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
