Michael: Alright Kevin, quick question. If you had to define 'love' in a single, cliché, greeting-card-worthy sentence, what would you say? Kevin: Oh, easy. 'Love is never having to say you're sorry.' Which, by the way, is terrible advice. It's probably the single worst definition of love ever. Michael: Exactly! And that's why we're talking about bell hooks today. She argues our entire culture is built on terrible advice about love. Kevin: That feels about right. We're all swimming in this soup of confusing, contradictory ideas about what it is. Michael: We are. And that's why we're diving into the modern classic, All About Love: New Visions by the legendary bell hooks. Kevin: Legendary is the right word. I was reading that she chose her name in lowercase to shift focus away from her identity and onto her ideas. That alone tells you she's thinking on a different level. Michael: Completely. She was a distinguished professor at places like Yale and Oberlin, a leading public intellectual, and this book, which became a huge bestseller, is her attempt to do just that—to get us to focus on the idea of love, because she argues we've been doing it all wrong. Kevin: So she’s trying to give us a clear map for something we all think we know, but probably don't. Michael: Precisely. And her biggest target is that very idea of love as just a... feeling.

Kevin: Okay, so if love isn't a feeling, what is it? A chemical reaction? A social contract? Michael: It's simpler and much more profound. hooks argues that the biggest problem we have is that we lack a shared definition. We're all using the same word to mean a hundred different things. She spent years searching for a definition that worked, and she found it in the work of psychiatrist M. Scott Peck. Kevin: I know his work. The Road Less Traveled, right? A massive book. Michael: That's the one. And his definition is the foundation of her entire argument. For hooks, love is "the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth." Kevin: Whoa. Okay, let's unpack that. "The will to extend one's self." That sounds like effort. That sounds like work. Michael: It is. The key word is "will." It’s a choice. It's an action. It's a verb. It's not something that just happens to you, like catching a cold. It's a conscious decision to act in a way that nurtures growth. Kevin: That’s a huge shift. Our whole culture is built on the idea of "falling in love," which is completely passive. It's something that happens to you. Michael: Exactly. And hooks says that’s a destructive fantasy. Because if love is just a feeling, then when the feeling fades, we think the love is gone. But if love is an action, it’s something you can choose to do, day in and day out. Kevin: That makes sense. But what about that intense feeling, that "I can't live without you" obsession? Is that not part of love? Michael: hooks has a word for that: "cathexis." It's the act of investing emotional energy in someone. You can cathect someone you're not actually loving. She gives this brutal, unforgettable example of a man who beats his wife and kids, but then goes to a bar and tells everyone how much he loves them. Kevin: Hold on. Are you saying that guy feels nothing for his family? It sounds like he's just a monster. Michael: hooks would say he feels a lot—obsession, attachment, maybe even a deep need for them. That's the cathexis. But it's not love. Because her definition is crystal clear: love and abuse cannot coexist. One is an act of nurturing growth; the other is an act of destroying it. They are polar opposites. Kevin: Wow. So when he says "I love you," it's a lie. Or at least, a profound misunderstanding of the word. Michael: It's a profound misunderstanding. And it's a misunderstanding she argues we learn very, very early. Which is what makes it so hard to unlearn.

Kevin: Okay, if that's the definition, why are we so bad at it? Why do we keep confusing these things? Where does this all start? Michael: It starts in what she calls our "first school of love": the family. For many of us, that school is deeply dysfunctional. She shares her own story in the preface, and it's heartbreaking. She talks about being cherished as a baby, and then, for reasons she never understood, that love was withdrawn. She was suddenly "no longer precious." Kevin: That’s devastating for a child. Michael: It left her with what she calls "a feeling of brokenheartedness so profound I was spellbound." She spent years mourning that lost love, and she realized her adult search for a partner was really an attempt to recover that first feeling of being wanted. Kevin: I can see how that would mess you up. You're trying to fix a past wound instead of building a present relationship. Michael: Exactly. And it's in that family setting that we learn to confuse love with all sorts of things that are not love. Think about the phrase, "I'm doing this because I love you," often said right before a punishment. Kevin: Oh, I know that one. "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you." Michael: Yes! hooks says there is nothing that creates more confusion about love in a child's mind. They learn to associate love with pain, with control, with humiliation. They learn that the people who are supposed to be their source of safety are also a source of terror. Kevin: And that becomes their template for all future relationships. Michael: It does. And hooks connects this personal, familial dysfunction to a much larger cultural problem. She argues that our entire society is built on an ethic of domination, not love. She was deeply influenced by the writer Erich Fromm, who argued that capitalism itself is incompatible with love, because it teaches us to value things over people and to see others as objects for our own gain. Kevin: This is where some readers find her work challenging, right? She's not just giving relationship advice; she's making a sweeping critique of patriarchy, capitalism, white supremacy... Michael: Absolutely. For her, you cannot separate the two. The lovelessness in our homes is a direct reflection of the lovelessness in our society. She tells this chilling story about being at a party with educated, progressive professionals. The topic of spanking children comes up, and almost everyone defends it. One mother even brags about pinching her son's flesh until he "gets the message." Kevin: That’s horrifying. And these are supposed to be the "enlightened" people. Michael: Right. And hooks points out the hypocrisy. If a man pinched his wife's flesh every time she displeased him, everyone would call it what it is: abuse. But because a child is seen as property, with fewer rights, this violence is framed as "discipline." This, for hooks, is the core of the problem. She makes the radical claim: "There can be no love without justice." Kevin: So our inability to love properly isn't a personal failing. It's a political one. Michael: It's both. It starts as a personal wound, but it's inflicted and reinforced by a political and social system that doesn't value love. But the good news is, she doesn't leave us in despair. She offers a way out.

Kevin: Thank goodness. Because so far this is a pretty bleak picture of the human condition. What's the solution? How do we learn to practice this verb called love? Michael: Her answer is surprisingly simple, but not easy. It starts with shifting our focus away from the fantasy of romantic love as the ultimate prize. She argues that the real training ground for love is often our friendships. Kevin: I love that. It feels so true. The pressure is lower, and the expectations are different. Michael: It is. She tells this wonderful story from a memoir by Susan Miller, who said she first truly understood love through her best friend, Debbie. She realized, "Love was not what made you feel bad, hate yourself. It was what comforted you, freed you up inside, made you laugh." Even when they fought, there was this essential connection. Kevin: It's a relationship based on mutual respect and care, not possession or a power struggle. Michael: Precisely. And hooks argues we need to apply that same standard to all our relationships, especially romantic ones. She shares her own painful story of being in a 14-year relationship where she tolerated verbal and even physical abuse—behavior she would never, ever have accepted from a friend. She was trapped by the cultural idea that you have to do anything to "save the relationship." Kevin: Because romantic love is put on this pedestal, above all else. Michael: Exactly. Her point is that a true "love ethic" is consistent. The care, respect, knowledge, and responsibility you bring to a friendship are the same ingredients you need in a partnership. The second key part of her solution is community. She critiques the isolated, privatized nuclear family, arguing it's often a hotbed of dysfunction. Kevin: Which we saw with her own childhood. Michael: Right. She says we need to return to a broader sense of community, to extended families and networks of friends who can act as "enlightened witnesses." She gives this great example of her friend, a single mother, who was refusing to give her daughter an allowance. The mother was projecting her own childhood lack onto her daughter. Kevin: And it was causing a fight. Michael: A huge fight. But because the author was the godmother—part of that extended community—she could step in. She gently challenged her friend's fears, suggested a new approach, and it worked. The daughter got the allowance, learned responsibility, and the conflict was resolved. Without that community, that outside perspective, it could have become a source of permanent damage. Kevin: So the answer isn't to find "the one" and lock yourselves away. It's to build a network of loving, honest relationships all around you. Michael: That's the core of it. Love isn't a private transaction between two people. It's a communal practice. It's about creating a world where everyone's spiritual growth is nurtured. It's about choosing to act with love, in your friendships, in your family, in your community, and most importantly, with yourself.

Kevin: It’s such a powerful and demanding vision. It completely dismantles the fairy tale and replaces it with... well, with work. But it’s hopeful work. Michael: It's incredibly hopeful. So, to bring it all together, hooks gives us this three-part revolution. First, she hands us a new dictionary. Love is a verb, an action, a choice to nurture growth. It’s not a feeling. Kevin: And with that definition, we can finally see clearly. We can see that abuse isn't love, that neglect isn't love, that control isn't love. Michael: Second, she shows us the blueprints of our own lovelessness. She traces it back to our childhoods and to a culture of domination that teaches us to fear and control rather than connect. It gives us a context for our pain. Kevin: It stops being just a personal failure and becomes a shared struggle. That’s a huge relief in itself. Michael: And finally, she gives us a roadmap back. It’s not a map to a mythical soulmate, but a map to building a "love ethic" in our actual lives. It starts with our friendships, extends to our communities, and demands we practice honesty, justice, and compassion everywhere. Kevin: It really makes you stop and think... if love is a choice and an action, what loving actions have I actually chosen to take this week, for myself or for others? It's a confronting question. Michael: It really is. And it's a question we'd love for our listeners to reflect on. What does practicing love look like in your life? Let us know your thoughts. It’s a conversation worth having. Kevin: Absolutely. This book is a challenge, but as one review I read said, "Like love, this book is worth the commitment." Michael: This is Aibrary, signing off.