Bell hooks on Black Feminism

Bell hooks on Black Feminism

The essay by Bell Hooks is an attempt to study “Black feminism”. Gloria Watkins born in Hopkins ville, Kenucky, hooks chose to write under the name of her great-grandmother to honor her foremothers; she often refers to a household full of strong black women as one of her greatest influences. Hooks received her bachelor of arts degree from Stanford University in 1973 and her Ph.D. in English from the University of California at Santa Cruz in 1983. Throughout her years of study, hooks had difficulty reconciling her small-town Southern roots with her academic life. This disparity would later become a subject in her essays. In the mid-1980's, hooks became an assistant professor of Afro-American Studies and English at Yale University. Later she became a professor of English and Women's Studies at Oberlin College and then moved to City College in New York as a professor of English. Hooks had always been interested in expressing herself through writing, and a friend finally convinced her to write her first collection Ain't I a Woman (1981). In 1991 hooks was presented the Before Columbus Foundation's American Book Award for Yearning (1990).

Bell Hooks Feminist Theory -

Feminist Theory established bell hooks as one of international feminism's most challenging and influential voices. This edition includes a preface by the author, reflecting on the book's impact and the development of her ideas since it was first published. 
In this beautifully written and carefully argued work, hooks maintains that mainstream feminism's reliance on white, middle-class, and professional spokeswomen obscures the involvement, leadership, and centrality of women of colour and poor women in the movement for women's liberation. Hooks argues that feminism's goal of seeking credibility and acceptance on already existing ground – rather than demanding the lasting and more fundamental transformation of society – has short-changed the movement.
A sweeping examination of the core issues of sexual politics, eminists must acknowledge the full complexity and diversity of women's experience to create a mass movement to end women's oppression.

Breakdown of essentialism and experience –

Bell hooks uses deconstruction in “Essentialism and Experience” in order to criticize and break down’ critique of identity politics and the tendency in feminist scholarship to fail to “interrogate the location from which from which they feminists speak,” specifically as it pertains to underlying racist perspectives feminists write from and possess against women of color.

Bell Hooks picked apart the critiques of Black Feminism by exposing the markedly one-sided manner in which these ideologies were evaluated. Hooks addresses the gaps in Diane Fuss’ argument by showing that for every perceived concrete definition and meaning Fuss found for binary oppositions, such as the “insider” vs. the “outsider” in regards to identity politics, there were other very integral, yet unaccounted for, vantage points and perspectives to be considered. By stating “Black women are treated as though we are a box of chocolates presented to individual white women for their eating pleasure, so that they can decide for themselves and others which pieces are most tasty” bell hooks identified the implicit bias that exists within white feminism and criticizes Fuss for presenting an incorrect and incomplete analysis of Black women and Black Feminist thought by picking and choosing which aspects of black feminism suit her interests best.

Hooks made clear that in order to present a critique of an ideology, multiple perspectives must be accounted for. Diane Fuss considered identity politics and Black Feminism and attempted to apply a single and very specific critique to the vast, ever-growing, ever-changing ideology without first acknowledging the diversity in Black feminist thought and the importance and value in identity politics. Using methods of deconstruction, bell hooks blew Fuss’ critique wide open, exposing her readers to the abundance of meaning to be discovered within Black feminism and the multitude of ways in which identity politics may be perceived.

Just as Bell Hooks deconstructed feminist scholarship’s inability to contribute to a dialogue aimed to diminish “conventional oppressive hierarchies” by breaking down it’s inherently biased critique of Black feminism, Zora Neale Hurston’s “Sweat” acts as a deconstructionalist text, breaking down conventional gender-based hierarchies, particularly the pre-conceived perceptions of strength and weakness as they relate to masculinity and femininity, in the same manner.

Within “Sweat” the disparities between masculinity and femininity in respect to the symbolism of strength and weakness are presented very clearly very early on. Just as soon as the concepts of masculinity and femininity are introduced in the text, subsequent conventional roles of strength and weakness are applied to the respective masculine and feminine characters. However, just as bell hooks is able to find depth and meaning within Black feminist theory where Fuss was not, Hurston presents a story that allows its readers to find both depth and meaning in masculinity and femininity as they individually relate to strength and weakness where meaning otherwise might have been lost.

Upon the first introduction to Delia and Sykes, it is clear that femininity is signified more through mental fortitude whereas masculinity is signified through brute, physical strength. In fact, our initial introduction to the physical demeanor of Sykes as a “strapping hulk” and Delia as a “poor little body” possessing a “triumphant indifference” allude not only to their inherent masculinity and femininity, but also to their respective conventional strengths and weaknesses. As the dynamic between the two lead characters develops, various binary oppositions present themselves thematically in accordance to all that is feminine in contrast to all that is masculine. The dynamic between Delia and Sykes breaks down strength and weakness to reveal a series of binary oppositions that contribute to the text while also conceptualizing the disparity between what is masculine in contrast to what is feminine. This includes power vs. dependence, confidence vs. self-consciousness, give vs. take and ephemerality vs. endurance. Initially, we are exposed to Sykes as a powerful, masculine force possessing an immense amount of control over Delia through physical manipulation. “…he done beat huh ‘nough to kill three women…”. Sykes is recognized as an abusive husband and portrayed as a very aggressive force, playing on Delia’s fears far more than he soothes her and draining her happiness more than he contributes to her wellbeing. When we first encounter him, he is a dominant entity. However, Hurston breaks down this notion of equating masculinity with power and dominance as the reader gains insight of Sykes as his character develops and his dependence upon Delia, both financially and mentally, becomes clearer. “Delia’s habitual meekness seemed to slip from her shoulders like a blown scarf…. ‘Mah tub of suds is filled yo’ belly with vittles more times than yo’ hands is filled it’” (Hurston, 2). Delia and her power through her very feminine mental fortitude becomes dominant and “Sweat” begins to deconstruct the conventional meaning of masculine strength as a governing force.

The dynamic between Sykes and Delia begins to shift with the progression of Delia’s character development until the face of feminine strength appears to be exceedingly dominant to that of masculine weakness. In turn, the respective feminine and masculine binary oppositions shift as well. This presents not only depth of characterization and symbolism in the story, but also a substantial critique of what strength and weakness mean in respect to femininity and masculinity.

It is undeniable that strength and weakness exist as binary oppositions and their presence in the text is substantial. Although strength and weakness look very different for Sykes and his masculinity than they do for Delia and her femininity, “Sweat” combats the idea that there is any singular meaning for masculine strength versus feminine strength or masculine weakness versus feminine weakness. Toward the end of the story, as we witness Delia begin to grow more indifferent to the actions of Sykes and defiant of his abuse, she also becomes more forward with her anger and more aggressive in her language and thoughts. As Sykes attempts to play on Delia’s fear once again with the snake, she adopts a more conventionally masculine dominance taking a firm stand against Sykes and making very clear her position of power in contrast to his dependence. Delia exhibits the enduring nature of her femininity, but only after obscuring the lines between physical and mental strength and overcoming and outgrowing both her own and her husband’s weaknesses.

Although Delia’s femininity might reflect mental strength and physical weakness at a given point in time, this does not mean the physical force and the feeble, mental weakness that accompanied Sykes’ masculinity cannot also be exhibited by Delia, a markedly feminine symbol. Although their individual femininity and masculinity were fairly consistent, the orthodox symbols that accompanied them continued to shift and change throughout the short story. Strength and weakness, as they are presented in respect to masculinity and femininity, possess a fluid, ever-changing relationship and therefore cannot be reduced to a single meaning or be associated with a singular signifier.

Conclusion -

By weaving a series of binary oppositions into the complex characterizations of Sykes and Delia, “Sweat” created a critique of the idea that any definition for a given symbol can be concrete and unchanging. Deconstruction deals with the duality of oppositions and through the exploration of these oppositions, Zora Neale Hurston created a story that denied any notion that the binary oppositions presented through femininity and masculinity are mutually exclusive. Each symbol and pair of binary oppositions possesses meaning; however, the meaning is not singular or static. Each symbol shifts and continues to change as the text progresses. Just as bell hooks presented a new perspective to the dialogue of critiquing black feminism in “Essentialism and Experience,” Hurston presented a new perspective to the commentary of strength versus weakness when viewed through the lens of femininity and masculinity.