A culture of domination must exist for one of love to thrive universally.

[crimsonking]

My thoughts/criticism on Bell hook's definition of a utopia and how society can work towards it. I don't think one is possible but my argument reaches for the closest approximation which I believe has to point towards authoritarian ideals to control unwanted concepts. This all hinges on one what thinks freedom actually is anyways. It's written in essay format so prob stilted and less free than I would have otherwise wanted.


“…Hooks proposes an “ethic of love” as the means by which we might be guided to turn away from an ethic of domination.” (Hooks pp.1¹)

The last line of the opener of Bell Hook’s essay sets the stage for our performance. Who are we though? We are humans and this is one of our stories. A stage raised high by our needs as a society representing the clash between the principles of virtuous love and those of despised domination. If society has been built on the basis of domination then Hooks proposes that we should turn away from it to an ethic of love instead through which we can progress. Why does she make this argument and why is she so confident in it? Let us find out.

“In this society, there is no powerful discourse on love emerging either from politically progressive radicals or from the Left” (Hooks pp.1²)

Left wing politics often argues for acceptance and inclusivity so it is quite ironic that the discourse of love is avoided even amongst those circles. Their political agenda is supposed to foster progression through universal inclusivity but falls short of this because of the lack of a doctrine of love in their philosophy. Without the need to love everyone, these people fall back to the systems of domination which they are supposedly against. A marginalised white woman may preach acceptance and equal rights but turn that argument away when they approach racial debates. The irony of which is often lost on the hypocrites that partake in this. You understand that the nature of your skin or gender or sexual orientation or background have led to irrational discrimination on your person but decide to do the same to others from other marginalised groups. How selfish can you possibly be?

“by feminist white women who work daily to eradicate sexism but who have major blind spots when it comes to acknowledging and resisting racism…” (Hooks pp.1³)

Indeed, Hooks does acknowledge this and gives it a name — “blind spots”. These blind spots are what prevent people from seeing the error in their treatment of fellow humans especially those who they share similar experiences with. To cover these blind spots and allow for three-hundred-and-sixty-degree vision in a sense, we must foster an ethic of love. What else could fight off the selfishness we find ourselves in support of? If we only care about oppression when it concerns our own well-being then we should extend that same care by loving others. If we love them like ourselves then we should be able to care for other people’s conditions/situations as much as we do ourselves. A key concept here is the matter of a balance between loving ourselves and others.

“Again and again, King testified that he had ‘decided to love’… The sixties Black Power movement shifted away from that love ethic. The emphasis was now more on power…While King had focused on loving our enemies, Malcolm called us back to ourselves, acknowledging that taking care of blackness was our central responsibility. Even though King talked about the importance of black self-love, he talked more about loving our enemies” (Hooks pp.2⁴)

This is best captured in the philosophies of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X at their core. They both incorporated a love ethic although King fostered love more towards enemies(racists) than he did self love and Malcolm X fostered self love but did not extend it to others. They are in a manner two sides of the same coin, when taken separately are incomplete and while still useful do not capture the complete story or imagery (the entire coin). While this may appear otherwise simple to a watching bystander, as we are decades after the events, this was clearly not as easy for the communities as it seemed. That balance is something incredibly hard to come by, especially when the culture of domination in racists surrounded them. The harmful nature of the incomplete love ethic can be found in the resulting misogyny the Black Power movement realised. The powerful self love Malcolm X promoted was not balanced by extended love to black women and the perpetuating ethic of sexist domination was created. A blind spot of the movement if you will.

We now understand that domination is the result of the selfish need to power. It fosters hate and violence and pain but what is love itself? It is probably something that has come to mind to everyone once before. It cannot be romantic love in the sense that we know it or at least not romantic love alone. We cannot want to **** everyone in the entire world, pardon my language. The closest we can probably find to “love” in its truest form is that moment in which a mother lays eyes on her child for the first time. She is taking in the result of months of gestation and pain and hours of labour and it is just as beautiful as she imagined. The baby hasn’t given her anything nor does she owe it anything as a result. It’s pure and unadulterated and almost absolute. We as a society have almost lost that essence of love, we know that we lack it as our articles and novels suggest and yet we misinterpret it. Love isn’t a good to be purchased and sold in the market of capitalism like have been raised to see most other things as. You don’t need to do something to receive it. It’s just there.

“Peck offers a working definition for love…He defines love as ‘the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.” (Hooks pp.3⁵)

Hooks agrees with the definition of love as both a will and an action, we both choose to do it and our actions make it concrete. Merely choosing to love alone isn’t enough. You need to follow through with a swing that takes Cupid’s arrow to your target of desire. An example in which the choice is quite clearly not enough is one in which someone insane may choose to love someone but their actions are not as pure as their intentions may be. Their “love” harms its object and as such is more so domination than it is love.

“Folks want to know how to begin the practice of loving. For me that is where education for critical consciousness has to enter.” (Hooks pp.4⁶)

Love is something anyone can possess and Hooks proposes the teaching of a love ethic in communities by which we promote the spirit. A community can be anything from a church or school or abuse recovery group and more. What matters plainly is teaching how to extend the love we nurture for ourselves to others and nurturing the love we have for ourselves through understanding how domination holds us back and learning self consciousness. It is only through these that we can be truly emancipated from the doctrine of “colonisation” that exists in everyone’s minds. Marginalised or not.

Hooks believes that our society can only be liberated by adopting a new ethic of love in opposition to that of domination. Before I begin my critical analysis of her thoughts, I would first like to borrow from the arguments of Friedrich Nietzsche.

“… in real life it is only a question of STRONG and WEAK wills.” (Nietzsche pp.21⁷)

To Nietzsche, our ability to act out on our will is what defines us. Some people possess stronger wills than others which is why they are able to see beyond the traditional defined barriers of morality and see the usefulness in what may appear evil or false.
“TO RECOGNISE UNTRUTH AS A CONDITION OF LIFE; that is certainly to impugn the traditional ideas of value in a dangerous manner” (Nietzsche pp.4⁸)

Already, we can see the opposition between the mindsets if Hooks and Nietzsche appearing. Nietzsche believes that domination too is not necessarily a bad thing in the same way deceit is a condition of life and doesn’t only exist in clearly defined lines of good and bad.
“That which is termed “freedom of the will” is essentially the emotion of supremacy in respect to him who must obey…A man who WILLS commands something within himself which renders obedience, or which he believes renders obedience” (Nietzsche pp.10⁹)
When we will, that is to say — when we imprint our wants on reality what we do is command obedience. Even when we partake in actions that may otherwise not be interpreted as commanding obedience — such as gifting to a friend or helping someone load their furniture, we do so out of this same need to command obedience. Our gifts leave our friends indebted to us, our help given out to a stranger is done so to command gratitude(obedience) or create a friendship we command.

“It is the business of the very few to be independent; it is a privilege of the strong. And whoever
attempts it, even with the best right, but without being OBLIGED to do so, proves that he is probably not only strong, but also daring beyond measure.” (Nietzsche pp.14¹⁰)

Now Nietzsche doesn’t see freedom as something we share with others in a society but rather a personal thing not everyone can possess. Those who have the will to exert dominion on others and have separated themselves as strong and not weak(herd) are those that are free. People with stronger wills command obedience even to society itself — they do not mindlessly follow the rules set out to govern their actions and understand that there is purpose even in what has been decidedly cast aside as evil by “lesser men”. To Nietzsche, you do not need to love to be free. Love is merely a will like any other, one that commands obedience and not the be-all. A hateful person can be a free spirit as long as they possess a strong will and do not conform to rudimentary societal laws. The community Hooks believes is a cornerstone of freedom is also discarded in Nietzsche’s philosophy. Why would it have need for a theory that pushes those among us who are special to mingle with the herd? They do not possess the capacity to be free like the strong-willed do. Freedom is individual and can be found even in an ethic of violence or domination.
In the same vein, I do not agree with the notion that freedom is found only in a love ethic. Why should the culture of domination be discarded? To me, the ethic of domination is not just the antithesis of love but a side of a coin that they both share. When you love too hard and give too much of yourself away you foster domination — either of yourself if you are exploited by others or of the target of what is now obsession. Domination cannot be completely separated from love. Unless that is what we have been led by society to believe? Of course, we can say that this holds true for present society but how can we know if this is what we as humans truly are? Does domination have to exist? Is it simply learned? It is a question of nature vs nurture then. The answer as it often happens to be, is found somewhere in the middle of that overlapping circle. Love isn’t just spontaneously created but a part of our identity as a species. Animals and humans all possess this capacity to love from birth. We see pets and babies all imprint themselves on the first person they see. They then learn how to love completely as they grow up and copy the actions of those they live with. A baby can grow up to be a loving adult or an obsessive human depending on how this love is nurtured. Domination exists in the same manner, we have learned to hate and be violent as a species to survive but it is coded in our genes from the onset. Once again, the way we are nurtured in society then helps bring out the worst or best of these sides of the coin. While our current society is very materialistic and seems to have forgotten what love is, love has not completely disappeared. We do know we need it and yearn for it as our media suggests. It has only been suppressed. If a society built on the love ethic is built too, then domination will only be suppressed and not completely removed. As we see with present society, the resulting combination is incomplete. It lacks balance of sorts and progress I believe would stall. Domination too needs to be incorporated for true freedom to be realised. The love ethic works in theory but not completely in practice, those who do not believe in the ethic will not want to join into the revolution and will not be free. These people need to be kept in line in a sense. I borrow from the Nazis and the British Empire, who pushed their agenda but failed to complete it due to the same lack of balance. As dark as it appears, domination as Nietzsche would agree with is necessary for our continuing survival. People who do not buy into the love ethic should be prevented from acting out and toppling the society we must try to create.

One reading this may wonder then. If domination is a firm hand keeping the unruly from destroying what they do not understand, then could it not be argued that this isn’t actually domination but love itself? Well, I would answer that love cannot be forced out of others, it implies the presence of a choice. How can you say you love someone when you do not take their opinions into question? To realise this idealistic utopia where we are free, realism should be incorporated. Not every single person can buy into the love ethic but we can keep society as a whole working on a love ethic by dominating those who are not able to. Propaganda or the hanging hammer of the law are all means by which this can be used.
Of course, I question myself as I write this. Would this not be extremely sick and depraving to suggest yet alone carry out? Is keeping the few burdened by their opinions to keep society running not evil? No. If what is needed to keep racists, sexists and other bigots from toppling society is the creation of monsters (bigots themselves?) then so be it. The utilitarian stance is one I take here, the needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few, especially when those needs are as harmful and evil as they are.
“Sometimes you’ve got to think about the greater good!” (Rowling pp.28¹¹)


Sources:
[1] Hooks, Bell. “Love as the Practice of Freedom. 1994. pp. 01
[2] Hooks, Bell. “Love as the Practice of Freedom. 1994. pp. 01
[3] Hooks, Bell. “Love as the Practice of Freedom. 1994. pp. 01
[4] Hooks, Bell. “Love as the Practice of Freedom. 1994. pp. 02
[5] Hooks, Bell. “Love as the Practice of Freedom. 1994. pp. 03
[6] Hooks, Bell. “Love as the Practice of Freedom. 1994. pp. 04
[7] Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Beyond Good and Evil.” Translated by Helen Zimmern. Project Gutenberg. 2009. pp. 21
[8] Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Beyond Good and Evil.” Translated by Helen Zimmern. Project Gutenberg. 2009. pp. 04
[9] Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Beyond Good and Evil.” Translated by Helen Zimmern. Project Gutenberg. 2009. pp. 10
[10] Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Beyond Good and Evil.” Translated by Helen Zimmern. Project Gutenberg. 2009. pp. 14
[11] Rowling, Joanne. “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.” Bloomsbury Publishing. 2007. pp.28

[Angelo Cannata]

It seems to me that what you have been trying to build is an ideology, which is, a static system of ideas. The problem of ideologies as systems of ideas is that they miss their subjectivity, their being related to time and space, which is, to epochs and cultures.

[Angelo Cannata]

Nonetheless, I appreciate your interest in the topics of love and domination, which I consider very important to fruitfully explore the possibilities of philosophy.