1. Capitalist Patriarchy as Seen by the Second Wave and the Corporate Wave
Sheryl Sandberg and bell hooks look at the ideas of women in the workplace from completely different standpoints. A subtle, but telling, difference between how the two think is rooted in how they present their arguments. Sandberg utilizes statistics and foregoes the theory throughout Lean In whereas hooks’ “Dig Deep” eschews the statistics in favor of a more theoretical analysis. This speaks volumes about where the authors will take their arguments.
Sandberg takes a more “pie in the sky” approach to the topic of women in the workplace, their advancement opportunities, and their ability to create change. She consistently exudes optimism and cheeriness, even when she is citing unfortunate or disheartening statistics.
On the other hand, hooks looks at the world more dismally, calling the corporate world “imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” and calling on her second wave roots to guide her through the lenses of heteronormativity, racism, classism, and the gender binary as she looks at the place of all women in the workplace through a more intersectionalist framework.
2. hooks’ Response to Sandberg
As mentioned previously, Sandberg avoids, or doesn’t know about, feminist theory, but does present facts and figures. Considering how far statistics can take someone, it makes quite a bit of sense that hooks would criticize Sandberg for believing that “it’s all about gender equality within the existing social system” (hooks, “Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In”). After all, when considering statistical analysis in a social science setting, the numbers themselves are only applicable to scenarios where the system proper is still in play. On the other hand, on the theoretical side of social science analysis, one can imagine different systems entirely. This is where hooks thrives and has thrived since Ain’t I a Woman? In 1981.
She doesn’t stop at critiquing Sandberg for envisioning the existing system as a place where women can thrive, hooks also takes Sandberg to task for her failure to address intersectionality. This criticism was to be expected as a cornerstone of hooks’ theory has been intersectionality. She critiqued, “her vision of individual women leaning in at the corporate table does not include any clear statements of which group of women she is speaking to and about,” (hooks, “Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In”) noting that the struggles of other women are simply absent from a book that espouses to be about women as a whole.
The critique hooks has penned makes mention of the idea that Sandberg implicitly blames women for their own suffering. In “Dig Deep,” hooks states that “it almost seems as if Sandberg sees women’s lack of perseverance as more the problem than systemic inequality” (hooks, “Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In”). This seems to be a valid claim to make as Sandberg, in Lean In, states “most leadership positions are held by men, so women don’t expect to achieve them, and that becomes one of the reasons they don’t” (Sandberg).
Finally, hooks calls Sandberg out for creating lofty goals which all women are supposed to be able to attain, but lacking a specific method by which these goals can be achieved. “It is precisely her avoidance of the difficult questions (like how will patriarchal thinking change) that empowers her optimism and the overall enthusiastic spirit she exudes” (hooks, “Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In”), hooks writes, creating an image of Sandberg as a woman who worked hard, but was also in the right place at the right time, rather than a woman who worked hard and changed minds.
3. Alignment
I align myself firmly in hooks’ camp mostly because of her commitment to inclusivity and intersectionality. It is through the lens of intersectionality that many problems of women in the workplace fall into place. In hooks’ assessment of Sandberg’s Lean In, she makes mention of Sandberg as a “faux feminist,” stating that she has brought nothing new to the table while attempting to envision a world where women are able to work within the system to reach their lofty career goals. Simply, this is not true.
In the article by hooks, she takes the time to mention race specifically. She pays little attention to another type of social status that hooks is known to espouse on: class. It must be stated that class plays a large role in how far a person, let alone a woman, can advance in the United States. To be sure, there are a few tales of triumph over adversity, but the fact remains – social mobility to the upper echelons of society is difficult, at best.
Another point which hooks gave little mind to, but I’m sure would in another essay, is the single mother. Sandberg espouses on finding a partner, having them do half of the household chores, and potentially raising a child a great deal. She also makes mention of the unmarried woman. What is in her book scarcely, if at all, is the particular struggle of the single mother. In many ways a single mother must work a great deal harder to simply stay in the same place, let alone rise above the glass ceiling. It is in this way that Sandberg fails, yet again, to even hit the tip of the iceberg of intersectionality and, therefore, does not come up with any novel ideas that haven’t been drudged through before.
Works Cited
hooks, bell. “Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In.” The Feminist Wire. 2013. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.
Sandberg, Sheryl, and Nell Scovell. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. New York, NY: Knopf, 2013. Print.
