Evidence-Based Recommendations on Deportation of Immigrant Parents

RECOMMENDATIONS
6
Evidence-Based Recommendations
Evidence-Based Recommendations
Illegal immigration is one of the abused issues in the United
States. The issue is of great concern as it not only changes the
economic, cultural, but also the social aspect of the nation of
concern. Immigration has been wrongly used in the political
arenas as political leaders strive to throw their weight around
while portraying their competitors how better they are. To the
citizenry, immigrants increase competition in the already scarce
employment opportunities. Immigrants cheaply provide easily
accessible labor hence being preferred over the hosts of the
country. On the other hand, they increase competition on
available social amenities such as education and health care,
hence at times referred to as a burden to the economy. People
migrate while escaping wars and natural calamities such as
hunger.
In contrast, others move illegally following societal ills such as
human trafficking, where they end up in social evils such as
prostitution. Whether migrating through the right or wrong
channels, deportation has far-reaching effects, especially with
the involvement of parents. Right measures should be
implemented in dealing with the issue of deportation.
Granting amnesty is one of the options that could be
explored in dealing with the deportation of parents. Amnesty
entails the granting of a formal legal status to individuals with
an illegal residence in a country and is awaiting deportation.

The issue of amnesty among immigrants is received with mixed
reactions. While some political leaders use the amnesty
programs as a means of benefiting themselves, the citizens of
the country view the move as a means of suppressing their
access to resources. According to Levy (2010), people in
support of an amnesty program among the illegal migrants view
the deportation of illegal immigrants as being an impractical
move. The deportation process is hectic for both the officials
and the involved parties. Levy (2010) noted that the deportation
process is time-consuming, requires a lot of effort, and is labor-
intensive.
The country would have to incur additional costs in trying to
correct a situation created by people who failed to take their
jobs seriously. Also, it is not a guarantee that all illegal
immigrants would be successfully deported as some may escape
detection, which means that the government goes through all
that trouble for nothing. Instead, the government should use the
challenge of illegal immigrants to its advantage. Numerous low-
skilled employment positions are unfilled because Americans
cannot fill the positions, despite being crucial to the nation's
economy. The country stands to benefit more with the illegal
immigrants given amnesty as opposed to when there are
deported. Levy (2010) added that the legalization of immigrants
through according them amnesty helps in ensuring the country
is secure. On the other hand, immigrants could be granted
citizenship.
Children born to immigrant parents in the United States
ultimately become citizens of the country by birth.
Undocumented immigrants can become citizens of the United
States by following the process dubbed. In following this
process, there are requirements. The individual must be a green
card holder with a maximum of 5 years of residency in the
country. There are more benefits reaped with the granting of
citizenship to illegal immigrants as opposed to forceful

deportation. When granting citizenship, the bone of contention
is the attitude s that the natives have against the undocumented
immigrants, which may ultimately affect their integration in
society. Waters et al. (2015) reported the claims in the CBS and
New York article. The results of a 2006 and 2007 poll had a
26% supporting the pathway to citizenship with a 33%.
Waters et al. (2015) highlighted the agreement among the
majority where the Latino and Asian Americans highlighted the
granting of the legal status to the undocumented immigrants as
being to the advantage of the immigrants and the American
citizens. The author highlighted the move as being
reinforcement to the U.S. economy while also improving the
livelihoods of the migrants. Labor is an important factor in
production, and immigrants provide cheap labor. As such,
various positions that lacked employees due to their low
qualifications will easily be filled by the migrants. On the other
hand, an influx in immigrants increases the demand for
particular goods and the need to meet the demand spurs
production hence boosting the economy. The need to fill the
meet the increased demand for goods and services relatively
raises the demand for labor. As outlined by Water et al. (2015),
when migrants fill much available employment positions, they
improve their standards of living as they can easily cater to the
needs of their families. It is a reprieve to the country's economy
as the migrants stop depending on the government wholly.
Advocacy groups could also come to the aid of parents facing
forceful deportation. While some cases of deportation are
worthwhile, others are wrong as they purpose to disappoint the
individuals in question while making them act as an example to
others. Incidents that may warrant depuration are such as the
violation of the visa terms, participating in criminal activities,
or even when the government feels that the immigrants are
becoming a burden due to their over-reliance on government
aid. There are instances where deportation is overly unfair and

marred by a lot of discrepancies. In such cases, deported parents
are helpless, especially when they have to choose whether to tag
along with their children or leave them behind. In such
scenarios, it is the role of advocacy groups to step in and speak
for the immigrants. Their voice should be heard and have the
ability to change the government and society's stand. Schneider
(2011) highlighted the position taken by the immigration
societies where they arrange means of supporting and defending
their members during the deportation proceedings. Adequate
arrangements help in validating the presence of immigrants in a
country. The author outlined these societies as capable of
making last-minute interventions to save an immigrant from the
pangs of deportation. Schneider (2011) stated that with a high
number of advocacy groups, there is the possibility of adopting
a formalized and articulate procedure to fight deportation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the relevant authorities should consider
implementing measures that would eliminate the possibility of
deportation. The deportation of parents has far-reaching effects
on the victims, their children, and society at large. Amnesty
would save the country the costs and trouble of having to deport
immigrants while securing the country. Granting immigrants'
citizenships increase the demand for labor while boosting the
economy. Groups advocating for the rights of immigrants during
deportation helps in creating a concrete procedure that the
authorities should adhere to during the process. While
deportation may be the only option, relevant authorities should
explore means that maximizes the good for all.
References
Levy, J. (2010). Illegal immigration and amnesty: Open borders
and national security. New York: Rosen Pub
Schneider, D. (2011). Crossing Borders. Harvard University
Press
Waters, M. C., Pineau, M. G., National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering and Medicine., & National Academies Press.
(2015). The integration of immigrants into American society.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
Queering Masculinity: Manhood and Black Gay Men in College
Terrell L. Strayhorn, Derrick L. Tillman-Kelly
Spectrum: A Journal on Black Men, Volume 1, Number 2,
Spring 2013, pp.
83-110 (Article)
Published by Indiana University Press
For additional information about this article
Access provided by Indiana University of Pennsylvania (10 Sep
2018 17:49 GMT)
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/503123
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/503123
Spectrum, Volume I, Number 2, pgs. 83–110, Spring 2013
©2013, Indiana university press
Queering Masculinity:
Manhood and Black
Gay Men in College
Terrell L. Strayhorn and
Derrick L. Tillman-Kelly

ABStrAct: This qualitative study explores Black gay male
under-
graduates’ construction of manhood and masculine identity(-ies)
as well as how these beliefs affected their academic and social
expe-
riences in college. Analyzing in-depth interviews with 29 Black
gay
male collegians, we found that participants construct and under-
stand manhood and their masculine identities in one of three
ways:
(a) accepting, adhering to, and performing traditionally
masculine
norms, (b) intentionally, or subconsciously, challenging
hegemonic
notions of Black masculinity through their behaviors and self-
be-
liefs, and (c) recognizing that their masculine identity(-ies) are
in-
fluenced by other social factors and locations. Implications for
re-
searchers, counselors, and higher education practitioners are
highlighted and recommendations for future research and theory
are provided.
College enrollment rates have increased dramatically over the
last half cen-
tury. Today, there are approximately 19 million students
enrolled in more than
4,200 colleges and universities in the United States, according
to the U.S. De-
partment of Education (2011). Women outnumber men in
college on most cam-
puses and historically underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities
(URMs) repre-
sent a much larger share of total student enrollments than ever
before. For

instance, less than 945,000 Black/African American students
were enrolled in
college in 1976; today, there are more than 2 million, reflecting
a 103% increase
in Black collegians in less than 40 years. There has been
enrollment growth
84 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
among other groups too. Although national statistics are not
available, several
scholars (e.g., Evans & Wall, 1991) posit that approximately 10
to 20% of today’s
college students identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB).1
And, despite these
trends, surprisingly little is known from research about the
experiences of those
who live at the intersection of the social locations referenced to
this point, such as
Black gay men in college (hereafter, Black gay male
undergraduates [BGMUs]).
Scholars have directed much attention to one of two areas with
Black
men: issues of gender identity and masculinity (e.g., Ferguson,
2000; hooks,
2004a; Westwood, 1990) or identity development of Black men
and/or
BGMUs (e.g., Cross, 1995; D’Augelli, 1994; Loiacano, 1993).
For example, re-
cent national reports document declining enrollments in college
for Black men
(Harper, 2006a; National Urban League, 2007), while other
studies turn their

attention to the role of (Black) college men and cases of date
rape and sexual
harassment (Foubert & LaVoy, 2000), alcohol abuse problems
(Todd & Den-
nis, 2005), judicial offenders (Harris, 2010), as well as the large
proportion of
suicides (82%) committed by Black men, with an ever-growing
percentage of
them among Black college students (National Urban League,
2007).
Similarly, as the scholarship on manhood and masculinity has
experienced
a shift in focus, research on Black gay men also has changed
over time. Prior re-
search on Black gay men focused on four major areas: (a) issues
of identity devel-
opment and the “coming out” process (Loiacano, 1993; McCarn
& Fassinger,
1996), unhealthy high-risk sexual behaviors and their attendant
consequences
(e.g., sexually transmitted diseases [STDs]) for “same-gender
loving” Black men
(Icard & Nurius, 1996; Millett, Malebranche, Mason, & Spikes,
2005), and col-
lege students’ experiences with various forms of harassment
typically visited
upon them by their heterosexual peers (Burns, 2000; D’Augelli,
1992; Strayhorn
& Mullins, 2012). A more recent line of inquiry (e.g.,
Strayhorn, Blakewood, &
DeVita, 2010) responds to Harper and Nichols’s (2008) clarion
call for research
on Black gay men by focusing on the nature of their academic
and social experi-
ences, as well as “how Black LGBT subgroups are treated by

other Black students”
(p. 212). For instance, Strayhorn and Mullins (2012) added to
the extant litera-
ture by interviewing BGMUs living in campus residence halls
about their aca-
demic, social, and interpersonal experiences on campus.
Despite these advancements in our substantive knowledge about
Black
masculinities and the collegiate experiences of BGMUs (e.g.,
Harris, 2010;
hooks, 2004a; Strayhorn, Blakewood, & DeVita, 2010), few
attempts have been
made to bring these two currently disparate scholarly areas of
study together to
examine BGMUs’ construction of manhood and their beliefs
about Black mas-
culinity or masculinities. This is the gap addressed by the
present study.
terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering
Masculinity 85
purpOSe
The purpose of the study was to understand BGMUs’
construction of
manhood and masculine identity(-ies) as well as to identify how
these beliefs
affect their academic and social experiences in college. Rather
than treating all
Black men as equal—as a sort of monolithic group—we pursued
a detailed
analysis of BGMUs’ lived experiences to uncover the nuances

between them
and their peers who identify differently in terms of
race/ethnicity or sexual ori-
entation. Interrogating whether and how multiple social
identities intersect
and influence BGMUs’ negotiation and construction of
masculine identities
yielded insights into the ways in which campus- and other
professionals can
work with such students to promote their success in college.
Before describing
the study, the next section reviews the extant literature that was
relevant for it.
reVIeW OF LIterAture
Since there is little written about the construction of masculine
identities
by BGMUs, we drew upon literature from two distinct
intellectual areas to in-
form this study. First, we reviewed the theoretical and empirical
literature on
GLB people with a particular focus on topics related to
collegians of color. We,
then, summarized the growing literature on Black masculinity
and manhood.
The literature review is organized accordingly.
Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual people
To be sure, there is a body of knowledge available on GLB
individuals.
Early scholars devoted most attention to developing plausible
explanations
about the “cause” of homosexuality (Ellis, 1901). Biological
explanations pos-

ited sexuality, and specifically same-sex attraction, as innate,
fixed, and deter-
mined at birth (Ellis). Sociological explanations, on the other
hand, empha-
sized the ways in which sexuality is sensitive to human
interactions,
environmental influences, and change over time (D’Emilio &
Freedman,
1988). Psychiatric epidemiology studies framed homosexuality
as a “diagnos-
tic category of mental illness,” which was carried in the DSM-
IV until the
1970s (Gibson, 2006, p. 33). Shifts in our understanding of
sexual orientation
from a mental illness to a more dynamic socially constructed
aspect of one’s
self led to new directions for research.
One such shift turned the early work on GLB adults to empirical
investiga-
tions on student populations. Indeed, research on GLB
adolescents and college
students has burgeoned in recent decades, largely focusing on
their constructed
identities (Abes & Jones, 2004; Dilley, 2005; Fassinger, 1998)
and gay identity
86 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
development experiences (Fassinger, 1991; Renn & Biloudeau,
2005). Still other
psychological and social scientists have devoted considerable
energy to formulat-
ing theoretical models that attempt to explain the process by

which individuals
come to understand themselves as GLB persons and how such
understandings
are reconciled with previously held perceptions of self (e.g.,
Cass, 1984; D’Augelli,
1991). For example, Cass (1979) hypothesized the “process by
which a person
comes first to consider and later to acquire the identity of
homosexual as a rele-
vant aspect of self ” (p. 219). Her model consists of six stages
representing gay
identity development as growth from “identity confusion” to
“identity synthe-
sis,” which continues through four other phases (e.g, identity
comparison, iden-
tity tolerance, identity acceptance, and identity pride). Although
this body of lit-
erature has been widely accepted and applied to college students
(Battle &
Bennett, 2000; Renn, 2010), the weight of empirical evidence
that currently in-
forms our understanding and practice was predicated largely on
White GLB stu-
dent samples and reportedly has limited, if any, applicability to
racial/ethnic mi-
norities who identify as non-heterosexual, such as BGMUs.
Only recently have scholars turned critical attention to the lived
experi-
ences of Black gay men generally and BGMUs in particular.
Prior research on
gay male collegians of color, some of which is our own (e.g.,
Strayhorn & Mul-
lins, 2012), can be organized into four major categories:
attempts to estimate
the number of Black gay or bisexual men in the country,

descriptions of their
“coming out” processes and whether and how they identify,
documentation of
Black gay males’ sexual behaviors and practices, and
examinations of BGMUs’
academic and social experiences in college. Studies that fall in
the first category
consist of book chapters and commentaries that estimate the
number of Black
gay men in America, describe the challenges they face as both
“Black” and
“gay,” as well as offer possible solutions to the social
pathologies (e.g., racism,
homophobia) that seem to stymie their cognitive, social, and
psychosocial de-
velopment (Harris, 2003; Washington & Wall, 2006).
While growing, the second category of research on BGMUs’
“coming
out” process(-es) is limited at best. For instance, contrary to
generally held be-
liefs that Black men conceal their affectional status (i.e., “live
on the down
low”), some BGMUs report going to college to “come out” and
live out as gay or
bisexual (Strayhorn, Blakewood, & DeVita, 2008). And though
prevailing the-
ories posit “coming out” as an orderly, stage-wise process of
publicly acknowl-
edging one’s sexual orientation to self, family, and others;
research on BGMUs
suggests a more complicated, and complex, process where men
make different
decisions to disclose or conceal their gay identity to different
people, in differ-
ent ways, at different times (Strayhorn et al., 2010).

Masculinity 87
Furthermore, we know that recognizing and publicly
acknowledging one’s
own sexual orientation can be seriously traumatizing, especially
for some gay
men of color who often find themselves rejected or
marginalized by members of
their own race—the very people and resources they tend to need
to productively
cope with life challenges (Icard, 1996; Icard & Nurius, 1996).
For instance, in
previous studies, researchers found that most of the BGMUs
with whom they
spoke reported being “kicked out” of their parents’ home,
dismissed by family
members and siblings, or rejected by church members when they
disclosed their
sexual orientation (Strayhorn et al., 2010; Strayhorn & Mullins,
2012).
Documenting Black gay males’ sexual behaviors and practices
is the focus
of a third set of studies. Research in this area focuses on the
engagement of gay
men of color in high-risk sexual behaviors and the associated
consequences (e.g.,
STDs, substance abuse, or suicide) for men who have sex with
men (MSM) or
“same-gender loving” men (Icard, 1996; Micah, 2002;
Washington & Wall,
2006). Results suggest that high-risk sexual behaviors can lead

to negative conse-
quences in terms of gay men’s psychological well-being and
self-esteem and place
them at-risk for distress, depression, and suicide (Loiacano,
1993), although we
do not know if this is true for all gay men in various contexts.
Other work in this area investigates whether and how Black gay
men iden-
tify sexually (e.g., Brown, 2005; Icard, 1986). For instance,
Brown employed a
case study approach to analyze qualitative data from 110
African American
men in Atlanta. Although all of his participants indicated that
they have sex
with men, relatively few identified as gay (37%); 13%
identified as “down low
bisexual,” 9% as bisexual, 7% as homosexual, and 17% even
identified as
straight. He found that some Black men engaged in same-sex
intercourse, but
rejected non-heterosexual identity labels. He concluded that
Black gay men
cannot accept a gay identity for reasons ranging from
homophobia to tradi-
tional notions of Black masculinity.
Finally, a fourth line of inquiry has centered on examining
BGMUs’ aca-
demic and social experiences in college. A review of the
literature suggests at
least three major conclusions. BGMUs at PWIs face social
isolation from other
Black and/or male students on campus (e.g., Strayhorn, 2012;
Washington &
Wall, 2006); the same is true for BGMUs at historically Black

colleges and uni-
versities (Strayhorn & Scott, 2012). Second, apart from
struggling to fit in,
BGMUs face challenges with “coming out” for fear of losing
friends, which can
be detrimental to their psychosocial development (Strayhorn,
Blakewood et
al., 2010). Third, the weight of evidence suggests that BGMUs
encounter rac-
ism, discrimination, and harassment frequently in college
settings such as
classrooms, Black cultural centers, and campus residence halls
(Strayhorn,
88 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
Blakewood, & DeVita, 2008; Strayhorn & Mullins, 2012).
While this literature
was helpful for framing our thinking about the study’s sample—
namely,
BGMUs—the next section provided an empirical base for our
analysis of Black
manhood and masculinity.
Black masculinity
There is an incredible literature base on masculinity generally,
so we nar-
rowed our focus to Black masculinity(-ies) and manhood
specifically. Previous
scholars have defined Black masculinity as a multidimensional
social concept
that includes the self-expectations, relations and responsibilities
to family,

worldviews, and philosophies that Black men accept and
acknowledge (Hunter
& Davis, 1994). In keeping with hooks (2004a), social theorists
and cultural
studies scholars further explain that Black manhood is shaped
by multiple so-
cial locations, including race, gender, social class, sexuality,
and religion,
among others (Butler, 2004; Strayhorn & Tillman-Kelly, in
press). And this is
not unique to Blacks only; indeed, “... every culture (or group)
has implicit
standards about the appropriate roles that men must enact to be
judged mascu-
line” (Franklin, 1984, p. 130), but social context, locations, and
pathologies
(e.g., racism and discrimination) indelibly shape those
perceptions of appro-
priate roles and behaviors for Black men.
Prior research in this area indicates that Black men generally
endorse
norms or attributes typically associated with heteronormative
notions of mas-
culinity (e.g., hypersexual, physical strength, and misogynistic
ideologies). For
instance, Strayhorn (2011) analyzed survey data and found that
Black male
collegians report that “real” Black men: (a) have sex with
multiple female part-
ners, (b) desire success, power, and competition, and (c) project
confidence
even if [they’re] not. Additionally, Hunter and Davis (1992)
conducted an in-
terview study with 32 Black men from central New York to
examine Black

men’s construction of manhood and their ratings of the
importance of certain
attributes to being a man. They found that Black men defined
manhood in at
least three ways: (a) self-expectations or self-determined
statements and ac-
countability, (b) relationships and responsibility to family, and
(c) worldview
or existential philosophies (e.g., spirituality). For example, self-
expectations
included “directedness... maturity... economic viability...
perseverance... free
will (control over one’s life)” (p. 471).
Not only have scholars provided definitions of Black
masculinity, but em-
pirical studies also have been conducted to investigate the ways
in which Black
boys and men negotiate their masculine identities in educational
settings. Spe-
cifically, Ferguson’s (2000) work on Black masculinity in
public schools deserves
Masculinity 89
mention. Ferguson explained Black masculinity as performance
through which
Black boys engender the respect of their male peers, oftentimes
at the risk of seri-
ous disciplinary consequences in school settings. In fact, she
suggests that Black
boys employ “three key constitutive strategies of masculinity in
[their] embrace

of the masculine ‘we’ as a mode of self-expression” (p. 171).
The three strategies
include: (a) being always marked as male, or what she calls
“heterosexual power,”
in which Black boys mimic the hypersexuality they see and hear
of Black men, (b)
engaging in classroom performances that challenge the standard
flow of power
(e.g., intentional class disruptions, joking, or directly
challenging the teacher’s
authority), and (c) regular engagement in fighting. In many
ways, Ferguson pos-
its that successful enactment of Black masculinity by African
American boys in
public schools is highly sexual, visible, violent, disrespectful,
and perhaps chal-
lenging of a social system that denigrates and discounts them
daily.
The weight of empirical evidence, similar to Ferguson (2000),
suggests
the pathologization of Black men and their lived “manhood”
experiences. But
not all Black men understand or practice Black masculinity in
such hegemonic
ways. For instance, McClure (2006) explores the role that Black
fraternity
membership plays in one’s construction of Black masculinity.
Drawing on in-
terviews with 20 Black male members of one historically Black
fraternity, she
demonstrates how the intersections of race, class, and gender
can shape one’s
acceptance or modification of gender norms established through
the hege-
monic and Afrocentric models of masculinity. Participants in

McClure’s study
coupled some ideals of White hegemonic masculinity (e.g.,
success and
achievement, individuality, and self-sufficiency) with other
ideals (e.g., coop-
eration and connectedness) that acknowledge or embrace the
Afrocentric mas-
culine ideal, thereby creating a more blended Black masculinity.
Black masculinity has been conceptualized in a number of ways,
one of
which is Cool Pose (Majors & Billson, 1992). Cool pose is a
“ritualized form of
masculinity entailing behaviors, scripts, physical strength,
expression manage-
ment, and carefully crafted performances [emphasis added] that
deliver a single
critical message: pride, strength, and control” (p. 4).
Masculinity as perfor-
mance has a long history in gender studies—indeed,
masculinities are observ-
able enactments, affectations, and performances that men use to
“act out” their
manhood (Franklin, 1984). However, performances of Black
masculinity often
reflect cultural stereotypes rather than biological or
psychological realities
(Bem, 1987; Butler, 1990; Hunter & Davis, 1994).
Another, and more recent, conceptualization of Black
masculinity was
published by Dancy (2012). Titled The Brother Code, the term
“refers to the
rules that govern manhood for African American males” (p. 2).
Like Hunter

90 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
and Davis (1992), Dancy uncovered the meanings that Black
men attach to
manhood and masculinity, along with the subsequent
performances of those
meanings. Based on qualitative interviews with 24 African
American men at
12 different four-year universities, he found that many of them
emphasized
self-expectations or a sense of self-responsibility. Participants
also were keenly
aware of the narrow masculine code in which they were to act.
Those who tran-
gressed the Brother Code or violated social norms about Black
manhood were
often labeled as “acting White,” “acting gay,” or other
insensitive and offensive
words (e.g., sissy, faggot, bitch, pussy), as has been shown in
previous literature
on the topic (e.g., Kimmel, 1996; Kimmel & Aronson, 2003).
Not only do Black male trangressors risk being labeled with
derogatory
terms for violating the sacred Brother Code, but hooks (2004b)
exposed another
serious limitation of the overly narrow social script for Black
manhood. She pro-
poses that intellectual pursuits often are judged as nonmasculine
and, thus, sub-
ject “smart Black boys,” or what Ferguson (2000) would call
“good boys,” to scru-
tiny, question, and unchecked ridicule. According to hooks,
Black boys who liked

to read were (and are still) perceived as suspect or “on the road
to being a sissy”
(p. 40). Labeling, teasing, and physical or verbal threats of this
kind have long-
since been used to patrol, police, and/or enforce Black
masculine behaviors, es-
pecially among Black male peers in educational contexts. For
violating the “code”
about which Dancy (2012) wrote, some Black men are labeled,
put down, joked,
teased, threatened, or even bashed. Riggs (2001) details the
ways in which Black
gay men, for instance, are marginalized even by other Black
male peers:
I am a Negro faggot if I believe what movies, TV, and rap
music say of me.
My life is game for play. Because of my sexuality, I cannot be
Black. A
strong, proud, “Afrocentric” Black man is resolutely
heterosexual, not even
bisexual.... My sexual difference is considered of no value;
indeed it’s a tes-
tament to weakness, passivity, the absence of real guts—balls.
Hence I re-
main a sissy, punk, faggot. I cannot be a Black gay man because
by the te-
nets of Black macho, Black gay man is a triple negation. I am
cosigned, by
these tenets, to remain a Negro faggot. And as such I am game
for play, to
be used, joked about, put down, beaten, slapped, and bashed,
not just by
illiterate homophobic thugs in the night, but by Black American
culture’s
best and brightest. (p. 293)

To avoid such sanctions, Black males are taught, explicitly or
implicitly, to
demonstrate strict adherence to the narrow code through the
display or perfor-
mance of traditional masculine behaviors (i.e., masculinities)
thought to reflect
social ideals of Black manhood in America, such as
imperviousness, stoicism, phys-
ical strength, and hypesexuality, to name a few (Dancy, 2012;
Franklin, 1984).
Masculinity 91
And though a number of studies have shown that some Black
men perceive
their social roles as boys, sons, fathers, and providers (e.g.,
Kimmel & Aronson,
2003) and other Black men adhere to rigid social constructions
of masculinity(-
ies), there may be other masculine beliefs, behavioral
manifestations, and re-
sponses to sanctions for transgressing heteronormative Black
masculinity
(McClure, 2006), particularly for Black gay men in college.
Yet, to date, the re-
search on BGMUs fails to address this issue. The present study
was designed to
fill this noticeable gap in our collective knowledge.
While certainly useful for deepening our knowledge about the
study’s focus,
the extant literature on Black masculinity has at least two major

limitations. First,
countless scholars have acknowledged the need to incorporate
multiple social
identities (e.g., sexual orientation) into the definition and
conceptualization of
Black masculinity(-ies) (Dancy, 2012); however, very few, if
any, demonstrate ap-
propriate and/or effective means for doing so through empirical
studies. Second,
much of the work on Black masculinity is based largely on
samples of men who
tend to enjoy the admiration and respect afforded to those who
follow traditional
masculine scripts such as Black male athletes (Messer, 2006),
“gents and jocks”
(Harris & Struve, 2009), and highly involved student leaders
(Harper, 2006b).
Little attention has been directed toward understanding
constructions of mascu-
linity and manhood among gay and bisexual Black men in
college who may not
enjoy such reputations but are more likely than their peers to
report being ha-
rassed, teased, bullied, or physically assaulted on college
campuses (D’Augelli,
1992; Strayhorn & Mullins, 2012). This is the gap that our study
was designed to
fill; the next section explains our methods for data collection
and analysis.
metHODS
This study is part of a larger research program that centers on
the experi-
ences of gay men of color attending predominantly White and
historically

Black colleges and universities in the United States. The present
study, how-
ever, focuses on BGMUs at PWIs only. And although the larger
study consists
of both quantitative and qualitative components, this article
reports findings
from the qualitative portion of the study. This decision was
made in conso-
nance with the study’s primary objective to reveal “what” are
BGMUs’ con-
structions of masculinity and manhood and to give voice to their
interpreta-
tions of such experiences (Patton, 1990).
methodology
A constructivist qualitative approach was employed in the
present study.
This approach was selected on the basis of its epistemic
underpinnings about
92 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
the very nature of knowledge and how participants in a social
setting construct
multiple realities (Glesne, 2006). Its utility in investigating
unexplored or
rarely explored phenomena, its potential for building a
foundation upon which
future research can stand (Hill et al., 2005), and its congruent
positioning with
our own ethics and values as researchers in terms of how
invisible and voiceless
people can be seen and heard without doing damage or

“violence” to their au-
thentic voice (Lincoln & Guba, 1986) also made it a logical
choice.
Site and participants
The study was conducted at six, four-year PWIs located in the
northeast,
southeast, and midwestern regions of the country. These
institutions could be
sorted into two major categories. Universities in Category A
were public, Re-
search-1 institutions and each enrolls approximately 20,000–
50,000 under-
graduate and graduate students, with approximately 47% being
“men” and less
than 10% being “African American” or “Black” at the time of
this study. Uni-
versities in Category B were private, highly selective, Research-
1 institutions
with enrollments ranging from 8,000 to 11,000 students. The
proportion of
male and/or Black students enrolled at Category B schools was
similar to their
public university counterparts, according to the universities’
institutional re-
search office. It is important to note that, with only one
exception, all institu-
tions included in this study have at least one GLBT student
organization on
campus as well as a GLBT student resource center or lounge.
Participants were selected purposefully using a snowball or
chain sam-
pling approach (Merriam, 1998). As Patton (1990) aptly
described, “The logic

and power of purposeful sampling… leads to selecting
information-rich cases
for study in depth. Information rich cases are those from which
one can learn a
great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of
the research” (p.
46). Specifically, members of the research team worked with the
presidents of
the GLBT student organizations on each campus to identify and
recruit an ini-
tial pool of prospective participants—that is, members who met
the sampling
criteria. To participate in this study, participants had to: (a) be
enrolled at one
of the six universities included in the sample, (b) identify as
African American
or Black, and (c) self-identify as “gay,” “homosexual,” “same-
gender loving,” or
a synonymous term (for more, see Brown, 2005). All
prospective participants
were asked by the presidents of the student organizations to
participate in the
study and to share their e-mail address with the principal
investigator. This re-
sulted in the first wave of potential participants (n =10).
Willing participants were invited, via e-mail, to participate in a
one-on-one,
face-to-face in-depth interview with a member of the research
team. All initial
Masculinity 93

prospects agreed to be interviewed. As the research …
Wise 3
Redefining Black
Masculinity and
Manhood:
Successful Black Gay
Men Speak Out
Sheila J.
Wise
SHEILA J. WISE serves as an ethnography strategist for
Context-Based Research Group,
an anthropological consulting firm in Baltimore, Md. Her
primary responsibility is to
help companies understand and then use ethnographic
approaches to inform their busi-
nesses. Her research interests include the social construction of
gender and intra-group
difference.
This article explores the
literature on masculinity
and manhood,
specifically the masculine
socialization process and

hegemonic masculinity as
they relate to successful,
black gay men. In doing
so, the article reveals the
lack of an incorporation
of homosexuality into
discussions of black
masculinity and
manhood. Throughout
the article, the successful
black gay men, who
were the focus of a
research study, reveal
their own ideas,
perceptions and
experiences of
masculinity and
manhood.

Whenever someone asks me what the topic of my re-
search is, I normally take a deep breath and launch into my
sum-
mary, which goes something like this: I’m looking at successful,
black gay men and issues of social responsibility toward the
larger
black community. This summary is normally met by silence,
after
which I am invariably asked two questions, why? and how? Why
did I decide to study gay men, and how did I go about finding
them? It always intrigues me that out of all that I say in my
sum-
mary the one thing that stands out most, and what I think most
people react to, is the word gay. Interestingly enough, these two
questions, why and how, do not change, whether the person
asking is gay or straight, male or female.
My own interests in understanding the complexities of
the black experience in the United States fueled me. Having
spent 10 years doing development work in West Africa, I felt it
was time to study my own, meaning African Americans in the
United States. Anthropology seemed the natural choice, given
its unique qualitative approaches. I wanted to be able to ex-
plain as well as demonstrate the usefulness of anthropological
methods in a way that black people, particularly, could under-
stand and relate to in their daily lives.
4 Journal of African American Men
THE CONTROVERSY
In some ways, I knew that choosing to study successful,
black gay men would be, at the very least, controversial. Many
black people see the role of the black man as being integral to

the black family and the larger black community. Choosing men
who are not only successful but also gay puts an interesting
twist
on the role of black men. Certainly the word “success” for many
conjures up images of material assets. Even more so, success
im-
plies prosperity, wealth and position. To refer to a black man as
successful is to refer to his assets as well as his contributions.
Inherent in this discussion of success is the unwritten obligation
for successful, black men to “give back” to their families and
communities. I demonstrate that implied in this idea of a suc-
cessful, black man is the assumption that he is heterosexual. For
these reasons, the successful, black gay man may in some ways
contradict the idea of a successful, black man. My hope is that
this research will force black folks to examine their moral
“stan-
dards” and principles for inclusion within the black community.
The Impetus
October 1995, in Washington, D.C., as the nation’s capi-
tal, “Chocolate City” and the “black gay Mecca,” provided a
dis-
tinctive backdrop for the intersection of sexual orientation, race
and social responsibility. The occasion was one of the weekly
organizing meetings for the Million Man March. I was there, in
the role of researcher, for an applied anthropology course dur-
ing that semester. The following events described here provide
the foundation and impetus for this research.
The basement of the Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. head-
quarters was filled to capacity. This was the site for the weekly
organizing meetings for the Million Man March. With each
week
the numbers grew; more and more black men came. The attire
of the men ranged from business suits to baseball caps and

jeans;
young and old; the healthy and the physically challenged. It was
the first time in a very long while since I had seen such a
diverse
group of men. There were Muslims, ministers, local officials
and
pan-Africanists, to name a few. They were all assembled in one
room for one purpose, to plan for participation in the Million
Man March. On one Wednesday, two weeks before the March,
a black man stood and stated that he had been—and is—an ac-
tive member of the D.C. community. Until this point, nothing
seemed out of the ordinary. In fact, this had been the typical
protocol for the meetings. Anyone who had something to con-
tribute to the March would stand, and begin by saying, “In the
Wise 5
spirit of the Million Man March, I . . . ” All of this was done
within
an open. forum setting. These “contributions” by the men were
like “testimonials,” heart-felt and emotional. This particular
black
man then went on to list his various outreach activities within
the community—voter registration, political activism through
the
local Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC), and ward
cam-
paigns—most of which was centered in an economically de-
pressed area of the city. In my opinion, this was a black man
who appeared committed to the positive development of black
people. After summarizing his contributions, he then asked,
“whether a black, gay man was going to be represented on the
platform on the day of the March.” You could have heard a pin
drop in the room. Finally, after a substantial period of silence,

another black man responded from across the room, “This
March
is about MEN!” What followed was a flurry of gay-bashing
com-
ments including, “We don’t want any faggots in here . . . ” What
struck me most profoundly about this scenario was how all the
contributions stated by this man seemed to be discounted and/
or dismissed because he mentioned the word gay. I must stress
that he did not say that he was gay. He asked whether or not a
black gay man was going to be represented on the platform. I
came away from the meeting questioning the meaning and defi-
nition of black manhood.
MAIN ISSUES
Sexuality
A theoretical emphasis on sexuality can generate textured
and significant data on intragroup difference. Additionally, ex-
ploring homosexuality among black men allows for a deeper
investigation of the assumed connection between sexuality and
gender. The tendency within some of the literature is not to dis-
tinguish gender from sexuality. Gender refers most directly to
ascribed roles, i.e., man and woman and how those roles are
lived out daily. Sexuality refers to one’s sexual orientation, i.e.,
heterosexual or homosexual. When discussing gender, or more
specifically, men and women, the assumption is that those be-
ing discussed are heterosexual. I also explore how and why cer-
tain ideas of manhood are perpetuated and revered. In that vein,
I explore answers to the following question: How do black gay
men experience constraint in defining or redefining gender?
More specifically, I am interested in understanding how the suc-
cessful, black gay men in this study make meaning of manhood
and gayness in their daily lives and the lives of other black
people.

Gender
When conducting scholarly research on black men the
following three things should be considered: 1) black masculin-
ity; 2) black manhood; and 3) the assumption that black men
are or should be heterosexual. Black masculinity is a concept
that
denotes a form of male behavior or expression. For some, black
masculinity incorporates certain physical attributes and mate-
rial possessions while for others it incorporates more intrinsic
qualities. The behavior can vary depending on the situation and
the variables involved. Black manhood denotes a more perma-
nent state of being. Arriving at manhood is a process. This pro-
cess includes ascertaining certain values, morals, and
experiences
and enacting specific responsibilities. Black manhood also im-
plies understanding this state of being in relation to family,
com-
munity and the larger society. It is necessary to emphasize race
in relation to masculinity, manhood, and gender because the
definitions and characterizations within the literature reflect the
oppression and racism that black men have had to endure in
the United States. This reality reinforces the interlocking pro-
cesses, i.e., the intersection of race, class and gender, which are
currently being debated within much of the social science lit-
erature. The voices of the men in this study have not only inte-
grated these variables, they have the added variable of sexual
orientation. Their experiences as black men are compounded in
a city and society where “a black man in a $600 suit can not get
a cab” (Cary: 1999). As successful black men they are charged
with the task of giving back. Yet, their own community
oftentimes compromises their status as men because of their

sexuality. The factor of race distinguishes black masculinity
from
masculinity in general. For black men, their definitions of mas-
culinity are situated in the context of having been born, raised
and currently living in the United States. Their lived
experiences
include the historical and psychological effects of racial, politi-
cal and economic oppression. Many researchers have examined
how these factors impact expressions of black masculinity (Hare
1985; Hooks 1995; Julien and Kobena 1992; Majors and Billson
1992; Marable 1995; and Staples 1982).
Clyde Franklin argues that, “[M]asculinities are con-
structed. Black masculinities, in particular, are constructed un-
der the cloud of oppression” (1994b: 278). I agree with
Franklin’s
analysis that masculinities are not only constructed, but con-
structed under oppression. My hope is to shed light on how a
masculine ideology influences the lives of the successful, black
gay men in this study.
Wise 7
THE PERCEIVED AND REAL PROCESS OF BECOMING
MASCULINE WHEN YOU’RE BLACK AND MALE:
Clyde Franklin asserts that for most black men the social-
ization process of masculinity is triangular in that there are
three
different entities or influences that contribute to the process.
He characterizes these factors as follows: the “black male’s pri-
mary group,” “black male peer group” and “mainstream soci-
ety and black males” (1994). For the purposes of this
discussion,

I think it is important to examine this socialization process as
an
inverted triangle. This approach will reveal the unique, complex
and seemingly contradictory position of the black gay male in
this socialization process. Franklin argues that mainstream soci-
ety has constructed, maintained and perpetuated a hegemonic
definition of masculinity by focusing on “proscriptive” instead
of “prescriptive teachings” to black men (1994: 14). Thomas
Gerschick and Adam Miller broaden this argument, through
their
research with physically disabled men, by asserting that there
are certain characteristics associated with masculinity that are
established, maintained and revered within society such as: in-
dependence, strength, autonomy, sexual prowess, athleticism,
occupational accomplishment, and procreation ( 1997).
Franklin then examines the role of the black male peer
group as a critical aspect in this socialization process. He notes,
“the Black male peer groups often serves as an anchor. He [the
black male] often finds refuge with those who are undergoing
the same conflicts, apprehensions, pleasures, and preparation
for adulthood” (Franklin 1994: 13). Franklin delves deeper into
the role of the black male peer group and in doing so reveals
the dual role that the group plays in confirming one’s masculin-
ity. He states,
Fortunately or unfortunately, the peer group slowly becomes
more and more a significant self-validating agency supplant-
ing, for a time, the primary group’s importance to the Black
male. Certainly, it is not unusual for the Black male peer
group to become the young Black male’s most significant
other nurturing his masculine identity. 13).
Similarly Roger Lancaster states that “machismo” for Nica-
raguan men is not only about relations between men and
women. Of equal note is the fact that machismo is about power

relations among men. The following provides a good example
of how important it is to have other men validate your mascu-
linity:
Like drinking, gambling, risk taking, asserting one’s opin-
ion, and fighting, the conquest of women is a feat performed
with two audiences in mind: first, other men, to whom one
must constantly prove one’s masculinity and virility; and sec-
ond, oneself, to whom one must also show all the signs of
masculinity (Lancaster 1992: 236–237)
The first element that Clyde Franklin outlines as key to
the masculine socialization process for black males is that of
the
black male primary group. He forwards that,
[T]he typical Black male’s primary group mirrors mainstream
societal values and norms, but usually from a Black commu-
nity perspective . . . The version of American values and be-
liefs imparting Black male socialization typically is tempered
by the Black experience in this country (Franklin 1994: 12).
This parallels Matthew Gutmann’s research in Mexico. He
asserts that,
Many Mexican men are curious about what it means to be a
Mexican, and what it means to be a man. One is not born
knowing these things; nor are they truly discovered. They
are learned and relearned (Gutmann 1997: 201).
This is particularly relevant to the experiences of black

men because it illuminates ethnicity, race and gender and how
those who share this same ethnic group or primary group shape
and prepare their men through a particular type of masculine
socialization process. Gutmann alludes to the conditions in
which
a man learns how to be masculine and what it will mean in the
larger realm of society.
With this as a background for understanding a socializa-
tion process of masculinity, I contend that many successful,
black
gay men absorb each of these elements along with the added
factor of their homosexuality. Because of their sexual orienta-
tion, black gay men are often depicted as anything but mascu-
line by the mainstream. The ridicule that the black gay men
receive from their peers and the silencing, which they receive
from their primary group, compromises their masculinity. These
competing pressures shape how the men think and express their
masculinity.
Successful, black gay men provide an Interesting case for
exploring Gerschick and Miller’s concept of hegemonic mascu-
linity because they for the most part have or partake in a major-
ity of the above-mentioned characteristics, with the exception
of one; that of perceived strength. The hegemonic masculinity
construct asserts strength as a descriptor for men and a gay
man,
because of his sexual orientation, is often perceived and/or rep-
resented as weak. Interestingly enough, when asked, “What does
Wise 9
it mean to be a black man?” the majority of the men included
the following two adjectives “strength” and “responsibility” in

their responses. Whitehead’s research on masculinity among Ja-
maican men reveals that respect and reputation are attributes
of strength and all men are measured by the influential com-
munity of men to which they belong for their ability to exhibit
strength (1992). Strength as it used by the black gay men in this
study refers to perseverance and endurance. It is a character
trait
as opposed to a physical look or ability.
When I asked Phil this question, his initial response was
a long period of silence. His discomfort with the question was
reflected in his body language as he continuously switched po-
sitions in his chair. Each time he would begin to say something,
he would then stop and wait a few more minutes. It was clear
that he was searching for the right words to express his ideas.
His following response reveals the layered quality of his emo-
tions, thoughts and experiences. He begins,
I think about the lack of relationship with my father. At age
43 I’m coming to some clarity about him. He had so much
pain in being a black man in the community. He inflicted
that pain. and struggle on us through his alcoholism and
violence. [pause]
Struggle to be a man in our own terms not based on the
larger white America power structure. That context has defi-
nitely affected our manhood . . . for many in our community
it means to exercise power, economically or physically be-
cause when I think about my dad because he couldn’t exer-
cise power economically and socially he chose to do it
physically (1999).
With the above as background, it becomes clear how and
why Phil defines manhood the way he does. He adds,
To be a man is to be strong. To be in control, to be in power.
To be in control of your emotions. Be in control of your fam-

ily. To the extent you can be in control, you’re going to be
in control, To be a real man which means being powerful
and in control of emotions, to be in control as much of your
life as you can be. For many of us to be a real man means
that you have that physical power and strength, control of
emotions, to have a cool pose. To be this masculine image
that we uphold. The standard that we have even though
we sleep with other men there’s still this mask that we have
to pretend to be considered a real man in the larger black
community [pause]. To be a man means THIS and it means
everything that’s not associated with being feminine which
means being feeling, being creative, nurturing. I’m not say-
ing it’s true for everybody, but where I grew up that was
the case (1999).
Literally days later, Phil expressed that the following
should also be included:
My personal experience, when I looked at the vast majority
of kids in the neighborhood where I grew up. We were the
only ones who had a dad at home, who was there, who
worked. Some of them didn’t know who their father
was . . . [pause] Strength to endure the pressure. To make a
place where there wasn’t one. My dad stayed on a job for
30 years. Alcoholism aside, he kept a roof over our head.
[pause] Strength of will, strength of character (1999).
Phil’s comment begins to get at the conflictual nature of
being a black gay man. He is very aware of what is considered
masculine based on his experiences with his father. He outlines
the behavior that is expected of a “real man” and in doing so

reveals his understanding of a masculine socialization process.
More specifically, Phil acknowledges a key component;
“power”
in what Michael. Kimmel refers to as a “hegemonic manhood”
(1994). This process, coupled with Phil’s thoughts on manhood,
demonstrates that as a gay man he is still very much aware of
what is expected of him as a black man by the black community.
The assumption is, of course, that a black man is masculine.
Phil’s
description of being a man is not so much a facade as an inter-
nal struggle to balance or reconcile what he knows and has
learned about being a real man with his sexuality. Both are im-
portant, but they can often compete and conflict with one an-
other. A question arises: How do successful, black gay men
respond to these pressures? Gerschick and Miller, based on their
research offer the following possibilities as responses to a hege-
monic masculinity:
. . . 1) reformulation, which entailed men! s redefinition of
hegemonic characteristics on their own terms; 2) reliance,
reflected by sensitive or hypersensitive adoptions of particu-
lar predominant attributes; and 3) rejection, characterized
by the renunciation of these standards and either the cre-
ation of one’s own principles and practices or the denial of
masculinity’s importance in one’s life (Gerschick and Miller
1997: 106).
In their varied responses to a hegemonic masculinity, the
men reveal the disparity between what they know and have
learned as black men. This disparity is nothing less than the so-
ciocultural meanings of masculinity and manhood within the
Wise 11

context of a white society. They also reveal the gap between
their own lived experiences as black gay men within the larger
black community. This relates to the “complex interlocking pro-
cesses of political, social and cultural forces” which are integral
elements of hegemony (Williams 1992: 108). Many of the men
are not able to entirely articulate these connections, but they
try to work out some way of living with it, In doing so, they
develop a triple consciousness, one of being a black man within
the context of a larger white society, another of being a black
man within the context of the larger black community, and fi-
nally being a black man whose sexual orientation differs from
the majority. What is interesting is that strength comes to de-
fine how some of the men view themselves not only as black
men but as black gay men. Theo illustrates this point,
Being a black GAY man sometimes it can relate to a black
man being better, being the best and being strong. Strength
is a huge thing just being a man period, let alone a black
gay man because of the taboos in our community which are
strong and deep-rooted and can be overwhelming . . . They
can be just so BURDENSOME They can be such a burden to a
black gay man; they can bring you down if you don’t have
enough strength to rise above them (1998).
I contend that these influences sometimes manifest them-
selves in contradictory ways as the men strive to make sense out
of the relationships and interactions dictated by these various
consciousnesses, and hegemonies they represent. It is clear that
this process is not static; it changes as the men come to terms
with who they are as men, and gay men in the black commu-
nity. Perhaps those who are most fully out challenge these he-
gemonic notions in a different way. They do so by taking the
emphasis off the implied heterosexuality as a prerequisite for
manhood. Melvin fully embraces his sexuality and views it as a
source of spiritual power that is to be shared. He says the fol-
lowing about what it means to be a black man, which goes be-

yond his sexuality:
We’re very enlightened men and we have to also let people
understand that to be gay does not mean not to be a man.
A definition of a man is not who you sleep with and whether
you play an aggressive or passive role in a given conjugal
environment, but how responsible and strong you are to
stand your ground on issues and circumstances (1999).
I assert that successful black gay men both embrace and
resist Gerschick and Miller’s notion of a “hegemonic masculin-
ity” (1997). I will also demonstrate how the men have
integrated
their experiences as black gay men within the context of the
larger black community.
Value of Masculinity
The men clearly understand the value placed on mascu-
linity both within the black gay community and the larger black
community. For example, Theo a 38–year old physician, has
stated
that, as a black gay man, [you] are considered “ . . . undesirable
if there is anything effeminate about you . . . ” (Theo 1998). He
adds, “ . . . what is expected is this masculine black gay man. In
other words, a straight man who just happens to sleep with men”
(Theo 1998). Dwayne states rather matter-of-factly that the
“value” of being masculine is “obvious” (1999). He draws a
slight
parallel between the value of being masculine within the black
community and the black gay community. He supports his view

by stating, “It’s been my experience that the people I know
would rather be with a man who was masculine as opposed to
one who wasn’t” (Dwayne 1999). Other gay men are more suc-
cinct in their description in simply stating, “You can’t be a
weak
bitch” (1999).
Alternately, Kevin, a 35–year old TV producer who stands
6 feet 2 inches tall and has colored his hair blonde, notes that
his hypnotizing walk is somewhere between a switch and a
swag-
ger. Kevin reveals how others outside the black gay community
perceive the public affection of two men as a surrendering of
their masculinity. This reflects the degree to which masculinity
is highly prized and considered a great loss within the context
of a homosexual relationship. Embedded in his statements is the
fact that who ever gives away his masculinity also gives away
his status and power as a man. He notes, “when people see two
men being publicly affectionate, the instant issue is . . . Who
sac-
rificed their masculinity? Which one of them is the woman?
Which one of them has given their power away” (Kevin 1999).
“Marcus” offers another interesting perspective in terms
of bow masculinity is valued and perceived by others who are
not gay, particularly black straight men. He asserts that fear is
one of the contributing factors that impedes real communica-
tion between black gay and straight men. Because masculinity
is so highly regarded among heterosexual men, the mere asso-
ciation of a straight man with a gay man is enough to discredit
the straight man’s masculinity. “Marcus” elaborates, “I also
think
that heterosexuals, particularly men, are afraid that if they are
in any way affiliated or connected with gay men that somehow

Wise 13
reflects or undermines their masculinity”(1999). This
observation
by “Marcus” reiterates Clyde Franklin’s point that,
When Black males are peer group controlled, the types of
masculinities evolving generally are based on the key traits
of aggressiveness, violence, competitiveness, heterosexual-
ity, cool poses, dominance, sexism, and passivity/indifference
in mainstream society (Franklin 1994: 15).
Franklin’s analysis of peer group controlled masculinities
illuminates how heterosexuality becomes valued as a trait/de-
scriptor for masculinity among many black men. It also reveals
that black gay men, because of their homosexuality, may not be
perceived as masculine by black straight men.
Who’s Masculine
Biggest misconception is that masculinity and black gay men
cannot be used in the same sentence (Theo 1999).
I have had informal conversations with black straight men
about my research. Interestingly enough, when I ask them to
define masculintiy, they have difficulty doing so. The same is
ac-
tually true for black gay men. Both can more easily say what
masculinity is NOT. However, the difference lies in the fact that
black straight men state that, “masculinity is NOT a way in
which
they describe other men. No black [straight] man goes around
saying he’s a real masculine guy. Gay men do that becaue they
feel they HAVE to” (anonymous 1999).

Another critical factor that plays into black straight men’s
view of masculinity is the distinct history of the black man in
America. His masculinity, after years of physical and mental
op-
pression and emasculation, seems to have become directly con-
nected to his ideas of manhood and his effort to overcome that
history. For some of the men I talked to being gay or more spe-
cifically engaging in homosexual activity reduces or minimizes
one’s standing as a masculine black man.
A Plurality of Masculinities: An Idealistic or Practical
Solution
One method of moving beyond the more polar or di-
chotomous examination of masculinity is to construct a mascu-
linity that incorporates difference, a “plurality of masculinities”
(Conway-Long 1994). The theoretical approaches to masculin-
ity, according to Conway-Long, do not recognize the diversities
that exist within a group. He forwards that the acknowledgment
of these diversities has eluded many ethnographers. Conway-
Long contends that those researchers whose theoretical frame-

work is devoid of diversity fall prey to the following assump-
tion: when a man just doesn’t fit, deviance becomes the stock
framework for analysis” (1994: 61–62). It is imperative that
black
men expand their idea and expressions of black masculinity to
black masculinities; moving from the singular to the plural.
Bell Hooks calls for a reconstruction of black masculinity
(1995). She argues that black masculinity has shifted from the
patriarchal to the phallocentric because black men live in a
capi-
talist society, which deprives them of their rights and exploits
their labor. Hooks contends that this has moved black men away
from patriarchal power toward a masculine status that depends
exclusively on their penis (1995). Hooks asserts that
challenging
this phallocentric expression would also entail combating the
compulsory heterosexuality that is embedded within it. She for-
wards that phallocentric masculinity undermines black solidar-
ity (1995). Hooks adds, “If black men no longer embraced
phallocentric masculinity, they would be empowered to explore
their fear and hatred of other men, learning new ways to re-
late” (Hooks 1995: …

ARTICLES
Brotherly Love: Homosociality and Black Masculinity
in Gangsta Rap Music
Matthew Oware
Published online: 20 March 2010
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract Hip hop, specifically gangsta rap music, reflects a
stereotypical black
masculine aesthetic. The notion of a strong black male—
irreverent, angry, defiant
and many times violent—is pervasive in gangsta rap music. This
badman trope, as
characterized by Robin Kelley (1996), oftentimes encompasses
hypermasculinity,
misogyny, and homophobia. It should come as no surprise that
this genre of rap
music is rife with sexist themes and lyrics. Yet, what has not
been fully explored are
the progressive ways that male rappers express themselves

towards others
considered comrades or “homies.” Homosociality (Bird 1996;
Sedgwick 1995),
non-sexual positive social bonds, exists in gangsta rap music
between men. This
study explores the notion of homosociality in this genre of
music, analyzing the
lyrics of male rap artists who have sold one million or more of
their compact discs,
for a total of 478 songs. I attempt to further unpack the idea of
hegemonic black
masculinity, presenting an alternative understanding of its
deployment and
manifestation in this music.
Keywords Black masculinity. Hip hop . Rap . Homosociality
Gangsta rap music, the most popular selling subgenre of rap
music, is predicated on
an essentialized and limited construction of black masculinity.
Various scholars have
discussed the notion of black male authenticity within rap music
(Kitwana 2002;
Ogbar 2007; Rose 2008). Many rappers construct a black male
subjectivity that

incorporates the notion that masculinity means exhibiting
extreme toughness,
invulnerability, violence and domination (Anderson 1990, 1999;
Collins 2005;
Majors and Billson 1992; Neal 2006). Moreover, the
cornerstones of gangsta rap
music—hypermasculinity, misogyny, and homophobia—pervade
the genre. Howev-
er, what has received scant attention are the instances where
black male rappers
express their humanity towards other men they consider their
friends. This research
J Afr Am St (2011) 15:22–39
DOI 10.1007/s12111-010-9123-4
M. Oware (*)
DePauw University, 306 Asbury Hall, Greencastle, IN 46135,
USA
e-mail: [email protected]
explores and highlights this little analyzed aspect of the medium
via content analysis

of rap lyrics. In the end, black male rappers exhibit more than
the staples of gangsta
rap, forcing a re-examination of this group and black
masculinity overall.
Rappers routinely engage in hyperbolic masculinity, rhyming
about their virility
and strength, flaunting their muscles or pumping their chests on
their album covers
and music videos. An element of rapper discourse is the
invincibility of the rap artist.
No rapper encounters defeat by his competitors. Indeed,
according to many gangsta
rap artists, it would take an army of soldiers to even hurt them.
One of the reasons
that these individuals are seemingly impenetrable rests in their
brandishing of
weapons from small hand guns to large semiautomatic weapons
that are aimed at
their opponents. Moreover, rapper etiquette dictates a
propensity for violence
towards those who show disrespect. The imagined or real death
of a competitor or
rival engenders no remorse or sorrow. Taken together, these
characteristics personify

what it means to be black and male in gangsta rap—a “real
nigga.” Ogbar (2007)
writes:
Subsequent rappers like Tupac and Jay-Z have celebrated the
thug life while
underscoring their real nigga status. Within this framework,
rappers who extol
ghettoized pathology (drug selling, gang banging, violence,
pimping, etc.)
affirm their realness. All other groups become peripheral and
must conform to
the standard established by this group. So lyrically and
stylistically all artists
place themselves within this contextual framework and to
varying degrees
appropriate [apparent] young African American male styles and
markers (p. 43).
This embodiment or performance of supposed black manhood
manifests itself by
male rappers engaging in “beefs” or verbal battles (and
sometimes physical disputes)
with challengers who feel that they have been disrespected. The
most famous and

tragic of these feuds happened between gangsta rappers Tupac
Shakur and Notorious
B.I.G. and their record labels, Death Row and Bad Boy records.
Unfortunately, both
rappers were murdered by unknown assailants. More recently
we witness the
tensions between rappers 50 Cent and Ja Rule, as well as Jay-Z
and the Game—all
exhibiting hypermasculinity.
In their works, Neal (2006), Majors and Billson (1992), and
Collins (2005)
discuss how hypermasculinity constructs a kind of “strong black
man,” “cool pose,”
and “real man” demeanor among black men, respectively.
Specifically, a particular
presentation of self (Goffman 1959) emerges due to the limited
opportunities that
many black males face in their daily lives. In discussing the
masculine aesthetic he
identifies as the “Strong Black Man,” Neal (2006) claims its
genesis began 400 years
ago due to the enslavement, violence, and continued economic
exploitation of this
group. As a result, black males created a “functional myth” to

help them handle their
plight (p. 21). Majors and Billson (1992) write that although
black males defined
their manhood similarly to white males—provider, breadwinner,
procreator, and
protector—they did not have the necessary resources to fulfill
these roles.
Consequently, they created the “cool pose,” understood as
“[u]nique patterns of
speech, walk, and demeanor...it is a ritualized form of
masculinity that entails scripts,
physical posturing, impression management, and carefully
crafted performances that
deliver a single, critical message: pride, strength, and control”
(p. 2–4). Concurring
J Afr Am St (2011) 15:22–39 2323
with Neal (2006) and Majors and Billson (1992), Collins (2005)
writes “because so
many African American men lack access to forms of political
and economic power
that are available to elite White men, the use of their bodies,

physicality, and a form
of masculine aggressiveness become more important. Black men
experience
violence, often at the hands of other Black men” (p. 190).
This type of masculinity informs the “code of the street,”
whereby black males
who live in predominately urban and poor environments
comport themselves in a
manner deterring any sort of altercation with other individuals;
thus, males must
come off as aggressive or inclined to violence in order to
prevent violent
confrontations from ensuing (Anderson 1999). This behavior is
reinforced and
magnified when concentrated poverty, high crime and
joblessness exist in these
settings (Anderson 1999; Massey and Denton 1993; Wilson
1996). Popular gangsta
rapper 50 Cent presents an example of this violent
hypermasculine stance when he
states, “You see me in the hood, I got at least two guns/I carry
the glock, Tony car
my M-1s.” (2003). These aspects of black manhood present
concomitant

weaknesses, namely a “stunted, conservative, one-dimensional,
and stridently
heterosexual vision of black masculinity” (Neal 2006, p. 24).
This constricted
masculinity leads to blatant misogyny and homophobia in rap.
Misogyny abounds in gangsta rap. More than any other aspect
of this musical
genre, misogyny has been the focal point of hip hop research
(see Perry 2004 and
Sharpley-Whiting 2007 for detailed analyses). The excessive
deployment of
demeaning and denigrating language towards women, especially
black women,
permeates the music (Adams and Fuller 2006). For example,
using lyrics analyzed in
this work, on their compact disc D12 World (2004), the group
D12 has a song
entitled “Bitch” with lyrics stating, “Wiggle that ass,
bitch...Yeah, I called you a
bitch, bitch.” In addition to degrading language, the
objectification of women occurs
in the portrayal of them in skimpy clothing, vacuously gyrating
around fully-clothed
males, epitomizing current rap videos. Tricia Rose (2008), the

foremost authority on
hip hop, writes “Hip hop’s sexism is visible, vulgar, aggressive
and popular...clearly,
the issue isn’t if [emphasis mine] hip hop—as it has evolved in
the commercial arena
over the past dozen years or so—promotes sexist and demeaning
images of black
women as its bread-and-butter” (p. 114). Agreeing, Perry (2004)
writes that rap
music often presents women as hypersexualized “gold diggers”
who attempt to take
advantage of men (p. 128).
Kelley (1996) contends the denigration of women arises from
the fear of female
sexuality—black males’ failure of meeting the wants or desires
of black women.
Other scholars argue that the images in videos and messages in
the music are
reflective of the real tensions between black males and females.
Black females
making advancements beyond black males in the workplace and
in school
necessitates a need for said males to regain their footing by
“putting women in

their place” (Cole and Guy-Sheftall 2003; Collins 2005;
Kitwana 2002). Collins
(2005) states that one of the benchmarks of current “real man”
black masculinity
includes control of black women (p. 189). Consequently, a
hegemonic form of
masculinity develops in the medium of rap wherein black males
attempt to dominate
black women aurally (in the music) and visually (in music
videos) (Sharpley-
Whiting 2007). Indeed, Collins writes, “Black men’s visibility
within basketball, rap,
24 J Afr Am St (2011) 15:22–39
and hip-hop culture has provided a new and highly visible
cultural arena for
reasserting an adult Black masculinity...” (p. 191).
Another pervasive aspect of gangsta rap that is directly
connected to misogyny
and hypermasculinity is homophobia. Male rappers routinely
embrace pejorative

language with an anti-gay stance. Hill (2009) writes “...hip
hop’s most popular artists
over the past five years have consistently deployed antigay
rhetoric within their
music. For example, top selling rappers like Nas, Jay-Z, Nelly,
50 Cent, Eminem, Ja
Rule, and DMX have all used terms like ‘faggot’ and ‘homo’ to
disparage gay and
lesbian people, as well as emasculate real and imagined
enemies” (p. 32). For
example, DMX, in his song “Where the Hood At,” from his
compact disc Grand
Champ (2003) rhymes: “Last I heard, y’all niggas was havin
sex, with the same sex/I
show no love to homo thugs/how you gonna explain fuckin’ a
man.” Lamenting this
trend, gay rapper Tim’m in his interview with Chang (2006)
states that hip hop is the
last self-congratulatory arena for homophobia (p. 200).
Although homophobic
references are employed to demean and belittle male rivals and
gays and lesbians,
gay and lesbian sexual identities are indispensible to promoting
a heteronormative
masculinity. Tim’m, in his interview with Chang (2006),

continues: “Hip hop heteros
rely heavily on the inappropriate faggot in order to even exist.
In a really twisted sort
of way, they rely on the verbal bashing of fags in order to
substantiate their manhood...
Sadly hard edge and masculinity almost always means you hate
fags” (p. 203). Collins
(2005) contends that some heterosexual black men may resort to
violence against
gay men who threaten their heterosexuality (p. 192). This point
is easily
recognizable in many gangsta rap songs when rappers rhyme
about “beating up”
or “killing” gay men.
An even more perverse type of homophobia perpetuating black
male control
targets lesbians, especially lesbians of color, a group rarely
discussed when anti-gay
conversations occur in rap (Pritchard and Bibbs 2007). In this
realm, uber alles-
heterosexual male rappers not only conquer male competitors
and heterosexual
women, they also sexually dominate lesbians. In essence, as
Sharpley-Whiting

(2007) cogently writes: “Viewed through the prism of the
hypermasculine culture of
hip hop, lesbians and lesbianism are in some respects the final
frontier of conquest.
The prevailing mentality is that all lesbians need a ‘good stiff
one’ to set them on a
‘straight’...course” (p. 15). Thus, a lesbian identity vanishes
with a heterosexual
encounter with a dominant and domineering male rapper.
Albeit sexist and ostensibly hateful, the aforementioned aspects
of commercial
black male rap draw on the “badman” trope (Kelley 1996; Perry
2004; Ogbar 2007).
The badman originated in the fables of Stagolee and Shine and
continued in the
1970s black exploitation movie characters of Dolomite, the
Mack, and Superfly, as
well as in the sports arena with athletes like Muhammed Ali or
Charles Barkley.
Partly a creation of racism and classism, the badman is feared
by whites and middle-
class black society for his non-conformity, eschewing
established rules, norms, or
laws of society. Rather, he moves to his own tune and “...is an

outlaw, challenging a
societal order antithetical to the expression of African American
humanity. He is a
rebel to society, living on the margins of a black community
that at once regards him
as a hero and a threat” (Perry 2004, p.128). Drug dealers,
hustlers, pimps, and
players adhere and abide by badman behavior. All emphasize
their sexual and
physical prowess, fully embracing misogyny and homophobia as
part of their
J Afr Am St (2011) 15:22–39 2525
character. Under the guise of “strong black men” or “real men”
(Neal 2006; Collins
2005) gangsta rap artists uphold and perpetuate this aspect of
masculinity.
Unlike homophobia, misogyny, and hypermasculinity, another
dimension of
masculinity within rap has received little attention—
homosociality. Homosociality is

defined as individuals of the same-sex exihibiting strong social
bonds toward one
another in a non-sexual manner (Bird 1996; Sedgwick 1985;
Flood 2008). Previous
research has found that homosociality plays a critical role in
perpetuating hegemonic
masculinity and mediating heterosexual male-female
relationships. Bird (1996)
interviewed predominately white college educated males finding
three criteria for
manhood: an emotional detachment from women; engaging in
competition (whether
in sports or for women) with other men; and sexually
objectifying women. All of
these aspects are exhibited in front of and must meet the
approval of other
heterosexual males. Similarly, among his all English-speaking
Australian male
respondents, Flood (2008) found that homosocial male
relationships were supposed
to be prioritized over male-female types of relationships
(platonic or sexual).
Moreover, the purpose of male-female relationships was solely
for sexual
intercourse. Finally, male bonding occurs by heterosexual sex

talk, specifically,
men telling each other stories of their sexual conquests (p. 6).
This hegemonic
masculinity proliferates because men seek the approval of other
men in homosocial
relationships (Kimmel 1994). Thus according to this research,
homosocial male
spaces encompass homophobia, sexism, and hyper-
competitiveness (Bird 1996;
Kimmel 1994).
Previous research on homosociality among males primarily
depicts the adverse
and negative aspects of masculinity, or boys-behaving-badly.
Perhaps this lies in the
fact that those who have been interviewed are predominately
white males,
individuals who are “closest” to the dominant form of white
masculinity; for
example, only two of the 11 males that Bird (1996) interviewed
were black.
However, because many black males are marginalized in
American society,
possessing higher rates of prison incarceration, mortality,
joblessness, and lower

rates of educational attainment, middle-class status, and quality
healthcare in
comparison to elite white males, they face a different
relationship to hegemonic
masculinity (Collins 2005; Kimmel 1994). Both Kimmel (1994)
and Collins (2005)
discuss how non-hegemonic males (for example, minority or
gay men) are routinely
“othered” by white, elite, heterosexual males. Collins (2005)
specifically states that a
three-tiered hierarchy of masculinity exists with white males at
the top and black
males at the bottom, possessing the perceived least desirable
form of manhood.
Black masculinity, while drawing on various negative
components of white
hegemonic masculinity (i.e. hypermasculinity, sexism and
homophobia), especially
in rap music, may be more dynamic and complex than at first
glance.
Since prior research on hip hop has documented the
aforementioned harmful
aspects of black masculinity in rap music, this study explores
how blacks interact

with other black males in potentially empowering and caring
ways. What do rappers
who engage in homosocial rhetoric say about their “homies” or
those that they
consider friends? How does this inform black masculinity? Are
there instances
where black male rappers deliberately and intentionally express
affection, gratitude,
and even vulnerability towards other black males? The answers
to these questions
expand and enhance our understanding of black masculinity
within rap, particularly
26 J Afr Am St (2011) 15:22–39
male-male relationships, by presenting instances where males
express a broader and
more complex range of emotions and feelings than typically
discussed and analyzed
in rap music. The results demonstrate that black gangsta
rappers, as expressed
through their lyrics, are more humane than initially thought.

Methods
This exploratory study examines the themes that emerge when
black rap artists
rhyme about individuals who are not their competitors or
adversaries, but their
friends. It complements existing literature that discusses the
cultural development of
hip hop as a popular art form (see Chang 2005), as well as how
rap music informs
racial, gender, and class dynamics (see Morgan 1999; Rose
2008) by employing a
content or lyrical analysis of popular selling rap albums.
Through a systematic
technique for obtaining and analyzing songs, I seek to evince
generalizable findings
based on an established sociological methodology. Such
methods are employed in
the works of Kubrin (2005a; 2005b) and Oware (2009) in
reference to this medium.
Specifically, after reading the lyrics and listening to songs in
order to discern
intonation and intention, I perform a lyrical analysis of top
selling albums (25 in all)
by black male rap artists whose individual compact discs sold at

least one million
copies or more (see Appendix). Hence, I analyze popular
mainstream rap music for
the messages conveyed about male-male friendships.
This selection process yielded an overall sample of 478 songs.
Sexism, misogyny,
bravado, violence, or homophobia saturated all the albums and
nearly every song.
These topics permeate the music as expected by previous
research. However, other
subject matters surfaced in relation to black male camaraderie.
These topics included
rappers defining their male friends as family members (friends
are family), rappers
utilizing their personal achievements for the benefit of their
male friends (success by
association), and finally lamenting or mourning the
incarceration or death of a
companion (loss of friends). Specifically, coding was based on
the presence of these
themes in individual songs. Instances of “friends are family”
were based on
references wherein rappers equated friendship with familial ties,
for example, “we

are more than friends we are family,” or a similar sentiment.
“Success by
Association” entailed cases where rappers mentioned sharing
their material wealth
or other resources with their friends, an example being “my
money is your money”
or something to that affect. Finally, “loss of friends” referred to
rappers lamenting
the loss of their buddies to incarceration or death; for example,
“I am sad he died” or
a similar emotion (see Appendix). If a song had either one or
multiple lyrics that
expressed any of these topics then that song was coded once for
that specific theme.
Thus, if there are multiple lyrics that indicated loss of friends
(or any of the other
subject matters) in one song, then that song was only coded
once for this theme.
Although very few, there are some instances of entire songs
devoted to one topical
area. A minority of songs in the entire sample mentioned more
than one theme (4%).
Over a third (37%) of the songs of the entire sample made
reference to at least one of
these themes. Consequently, they constituted a much smaller

focus of discussion.
Nonetheless, their presence should encourage a nuanced
understanding of these
artists and their music.
J Afr Am St (2011) 15:22–39 2727
Before examining the aforementioned aspects within the genre it
is worth noting
the varied ways that rappers referred to someone as a friend:
“dog” or “dawg,”
“partner” or “partna” and “homie,” short for homeboy. The most
controversial, yet
frequently iterated characterization was “my nigga.” In rap
parlance this apparent
racial slur also designates a term of endearment or a friendly
appellation between
black males (Kennedy 2003). Thus, when discussing examples
of homosociality
these phrases are mentioned.
Analysis

Friends Are Family
For several rappers, friend is synonymous with family. From his
song “Family
Business” on the compact disc College Dropout (2004), Kanye
West explains: “All
my niggas from the Chi, that’s my family dog/And my niggas
ain’t my guys, they
my family dog/I feel like one day you’ll understand me dog/
You can still love your
man and be manly dog.” Kanye asserts that his connection with
other males goes
beyond mere friendship, something more than just having his
“guys.” Rather, his
friends comprise his family, an intimately closer and personal
tie for an associate.
Contrary to the blatant homophobia in most rap music, Kanye
presents an ostensibly
anti-homophobic stance wherein he fully embraces the idea of
demonstrating
affection for another male, yet maintaining “manliness.”
Similarly to Kanye, the transgression of heteronormative
masculinity surfaces in
the lyrics of Young Jeezy’s song “Dreamin” on his compact disc

Inspiration (2007).
The artist says: “One thing about it, I got love for you homie/
Two things about it,
I’ll take a slug for you homie/ Look at you now, you’se a
business man/ I’m proud of
you dog, handle your business man/You like the brother I never
ever had.” Jeezy’s
robust fondness for his friend engenders putting himself in
harm’s way—“tak[ing] a
slug”—for this person. This sort of behavior typifies parents’
attitudes towards their
children or lovers’ outlooks towards their significant other. Yet,
this rapper illustrates
these views when referring to another male in a platonic
manner. Indeed, Jeezy
claims a familial bond stronger than simple camaraderie towards
his “homie,”or in
this case, a fictitious brother. Outkast member Big Boi
articulates how biological ties
extend into the realm of companionship when he raps: “Marcus,
Jason, my little
brother James/ All my brothers from my momma but Andre is
just the same/Ain’t no
uno, we a duo, deuce dos to a pair.” These ostensibly sincere
words suggest a deeper

connection to his fellow rap mate Andre.
The last example for this category comes from the song
“Loyalty” by the group
D12 on their compact disc D12 World (2004). In the song,
several artists in the
group rhyme about the importance of loyalty in their
constructed family. Swifty
McVay explodes: “Why would I give a fuck about you if we
ain’t family?/ I roll with
a chosen few and those of you that’s behind me.” Revealing
bravado and a certain
level of vulnerability, Swifty’s statement seems intent on
expressing how important
he takes friendship. Conveying the literal meaning of the song
another member of
the group, Kon Artist, states in the chorus: “See I’m a man, and
a man gon’ do what
he gotta do/ And if they was really soldiers then they would do
what we do/And be
28 J Afr Am St (2011) 15:22–39

loyal to crew and crew was loyal to you.” Clearly, the primacy
of solidarity to fellow
members or “crew,” dominates. This maxim epitomizes
manhood, according to Kon
Artist. Moreover, he admonishes other male groups to
incorporate this principle in
their own friendships.
Even though friends as family is a small theme in the sample
(found in less than
5% of songs) when discussed it reveals an alternative view of
black masculinity.
This aspect challenges the prevailing narrowly defined notions
about black male rap
artists. The nuance becomes even more apparent when analyzing
how rap artists
share their success with companions.
Success by Association
Practically every rap artist analyzed who achieved success
monetarily or otherwise
imparted those resources to their friends. An example of this
comes from “Do You
Wanna Ride” by Jay-Z from his album Kingdom Come (2007):

Yeah nigga I bet we was kids and had dreams of bein here/
I said ‘we’ cause I’m here, you here!/
Yeah, ride with me, your spot is reserved family/
Cigarette boats, yachts, ain’t nowhere we can’t go/
We in South Beach and the Hamptons too baby/
In the name of those who ain’t made it, my progress/
Show success, please live through me/
I put my niggaz on, my niggaz put they niggaz on/
In this verse, Jay-Z makes it abundantly clear that he will
provide material
resources to those considered friends, whether that entails trips
to expensive
locations (the Hamptons or South Beach) or rides on luxurious
boats. Moreover, he
incorporates the previous theme of friends-are-family with his
felt obligation to share
his wealth with these individuals. He ends by discussing how
his actions are
communal in nature, the resources given to his buddies should
be shared with their
friends, and so on. This behavior exhibits the principal of “what
is mine is thine,”
wherein those who have the means share their resources with

those who do not.
Similarly to Jay-Z, rapper Ludacris, in his song “Large
Amount” from the
compact disc Red Light District (2005) rhymes: “My goal is to
set my friends up to
make some paper like me/ Put’em in position to make they
wishes come-true/ So
they can have multiple accounts that gain interest overnight/
Given a million dollars
what you gon’ do?” Contradicting the narcissistic and ego-
centric attitude that most
artists exhibit in their lyrics, Ludacris queries the listener: what
is a millionaire’s
obligation to his friends? He responds by saying that he must
“set” them “up” and
create opportunities where they can earn money themselves. In
his guest appearance
on the rapper T.I.’s “On Top of the World” (2008), Ludacris
declares: “Put one of my
partners right through culinary school/Now he my personal chef
so that bread, he get
it/Put’em all in houses, cleaned up all my friends’ credit /And
now they witnessed all
the glitz and the glamour.” Ludacris’s munificence ranges from

covering the full
tuition of a friend through school to restoring the credit of those
who needed it,
presumably through paying their bills. While Ludacris
demonstrates his generosity,
for some other rappers sharing wealth and fame are mandates.
J Afr Am St (2011) 15:22–39 2929
In his song “Drugs” from his compact disc U Gotta (2004) Lil
Flip says: “And
since Will Lean my nigga, I gotta help him out/ So I’ma put him
out (so nigga kick
ya feet up)/ And when the stores sell-out (then it’s time to re-
up)/So keep yo D-up,
cuz we comin’ with the heat man/And if you get a deal make
sure yo niggaz eat
man.” Lil Flip’s message to the listener verges on reprimand—
material wealth or
fame gained by one requires its redistribution to close
associates. Such action
becomes mandatory, not only done out of the kindness of one’s
heart. Overall,

implicit in the lyrics of the aforementioned rappers, individual
achievements cannot
stand alone, especially when buddies need help, monetarily or
otherwise. When male
friends face even greater troubles such as imprisonment, or even
death, then some
rappers verbalize their grief and sorrow.
Lament of Lost Friends
On every compact disc, with multiple references in some songs,
rap artists
poignantly discuss the loss of a friend to incarceration or death.
The rapper T.I.
dedicates an entire song, “You Ain’t Missing Nothing” to an
imprisoned companion
on his compact disc Paper Trail (2008). He bemoans:
My nigga Cap right now servin’ a life sentence/
For a murder he committed in self-defense/
And in such good spirits, shawty ain’t even trippin’/
And I could be right there with him, no bullshittin’/
He on his ninth year now, just waitin’ to get out/
Got me thinkin’ my shit ain’t even worth complainin about/
Cuz it can still be worse, fa sho’/

T.I. expresses his …
Effects of Parents Deportation on Children
Amuedo-dorantes, C., Pozo, S., & Puttitanum, T. (2015).
Immigration enforcement, parent-child separations, and intent
to remigrate by Central American deportees. Demography,
52(6), 1825-1851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-015-0431-0
Baum, J. (2010). In the child’s best interest? The consequences
of losing a lawful immigrant to parent deportation. DIANE
Publishing
Dettlaff, A. J., & Fong, R. (2016). Immigrant and refugee
children and families: Culturally responsive practice. Columbia
University Press
Doering-White, J., Horner, P., Sanders, L., Martinez, R., &
Lopez W. (2016). Testimonial Engagement: Undocumented
Latina Mothers Navigating a Gendered Deportation Regime.
Journal of International Migration and Integration, 17(2),352-
340. https://doi/10.1007/s12134-014-0408-7
Dreby, J. (2010). Divided by borders: Mexican migrants and
their children. Berkeley: University of California Press

Dreby, J. (2015). Everyday illegal: When policies undermine
immigrant families. Oakland, California: University of
California Press
Evans, F. B., & Hass, G. A. (2018). Forensic psychological
assessment in immigration court: A guidebook for evidence-
based and ethical practice. Taylor & Francis
García, C. C. T. (2012). The impact of immigration on
children's development. Karger Medical and Scientific
Publishers
Heidbrink, L. (2014). Migrant youth, transnational families, and
the state: Care and contested interests. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press
In Boehm, D. A., & In Terrio, S. J. (2019). Illegal encounters:
The effect of detention and deportation on young people. NYU
Press
In De, G. N., & In Peutz, N. (2010). The Deportation regime:
Sovereignty, space, and the freedom of movement. Duke
University Press

In Haugen, D. M., & In Musser, S. (2013). The children of
undocumented immigrants. Greenhaven Publishing LLC
Jacobs, J. L. (2016). The holocaust across the generations:
Trauma and its inheritance among descendants of survivors.
NYU Press
Lopez, W. D. (2019). Separated: Family and community in the
aftermath of an immigration raid. JHU Press
Mayorga-Gallo, S., & Valdés, G. (2017). Mi padre: Mexican
immigrant fathers and their children's education. Teachers
College Press
McKenna, K. (2011). A global perspective of children's rights:
Advocating for U.S.-citizen minors after parental deportation
through federal subagency creation. Family Law Quarterly,
45(3), 397-417
Membreno, J. E., Huynh-Hohnbaum, A.-L., & California State
University, Los Angeles. (2017). Parental Deportation:
Psychological Effects on the Children Left Behind. California
State University
Morey, B. N. (2018). Mechanisms by which anti-immigrant
stigma exacerbates racial/ethnic health disparities. American

Journal of Public Health, 108(4),40-463.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304266
Oliveira, G. (2018). Motherhood across borders: Immigrants and
their children in Mexico and New York. NYU Press
Regan, M. (2015). Detained and deported: Stories of immigrant
families under fire. Beacon Press
Siemons, R., Raymond-flesh, M., Auerswald, C. L., & Brindis,
C. D. (2017).coming of age on the margins: Mental health and
wellbeing among Latino immigrant young adults eligible for
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Journal of
Immigrant and Minority Health, 19(3), 543-551.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-016-0354-x
Silvia, R. V. (2018). Borders and badges: Arizona’s children
confront detention and deportation through art. Latino Studies,
16(3), 310-340. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41276-018-0132-0
Suárez-Orozco, C. (2009). Children of immigration. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press
Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Immigrants raising citizens:
Undocumented parents and their young children. New York,
New York: Russell Sage Foundation
Zayas, L. H. (2015). Forgotten citizens: Deportation, children,

and the making of American exiles and orphans. Oxford
University Press
OUTLINE
7
PART 2- OUTLINE
Author’s Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Part 2- OUTLINE
I. Introduction
Immigrant families always live in fear of the realization of their
status by the immigration officials. When a member(s) of a
family face deportation, the community and other members of
the family they leave behind feel the effects. The numbers of
deportation cases have rapidly increased in the last few years
with the effects of the same felt by the countries, society, and
international relations. In most immigrant families, they have at
least one undocumented family member risking deportation.
II. Body
1) Children face lots of difficulties adjusting in their countries

Evidence-Based Recommendations on Deportation of Immigrant Parents

Evidence-Based Recommendations on Deportation of Immigrant Parents

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais de danas19

Mais de danas19 (20)

Último

Último (20)

Evidence-Based Recommendations on Deportation of Immigrant Parents