okay so i'm taking a moral/ethical philosophy class in university right now, and for our lesson this week we read an excerpt from all about love by bell hooks and it's been making me think of byler soooooo much so here's my little byler + bell hooks analysis.
hooks urges us to reframe how we view love, so instead of thinking about love as a feeling, it's an action. instead of love being a noun, it's a verb. and in class we talked about her in conjunction with martin buber who basically discusses the importance of recognizing the humanity in others and dropping preconceived notions and assumptions about people in favor of making a true connection. hooks explores that concept through the lens of patriarchy. i think with byler, it's interesting to explore that concept through the lens of heteronormativity.
hooks quotes john welwood who said "a soul connection is a resonance between two people who respond to the essential beauty of each other's natures, behind their facades, and who connect on a deeper level" okay first off isn't that just beautiful, but secondly, it's so miwi! they meet in kindergarten and build their connection with less influence of social expectations and heteronormativity.
a quote from hooks "the essence of true love is mutual recognition -- two individuals seeing each other as they really are"
ultimately, mike and el's relationship does not fit this definition of love. their relationship is built around the expectations of heteronormativity. they are a boy and girl who form a connection and therefore, according to heteronormative standards, that connection must be romantic. because of this, they never see each other for who they really are, they see each other through the lens of how they think they should see each other because of the influence of heteronormativity. and i do think they could've found true love with each other platonically if not for the expectations of romance.
meanwhile, i would argue that mike and will really do see each other, especially in seasons 1 and 2, however in later seasons their views of each other are obstructed by heteronormativity. I do believe they also fit the definition of love as an action. because they don't have the language to express love verbally, we see many times in the show where they express their love for each other through their actions. another hooks quote incoming: "love is an action, a participatory emotion. whether we are engaged in a process of self-love or of loving others we must move beyond the realm of feeling to actualize love."
another thing that i think is really interesting is that hooks makes a distinction between care/being cared for and love. and when mike can't say "i love you" to el, he tells her "i care for you so much". i think the difference is you can care for them without having that mutual recognition. i think mike and will have (or at least have the potential for) that mutual recognition and showing care through action.
reading and discussing hooks in class i really do believe mike and will truly love each other. i do think heteronormative expectations are preventing that love from truly actualizing in the show, but i actually do think they get there post-canon.
it's given me a lot to think about. this is by far not a perfect analysis, and I'm sorry if you know more than me and I misrepresent anything, I'm trying my best. I definitely want to read more bell hooks now. but i really like philosophy. and feminist theory. and byler. and everything collided into this post.
