In Bell Hooks’ Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance, she first describes “eating the other”. As a history of spiritual beliefs when discussing the film, Heart Condition. “In ancient religious practices among so called ‘primitive’ people. The heart of a person may be ripped out and eaten so that one can embody that person’s spirit or special characteristics,” (Hooks, 352). She later describes “eating the other” as something we do in today’s society, religiously or not.
“The over- riding fear that is cultural, ethnic, and racial differences will be continually commodified and offered up as new dishes to enhance the white plate that the Other will be eaten, consumed, and forgotten,” (Hooks, 359). In this sense of eating the other, Hooks takes the commodification of the Other (different races/ethnicities than white) to be eaten by white society, either wanting fulfillment or pleasure after “eating” it. Consequences of eating the Other leads to denial of history as well as politics. Hooks also explains that eating the Other isn’t beneficial to whom is being eaten. “Concurrently, marginalized groups, deemed Other, who have been ignored, rendered invisible, can be seduced by the emphasis on Otherness, by its commodification, because it offers the promise of recognition and reconciliation,” (Hooks, 347).
Throughout this essay, Hooks hints at the fact that dominate groups cannot be appropriated. For example, “Unlike racist white men who historically violated the bodies of black women/women of color to assert their position as colonizer/conqueror, these young men see themselves as non-racists, who choose to transgress racial boundaries within the sexual realm not to dominate the Other, but rather so that they can be acted upon, so that they can be changed utterly,” (Hooks, 346). “So that they can be changed utterly,” to me suggest that this dominate group, (white college boys) is only eating the other for change in their own pleasures, reinforcing the idea that the Other is deemed sexual and more experienced.
Noticing that white, heterosexual men tend to not have these stereotypes, it is clear that dominant groups, like the white boys,cannot be appropriated. Because they cannot be appropriated, dominate groups instead choose to appropriate or appreciate the Other. Appropriation, as said in a class presentation, is adoption or use of the elements of one’s culture. Hooks explains this appropriation when she describes marketing tools used to exploit the Other.
“The world of fashion has also become to understand that selling products is heightened by the exploitation of Otherness,” (Hooks, 349). She explains this appropriation in fashion when describing a Tweeds catalogue. “Nothing is said in the text about Egyptian people, yet their images are spread throughout its pages… The point of this photographic attempt at defamiliarization is to distance us from whiteness, so that we will return to it more intently,” (Hooks, 350). This sort of appropriation is seen everywhere in today’s society and is arguably not always recognized.
Hooks marks a difference when talking about appropriation of the Other and appreciation of the other. She touches on appreciation when describing the plot of the movie Hairspray. “Blackness the culture, the music, the people is once again associated with the pleasure as well as death and decay. Yet their recognition of the particular pleasures and sorrows black folks experience does not lead to cultural appropriation but to an appreciation that extends into the realm of the political Traci dares to support racial integration,” (Hooks, 357). In this case, the musical Hairspray doesn’t exclude the Other, but instead includes them and admires the culture the Other has.
