Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center 3rd Edition

Great book about feminist theory.

bell hooks (all lower-case letters; born Gloria Jean Watkins in 1952) is an American author, feminist, and social activist. She has written many books, such as Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations,Killing Rage: Ending Racism, and many more.

She wrote in the Acknowledgements section of this 1984 book, “During much of the writing of Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism, I worked in isolation. It was my hope that the publication of this work would draw me closer to feminist activists, especially black women. Ironically, some of the most outspoken black women active in [the] feminist movement responded by trashing both it and me… I was totally unprepared for the hostility and contempt show me by women whom I did not and do not see as enemies… Unfortunately it is often easier to ignore, dismiss, reject, and even hurt one another rather than engage in constructive confrontation. Were it not for the overwhelmingly positive responses to the book from black women… I might have become terribly disheartened and disillusioned… Such encouragement renews my commitment to feminist politics and strengthens my conviction that the value of feminist writing must be determined by … the extent to which it draws women and men who are outside feminist struggle inside.”

She explains in the Preface, “Much feminist theory emerges from privileged women who live at the center, whose perspectives on reality rarely include knowledge and awareness of the lives of women and men who live in the margin. As a consequence, feminist theory lacks wholeness… At its most visionary, it will emerge from individuals who have knowledge of both margin and center… It is the absence of feminist theory that addresses margin and center that has led me to write this book… Throughout the work my thoughts have been shaped by the conviction that feminism must become a mass based political movement if it is to have a revolutionary, transformative impact on society.”

She begins the first chapter with a critique of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique: “She did not discuss who would be called in to take care of the children and maintain the home if more women like herself were freed from their house labor and give equal access with white men to the professions. She did not speak of the needs of women without men, without children, without homes. She ignored the existence of all non-white women and poor white women… She made her plight and the plight of white women like herself synonymous with a condition affecting all American women. In so doing, she deflected attention away from her classism, her racism, her sexist attitudes towards the masses of American women… Specific problems and dilemmas of leisure class white housewives … were not the pressing political concerns of masses of women. Masses of women were concerned about economic survival, ethnic and racial discrimination, etc. … [her book] can also be seen as a case study of narcissism, insensitivity, sentimentality, and self-indulgence…” (Pg. 1-3)

She points out, “One factor that makes interaction between multi-ethnic groups of women difficult and sometimes impossible is our failure to recognize that a behavior pattern in one culture may be unacceptable in another, that it may have different signification cross-culturally. Through repeated teaching of a course titled ‘Third World Women in the United States,’ I have learned the importance of learning what we called one another’s cultural codes… By learning one another’s cultural codes and respecting our differences, we felt a sense of community, of Sisterhood. Respecting diversity does not mean uniformity or sameness.” (Pg. 56-57)

She observes, “Women’s liberationists not only equated psychological pain with material deprivation to de-emphasize class privilege; they often suggested it was the more severe problem. They managed to overlook the fact that many women suffer both psychologically and materially and for that reason alone changing their social status merited greater attention than careerism… Had poor women set the agenda for [the] feminist movement, they might have decided that class struggle would be a central feminist issue; that poor and privileged women would work to understand class structure and the way it pits women against one another.” (Pg. 60-61)

She asserts, “Bourgeois white women cannot conceptualize the bonds that develop between women and men in liberation struggle and have not had as many positive experiences working with men politically… Despite the prevalence of sexism in black communities, the role black women play in social institutions… is recognized by everyone as significant and valuable… Without the material input of black women, as participants and leaders, many male-dominated institutions in black communities would cease to exist; this is not the case in all white communities.” (Pg. 69-70)

She argues, “Often women of color active in feminist movement are anti-intellectual. Many of us have not had access to university educations and do not hold advanced degrees. We may equate white female hegemonic dominance of feminist theory and practice with educational status. We may not attack that hegemony (which stems from class and race hierarchies) but instead ‘put down’ intellectual work. By dismissing theory and privileging organization work, some women of color are able to see themselves as more politically engaged where it really counts. Yet by buying into this dichotomy between theory and practice, we… support the notion (too often fostered by white women) that their role is to do the ‘brain’ work, developing ideas, theories, etc., while our role is to do either the ‘dirty’ work or contribute the experience to validate and document their analysis. Women of color need to develop intellectually.” (Pg. 113-114)

She notes, “Feminist thinkers… believed that assertion of the primacy of sexuality would be a liberatory gesture. They urged women to initiate sexual advances, to enjoy sex, to experiment with new relationships, to be sexually ‘free.’ Yet most women did not have the leisure, the mobility, the contacts, or even the desire to indulge in this so called ‘sexual liberation.’ Young heterosexual women, single and childless, teenagers and college students, political progressives, were the groups most eager and able to pattern their sexual behavior after what was essentially an inversion of the male notion of sexual liberation… it did not, however, deconstruct the power relations between men and women in the sexual sphere.” (Pg. 147)

Not quite as acerbic as her earlier book ‘Ain’t I a Woman,’ this book is a thought-provoking contribution to feminist theory, that will be of great interest to feminists, or those interested in womanism, Women’s Studies, Black Studies, or similar “progressive” areas.

This was great for my feminist theory class. I loved the context of this through Bell's eyes.

This review has nothing to do with the content of hooks' book, which I love, but the copy I received from SuperBookDeals--- only printed every second page, making it useless. Watch out! I am returning it.

My book only had every other page! Unfortunately, I didn't realize it until the return window closed. I can't believe it. This is too expensive of a book for this to be an issue!

My book only had the even pages! I am so upset! Unfortunately I didn't realize this until after the return window closed.

Excellent book

My impression is that bell hooks is a pretty controversial figure within feminism. If this is true (and my impression may be mistaken, or outdated), then I'm surprised. Her main thrust seems to be inclusiveness. She criticizes several approaches to feminism as failing the very people it should seek to help: the poorest and weakest members of society (rather than the relatively well off "bourgeois" women). She also surprised me with how much of her thought could potentially appeal to conservatives. She criticizes "separatist" elements of feminism, which would have women form separate societies and institutions apart from men, and notes ways the patriarchy harms men as well. She also emphasizes the importance of family. Her critique of capitalism is, of course, disappointing and annoying, ultimately detracting from what could be a more coherent vision of human flourishing.