No *you're* an impervious substance
On the meaning of strength, and the television show Bones
Most of you probably don’t know that the television show Bones ran for 12 years. It was just sort of around, and there are those who believe it may still be on. It’s hard to verify.
Of course we all know its famous catchphrase - “To the Bonesmobile!” - but even so I doubt anyone reading this has given any thought to Bones recently. And I can be pretty certain that none of you have listened to every episode of The Bones Zone Podcast.
Lucky for you, I have.
Episodic television may just be my favourite art form, and I love that so many of them have value without being high art (although, also, one day I will write about The Leftovers, and we will all cry together).
Different television shows have different purposes, and mostly we don’t expect insight from Bones. We expect an extraordinary amount of bone crime, and all within the federal jurisdiction.
However, there is a scene from season 6 somewhere, and I’ve been thinking about it a lot.
In the scene, Bones (the title character’s name is Bones) is talking about the differences between strength and imperviousness.1
In my memory the scene has Bones saying that a bone is not strong because it is impervious. If I had given that a second of thought I would have doubted the memory, because bones are definitely pervious, and if there is one thing the television show Bones (and the character Bones) gets right: it is bones.
What she actually says is the following:
Dr. Temperance 'Bones' Brennan (played by Emily Deschanel): You know the difference between strength and imperviousness, right?
Special Agent Seeley Booth (played by Angel, from the tv show Angel): Well, not if you're going to get all scientific on me.
Bones: Well, a substance that is impervious to damage doesn't need to be strong.
Booth: Hmm.
Bones: When you and I met. I was an impervious substance. Now I'm a strong substance.
Important character growth for Bones, and profound distinction for me.
I think about this distinction a lot, especially as it relates to variable human capacity and power structures relating to gender, but also when it comes to what qualities serve us best when the world is in wild transition.
Most of us grew up swaddled in norms that said strength essentially meant imperviousness: it was the ability to be unaffected, and it was deeply masculine. It was also the source of power: to be unaffected was to demonstrate rationality (another conversation for another day) and clear mindedness.
But humans are as permeable as they come, and I am even more permeable than that. The whole point of social ecosystems is that we are affected by each other. And we should be: we are responsible for each other, and we survive by each other.
Strength - true strength, human strength, the kind of strength you need to live interdependently, or be in a relationship with Special Agent Seeley Booth - comes not from having no skin in the game. It comes from being resourced and regulated enough to handle all of what gets in.2
And it helps me, as a starting point, and as a hypersensitive person in a world where lots is going wrong, to at least face the right direction: not towards being less affected, but towards being more resourced for all that gets in.
May we all be strong. May we all rewatch the episode of Bones where a hacker writes tiny destructive code onto a bone and it destroys the Smithsonian’s computers.3
Amen 😌
The Bones wikia tells me it was episode 6.16, “The Blackout in the Blizzard”. We give thanks for fan-made wikis everywhere.
How we strengthen is a whole other thing that invokes intersectional privilege, takes me way over my 500 words, and doesn’t really relate to Bones (or Bones) at all.
Episode 7.06, “The Crack in the Code”.
Another treat of wit and insight. Thank you.