MAIS 601

In an analysis of bell hooks’ Theory as Liberatory Practice, I found myself divided between the message and medium of her work. Whilst hooks is advocating for the decolonization of academic institutions and proposing a more inclusive learning environment, she then perpetuates the institutional chokehold academia holds through her writing style and publishing format. Although hooks appeared to me as an anti-institutionalist, the medium in which this message is delivered has the potential to alienate the target audience.

In an anti-institutional approach, hooks (1991) argues:

…this critical assault on white supremacy as it was made manifest in feminist critical practices alliances between white women academics and white male peers seemed to have been formed and nurtured around common efforts to formulate and impose standards of critical evaluation that would be used to define what is theoretical and what is not. (p.4)

This explicit call-out of white supremacy on academic standards provoked a call to action for a less classist institution. hooks’ furthers her critique with a solution calling for more inclusivity in academia. hooks (1991) further elaborates on this classist divide noting:

…the written word has only slight visual meaning, where individuals who cannot read or write can find no use for a published theory however lucid or opaque. Hence, any theory that cannot be shared in everyday conversation cannot be used to educate the public” (p.5)

hooks’ desire for inclusivity is present and echoed in Amanda Montell’s Wordslut: a feminist guide to taking back the english language. As hooks and Montell both suggest, the grammar, syntax, and structure in which language is formed is a white supremacist construct. hooks (1991) strives to dismantle this construct in her works, indicating:

I have written elsewhere and shared in numerous public talks and conversations that my decision about writing style, about not using conventional academic formats, are political decisions motivated by the desire to be inclusive, to reach as many readers as possible in as many different locations.” (p.9)

I had difficulty digesting this quote, as hooks uses academic language in this article. Source citations, invoking feminist theory, and ultimately publishing this article in the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism made me discredit the suggested goal that hooks is trying to achieve. Although pandering to an academic crowd, hooks alienates her non-academic audience. As Montell states, “One of the sneakiest ways these biases show up is that in our language, in our culture, maleness is seen as the default” (Montell, 2019). Though promoting feminist theory, I felt that hooks’ default male bias was paramount.

Finally, I was confronted with my own biases, which were now on full display. Was I upholding institutional racism and sexism by not accepting the work of hooks? After all, hooks (1991) states,

Work by women of color and marginalized groups of white women (for example, lesbians, sex radicals), especially if written in a manner that renders it accessible to a broad reading public, even if that work enables and promotes feminist practice, is often de-legitimized in academic settings (p.4)

Thus coming to my dilemma; Was I de-legitimizing hooks’ work through my own myopic white supremacist lens? Or was I fair in my analysis of hooks as not carrying her theory to practice?

hooks, b. (1991). Theory as Liberatory Practice. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism.

Montell, A. (2019). Wordslut: a feminist guide to taking back the english language. Harper Wave.