Constructing Gender

Constructing Gender: An Exploration of Afro-American Men's Conceptualization of
Manhood
Author(s): Andrea G. Hunter and James Earl Davis
Source: Gender and Society, Vol. 6, No. 3, This Issue Is Devoted to: Race, Class, and Gender
(Sep., 1992), pp. 464-479
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/189997
Accessed: 19-07-2016 16:25 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/189997?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Gender and
Society
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.161 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:25:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CONSTRUCTING GENDER:
An Exploration of Afro-American
Men 's Conceptualization of Manhood
ANDREA G. HUNTER
University of Pittsburgh
JAMES EARL DAVIS
University of Delaware
This article explores the meanings of manhood as articulated by Afro-American men (N = 32).
Conceptualization and Q-sort methods are used to examine (1) men's construction of manhood
and (2) men 's ratings of the importance of selected attributes to being a man. Manhood emerged
as a multidimensional construct with four major domains (self-determinism and accountability,
family, pride, and spirituality and humanism) and 15 distinct clusters of ideas. The cluster of
attributes rated as most important to being a man paralleled the conceptualization of manhood
derived from the open-ended interviews for both professional and nonprofessional men. Men's
ratings of attributes in the areas of ownership, manliness, spiritual and religious, and power
varied by occupational status.
To be Black and male in American society places one at risk for a variety
of economic and social ills. Afro-American men are twice as likely to be
unemployed as white men, with unemployment rates highest in major urban
areas and among youth (U.S. Department of Labor 1991; Wilson 1987). In
school achievement and academic skills, Afro-American males are at risk for
lags in performance; as a result they suffer the highest rates of school dropout
and failure (Garibaldi 1988). The absence in mainstream employment sectors
and educational institutions is paralleled by the disproportionate incarcera-
tion of Afro-American males, who make up 42 percent of the prison popula-
AUTHORS' NOTE: We would like to thank the men who shared their lives with us.
REPRINT REQUESTS: Andrea G. Hunter, Department of Psychology, Langley Hall, Univer-

sity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.
GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 6 No. 3, September 1992 464-479

? 1992 Sociologists for Women in Society
464
Hunter, Davis / CONSTRUCTING GENDER 465
tion and 47 percent of those on death row. In addition, the average life
expectancy of Afro-American males, who face a lifetime homicide risk of 1
in 21, has declined during the last three decades (Bureau of Justice Statistics
1985, 1988).
These patterns of violence, crime, and school failure have been viewed as
a function of racism, unemployment, and poverty as well as a product of cul-
tural adaptation to these systemic pressures, which tend to promote defini-
tions of masculinity and manhood that are maladaptive (Franklin 1984; Hare
and Hare 1985; Liebow 1967; Madhubuti 1990; Oliver 1984,1989a; Wilson
1987). However, even in the context of oppression, Afro-American men have
been instrumental in the continuation of their communities and families,
suggesting that there is a cultural tradition within which Black men have
forged a meaningful and viable identity for themselves (Bowman 1989;
Cazenave 1979, 1985; Gwaltney 1980; Gutman 1976; Hunter 1988; Shaw
1974). This paradox of crisis and survival is at the core of the Afro-American
experience. In this article we explore the definitions and meanings of
manhood that grow out of it.
Afro-American men move between majority and minority cultures and
must negotiate the racism and discrimination that accompany castelike
minority status. Franklin (1986, 1987) suggests that Black masculinity and
male role identity must be viewed in these varying social and cultural
contexts. Specifically, Afro-American men are expected to conform to dom-
inant gender role expectations (e.g., successful, competitive, and aggressive)
as well as to meet culturally specific requirements of the Afro-American
community that may often conflict (e.g., cooperation, promotion of group,
and survival of group). Further, he suggests a Black men's group also exists
that embodies expectations (e.g., sexism, irresponsibility, and violence) that
are antithetical to adequate male role performance as defined by both the
Afro-American community and mainstream American society. Franklin's
thesis is suggestive of the potential complexities in the conceptions of
manhood among Afro-American men as they negotiate these vaned contexts.
Currently, replacing the traditional focus on a generic male sex role,
variations in the meanings of manhood are at the center of discussions of
masculinity (Brod 1987; Pleck 1981, Stearns 1979). This emergent perspec-
tive emphasizes "masculinities" and the multidimensionality of gender iden-
tity. In contrast, the adequacy of Afro-American males' performance as men,
where the male role is implicitly defined as a universal concept, has domi-
nated research on Afro-American men and masculinity (Franklin 1984;
Frazier 1939; Hare 1971; Liebow 1967; Moynihan 1965; Pettigrew 1964;
466 GENDER & SOCIETY / September 1992
Pleck 1981; Staples 1982). An archetype of Black manhood, as either

deficient or distorted under the weight of racism and economic marginality,
has emerged from this framework, obscuring the diversity among Afro-
American men (Bowman 1989; Cazenave 1984; Pleck 1981; Staples 1971).
Moreover, the construction of Black men and manhood, often mired in
political symbolism, becomes either a justification for what is denied Afro-
American people or a symbol of what is owed (Hoch 1979; Segal 1990;
Turner 1977; Wilkinson and Taylor 1977).
THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

OF BLACK MANHOOD
The social construction of Black manhood in mainstream American

culture is rooted in the Idea of "Blacks as beast" (Gossett 1965; Gould 1981,
Hoch 1979; Montague 1964; Turner 1977). This early imagery provided a
rationalization for the enslavement of African peoples who, as chattel, needed
the control and the paternal protection of whites. Central to this imagery is
the emphasis on the physical attributes of the Black male, the limited capacity
of mind, and the absence of soul that made one human. As the institution of
slavery became a fundamental economic and cultural component of Ameri-
can society, the "Sambo" persona emerged, defining the Black male as eternal
boy and servant (Elkins 1959; Turner 1977). The Sambo persona, via the
imagery of the emasculated Black male, followed Afro-Amencan men into
freedom and the migration north (Elkins 1959; Frazier 1939). However, at
the same time they were defined as physically aggressive and sexually
uncontrolled (Hoch 1979; Segal 1990).
During the early twentieth century, massive Black migration to northern
cities placed the "Negro problem" on the national agenda. Frazier's (1939)
seminal work, The Negro Family in the United States, suggests that the his-
tory of slavery, oppression, and disenfranchisement had bor a cultural pathos
in which the patriarchal family system had been replaced by the "matnchate."
Frazier suggests this pattern may not have been maladaptive in rural areas,
but in the context of urban living the structure and organization of many poor
Afro-American families led to juvenile delinquency, illegitimacy, increasing
numbers of female-headed households, and a litany of other social ills.
Frazler's (1939) thesis, in conjunction with the male sex role identity
paradigm, provided the conceptual basis for several decades of research
defining Afro-American men as psychologically and Interpersonally impo-
tent (Kardiner and Oversey 1951, Moynihan 1965; Pettigrew 1964; Pleck
1981). Specifically, the presumed absence of Afro-American men at the head

of their families and too-powerful Black women precluded appropriate
gender socialization and, ultimately, adult male role performance (Bowman
1989; Pleck 1981; Staples 1971).
Following the publication of Moynihan's (1965) report, a perspective
emphasizing economic and political oppression as an impediment to male
role performance appeared (Hare 1971; Liebow 1967; Staples 1971). Adopt-
ing this viewpoint, dissenters from the Black male emasculation thesis argued
that Afro-American men could adequately perform the male role but were
denied manhood by racist institutions and economic depnvation. Although
this literature emphasized Afro-American men's struggle for manhood in this
context, it offered alternative explanations for men's failures, particularly
among low-income males. Because early revisionist perspectives on Black
masculinity and male role performance were typically steeped in the hege-
mony of masculinity, they failed to elaborate variations in male role perfor-
mance among Afro-American men and the varied meanings of manhood and
their potential divergence from the traditional white masculinity model.
During the civil rights era, the Black power movement offered a radical-
ized image of Black manhood. Black manhood as the embodiment of "Black
rage" was an alternative to the emasculated Black male, particularly in inner
cities. Grier and Cobb's (1968) Black Rage was a major articulation of this
perspective, found also in the works of Afro-American men writers of the
period (Baldwin 1961, Brown 1965). The collective frustration and anger
over the denial of manhood, Identity, and peoplehood that led to urban riots
was seen as a powerful expression of manhood and as a vehicle for social
protests (Grier and Cobbs 1968; Segal 1990; Turner 1977). In contrast, the
imagery of contemporary urban Black manhood emphasizes hypermasculin-
ity (i.e., hyperaggressiveness, hypersexuality, excessive emphasis on appear-
ance of wealth, and the absence of personal accountability) as a form of
ghetto-specific manhood born out of the pathology or despair of the "Black
underclass" (Anderson 1990; Franklin 1984; Glasgow 1980; Oliver 1984,
1989a, 1989b). The expressed rage of the urban Black male, which was once
viewed as a political vehicle and a form of self-expression, is now seen as
aimless, dangerous, and self-destructive (Franklin 1987; Kunjufu 1982;
Oliver 1989a, 1989b).
Growing concern over the survival of Afro-American males has led to
new images that refer to the "institutional decimation of Black males" or
"Black males as endangered species" (Gibbs, 1988; Hare and Hare 1985;
Kunjufu 1982; Stewart and Scott 1978). The harsh realities of the Black male
expenence are seen as consequences of an attack on Afro-Amencan commu-
nities. In this context Black males are both victims and participants in their
own destruction. Broader sociological and economic forces are viewed as
undermining both the development and the appropriate expression of man-
hood among Afro-American men, particularly among the inner-city poor. In
contrast to earlier versions of the perspective of manhood denied, these
writers offer an alternative Afrocentrlc model of manhood (Akbar 1991,
Kunjufu 1984; Oliver 1989a). However, an image of manhood as either
unfulfilled or gone awry continues to dominate.
PARAMETERS OF BLACK
MALE GENDER IDENTITY
Research examining social roles indicates that Afro-American men en-

dorse the importance of economic provider roles and family responsibility
and involvement (Bowman 1985; Cazenave 1979, 1984; Coles 1977; Smith
and Midlarsky 1985). Cazenave's (1979) study of working-class men shows
that men endorsed roles in this order of importance-provider, husband,
father, and worker. His later study indicated middle-class men are more likely
to rank husband most highly and infrequently see provider as the prmary
role, suggesting that the precariousness of men's economic position may
affect the primacy of the provider role in their thinklng about male role
identity (Cazenave 1984). Using an expanded list of attributes, Cazenave
(1984) examined white-collar men's view of traits essential for the "ideal
man." At least two-thirds of the sample endorsed traits of competitiveness,
aggressiveness, and importance of success at work. In addition, traits related
to sense of self (i.e., self-confidence, standing up for beliefs), family, one's
expressive relationship to others (i.e., warmth, gentleness, and being able to
love) were rated as important as well.
Studies of gender conceptions at varying points in the life span indicate
that Afro-American males are less gender stereotyped in their conceptions
about masculinity and femininity than their white male counterparts (Albert
and Porter 1988; Bardwell, Cochran, and Walker 1986; Smith and Midlarsky
1985). However, images of masculinity that parallel mainstream American
concepts are evident. Franklin (1985), in a participant-observation study of
a Black urban barbershop, found that the discourse emphasized "toughness,
athletic prowess, decisiveness, aggressiveness, violence and powerfulness."
As outlined earlier, several writers share the view that an overemphasis
on masculinity leads to a maladaptive model of manliness that is antithetical
to the cultural imperatives and survival of the Afro-American community
Hunter, Davis/ CONSTRUCTING GENDER 469
(Glasgow 1980; Madhubuti 1990; Oliver 1984, 1989a, 1989b). Examples of

the behavioral manifestations of these images are reflected in the "tough guy"
and the "player of women" personas that Oliver (1984, 1989a) argues
emerged as acceptable alternatives to traditional definitions of manhood,
particularly among low-income Afro-Americans.
The research on gender identity indicates Afro-Amencan men endorse
traditional aspects of the male gender role and attributes that are not stereo-
typically masculine. In addition, occupational status and economic depriva-
tion may shape prevailing views of masculinity and manhood. However, the
complexities of Black manhood are not well articulated.
METHODS
Conceptualization and Q-sort methods are used to examine (1) Black

men's construction of manhood and (2) their ratings of the Importance of
selected attributes to being a man. Thirty-two Afro-American men from
Central New York were interviewed. These men were recruited with the help
of local contacts at churches, community centers, schools, barbershops, and
other businesses. Participation was voluntary, with no incentives provided.
The respondents were selected through convenience sampling; however,
efforts were made to include a diverse group in terms of age and occupational
status. Data were collected in face-to-face private interviews in environments
that were familiar to the men (e.g., work site, home, and community center).
Two investigators, a male and a female, jointly interviewed approximately
one-third of the sample. The remainder of the interviews were divided evenly
between the two interviewers.
Conceptualization Methodology
In the first step, men were asked to brainstorm responses to the following
open-ended question: "What do you think it means to be a man?" The
interviews, ranging from 30 minutes to 1 V2 hours, were tape-recorded. Over
250 ideas were generated, 108 unique ideas remained after repetitive ones
were discarded.
Next, an independent group of Black men provided information about the

conceptual relationship between the generated ideas. Each person twice
sorted ideas (N = 108) into conceptually similar categories. For each sort a
108 x 108 binary symmetrc matrix was constructed (Rosenberg and Kim
1975). This similarity matrix was analyzed, using multidimensional scaling
and cluster analysis (Trochim and Linton 1986). First, the multidimensional
scaling technique provides information about the conceptual similarity of the
ideas generated (Davison 1983). Second, a hierarchical cluster analysis was
performed that begins by assuming that all ideas are in a single cluster and
then successively partitions them into smaller clusters (Everitt 1980).
Q-Sort Methodology
Participants completed an unstructured Q-sort technique, a variation of

the traditional Q-sort method used extensively in social and psychological
research (Block 1961). The unstructured Q-sort technique differs from con-
ventional Q-sort methods because items are not forced into a symmetrical
normal distribution. Men were asked to rate 96 attributes according to their
importance to manhood. The items were derived from research literature on
manhood and masculinity and results of informal focus groups with Afro-
American men. The items were presented in a random order that each re-
spondent sorted into 5 categories, ranging from 1 (least important to man-
hood) to 5 (most important to manhood).
Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Sample
Thirteen percent of the men were younger than 25 years old, 32 percent
were 25 to 34, 42 percent were 35 to 54, and the remainder (13 percent) were
55 and over. A little over one-half of the sample were currently married or
had been married (42 percent and 13 percent, respectively), while 45 percent
of these men had never been married. In educational attainment, there was a
slight skew toward the upper end of the range. Less than 10 percent of the
sample had fewer than 12 years of education. Thirteen percent had a high
school diploma or a general equivalency diploma. Approximately 22 percent
received some college or vocational training and a little over one-half pos-
sessed college or graduate degrees. The sample was almost equally divided
between professional and nonprofessional men. About 13 percent were
unskilled workers, and 29 percent, skilled workers or clerks. Almost one-half
(48 percent) were employed in professional positions, and 6 percent were
college students. The level of earnings was vared, 16 percent had an income
of less than $10,000; about one-quarter earned between $10,000 and $20,000.
The remaining respondents reported an income between $20,000 and $29,000
(32 percent) or $30,000 or more (22 percent).
RESULTS
The Conceptualization of Manhood
Men's discussions of manhood were often interwoven with stones of their

own lives and, also important, the movement toward self-definition and what
they learned of manhood as they aged and matured. Men also spoke of the
pain In their lives and the struggles of manhood. For men who had been
unemployed intermittently, reviewing the emotional toll of economic hard-
ship and its impact on their sense of dignity left some poignantly reflective
of the meaning of manhood in their lives. Although it was often recognized
that there were unique challenges to being a Black man, the central challenge
of manhood was defined in terms of what they expected of themselves.
Manhood emerged as a multidimensional construct that defines being a
man In terms of the self, a man's relationship and responsibility to family,
and a worldview or existential philosophy. Four major domains were identi-
fied: (1) self-determinism and accountability, (2) family, (3) pride, and (4)
spirituality and humanism. These domains included 15 distinct clusters of
ideas.
Self-determinism and accountability. All respondents generated com-

ments related to self-determinism and accountability. It is our view that the
ideas contained In this domain are at the core of the self and manhood. The
cluster of ideas includes (1) directedness ("a man is clear," "a man thinks
about what he wants to do"); (2) maturity ("responsible for damages created,"
"ability to rectify bad situations"); (3) economic viability ("having a job,"
"having salable skills"); (4) perseverance ("having to go when it's rain-
ing," "a man rolls with the punches"); and (5) free will ("control over one's
life," "having the freedom to make decisions"). It is the coherency and
viability of the self on which one's performance or fulfillment of role expec-
tation rests. At the center is responsibility and economic viability, which are
core components of the traditional male role and adulthood. A returning
40-year-old student stated: "[The] most critical issue is the ability to take care
of one's self-surviving on your own." An unmarried professional man in
his 30s stated: "[A man is] totally accountable for his actions and how this
affects others, he must face the consequences . the buck stops here!"
And it is in this domain that poverty and unemployment have the most
direct impact, because they undermine a man's ability to provide adequately
for himself and to have a sense of independence and control over life cir-
cumstances. A respondent in his mid-20s who had been unemployed the

previous three years talked about the tenuousness of not having the means to
create an independent environment. He stated: "I want to have something of
my own. I live with a friend in his nice house. I don't have anything of my
own. I want to have my own house and land, so people can't say get out." At
issue here is the desire for self-determination and free will that is most
precarious when one is Black and poor.
Family. Family emerged as a central context for the men interviewed,

both married and unmarried (never marned, separated, or divorced). As a
married man and father of two children suggested, "Family is an extension
of the male ego." This domain included the following clusters of ideas: (1)
family responsibilities and connectedness ("concerned with family," "a man
is responsible for the family," "a sense of those around him"); (2) equity in
male and female relationships ("side-by-side with a woman," "contributes to
household"); and (3) fulfillment of family role expectations ("moral example
for family," "meets expectations of being husband and father").
Central in men's conceptions of their role in the context of family are
themes of man as patriarch ("provides leadership," "makes decisions for
family," "headship of family") and as partner ("instills equality in family,"
"not dominated by a woman"). The apparent contradiction in these philoso-
phies is suggestive of the potential negotiations and tensions that men may
face when attempting to balance family role expectations grounded in
patriarchy and the comparatively egalitarian work and family roles in Afro-
American families.
Two respondents reflect these potential tensions. A professional in his

mid-30s stated: "If I earn 30K and she earns 40K, who is the real provider,
she is. It doesn't mean she leads, no problems with me if she makes more."
A married man in his late 20s with children asserted: "Some think this is
sexist but he [the man] must be head of the house. That's the way I have been
raised, I have to be who I am." Beyond the issues of roles and responsibilities,
family was of intrinsic value to men as well ("concerned with family," "raise
a family," "insures family lineage"). Thus, for the men interviewed, manhood
was defined In terms of the collective family unit and their role within it.
Pride. Being a man included pride in one's manhood and sense of self.
There were two clusters of ideas: (1) pride ("a man has prde," "aware of
capacity") and (2) self-betterment ("going beyond mere survival," "competes
with self'). Thus a man's pride is linked to his desire and capacity to better
himself and his life.
Hunter, Davis/ CONSTRUCTING GENDER 473
Spirituality and humanism. Spirituality and humanism includes men's

views of their relationship to other human beings, the human community,
and the importance of spiritual groundedness. The clusters of ideas include
(1) spiritual and moral pnnciples ("man is spiritual centered," "faith in life,"
"a man should try to be good"); (2) connectedness to human community
("caring about fellow humans," "being helpful," "not detached from soci-
ety"); and (3) respect for womanhood ("not superior to women," "being
faithful"); (4) sensitivity ("a man is understanding," "a man is loving," "a
man is trusted"); and (5) belief in human equity ("not superor to other men,"
"not elevated," "dealing with people").
This configuration of concepts is congruent with Afrocentrlc philosophies
(Asante 1987) and the traditional importance of religion in the Afro-Ameri-
can experience. This domain embodies a worldview that links manhood to
the collective "we" and spirituality. The presence of these ideas in response
to questions about the meaning of manhood perhaps speaks to how Black
manhood, born out of a history of oppression, can embody ideals and
principles that diverge from dominant gender role expectations.
Being a Man: Ratings of Attributes
The respondents rated the following clusters of attributes as most impor-

tant to being a man (mean ratings of 4 and above; see Table 1). They include
sense of self (4.57; e.g., independent, self-esteem, stand up for beliefs);
resourceful/responsibility (4.43; e.g., sense of responsibility, handles crises
and stress, makes best of situation); parenting and family (4.33; e.g., strong
sense of family, child-oriented, protecting family, good parent); goal-
oriented (4.26; e.g., goals and direction, ambition); provider (4.03; e.g.,
provide income for family, good job, financially secure); and humanism
(4.02; e.g., kind and canng, placing needs of others before own, forgive
others). These clusters of attributes parallel the major domains generated
from the open-ended interviews. There were no significant differences in the
mean cluster ratings of professional and nonprofessional men.
Clusters that emerged as somewhat Important (mean ratings between 3
and 4) to being a man include education/intellectual skills (3.71, e.g., having
an education, common sense, well-read, street-wise); spiritual and religious
(3.58; e.g., church-going, sense of morality, faith in God); risk taking (3.53;
e.g., courageous or brave, taking chances); respect (3.53; e.g., respected,
well-known, looked up to); and authority (3.39; e.g., authority, leader, head
of family). Professional and nonprofessional men varied in their ratings of
TABLE 1: Rank Order of Mean Q-Sort Cluster Ratings (Total Sample)

Mean SD
Sense of self 4.57 0.45

Resourcefulness/responsibility 4.43 0.58
Parenting and family 4.33 0.63
Goal-oriented 4.26 0.78
Provider 4.03 0.92
Humanism 4.02 0.51
Education/intellectual skills 3.71 0.78
Spiritual and religious 3.58* 1.10
Risk taking 3.53 0.96
Respect 3.53 0.91
Authority 3.39 0.98
Manliness 2.92* 0.98
Ownership 2.75* 1.03
Sexuality 2.58 1.03
Power 1.77* 1.66
NOTE: N = 32.
*p < .05 (nonprofessional vs. professional respondents).
the importance of spirituality and religlosity, with nonprofessional men rating

this area higher (p s .05).
The cluster of attributes related to manliness (2.92; e.g., good at sports,
physically strong, masculine, aggressive, competitive) most closely paral-
leled traditional notions of masculinity. In terms of men's ratings, this cluster
bordered ratings of being somewhat important to least important to being a
man. Professional and nonprofessional men differed in this assessment. Non-
professionals ranked "manliness" attributes more highly than did their pro-
fessional counterparts (p s .05). The cluster of attributes related to ownership
(2.75; e.g., nice house or apartment, owning a nice car, well-dressed, owning
property) also bordered the somewhat important and least important rating.
The ratings of the ownership cluster also varied by occupational status.
Again, nonprofessional men rated this cluster of attributes more highly than
professional men did (p a .05). The cluster of attributes related to sexuality
(2.58; e.g., good lover, satisfy a woman, lots of women, attractive) was
similarly rated; however, there were no significant differences in men's
ratings of this cluster by occupational status.
The cluster of attributes rated as least important (mean ratings of 1 to 2)
to being a man was power (1.77; e.g., "having power and control over others,"
"slick," "getting over"). Nonprofessional men rated this cluster of attributes
significantly higher than professional men did (p s .05).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Historically, the images of Black manhood have been unidimensional, and

research has tended to focus on the inadequacies of Afro-American males'
role performance. In this preliminary analysis, we explored the cultural
constructions of manhood as defined by Afro-American men at various social
locations (age, occupation, income, and marital and family status). Manhood
was defined in terms of the self (self-determinism and accountability, pnde),
family (family), the human community, and existential ideology (spirituality
and humanism). It is our view that issues of self-determinism and account-
ability (i.e., directedness, maturity, economic viability, free will, and perse-
verance) are at the core of the self and of manhood and form the foundation
on which family role enactment, pride, and living through one's existential
philosophy (e.g., spiritual, Afrocentrc, and humanistic) are based. Interest-
ingly, discussions of masculinity were absent from men's definitions of
manhood. Perhaps this reflects an awareness of the differences between the
physical sexual man and the social man that Hare and Hare (1985) suggest
is critical in Black boys' transition into manhood. When respondents were
asked to rate attributes related to masculinity (e.g., physically strong, com-
petitive, masculine, and aggressive), they saw it as somewhat important. In
short, although masculinity may be a part of being a man, it is not the foun-
dation on which manhood rests.
Among Afro-Amercan scholars and activists, the endorsement of uni-
dimensional conceptions of manhood (e.g., tough guy, player of women) is
seen as a dysfunctional cultural adaptation to racism and economic oppres-
sion (Franklin 1986; Hare and Hare 1985; Oliver 1984; Madhubuti 1990).
For the men interviewed, manhood is defined in multiple arenas and contexts,
both within and beyond traditional notions of masculinity and male role. It
is a conceptualization of manhood that flows back and forth from margin to
center, providing men with varied tools and avenues to define themselves
and to negotiate manhood. This multidimensional construction of manhood
may serve as a cultural mechanism for adaptation and survival.
Few men explicitly talked about issues of race and culture. Because the
respondents and interviewers were the same race, this shared group affiliation
may have resulted in fewer direct references to race; however, there appeared
to be infusions of issues related to racial stratification. For example, the
absence of references to a man's professional success, wealth, ambition, or
power as a part of expressed definitions of manhood suggests a tacit aware-
ness of the barriers to these measures of success for Afro-American men and
the need for more substantive measures of a man's worth. Further, the
emergence of free will as a important component of manhood suggests that

it is something Afro-American men do not take for granted. Only a small
portion of the sample came of age dunng the post-civil rights era, perhaps
the precanousness of Afro-Americans' right to freedom was not far from the
hearts and minds of the men interviewed.
Although, the respondents differed on a number of soclodemographic
characteristics, they tended to converge around broad parameters of man-
hood. The areas in which variations existed give some insight into the ways
socioeconomic status may influence the primacy of certain aspects of mas-
culinity or the male role. For example, during the interview, men who ex-
perienced intermittent unemployment were more likely to stress the impor-
tance of having a job than were men in professional occupations or those who
were more securely employed. Although material indicators of economic
success were rated as somewhat important by respondents, nonprofessional
men rated items in the ownership cluster (e.g., nice house or apartment,
owning a nice car, owning property, well-dressed) more highly than profes-
sional men did. In general, these patterns suggest men who are less econom-
ically secure do not take for granted the ability to attain a desired standard of
living or financial security, and as a result, it becomes a more salient
challenge.
Attributes related to power (e.g., power and control over others, "being
slick", "getting over") were rated as least important; however, nonprofes-
sional men tended to give these items a higher rating. Although in general
these manifestations of "power" were not highly rated, the variations by
occupational status suggest that professional men's sense of empowerment,
even in the context of American racism, may not be as circumscribed as it is
for their nonprofessional brothers. As has been suggested elsewhere, men
who are farthest outside the economic mainstream may experience feelings
of lack of empowerment and alienation that can bring issues of power and
nonmainstream means of power attainment to the forefront (Franklin 1987;
Oliver 1989b; Staples 1982; Stewart and Scott 1978).
Our findings illustrate conceptual linkages between behavioral proscrip-
tions and ideology representing a collective articulation of manhood both as
social role and personal identity. To the extent that conceptualization of
manhood appears idealized, it is indicative of the perceived demands of
manhood and adulthood. It is our view that the conceptualization found here
is representative of core conceptions of manhood endorsed in Afro-American
communities. The domains of manhood generated from the interviews par-
allel the content of manhood training programs for Black youth developed
in Afro-American communities as a strategy to counter structural and cultural
forces that undermine the development of Afro-American males. It is an

intervention strategy that views gender identity (i.e., manhood, if appropri-
ately developed) as a mediator of the effects of racism and economic op-
pression (Hare and Hare 1985; Kunjufu 1982).
Afro-American men moving between majority and minority cultures must
survive in a context of economic and racial oppression; what emerges is a
diversity of experience and views. Our preliminary analyses suggest that
prevailing constructions of Black manhood have ignored the complexities of
manhood as a cultural construct and social role for Afro-American men.
There was both diversity in the meanings of manhood and commonalities
among the men interviewed, who with varying degrees of resources and
opportunities negotiate the currents of manhood and adulthood. It is impor-
tant to note that these findings suggest that the dynamics of race, culture, and
class have forged varied constructions of manhood whose contours and
shades are not limited to the hegemony of masculinity or the politicized
images of Afro-American men.
REFERENCES
Akbar, Naim. 1991. New visions of men. Nashville, TN: Winston-Derek.

Albert, Alexa A., and Judith R. Porter. 1988. Children's gender-role stereotypes: A sociological
investigation of psychological models. Sociological Forum 3:184-210.
Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, class, and change in an urban community. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Asante, Molefi. 1987. The Afrocentric idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Baldwin, James. 1961. Nobody knows my name. New York: Dial.
Bardwell, Jill, Samuel Cochran, and Sharon Walker. 1986. Relationship of parental education,
race, and gender to sex role stereotyping in five-year-old kindergartners. Sex Roles 15:
275-81.
Block, John. 1961. The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research.
Springfield, IL. Charles C. Thomas.
Bowman, P. J. 1985. Black fathers and the provider role: Role strain, informal coping resources
and life happiness. In Empirical research n Black psychology, edited by Wade Boykn.
Washington, DC: National Institute for Mental Health.
1989. Research perspectives on Black men: Role strain and adaptation across the Black
adult male life cycle. In Black adult development and aging, edited by Reginald Jones.
Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry.
Brod, Harry, ed. 1987. The making of masculinities: The new men's studies. Boston: Allen &
Unwin.
Brown, Claude. 1965. Manchild in the promised land. New York: Macmillan.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1985. The prevalence of unprisonment. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
1988. Profile of prson inmates, 1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Cazenave, Noel A. 1979. Middle-income Black fathers: An analysis of the provider role. Family
Coordinator 28:583-93.
1984. Race, socioeconomic status, and age: The social context of American masculinity.
Sex Roles 11:639-56.
Coles, Robert. 1977. Black fathers. In The Black male in America, edited by Dons Wilkinson
and Ronald Taylor. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Davison, Mark L. 1983. Multidimensional scaling. New York: Wiley.
Elkins, Stanley M. 1959. Slavery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Everitt, Brian. 1980. Cluster analysis. 2d ed. New York: Halsted.
Franklin, Clyde W. 1984. The changing definition of masculinity. New York: Plenum.
1985. The Black male urban barbershop as a sex-role socialization setting. Sex Roles
12:965-79.
1986. Conceptual and logical issues in theory and research related to Black masculinity.
Western Journal of Black Studies 4:161-66.
1987. Surviving the institutional decimation of Black males: Causes, consequences,
and intervention. In The making of masculinities: The new men's studies, edited by Harry
Brod. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Frazier, E. Franklin. 1939. TheNegro family in the UnitedStates. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Garibaldi, Antoine M. 1988. Educating Black male youth: A moral and civil imperative. New
Orleans, LA: Committee to Study the Status of the Black Male in the New Orleans Public
Schools.
Gibbs, Jewell T. 1988. Young, Black, and male in America: An endangered species. New York:
Auburn House.
Glasgow, Douglas G. 1980. The Black underclass. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gossett T. 1965. Race: The history of an tdea. 2d ed. New York: Schesdam.
Gould, Stephen J. 1981. The mtsmeasure of man. New York: Norton.
Grer, William H., and Price M. Cobbs. 1968. Black rage. New York: Basic Books.
Gutman, Herbert. 1976. The Black family m slavery and freedom, 1750-1925. New York:
Pantheon.
Gwaltney, John L., ed. 1980. Drylongso: A self-portrait of BlackAmerica. New York: Random
House.
Hare, Nathan. 1971. The frustrated masculinity of the Negro male. In The Black family, edited
by Robert Staples. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hare, Nathan, and Julia Hare. 1985. Bring the Black boy to manhood: The passage. San
Francisco: Black Think Tank.
Hoch, Peter. 1979. White hero, Black beast: Racism, sexism, and the mask of masculinity.
London: Pluto.
Hunter, Andrea G. 1988. Making a way: Economic strategies of southern urban Afro-American
families, 1900-1936. Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Kardiner, Abram, and Lionel Oversey. 1951. The mark of oppression. New York: Norton.
Kunjufu, Jawanza. 1982. Counterng the conspiracy to destroy Black boys. Chicago: Afro-
American Publishing.
1984. Developing positive self-images and disctpline in Black children. Chicago:
African-Amencan Images.
Liebow, Elliot. 1967. Tally's corner. Boston: Little, Brown.
Madhubuti, Hakhi. 1990. Black men: Obsolete, single, dangerous? Chicago: Third World Press.
Montague, Ashley. 1964. Man's most dangerous myth: The fallacy of race. 4th ed. Cleveland:
World.
Moynihan, Daniel. 1965. TheNegrofamily: The casefor nationalaction. Washington, DC: GPO.
Oliver, William. 1984. Black males and the tough guy image: A dysfunctional compensatory
adaptation. Western Journal of Black Studies 8:199-203.
-1989a. Black males and social problems: Prevention through Afrocentnc socialization.
Journal of Black Studies 20:15-39.
1989b. Sexual conquest and patterns of Black-on-Black violence: A structural-cultural
perspective. Violence and Victims 4:257-73.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1964. A profile of the Negro Amencan. Pnnceton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Pleck, Joseph. 1981. The myth of masculinity. Cambrdge: MIT Press.
Rosenberg, Seymour, and Moonja P. Kim. 1975. The method of sorting as a data-gathenng
procedure in multivanate research. Multivartate Behaviorial Research 10:489-502.
Segal, Lynn. 1990. Slow motion: Changing masculinities, changmg men. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Shaw, Nate. 1974. The life ofNate Shaw, compiled by Theodore Rosengarten. New York: Knopf.
Smith, Patricia A., and Elizabeth Midlarsky. 1985. Empmcally derved conceptions of female-
ness and maleness: A current view. Sex Roles 12:313-28.
Staples, Robert. 1971. The myth of the impotent Black male. Black Scholar 2:2-9.
1982. Black masculinity: The Black males' role in American society. San Francisco:
Black Scholar Press.
Steams, Peter N. 1979. Be a man: Males in modern society. New York: Holmes & Meier.
Stewart, James B., and Joseph Scott. 1978. The institutional decimation of Black Amercan
males. Western Journal of Black Studies 2:82-92.
Trochim, William, and Rhoda Linton. 1986. Conceptualization for evaluation and planning.
Evaluation and Planning 9:289-308.
Turner, William H. 1977. Myths and stereotypes: The Afrcan man m Amerca. In The Black
male n America, edited by Dons Willunson and Ronald Taylor. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
U.S. Department of Labor. 1991. Employment and earnings. Washington, DC: GPO.
Willunson, Dons, and Ronald Taylor, eds. 1977. The Black male in America. Clhcago: Nelson-
Hall.
Wilson, William J. 1987. The truly disadvantaged. Clhcago: Umversity of Chicago Press.
Andrea G. Hunter, PhD., is a Research Assistant Professor m the Department of Psy-

chology and a member of the Institute for the Black Family at the University of Pitts-
burgh. Her research centers on Afro-American families and explores linkages between
families, social structure, and culture.
James Earl Davis, PhD., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational

Studies in the College of Education at the University ofDelaware. His research interests
include the educational experiences ofAfro-American males, particularly the relation-
ship between gender role identity and academic achievement.

Constructing Gender

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Constructing Gender

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constructing Gender

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constructing Gender: An Exploration of Afro-American Men's Conceptualization of

REPRINT REQUESTS: Andrea G. Hunter, Department of Psychology, Langley Hall, Univer-

GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 6 No. 3, September 1992 464-479

Pleck 1981; Staples 1982). An archetype of Black manhood, as either

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

The social construction of Black manhood in mainstream American

1981). Specifically, the presumed absence of Afro-American men at the head

Research examining social roles indicates that Afro-American men en-

(Glasgow 1980; Madhubuti 1990; Oliver 1984, 1989a, 1989b). Examples of

Conceptualization and Q-sort methods are used to examine (1) Black

Next, an independent group of Black men provided information about the

Participants completed an unstructured Q-sort technique, a variation of

Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Sample

The Conceptualization of Manhood

Men's discussions of manhood were often interwoven with stones of their

Self-determinism and accountability. All respondents generated com-

cumstances. A respondent in his mid-20s who had been unemployed the

Family. Family emerged as a central context for the men interviewed,

Two respondents reflect these potential tensions. A professional in his

Spirituality and humanism. Spirituality and humanism includes men's

Being a Man: Ratings of Attributes

The respondents rated the following clusters of attributes as most impor-

TABLE 1: Rank Order of Mean Q-Sort Cluster Ratings (Total Sample)

Sense of self 4.57 0.45

the importance of spirituality and religlosity, with nonprofessional men rating

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Historically, the images of Black manhood have been unidimensional, and

emergence of free will as a important component of manhood suggests that

forces that undermine the development of Afro-American males. It is an

Akbar, Naim. 1991. New visions of men. Nashville, TN: Winston-Derek.

Glasgow, Douglas G. 1980. The Black underclass. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Andrea G. Hunter, PhD., is a Research Assistant Professor m the Department of Psy-

James Earl Davis, PhD., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational

You might also like