in favor of bell hooks' 'theory as liberatory practice'

In her “Theory as Liberatory Practice,” bell hooks argues that theory and practice have been presented as a false dichotomy. She also argues that accessible theory can be used as a form of liberation for oppressed people, and that it is harmful to promote anti-intellectualism, especially in supposed safe-spaces for the oppressed. I will add onto her argument, and also argue that her usage of her lived experience is powerful and should not be cast aside by those who feel that it is not academic enough to pass as real evidence.

Hooks mentions that she was raised in a household that upheld patriarchal ideals – a household in which the man subjugated the women, where the women were expected to stay at home and take care of the children while the man worked. As a young child, hooks recognized that something was not quite right with this arrangement, and began to think about why this arrangement was put into place, and how “life could be lived differently.” Hooks, from her own lived experiences of childhood trauma reinforced by the patriarchy, looked to theory and critical thinking as solace from her own life. She says that “explaining the hurt” through theorizing actually helped heal her trauma.

In order to prove that theory and practice are not, in fact, two sides of the same coin, hooks references anecdotes from her own life where people have promoted this idea and seeks to dispel their claims. Hooks mentions that at a discussion about feminist critiques of famous Black revolutionaries, a woman said that she was “tired of all the talk” and more interested in action, implying that the discussion was a common or widely-held one. Hooks responds that this is simply not true – that a group of women of color debating issues regarding gender and theorizing together has not happened much before, and that only with this “talk” can they begin to form a collective feminist movement (take “action”). On top of this, hooks argues that their theorizing is in itself action because talking about gender and blackness without being censored is “subversive practice,” and subversion is a form of action.

She also argues that there is a “reciprocal process” surrounding theorizing and taking action. She claims that theory is derived from lived pain or oppression, and will lead to a process of healing by being able to “name the hurt.” This active healing then brings about more theory, which leads to more healing, and so on. Therefore, it is hard to say where the theory stops and where action starts, and hooks concludes that the two are inextricably linked, “wherein one enables the other.”

She goes on to show the dangers of anti-intellectualism, specifically within the Black community. She compares anti-theory sentiments in the Black community with its supposed opposite: when Black women are told in academic spaces that their work is not “theoretical enough.” Hooks implies that anti-theory within the Black community only serves to reinforce harmful stereotypes about Black women, specifically that they ought to care more about what is “concrete” rather than what is abstract or theoretical, and only then can they be liberated. So, it follows that reinforcing these ideas also reinforces Black exploitation and repression.

Hooks also calls for accessible theory, and explains that theory full of jargon and wording that is inaccessible to those who do not have an educational background in reading theory (who also happen to be mostly white) does not help liberate. She says that theory can be a form of domination, where people who are well-off are able to read and profit from theorizing, but others cannot glean the same benefits. This only serves to promote class domination and elitism, which is unproductive to the main goal of theorizing, which is a collective resistance consisting of all people who are oppressed. So, hooks calls for theory that is specifically aimed towards people who are facing oppression, written in wording that they can understand, which can help them on their path to liberation.

In order to reinforce hooks’ arguments, let us first clearly define theory as liberatory practice. “Theory as liberatory practice” implies using theory as the method and agent of actively seeking ways to end oppression. This way, if theory is equivalent to a practice, it is also a form of action. If we can come up with an example where theory is used in this way, we have shown that it is plausible that theory can be used as the primary agent in freeing someone from oppression.

Consider a woman who is subjugated in her household. She is dominated by her husband, and expected to do housework and raise her children without questioning the system she is under. I will state without further argument that this system is oppressive because the woman has much less control over her own life than she could have in a system without these constraints placed upon her by the patriarchy. Consider also that the woman thinks that this system is normal and just, and continues to live under it with an understanding that she deserves this treatment solely because of her gender. Now, let’s say she is exposed to accessible feminist theory – theory which she is able to read, understand, and allows her to shape a new worldview. This is subversive activity. It allows her to begin to understand where the pain that she thought was normal, was coming from. It allows her to begin to seek out ways that will get her out of the system, and free herself from oppression. This is inherently an action she is taking towards liberation, simply by being able to read and process this theory, which proves that theory can be used as liberatory practice.

However, most of hooks’ arguments are anecdotal, and many philosophers are quick to dismiss arguments like this as unworthy of their time, or “not academic enough.” However, anecdotal evidence, especially as it relates to systemic issues such as Black oppression or feminism, serves as the backbone of theory. It helps define patterns of behavior: when the woman experiences oppression from her husband, the woman next door experiences oppression from her husband, and the woman down the street experiences the same oppression, it is clear to see that a pattern emerges in which husbands subjugate their wives. Hooks’ arguments also have an immense emotional power behind them, in which women are able to see and feel how the same things that happened to her may be happening to them. Theory that is clearly derived from lived experience is useful and should not be put to the side because it is not academic enough. It appeals to those who need it most – those who are being beaten down by the system, who seek solace in the form of an explanation of their pain.