On bell hooks...
In recent years, the idea that white supremacy, imperialism, patriarchy, and capitalism are interlocking forces of oppression has inarguably become a truism. However, one might ask how these coined phrases have been so prominent in our contemporary dialogue, marking a great departure from the discussions of race, gender, and class from even a decade ago. The answer lies with Gloria Jean Watkins, better known by her pen name, bell hooks. In redefining the goals of modern day feminism and recognizing the impact that intertwined oppressive institutions have on a woman’s position in society, bell hooks provided a new common ground for conversation in this sphere, as well as reminding us of the complexity of identity in American society.
hooks is an American writer, activist, and academic best known for her published works regarding the intersectionality of race, class, and gender. Her pen name is a tribute to her beloved great grandmother whom she adored for her sharp wit and bold dialogue. hooks decided to keep all letters in lowercase to draw attention away from the writer’s identity and towards the substance of the prose. Born in 1952 to a working class family in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, hooks attended a racially segregated public school until Jim Crow laws were overturned in the late 1960s. The racial discrimination hooks faced during her challenging transition to an integrated school would later inspire many of her works regarding the discussion of Black feminism. After graduating from high school, hooks went on to earn several degrees in English and literature. Her career in academia began as an English professor and senior lecturer in Ethnic Studies at the University of Southern California. hooks later taught at many other post-secondary institutions, whilst also publishing influential pieces that would change public dialogue concerning feminism, class, and race for decades to come. Over the span of her career, hooks has published over 30 books, as well as several academic articles, all written in a very digestible, populist format that caters to the understanding of the common people. In this manner, hooks successfully engaged with a variety of audiences, challenging them to construct their own cultural critiques - effectively shaping her role and legacy as a public intellectual.
In defining a public intellectual, it is important to examine the impact of an individual’s work on shifting the public consciousness, rather than merely regarding the individual’s background and academic qualifications. hooks employed her academic background in the English language to articulate the perspective of a Black woman in America, successfully provoking new streams of thought in the feminist dialogue. One can connect bell hooks’ status as a public intellectual to arguments made in The Decline of the Public Intellectual. The author of this blog argues that “all participants in self-government are duty-bound to prod, poke, and pester the powerful institutions that would shape their lives,” or more simply put, their duty is to merely “keep the pot boiling.” Despite some intellectuals bemoaning the public’s hesitancy to accept their ideas, many would argue that the esteem of public intellectuals remain valid in the way that their ideas continue to spark conversation and debate, much like bell hooks.
hooks, from a young age, championed critical thinking to help her through the oppressive conditions that came with growing up in the deeply segregated south. She speaks fondly of her teachers who encouraged her to challenge ideas and institutions, whilst also resolving judgment. This formed the basis of her prose, as she encourages all readers to critique the society they live in. hooks also drew inspiration from Sojourner Truth (whose speech “Aint I a Woman” inspired her first book) and Martin Luther King. She greatly admired MLK for highlighting the strength of love to unite communities, once remarking that “he had a profound awareness that the people involved in oppressive institutions will not change… without engagement with those who are striving for a better way.” MLK’s influence on her shape of thinking can be seen in her prevailing themes of overcoming race, class, and gender inequalities through inclusion, communion, and love.
Understanding the second wave of feminism, often referred to as the “women’s liberation movement,” is essential to grasping how bell hooks deviated from the feminist dialogue of her time. As a young woman, hooks watched second wave feminists complain that women should be able to expand beyond their ‘unfulfilling’ roles in homemaking and child care, advocating for the right to work, reproductive rights, and other legal inequalities. However, one may ask - who, specifically, is this movement seeking to liberate? If you ask bell hooks, she would point to the niche group of white, privileged, and highly educated women leading the movement, and point out the hypocrisy of their demands. A clear example of the movement’s exclusionary nature can be seen in their demands in the workplace: women of color have historically always been in the workforce. One clear example is slavery - unpaid labor that exploited and commodified African American lives since colonial times. Other examples include immigrant women and women of color populating the workforce as housekeepers and factory workers. As such, hooks and other women of color did not see labor as necessary to their liberation - quite the opposite, in fact. Thus, hooks rightfully criticized the movement for addressing issues that women of color did not deem worthy of victimization, highlighting the privilege behind such a demand.
Expanding upon this critique, hooks criticized the 20th century feminist movement for pitting white women against black women, and noted that intersectionality is key to understanding the layers of oppression different women faced. I wholeheartedly agree with her intersectional feminist theory, as the feminist movement had, for too long, operated under the assumption that every woman was oppressed in the same fashion. In reality, the dynamics of race, class, and gender all serve to create different levels of oppression, and acknowledging this disparity has since inspired more camaraderie within the feminist movement, instead of exclusion.
hooks is perhaps best known for defining modern feminism, as well as being one of the first advocates for Black women within the movement; these topics form the heart of her contribution to modern American dialogue. Acknowledging the ambiguity and diversity surrounding the term ‘feminism,’ bell hooks notably said that if feminism can mean everything, it means nothing. In defining feminism as “a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression,” hooks effectively captures the range of topics concerning modern feminists, and removes any restrictions in regards to whom the movement is liberating, as well as who can get behind these ideas. At its core, defining modern feminism has allowed for feminist dialogue to begin on common ground. This definition characterizes modern feminism in reframing the constituents of the movement, as well as its purpose.
Drawing upon her own observations and personal experiences as a Black woman in America, hooks noticed that Black women have long been left out of the discussion for women’s rights, and employed her linguistic expertise to push for more diversity and inclusion in the movement’s rhetoric. With this novelle definition, she ushered in a new way of viewing the feminist movement - not one of blame and victimization, which, many can argue, pitted white women against black women, and men against women, but rather, a movement galvanized by shared love and compassion for all. This idea reflects one of the prevailing themes of her work - linking diverse ideas together, sometimes unconventionally, as well as redefining an idea in a populist fashion. What fascinates me about her work is that she, in seeking honest conversation through politically correct diction, brings together groups of people who were historically segregated in terms of perspective and motive. Growing up during a time of desegregation, yet still bearing the memories of a segregated America, hooks has inspired her audience to use education, critical thinking skills, and empathy to overcome oppression, just as she did.
Her academic background led her to scrutinize the diction of feminist public discourse, and criticize their effect on the public consciousness. For instance, hooks disliked using the term ‘racism,’ and preferred to use the phrase ‘white supremacy.’ The former, she argued, keeps white people at the center of discussion, whereas the latter alludes to the racial caste system in which individuals in a society frame themselves in relationship to. Further, the phrase ‘white supremacy’ evokes the necessary connection between imperialism and racial inequality today, which is essential to having genuine discussions.
Other phrases hooks preferred to use were ‘patriarchy’ in discussing gender, and ‘capitalist’ in discussing class. hooks takes a rather sympathetic approach to sexism, saying that “until we can collectively acknowledge the damage patriarchy causes and the suffering it creates, we cannot address male pain.” While it is generous of hooks to point out the systematic fashion in which patriarchy is enforced and continues to prevail in society, I would argue that these institutions are not the only reason for its existence. One could point to a family with a patriarchal structure as an example, and observe that it is not only the male figures who are upholding the patriarchy, but family members who fail to question it as well. In her argument, she circumvents the notion of oppressors being individuals with agency, thus absolving them from much of the responsibility. All of these terms refer to an institutional structure, rather than individual beliefs, which is a point that I both admire and take issue with. While it is important to use such language to capture the interlocking nature of oppressive forces in our society today, some may argue that bigoted individuals are responsible for creating these oppressive institutions. With hooks claiming that ‘men aren’t the enemy, patriarchal capitalism is the enemy,’ one can’t help but wonder who is responsible for creating such institutions.
On the contrary, advocating for the use of these phrases and terms is fundamental to recognizing existing inequalities, which is the first step to deconstructing oppressive measures. Furthermore, hooks is correct in attributing oppression to a whole system, rather than individuals; yet, the extent to which she argues this point remains a point of contention for some.
hooks’ writing, in effect, ushered in an era during which people began recognizing that a woman’s value is also contingent on her race, political history, and socioeconomic status. Normalizing these discrepancies allowed for all women to relate to the feminist movement, as well as emphasizing the importance of intersectionality in analyzing oppressive mechanisms within today’s society. Perhaps most notably, bell hooks’ prose serves to remind us of the importance of recognizing the intricacies that lie within American identities. However, people are not confined to these rigid categories, as the American public would like to think, and it is through understanding these intricacies of American consciousness and identity that will allow us to host open, honest, conversations.
Sources:
Recent Posts
See AllFor the past three decades, North Korea has expanded its ballistic missile technology at an alarming speed. They are now believed to...
Comments