Bell Hooks on Representing the Poor in American Culture

Introduction

One of the harsh realities of life in modern America is the legacy left by slavery — a legacy that pervades every aspect of society. Through popular media and institutionalized practices that celebrate rather than challenge images rooted in slavery (think Uncle Ben's rice and Aunt Jemima's pancakes), longstanding stereotypes continue to influence perceptions of Black Americans. According to Gloria Jean Watkins, better known as bell hooks, these pervasive stereotypes affect the manner in which many white Americans think about African Americans, but they also influence how Black Americans and the poor think about themselves, to varying degrees. In a Euro-centric environment where white people are presumed to be inherently superior to the peoples they encountered on the path to world domination, hooks and others argue that overcoming these longstanding stereotypes about the poor represents a challenging but worthwhile enterprise. This paper analyzes hooks' essay "Seeing and Making Culture: Representing the Poor," identifying her rhetorical appeals in support of this enterprise, followed by a summary of key findings in the conclusion.

In her essay "Seeing and Making Culture," bell hooks gives voice to an enormous group of people she claims remain voiceless in modern American society: the poor. When she was growing up, hooks states that everyone she knew fell into one of four general categories — destitute, working poor, middle class, or affluent. The working poor were barely able to make ends meet, and although no one in her family actually talked about it, all of the children simply knew the family was poor. As hooks states, "We never talked about being poor. As children, we knew we were not supposed to see ourselves as poor but we felt poor" (p. 234).

Growing Up Poor: hooks' Personal Frame of Reference

Being poor, however, was not regarded by hooks' family and friends as being lazy or worthless; it simply meant having less money than others. According to hooks, "Poverty was no disgrace in our household. We were socialized early on, by grandparents and parents, to assume that nobody's value could be measured by material standards. . . . One could be hardworking and still be poor" (p. 234). Moreover, education did not necessarily equate to intelligence: "One could have degrees and still not be intelligent or honest" (p. 235).

It was not until hooks removed herself from this enlightened environment and entered the halls of academia that she encountered a very different picture of poverty. Rather than understanding poverty as the product of deeply entrenched social stratification, hooks was taught in college that poverty was the fault of the poor themselves. In an impassioned response to these experiences, she writes, "I was shocked by representations of the poor learned in classrooms, as well as by the comments of professors and peers that painted an entirely different picture. They almost always portrayed the poor as shiftless, mindless, lazy, dishonest, and unworthy" (p. 235).

Clearly, hooks is painting American higher education with a broad brush, but it is reasonable to suggest that many people do in fact conceptualize the poor in this fashion, due in large part to the insidious and influential media messages that bombard audiences on a daily basis (Diawara, 2007). These repeated messages, hooks argues, cause poor people to formulate hypocritical and self-destructive views about themselves.

Academia, Media, and the Stereotyping of the Poor

In this regard, hooks emphasizes that "socialized by film and television to identify with the attitudes and values of privileged classes in this society, many people who are poor, or a few paychecks away from poverty, internalize fear and contempt for those who are poor" (p. 236). Because many of hooks' readers are likely only a few paychecks away from poverty themselves, this assertion is particularly striking — it goes straight to her point that poor people in general, and African American poor people in particular, increasingly regard material wealth as the only legitimate measure of success, a belief that has rendered some of them virtually dysfunctional as a result. As hooks reports, "Television shows and films bring the message home that no one can truly feel good about themselves if they are poor" (p. 235).

For Americans sitting comfortably at home reading or watching television programs about the poor, it may seem unimaginable that young people would kill each other over a pair of tennis shoes. Yet these incidents are a manifestation of an overwhelming desire among poor youth to be perceived as something other than poor. Being poor is not simply a lack of money — it carries a far heavier burden: "Poverty, in their minds and in our society as a whole, is seen as synonymous with depravity, lack and worthlessness. No one wants to be identified as poor" (p. 236). That observation is likely to resonate with many readers, and hooks reinforces it by referencing Spike Lee-style films and television productions as mirrors into the lived realities of Black Americans today (Belvey-Jennings, 1996).

Conclusion

hooks, b. (1994). Seeing and making culture: Representing the poor. In Outlaw culture: Resisting representations. New York: Routledge.

Loewen, J. W. (2007). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong. New York: Touchstone.