Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

bell hooks

ska invita

back on the other side
I just recently finished reading Aint i A Woman by bell hooks - what a powerful read. Such a fearless book, published in 1981 it tears into the shortcomings of what was then contemporary second wave middle class white feminism, and perhaps even more shocking for the time, gives a big kick in the balls to the patriarchy that ran through the majority of the black liberation movement. I'd love to know the reaction it had at the time from those on the sharp end.

The opening chapter on US slavery is devastating. I thought I had an idea of how bad things were in that period, but her focus on the details of sexual politics/aggression was jawdropping to read.

And on top of the that she is a brilliant writer: utterly to the point, minces no words, punch after punch, no hiding behind convoluted language - the kind of clarity born of recognising the truth of a thing.

I have two questions:
-does anyone know of any sympathetic, constructive critiques of her work? or have their own criticisms?
-she is still alive today: has anyone come across any writing or talks that are closer in time to the present day? Aint I A Woman is not dated, but it is of its time, I'd love to hear her take on how things stand now.

...also other writing recommendations that perhaps to some degree deal with other matters than those covered in Aint I A Woman
 
Last edited:
Lol
Imperialist White Supremicist Capitalist Partiarchical Culture.............................................................................

Of all the pomo identity politics, intersectionalists prodigies of P.Freire she is one of the most insightful significantly when it comes to human relationships,
More influenced by the likes of sociologists such as Castell & left bank pretensions of Bourdieu than American contemporaries such as Giroux.

However her saccarrine 'niceness' quasi religious outlook and basic shallowness in understanding the human condition is part of the reason why Hook's politics and world outlook is lacking & leads to genuinely disasterous problems in 'real world'.

Her views on masculinity have this limitations too, not only in context of 'machismo' and honest heuristic opposition and analysis to patriarchy but also any 'masculinity' positive or otherwise that doesn't fit into her 'nice' rose tainted spectacle view of how things can be; along with Freire & 'person centred' bollox of the likes of Rogers and either opposing psycho anlaysis understanding, significantly from a more empirical narrative such as Bowlby and to a lesser degree Kleine & Anna Freud (British Tradition) however also existential & anti psychiatry understandings of R.D; Laing etc. or trivialising it with some mystical crap may have something to do with this.

Apparently in 1980's there was a group calling itself 'B-Team' (says it all) in opposition to Alpha Males & Toxic Masculinity based on ideas of Freire linked with Bell's interpretation, which ended up, so i'm told 'bitching' with each other and falling out with each other.

Recently Hooks has become fashionable in some areas linked with identity politics of late 1980's/early 1990's after failure of the left, partly linked but not totally to dynamics sucha as Marxism Today and a hybrid of the madness that is modern version of identity politics and intersectionality that contradict each other and add to Orwellien nonsensical narratives.

Bell Hooks On Masculinity: Interview With Kevin Powell!


Probably one of her better books underlying Bell Hooks perspective based on post modernism & 'Critical Theory'!
 
Lol
Imperialist White Supremicist Capitalist Partiarchical Culture.............................................................................

Of all the pomo identity politics, intersectionalists prodigies of P.Freire she is one of the most insightful significantly when it comes to human relationships,
More influenced by the likes of sociologists such as Castell & left bank pretensions of Bourdieu than American contemporaries such as Giroux.

However her saccarrine 'niceness' quasi religious outlook and basic shallowness in understanding the human condition is part of the reason why Hook's politics and world outlook is lacking & leads to genuinely disasterous problems in 'real world'.

Her views on masculinity have this limitations too, not only in context of 'machismo' and honest heuristic opposition and analysis to patriarchy but also any 'masculinity' positive or otherwise that doesn't fit into her 'nice' rose tainted spectacle view of how things can be; along with Freire & 'person centred' bollox of the likes of Rogers and either opposing psycho anlaysis understanding, significantly from a more empirical narrative such as Bowlby and to a lesser degree Kleine & Anna Freud (British Tradition) however also existential & anti psychiatry understandings of R.D; Laing etc. or trivialising it with some mystical crap may have something to do with this.

Apparently in 1980's there was a group calling itself 'B-Team' (says it all) in opposition to Alpha Males & Toxic Masculinity based on ideas of Freire linked with Bell's interpretation, which ended up, so i'm told 'bitching' with each other and falling out with each other.

Recently Hooks has become fashionable in some areas linked with identity politics of late 1980's/early 1990's after failure of the left, partly linked but not totally to dynamics sucha as Marxism Today and a hybrid of the madness that is modern version of identity politics and intersectionality that contradict each other and add to Orwellien nonsensical narratives.

Bell Hooks On Masculinity: Interview With Kevin Powell!


Probably one of her better books underlying Bell Hooks perspective based on post modernism & 'Critical Theory'!

got around to watching that video - all a bit too freewheeling for me.
I didnt come across any of her " saccarrine 'niceness' quasi religious outlook and basic shallowness in understanding the human condition " that you say she does in the book I've read, but maybe you can point to some of that elsewhere and how it "leads to genuinely disastrous problems in 'real world'."? Quite a serious accusation, would be interested what you had in mind.


--
ive been thinking if i have any critical thoughts towards Aint I A Woman specifically and the only issue that comes to mind is her talking in absolute groups of "black men", "white women" etc. This is totally justified in the text and given solid historical context as these groupings are created BY slavery-racism, and she shows how the dynamics repeat and remain throughout US history.

ive just heard a talk by Irish-Nigerian author Emma Dibiri - her new book is called "What White People Can Do Next: From Allyship to Coalition ". In the talk she went to lengths to distance herself from the title, saying the use of "White People" as a category is a "provocation", and often a successful one at that. But she wanted to make clear how it can be problematic to talk about "white people", "black women" etc etc, as if these categories have solid boundaries, and she despairs when people fall into that thinking. She said she challenges this kind of essentialising-a-group in her book, and also when encountering it in real life, and her politics seemed sound to me - strong class and anti-capitalist groundings.

Overall I dont personally have a problem with this talking about colour-gender-groups, if done properly. There are times its useful to talk about "white men" etc, and as long as it is underpinned in a more nuanced and critical context - though it definitely can carry a danger of being understood crudely and perpetuating colour-gender stereotyping.

To me this boils down to the point that to talk about racism you have to use the language of racism, and theres a degree of vicious circle in doing that. Scientifically there's no such thing as race, but racism is real, and inevitably talking about racist social dynamics adds at least some energy to racialising terms <though ideally in the spirit of destroying racism, not perpetuating it.

Supposedly bell hooks has addressed this elsewhere, I think in All About Love...would be interested to read precisely what she says
 
Since the OP I've read Feminism Is for Everybody... It's alright, consciously a beginners guide to her vision of feminism...(iirc only downside was there was a religious chapter which rankled)
 
Bell Hooks On Masculinity: Interview With Kevin Powell!



#womenwritingmen
 
How come?
She took her great grandma's name as her pen name and decapitalised it in part to distinguish between them but also coz she wanted people to focus on the meaning of her work rather than her as an individual or something like that. Not sure it works - if you do something weird with your name people are gonna pay attention to it.
 
Could lead to this sort of confusion.

aHR0cDovL28uYW9sY2RuLmNvbS9oc3Mvc3RvcmFnZS9taWRhcy9lNTNkZWYxOWE1OWRiMDA0ZmJlZjAzN2U1NTE3Mzg4OS8yMDMyODA5MDcvTlRJX0ZPVVJfQ0FORExFU19NT1JMRVlfMDMuanBn
 
Back
Top Bottom