We are all familiar with the character James Bond and characters like him. Bond type characters are the men that every man wants to be and every woman wants to be with; or so they say and make it appear. But what about Bond and his counterparts make them so irresistible and interesting? Well it seems to me that it begins with his ‘social identity’ or the “expectations and opinions that others” (Barker 215) seem to hold for him and other men. Bond type characters mirror what society has come to expect out of the perfect man, he must be: strong, but gentle, confident, but not overly cocky, knowledgeable in as many areas as possible (the more a man knows the more attractive he becomes), “cultured” (in the pre-1960’s sense), “clever and resourceful” (as Goldfinger states in 007 Goldfinger), polite and charming, among many other things. We, meaning western society, have come to expect all our men to be the same masculine beings. This would account for the many bond type characters, just to name a few: Bond himself, Jason Bourne, Frank Martin, Indiana Jones, etc. So how exactly did this “social identity” come to be? There are many theories, but the one that resonates with me is Stuart Hall’s process of “conceptualizing identity” (Barker 218) in which he believed that there were three ways of doing so. The one that makes the most sense with Bond is “the sociological subject” (Barker 219). Hall believed that the sociological subject “was not autonomous and self-sufficient, but was formed in relation to ‘significant’ others, who mediated to the subject the values, meanings, and symbols- the culture- of the worlds he/she inhabited” (Barker 220: Hall, 1992b: 275). In this case Bond and men like him are a complete figment of our imagination; a creation, unrealistic and impossible to believe that any man could/would be all the things that Bond and his counterparts portray. Which is where another one of Hall’s conceptualized identities comes into play; it is more likely that we are what he referred to as “postmodern subjects” (Barker 220) which states that we are made up of “different identities at different times” (Barker 220: Hall, 1992b:277). Bond portrays only part of what men really are, the sociological aspect, what we as social beings have tried to create; but the realistic man has multiple identities for different occasions. A man is never all of what Bond is at one given time. These created characters have been formed to entertain and to portray the “perfect” man, but we all know there is no such thing as perfect. As with anything, perfection is always followed or accompanied by some sort of flaw. Bond’s flaw is his womanizing, mans-man, playboy attitude; his affection for women is short lived, he speaks to the women around him as if they were inferior, and has no plans of commitment at any moment. These aspects alone would push most women away. Although we have formed this ‘ideal man’ it is impossible to have all of the previously mentioned characteristics without the latter. Therefore, I believe that the Bond type characters were created strictly for entertainment purposes and not as a realistic portrayal of what women really want. What do you think?
Another way to look at the Bond type character is to take into consideration the social construction of masculinity; or what it means to be masculine according to the culture one lives in. Our western society has “encompassed the values of strength, power, stoicism, actions, control, independence, self-sufficiency” (Barker 302) with ideal masculinity. All of these values fit our Bond characters, but do they fit all of our men? No, definitely not. So does this make our men any less of a man? I believe not. This cultural construction of what it is to be male has been detrimental to our male society; leading them to bare a heavy weight upon their shoulders if they do not meet the ‘masucline’ requirements. It is possible that these Bond type characters and the expectations they put forth for our men have caused more damage than good entertainment. “Terrence Real argues that 48 per cent of men in the USA are at some point in their lives implicated in depression, suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence and crime” (Barker 304). Are men just biologically prone to have these sorts of problems or do they derive from feeling lost because they cannot meet the ridiculous expectations western society has put upon them? Some argue that this is the case; men’s addictions and violent or criminal behavior are “narcotic-like ‘time-outs’ that blunt the pain and anxiety of other needs or longings that cannot be directly controlled” (Barker 305). Because our men are unable to meet these high and unreachable expectations they resort to violence, or drugs, or crime to make them feel better for a short period of time. Barke refers to these men as “damaged goods of industrial society”, so we as a culture have damaged our men with our Bond type characters and expectations. So how do we fix this? Do we do away with our Bond type characters and entertainment? Many would argue yes, but another suggestion is for men to “find new ways of being men” (Barker 306); maybe to look outside the social construct of masculinity and come into one’s own “male” identity. We as a society have to work together to re-vamp the socially constructed idea of what it is to be masculine. Instead we should construct different types of masculinities that fit a more vast range of men.
No comments:
Post a Comment