The Case for a Woman as James Bond

A link to an article about "A Female James Bond" was recently posted in the r/movies subreddit of Reddit. This is, obviously, not a particularly critical issue in the world today. It is however, something I've actually thought about before. I'm not a rabid James Bond fan, but obviously a lot of people are so it's good grist for discussions about gender, culture, and story-telling.

First, some responses to The Case Against a Woman as James Bond (as I'm seeing it in the article and the Reddit response). The primary argument on that side seems to be an implicit or explicit claim that male-ness or masculinity is an essential aspect of Bond's character. I understand the spirit of this claim, but I think the essential aspects of any given character is a deep question. And I agree that characters do have essential aspects (for instance, I happen to believe that James Bond is essentially a spy, and essentially British). Bond being a man has been an important aspect of the character, certainly. As a man, the character demonstrates a particular perspective on, and treatment of, women, and there are various roles he, as a man, can or cannot take on as a spy. But it doesn't go without saying that an important aspect is necessarily an essential aspect.

One thing to remember is that James Bond is a fictional character. As an aside, the essential male-ness argument becomes somewhat stronger for historical figures - I think that you would lose something essential if you tried to make a movie about Ernest Hemmingway with a woman playing "Ernestine Hemmingway" in the same time period. But you could still make that movie, and I'd HELLA WATCH THAT SHIT. Books and movies should be allowed to play around with that sort of thing, and such experimentation is one of the most wonderful things that story-telling can offer us. It would be hard to pull off, but I could even imagine a Jewish Hitler or a Black Julius Caesar. That shit would be super interesting.

But James Bond isn't historical. There is a historical aspect to the original James Bond, but the franchise has naturally expanded itself into versions which take place in the 21st century. Was this fictional character "written as a man"? Sure. But we have some excellent examples of gender flipping/swapping that show that heteronormatively-male characters can be reimagined. One amazing example of this is Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica. Unlike the example of, say, Doctor Who, Starbuck "as originally written" has importantly masculine traits. Kara Thrace's rebooted portrayal of the character retains those exact traits, AND also plays a character who is a fully-realized woman (i.e., not a woman simply playing a man). Another decent example is the "Parallel Universe" episode of Red Dwarf. Lister is an extremely slobby, heterosexual, cis-gendered character, but his female opposite is absolutely recognizable as a "Lister". Hell, even "He-Man", a fictional character with the words "He" and "Man" in his literal name, has She-ra, a recognizable gender-flipped alternate.

The other big argument I'm seeing is that "we should create original women protagonists instead of rebooting existing characters". This carries some weight in my mind, but it's far from persuasive. First of all, it's not at all obvious that creating new franchises and rebooting old ones are mutually exclusive, or even that the latter affects the likelihood of the former. Secondly, there's a real case to be made for the importance of "de-throning" classic male protagonists. We don't live in a post-sexist world, and there is still something to be gained from challenging assumptions about men's monopoly on certain traits (strength/toughness, power, heroism, risk-taking, competitiveness, political savvy, ruthlessness, sexual confidence, etc).

I absolutely agree that there is a danger of sending a message that the zenith of women's empowerment is defined by stepping into male roles. I also think that people in the movie industry are probably more likely to invest in a gender-flipped reboot of a popular male character than in an entirely original female character who fits the same archetype/template. There is a reflection of sexism in this reluctance, and in the choices of consumers that such reluctance is a pragmatic response to.

I think that these more nuanced issues need to be discussed, but a woman playing James Bond would simply be an opportunity to discuss them. We could ask ourselves whether the end result was empowering or exploitative. In fact, this discussion should happen even with the archetype/template scenario. Personally, I think Atomic Blonde was a lot less empowering than movies like Salt or Haywire (Haywire is fucking awesome, go watch it).

A less frequent argument that I'm seeing is "What about <classically female character> being rebooted as a man? That would be terrible!". But many of the examples cited are examples of characters that are basically archetype/template MtF reboots to begin with (like Lara Croft or The Bride in Kill Bill). And a lot of the other classic women characters in fiction are inherently feminine in a way that is already a response to sexual hierarchy to begin with. In fact, there's the obvious trope of such characters frequently being defined by their romantic relationship with a man (or multiple men, or men as a societal force). This is a result of women's self-identity being more tied up with gender than men's self-identity is. Fictional versions of women are going to reflect that, and so you're going to see gender being closer to the core of such characters.

But the main problem with this argument is that men do not have the same kind of work to do. I truly believe that men do face issues when it comes to societies expectations of masculinity, but the issues are different. I actually think it would be interesting to see a male version of Belle from Beauty and the Beast, or a male version of Mary Poppins, and such experiments could potentially help explore questions about what we expect from men. In fact, I think that gay men have been conducting these kinds of experiments for decades in an attempt to reimagine or subvert assumptions about what it means to "be a man".

To put it in overly simplistic terms, the work women in the western world need to do is to up-end assumptions about never being truly powerful or in charge, and men in the western world need to up-end assumptions about always having to be powerful or in charge. The very concept of a heroic figure itself is at least a little gendered - it's still too natural to think about "abstract" archetypes of leaders, rock-stars, or people who change the world, and to fill in the blank with a man-shaped silhouette. When we talk about James Bond, we're not just talking about any old franchise, we're talking about a massively popular franchise. It's not a coincidence that the majority of massively-popular franchises feature a male protagonist. There is a spot-light here, and the faces lit up by that spot-light are predominantly male.

One last argument against is basically some form of "I'm sick of all this politically-correct maneuvering". But this assumes that politically-correct maneuvering isn't a valid response to societal imbalances. That might be your opinion, but (in this case, at least) stating it is isn't an argument, it's just preaching to the choir. Furthermore, books and movies (and plays and video-games and advertisements and music videos) are clearly in the business of crafting narratives about gender. It's not the case that rebooting male characters brings gender issues into a world that was gender neutral. To use a term I've learned from depictions of court cases in Law & Order, story-tellers from time immemorial have already "opened the door" to questions about gender. Any story-teller who experiments with gender isn't foisting an entirely new or unnecessary set of issues into the mix, they're playing around with the pre-existing issues introduced by generations upon generations of gendered narratives.

And yes, there have been ham-fisted attempts to reboot male characters as women. Some of these attempts have been driven by politically-correct zealotry or attempts to cash in on politically-correct zealotry. At worst, these are cautionary tales, not reasons to completely avoid such reboots. And honestly, if we have to break a few eggs to make the omelet, so be it. Again, someone may disagree that there are societal imbalances that need to be addressed, but they should be able to recognize that if such an omelet was real, then breaking a few eggs (badly re-imagined characters in fictional franchises) would absolutely be an acceptable price to pay.

The Case in Favor:

I think dismantling the arguments against is the bulk of the work here, since such arguments mostly try to pre-emptively invalidate the idea of woman as Bond. But I sincerely think there is a positive argument to be made in favor. There is an imagined version that needs to be considered seriously, and The Case Against would need to explain why this version is obviously too unwieldy to ever get off the runway.

Like I said before, my personal take is that JB is essentially a spy, and essentially British. The character is also essentially a sociopath. This is what differentiates him from the typical action-hero template, and it's what makes him interesting, compelling, dangerous, and believable. A psychologically healthy person couldn't do what James Bond does: changing identities, manipulating people, enduring severe pain/fear/discomfort, repressing emotional reactions in emotionally intense situations, and mastering an incredibly diverse set of skills and domains of knowledge (languages, politics, geography, culture, technology, weapons, hand-to-hand combat, demolitions, reconnaissance/surveillance, wilderness survival, etc, etc, et-fucking-cetera).

I'm pretty sure that it's comparatively rare (in the real world) for women to be sociopaths, but it's not impossible or unheard of. I can see a female James Bond exploring this idea in super interesting ways. I even think that James Bond's sexual escapades are, in an important sense, a reflection of his sociopathy, and I can see a woman using/treating men in similar ways. I can also see a woman demonstrating almost superhuman capabilities due to a combination of an existing psychological disposition which is then amplified by an insane amount of training. I think Atomic Blonde is a decent example of all of this, actually, but it's not like this particular well is dry, and it would be fun to see how it would work out in the James Bond world.

A second essential aspect of JB is his poise and style. Some of this is tied to his British-ness, but it's also just a general matter of Western perceptions of wealth, class, and taste. Women in this domain are often relegated to being demure, coquettish, bubbly, prim, or extravagant, but there are plenty of examples of strong, smart women who use poise and style in a sharper and more assertive way. I'm thinking about Mary Crawley (Downton Abbey), Inara Serra (Firefly), and Cersei Lannister (GoT). Actually, fuck, Cersei is an incredible example of a woman who is a sociopath, too. Honestly, just give Lena Heady a slim, black gun and a martini and start the cameras rolling.

A third essential aspect of JB is his unshakable (but morally dubious) patriotism. In fact, it might be more of a loyalty to his agency (or to certain people) than a loyalty to his country or certain principles. But one thing he isn't is a mercenary, or an assassin, or a rogue. Has the unshakable patriotism narrative been explored elsewhere? Absolutely. There are many different varieties of patriot-spies, patriot-journalists, and patriot-lawyers. And some of these characters have been women. But again, it would be fun to see how it would work out in the James Bond world. You could attempt to create a new world, like Atomic Blonde does, and that's cool, maybe you'll get lucky and it'll become a franchise in its own right. But you'd have to be pretty culturally ignorant not to understand the appeal of an established franchise. As just one example (of many possible examples), I'm sure "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" could have been written as a non-Harry-Potter story, but the Harry Potter world is rich and compelling; it's fun to revisit it, and audiences are often drawn to such revistitations.

(I guess this ventures back into "The Case Against" territory: basically, why even make multiple James Bond movies in the first place? Why not only create new spy movies with male characters? These are silly questions for anyone who understands the appeal of franchises, which is almost anyone who is going to have an opinion about James Bond.)

Anyway, I think it might be a challenge to pull it off, but a woman as James Bond isn't obviously impossible, or obviously unwise, or obviously unnecessary. If it was executed properly, you'd have an amazing character: A woman who is a fighter, a spy, a patriot, a dare-devil, a player, a sophisticate, a negotiator, a military operative, a strategist, and a detective. It could be a great movie, and it could be a great opportunity to have interesting discussions. And fans being uncomfortable with a new take on a character, or fans not being able to personally imagine a radical re-invention of a character, is not something that should keep story-tellers from attempting to bring to life an idea that fans can't or won't attempt to even consider.

Public Philosophy

The public, by and large, are not sufficiently motivated to spend the time necessary to thoroughly understand complex philosophical issues. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, since any kind of expert level knowledge requires time, energy, and money, and most people usually only have enough of those things to become an expert in one area (and there are lots of areas to choose from, most of which have a much more obvious financial and social pay-off than philosophy). Actually, to be clear, most people don't have the time, energy, and money to become an expert in any area.

So the experts of the world are left with a challenge: Not only do they need to make discoveries in their area of expertise, they also need to come up with ways to translate those discoveries into products which benefit the non-expert public (if only to acquire the funding to continue their research). Furthermore, they need, essentially, to sell people on the worth and utility of those products. The point here is that just making the discoveries is not enough - be it the theory of evolution, the invention of the automobile, or the development of psychotherapy. The public has to be able to manage a rudimentary understanding of it, the public has to get excited about it, and the public also has to be able to see some clear application for it.

If they can't understand it, they can't get excited about it or see its worth. If they can't use it without becoming experts themselves, then they won't be able to see its utility. This is why most fields of expertise are supplemented by two important agents: the Evangelist and the Entrepreneur. Sometimes there are individuals who are exclusively one of the three, expert, evangelist, or entrepreneur, but more often the people involved are some mix of the three.

I see no reason why the above wouldn't apply to philosophy. Philosophy does have a few problems, though. One is that it deals exclusively with ideas, often the extremely abstract ones. Another is that questioning axioms themselves is part of its process, whereas every other field accepts at least a small number of axioms without question. A third is that its usefulness is directly tied to its tendency to second-guess the common-sense intuitions of the public.

But I think most people who are passionate about philosophy see something (or some things) valuable in it, so there must be some kind of potential product there (I suppose there are probably some curmudgeonly folks who just want to do philosophy for its own sake, or for their own sake, and who don't care at all whether society could or should benefit from it, but those individuals exist in every field). The questions regarding public philosophy are "What is that product?" and "How can it be transmitted to the public?".

This article by Aikin and Talisse definitely addresses the second question. I called them "evangelists", because that's how they're referred to in the technology world, and because I like alliteration, but it's the same thing as a "spokesperson". Philosophy has a handful of these - names like Michael J. Sandel and Slavoj Zizek come to mind, and they are without a doubt experts as well as evangelists  - but obviously it could use a lot more of them. The entrepreneur is also necessary, though. Public forums like Seattle's Town Hall and podcasts like "Philosophy Bites" turn contemplating philosophy into something that fits neatly into our lives. Affordable or free online courses and lectures offer reasonably brief excursions into some of philosophy's deeper waters. Philosophically themed meet-up groups also serve an entrepreneurial function, in that they combine philosophical discussion with inherently appealing activities like socializing and informal debate (Personally that is neither the reason I started my own meet-up group [Drunken Philosophy], nor why I've kept it going, but I thinks it's fair to ascribe that potential value to it, however small). I'll bet there are all sorts of other entrepreneurial possibilities that people could come up with.

It's the first question, I think, that might need a more clear answer. It's also the more difficult question, because philosophers tend to get all philosophical about it. Speaking very loosely, though, I'd say there are a few good candidates. One possible product is the philosophical questions themselves - not providing answers or solutions, as experts in other fields often do, but instead "merely" highlighting the many important unanswered questions in the world. Another possible product is the tools to argue and examine - philosophers have made a science of argument and counter-argument, and a lot of those techniques can be taught to non-experts, potentially introducing more critical thinking into public discourse. A third possible product is the packaging and terminology which chop up muddy human confusions into manageable boxes - ideas like "Dualism vs. Monism" and "Consequentialism vs. Deontology" can help to simplify and standardize concepts which people might otherwise approach in a sloppy, careless, or misleading manner.

A fourth possible product, one that I like a lot, is thought experiments, or Daniel Dennett's intuition pumps. These are the word problems of philosophy, and I think they've proven incredibly useful - and viral - throughout the history of philosophy. The Ship of Theseus, the Ring of Gyges, the Veil of Ignorance, the Trolley Problem, the Chinese Room - these are puzzles that "the public" can easily grasp, and it can lead to a deeper appreciation of the loose sand that many common-sense assumptions and unquestioned societal norms are ultimately founded on. Obviously many or most philosopher's don't need to produce these kinds of thought experiments - there's definitely a lot of philosophical investigation that just can't be reduced to thought experiments, and some thought experiments whose import can only be appreciated by those already familiar with highly developed philosophical concepts. But creating publicly digestible thought experiments is clearly possible, and furthermore it's a concrete goal. There's always room for more thought-experiments, and there's always a need for new or updated ones since society is constantly shifting. Political, cultural, and technological changes mean that very decade brings with it a new set of questions and a reexamination of old questions.

There's probably a lot more thought that could go into this, but there are two very important prerequisites for a successful dissemination of whatever it is that philosophy has to offer. The first is the need for "the profession at large to acknowledge the need for such spokespersons, and to find ways to recognize the scholarly importance of public outreach", as Aikin and Talisse state at the end of their article, and I would expand on that to include the kind of "entrepreneurial" outreach I described above. The second is a clear understanding of who the public are, and a generous stance towards the philosophical ignorance and even stubbornness of most non-philosophers. There is a special kind of arrogance in philosophy that is counter-productive to any desire for a more philosophically enriched public perspective (Ironically, or perhaps just sadly, this arrogance has probably been exacerbated by the public's frequent [and historic] unwillingness to take philosophy seriously). But any philosopher who is committed to understanding the world in all its complexity needs to understand how most human beings function - specifically, that most human beings are not naturally philosophical, or at least that they are only as naturally philosophical as they need to be, and no more. To expect anything else - without encouragements and incentives - is to be willfully blind to the actual facts of reality, something that ought to be anathema any self-respecting philosopher.