Читать книгу Black Mens Studies - Serie McDougal III - Страница 14
ОглавлениеBlack Males, Gender, Manhood, and Masculinities
Manhood and masculinity play critical roles in the health and well-being of Black men and boys. A great deal of writing is available on the roles these elements play in the challenges that confront Black males. However, not enough knowledge has been produced about the history of Black manhood and masculinity and the social and cultural contexts in which they are nurtured. Thus, this chapter outlines the history of Black manhood and masculinity from its pre-colonial African roots to its more recent unfolding. The role that power plays in the development of Black manhood and masculinity is explored in addition to their unique qualities and expressions. Because it is important to understand how Black manhood and masculinity are viewed in the mainstream, this chapter outlines some popular scholarship about Black men, while challenging misperceptions. Lastly, this chapter explores Black manhood development programs and initiatives.
Gender is a term referring to the personal traits and qualities that members of a society attach to biological characteristics, including but not limited to male and female designations. As Ratliff (2014) explains, “classifying someone as “male,” “female,” (or “intersex”) takes into account the social construction of gender, which emphasize sex differences associated with masculinity and femininity” (p. 20). Yet, through a spiritual lens, male and female are sometimes interpreted as physical manifestations of divine complementarity and synergy. Gender, a social construction, has to do with the meaning attached to masculinity and femininity. It is less about biology than it is about culture, which influences the meaning people attach to it (Ratliff, 2014). It interacts with race and shapes how Black males think about themselves and others. Moreover, it also shapes how other people think of Black males. Gender exists at the intersection of biology and culture, an intersection that continues to be explored (Sommers, 2013). The gender of Black men and boys must be understood as the products of nature, nurture, and culture (Gurian & Stevens, 2005).
←57 | 58→
The terms masculinity and manhood are often used interchangeably, but in this text the two will be distinguished. Drawing on the definitions of Dancy (2012), Davis (2009), and Howard (2014), manhood refers to the worldviews, values, beliefs, philosophies, self-expectations, and responsibilities that men accept or acknowledge. Masculinity refers to the expressions, behaviors, and performances men and boys engage in which demonstrate their maleness or their conceptions of manhood (Davis, 2009). Masculinity may be thought of as more behavior-based, while manhood is more of a state of being and becoming—a process (Howard, 2014). Black conceptions of manhood are multidimensional and diverse (Neal, 2005), although stereotypes about Black males allow that variety to go unnoticed or be willfully ignored. Like manhood, masculinity should be more precisely understood in plurality, as masculinities (Davis, 2009). Another way of describing masculinity is the socially constructed characteristics attached to being of the male sex (Lemelle, 2010). Male is the physiological distinction, while manhood and masculinity are social/cultural. Drawing on this understanding of masculinity, females and males may possess masculinity or femininity. For example, the fact that boys tend to prefer different reading material (i.e., comics, science fiction, and sports) than females in elementary school is a statistical reality more than a rigid statement about all boys or girls. This demonstrates a very important part of this description of Black males and gender; it is a discussion of patterns of behavior and thinking, not absolute claims about either sex or gender. This is an examination that explains statistical differences, not uniform characteristics of any gender.
Black Manhood in Historical Context
Dancy (2012) has the most comprehensive periodization of the history of Black manhood. The following analysis builds on both Dancy’s (2012) and Howard’s (2014) periodization of Black manhood via more expansive descriptions, and Afrocentric analysis. The first period consists of indigenous African conceptualizations of manhood before the European slave trade in the Atlantic Ocean. Many scholars have failed to examine this period and make claims that Black manhood concepts and identities emerged only after slavery (Johns, 2007). However, rituals and customs at each stage in men’s life cycle inculcated African males with specific worldviews. Different African societies had clear understandings of manhood and cultural mechanisms to pass those meanings down from one generation to the next. One theme in many African societies is their creation of a series of rituals and steps designed to facilitate healthy and functional progression toward manhood (Rosier, 2011). For boys, elders constructed trials and tasks to complete in controlled environments so they might understand manhood (Rosier, 2011). These rites of passage started from early childhood to late adolescence and continued with marriage and funeral rites. Children were guided through and supported during these processes by elders, biological family members, extended-family members, and entire villages or communities. Males in pre-colonial African societies generally emerged from rites, rituals, and social institutions with an understanding of the values, beliefs, philosophies, and ideals associated with manhood. These were typically elements of overall African worldviews, including but not limited to complex interactions of spirituality, collective identity, responsibility to family and community, physical prowess, husbandhood, fatherhood, honor to the supreme being, respect/honor for the ancestors, courage, discipline, leadership, brotherhood, warrior-hood, respect for and harmony with nature, knowledge of ethnic history and wisdom, intelligence, skills/crafts, and respect for elders.
One of the central features of pre-colonial African conceptualizations of gender is the perception of male and female as complimentary divine principles of humanity (Ani, 1994; Nobles, 2006; T’Shaka, 1995). In ancient Kemet, male and female principles are manifestations of divine inclusiveness, together representing humanity in its wholeness (Karenga, 2010a). Karenga (2010a) explains they are “equal possessors of dignity and divinity” (p. 269). Yet, in addition to complementarity, pre-colonial African ←58 | 59→cosmologies also involved more fluid definitions and expressions of gender (Nzegwu, 2003; Oyewumi, 2002), which privileged relationships and spirituality in ways distinct from Western bio-logic which emphasizes physical characteristics and behaviors. For example, in the ceremonies of Ifa and Vodun spirituality, male spiritual deities may mount (possess) women and female deities can mount men, blurring rigid gender lines since both male and female represent divine principles (Michel & Daniels, 2009). Contrarily, discussions of complementary relationships in African philosophy need not idealize the past as a place where self-realization for both men and women were unconstrained (Cornwall & IAI, 2005). However, interrogating pre-colonial African thought does provide the cultural reference point for framing the unique social structures and gender relations in contemporary African and African diasporic societies. According to T’Shaka (1995), in Western thought, the female principle has been alienated from the masculine as compared to pre-colonial African thought and family systems.
The next era of Black manhood is post-transplantation antebellum America. African men brought their cultural identities and understandings to the New World. However, they were physically separated from their African contexts. Black men’s traditional roles as husbands, fathers, providers, and protectors of their communities were transformed by oppression, but men managed to fulfill these roles through persistence, creativity, resistance, and resilience. Black (1997) claims that Black men were severed from their cultures and their manhood. But this claim is contradicted by the record of resilient and resistant Black manhood. Black (1997) asserts there were many Black men who looked upon their masters with resentment and envied their power. However, many Black men rejected their captors and resisted them in unrelenting fashion. History has highlighted the former and cast a shadow on the latter.
The traditional view of enslaved Black males was that they were passive beings, completely controlled by their masters (White & Cones, 1999). It was not until the 1960s that a significant number of scholars began to describe Black men during slavery as resisting the effects of slavery in unique cultural and political ways. Lussana (2016) challenges the emasculated Black male thesis by documenting the ways that Black males continued to be providers, nurturers, and protectors during slavery. He investigates Black males’ homosocial worlds, including the rituals and rites of manhood that they created among themselves, and their overall sense of brotherhood. He also explores the forms of day-to-day resistance they used to challenge their subjugation, support their families and struggle for freedom. Lastly, Lussana (2016) engages Black males’ organization and participation in overt and collective politics of resistance.
Mainstream American views of Black men are one-sided. Scholars such as Elkins (1968) explain how Whites had total control over the lives of Black people for the duration of their lives. This position proclaims that Black males were stripped of their roles as protectors and providers of their families and communities (Neal, 2005). White men and women could break up Black families at will and arbitrarily sexually assault Black men (and more so Black women) at any time. These accounts of slavery present Black men as believing in their own inferiority and attempting to emulate their oppressors. This model of enslaved Black men denies that they carried with them any psycho-cultural thoughts and behavioral patterns from native cultures in Africa (White & Cones, 1999). But the truth of these realities cannot be denied, although as Booker (2000) explains, there was a range of responses to enslavement—from servility and acquiescence to rebellion, lethal retaliation and all points in-between.
It was during this post-transplantation antebellum period that Black men were subjected to White supremacy and White male patriarchy. According to Staples (2006), due to Black males being called and treated as boys for centuries, masculinity is very important to their collective identity. White men considered adult Black males to be like children. During slavery, there was a constant effort to instill within them traits such as weakness, docility, and ignorance (Dancy, 2012). During the Civil War, a White abolitionist, Thomas Wentworth Higgins, was appointed the commander of a regiment of Black ←59 | 60→male soldiers. Wentworth commented on why he liked the Black men in his regiment saying, “I think it is partly from my own notorious love for children that I like these people so well” (Litwack, 1979, p. 69). In racist Eurocentric ideology, Black men were often not considered human, thus manhood for them, was impossible (Franklin, 1994a). In the Eurocentric mind, the Black male gender role was seen as the following dimensions: the Black male as property (to be owned, bought, and sold); the Black male as submissive (fearful and compliant); the Black male as non-protective (no ability to protect the lives of his family); the Black male as powerless (little voice in determining his destiny); and the Black male as stud supreme (expected to be a strong and hard worker, and breeder) (Franklin, 1994a). Black males were forbidden from assuming so-called traditional masculine gender roles (owners, providers, leaders, and thinkers) by Whites (Hoston, 2014). Although social scientists like Hoston (2014) and Dancy (2012) assert that Black manhood and masculinity were prevented, it is important to understand how Black males resisted attempts to negate their manhood and masculinity (Clarke-Hine & Jenkins, 1999).
The Eurocentric ideology about the meaning of Black manhood was a myth. Perhaps too many scholars have bought the notion that Black males had no gender role or could not exercise manhood during slavery. The route to manhood was decidedly more supported for White males, whose competition was limited by suppressing Black manhood and masculinity. Yet, Black men learned to employ skill, intelligence, flexibility, malleability, humility, and determination to maintain their manhood, humanity, and to achieve goals (Booker, 2000). Black men risked life and limb to continue and adapt African conceptions of manhood in creative ways, in the American context. The manhood values of collective effort, resistance, and pride, carried forth from the ancestors, put Black males at severe risk during slavery (Franklin, 2004). These values and efforts conflicted with White expectations. Whites saw Black masculinity as a threat and continuously made conscious efforts to suppress it (Black, 1997). For example, Whites generally denied leadership and authority to Black males unless it served White interests. They destroyed families and brotherhood by creating divisions among the enslaved based on things such as skin color and labor. Actions were taken to violate and limit men’s ability to protect their families, such as dividing families and raping Black women. Whites created stereotypical images of Black men as buffoonish, docile, and loyal Sambos, or strong, aggressive, yet stupid brutes, to justify suppression of Black manhood.
Black manhood and masculinities, during this period, were shaped largely in response to enslavement and struggles against oppression (Booker, 2000), and pre-colonial African cultural understandings of manhood and masculinity. Free Blacks during this period were forced to integrate themselves, socially and culturally, into a society shaped largely by White Euro-American culture. This included gender roles. Whites, and many Black social institutions (Free Black societies, newspapers, churches) as well, held Black men to the expectation of earning enough money to support their families so their wives did not have to enter the workforce (Booker, 2000).
Blacks were expected by Free Black communities to adhere to moral-ethical codes that would not reinforce White stereotypes about them. They were encouraged to dress conservatively, use specific etiquette, and not engage in public displays of sexuality (Booker, 2000). It was expected that these behaviors would allow Black women, for example, to be “true ladies” (Booker, 2000, p. 58). Booker (2000) asserts that many Black men and women accepted the notion that Black men should take leadership roles, while women were encouraged to take more passive supportive roles. However, there was stiff resistance to these gender role expectations among Blacks; some ignored them and others openly resisted them. Black organizations had begun accepting female leadership during this period, far more than did their White counterparts (Booker, 2000). The Black Nationalist and abolitionist Alexander Crummell stated that no Black movement could achieve success without Black women (Crummell, 1883). Frederick Douglass advocated openly for sexual equality and leadership roles for ←60 | 61→Black women along with other Black male leaders. At the 1848 Colored National Convention, Black women openly challenged being denied positions of leadership and demanded more voice. Anna Julia Cooper and other Black women leaders challenged race-gender discrimination against Black women in education and politics, before and after the Civil War. Toward the end of this period, there was a shift in gender role consciousness among Black men. With the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, assaults on free Blacks, and the approaching Civil War, Black males began to assume an even more assertive, bold, and direct kind of masculinity. This increased racial tension because most White Americans, including abolitionists, expected Black men to assume a submissive posture when seeking freedom and equality—an expectation that people like Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth routinely violated (Estes, 2005). Black leaders like William Watkins, Henry Highland Garnet and others began to call for Black men to reject submissive masculinity and engage in direct, physical, and intellectual resistance to White oppression. This was a precursor of gender role definitions and challenges that would emerge after slavery.
The third and fourth periods are The Civil War and Reconstruction Eras. During these periods, Black men engaged in resistant masculinity (Clarke-Hine & Jenkins, 1999) in many forms, from revolt to official legal procedures (bringing an issue to the court vs. protest or sabotage or filing lawsuit) of protest. Some Black men exercised resistance in the form of military service. For many Black men, military service, particularly in the Civil War, was seen as a route to freedom and independence, a way of protecting their families, an expression of pride, a way of exercising civic voice, and a way of challenging slavery and stereotypes. The Civil War allowed Black men to express aspects of manhood that slavery demanded they suppress, such as intellect, hostility, aggression, etc. (Cullen, 1999). However, it must be noted that it was certain kinds of aggression—aggression toward Whites and self-determining aggression—that was not permitted for Black males prior to the Civil War. The formerly enslaved Black abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, explains it was his aggressive, physical resistance of Covey (one of his White enslavers) that rekindled his own sense of manhood, dignity, pride, and self-determination (Andrews, 1994). For many Black men, the war was an opportunity for demonstrating their manhood for the purpose of freedom for Black people (Cullen, 1999).
After slavery ended, new conceptualizations of manhood emerged. Some Black men adopted the domineering and patriarchal models of manhood they observed from their former so-called masters. However, many Black men did not, and continued the relatively egalitarian style of male-female relations they had assumed during slavery and in Africa. The formerly enslaved were expected to integrate themselves into society by developing social institutions in the image of White Americans. This included White American family models, codes of behavior, male–female relationship styles, religious practices, etc. (Booker, 2000).
During Reconstruction, Black males were integrated into a social system where they were expected to be the dominant figures in Black economic and political life. Politics was treated as the exclusive province of males. Black males became enfranchised while Black females remained disenfranchised. Missionary schools socialized Black students into mainstream, White Christian-inspired gender roles. Federal institutions such as the Freedmen’s Bureau treated Black males as head of the family, paid them more for their work than Black women, and admonished them to be economic providers (Booker, 2000). Freedmen’s Bureau officials counseled formerly enslaved Black men on proper gender ideals, i.e., mainstream White gender ideals. The Freedmen’s Bureau inculcated newly freed Black men into the patriarchal logical style of dominant White culture by appointing males as the sole powers in labor and contracts agreements for families, in addition to appointing husbands as heads of households (Wiegman, 1993). Black men during this time were influenced by both mainstream White gender ideals and their own cultural gender ideals. For example, according to Becker (1972), the AME church ←61 | 62→promoted a Black Christian manhood with four key characteristics: leadership and self-assertion, Black identity, independence, and Christian vocation.
However, when Reconstruction ended due to the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, violent White repression of Blacks resumed. This and the emergence of Jim Crow laws led Whites (and also some Black leaders) to view a much more accommodative form of Black masculinity as the ideal. During this period, Black men were also assigned non-masculine status by law, custom, and violence (Franklin, 1994b). Opportunities emerged for Black men who demonstrated a non-threatening loyalty and subservience to Whites and their social-political agendas. Men like Booker T. Washington emerged—willing to find a pathway for Black progress that did not include challenging Whites politically yet admitting to social inferiority while focusing primarily on economic progress. However, other Black men like William Monroe Trotter and W.E.B. Dubois criticized Washington for his subservience and advocated for Black higher education as well as political power.
The fifth period was the New Negro Movement Era. During this period, African American men made progress in industry and political representation and experienced White backlash in response. According to Summers (2004) and Dancy (2012), during this period hegemonic discourses shaped Black male gender identity. Dancy defines hegemony as “experiences that sustain the power of particular groups while subordinating others to states of powerlessness” (p. 44). Black men like Langston Hughes, Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. Dubois, George Washington Carver, and Booker T. Washington separately and collectively promoted ideals of Black self-sufficiency, self-determination, achievement, persistence, and success (Franklin, 1994b). Some African American men adopted class bias toward Black women and other Black men. Black men gained the right to vote during this time period, but Black women would not until the 20th century. It was also during this period that Marcus Garvey and the United Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League promoted race pride and self-reliance among African Americans. Leaders like Garvey affirmed a manhood ideal that included independence and self-determination for Black men’s families, communities, and all African people. These ideals also shaped values associated with Black male gender identity during the era. At the same time, Garvey’s ideas were radical because Black men had previously learned to hide their true feelings, thoughts, and identities due to the ever-present threat of White racial terrorism (Estes, 2005).
King (2005b) asserts that White racial terrorism (i.e., lynching, arson, bombings) against Blacks has historically and presently been to protect White power and privilege. Whiteness is a form of property and it is defended as such. Racial violence by Whites has been enacted to defend the social-political rights and privileges attached to Whiteness (King, 2005b). Racial violence continues as present-day police brutality works to keep Black people in their place, thus protecting Whiteness. King (2005b) points out that White racial violence has typically been a response to Black male social-political advancement (threats to the property of Whiteness), such as: Black political power gained in the years following Reconstruction; increases in Black male income in the late 1960s; the election of Barack Obama as the first Black president of the United States.
Black males have experienced White supremacy in some significantly different ways than Black women. For example, the vast majority of lynching victims in the early 1900s were Black men (Estes, 2005). During this period, the Reverend Henry Turner once spoke in response to injustice against Black men, saying “there’s no place in this infernal country for manly Negroes” (The Colored American, 1899). In her journal article, “The Anatomy of Lynching,” Wiegman (1993) explains the social symbolism of White lynching of Black males as a form of ritualized killing, aimed in part at an objective of feminization. Her analysis builds on the fact that White lynchers’ preferred form of mutilation of Black men was castration. In her analysis, castrated Black men were symbolically separated from their masculinity and any privilege associated with it through ritualized dismemberment (Wiegman, 1993). Therefore, the act was a symbolic stripping of both sexual and political power. Through the perversity ←62 | 63→of this act, the White mob asserted its own notions of masculinity, symbolically, through the removal of the Black male victim’s visible claim to masculinity. The message to Black men was that their manhood and masculinities were threats that needed to be put down. Estes (2005) argues that Black men’s survival in the early 1900s thus depended upon their ability to mask their masculinity. Garvey’s teaching said otherwise, promoting Black male pride, independence, and assertiveness. The brash African American boxer, Jack Johnson, stood out as a symbol of assertiveness because of his open expressions of aggression and dominance against White boxers (Wiggins, 1985). Johnson did this during a time when most Black men were taught to hold back any open expressions of masculine assertiveness, particularly against Whites.
The sixth period was The Civil Rights Era: Identity Crisis and the Emergence of a “Cool Pose.” According to Perkins (2000) and Dancy (2012), two key economic factors influenced shifts in Black male identity. First was the combined effects of deindustrialization, job losses, and globalization on African American communities and families. As a consequence, many Black males were denied the most basic realization of masculinity in the American context—the ability to work and provide. Undoubtedly, this produced a great deal of frustration to channel compared to those who had jobs. Although oppression didn’t exempt Black males from patriarchy (Neal, 2005), low wages and unemployment made it difficult for Black men to achieve the kind of patriarchal manhood that was characteristic of middle-class America. Second, significant increases in the numbers of African American unmarried mothers since World War II led to increased welfare dependency.
According to Hill-Collins (2004), two additional factors influenced Black male identity constructions during this period. The first was overt racism and political disenfranchisement via Jim Crow laws and the government, and the general public’s failure to assist African Americans who were formerly enslaved. The second factor was the popular imagery of African American men as hypersexual and innately violent. These economic and racial challenges fostered increased conflict between Black men and women and family life. Estes (2005) explains that when the modern Civil Rights Movement began, the dominant understanding of manhood in American included several general expectations. Men were expected to be the leaders and breadwinners of their households and have a local and national political voice. However, racism prevented Black men from achieving these attributes of manhood.
Martin Luther King, Jr. (1965) began to address the gendered racism and economic discrimination that uniquely affected Black men. He observed that the gendered nature of job availability (domestic jobs that favored women) made it especially difficult for Black men to be heads of households. Moreover, as Martin Luther King Jr.’s mentor Benjamin Mays recalled, to display manhood as White men did, was to invite disaster (Estes, 2005, p. 6). Yet, Malcolm X put forth a conceptualization of masculinity that was more assertive in regard to self-determination and self-defense. He rejected the non-violent principle of Martin Luther King, Jr. as unintelligent and unmanly.
The seventh period was the Black Power Era. Heavily influenced by Malcolm X, the Black Power movement represented a revolutionary, resistant, and rebellious form of manhood as compared to earlier periods. The Black Power movement promoted a worldview in which every aspect of a Black person’s life was expected to be geared toward Black collective self-determination (Rhoden, 2006). Pass, Benoit, and Dunlap (2014) claim that this period during the 1960s was the first time Black manhood was acknowledged on a societal level—although it was presented in a pathological way. In the mainstream media, Black males were presented as dangerous, menacing, and angry, especially the male leaders of the Black Power movement (Pass et al., 2014). The Black Panther Party tied assertive community service to manhood; engaging in armed self-defense and building their own institutions. Some Black men during the Black Power movement were outspoken against homosexuality, perhaps none more than Eldridge Cleaver. However, others like Huey Newton challenged such views and voiced support for women’s and gay liberation movements (Estes, 2005).
←63 | 64→
This era was also accompanied by some patriarchal patterns of thinking and acting among Black men. But the women’s and gay liberation movements of this period also influenced many to begin to question and reinterrogate notions of patriarchy during the Civil Rights and Black Power movements. Although Black women comprised the majority of the party, Black men were overrepresented in leadership positions. While many men held beliefs that women were unfit for leadership, some Black male party members, like Fred Hampton, openly challenged those who attempted to subordinate Black women.
Presently, Black males continue to be presented as angry, violent, hypersexual, and deviant. They are perceived socially as “threatening, animalistic, sexually depraved and crime-prone” (Pass et al., 2014). These historical periods of gender identity illustrate how conceptualizations of manhood have shifted and maintained common features, while gender equality has experienced both progress and stagnation.
Gender socialization, through the observation of social roles in families, represents one of the major ways that children learn gender roles. Yet, Black men have largely been excluded from research on gender socialization. Hill (2002) explains that most scholars focus on the gender socialization of African American girls. Pre-colonial African societies established clearly defined roles for males and carefully delineated steps designed to facilitate boys’ psychosocial maturation to manhood (White & Cones, 1999). The system of slavery was used to suppress Black men’s abilities to assume the roles of breadwinners, protectors, and heads of families. However, Black men continued to find ways to fight against this suppression and be providers and protectors of their families, and socializers of their children.
Presently, within African American families, Black children are exposed to a range of masculine roles including Black men as provider, egalitarian decision maker, defeated male, player of women, and street tough (i.e., a gangster). Using in-depth interviews with 35 African American parents, Hill (2002) examined what parents teach their children about gender and how gender affects the distribution of work in their families. Her results showed that, regardless of sex, most Black parents gave verbal support for gender equality in child socialization. Those who had higher levels of education were more likely to support gender equality than those with lower levels of education. However, some gender differences existed in how work was distributed. In married families, fathers were proud of their participation in the home. Mothers did most of the routine care tasks and discipline, while fathers spent more recreational and education time with the children (Hill, 2002).
Hill (2002) also found that sons of single mothers were more involved in childcare activities than sons of married mothers. Belgrave and Brevard (2015) refer to this as an androgynous gender role (an individual possessing close to a balance in masculine and feminine qualities). Some parents (newly middle-class Black) had concerns about homosexuality. However, there is some evidence that cross-gender type behaviors from males are met with more parental disapproval. According to Hill (2002), feminine traits were devalued by some parents; boys would be more likely to be stigmatized for being “sissies” than girls for being “tomboys.” Leaper’s (1995) investigation of mother-child communication patterns revealed that mothers were much less tolerant of cross-gender-type behaviors in sons as compared to daughters. Black male gender identity develops through gender socialization processes.
What it means to be a man or boy varies widely across the globe. Equally, there is no one definition of masculinity or manhood that could possibly apply to all Black males. Indeed, singular notions of Black male gender can exclude large numbers of males who operate based upon different notions of what it means to be both Black and male (Howard, 2014). Gender role identities are personal beliefs ←64 | 65→about the characteristics of one sex compared to others, the feelings associated with those beliefs, and how individuals perceive themselves in comparison to others of their gender (Mandara, Murray, & Joyner, 2011; Wood & Hilton, 2013; Woolfolk, 2008). On a broader level, gender roles are socially constructed and shaped by all members of society (Wood & Hilton, 2013).
Where Black Males Get Ideas About Manhood and Masculinity
To enhance Black males’ exposure to positive images of masculinity, it is important to understand where they get their images of masculinity. Roberts-Douglass, Curtis-Boles, Levant, Rochlen, and Wade (2013) interviewed 15 African American men about their images of masculinity acquired during adolescence and where those images came from. The images were both positive and negative and came from a variety of sources including family members and kin, peers, neighborhoods, institutions of learning, media and music. Identified images were classified into several categories: tough guy, gangster/thug, players of women, flashy and flamboyant, athletes, providers, and role models (Roberts-Douglass et al., 2013).
In general, adolescent Black males’ positive images came from family members. Negative images, like being a thug or player, came primarily from the media. Some of the sources of Black men’s understandings of manhood and masculinity, such as their peers and parents, are members of their reference groups. Peers in dangerous environments have also been found to be, in part, responsible for pressuring other Black youth to display bravado and brashness, while ridiculing those who do not display enough toughness (Belgrave & Brevard, 2015; Cunningham & Meunier, 2004). Franklin (1994) suggests that Black males who are too heavily peer-group controlled may be more likely to adopt the following characteristics of masculinity: aggressiveness, violence, competitiveness, heterosexuality, cool poses, dominance, sexism, and passivity/indifference in mainstream society.
Boys usually develop their sense of being a male between the ages of three and four due to their recognition of biological sex differences and sharing the same physical characteristics as others (Wade, 2014). A part of gender identity also comes from messages boys receive from others who tell them how a boy is supposed to be. Males often internalize the messages about masculinity they receive from their male reference group (Wade, 2014). During early childhood, a boy’s male reference group typically includes fathers, father figures, and groups of older males, but shifts to include other males over time. Adolescent males’ gender-related attitudes are affected by their male reference groups. According to Male Reference Group Identity Dependence (MRGID), differences in the ways that men define the characteristics of what it means to be male are formed in relation to their male reference group (Wade, 2014). The theory consists of four postulates of male reference group dependency statuses.
Postulate One states that “males identify with other males to the extent that they feel psychological relatedness to a particular group of males or type of males, or to all males” (Wade, 2014, p. 90). This postulate consists of three male reference group dependency statuses: No Reference Group, Reference Group Dependent, and Reference Group Non-dependent. In the no reference group status, boys feel no connection to any group or type of boys. Boys in the reference group dependent status feel connected to or identify with a specific group or characteristic type of boys. Boys in the reference group non-dependent status feel connected to or identify in a universalistic way with all boys.
Postulate Two states that the three levels of reference group dependency are related to three levels of ego identity. An undifferentiated or unintegrated identity is associated with the no reference group status. The conformist ego is associated with the reference group dependent status. The integrated identity is associated with the reference group non-dependent status.
Postulate Three states that “feelings of psychological relatedness to other males are associated with how males use reference groups for their gender role self-concept” (Wade, 2014, p. 90). The gender role status of boys in the no reference group status is undefined due to their lack of psychological relatedness ←65 | 66→to other males. The gender role status of boys in the reference group dependent status is dependent on the male reference group. The gender role status of boys in the reference group non-dependent status is not dependent on a male reference group due to having formed their own understandings (Wade, 2014).
According to Postulate Four, “how males use reference groups for their gender role self-concept is related to their gender-related attitudes and the quality of their gender role experiences” (Wade, 2014, p. 90). Boys in the no reference group status typically experience confusion, anxiety, and insecurity in their gender roles. Boys in the reference group dependent status are likely to keep strict adherence to gender roles, stereotypes, and attitudes; and have limited gender role experiences, behaviors, and in-group distinctions. Boys in the reference group non-dependent status experience gender role characteristics that are flexible, diverse, and unlimited.
Regarding peer groups, MRGID theory suggests that boys in the no reference group status have a greater likelihood of suffering from psychological distress. Boys who feel different or isolated from other boys have an increased likelihood of experiencing anxiety, depression, internal conflict, or confusion. Boys in the non-reference group dependent status, the model identity, generally feel comfortable with themselves as boys. Boys in the reference group dependent status also generally feel comfortable with themselves as boys, but that comfort may be less stable. They are likely to feel most at ease around boys who are like them. And they will need their male friends with them to feel at their most socially competent and comfortable in social situations.
It is typical for boys to be in the reference group dependent status. Thus, boys need to be guided into positive male reference groups that support them, and away from unhealthy ones. This is important because unhealthy peer groups (those involved in drug abuse, rejecting academics, engaging in violence or delinquency) can be attractive to young Black males by providing a strong sense of belongingness and identity. In many instances, a boys’ reference group may reject larger cultural norms. Boys need to be shown they share common characteristics with peers who are not involved in unhealthy and high-risk social behavior. For example, he may be musically talented but involved in a gang, and need to be shown other musically talented, non-gang affiliated boys who are benefiting from that identity (Wade, 2014). This requires that parents monitor their children’s whereabouts and know their friends. Typically, Black mothers engage in more child monitoring than Black fathers (Bulanda, 2010). Both mothers and fathers and other family associates must be strategic about shaping their sons’ reference groups.
Black Males’ Moral Development
A central issue to Black manhood is Black males’ values and morality. Wood and Hilton (2013) developed a non-linear, multidimensional conceptual model of Black male moral development. The model represents a continual cycle of moral development throughout Black males’ lives, with five stages: moral externality, moral experiment, moral consequence, moral negotiation, and moral internality. Wood and Hilton (2013) note that individuals will transition from self-centered perceptions of morality and a lack of social consciousness toward a morality of critique and a morality of Black community. The transition is influenced by Black culture and morality, identities (racial and gender), and the influence of stereotypical depictions of Black males as amoral and immoral (Wood & Hilton, 2013). Moral externality refers to the external regulation or moral norms and behaviors by authority figures such as family, community, and peers. In the moral experiment stage, individuals engage in a range of behaviors with a range of moral implications (e.g., partying, womanizing, restricting feelings). Directly connected to the previous stage, the moral consequence stage is when individuals develop their capacity to judge and evaluate the consequences of their moral choices and behaviors. In the moral negotiation stage, individuals question and negotiate their identities as a moral beings, along with identities as Black and male. In ←66 | 67→the final stage, moral internality, an individual’s revised moral identity is internalized. Wood and Hilton (2013) propose that this model be used to help understand Black male moral behavior and identity. The model may also be useful in the development of programs, interventions, and rites of passage that involve Black male moral development.
Black Male Gender Role Balance
The fundamental gender role conflict between Afrocentric and Euro-American (Eurocentric) cultures is that Afrocentric culture compels Black men to be cooperative and to work in the interest of the collective good, while Euro-American culture stresses individual success and economic achievement (Wester et al., 2006). However, Black males have never been aligned, in a general sense, with Euro-American manhood. According to Franklin (1994), Black men have been historically chided for not being competitive, aggressive, and emotionally stoic enough. According to Belgrave and Brevard (2015), as compared to other racial/ethnic groups in the U.S., African American male youth are more likely to hold gender role beliefs that have been referred to as androgynous (both masculine and feminine) from a Eurocentric perspective. It must be noted that these gender role beliefs are described as androgynous only when Euro-American manhood ideals are defined as the standard for manhood. For example, some studies show that African American men are more likely to engage in housekeeping and childcare as compared to White men (Willinger, 1993). Additionally, although prosocial behavior (behaviors intended to help others) is usually higher among girls, McMahon, Wernsman, and Parnes (2006) conducted a study which found African American boys engaged in more prosocial behavior than African American girls. While girls typically engage in more relational aggression (bullying or harming others by damaging their relationships), and boys tend to engage in more physical aggression, Sullivan, Helms, Kliewer, and Goodman (2010) found no difference in relational aggression among fifth- and eighth-grade boys as compared to same-grade girls in a predominantly African American sample. Although boys typically engage in more overt aggression, Esposito (2007) conducted a study that found no difference in overt aggression between participating African American boys and girls.
Black males have never fit cleanly within Eurocentric or Western notions of manhood and masculinity. These differences are in large part explained by parental socialization (Belgrave & Brevard, 2015). Mandara, Murray, et al. (2011) found that boys and girls living in homes without their fathers tend to have similar gender roles. One explanation is that boys in father-absent homes may be more likely to assume certain household responsibilities such as caring for a sibling, preparing meals, and responsibilities that emphasize nurturing. However, boys may also be encouraged to stand up for themselves and assume characteristics such as independence, assertiveness, and control. It must also be noted that males in father-present homes have been found to exhibit more mainstream American masculine gender roles, yet engage in less delinquent behavior Mandara, Rogers, and Zinbarg (2011). Finally, nurturing and emotionality are central to Black men’s definitions of manhood.
Transgender Identities
Dancy (2012) argues that the rising reality of transgender identities and gender reassignment make them a phenomenon that cannot be ignored. For transgender persons, the gender associated with their sex at birth differs from their personal sense of identity. Transgender is not a sexual orientation, but instead the physical appearance and behaviors that break norms associated with society’s expectations of males and females. A transgender person may identify as straight, gay, lesbian, heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual. Garofalo, Deleon, Osmer, Doll, and Harper (2006) investigated the challenges and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk behaviors of 51 male-to-female (MTF) transgender youth from underrepresented ethnic groups. Compared to other ethnic groups in the study, African American youth had the highest rates of HIV. Many of them engaged in sex work in which they encountered ←67 | 68→forced sex and unsafe sex (Garofalo et al., 2006; Rosario, 2009). To enhance the health and wellness of the Black community, it is important that transgender realities are understood.
The Uniqueness of Black Male Perceptions of Manhood and Masculine Roles
Black males have their own unique manhood identities and masculinities. Many Black males do endorse values associated with so-called traditional manhood such as taking care of the family, being goal-oriented, competitive, and aggressive (Wade, 1996; Wood & Hilton, 2013). Yet, what goes less-recognized are the research studies that find Black males endorsing “non-traditional” manhood values that are consistent with their own traditional African and African American manhood values such as spirituality, community, the well-being of others, compassion, familial equality, warmth, gentleness, and standing up for beliefs (Cazenave, 1979; Cazenave & Staples, 1983; Hammond & Mattis, 2005; Wade, 1996).
Black Male Definitions and Core Principles of Manhood
Using responses to open-ended survey questions, Chaney (2009) studied how Black men define manhood in their own words and from their own cultural locations. Similarly, Hunter and Davis (1992) interviewed Black men about their understanding of manhood and found several key themes. Additionally, a few other scholars are beginning to seek the voices of Black men to get a sense of how they define manhood on their own terms (Hammond & Mattis, 2005; Wood & Hilton, 2013). Some common features defined by Black males are the following:
• Self-Awareness/Knowledge: Black men have been found to associate manhood with being aware of one’s skills and capabilities. They have also associated manhood with an awareness of how they present themselves to the world in relation to their physical appearance/demeanor (Chaney, 2009; Hammond & Mattis, 2005; Hunter & Davis, 1992). This knowledge and awareness includes an understanding of who they are and the importance of standing up for the principles they believe in.
• Collective/Self Responsibility and Accountability: Black men often associate responsibility with manhood. This notion of responsibility includes qualities like maturity, stability, and reliability (i.e., meeting financial expectations) (Hunter & Davis, 1992). Responsibility exists on many levels (Chaney, 2009; Wade, 1996; Wood & Hilton, 2013).
◦ Self: Black men often associate manhood with being responsible for their own behaviors (Hunter & Davis, 1992; Wade, 1996; Wood & Hilton, 2013).
◦ Family: Black men also associate manhood with having a connectedness to family and meeting the needs of their family members and loved ones (Hammond & Mattis, 2005; Hunter & Davis, 1992; Wade, 1996; Wood & Hilton, 2013).
◦ Community: Black men have also been found to associate manhood with responsibility for their communities (Hunter & Davis, 1992). This also involves having a certain level of community pride and desiring to provide for one’s community (Hammond & Mattis, 2005).
• Providing: Black men also commonly associate manhood with being emotional, social, and financial providers, and way-makers (providing opportunities) for their families and loved ones (i.e., wives, partners, children, parents) (Chaney, 2009; Hammond & Mattis, 2005; Hunter & Davis, 1992). Providing is closely related to collective/self-responsibility.←68 | 69→
• Nurturing: Studies of Black manhood which allow Black males to define manhood in their own words reveal that Black men commonly associate manhood with being nurturing, in ways that include warmth and gentleness, compassion, and the ability to express emotion and emotionally connect with others (Cazenave & Staples, 1983; Hammond & Mattis, 2005).
• Morality and Virtue: Black men have been found to associate manhood with having morals and principles they are willing to stand up for (Chaney, 2009; Hammond & Mattis, 2005; Hunter & Davis, 1992).
• Achievement/Goal Orientation: Black men have also been found to associate manhood with a certain consciousness that sometimes involves a groundedness or focus (determination), pride, an orientation toward achieving goals, or using these attributes through engaging in competition (Hammond & Mattis, 2005; Hunter & Davis, 1992; Wade, 1996; Wood & Hilton, 2013).
• Assertiveness/Self-Determination: Not only do Black men associate manhood with having principles, but also in upholding them in ways that demonstrate assertiveness and self-determination. Black men have been found to associate manhood with standing up for their principles and respect, and engaging in continuous self-improvement, being independent and self-governing (Chaney, 2009; Hammond & Mattis, 2005; Hunter & Davis, 1992; Wade, 1996; Wood & Hilton, 2013). This sense of assertiveness is sometimes associate with leadership, advocating for their communities and demonstrating or modeling behavior for others (Hammond & Mattis, 2005). It may also involve possessing the ability to overcome hardship, and surviving and thriving despite obstacles (Hammond & Mattis, 2005).
• Spirituality: Black men have been found to associate manhood with being spiritual/religious, having faith and hope, having a relationship with God, and/or allowing their faith to guide their thoughts and actions (Chaney, 2009; Hunter & Davis, 1992).
When Black men are afforded the opportunities to explain their conceptions of manhood with their own voices, the results are much fuller than the pathological models so often used in gender scholarship. Euro-American masculinity is defined in ways predicated on the denial of manhood to Black males (Akbar, 1991; Franklin, 1994b). Therefore, Black male assertions of manhood are a declaration of war in a society shaped by White definitions of manhood (Akbar, 1991). For example, Rosette and Livingston (2012) investigated whether leaders defined as having more than one “subordinate” identity (i.e., Black women) experience more negative perceptions of their leadership than do leaders with “single-subordinate” identities (i.e., Black men and White women). They found that Black women who experienced failure or exhibited poor performance within an organizational setting were evaluated more harshly than Black males or White females. However, Rosette & Livingston also found that Black males who exhibited agentic forms of leadership such as dominance, assertiveness, and courageousness were evaluated more harshly than Black women. Clearly, this data contradicts the notion that Black males are dichotomously privileged by gender and oppressed by race.
Black males’ experience with their gender can only be understood in the context of power. Gender shapes how society is organized along lines of power, social positions, and resources. Gender stratification, or the unequal distribution of power and privilege between men and women, is based on meanings associated with sex or biological divisions. Lemelle (2010) understands gender as a form of ←69 | 70→power and Black masculinity as a specific power negotiation. Lemelle argues that two forms of gendered power strategies have been used by Whites to oppose Black masculinity. During enslavement, Black males were expected to perform hypermasculine gender roles while at the same time be feminized vis-à-vis White males. Western society viewed Black males as both hypermasculine (animalistic/hypersexual) and hyperfeminine (lacking structural power/privilege). Black males were seen as not quite males, having an other kind of gender compared to White males (Lemelle, 2010).
In historical and contemporary America, power and resources have been closely associated with manhood. As Franklin (2004) explains, masculine personal power and self-acceptance are both systematically undermined for Black males. Today and in the past, the ability to earn a living is considered a key feature of manhood among many men and women (Booker, 2000). For Lemelle (2010), contradictory expectations of Black males shape how they are positioned in the social hierarchy of the U.S. In addition to gender stratification, Black male realities must be understood in the context of a gender and race hierarchy, i.e., “a set of rules and interlocking relations that reproduce advantages and disadvantages for racial subjects” (Lemelle, 2010, p. 79).
Patriarchal Hegemony
Patriarchy, like matriarchy, is not inherently oppressive or hegemonic. Patriarchal hegemony is a form of male domination of females in a society’s structural organization. Sexism is the ideology that one sex is naturally superior to another. But patriarchal hegemony and sexism are not mere individual attitudes and beliefs; they are also institutionalized into the daily operation of societies. Hegemonic manhood involves gender-related manhood ideals that support patriarchy, while hegemonic masculinity refers to behaviors and performances that reflect the ideals of patriarchal oppression (Dancy, 2012). Mutua (2006b) explains that hegemonic masculinity is the masculine model society reinforces by privileging and rewarding those who come closest to it and punishing those who stray from it. Important to note, however, is the fact that patriarchal oppression is not the exclusive domain of males, as many females embrace and pass on sexist and patriarchal hegemonic ideals. Both males and females, for example, can participate in punishing young Black males when they fail to assume hegemonic masculine characteristics such as hypermasculinity and hypersexuality. Moreover, Black lesbians who embody masculinity gain access to some levels of male privilege and power despite their marginalized status as gay in a heteronormative culture (Lane-Steele, 2015). For example, masculine-performing Black lesbians sometimes use oppressive patriarchal, misogynistic language to refer to their girlfriends, such as “my bitch” or “my ho,” and act like players or treat their partners as sexual objects (Lane-Steele, 2015). These and other forms of patriarchy are often justified by sexist beliefs. However, masculine lesbians may also suffer from the hostile social climate that exists for Black men in society (Moore, 2006). Due to patriarchy, Black lesbians may also be seen as still female and thus perceived as less threatening than heterosexual or same-gender-loving Black males (Lane-Steele, 2015; Moore, 2006).
Patriarchy, Egalitarianism, and Hegemony in Pre-Colonial African Cultures
Pre-colonial African societies cannot be generalized as patriarchal sites where women were oppressed. But they also were not romantically egalitarian and without inequality. Some scholars present Africa as a harshly patriarchal place where women were exploited by men (Hoppe, 2002). In certain cases, this belief is used to conclude that colonialism was beneficial to women, providing opportunities and liberating them from African men. Khapoya (1998) argues that in most African cultures, men monopolized all instruments of power and had exclusive rights over women. Ahanotu (2000) takes the position that such generalizations reduce African manhood and render invisible African women’s seats of power such as their positions of being queen mothers. Queen mothers were able to exercise political power in many African societies, including the Buganda, Mwenemutapa, Asante, Ankole, Shilluk (and the mother queens of ancient Kush). In other cases, African women assumed political leadership, such as the ←70 | 71→Candaces of Meroe, and those who ruled in the absence of a male heir including Nitokris, Sebeknefru, Hatshepsut, and Tanosre, all Kemetic (Egyptian) Pharaohs (Ahanotu, 2000).
There are many other examples of African female leadership spanning the African continent in varying degrees based on religion, culture, and geography. For example, North African people embraced Islam in different ways ranging from strict orthodoxy (limiting African women’s political autonomy) to forms that heavily incorporated indigenous forms of worship. However, among the Hausa there were strong female political figures such as Queen Amina of Zaria. Traditionally, African women had a strong presence in the marketplace, in the domestic sphere, in agriculture, and as healers (Steady, 1992). Similar to Khapoya (1998), Clarke-Hine and Jenkins (1999) assert that for the most part, all major positions of authority were reserved for and occupied by African men, while the roles that women played in family life, the marketplace, and spirituality were minimal. Some African feminists challenge both the assumption of universal male patriarchy and the dominant frameworks of Western feminism. These see African women as passively oppressed, with male-female relations viewed primarily through the cultural lens of dichotomy, hierarchy, competition, and domination—while ignoring African cultural assumptions such as gender complementarity, spirituality, cooperation, and parallel autonomy (Steady, 1992). Mekgwe (2003) explains that African feminism “takes care to delineate those concerns that are particular to the African situation. It also questions features of traditional African cultures without denigrating them, understanding that these might be viewed differently by the different classes of women” (p. 7). The African feminist perspective critiques White supremacy and African male forms of complicity with oppression which result in the subjugation of African women. However, African feminism approaches the subject in cultural and historical context. Pre-colonial African women’s roles as healers, agricultural workers, and African women’s roles in domestic life have been sites of power and places from which women have negotiated power. Too often, Western feminist frames have presumed these roles out of context as sites of oppression. African people, however, did not construct gender in the same manner as their eventual European colonizers (Hoppe, 2002). Some general themes can be identified among African constructions of gender, but there is also a great deal of cultural diversity among them.
Black Males’ Experiences with Patriarchy and Gender Role Strain
The experience and expression of patriarchal hegemony are not the same across race and ethnicity. White patriarchal oppression is not completely different to or completely synonymous with Black patriarchal oppression, although the differences are rarely noted (Lemelle, 2010). If patriarchy benefited men in society the same across race, society might reflect both Black and White men as having similar advantages in the areas of income, education, and wealth (Lemelle, 2010). To the contrary, social indicators reveal that Black men are at lower levels on almost every social indicator. Indeed, earning power is associated with patriarchal masculinity, and Black males generally lack it relative to their White male counterparts, significantly and systematically (Lemelle, 2010). Hegemonic masculinity or patriarchy is a deployment of power which is largely in the hands of White males. Majors and Billson (1992) make the more extreme assertion that Black men have been psychologically castrated in the sense they have been rendered impotent in political, economic, and social arenas. However, Black males have never been rendered politically, economically, and socially impotent in any collective sense. Hammond, Mathews, Cooper, Johnson, and Caldwell (2014) explain that Black men, in general, tend to face myriad threats to their attempts to acquire power. Because of this, they argue that Black males experience a heightened sense of powerlessness, resulting in more risk behavior. Although Black men’s manhood is defined in similar terms as White males, they have been systematically denied the same consistent access to means of fulfilling their manhood ideals.
←71 | 72→
According to Majors and Billson (1992), the resulting anger and frustration is a result of gender role strain (stress due to failure to live up to manhood ideals) between desired masculine goals and frustrated means to achieve them. According to Wade and Rochlen (2013), Black men experience more gender role strain than White men due to additional obstacles they face created by (1) gendered racism, and; (2) competing definitions of manhood from Black culture and mainstream American culture. For example, being a provider is a significant aspect of conceptualizations of manhood (Adams, 2014). If men do not feel accomplished due to being unemployed or underemployed, this condition can create tension in their roles as men and fathers. The strain can impact family relationships. According to Adams (2014), men who are able to strike a balance between these roles are in a better position to provide empathy to their children and maintain stable relationships with their partners.
Black Males can be Victims or Victimizers in Regard to Patriarchy
Dancy (2012) explains that African American men can be both victims and victimizers in regard to patriarchal oppression—capable of being sexist to Black women yet also subordinated by White males. According to Hammond, Agyemang, et al. (2014), anti-Black male racism inspires some Black males to engage in risk behaviors. For example, in some employment industries, Black males face greater discrimination than Black females (Mutua, 2006b). It is also important to note that work represents more than income for African American males. Work can enhance self-esteem by fostering skill development and recognition. For many males, work is closely tied to masculinity in the sense that it is difficult to fulfill the role of family provider without a job that pays a living wage (White & Cones, 1999). Moreover, Black males are stereotyped as lazy or having a poor work ethic.
Some Black feminists challenge these generalizations about Black men. According to Phillips (2006), correcting the tendency to overstate Black male privilege in broad society will be a pre-condition for furthering Black feminist thought. Additionally, Mutua (2006b) describes Black men as subordinate masculinities, subjugated by systems of domination that understand them not only as Black but as Black males. Black men and women have both common and unique experiences of gendered racism. Mutua (2006b, p. 23) describes an alternative approach, multidimensional theory, which is based on three insights. First, it recognizes that individuals have many dimensions, physical and behavioral traits and general ways of being. Second, society constructs systems of privilege and meanings based on some of these dimensions and traits. Third, systems of domination interact with one another and are mutually reinforcing.
Costs of Patriarchal Oppression, Sexism and White Notions of Manhood to Black Men and the Black Community
Some Black males have sought manhood and masculinity in the forms that White males have constructed, but at great costs to the Black community. At points in time (such as the end of slavery), some Black males sought not only franchise or citizenship but mainstream patriarchal relationships. According to Lemelle (2010), for Black males to accept patriarchal hegemony and sexism is a kind of Black political suicide, given that it requires them to deny the anti-Black nature of the state, their own subjugation in society, and their shared destinies with Black women. From this perspective, Black male and female liberation are tied together such that one cannot truly be achieved without the other (T’Shaka, 1995). Thus, Black male sexism undermines Black collective liberation. Sexism is ultimately an obstacle to Black solidarity.
Mainstream White Male Notions of Manhood and Masculinity
Euro-American traditional manhood (also referred to as traditional masculine norms) is associated with a range of values including homophobia, competitiveness, aggressiveness, toughness, and power (Belgrave & Brevard, 2015; Cazenave, 1979; Franklin, 1985; Good & Wood, 1995; Thomas, Hammond, ←72 | 73→Kohn-Wood, & Lee, 2015). Euro-American manhood and masculinity can be reduced to five key factors (Doyle & Paludi, 1995). The self-reliant factor emphasizes control, calm, and decisiveness under pressure. The success factor emphasizes competing and winning against other men to prove masculinity. The aggressive factor encourages men to go after and fight for what they want and believe in, and defend themselves through physical or verbal violence. The anti-feminine factor encourages men not to act soft, gentle or like females. Lastly, the sexual factor says men should initiate and control heterosexual interaction. According to this factor, women are seen as sexual objects and symbols of conquest. According to White and Cones (1999), the Euro-American masculine ideal does not reflect the range of human experiences and feelings because it leaves out empathy, nurturance, compassion, harmonious relationships, and being in touch with one’s feelings. Moreover, Euro-American traditional manhood values are associated with outcomes such as limited emotionality, restricted affectionate behavior, sexual violence, anxiety, low self-esteem, increased likelihood of engaging in risk behavior, and depression (Belgrave & Brevard, 2015; Cazenave, 1979; Franklin, 1985; Good & Wood, 1995; Griffith, Gunter, & Watkins, 2012; Thomas, Hammond, et al., 2015).
However, it must also be noted that the authors of studies investigating traditional masculinity do not state it causes depression and anxiety, per se. Because studies are primarily based on correlational data, the possibility exists that depression and anxiety may be caused by restricted emotionality or other outcomes associated with traditional masculinity. Another limitation of scholarship on traditional masculinity, Euro-American masculinity, hypermasculinity, and other concepts is how broadly and abstractly these terms are defined. The purpose of this ideology is to maintain power and privilege while Black males face state domination under the logic of gender and race hierarchy. These reductive images of Black males are also appropriated and profited from in the entertainment industry (White, 2011). From the mean mugging image of Run-DMC in Rolling Stone, and the shirtless images of LL Cool J, to the grimacing image of LeBron James on the cover of Vogue, hypermasculine images of the Black brute are continuously reinvented (White, 2011). In addition, they continue to satisfy the fantasies of those who have internalized stereotypical notions of Black males, while turning a great deal of profit in the process. Concepts like aggression, competition, physicality, toughness, and independence are frequently found in definitions of hypermasculinity. However, these are values that manifest in many ways both prosocial and antisocial, and people endorse them at various different levels. Defining concepts of problematic forms of Black masculinity is counterproductive because it functions as a way to pathologize vast numbers of the Black male population, increasing their stigmatization.
Reactionary Masculinity
Some argue that Black male endorsement of patriarchal hegemony is in part due to their adoption of White male manhood and masculinity ideals. White and Cones (1999) explain that Black psychologists have long recommended for Black males to avoid White norms and definitions of maleness. They recommend avoiding the aspects of Euro-American masculine ideals that place excessive emphasis on power, dominance, competitiveness, individualism, and control. White and Cones (1999) identify four reasons why it is psychologically unhealthy for Black males to heedlessly follow the Euro-American masculine style. First, extreme individualism and emotional suppression are likely to cause internal conflict in the African American community, which has a culture that emphasizes collectivism and emotional expressiveness. Second, given barriers such as racism and poverty, extreme emphasis on materialism can cause frustration. Third, acting out frustrated masculinity through sexual conquest and violence will have negative consequences for one’s self and others while confirming stereotypes. Fourth, emulating Euro-American masculine ideals means identifying with the same lifestyle that resulted in the enslavement and the continued oppression of Black people.
←73 | 74→
Black men who adopt Euro-American masculinity do so with the added challenge of racial/gender oppression, and without White male privilege (Franklin, 1994b; Majors, Tyler, Peden, & Hall, 1994). Some compensate for this lack of power and privilege by adopting dysfunctional norms and values which may work in some respects and some contexts but are ultimately self-destructive. Some Black males may engage in sexism as a way of attempting to restore or assert manhood. This too is ultimately self-destructive because it reinforces the very anti-Black-male stereotypes (hypermasculine/sexual) that comprise the ideology used to justify Black oppression (Kimmel, 2006). Similarly, Wilson (1991) argues that under the constraints of oppression, a minority of Black males adopt a reactionary masculinity or self-defeating and destructive definitions and expressions of masculinity. Some of the self-destructive characteristics are:
• Lacking a sense of social responsibility or social interest
• Lacking a deep and abiding African identity and consciousness
• Exhibiting an impoverished empathy for others
• Tending toward rigid and excessive self-interests, self-centeredness, self-service, intolerance, and stubbornness
• Tending to be opinionated and to view every social encounter as a test to masculinity and a struggle for power
• Mistakenly identifying physicality and crudeness as masculinity
• Viewing domination, insensitivity, unconcern, willingness to injure or kill, and seeking revenge as essential masculine traits
• Motivated primarily by fear, avoidance, escape, retreat from responsibility, ego-defense, and reactionary frustration by a deep and ever-present sense of inadequacy, an inferiority complex, and an obsessive need to appear superior
• Perceiving cooperation with other males, submitting to the rightful authority of other males, conceding “points” to other males and relating to them, as humiliating insults to masculinity
• Believing the mastery of knowledge, crafts, academic subject matter, professional expertise, and the actualization of intellectual potential to be essentially feminine
• Is a conspicuous consumer, consumer-oriented, concerned mainly with parasitically exploiting others, working merely to earn “spending money,” i.e., money to use irresponsibly, or “into” flashy clothes, cars, fads, and styles of all types
• Motivated and defined by self-alienation, exhibiting an absence of self-knowledge, ignorance of his ethnic heritage, unbounded hedonism, narcissistic drives, deep insecurities regarding the reality of his masculinity and of his masculine courage
• Lacking self-control, discipline, persistence, having low frustration tolerance, and lacking long-term goals and commitment to prosocial values
←74 | 75→
Evading Black Male Vulnerability
Unlike much of the scholarship on Black males, Wilson’s (1991) research makes it clear that the features of hypermasculinity characterize a minority of Black males. Yet, some gender studies scholars distort and misrepresent Wilson’s (1991) description of reactionary masculinity as the norm for Black males, while the majority of Black males who do not share this combination of characteristics are thought to be anomalies—this is inaccurate and sexist/racist (Franklin, 1994b).
Hypermasculinity and Hypervulnerability
Even though the language of hypermasculinity emerged as an attempt to reduce Black males to aggressive brutes and to satisfy White fantasies about them, some social scientists continue to use this language to explain Black male thought and behavior. Belgrave and Brevard (2015) explain that hypermasculinity, an exaggerated form of masculinity, is a coping mechanism shaped by adolescent males’ exposure to low-resourced, high-crime neighborhoods. Scholars like Wilson (1991) identify characteristics like being tough and insensitive, and associating aggressive physicality with masculinity as destructive. However, it must be noted that often males assume these characteristics situationally in dangerous environments to protect themselves from being victims of violence themselves. Some of these negative characteristics are functional in the sense that males may have the real or perceived belief that being too weak or soft may make them excessively vulnerable to danger. Some displays of hypermasculinity may be masking a sense of hypervulnerability or vulnerability to danger due to living in chaotic, disorganized neighborhoods and/or the ongoing experience of pervasive racial oppression (Belgrave & Brevard, 2015). What’s more, hypervulnerability is linked to depression, feelings of rejection, and aggression among boys (Cassidy & Stevenson, 2005).
The vulnerability Black males experience is related to the legacy of slavery and anti-Black-male oppression. DeGruy (2005) adds that present-day anger, rage, and sometimes violence among males is related to the persistent attack on Black manhood since slavery. Given the hundreds of years of slavery, Jim Crow, White supremist organizations, lynching, and police brutality, DeGruy (2005) feels there should be no surprise that Black males sometimes perceive minor slights as attacks on their very core. Although 93% of both Black and White men report that feeling respected is important, more Black men (26%) than White men (15%) report that they are often treated with less respect than others (Morris, 2014). Similarly, Wade and Rochlen (2013) report that Black men feel the need to gain respect or status more than White American men do.
Popular Scholarship About Black Males and Gender
In U.S. culture, according to Griffith et al. (2012), masculinity tends to be studied in four basic areas: (1) male norms refers to the extent to which males agree with the dominant culture’s norms of masculinity; (2) masculine concepts and ideologies refers to the extent to which males believe they can fulfill stereotypically masculine roles; (3) gender role conflict or stress assesses beliefs about being a male and whether one endorses the masculine norms and values, and; (4) machismo is the extent to which one endorses hypermasculine characteristics versus nurturing and family-centered ones. However, Griffith et al. (2012) point out some key limitations of such studies of masculinities: the way that masculinity and manhood develop over time is often ignored; there tends to be a focus on less desirable aspects of manhood and masculinity; there tends to be a lack of investigation of the role that structural and institutional factors play, and limited types of masculinity are explored (Griffith et al., 2012).
Black Males are Underrepresented Through the Lens of Gender
Race-gender bias has also skewed the current body of literature in gender studies such that most research focuses on the experiences of women or White males (Spates & Slatton, 2014). Historians ←75 | 76→and social scientists have all too frequently failed to use gender as a category of analysis in studying the lives of Black males (Lussana, 2016). Clarke-Hine and Jenkins (1999) explain that historians have shown a great deal of interest in Black men but have lacked any clearly defined gender perspective. According to Hopkins (2002), too many people still think of gender as a women’s concern. Indeed, gender and women’s studies emerged, in part, as a response to the exclusion and subordination of women. However, Black men cannot be excluded from gender studies. Including Black men as subjects in gender studies will help to challenge misguided presumptions about their privilege and widen constructions of Black masculinity. Unfortunately, the scientific community doesn’t know very much about constructions of manhood and masculinity, even though these are directly linked to the quality of Black males’ experiences in social arenas such as education and healthcare (Clarke-Hine & Jenkins, 1999; Hill, 2002; Howard, 2014). This limitation conceptually restricts our understanding of the social/cultural worlds of Black men.
Dominant Narratives in Scholarship on Black Males
What happens when Black men are studied? In scholarly social-science literature, some dominant narratives about Black men have emerged from the 1930s to the present: (1) absent and wandering (absent as fathers and sexually irresponsible); (2) impotent and powerless (mother-centered households); (3) soulful and adaptive (culturally unique, misunderstood, and adaptive to their conditions), and; the current state of the literature on Black males has described them as (4) endangered and in crisis (Brown, 2011). Similarly, contemporary media representations, consistent with scholarship written about Black males, often focus on the negative depictions of Black males as hypersexual, thug, gangster, violent, abusive, unintelligent, and absent fathers (Howard, 2014).
Overgeneralization of Black Men in Scholarship About Black Males
While Black hypermasculinity is often studied, (Chaney, 2014) is one of the few scholars who have studied topics like Black male sensitivity. In contrast to stereotypes of Black male hypermasculinity, measures such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) indicate that Black males score higher than White males on the section of the test that measures femininity (Pettigrew, 1964). Even though evidence only supports identifying a minority of Black males as hypermasculine, violent toward women, and sexually abusive, some gender scholars will make frequent statements about sexist and patriarchal behaviors and attitudes without specifying that such claims only apply to some Black males. These sorts of unscientific yet widespread claims only reinforce and reaffirm age-old stereotypes of Black males as hypersexual and hypermasculine. Spates and Slatton (2014) define the hypermasculine and hypersexual stereotypes as “controlling, socially constructed identities that do not necessarily represent, nor are they unique to, Black men” (p. 4). They also create the false perception that Black Males’ Black maleness itself is innately a problem. An example of this is Manning Marable’s (1994) description of Black males’ inherent sexism in an ironically titled article, “The Black Male: Searching Beyond Stereotypes.” Some gender scholars’ tendency to overgeneralize about Black males and confine discussions of Black male gender identity to Black male patriarchy and sexism reflects a very narrow approach to studying Black male gender realities. For example, some Black feminist scholarship is replete with generalizations about Black males, such as the statement “avowedly heterosexual men belittle gay men because they see gay men as being like women.” (Hill-Collins, 2006, p. 83). If at all, such writings offer only fleeting statements of the mere existence of Black men who are not homophobic.
What are the consequences of pointing out Black male homophobia while erasing males who are not homophobic? Calls for progressive Black masculinity in the future might be fruitless if callers refuse to recognize the presence of progressive masculinities in the present. This is a corollary to the traditional invisibility in scholarly research of Black men who choose to love other men. The scholarly community has limited interest in studying anything about Black males other than patriarchy and ←76 | 77→sexism—and this contradicts calls for more diverse forms of Black masculinity. It is critical that gender scholars broaden their scopes and the types and dimensions of Black male gender identities that they are willing to investigate. If not, their overgeneralized conclusions about narrow Black male gender identities will continue to be inflated by the limited aspects of Black male realities that are engaged. The starting point for understanding Black manhood and masculinities is historical context.
Many gender scholars make frequent generalizations about Black males as patriarchal and sexist, with few references to empirical evidence (Dancy, 2012; Hill-Collins, 2004). Although scientific data are systematically ignored and rendered invisible in such generalizations, survey data capture more nuance than is acknowledged by feminist dichotomies about Black male identities, i.e., males are either progressive or hypermasculine. In fact, while 58% of White men believe that sexism is a social problem, 78% of Black men do (Morris, 2014). Instead of investigating and providing an explanation for significant differences like these, liberal uses of terms such as hypermasculine aid gender scholars in blurring the lines between masculinity/manhood and hegemonic or hypermasculinity and hegemonic manhood. These terms can be defined so broadly that Black males are not allowed healthy forms of forcefulness; aggression and assertiveness are perceived as hyper-aggressive and hyper-assertive while being reserved and calm are perceived as passive and weak. The result is a tendency to pathologize Black manhood and masculinity as intrinsically problematic in terms of patriarchy and sexism, especially heterosexual manhood and masculinities.
Black Feminism and Advocacy for Progressive Black Masculinity
Some Black feminists assert that Black male oppression does not explain the nature of the oppression faced by the entire Black community. They make the point that Black women’s oppression goes beyond White racism, and includes sexism which Black men participate in. However, many Black feminist scholars have been reluctant to apply race, gender, and also class analysis to the experiences of Black men (Mutua, 2006b). The theory of intersectionality has been primarily applied to the lives of Black women, while it is assumed that Black men are oppressed by race and privileged by gender (Mutua, 2006b). However, Black male lives are more complex than the simplicity of this axiom acknowledges, and they are indeed affected by a gendered type of racism. The gendered racism Black males face affects their sense of manhood and masculinity via lowering their sense of self-control, restricting their agency, and provoking antisocial behavior (Wilson, 1991). Spencer, Dupree, Cunningham, Harpalani, and Munoz-Miller (2003) explain that issues of race and gender identity interact to create unique experiences of stress and dissonance for Black males. Within the U.S. criminal justice system, the disproportionality and bias that African American males experience is caused in part by the intersection of race (Black) and gender (male) (Weatherspoon, 2014). Some scholars explain the saying that mothers “love” their sons and “raise” their daughters is an indication that parents see their daughters as more capable and independent than their sons (Belgrave & Brevard, 2015). Some assert that African American mothers emasculate their sons by expecting more of their daughters (i.e., academic excellence) and being overprotective of their sons (Kunjufu, 1986; Hill-Collins, 1991). However, others explain that both mothers and fathers recognize that their sons face unique race-gendered experiences, putting them at higher levels of risk for incarceration and violence, and lowering societal expectations (Harrison-Hale, 2002). Some parents react to this recognition by being protective of sons in a more restrictive way that can increase parent–son conflict (Harrison-Hale, 2002). Reflecting on her clinical experience in family counseling, Boyd-Franklin (2003) asserts that many African American parents express a great deal of fear and concern for the basic survival of their sons that transcends socioeconomic issues, fueled by police brutality, discrimination, Black-on-Black crime, and violence. This affects parents’ efforts to find solutions such as locating positive male role models to support the gender socialization of their sons.
←77 | 78→
Some Black feminist scholarship and men’s studies scholarship have made a trend of omitting Black men from the struggle for gender equity and against sexism. Conversely, Byrd and Guy-Sheftall’s (2001) text, Traps, dispels the notion that Black men have not supported and advocated for the ideals of Black feminists. They define sexism and homophobia as ideological traps into which we have all fallen. Their work demonstrates that Black men have a long history of challenging sexism. Some scholars have engaged in a selective reconstruction of Black men’s history relative to gender equity, erasing Black male engagement with gender equality. Harnois (2014) provides a more contemporary analysis of current survey-based data which indicate Black men recognize and are critical of gender inequality at rates similar to those of Black women. Harnois recognizes that in the research community, the Black male voice is positioned as inherently untrustworthy, contributing to a relative lack of research that directly solicits the attitudes and beliefs of Black males on gender-related issues. Similarly, Pass et al. (2014) explain that there is very little written on Black male self-definition, or how they conceptualize their masculinity within their own cultures and based on their own worldviews.
Black males’ worldviews are, quite possibly, their greatest wealth. Harnois (2014) reviews the conflicting nature of historical research on Black male attitudes about gender equality. For instance, Hershey’s (1978) survey research on the masculinity and femininity of Black and White college students found that Black males have similar gender beliefs as White males although they had somewhat higher performance of masculinity. Contradicting Hershey’s findings, Ransford and Miller (1983) found that a larger percentage of Black males (compared to White male participants) had more patriarchal gender beliefs (i.e., believing that a woman’s place is in the home and that women are unsuited for politics). The authors speculated this was due to Black Nationalist ideology and the continued socioeconomic discrimination Black men face. Differently, Blee and Tickamyer’s (1995) analysis of longitudinal survey data suggested that African American men were more progressive compared to White men in their attitudes about gender. Using analysis of new survey data, recent scholars such as Hunter and Sellers (1998) and Simien (2006) have found that participating Black men in their studies are strong supporters of gender equality and Black women’s struggle for gender justice (i.e., that Black women should share equally in political leadership in the Black community). Harnois’ (2014) own research, based on analysis of data from the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS) and Simien’s National Black Feminist Study, reveals similar results. She found that the majority of Black men reject the superiority of “traditional” gender assignments. She found that GSS data indicate Black and White men support gender equality at similar levels which have increased over time. Harnois (2014) found that data from the National Black Feminist Study reaffirm Black men’s support for gender justice. She notes, however, that believing Black women should share equally in political leadership in the Black community did not necessarily translate to supporting an increase in the number of Black clergywomen, or supporting Black feminist groups (Harnois, 2014). Harnois (2014) work demonstrates that empirical data fly in the face of dominant representations of Black males; the data show most Black men are strong supporters of gender equality. It’s an understated reality. She makes the point that classifying positive or progressive images of Black males as exceptional ultimately justifies the continued degradation of Black males. Like White supremacy, some versions of progressive masculinity are used to sell the notion that most Black males are in some way inadequate. Moreover, although the majority of Black males support gender equality, the minority who do not is no less substantial or significant. Nevertheless, Harnois delivers a sobering foreshadow of how the Black male voice is received. She states, “the controlling images of Black men have been so effective that, even when confronted with evidence to the contrary, people often find reason to dismiss, minimize, or negate the existence of Black men who embrace feminist ideals” (Harnois, 2014, p. 97).
An equal erasure of non-homophobic Afrocentric and Black Nationalist males occurs in the research as well, leading to broad generalizations about entire categories of Black men. What are the ←78 | 79→functional consequences of this erasure? The most immediate outcome is a separation of Black thought from Black men’s progressive traditions. As a consequence, progressive Black masculinity is often framed as something completely new. This prevailing skewed analysis of Black male histories implies that men have no legacy of struggle for gender equity, or only a marginal legacy of struggle to draw upon. However, Black men can and must draw on their own traditions as they engage in imagining new ways forward.
In moving forward, there is a call for progressive masculinity defined by Mutua (2006a) as “the unique and innovative performances of the masculine self that on the one hand personally eschew and ethically and actively stand against social structures of domination. On the other hand, they validate and empower Black humanity, in all its variety, as a part of the diverse and multicultural humanity of other in the global family” (p. 4). A challenge to the concept of progressive masculinity is that it may be based on some very problematic assumptions. First, there is an embedded assumption that the characteristics it promotes are new among Black males. Second, it also assumes some generalizations about Black males as hegemonic. For example, Mutua (2006b) asserts that the central feature of masculinity is the domination and oppression of others including women, children, and other subordinated men. The historic and present genealogy of Black manhood and masculinities do not support this claim when applied to Black men.
Recommendations for Research on Black Males
Majors and Billson (1992) recommend that any efforts to conduct research and formulate social policy for Black males be clear about three key issues. “First, exploring Black responses to oppression must be cast in terms of cultural distinctiveness. Second, recognition of cultural distinctiveness cannot be construed as a way to avoid making substantial changes in the structure of our society. And third, social policies and programs must have the full support of all segments of society, not just those who have fallen victim to its fundamental failings” (Majors & Billson, 1992, p. 116). In fact, Lemelle (2010) critiques gender scholars such as Anderson (2000) for focusing too much on fault finding with Black males, going so far as to place all of the burden of social change on males without shifting any of the burden to women or more powerful groups in society. According to Lemelle (2010), some literature frames Black women as benevolent and innocent in gender matters relative to Black men.
Supporting and Advancing Healthy Black Manhood and Masculinity
Interventions, programs, and rites guiding Black boys into manhood should be supportive to them as individuals, contributors to their families, and collective Black community advancement. This is important given the one-dimensional images of manhood than many young Black males are exposed to and expected to take on (Majors & Billson, 1992). Under dangerous conditions, some Black males move from boyhood to manhood under the guidance of manhood values such as thrill-seeking, sexual conquest, and toughness (Majors & Billson, 1992). The radical school of thought in Black psychology rejects the premises of Western psychology and resituates thought on the cultural terms of people of African descent with an orientation toward psychic and political liberation. Black psychologists in the radical school of thought in Black psychology have advocated for Black men to embrace an ideology of manhood and masculinity that is congruent with their own history and culture (African and African American).
These interventions are rooted in the principle of transformation. Malcolm X is spoken of and written about as being symbolic or representative of Black manhood and masculinity (Hoston, 2014). His life itself is a symbol of Black male transformation. Malcolm X goes from being a street hustler to a Black Nationalist leader. He also represents the hope for transformation among contemporary Black males. The notion of transformation is a major principle in both pre-colonial African and contemporary ←79 | 80→efforts at supporting prosocial manhood and masculinities among Black males. The manhood rites of passage of African societies provided clearly defined roles for young men (Franklin, 2004). For the past 30 years, African American scholars have been advocating for these programs and some (Nathan Hare, Wade Nobles, Michael Connor) actually developing, African-styled rites of passage programs for Black boys—adjusted to the American context (Langley, 1994).
What Interventions Currently Accomplish
Typically, intervention programs provide participating Black males with positive models of Black manhood. Providing such models reaffirms manhood so that young Black males don’t have to affirm it by engaging in risk behavior (Brewster et al., 2014). According to Caldwell and White (2014), interventions should provide Black males with a range of affirming options and images of manhood and masculinity that are prosocial and healthy. According to psychologist Nathan Hare, the goal of manhood programs is to provide Black males with the psychological requirements of Black manhood during preadolescence and adolescence (White & Cones, 1999, p. 254). Manhood training programs or modern Black male rites of passage facilitate this transition while teaching Black males Afrocentric values such as responsibility, personal mastery, respect for elders, and commitment to family and community (White & Cones, 1999, p. 254). They also foster the acquisition of knowledge including African history and culture; appropriate roles for fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons; how to develop positive male–female relationships and adopt appropriate sex roles; how to make positive contributions to one’s family and community; and how to resist peer pressure and make personal decisions (Majors, 1994). Some rites of passage designed for Black males are based on the Nguzo Saba, consisting of the seven core values of Kwanzaa as created by Maulana Karenga: Umoja (unity), Kujichagulia (self-determination), Ujima (collective work and responsibility), Ujamaa (cooperative economics), Nia (purpose), Kuumba (creativity), and Imani (faith) (Majors et al., 1994).
Afrocentric manhood places emphasis on spiritual beliefs, the importance of human relationships, and the synthesis of opposites as a way of resolving conflict. As the essence of beingness, the spirit can be a source of purpose, power, and ethic for human endeavors. White and Cones (1999) assert that spirituality can be used to promote the principles of harmony and interconnectedness over control and domination. Harmony, an extension of the communal value orientation, emphasizes cooperative relationships over individualism. White and Cones (1999) explain that whereas the Euro-masculine ideal encourages polarities such as male/female, Black/White, conservative/liberal, and pro-abortion/antiabortion, Afrocentric values encourage the synergy of opposites through conciliation, mediation, and dialog. For White and Cones (1999), this is an important principle for Black male thinking and problem-solving.
Case Study of the Brothers of Ujima Program
The Nguzo Saba provides a value structure for Black schools, businesses, social services, and most especially rites of passage. Belgrave, Allison, Wilson, and Tademy (2011) developed a cultural enrichment program for Black boys called Brothers of Ujima. Ujima is the Nguzo Saba Kiswahili word meaning collective work and responsibility. The purpose of the program is to take a strengths-based approach to Black male development by enhancing positive aspects of their selves and identities including self-esteem, ethnic identity, and prosocial behaviors. Furthermore, the program seeks to reduce negative behaviors.
Graves and Aston (2018) investigated this 14-week program. The format involves organizing the boys into Jamaas (KiSwahili for Families). Mzees or respected elders who are mentors and members of the facilitation team are selected to facilitate each Jaama. The curriculum is divided into 14 sessions designed to achieve the following objectives:←80 | 81→
• To help students gain an understanding of the Nguzo Nane (the seven principles of the Nguzo Saba plus the principle of Heshema or respect)
• To increase the knowledge and appreciation of African and African American culture
• To encourage the pursuit of physical health and fitness
• To encourage a critical awareness of myths and stereotypes of African Americans presented in the media
• To develop creative thinking and leadership skills
• To strengthen personal goal setting and commitment to education
• To develop positive ways of coping and handling conflict
• To Increase knowledge of local community history
• To increase awareness of adult role models within the African American community
Moreover, the program aims to help participants:
• Learn about and from successful African American male role models
• Learn about and participate in African cultural activities and traditions
• Become aware of stereotypes and racism and how to deal with them in community and media messages
• Become aware of negative behaviors and their consequences
• Engage in team building activities and discussions designed to promote positive relationships with other males
• Learn the eight principles of the Nguzo Nane and how they can be applied to one’s functioning in everyday life in the home, school, and community
The Impact of Brothers of Ujima
Qualitative analysis, based only on observation of the program and interviews with the parents of boys who had participated in the program, suggests that the boys formed positive fatherly relationships with the group leaders, felt open enough to voluntarily share their school successes and failure with groups leaders, learned self-discipline via the physical activities they engaged in, and had their lives positively changed per how mothers spoke of them (Belgrave & Brevard, 2015). A different study of Brothers of Ujima in a school setting investigated its effects on a group of boys labeled “at-risk” and who were referred to the program for a documented need for emotional and behavioral support (Graves & Aston, 2018). The investigators measured how the program specifically impacted the boys’ internalization of Afrocentric values (i.e., principles of the Nguzo Saba), their resilience, and their sense of racial identity (the degree to which an individual feels a connection with and an attachment to their racial group ←81 | 82→based on a common history and shared values). The results showed that the program increased the boys’ Afrocentric values but had no significant effect on their racial identities or senses of resiliency. The authors speculate that this may be due to the fact the results were based only on the boys’ self-reports of the program’s effects.
Critical Evaluation of Brothers of Ujima
The initial evaluation of Brothers of Ujima (Belgrave & Brevard, 2015) was limited because it was only based on observation and interviews with parents instead of including pretest and posttest experimental design. The program would benefit greatly from some quantitative evaluation with larger populations, building on the existing qualitative work. Another apparent concern that arises from the curriculum is a seeming lack of explicit focus on boyhood, manhood, or masculinity. This may be a possible missed opportunity. Moreover, the Brothers of Ujima program studied by Graves and Aston (2018) was conducted in a school setting involving students who had been referred due to disciplinary problems such as suspension and expulsions. This may signal a possible problem at the level of program implementation. Using the program to address groups of males who are exhibiting problem behaviors may go against one of the tenants of the program’s original design—organizing boys into diverse groups of Black males to enhance their exposure to different experiences and expressions of Black manhood and masculinity. Limiting participation to boys with disciplinary issues is an example of how deficit thinking can be used in otherwise African-centered programming. Black males exhibiting problem behavior in some areas of their lives can benefit from interaction with Black males who are not, and vice versa. Those who are excelling in school can benefit from rites of passage as much as those who are not, but most importantly these groups can benefit from one another. However, the Brothers of Ujima program is among the most promising rites of passage programs available that have been exposed to some systematic evaluations. This is truly a testament to the creators of the program and their desire for improvement and welcoming critical assessment.
Challenges and Advancement for Manhood Training Programs
Manhood training programs have developed in the past few decades across the country, but ultimately, they face challenges. However, Connor (2011b) explains that a major problem with long-term manhood initiatives is a lack of support and resources. Caldwell and White (2014) assert that manhood and masculinity interventions and programs must garner community resources to challenge limited images and understandings of manhood and masculinity. They may also benefit from government resources. Connor (2011b) recommends that funds be diverted from the costs of incarcerating Black men for petty crimes toward long-term preventive initiatives like manhood initiatives.
Majors and Billson (1992) explain that manhood training programs are insufficient alone. There must also be organizations dedicated to conducting research and making policy recommendations to address major issues facing Black males. They also recommend creating responsive and effective schools that are more resourced, infused with Afrocentric history and culture, provide faculty with Afrocentric pre-service and in-service training, and partner with institutions of higher education to enhance college preparation (Majors & Billson, 1992). Race, gender, and identity workshops should be conducted for all professionals who engage in service providing to Black males.
It is virtually impossible to clearly understand Black manhood, much less engage in discussions of the progress of Black manhood, without exploring its history. Placing Black manhood and masculinity in context is immensely rewarding to any efforts to advance the well-being of Black men and boys. Additionally, understanding the historical context of Black manhood serves a functional purpose by ←82 | 83→bringing about an awareness of Black men’s legacy of liberatory manhood and masculinity—a resource to draw upon for improving the state of Black men, families, and communities in the present. When Black men and boys understand their masculinity in historical context they are less likely to be made to feel abnormal. And the more the Black community understands this history, the greater likelihood it will celebrate and nurture unique Black male forms of manhood and masculinity which advance these communities. Black males already possess progressive forms of manhood and masculinity which may serve as models to guide the reform of reactionary manhood and masculinity. This chapter reveals that understanding reactionary or self-destructive forms of masculinity can be done without generalizing these qualities to all Black males, as is commonly done in a large volume of gender scholarship.
Black males arrive at their understandings of manhood and masculinity through various means. While mainstream society compels Black males to adopt self-destructive forms of masculinity, it is critical that Black families and communities continue to resist the development of reactionary manhood and masculinity. This can be done by understanding the role that power plays in misguiding Black males while also understanding how power can be channeled through institution building. Black manhood programs and initiatives are well-positioned to instill healthy pathways to manhood, and masculinity expressions that represent their uniqueness, creativity, and community functionality.
←83 | 84→←84 | 85→
