The author
provides an analysis of the social construction of black masculinity in the
context of historical and contemporary ideologies existing within the
literature. Specifically, some of the social representations that serve to
impede African American men’s ability to conform to the dominant ideology of
what it means to be masculine are addressed.
The author suggests that historical images of African American males
such as the emasculated sambo, or the aggressive brute and buck have been
transformed into contemporary images of black men as lazy, or hypersexual and
hyper-aggressive. Finally, an
examination of the literature on how African American males represent
themselves in the context of personal ads gives us a framework as to how black
males may seek to define their own masculinity in light of dominant ideals.
We
currently live in a society where ideology is formed and refined through a
variety of social influences. Poor people and people of color are not only
defined in their relation to dominant society, but are also oppressed through
that relational aspect. Notions of masculinity have been socially constructed,
historically specific, and mediated by social class, race, ethnicity, and other
social categories of inequality (Pyke, 1996).
Historically, men of color have played the role of the ‘Other’ in the
construction of a masculine ideology that is confined to a white monolithic
ideal (Bucholtz, 1999; Dines, 1998; Lemelle, 1995). Unable to conform to such ideals, these men are rendered socially
marginalized by the patriarchal institutions in place (Bucholtz, 1999; Dines,
1998; Lemelle, 1995).
Traditional
ideals of what it is to be ‘masculine’ reinforce the patriarchal system within
which they are defined (Harper, 1996). These masculine traits include economic
provider, leader, role model, intellectual, and power-holder. Liberalist
notions of achievement suggest that all men have access to the same
opportunities for success. Whether they
are motivated to act upon those opportunities, however, is up to them. Certainly, this might be accurate if we
lived in a society void of racism, sexism and classism. Many men, privileged by gender, are
subsequently oppressed by race and class.
Furthermore, these same men may arguably be marginalized within their
gender if they demonstrate an inability to assimilate into dominant masculine
roles (Bucholtz, 1999).
In light of
this, I will provide an analysis of the social construction of black
masculinity in the context of historical and contemporary ideologies existing
within the literature. Specifically,
some of the social representations that serve to impede African American men’s
ability to conform to the dominant ideology of what it means to be masculine
are addressed. Polar stereotypical
images of black men as aggressive, yet lazy have both historical and
contemporary relevance. While the forms
that these images are packaged in may have changed, the stereotypes remain the
same. How black men subsequently seek to define themselves within the racist
paradox is examined through the use of existing literature on personal ads.
Stereotypical
Images of Black Males
The oppressive
institution of slavery maintained the subordination of African Americans
socially, economically, and politically. Subsequently, they were perceived as
inferior and ‘less than human’ to their white counterparts (Lewinson, 1963).
Forces outside of their control dictated almost every aspect of African
American’s daily lives. Paternalistic
governing at the hands of the slave owners attempted to prevent black people
from maintaining any identity other than that of slave.
Relationships between black women and black men were
subject to the immediate diffusion of the slave master (Wallace, 1996). The black man lacked traditional authority
over his family and could not control the destinies of either his wife or his
children, making a patriarchal role virtually impossible (Wallace, 1996). This
lack of control over his surroundings placed the black male in a tenuous
position. Privileged by the patriarchal system in place, the white slave owner
was able to further control the lives of black men by defining and stigmatizing
them in terms of their masculinity (Wallace, 1996). Through this, the white slave owner attempted to maintain his
power and domination (Hutchinson, 1997).
One way control was
maintained occurred through the reinforcement of various negative stereotypes
of African Americans. These images
justified the mistreatment of black people and served to reinforce dominant
ideology as the norm (Wallace, 1996). Stereotypical representations of the
black man during slavery as the “sambo”, i.e. docile and child-like, defined
black male masculinity (Film, Ethnic Notions).
This image suggested that black me were unable to effectively take on a
patriarchal role (Film, Ethnic Nations).
At
the same time, images of black women as “Mammies”, i.e. a strong women who
loved children, created a matriarchal myth surrounding the black family (hooks,
1982). Some researchers, such as Moynihan, have argued that this type of power
structure has led to the demise of the stable black family unit (Wallace,
1996). An excerpt of Moynihan’s findings is quoted by Wallace (1996:109):
In essence, the Negro community has been forced into a matriarchal structure which, because it is do out of line with the rest of American society, seriously retards the progress of the group as a whole, and imposes a crushing burden on the Negro male…Obviously, not every instance of social pathology afflicting the Negro community can be traced to the weakness of family structure…(but) once or twice removed, it will be found to be the principle source of most of the aberrant, inadequate, or anti-social behavior that did not establish, but now serves to perpetuate the cycle of poverty and deprivation.
Moynihan saw the black male as unable and unwilling to assert himself within the family.
This coincides with the Sambo image of a docile, emasculated black man in need of a ruling
thumb. Moynihan’s suggestion to empower the black male focused on encouraging men to
enlist in the armed forces. This, he felt, would expose the alienated black male to the beliefs,
rules, and behaviors of the successful ruling class, i.e. masculine white males. In turn, black
men could successfully learn to be the patriarchal image of a “real man” by taking back control
of their women and families. Moynihan based his assumption on the illusion that the black male
was castrated and emasculated during slavery due to his inability to assert his role within the
family (Wallace, 1996). However, Wallace (1996) warns that “we can surely doubt the
assumption that the black man was totally robbed of his manhood and divested of his
authority over the black woman.” To do so, argues Wallace, would be to assume that
African Americans lacked an agency that enabled them to persevere despite their horrendous
circumstances.
Emancipation and Reconstruction: Image Transition from Docile to Dangerous
During Emancipation and
Reconstruction, more negative images were placed upon the black man. With Emancipation came the stereotype of the
‘Buck’, i.e. the black rapist, to define his masculinity. Wallace (1996:25) describes
the Buck as “the only black stereotype that is sexual...he is the
personification of the black threat to white womanhood and, more importantly,
to white male dominance.” The Buck
image was seen as strong and aggressive (1996). Ironically, these traits characterize the masculine ideal for the
white man. Yet, the sexual innuendo
combined with the animalistic traits still associated with the black slave
rendered the Buck as the white man’s nightmare (1996). This personifies white society’s fear of the
black man grounded in notions of masculine physicality and sexuality (Brown,
1999; Dines, 1998; Hoberman, 2000; Wallace, 1996).
Early
forms of entertainment such as film and vaudeville shows propagandized the Buck
image to further demonize black masculinity (Denzin, 1998; Patton, 1995;
Robinson, 1997). For instance, in 1915,
D.W. Griffith’s film Birth of a Nation
(adapted from the book The Clansman)
depicts the bestial black rapist in pursuit of virginal white women. This movie personified the social
construction of appropriate race relations between white women and black men
(Denzin, 1998; Robinson, 1997). Instead of succumbing to the black man, the
women would rather throw themselves off of a cliff to their death (Robinson,
1997).
Minstrel and vaudeville
shows of that time were just as inciting (1997). White characters would perform in black face while dancing the
‘Jim Crow’, a dance initially developed by T.D. Rice that mocked a handicapped
black slave (Film, Ethnic Notions). It further developed into skits whereas the
white characters mocked black men in their inability to assimilate into the
patriarchal system. This included using broken English while attempting to
recite Shakespeare, wearing ill-fitting, tattered clothes and using suggestive
language to white females.
Similar to the Buck, the
image of the ‘Brute’ also characterized black males’ masculinity following
Emancipation. The Brute illustrated that black males were unable to be trusted
and could become violent at the slightest provocation (Dines, 1998; Hoberman, 2000).
A stark contrast to the happy-go-lucky Sambo, the Brute (often depicted with
weapons) was used in an effort to re-enslave of out of control black men. Furthermore, the Brute perpetuated the
threat of a newly expanding black labor force (Dines, 1998). Dissemination of this aggressive image of
black males justified (and incited) the violence of mob action and lynchings
that were imposed upon them.
The Brute image evolved at a period of time when competition between the races for jobs and land were just beginning and the pejorative nature of the image directly impacted the ability of black men to have equal access to these scarce resources. Cha Jua (2000:14) argues that racial formation, the systematic process of categorizing people into races, includes the processes of “racialization, the intertwining of other forms of social stratification, i.e., class, racial and gender oppression, the relationship of its structures and ideologies to actions, events and consciousness, and the relationship between dominant and subordinate modes of production and political economies”. This is crucial because it incorporates both the ideological and material base of racism, resulting in the ability of the dominant class to maintain power and preserve white supremacy. Therefore, the characterization of black men as aggressive, hostile, and uncontrolled was impacted by the initial shift in the economy towards competition for scarce resources. This left them not as the beneficiaries, but as the victims of the institutional exploitation and economic deprivation.
If it were simply negative attitudes that whites at that time held towards blacks, the ramifications
Persisting through today may not have been so severe. At its most obvious and symbolic level,
Negative masculine characterizations provide a model of racialized gender behavior for young boys
and girls of all races (Bucholtz, 1999). They also reinforce and maintain patriarchal systems, which seek to oppress women as well as men of color whom are the institutionalized “Other” in the
construction of masculine ideology. That is to say, if black masculinity is defined in its relation to
white masculinity, then the black man’s worth is validated via whiteness (Lester and Goggin, 1999).
Throughout slavery and Reconstruction, black men were presented first as emasculated and
then as aggressive (Wallace, 1996). At each point in time, these exaggerations served to justify treating
black men in a particular way. The dichotomous images of Sambo and Buck represent the polarity of traditional masculine and feminine characteristics (Wallace, 1996). This contributes to the black male
paradox-emasculated, but at the same time feared, setting the stage for a long tradition of subjugation and resistance (Dines, 1998). Dines (1998: 291) argues “both images serve to define Black men as
outside the realm of (white) masculinity by constructing them as the “Other.” These images sought to demoralize black masculinity while reinforcing the patriarchal racial hierarchy within which it was
defined. Living in a society where masculinity is expressed through power, dominance, and individualism leaves black men in a precarious situation. They lack access to the social, economic,
and political resources, which are controlled and maintained by the dominant group through white supremacy. Attainment of these resources fulfill dominant notions of what it means to be masculine
(Wallace, 1996). This material and ideological explanation allowed white males to maintain their
status at the expense of black men. Pinkney (1990) argues that it is the behavioral manifestations
of prejudice though such things as discrimination and segregation that have truly oppressed African
Americans, not simply the negative attitudes that whites have against blacks. Negative representations of black masculinity have become institutionalized into American Society leaving black men with a
tenuous position in the labor market and most recently disenfranchised by the punitive, conservative
backlash over the last three decades (Dines, 1999).
Contemporary
Media Depictions of Black Males
Media Representation of Black Men
Black male masculinity continues to be demonized within contemporary society. Today, images of black men as ‘thugs’ or ‘hoodlums’ are all too familiar to that of the Buck and Brute. Sadly, these aggressive representations are only offset by Sambo-like images of ‘lazy’ and ‘apathetic’. Similar to that of the minstrel shows, notions of black men’s masculinity is currently defined and maintained through the press, films, novels, sports arena, criminal justice system and the educational system among various other entities (Dines, 1998; Hoberman, 2000; Hutchinson, 1997).
Harper (1996) suggests that
the images of Buck and Brute can be analyzed within contemporary society with
the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Newsweek
and Time used Simpson’s mug shots to
grace the cover of their June 1994 issues. The infamous depictions of Simpson
on the covers illustrate a fear that much of white America still holds towards
African American men and their masculinity (1996). Harper (1996:128) quotes Barron arguing that the mug shot of
Simpson reveals, “Time’s cover was
darker, blurrier and more sinister-looking than Newsweek’s.” The darkening
of Simpson’s face, Harper argues, was meant to equate dark skin with inherent
criminality (1996).
But how is it
that the media was able to get away with such an overt display of racism?
Readily associating black males with a criminal nature is nothing new
(Hutchinson, 1997). With a history of
turning their back on domestic violence issues, the white male dominated press
suddenly became enthralled with the domestic relationship of O.J. and his late
wife Nicole. Hutchinson (1997) suggests
that the characteristics of the mythical Buck are readily and systematically
applied to black men in contemporary society.
Even the most prominent black men are not immune when they are suspected
of ‘stepping out of line’ (1997).
Simpson’s transgressions of
attempting to assimilate into a white world by marrying a white women and
living a white lifestyle inflamed the age-old disdain that many white Americans
have for black masculinity (1996). Similar to the Buck and the Brute
stereotype, Simpson was easily depicted as a hypersexual, aggressive black man
whose intended domination of a white woman had gotten out of control
(1996).
Dines (1998:291) suggests
that the Simpson obsession parallels the success of Birth of a Nation, whereas “the image of the black man as the spoiler
of white womanhood has been a staple of media representation in the
country”. Other movies have also
capitalized on the image of the Buck and Brute. For example, King Kong,
renamed King Kong and the White Woman,
also depicts the animalistic black monster is pursuit of the white woman
(Dines, 1998). Similar to the
justification of the Brute stereotype, this movie capitalized on the growing
fear of working-class whites to the black migration into the Northern cities
(Dines, 1998).
The depiction of a violent
masculinity in movies is nothing new.
It has become a staple of American culture, witnessed by such icons as
Arnold Schwartzenager and Bruce Willis. However, Jones (1993) found that when
black men are portrayed in violent movies, they are far less likely than white
men to have that violence tempered with imitate portrayals of a sensitive
side. In other words, after Bruce
Willis has just graphically killed ten people, he is still able to come home
and make love to his partner. This
reinforces to the audience that he is capable of maintaining an intimate,
sensitive side despite an aggressive nature (1993). Black males, on the other hand, are not depicted with the
alternate side. The audience is simply
left with the image of the Brute, and thus the black man can only be defined in
terms of his violent tendencies (1993).
The Black Athlete
These negative images of
black males continue to be rampant in contemporary society. Gibbs (1988) describes African American
males as an ‘endangered species’ that are stereotyped and characterized by
society as the five d’s: “dumb, deprived, dangerous, deviant, and
disturbed.” One area where these
images are pervasive is in the realm of athletics. Media coverage of young, uneducated black males drafted out of high
school for professional basketball contracts and black athletes being convicted
of drug and battery charges all reinforce the stereotypes that Gibbs
describes.
African American men have
been portrayed as having a “natural” athleticism for most of the century
(Hoberman, 2000). However, many
researchers suggest that the channeling of black males into sports simply
exploits their athletic talent while simultaneously hindering academic
potential (2000). Thus, again
perpetuating the black male paradox of simple-minded Sambo to the aggressive,
prowess Brute (Wallace, 1996). Black
males are socialized to aspire to be Shaquille O’Neil (Hoberman, 2000). The stark reality is very few men ever
achieve his success. Dyson (1993) further explores this mythical construct
through the identity of the ultimate benefactor, Michael Jordan in the genre of
race, sports and professionalism:
His
big black body--graceful and powerful, elegant and dark--symbolizes the
possibilities of other black bodies to remain safe long enough to survive
within the limited but significant sphere of sport, since Jordan’s achievements
have furthered the cultural acceptance of at least the athletic black body
(Dyson, 1993:74).
Unfortunately,
the media images do not provide consumers with much diversity. The
disproportionate images of African Americans as
athletes and entertainers have largely
shaped what it means to be a black male in
today’s society (Hoberman, 2000).
Within the sports genera, the social
construction of black masculinity is simply defined
through physical prowess and aggression
(Hoverman, 2000).
Some
may argue that an aggressive nature is applauded throughout all sports,
regardless
of the race of the individual. In addition, many African American males
have
achieved success in sports. However, the stereotypes of black males
being aggressive and
volatile are stilled paralleled by notions of
irresponsibility and simple-mindedness
(Hoberman, 2000). Consequently, there is still a lack of African American men in
powerful positions such as college athletic
directors, coaches, and professional
managers.
Coakley (1999) attributes these dismal numbers to racist ideology and
belief
systems about who should lead teams, run front
offices and last, but not least, remain in
control.
Conclusion
But
What do Black Men Think?
With
the barrage of exaggerated images that are place upon black men, researchers
have
begun to study how black men subsequently define
themselves and their masculinity (Harper,
1996; Lester and Goggin, 1999; Majors and
Billson, 1992). More specifically, how
do black
men construct their own masculinity despite
their role as the “Other” within dominant
ideology?
I end this article with a discussion of the research conducted by Lester
and Goggin
(1999) on how black men represent themselves in
personal ads.
Through
a personal ad, these men are seeking to portray themselves as desirable
mates.
Therefore, the symbolic descriptions that they use may give an insight
into how they
construct a positive masculine identity (Lester
& Goggin, 1999). Lester &
Goggin (1999:445)
identified three general categories that each ad
appeared to fit into: professionalism --or
‘being in control’, physical prowess--an
intersection of ‘physical strength’ and ‘sexual
prowess’, and finally skin color
consciousness. Within these groups,
characterizations of
sexuality, strength and economic prosperity were
represented. These traits are typical
defining
characteristics of a dominant masculine construct.
However, Lester & Goggin (1999) suggest
that these images may have been internalized to
reflect the negative stereotypes that
have
historically been placed upon black males in the
role of the ‘Other’ instead of reflecting the
idealized traits of traditional
masculinity. They explain:
Either
move calls attention to how entrenched these objectifications of identity may
be, for the work against or to invoke the stereotypes is to accept on some
level an existential reality for codes that have been inscribed. In the final analysis, this paradox--the
refutation/embracement binary--reveals that what has been culturally inscribed
has become entrenched and dangerously naturalized (1999:446).
Again, this creates a dichotomy between the
Sambo and Buck or Brute. One the one
hand, these men used representations of highly
sexual, consummate lovers with a super-
masculine danger to describe themselves,
sometimes going as far to use animalistic imagery.
For instance, ‘African Stallion’ or ‘oral, uncut
and aggressive’ are some of the descriptions
that Lester & Goggin (1999:447) found in
their sample of ads. They suggest that
the use by
black men to capitalize on the Buck and Brute
images that have historically defined them,
display their perceived conquest over patriarchy (1999). However, these men also used
representations that suggest a triumph within the patriarchal system
(1999). For instance,
words such as ‘professional’, ‘degreed’ and
‘drive a BMW’ were present in many of the ads
sampled. With references to educational
attainment and economic prosperity, many men
attempted to move away from Sambo images of lazy
and unintelligent (1999).
Overall,
Lester and Goggin (1999:443) argue that personal ads “reveal an acting
out of racialized gender, sexual and class
roles.... [and] become strong constructs with and
against which the writers of these ads work.”
Nonetheless, the use of personal ads in
examining the perception of black masculinity
does have limitations. First, Lester and Goggin’s
research was limited to heterosexual males. Secondly, men who utilize external sources
for
dating such as personal ads may not represent
the norm. Furthermore, Lester &
Goggin’s
(1999) sample of how men define themselves
through these ads may only represent
exaggerated characteristics of what they think
women are looking for in a mate. The
presumed
intent of the men placing the ads was to obtain
a date, allowing personal ads to be as fictitious
and idealized as the author desires them to be.
An informed interview between the authors and
research subjects exploring notions of
masculinity may have resulted in drastically different
conclusions than simply randomly sampling
personal ads.
Overall, it appears that these
black males are similar to other groups who are stratified within society. They have taken the oppressive images placed
upon them and reframed them to construct their own notions of masculinity.
Within feminist discourse, Tobias (1997) suggests that marginalized groups
often reframe what radical notions have been used against them to create their
own identity. Privileged by gender and
yet oppressed by race, puts black males in a precarious situation. However, it appears they are able to empower
themselves by reclaiming and redefining their own ideals of what it means to be
masculine.
Kathleen
Marchioro is a graduate student in the Department of Sociology, Southern
Illinois University Edwardsville. Email kmarchioro@usa.net
References
Bucholtz,
Mary (1999). “You Da Man: Narrating the
Racial Other In the Production of White
Masculinity.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 3/4:
443-460.
Cha-Jua,
Sundiata (2000). “Racial Formation and
Transformation: Toward a Theory of Black Racial Oppression.” Department of
Ethnic Studies, Washington State University, Working Paper.
Denzin,
Norman (1998). “Reading the Cinema of
Racial Violence.” Perspectives on Social Problems 10: 31-60.
Dines,
Gail (1998). “King Kong and the White
Woman.” Violence Against Women 4:
291-308.
Dyson,
Michael (1993). Reflecting Black: African-American Cultural Criticism. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Ethnic Notions, Film.
Harper, Philip (1996). Are We
Not Men? Masculine Anxiety and the Problem of African- American Identity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoberman,
John (2000). “The Price of Black
Dominance.” Society 37: 49-57.
hooks,
bell (1981). Ain’t I a Women? Black Women and Feminism. South End
Press.
Hutchinson,
Earl (1997). The Assassination of the Black Male Image. New York: Simon
& Shuster.
Jones,
Jacquie (1993). “The Construction of
Black Sexuality: Towards Normalizing the
Black Cinematic Experience,” Pp. 247-256 in Black American Cinema. Manthia Diawara (ed.). New York: Routledge.
Lester,
Neal and Maureen Goggin (1999).
“’Extra! Extra! Read All About It!’ Constructions of
Heterosexual Black Male Identities in the Personals.” Social Identities 5: 441-469.
Majors,
Richard and Janet Billson (1992). Cool pose: The Dilemmas of Black Manhood
in America. New York: Simon & Shuster.
Pinkney,
Alphonso (1990). The Myth of Black Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pyke, Karen (1996). “Class-Based Masculinities: The
Interdependence of Gender, Class, and
Interpersonal Power.” Gender &
Society 10: 527-550.
Robinson,
Cedric (1997). “In the Year 1915: D. W.
Griffith and the Whitening of America.” Social Identities 3: 161-192.
Tobias,
Shiela (1997). Faces of Feminism: An Activist’s Reflections on the Women’s
Movement. Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Wallace,
Michele (1990). Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman. New York:
Alpine Press.