In We Real Cool: Black Men and Masculinity, Bell Hooks tries to deconstruct what she calls the black patriarchy, which she blames on the plight of black men in society. Her analysis comes close to a traditional Marxist analysis, but she veers off course in some very troubling ways.

Often rambly and disorganized in her writing, she attempts to replace Marxist terminology with her language of the patriarchy.

The bourgeoisie becomes the white patriarchy. Capitalism becomes patriarchal capitalism. Cultural hegemony becomes patriarchal infrastructure. And so on. The word patriarchy gets thrown around so much that it's actually kind of comical.

Anyone with a background in Marxist theory can see that she's not bringing anything new to the table though. All she does is plagiarize existing ideas while calling everything "the patriarchy" instead. A practice that has been widely criticized in leftist circles (for example here and here).

Where she does deviate from Marxist theory, she plagiarizes another intellectual, or psudo-intellectual, tradition: white supremacy. She blames the patriarchy on the existence of "gangsta culture", which she then says is ruining black men.

In her own words, "Patriarchal manhood was the theory and gangsta culture was its ultimate practice."

Much like her plagiarism of Marxism, she again replaces the traditional terminology of white supremacy with variations of the word patriarchy.

"Rap music" turns into "patriarchal hip-hop". "Gangster culture", which she does actually refer to as "gangsta culture" (without the r), is described as a form of "patriarchal culture" created by "patriarchal notions of cool". Crime is blamed on this same "patriarchal culture". And the white supremacist insistence that black people don't want to work gets blamed on "patriarchal maleness" and "patriarchal manhood" (I'm not sure what the difference between those two terms is, and I'm not sure that she knew herself, either).

I want to ignore all of that for a second though, and address what it really means to replace a traditional Marxist analysis with her idea that "the patriarchy" is to blame. And how that translates into real world, practical solutions to the problem.

So I'm going to steelman this as best as I can.

Her general thesis is that patriarchal masculinity leads to a stratified society where men struggle to get ahead, and then take out their frustrations on women.

Black men, who can't get ahead in society, are described as uniquely violent against women. According to her, this is why black men engage in criminal activity, listen to rap music, and end up in prison.

There are at least two main issues here that I want to talk about, especially when compared to a Marxist analysis.

1. The problem of victim blaming

One huge difference between the Marxist interpretation of poverty and culture, and her interpretation of black culture, is that Marxism doesn't pin the blame on the working class. In fact, Marxism doesn't see working class culture to be inferior to the culture of the bourgeoisie to begin with. The culture of the working class is said to be every bit as refined and valid as the capitalist class, with the only difference being our interpretation of what we think is valid and refined in society.

Many Marxists are quick to point out that the working class works harder, and therefore has a better work ethic, than the bourgeoisie, or capitalist class. Because that is basically what class stratification is about. Most of society labors to produce a surplus, which is then consumed idly by the capitalist class.

Marxist literature from the 19th century even talks about the capitalist class growing weak from a lack of work, and says they are envious of the large muscles and overall resourcivity of the working class.

However, by merit of holding power and influence in society, the capitalist class shapes the public to see their culture as superior, and the culture of the working class as inferior. One of the messages that the capitalist class spreads is that poor people are lazy, and that's why they are poor. It's implied that if they would adopt high culture and leave behind their inferior low culture, they could be successful too.

This forced perception that there is something wrong with working class people and their culture is part of the system of control and oppression that stratifies society and preserves the system.

Bell Hooks does not go down this intellectual path though. She starts her analyze of black culture by discussing what she felt was a better era for black creativity. She glorifies the blues, and holds many popular blues musicians on a pedestal. But she then goes on to vilify rap music, modern media, and the famous actor and musician Ice T. She talks about the "cool" from the blues era, and how modern "cool" is no longer really cool. The modern black man is presented as a posers who stands in the shadows of this lost golden age of black culture.

This makes her sound like a luddite who hates what the new generations are up to. The only difference is what she uses as a scapegoat. Instead of complaining about the moral decay of society, or a lack of religiosity, she complains about the patriarchy and "patriarchal notions of cool". The cultural attitudes that young black men adopt are said to be responsible for violence, crime, sexual depravity, and a destruction of the black family, among other things.

Instead of arguing that it's only a perception that black culture is inferior, she engages in the hatred of black culture herself.

In the Marxist analysis, this makes her part of the power structure in society that is holding black people back.

Moreover, this alternative approach is nothing more than victim blaming. Black men are held responsible for appropriating white culture because their "maleness" is attracted to the white patriarchy.

If you look through her writing and deconstruct her own analysis, she is blaming the behaviors and attitudes of black men for not having success in society. Which is just one mention of "the patriarchy" away from the classic white supremacist talking point that we've heard over and over again. A fact that has not gone unnoticed by astute observers (see exhibit a, exhibit b, and exhibit c).

2. The problem of practical solutions

Her solution seems to be for men to stop being patriarchally masculine. This isn't something she talks a whole lot about, at least not in any kind of concrete way, which doesn't help her here. But she does blame these problems in society on men being patriarchally masculine. So presumably if men stopped being patriarchal (whatever that actually means) that would fix things, right?

Following the lead of a typical white supremacist, she doesn't claim to hate black men, she actually just wants to help. She even says she has love for black men. But this "love" comes in the form of criticizing black culture. She hates rap music (but she loves the blues). She hates the mannerisms and fashions associated with modern black men (but she loves the "cool" of the past). She goes on to criticize black men for being violent and lacking in self-control, bringing with it the racist assumptions that those things are true to begin with. And she says that black men are bad husbands and bad fathers (which is another traditional white supremacists talking point). All of this she says is black patriarchal masculinity.

She spends a few pages writing rosy, feel good statements about how she wants to end negative stereotypes about black men. But her approach largely boils down to "don't be that stereotype and then people won't see you that way". White supremacists hypothesize about genetics, whereas she hypothesizes about "maleness", "manhood", and "the patriarchy" causing this degeneracy that she identifies in black men.

One thing I'm confused about is why she leaves out black women in this analysis. Is rap music the fault only of black men? What role do black women have in the development of black culture? Why is coolness only a black male thing? And does that imply that black women are uncool?

Another thing I'm confused about is the difference between black patriarchal masculinity and white patriarchal masculinity. She does briefly address this, using a Marxist analysis, by saying that white men at the top are no different from black men on the bottom. She says that white men hustle in the government and as heads of corporations in legally sanctified ways, whereas black men hustle on the streets as "gangstas". Making it less of a distinction about race, and more of a distinction about class. Something she doesn't ever seem to consider, despite coming so close to it.

All she ever says here is that black men are "frustrated" for being denied the power and privilege of white men, especially over women. Bringing with it the offensive assumption that black men desire to have power over women. She then says that black men have a propensity to rape women, including white women, as well as other black men, in order to have a taste of what that power feels like (again she simply assumes that these things are true to begin with, never really considering if that might be racist and homophobic).

The last question I have is whether or not she thinks that black men in the past, her idols who embraced blues music and the cool of yesteryears, were really any better off than we are today. After all, this wasn't just the era of blues music. It was the era of Jim Crow as well. She links segregation to pre-1960s culture, but she has such a glowing view of this time period that I have to wonder if she thought segregation was better than the resulting black patriarchy that came afterward.

If anything, her infatuation with the old ways, with a time before we had equal rights, goes against her argument that rejecting the patriarchy fixes anything.

The closest thing to a solution I can find is an occasional discussion related to traditional Marxist ideas of restructuring society. And she does this outside of her discussions about the patriarchy, which brings into question the usefulness of that model.

She needs to describe how rejecting the patriarchy will lead to an end of the class stratification that she blames on black oppression, and why her explanation is better than the one already put forward by Marxists. Certainly Occam's Razor must apply here in the absence of anything compelling.

She is silent in this area though, and I think that speaks to the lack of any explanatory power in her model.

At one point she even mentions that there are some who reject the patriarchy in modern times, but even then she seems underwhelmed by the outcome. A result that contradicts her own model.

Patriarchal masculinity, which says that if a man is not a worker he is nothing, assaults the self-esteem of anyman who absorbs this thinking. Often black males reject this way of thinking about work. This rejection is a positive gesture, but they often do not replace this rejection of the patriarchal norm with a constructive alternative.

So according to her, rejecting the patriarchy isn't sufficient on its own to fix anything. She complains about men when they are patriarchal, but then she also complains when they reject the patriarchy.

The problem with her solution, and indeed why she never finds a solution, goes back to the inherent victim blaming in her writing. She blames everyone for failing to reject the white patriarchy, and for making a black version instead.

Summary

I find her theories to be incoherent, unorganized, contradictory, and uninspiring. I find her appropriation of Marxist theory to be unoriginal, and I don't think it adds anything of value to leftist thought. Moreover, I find her appropriation of white supremacist talking points to be deeply troubling, and her criticism of modern black culture lacking in insight.

She does make a few good points here or there, but those points can be found elsewhere, and without the baggage of renaming existing concepts with some variation of "the patriarchy".

Saying that she loves black men and only wants to help does not somehow undo the racism and hatred endemic in her ideas.

This book belongs in the library of a white supremacist more than it does the library of someone who cares about equality.

It's time to stop celebrating Bell Hooks and admit that her work is intellectually boring, and riddled with thinly disguised bigotry and racism throughout.