Intersectional Feminism in bell hooks’ Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center

Although bell hooks’ Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center was found to be “provocative” when it was published in 1984, hooks’ ideas of intersectional feminism fit well in 4th wave feminism. In Feminist Theory, hooks aims to create a blueprint for a mass-based feminist revolution that speaks to all genders, races, and classes. hooks explores the limitations of various aspects of feminist theory and practice, how to improve them, and other experts’ opinions. 

bell hooks, born in Kentucky in 1952, studied English at Stanford University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In 1983, following years spent teaching and writing, she received her Doctorate in English from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Before her untimely death in 2021, she published around 40 books ranging from essays and poetry to children’s books, as well as scholarly articles. 

Her writings address ideas of intersectionality of race, gender, and capitalism, and how these concepts produce and perpetuate systems of oppression and domination. Despite her breadth of academic experience and qualification, hooks is known for her skill in writing for a the greater public with accessible language, furthering her goal of a common language for feminism.

In Feminist Theory, hooks approaches topics by analyzing how much progress has been made by 1984, then discusses what must be changed for feminist revolution. She enhances arguments by supporting or refuting other feminist scholars’ voices including Betty Friedan, Toni Morrison, Grace Lee Boggs and James Boggs, Charlotte Bunch, Lucia Valeska, and Paulo Freire.

hooks first criticizes Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, because it ignored women who did not fit the white, upper-middle class mold. She asserts that Black women are the most victimized group of women in terms of sexual oppression, bearing the brunt of sexist, racist, and classist oppression. Their marginality gives them a unique consciousness and central role in feminist movement.

In the second chapter, hooks expands on feminist revolution. She states how race, class, and sex work together to determine the extent to which an individual will be oppressed. Although this book was written in 1984, the importance of intersectional feminism remains relatively new in dominant feminist thought. According to hooks, the mainstream attempts at defining feminism in 1984 reflected the class nature of the movement, being liberal in origin, because society is more respective to feminist demands that don’t threaten the status quo. 

In chapter three, hooks addresses the significance of feminism as a channel for ideological meetings between people. She states that liberal white feminists never explained why feminism is important, believing that social equality was a universal concern. This resulted in failure to emphasize the necessity for mass-based movement and grassroots organizing, making feminism appear relevant only to women in feminist organizations. In reality, hooks believes that sexist oppression is the domination that most people experience. She argues that children are socialized from birth to accept group oppression and family liberation must be a result of feminist movement.

In chapter four, hooks explains the importance of solidarity among women. Male supremacist ideology encourages women to believe they obtain value only by relating to or bonding over men, which corresponds to the Bechdel Test. hooks analyzes the competitive nature of women, and how this must be unlearned in order to build a sustainable movement. She argues that many white bourgeois feminists exploit the stories of Black women for their issues, but don’t include them in the movement or acknowledge their racism. Women are taught to bond over images of women as victims, which white women liberationists embraced, allowing them to abdicate responsibility for their role in the maintenance and perpetuation of sexism, racism, and classism. They victimized themselves in order to make Black women the perpetrator, another result of a patriarchal society and form of white supremacy. hooks explains that women should work together to expose, examine, and eliminate sexist socialization within ourselves to build a foundation for solidarity. Feminist movement needs to show women how racism and sexism are connected, rather than pit one struggle against the other or blatantly dismiss racism.

The feminist movement has also splintered into special-interest groups because women doubt that other groups see the significance of their individual experiences. However, this erects unnecessary barriers to Sisterhood, because feminists must learn to fight oppressions that may not directly affect us as individuals. When we show our concern for the collective, we strengthen our solidarity.

In chapter five, hooks discusses why men are our comrades in feminism. When women lead the feminist movement, this assigns another “sex-role” to them of making feminist revolution (68). This rhetoric reinforces sexism, implying that women’s liberation is at the expense of men. However, men do not share a common social status, because patriarchy does not negate the existence of class and race privilege. Anti-male sentiments alienated many poor and working-class, especially non-white, women, from feminist movement, because Black women know the hardships all genders face in their communities. 

hooks also explains that working-class men attack and oppress women because they are usually “hurt” and emotionally scared because they do not have the privilege or power society has taught them ‘real men’ should possess” (75). She argues that when men beat or rape women, they may feel satisfied in exercising the only form of domination allowed to them in patriarchal society. Men must assume responsibility for transforming their consciousness.

Chapter six examines perspectives of power. hooks quotes Nancy Hartsock’s words that women must recognize how “power understood as energy, strength, and effective interaction needn’t be the same as power that requires the domination of others” (91). hooks says that feminist ideology should clarify for women the powers they exercise daily and show them how these powers can resist sexist domination and exploitation. For example, “one of the most significant forms of power held by the weak is the ‘refusal to accept the definition of oneself that is put forward by the powerful’” (92).

hooks also discusses the need to rethink the nature of work, once more criticizing Friedan for claiming that the most pressing problem for women was the need to get outside and work, to cease being ‘just’ housewives. This ignores how many working-class women find joy in housewifery outside of difficult, menial labor. Work can be an affirmation of one’s identity rather than a negation, as the powerful want women to view it. 

In chapter eight, hooks introduces how educating women is a feminist agenda. She explains how writing and literacy help develop an individual’s imagination and ability to think. A person’s access, through reading a variety of interpretations of reality, increases that person’s capacity to think for themself, to go against cultural norms, and to conceive of alternatives for society. However, many people don’t have literacy. Therefore, feminist ideas must also be spread by word-of-mouth. She proposes bringing women’s studies courses to local community centers. Ideology and mobilization are both vital parts to feminist movement, and hooks believes that revolutionary politics can only arrive from correct ideology.

In chapter nine, hooks discusses the feminist movement to end violence. She explains how the Western philosophical notion of hierarchical rule and coercive authority is the root cause of violence between those who dominate and those who are dominated, affecting male supremacy. hooks believes that battery is caused by the cultural belief that hierarchical rule and coercive authority are natural.

She introduces the idea of a “cycle of violence” for Black men and women. In the public world, the male worker may be subjected to psychological abuse by a boss or authority figure. Since he depends on the work situation for material survival, he suppresses this violence and releases it in what she calls a ‘control’ situation, at home and on women. hooks argues that the sexist and patriarchal notion of masculinity, exacerbated by capitalism, impacts men so that they feel degraded, alienated, and exploited in the work force. Men must begin to challenge notions of masculinity that equate manhood with the ability to exert power over others.

Furthermore, hooks explains how love and violence have become intertwined in this society, due to television and romance novels. Women are encouraged to accept violence as a sign of masculinity. Feminist efforts to end male violence against women must be expanded into a movement to end all forms of violence as social control.

In the next chapter, hooks asserts that effective parenting must make no distinction between maternal and paternal care. Until males are taught how to parent using the same model of effective parenting as is taught to women, they won’t participate equally in child care. hooks argues that community-based child care should become more prevalent, which could be improved through public day-care centers with all genders sharing responsibility for child care.

In chapter eleven, hooks explains the need to end sexual oppression. She explains how there is stigma regardless of how sexual people choose to be, including compulsive heterosexuality. Sexual freedom can exist only when individuals are no longer oppressed by a socially constructed sexuality based on biologically determined definitions of sexuality: repression, guilt, shame, dominance, conquest, and exploitation. Social relations must change to rid people from any of the violence and alienation of fixed images and norms. A line that still applies today is that “the right to choose must characterize all sexual interactions between individuals” (157).

hooks concludes Feminist Theory by explaining how feminist revolution must develop through gradual struggle. At the end of many small quantitative changes, everything will change gradually so that the whole system is completely different. However, a mass-based feminist movement requires ideology that can be shared with everyone, which can only be created if the experiences of marginalized people who suffer sexist oppression and other forms of group oppression are understood, addressed, and incorporated. Positive types of reforms focus foremost on educating masses about feminist movement on how it would transform their lives for the better. 

She also states that love is an essential part of the revolution, because love means commitment to others and their cause. This love is important particularly to those who are politically unconscious, because we cannot motivate them to join feminist struggle by asserting a political superiority that makes the movement just another oppressive hierarchy. The basis for revolution must be on cultural transformation and eradicating systems of domination. There are numerous examples of liberation struggles led by oppressed peoples globally who resist formidable powers that can serve as guidance.

Overall, this monograph explains complicated ideas clearly and accessibly. hooks wrote this monograph for the everyday human, and explains fundamental ideas in the beginning to ensure understanding. She references other voices effectively; enhancing the monograph with their diverse perspectives. 

hooks’ weakness is that she condemns women for enjoying forms of entertainment that many find enjoyable, such as romance novels and watching television. While I understand the patriarchal and dangerous sides of these consumption areas, she implies that they are ‘shallow’ pastimes. Furthermore, there are sections where she puts the impetus on women to help men overcome their internalized misogyny, when this isn’t women’s responsibility. 

I really enjoyed this monograph. It wasn’t too long, yet covered several different topics pertaining to a feminist revolution. Although it was written almost 40 years ago, many ideas still hold true, which is unsettling yet fascinating. It continued my education on intersectional feminism, which I’ve been interested in ever since reading bell hooks for the first time during my first year at Davidson. I think her ideas will continue to be applicable and relevant to all people for a long time.

Bibliography

Hooks, Bell. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. South End Press, 2000.

Wikimedia Foundation. “Bell Hooks.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Nov. 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks.

Defining Mom

Proctor and Gamble’s (P & G) “Thank you Mom” commercial appeared in 2012 as part of the campaign that ran during and put narrative focus on the 2012 London Olympic Games. The commercial depicts the progress of athletes as they move from young children to Olympic competitors, supported along the way by their mothers. Five or six different mothers are depicted waking their young athletes early, making them different (assumedly culturally appropriate) breakfasts, and then delivering the children to various athletic practices. The mothers do it all again the next day, and the next, and the next. The athletes are shown in different stages of life and after trial and tribulation each arrives at his or her specific Olympic event. The mothers look on with tears of pride.

Proctor and Gamble is the parent company of over 60 brands that comprise mostly of household cleaning and beauty products. Dawn dish soap, Brawny paper towels, and Tide detergent are just a few of the company’s most-recognizable assets. Because of the company’s brands, we can assume the advertisement’s target audience is people who work in the home performing domestic tasks: whoever uses dish soap, paper towels, and laundry detergent most often will likely be the buyer of such products. The first (and most important) assumption the ad makes is that the Mother is the keeper of the home. The campaign called “Thank You Mom,” and the text at the end of the ad specifically addresses mothers. By targeting mothers with their ad, P & G assumes they are the primary users of P & G products.

The argument P & G addresses to its viewers runs along these lines: Domestic work leads to greatness; washing uniforms, and cooking meals allow children to become Olympic athletes. P & G ties greatness to working in the home. At this point in the commercial, it appears that P & G has made the assumption that all primary caregivers are women: no male caretakers appear in these video sequences, unless you could the fuzzy half-outline of a dad at a gymnastics meet.

The ad furthers this assumption when the words “Thank you, Mom” appear on the screen. All caretakers are women, and all Mothers are caretakers. The ad also assumes that the same member of the family is responsible for both the housework and taking care of children, a situation that does not hold for every family structure. One interesting consequence of the lack of male caretakers in the ad is the resulting lack of comment on caretakers’ relationship status. Are the mothers of the commercial straight, lesbian, or trans? Are the mothers perhaps single mothers? No assumptions are made in regards to this element of family life.

The ad assumes all caretakers are women, all Mothers are caretakers, and the caretaker performs all the housework. The argument is simple: domestic work (the kind facilitated by P & G products) leads to greatness. Just as mothers work tirelessly to support their children, P & G supports Moms (and so moms should buy their products).

Proctor and Gamble’s ad is an attempted intervention into the myth of the happy fifties housewife: yes, taking care of a child and taking care of housework is hard, says the ad; The text at the end of the video reads “The hardest job in the world is the best job in the world.” By acknowledging the difficulty of maintaining a household and raising children, the ad disrupts the image of the smiling mother who has lots of time for book-club and social gatherings. (Maybe my own image of junior-leaguers and country club cocktails is shaping my view of this commercial a little too much here.)

In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan enters into Proctor and Gamble’s chosen world of the happy housewife. Friedan argues (contrary to P&G’s ad) that mothers and wives must stop searching for happiness among their husbands and children: happiness lies in fulfilling the dreams that are frustrated when intelligent women give up education and careers to stay at home with children. Friedan contradicts P&G’s message of motherly fulfillment through self-sacrifice, yet both Friedan’s and P&G’s arguments have the same oversights: both ads entirely ignore differences of race and class. (Though, admittedly, P&G does attempt to address the race issue by showing athletes and mothers of all nationalities).

bell hooks’ criticisms of Friedan in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, hold for the P&G commercial. hook argues that Friedan’s narrative of the troubled 50’s housewife is the narrative only of the white, upper-middle class housewife; Friedan’s dilemma in no way parallels the experiences of lower class white women, or of women of color (from any class). Friedan assumes that all women (her assumed audience) are mothers with husbands and no careers. Similarly, Proctor and Gamble assumes that all mothers are stay-at-home moms, who take care of cooking and cleaning. The ad leaves no space for mothers who have to work (usually a class issue), or for mothers who choose to work, or for fathers who are the primary caregivers for their families.

According to the Proctor and Gamble, children who achieve great things have mothers that sacrifice; sacrifice to wake up early, sacrifice to drive children to practice, and sacrifice to do all the housework that allows their children to be great. Don’t worry, says the narrative of the ad, being a mother is the “best job in the world.” Plus, you’ll get thanked and acknowledged for all your hard work… if you sacrifice. How do career moms feel when they view this advertisement? Do they feel that they are being thanked for all their hard work? P & G’s “Thank you mom” ad supports existing stereotypical norms of American family structure (white, mother and father, 2.5 kids).

BUT WAIT. What if these are real athletes and these are their real mothers? Are we to fault companies for reflecting real-life realities? Or perhaps the commercial is not based upon real Olympic athletes, and is rather a strategic attempt to sell product to P & G’s target demographic. Is it wrong to assume that the large majority of P & G’s buyers are mothers who are also primary caregivers and housewives? The ad is undeniably touching, and on some level appeals to nearly everyone. Everyone, at some point, had a mother. Most people have had a caretaker who cared for them with the maternal affection demonstrated by P&G’s mothers. The analysis of a commercial is tricky business: do we evaluate commercials based on their effectiveness as advertisements, or based on their representation of the society to whom they are selling? The morality of the advertising world is a topic that will have to wait for another post…

This post, by the way, is dedicated to my own mother. Mom: sorry I haven’t done anything as impressive as win a gold medal. Nonetheless, #thankyoumom.

Works Cited

The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, 1963

Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, bell hooks, 1984