Critique of bell hooks — The Will To Change and Beyond…

I first started out the venture as I reread the works of hooks over this Ramadan period. However, solely focusing on one text, didn’t cut it for me as I had other critiques of her other work I wanted to levy. So why not just do it in one go?

The Will To Change?

“The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love” is a 2004 book written by bell hooks that explores the ways in which patriarchy and male privilege harm men and the ways in which men can work to resist and dismantle these oppressive systems. I will examine the strength and weaknesses of the book.

The great strength of “The Will to Change” is its clear and direct writing style. hooks has a gift for explaining complex ideas in accessible language, and this makes the book a valuable resource for people who may not be familiar with feminist theory or gender studies. The book is also well-organized, with each chapter building upon the ideas of the previous one. The chapters are short, which makes the book easy to read in short bursts or as a whole. hooks argues that men are harmed by patriarchy just as women are and that men have a responsibility to challenge and change the systems that oppress them. This is an important message that is often overlooked in discussions of feminism and gender equality.

However, for the go-to book for the study of masculinity in academic circles, it comes off more like a novel rather than a scientific study. One of my main criticisms of the book is that it is not inclusive enough of men who are not white or heterosexual. While hooks does briefly acknowledge this issue in the introduction, the book focuses primarily on the experiences of white, middle-class men. This is a limitation that may make the book less relevant to men from other backgrounds.

For instance, in the chapter “Fatherhood: The Weight of Patriarchal Reckoning,” hooks uses personal anecdotes and stories from white men to illustrate her points about fatherhood and masculinity. While these stories are powerful and engaging, they do not reflect the experiences of men from other racial or socioeconomic backgrounds.

In the chapter “Spiritual Surrender: Patriarchal Religion and the Future of Love,” hooks focuses on the experiences of white, Christian men and does not engage with the perspectives of men from other religious or cultural backgrounds. While Hooks does acknowledge that patriarchy operates differently in different cultures and contexts, she does not explore these differences in detail or offer concrete strategies for how men from diverse backgrounds can work to resist and dismantle patriarchy. What stood out to me in the chapter the most was when hooks state “In contrast to patriarchal religions that emphasize the importance of submission and obedience, the Dalai Lama speaks of compassion and active engagement with the world, seeing spirituality as intimately connected to social justice and political action.” For those who are unaware of the Dalai Lama it is widely alleged that when Dalai Lama fled Tibet in 1959, among the things that he took with him, there were 67 items all made of human body parts, and over the years during his time touring the planet, he gave the most of them away as gifts to the Western and Indian politicians. Those he offered to the American government include two Tang-kas (cards painted with images of Lamaist deities) made of human skin, a Tibetan Lamaism ritual instrument made of the human skull and a sutra tube made of human bone. But somehow the Lama is the embodiment of the ideal masculinity hooks argues. What is also key is to know that it is true that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) provided financial support to the 14th Dalai Lama and his followers in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This support was part of a larger U.S. government effort to support Tibetan resistance to Chinese Communist rule. According to declassified documents, the CIA provided $1.7 million in assistance to the Dalai Lama’s followers between 1956 and 1971. This assistance included funding for military and paramilitary training, as well as for the support of Tibetan refugees in India and Nepal. The same kind of fighting that hooks have criticized black male militants for. Also in this chapter hooks does not cite any specific studies or data to support her argument.Not to mention the recent pedophilia incident involving the Lama.Similarly, in the chapter “Pornography: Men Possessing Women,” hooks make claims about the harmful effects of pornography on women’s lives (I agree), but she does not provide empirical evidence to support these claims. This then leads to another critique of the book as it relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and personal stories. While these stories are often powerful and moving, empirical evidence does not always support them. In another instance, in the chapter “Love as the Practice of Freedom,” hooks argues that men’s socialization to view love as possession and control leads to destructive and abusive relationships with women. While hooks provides some examples of this phenomenon from her own experiences and from her counseling work, she does not provide empirical evidence or data to support her claims. In almost every chapter I was constantly writing “says who” or “where is the citation” on almost all her assertions. This is similar to what Patricia Bell Scott’s assertion in an article review of From Margin to Center. Scott states that “hooks was charged with being ahistorical, unscholarly (there were many complaints about the absence of footnotes), and homophobic.”

Also, the book does not offer enough solutions or strategies for change. While hooks does provide some suggestions for how men can work to resist patriarchy, these suggestions are not always fully fleshed out or well-supported. This may leave some readers feeling frustrated or unsure of how to act. One example of this can be found in the chapter “Comrades in Struggle,” where hooks argues that men must “unlearn” their socialization to be dominant and aggressive and instead learn to be vulnerable and empathetic in their relationships with women. While this is a powerful call to action, hooks does not provide detailed strategies for how men can unlearn these behaviors or how they can develop more empathetic relationships with women.

hooks the Landlord

Yes, bell hooks, who is a prominent feminist and social activist, was a landlord for a period of time. In her memoir, “Bone Black: Memories of Girlhood,” she writes about inheriting rental properties from her father and her complicated feelings and experiences as a landlord.

“I inherited rental properties from my father. Although I knew that being a landlord was a position of power, it never occurred to me to refuse that power. I was not always comfortable with it, but I accepted it.”

Some of her defenders might come and say she was a bit young at that time. However, she reified her devotion to landlordism quite cleverly in a discussion with Kevin Powell on Black Masculinity in 2015.

“I have bought a lot of real estate ‘cause’ I believe we gotta get our money straight. Girl get your money straight.”

For all the so-called communist and socialist hooks supporters…this is your idol.

hooks — illusion, not revolution.

In Chapter 4 of We Real Cool, hooks states:

Soledad Brother, a collection of letters written by George Jackson during his prison stay, is full of his urging black males to show their allegiance to the struggle by their willingness to be violent. Paradoxically, by embracing the ethos of violence, Jackson and his militant comrades were not defying imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy; unwittingly, they were expressing their allegiance. By becoming violent they no longer have to feel themselves outside the cultural norms.

How George and Jackson are rolling in their graves at the sight of such a travesty.

There is more.

hooks states:

Had the white supremacist patriarchal state wanted to, it could have imprisoned and slaughtered black males active in militant black power movements for racial justice from the onset. It served the interest of the state to socialize black males away from non-violence (which was after all the powerful ethical position that had led many whites to join anti-racist civil rights struggle) and push them in the direction of violence.

I am lost for words at the fact someone so lauded wrote such rubbish. The history of black militant men being killed by the US state apparatus is a long and tragic one. Even in her book “Killing Rage: Ending Racism,” hooks writes about the ways in which violence against Black men has been normalized and even celebrated in American culture, arguing that “the killing of Black males has been part of the fabric of this society since its inception.” But when the black men retaliate violently it somehow condones the existing order?

When she says “Had the white supremacist patriarchal state wanted to, it could have imprisoned and slaughtered black males active in militant black power movements for racial justice from the onset” its as if Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, George Jackson, Bobby Hutton, Mark Clark, John Huggins, Bunchy Carter and the plethora of other black militants imprisoned or slaughtered by the state doesn’t exist. It is highly disrespectful, especially coming from someone whose idea of revolution is as vague and abstract as can be. In her book “Teaching to Transgress,” she writes that “revolution must be about the transformation of the individual, the transformation of society, and the transformation of the world.” What exactly are we transforming into?

But hey what can we expect from the friend of CIA operatives?

I guess in order to transform the white capitalist imperialist patriarchy we should just write books and do public forums while making millions of dollars as she did. Yes, by the time of her death, she was a millionaire. The amount varies between 1–10 million as her net worth.

Makes sense as to why she’d also say this:

Prisons in our nation are full of intelligent capable black men who could have accomplished their goals of making money in a responsible legitimate way but who commit crimes for small amounts of money because they cannot delay gratification.

Meanwhile, the person she claims allied with white male imperialist states:

Most of today’s black convicts have come to understand that they are the most abused victims of an unrighteous order — George Jackson

Which one of those quotes provides the most accurate analysis of the function of criminalization in the “white imperialist capitalist patriarch”?

Also in the preface hooks states, “seen as animals, brutes, natural born rapists, and murderers, black men have had no real dramatic say when it comes to the way they are represented”. But in typical hooksian fashion she states the obvious and then goes on to reify the said notions she claims to acknowledge as bad.

For example, she says on pg 115, “From slavery on many black males have chosen to avoid parenting. They breed children they have no intention of raising.” Pause for a moment and take into consideration the severity and outright stupidity it takes to make such an assertion. Any basic reading of slave history in the US shows that reproduction was in the hands of the slave owner, and the offspring was the product of the slave owner. Neither party (mother nor father) had any agency. Furthermore, it also perpetuated the dehumanization of enslaved people, treating them as little more than animals to be bred for the profit and benefit of their owners. The idea that black men have chosen not to parent is a racist myth. Research has shown that Black fathers are often deeply committed to their children and families, despite facing a number of structural and social barriers. For example, Black men are more likely to face discrimination in the workplace, making it harder for them to provide financial support for their families. They are also more likely to be incarcerated, which can disrupt family relationships and make it harder for them to maintain an active role in their children’s lives. But we know what hooks thinks about incarcerated brothers…so none of this surprises me. Literally reads just like the logic of the Moniyhan or other right-wing pundits…who hooks critiques.

I have come away from hooks works as no more aware than I was before, more so agitated that her work has been praised for its insightful analysis and passionate call to action, but can be easily seen through due to its reliance on personal stories and anecdotal evidence, its potential perpetuation and often times outright essentialist views on gender, and its lack of specific strategies for change. Rereading her work after reading The Man-Not, the difference in scholarship is quite telling. I don’t know how one could say the latter isn’t more relevant to the study of black males in particular. Curry’s analysis is rooted in critical race theory and explores how the intersection of race, gender, and class shapes the experiences of Black men in America but for some reason, this is completely left out of hooks’ analysis despite it being a theme throughout the majority of her works.

NB: This isn’t all but I’m getting bored and tired now.