Sunday, February 5, 2012

Where in the World is the Enemy?

I spent a lot of my childhood chasing a woman in red all over the world only to find out later that she was a villain. I wasn't sure of her crime, or why she was considered the enemy, so I grabbed my deerstalker hat, magnifying glass, and cocaine (not really) to get to the bottom of things. I decided to start with some Wikipedia research only find it was protesting SOPA. Having lost faith in the internet I turned to an ancient technology for retrieving information known as "books."

I turned (pun intended) to bell hooks' Feminist Theory from Margin to Center, and after a few failed attempts of "Ctrl+F" I discovered that I would settle for reading. In a chapter titled "Sisterhood" I found an interesting passage regarding white women liberationists which claimed they insisted that "only men were the enemy" and that they "did not acknowledge and confront the enemy from within" (p.46) Now before you take Lit's one-hit-wonder to heart (let's face it, "Miserable" and "Addicted" had fun wordplay, but nobody remembers the music), you should know that hooks was only addressing those who were not willing or prepared to take part in the struggles to raise political awareness (p.46). This seemed to me like a call to break away from a bourgeois way of life, and begin "working together to expose, examine, and eliminate sexist socialization within ourselves" in order to "strengthen and affirm one another and build a solid foundation for developing political solidarity" (p.47-48).

This act isn't always so simple, and come to think of it, not always smiled upon. In the time i took reading, the SOPA protest had passed and I finally found out was Ms. Sandiego had done. Turns out she worked for seemingly ominous organization known as the ACME Detective Agency then went rouge to find her own way. In my twisted literary perspective it appeared to me that a white woman broke away from conventions and sought solidarity. In the name of education, young students are taught to track her down and put her away. Oh the messages we teach our children. While working together to better ourselves may seem like a sunny-meadow-with-hand-holding-and-rainbows fantasy, hooks is more realistic about it. She acknowledges that there will be conflict, but that conflict with respect can be productive. So I guess it was wrong of Carmen to run and wrong of me to chase her. We should address the conflicts, both in ourselves and with one another, in a manner that allows for the progressive movement toward a more accepting and tolerable society.

1 comment:

  1. Your suggestion that hooks calls for us as a society to "break away from a bourgeois way of life" intrigues me, and I think it speaks pointedly to the explicitly post-Marxist perspective from which hooks writes. Rather than reforming society from within and simply bettering the lot of the oppressed within an inherently "racist, sexist, capitalist"--"capitalist" is another important word that gestures toward her post-Marxism--system, she calls for the revolutionary institution of a new, implicitly non-racist/sexist/capitalist system.

    The Marxist nature of this revolution raises some interesting questions about the feasibility of hooks's brand of feminism altogether; as there has never been a successful Marxist state, can there be a successful post-Marxist feminist state? Is post-Marxist feminism even a valid theoretical paradigm? As hooks is a bit vague on this point, what would a world informed by such theory look like in practice?

    Sorry to veer off in a completely different direction from the majority of the content in your post, but do you happen to have any thoughts on this?

    ReplyDelete