In search of an adequate umbrella

In the realm literary criticism and theory, it is rare that anyone creates anything new. Most of what we have been reading is based on theorists looking at existing phenomena and attempting to explain the foundations, origins, basis, or "essence" behind the works of others and behind social structures. In the most extreme speculation, there is a denial that such things even exist. There is no real structure or essence. All ideas about reality are artificial constructs that serve a limited and transient purpose. In Marxism, there is a shift back to finding that root/causal element which will explain a number of different--apparently unrelated--phenomena. That base was economy. All social interaction throughout history was to be viewed from the singular perspective of a struggle to control "production" in all of its aspects. The effects on the artistic world are a little blurry because, other than the move by the Communist government to suppress art that didn't toe the party line, Marx seemed to have thought very little about that. Perhaps art was simply another product to be controlled by a fluctuating hierarchy. There are a number of other isms seeking a base that is progressively more eccentric. The definition of a universal philosophy or cosmology based on single group perspective is the aim of many current theoretical approaches. Feminism is simply one more. However, there has been a not so subtle shift in the place and purpose of theoretical speculation. Marxist aims were to change the material world by changing the power base controlling the means of production. The more that people were "schooled" to see this perspective, the harder it would be for the old structures to stand. Unlike previous theorists who sought to understand and to explain, the Marxist sought to actively intervene. A part if this intervention involved the creation of a recognizable enemy of the "cause"--the Bourgeoisie.
The Hooks reading identifies the enemy as the sexist and the purpose of feminism/feminist cultural criticism is to identify and eradicate sexism (against women primarily). The sexist enemy can be either males coming from the old patriarchal structures or the privileged "white"(?) woman who has lost interest and identification with feminist theory because she now has access to the money and the power structures formerly in the tight grasp of the male controllers (are we back to Marxism here?). It is the purpose of feminist criticism and politics to educate the people to recognize the various forms of sexism that may manifest in all aspects of our shared existence. Unlike Marxism, feminism is acutely aware of the influence of the arts and makes them a focal point, as hooks points out in her exuberant proclamation at the beginning of the article. It seems to me that theory as a discipline and as pursuit into deeper meanings (or non-meaning) is becoming both more eccentric and more adversarial in nature. It almost seems that there is an attempt to regress to an "us v. them" mentality. Perhaps some of the earlier vagueness in the course was a good thing.