bell hooks, feminism, and Nietzsche

I should preface this post by saying that I am quite unqualified to be making the sorts of observations that follow. I just finished bell hooks' book, "Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center," but have read very little else in the domain of feminist thought. Furthermore, I don't have any great knowledge of Nietzsche. Nevertheless, I thought I'd try to put down some of the thoughts that have been floating around in my head.

---------------------------------

What sort of fruitful interaction could there be between feminist theory and Nietzsche? As I read bell hooks, it was simply impossible for me to get the Genealogy of Morals out of my head. I think Nietzsche's conception of Slave Morality and Ressentiment might have much to offer feminist politics. Of course feminist theory wouldn't hold back it's critique of Nietzsche's revaluation program either.

At first, one might see Nietzsche and Feminist Critique as diametrically opposed. Superficially, the following dialogue points might be laid out:

N: Feminism represents a paradigm case of slave morality. Women are weak and feminists are equivalent to priests. That is to say because women lack the strength to create their own values system, feminists resent the dominant value system and try to force society to feel guilty and ashamed of their strength (and the other warrior characteristics that Nietzsche valorizes). At the extreme, feminists try to make men ashamed of being men. Furthermore, their alternative value system, precisely because it is reactionary in nature and stems from ressentiment , is aesthetically inferior.

FC: Nietzsche represents classic aristocratic chauvinism. His valorization of strength, and lauditory portrayal of warrior characteristics, are justifications for oppression - both historically and now.

However, I think we can move beyond these initial readings towards a more fruitful dialogue. Nietzsche has something important to say to feminist: reactionary value systems are inferior. That is to say, if one's motivation for acting in a certain way is only to be contrarian, to spite the status quo, then such action is of inferior value to an act that drives from an inner motivation, from one's own vital energies. When we boil it down I think this is what Nietzsche means by strength, not simply force, or the ability to dominate others, but the power to create (birth) values that one can affirm oneself - indepent of others in the sense that they are not affirmed simply as a means of responding to the dominate culture. Although I'm sure this is somewhat of a rough sketch (probably wrong, but I could imagine someone saying it), we could say that difference feminism is often reactionary in nature - i.e. "Sexist culture values male characteristics - strength, force, reason; therefore, we must revalue female characteristics - passivity, peace-making, and emotion." I see bell hooks and other types of feminists (post-structuralist feminists?) as advocating a values system more compatible with Nietzsche critique of morality: "We must preform a radical revaluation of values. We cannot simply throw out certain traits as negative, and introduce others as positive, instead we must rebuild a radical new values system based on our foundational goal: to eliminate oppression. And eliminating oppression might call for peace-making in some situations, but require force in others.

Likewise, I think bell hooks, and feminists more generally, play an important role in drawing out some of the more troubling questions that face Nietzsche (especially particularly shallow interpretations that are overly focused on a more literal interpretation of his Slave-Master narrative, and his praise of the warrior values system). His myth-like story about master-slave morality fails to account for protest as a legitimate tool that can be weilded with strength and power. The fact that women have chosen to use protest rather than immediately overturn the established values system is justified historically and strategically. Since women have been historically denied access to education, and the socio-political-commercial sphere, in anything but a limited fashion, their attempts to uproot the dominant values system has come gradually - the more power and education women have gained, the more potential they have to expand their power and overturn the dominant values system. Furthermore, since women are not simply concerned with creating an alternative values system, but rather transforming our current system - even if this means taking it down to the ground. In other words, feminists do not want to create a new, separate, culture (they cannot deny that they are historically part of this culture), they want to transform our shared culture. Thus, far from being reactionary, political protest is a means of transforming the culture from the inside out.

I'd like to make one historical note that I think is important for contextualizing Nietzsche's text and it's relation to feminism. We must note that the master-slave story is polemical. In fact, it is itself a sort of protest. That is to say, in the story Nietzsche portrays the culturally dominant values system of his day (chirstianity) as weak, and contrasts it with an alternative picture (something more like the war-like greeks?). Nietzsche, therefore, in writing this story, is NOT directly applying force to over throw the dominant values system (nor is he simply reacting to it). Instead, he is introducing an alternative picture through writing that he hopes will transform people within the dominant culture from the inside out: not because they feel guilt and shame with regard to who they are (as christians), i.e. the point is not that they should not feel shame bcause they are weak, but instead he hopes that they will be drawn in by the aesthetic appeal of the alternative picture of life that he presents.

---------

In any case, these are some of the thoughts that have been rolling around in my head. I realize a lot of you readers know leagues more about this stuff than I do, so please do chime in and correct away.