Can't connect right now! retry

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!

August 24, 2016

Bond or Bourne?


August 24, 2016

“Why Bourne is better than Bond” asked a recent article in GQ, to which it offered a simple response: “James Bond is a right-wing imperialist but Jason Bourne is a thorn to his masters’ foot. Isn’t that worth cheering?”

If we are - as it was correctly pointed out - to think of Bond as “a right-wing imperialist”, to what extent is Bourne really “a thorn to his masters’ foot”? Does he not represent a different kind of imperialist?

Jo Ellison of the Financial Times gets to the heart of the Bourne character with her erudite swooning over the boy, oblivious to the politics he serves. She prefers Bourne to Bond: “Why the pedant will always beat the poseur,” she quips.

To compare them, Bond is calm and confident, Bourne is pensive and tormented, confused, serving the CIA despite himself, by forcing it to test its finest espionage wherewithal, fight its inner weaknesses, project a moral rectitude as it goes about the business of making the world safe for predatory capitalism.

Bond knows what he wants and goes and gets it with power, poise and panache, while being habitually protected by his boss and having his “Bond girl” on the side.

Bourne has no clue what he is doing; he just knows that his boss wants to kill him. His survival instinct is definitive to the system he serves, the surest firewall to its enduring success. He has done his fair share of murdering, and is now giving the system a sense of moral superiority too.

Bond is old-school British imperialism with liberal pomp and gadgetry ceremony. Bourne is new-school American imperialism, inconspicuous and discreet to the point of self-forgetfulness.

He is the personification of American empire, having its cake and eating it too, ruling the world with a Protestant ethic while saving its spirit of capitalism, with moral austerity informing his killer instincts.

The best description of Bourne is by A O Scott of The New York Times – that he is an “amnesiac assassin”. With that, Scott gives the best description of Bourne as the supreme simulacrum of US imperialism, without knowing it: “A man who runs on pure survival instinct as he tries to figure out who is after him and why…”

Bond and Bourne come together to complement the manner in which two imperial warriors upgrade their medieval antecedents as the knights of two successively globalised empires during the first (British) and the second (American) half of the 20th century.

The British liberal imperialism became normative to its age as its American successor became typically amnesiac and neurotic, an extension of the delusional neurosis it considers its “manifest destiny”.

Bourne’s phobic demeanour typifies the proverbial American “exceptionalism” in which there is a neurotic tension between the fact of the global reach of its military might and the delusion of its mom-and-apple-pie, folkloric “exceptionalism”.

Bourne cannot remember anything precisely, the same way as successive US administrations systemically reinvent their imperial reach with a short memory. The internal conflict of Bourne thus stages the ascetic ethics of his shabby demeanour, staging his state-of-the-art cut-throat killer instinct, his fancy martial art techniques, and the massive electronic gadgetry that is outfoxed by him.

Thus the “reluctant” superpower embodies all its characteristics in its most talented agent who must ostensibly oppose it in order truly to serve it better.

Compared with him, Bond is a gaudy archival type from the antebellum period, when the first waves of decolonisation and its unresolved consequences had given him a comic disposition to safeguard the world for British antiquarianism.

This article has been excerpted from: ‘Bond or Bourne: Normative vs neurotic imperialism’.