Tuesday, March 4, 2008

bell hooks culture to culture

Comment here.
Posted by at

2 comments:

Shelley said...

Ethnography: the study and systematic recording of human cultures; this term is also used to describe any work produced from this research

“Play with a puppy he’ll lick you in the mouth:” emphasizes the importance of distance; about the danger of falsely assuming familiarity and presuming to have knowledge of matters that had not been revealed (328)
In relation to cultural studies and race, this saying could be about an African-American assuming to be on the same level as a white person, but the white person treats the African American with contempt, thereby emphasizing “difference” and “otherness.”

As bell hooks reads works of literary and cultural studies that focus on race, she finds that white writers often assume the position that they are aware of the African-American views and write outside of white supremacy, but white writers do write as if shaped and informed by the context of white supremacy. She adds that these white writers don’t think they should address the fact that they write within the context of white supremacy. She then adds that scholars (who belong to groups who dominate, exploit and oppress) should be able to look through their work to find areas that imply the context of supremacy without being afraid or feeling guilty (328-329).

In the essay, hooks asserts that cultural studies is the area that seems most willing to include the race issue because it is more contemporary, and many scholars are focusing on “otherness,” post-colonialism, and also feminism (329).

The feminist movement is important in bell hook’s view because it brought about race as a political issue with which she attributes powerful African-American women (329).

She also tells that she is disheartened with the prestige and acclaim denied African-American studies. She is also upset with the way cultural studies programs are run by white men, as some of these programs are beginning to replace African-American studies and women’s studies. Immediately after these statements, bell says that cultural studies is exciting because it calls attention to race and gives academic legitimacy (329).

Later, bell asserts that scholars in the academy resist awkward or uncomfortable situations of diversity. She agrees with Cornel West in his suggestion that the domain of the academy should not highlight “otherness” because it marginalizes those people (330).

She is unhappy with a book (Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography) that admits to giving little attention to new realms of ethnography and with the idea that African-American scholars are not being counted in the field of ethnography as though no one has realized the importance of difference of experience (330).

In bell’s view, the picture in the beginning of the post shows the white male as authority and writer and the passive black or brown man.

Questions to think about:
Can the cover undermine radical writing (331)?
Is bell just venting?
Why doesn't she ever mention the things she thinks should be heard?
Why does she use absolutes?
Do you agree with her opinions about the cover?
Do you think white writers write about African-American issues blindly?
Do white writers intentionally deny African-Americans the same privileges.
*Note: Instead of merely using her given name, bell hooks (a pseudonym) uproots the ability of others to define her by creating her own identity. Furthermore, and here is where she goes further down the path to linguistic equality, bell hooks does not capitalize the initial letters in the new name: a convention so fundamentally accepted that only ee cummings comes to mind as having also cast it to the proverbial curb. This simple defamiliarization is a constant reminder to take nothing for granted. Is the "b" really more important than either "l"? Or, more significantly, should a name stand above all else in a narcisistic uplifting? (PS I checked for some more info but didn't come across any)]

March 5, 2008 at 9:10 AM
MDJudie1 said...

“The Danger of Falsely Assuming Familiarity”

hooks uses an analogy of a puppy passed on to her by her grandmother. If you let a dog get close enough, in its eagerness to be close to you, it will lick you in the face. This, to hooks, symbolizes multiple levels for the need for distance. Reading on you will see that, essentially, she is comparing people to dogs. And, not just “people,” but white people. So, what’s her purpose for this analogy? On one hand, if you get too close, the dog will take your closeness as a sign of comfort, openness, and familiarity, which is good on a humanistic level. On the other hand, if you, as a person of color, allow white people to assume this level of intimacy, you have forfeited your own right to personal space. The sanctity of your person is now sullied.

Why have a statement like this at the beginning of her article? Because it effectively encompasses the main point hooks is making: just because you feel you’re in a position to take a liberty (“dogs/white people” in relation to the invasion of personal space) doesn’t mean that your target intended to relinquish such control to you.

After this analogy, hooks goes on to describe her grandmother’s relationship with the white women who attempted to befriend her. hooks’ grandmother felt it was important to keep things in context. Although the white women in her life wanted to be her friend, she remembered that they were still capable of causing her great harm. She always knew to “keep a distance.”

Relating this back to the study of rhetoric, hooks finally begins her critique of the state of cultural studies. Her intent here is to bring to light the trend of white scholars taking it upon themselves to speak on behalf of “colored people.” She disproves of the “position of familiarity” she feels white scholars have adopted as they foray more willingly into ethnography and cultural studies. Her position is that people of color should be allowed to tell their own stories in their own way. It is counter-productive to have white people (with their cloak of supremacy) re-inscribing racial domination by maintaining their limiting standards of western intellectual tradition over the study of other cultures.

Ultimately, I feel that hooks’ is saying that white people can’t speak for people of color. She appears to be saying that things aren’t necessarily changing in academia just because black topics are now being considered. I think she feels that black topics need to be considered by BLACK people. In short, white people still insist on being the “teacher” even though they can’t possibly be authorities on a topic they can never fully understand.

“Academic Legitimacy”

The popularity of cultural studies has opened the door for intellectuals to discuss ethnic and feminist topics. However, hooks argues that Black Studies and women’s studies are more than adequate by themselves for providing a discourse for these complex topics. She argues that integrating then under the umbrella of “cultural studies” diminishes the authority of the black and the female scholars who are the real experts in these fields and re being disregarded by the acceptably traditional (white male) authorities.

“Who is the Audience for this Book?”

When anticipating an audience for your discourse, hooks thinks it’s important to evaluate/reevaluate, consider, and honestly ask yourself, “who am I talking to?” we’re not supposed to stay holed up in the “white tower,” but many writers of cultural studies act like their intended audience is only other intellectuals. This is an ideology that promotes a “falsified structure of domination.” Are you (the dominating culture) actually trying to LEARN about the things you once ignored, or are you just trying to come up with something “new” to talk about? It’s not fair to use the minds, work, and works of blacks and women to create your theories while maintaining that THEIR OWN presentation of the same material is inadequate, inappropriate and/or improper. It makes your “studies” all the more insincere and it alienates the very people you supposedly to have an “interest” in.


Here’s a link to an interview with bell hooks where she discuses many contemporary topics in cultural studies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLM0TAVR8sU
(Interview with Charlie Rose)

March 6, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)