‘hooked’ on Rhetoric
This is part of a series of posts about rhetoric and feminism. In fact, this is my last formal response for class! (The light is at the end of the tunnel!)
It is probably no surprise to you that I love bell hooks. I have criticized her before for preaching the importance of using the vernacular you are comfortable with while using almost inaccessible, academic language herself, and, granted, I do love her mostly in small doses (reading an essay or two is interesting, but a whole book tends to be a little much), but I agree with her intersectional views of feminism and the importance of including other forms of oppression into social activism (and this is a major theme in my capstone project).
It was incredibly interesting to read her as a rhetorical theorist rather than a feminist theorist, although I see her theories as more in the realm of linguistics than rhetoric. She seems more concerned with the language being used by the rhetor than any other part of rhetoric. I suppose in this way, she is similar to I.A. Richards in that the words being used and the meaning behind them seem to be the most important element of rhetoric to both of them. However, whereas Richards’ focus was on the audience’s reaction to the words being used, hooks discusses the meaning of the words for the rhetor him/herself. For the first time, it seems, we’re seeing a rhetorical theorist discuss the experiences of the rhetor, not the audience. Perhaps, then, we could say hooks’ focus is on invention; as Foss, Foss, and Trapp say in their article about her:
[h]ooks proposes two primary ways in which marginalized rhetors can use rhetoric to challenge and transform the ideology of domination – critique and invention. Critique is the development of an oppositional perspective that moves against and beyond boundaries. Opposition in the form of critique, however, is insufficient to accomplish decolonization… This requires the invention of alternative habits – of presenting possibilities for a transformed future. (275)
hooks’ 1 concept of invention is different than the classical rhetoricians, however, in that it requires the rhetor to invent “alternative habits” to transform the way people think and act out oppression of all forms. It almost seems as if hooks is echoing Quintilian with this by saying that rhetoric should only work for good – in this case, good being the work for human rights. To quote Foss, Foss, and Trapp: “To arrive at a more humane world, hooks asks that rhetors ‘be willing to courageously surrender participation’ in coercive hierarchical domination” (279).
It is fascinating how many of the participants in my capstone project subscribed to hooks’ concept of intersectional feminism, and how they work through their past experiences with human rights issues – whether witnessing or experiencing (or both) violations of human rights – to create pieces of writing (rhetoric) that try to persuade people towards creating a “more humane world.” Every participant in my interviews mentioned the importance of feminism, not only to end the oppression against women, but against all people, no matter what the form of oppression. In this way, rhetoric becomes a very powerful tool in the fight for civil rights, and works to both persuade and inform the world how to live in such a way that does not oppress people. However, for the bloggers and, I believe, for hooks herself, rhetoric is only part of the equation. The rhetor can work to inform and persuade an audience about civil rights and how to work towards a better world, but then the rhetor must actually live in that way him/herself. Talking the talk, according to hooks and my participants, is only part of walking the walk towards civil rights.
Work Cited
Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. “bell hooks” Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 2002. 265-298.
- I know Foss, Foss, and Trapp chose to capitalize the initial letters in hooks’ name “in situations in which any word not usually capitalized would be capitalized” (294), but after several interactions with people who have also chosen not to capitalize their names, I’ve realized the significance of that choice, and have chosen to recognize that by not capitalizing her name in any situation.
I also know that hooks does not use footnotes “because she believes that footnotes set class boundaries for readers, determining who a book is for” (281), and therefore, if I subscribe to her beliefs that I shouldn’t either, but this seemed too long an intervention to put it in parenthesis. ↩
I love bell hooks, but like you said – in small doses. She is very academic in many ways, but more than that I get all bogged down in my white guilt and start feeling like I can never be a good person, let alone a good feminist. But that is exactly why I think it’s important to stick with her – she challenges us and pushes us out of our comfort zones in a very personal way. Thinking about the personal and the political? Very feminist.
She certainly enriches my life, but it’s tough sometimes.