5. Peterson, Geoffrey, Wrighton, J. and Sitzman, Elise. "Policy Galore: How The Films Of James Bond Tells The World What Issues Really Matter" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL. 2009-05-14
6. Schultz, Jim. “Bolivia’s Water War Victory.” Third World Traveler. Autumn 2000. < http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Bolivia_WaterWarVictory.html>.
7. Smith, David. “Outsourcing Trends in Oil and Gas.” EDS. 24 July 2006. 14 May 2009. < http://www.eds.com/news/features/3130/>.
8. Tanneeru, Manav. “How a ‘perfect storm’ led to the economic crisis.” CNN.com. 29 Jan. 2009. 14 May 2009. < http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/29/economic.crisis.explainer/>.
9. Tek. “More Dangers In Outsourcing US Jobs.” Blog Critics. 20 Feb. 2004. 14 May 2009. .
10. United Nations Development Program. Human Development Report, 1996 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
11. United Nations Development Program. Human Development Report, 1999 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
12. Watt, Stephen and Willman, Skip. Ian Fleming and James Bond: The Cultural Politics of 007. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2005.

Wonka as a Neoliberalist

The 1971 film “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” and the 2005 remake, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” both display characteristics of neo-liberalism. In David Harvey’s “A Brief History of Neoliberalism,” we learn the past 25 years have introduced and imposed this new government philosophy of a hands-off approach to our market, aptly called neoliberalism. In Mel Stuart’s adaptation of Roald Dahl’s book of the same name, the character Willy Wonka, played by Gene Wilder, owns and runs a candy factory which distributes its goods worldwide. It provides hundreds of jobs for the residents of the town the factory is located in. When Wonka’s secrets start spreading around, he shuts down his factory and his entire work force is laid off, which leaves the residents of the city impoverished. The story focuses on one family in particular: the Buckets. Charlie Bucket’s grandpa used to be high up in Wonka’s factory before the bust happened, and leaves his entire line of family living under a single, broken roof.

The movie shows the power of the free market over its employees and how it can affect even their families. When big business globalizes, it doesn’t take into consideration the damage it can/will do. Business only cares about the increase of profits, even the seemingly friendly businesses (i.e. Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory).

In the 2005 remake, Wonka is shown employing Oompa Loompas, which could be seen as a metaphor for hiring labor overseas for cheaper. The Oompa Loompas work for cocoa and not cash, and they are not a liability to Wonka since they do not leave the factory and cannot spread his recipes and secrets.


Oompa Loompas as Overseas Labor
(watch from about 4:30 to about 7:30)

An Old Masculine: Short Essay #2

James Bond has always been known for his good looks, cunning wit, sharp intellect and the knowledge of wielding a gun quite well. He's strong, tough, persistent, smart, suave, and what could be called the perfect man. Though these characteristics seem to define what a real man might be, it's wise to understand the meaning and origins of this type of masculinity as we know it. Bond, the man that gets girls with his machismo, or “[e]xaggerated pride in masculinity, perceived as power, often coupled with a minimal sense of responsibility and disregard of consequences” as defined by Encyclopædia Britannica.

What then is masculinity? Scientists have long searched for the answer and it turns out it's up to interpretation. Gutmann states there are four broad definitions of masculinity.

[One] concept of masculinity...is, by definition, anything that men think and do. The second is that masculinity is anything men think and do to be men. The third is that some men are inherently...considered “more manly” than other men. The final [concept] emphasizes the general and central importance of male-female relations, so that masculinity is considered anything that women are not.

Some definitions have even included the denigration of women and characteristics associated with the feminine.

James Bond is portrayed as masculine in many ways then. For example, when Bond’s genitals get injured in Casino Royale, he beckons Vesper in bed “in an effort to prove he can still, ahem, perform as man” (Westover). Another significant example would be Bond’s treatment of women repeated in any of the novels and movies. Tracy Moore of The Nashville Scene writes “James Bond films are some of the most patently offensive, profoundly anti-feminist vehicles around.” It’s true that Bond is known for his poor treatment of women and thinks of them mostly as play-toys, but how did it come to be this way? Certainly Ian Fleming’s original Bond was just a chauvinist as ever, but the connection from Bond to the massive male audience has come from somewhere else.

James Bond may be seen as the masculine pin-up due in part to Sean Connery’s portrayal of the character. As the first Bond, Connery set the standard for the lineup of Bonds to follow. Connery was said to emphasize his macho more than any Bonds thereafter. The “charismatic machismo” we think of when we hear Bond, is most likely only due to Connery’s depiction (Westover).

This role-model being shown could influence young males to mold their perception of manliness and act as they see Bond do. Peter Beresford says their “fragile male egos are buttressed with the megabucks available to push Bond as role model, hero and killer; guns as power and women as scapegoats and sex aids.” Could this be the reason rape, sexual assault, and murder can be seen in some cases as masculine and actually continue to carry forward, perpetually reinforcing this idea. Not that Bond is the sole proprietor to these views; we can see the same represented in television, music, movies and even children’s cartoons.





But Bond has recently decreased in its male chauvinism with the 2006 release of Casino Royale. The womanizer Bond is still present, but instead of having sex with Vesper for the normal James Bond reason of proving his masculinity, he now does so for love. M, Bond’s superior whose character has been always played by a man, is now replaced with the strict and intelligent woman. Bond is now represented to connect to the audience of today. “He is unmistakably male, portraying a very rough image of masculinity, but never threatened by femininity. He is comfortable in a very integrated world.” (Westover).


Though Bond has changed with the times, he’s still that masculine idol he was in 1962 when Sean Connery defined the very idea of masculinity. Whether we’re moving towards a society where men and women are seen as equal, there will always be James Bond to steer young males into the narrow point of view that his masculinity is a must.


Works Cited


1. Brody, Simeon. “James Bond, Masculinity And Social Work Practice: Some uncalled for connections.” The Social Care Experts Blog. November 3, 2008. March 17, 2009.


2. Guttman, Matthew C. “Trafficking in Men: The Anthropology of Masculinity.” Annual Review of Anthropology 26 (1997): 385-409.


1. "machismo." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 17 Mar. 2009.


2. Moore, Tracy. “Chauvinism Is Forever.” Nashville Scene. July 03, 2008. March 17, 2009.


3. Westover, Brian. “A Look at How James Bond Reflects Changing Views of Masculinity.” Associated Content. January 16, 2007. March 17, 2009.

Annotated Bibliography for James Bond’s Masculinity

1.Brody, Simeon. “James Bond, Masculinity And Social Work Practice: Some uncalled for connections.” The Social Care Experts Blog. November 3, 2008. March 17, 2009. . The author of this article tries to uncover why James Bond’s masculinity is so fit for entertainment purposes. He connects the film version of Bond to why men feel they need to exemplify their masculinity. He also points out that young boys who watch the films will feel eager to become more like Bond.



2.Guttman, Matthew C. “Trafficking in Men: The Anthropology of Masculinity.” Annual Review of Anthropology 26 (1997): 385-409. Specific topics discussed include the diverse cultural economics of masculinity, the notion of cultural regions in relation to images of manhood, male friendship, machismo, masculine embodiment, violence, power, and sexual fault lines. This in particular will help define terms and the meaning of masculinity, as is prevalent in the Bond novels and movies.



3."machismo." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 17 Mar. 2009 . This defines machismo as exaggerated pride in masculinity which is perceived as power. Machismo values denigration of characteristics associated with the feminine. Machismo could be linked to the personality of Bond through his treatment of women.



4.Massey, Doreen. “Masculinity, Dualisms and High Technology.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 20.4 (1995): 487-49. This journal explores the working out in daily life of certain classical dualisms of western thought. The significance of the masculine poles of these dualisms for the characteristics of these sectors and for male scientists’ relationship to them is explored, as are some of the associated tensions in the relationship between the spheres of ‘home’ and ‘paid work.’ This is important because of the cultural differences between masculinity, since Bond represents the British, and mostof his audience is of the West.



5.Moore, Tracy. “Chauvinism Is Forever.” Nashville Scene. July 03, 2008. March 17, 2009. . This article analyzes whether feminists have anything to celebrate in the James Bond films, as they “are some of the most patently offensive, profoundly anti-feminist vehicles around.” It would be useful in seeing the positive effects on women it may or may not have.



6.Pappademas, Alex. "The man with the golden style.(Sean Connery)." GQ - Gentlemen's Quarterly 77.6 (June 2007): 46. This is a short biography on Sean Connery, the first actor to portray James Bond. James Bond undoubtedly was perceived as masculine in the Ian Fleming novels, but Connery’s over-masculine approach helped pin Bond’s character to the alpha male we know him as today.



7.Westover, Brian. “A Look at How James Bond Reflects Changing Views of Masculinity.” Associated Content. January 16, 2007. March 17, 2009. . This explores the Ian Fleming novels as being openly misogynistic and how the women are unusually in an empowered position. It also compares how Bond has changed considerably in 50 years. This would be useful for comparing the masculine view of Bond 50 years ago and the view of Bond now.

Group Participation

I was in group 2, or The Bond Masculine and Feminine. My group discussed how masculinity and femininity play into the roles of characters in James Bond. My part, in particular, was to relate geographic locations to how they give Bond an advantage or disadvantage to the situation he's faced with. To be more exact, I used Venice to show how Bond was able to woo Vesper because of the geographic location. For my media, I passed out pictures of the locations I referred to. For class participation, I asked questions on how the students felt the location helped, or if they had any suggestions for other examples.

James Bond: Man of the Times

It is clear that Ian Fleming, of the hit James Bond novels, uses James Bond in Casino Royale as a symbol for Great Britain's role in the Cold War. Throughout the series, Bond is acting as a response to the then-current issues Great Britain was facing. During the Cold War era, Great Britain's colonial power was slowly depleting as they imployed decolonization throughout the world. James Bond is the sort of power Fleming felt Great Britain needed to get through the hardships of their fleeting economy and power.

There are several instances in the novel Casino Royale that mirror the events of the Cold War. For instance, when Bond originally gambles away his entire fund from London, it seems like the end of the road for the hero. Then into Bond's lap falls an envelope of bail money from Felix in order to continue the game. The envelope reads, "Marshal Aid. Thirty-two million francs. With the compliments of the USA," (Fleming 79). In this case, Felix is Fleming's take on Truman with his Marshall Plan being put into effect, assisting European countries' economic crunch.

In this scene, Le Chiffre, a Soviet entrepreneur, is playing baccarat in order to recover union money he lost. Bond's role is to clean him out and leave SMERSH with no other choice than to assassinate Le Chiffre. This is very clearly a response to the fear of the rising Soviet Union. The Allies role in the Cold War was to rid communisim of the eastern countries, mainly Russia. Yet Fleming creates a scene where Great Britain goes at this task with a sense of coolness and collectedness, using wits as their weapon. In this way, Great Britain doesn't look as if they're "policing" the world as the USA is seen. Instead, they outsmart Russia and leave it up to someone else to finish the dirty work.

In today's world, there is no Soviet Union threatening the power of the rest of the world. Because of this, Ian Fleming would not write the same James Bond he wrote in 1953. The world is currently facing economic instability, so a bailout would most likely still be evident, only it would have to come from someone other than America. James Bond would still keep his suave persona, as Fleming liked to boast of Great Britain's casualness over other nations. The enemy would become a middle eastern terrorist instead of a Russian. That's almost how it plays out in the recent adaptation from Martin Campbell, only he services many of the world's terrorists instead of is one.

Works Cited

Fleming, Ian. Casino Royale. New York: Penguin Books, 2002.