What does Hooks mean by Eating the Other?

Question #7

Ayat Noori
23 May 2015
Prof. Emily Bingeman
Philosophy of Sex and Love

Noori 1
In her piece, Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance, bell Hooks explores mass
medias appetite for racial difference and its commodification of Otherness (Hooks 39).
Hooks holds on to the idea of pleasure and desire as a site of resistance and, concludes on
a somewhat optimistic note, arguing that in a context where desire for the Other is, at
least, not deemed to be bad, we can begin to examine the ways in which desire informs
our political choices and affirmations (Hooks 39). I begin this paper by examining what
Hooks means by eating the Other. I then argue that Hooks presents a convincing case
for the ways in which Otherness is commodified in mass culture, and agree with her in
that current manifestations of desire for the Other do little to challenge racism.
Ultimately, contrary to Hooks, I hold little optimism that desire for the Other
(manifested from the perspective of mainstream white culture) can offer us a true site of
resistance.
The most literal meaning of eating the Other that Hooks offers comes from
ancient religious practices, where the heart of a person may be ripped out and eaten so
that one can embody that persons spirit and special characteristics (Hooks 31). In some
ways, Hooks metaphorical meaning of eating the Other is no different. Hooks argues
that mass culture finds pleasure in the acknowledgement and enjoyment of racial
difference and commodifies the Other (other cultures, races and ethnicities) so as to add
spice and excitement to white mainstream culture (Hooks 21). In this way, white
mainstream culture can eat Other races, cultures and ethnicities spirit and special
characteristics by appropriating them (Hooks 31).
I argue that Hooks presents a convincing case for the ways in which Otherness is
commodified and eaten in mass culture. One of the ways in which this is accomplished

Noori 2
is through cultural appropriation (Hooks 31). Hooks calls this concept of consumption on
behalf of white mainstream culture, a consumer cannibalism that simultaneously
eradicates the Others identity and, denies the significance of the Others history through
a process of decontextualization (Hooks 31). Although Hooks published this piece in
1992, and uses examples of the time to prove her case, we still see evidence of this type
of consumer cannibalism in todays mass culture (Hooks 31). Examples of white
people adopting aspects of non-white cultures are rampant: henna, cornrows, bindis,
headdresses, and so on. These styles are seen as exotic, spice [and] seasoning that can
liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture (Hooks 21). When these styles are
adopted by the privileged, they are done so without their awareness of the deep historical
significance, because, as Hooks says, the style as been decontextualize[ed] (Hooks 31).
However, from the perspective of the appropriator, she is only expressing her desire for
and pleasure of racial difference; she is culturally appreciating not culturally
appropriating (Hooks 39). Perhaps it is easy to see the motivation behind desire for
racial difference (and therefore cultural appropriation), as, on Hooks account, members
of mainstream white culture can achieve self-transformation through eating the Other
(Hooks 23). Hence, they are profiting from eating the Other in more than one way:
through commodification and through self-transformation.
Seen through the lens of cultural appropriation, I agree with Hooks that current
manifestations of desire for the Other do little to challenge racism (Hooks 26). White
mainstream culture is less interested in non-white people and non-white problems, and is
more interested in exocitizing and commodifying Otherness for their own pleasure,
benefit and profit.

Noori 3
It is for this reason that I hold little optimism that pleasure for the Other can be a
site of resistance, particularly when that pleasure is expressed by a privileged mainstream
white culture that, as Hooks notes, constantly presents the Other in recognizable forms
and does not present the Other in resistance to these stereotypical recognizable forms
(Hooks 26). As Hooks notes, mass media presents African American culture through
stereotypes of the primitive by relying on essentialist notions of Blackness: Black
people are more sexual, Black people are more musical and have more rhythm, Black
equals erotic (Hooks 34). It is often the case that these notions mock Otherness while
pretending to celebrate it. I hold little optimism that mainstream white cultures desire
for the Other can be manifested in any other way. Mainstream white culture is, on my
view, always liable to present pleasure for the Other in recognizable forms that do not
resist or offer a radical questioning of these stereotypical forms. Rather, I argue that the
only reliable way we can achieve a radical questioning of these representations is by
having the members of the culture in question pose challenges to them. Even then, as
Hooks admits, when commodified, an overtly political piece of work by a Black artist,
for example, can be ignored and consumed as non-political by mass culture (Hooks 34).
To conclude, I have explored Hooks meaning of eating the Other and have
argued that she presents a convincing case for the ways in which Otherness is
commodified in mass culture, particularly through cultural appropriation. While I agree
with Hooks that current manifestations of desire for the Other do little to challenge
racism, ultimately, contrary to Hooks, I hold little optimism that desire for the Other, as
manifested from the perspective of mainstream white culture, can offer us anything but

Noori 4
recognizable forms of the Other that do not resist white western conceptions of the dark
Other (Hooks 26).

Noori 5
Works Cited

Hooks, bell. Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance. Black Looks: Race and
Representation. South End Press, 1992. 21-39. Print.