‘When our lived experience of theorizing is fundamentally linked to processes of self-recovery, of collective liberation, no gap exists between theory and practice. Indeed what such experience makes more evident is the bond between the two – that ultimately reciprocal process wherein one enables the other.’ (hooks, 1994)
‘Critical reflection on contemporary production of feminist theory makes it apparent that the shift from early conceptualizations of feminist theory (which insisted that it was most vital when it encouraged and enabled feminist practice) begins to occur or at least becomes most obvious with the segregation and institutionalization of the feminist theorizing process in the academy, with the privileging of written feminist thought/ theory over oral narratives. Concurrently, the efforts of vlack women and women of colour to challenge and deconstruct the category ‘woman’ […] was a critical intervention, one which led to a profound revoloution in feminist thought’ (hooks, 1993).
Talking about alliances made in the wake of this ‘rupture’ of ‘hegemonic feminist theory’, hooks writes how white women and men academics formed alliances ‘to formulate and impose standards of critical evaluation that would be used to define what is theoretical and what is not. These standards often led to appropriation and/ or devaluation of work that did not ‘fit,’ that was suddenly deemed not theoretical – or not theoretical enough.’ There was a ‘turning away of white feminist scholars from fully respecting and valuing the critical insights and theoretical insights of black women or women of color.’ These standards are used ‘to set up unnecessary and competing hierarchies of thought which reinscribe the politics of domination by designating work either as inferior, or superior, or more or less worthy of attention […] the production of an intellectual class hierarchy’ (hooks, 1993).
‘Any theory that cannot be shared in everyday conversation cannot be used to educate the public’ (hooks, 1993).