The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci is most famously associated with the concept of hegemony. During the Italian Fascist regime of the late 1920s and 30s, Gramsci was incarcerated for forming the Communist Party. As a part of a widespread throttling of dissent, the public prosecutor at Gramsci’s trial commented that “for twenty years we must stop this brain from functioning.” Ironically, Gramsci’s most notable theorizing happened from within the prison, a friend having provided him with writing supplies and several notebooks. Fearing fascist censorship, Gramsci cleverly veiled his sharp Marxist critique, avoiding using words like ‘proletariat’ or ‘bourgeoisie’ and instead substituting them with words like ‘fundamental groups’. By 1935, Gramsci had filled thirty notebooks with his writings which were then smuggled out of prison and later published and translated widely. These became The Prison Notebooks. His writing forms an important base of the political theory we study today.
Hegemony traces its etymological roots to the Greek word egemonia, or egemon, meaning ‘leader’ or ‘ruler’. The word has evolved in complexity over the ages from its beginning as a reference to a powerful state’s control over its region. Political hegemony generally refers to this and is fairly straightforward to visualize. For instance, the might of Sparta, the imperial power of Great Britain and the United States’ hegemony in recent geopolitics come to mind. However, hegemony also operates insidiously and may not be obviously discernible, lurking in places we don’t look. This form of hegemony is known as cultural hegemony. Gramscian cultural hegemony refers to the power asserted by ‘fundamental groups’ on the general population, manipulating them into consenting to idealize one form of culture or values. Hegemonic power is exerted not by means of force or threat but through a subtler impression on the individual psyche. Culture, law, art. You name it and it is playing sides.
The beloved James Bond franchise is an eerie example of cultural hegemony, in particular, filmic hegemony. It reinforces the US as the rightful political hegemon through the construction of Bond. Slick, smooth and skilled, Bond is the ideal spy. But he is also a ‘good guy’, the hero that the audience roots for. Most importantly, he is the good guy that believes that the American world order is the greater good and that it is worth fighting for. Yes, Bond is a British hero and it is a British franchise. However, the movies were deliberately Americanized. The author Ian Fleming had British actor David Niven in mind for the role of Bond; however, it was the Scottish-born Sean Connery who got the role. Connery got rid of many of the ‘British mannerisms’ of the original franchise. The movies are all premised on the same concept—Bond trying to save the world from a villain who has gained access to a high-tech American weapon.
Most Bond villains are shown to be affiliated to the SPECTRE, an organization which is against both the East and West blocs. However, their backgrounds suggest that they are from the Soviet Union. In Die Another Day, the Soviet Union has already fallen and so the villain is another Leftist incarnation—North Korea. When the film was released, North Koreans alleged that it propagates George W Bush’s rhetoric of the ‘axis of evil’. The movies are controlled by US funding and they reflect American values as needing protection. Hegemony. 007 is a masterpiece of American soft power. It exemplifies not only the domination of Hollywood but the triumph of typically American values and societal organizations.
Scholars suggest that the Bond franchise also reinforces the importance of the US in the world order. Bond is repeatedly shown to collaborate with agents from the CIA, NSA and such American agencies. The plots build into cliff-hangers and Bond is often saved by these American officers. Scholars have argued that this reflects and reinforces the alliance of the Western countries. It indicates the rise of the United States as the country that ‘saves the day’. It seems to suggest that the sun will set on the British Empire if the US ceases to be their ally.
For those who say, ‘hey, they are just movies’—they are; they really are. And like every good story, they have formidable villains. However, it may be useful to ask, who are the villains? What drove them there? And who do we support? The public answers to these can change the course of history. The Tet Offensive of the Vietnam War resulted in the massacre of countless communists. US military officials considered it to be a big victory and the White House called it a ‘success campaign’ so as to reinforce the public that war was the way to go. But the media coverage turned the tables. Photographs, writings and news coverage about civilian-refugees and the undying determination of North Vietnam polarized public view. Then, with the election of Richard Nixon, the US finally pulled out of Vietnam.
Stories matter. How we tell them matters. As for James Bond, it is one of the crown jewels of the Hollywood action-thriller hits. But while we consume the glitz and glamour of the genre, it may be wise to analyse the subtext—to read between the scenes, if I may. In doing so we may spot that seemingly innocent media may actually be stabilizing a world order. James Bond backs one kind of world order, one which is based on liberal principles of the free market and capitalist development. It is a statement of unwavering American hegemony in recent times. Is that for better or for worse? That’s for you to decide.
For more on Gramscian hegemony: PHILO-notes | Gramsci
For more on the Vietnam antiwar movement: The New York Times | The Four Stages of the Antiwar Movement
Edited by Swathi C S
Article 19 