First Three Page Draft

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

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).

terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering 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

terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering 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).

terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering 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

terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering Masculinity 93

prospects agreed to be interviewed. As the research evolved, additional partici- pants were identified and invited to participate in the study; this is an example of snowball or chain sampling (Patton, 2002), wherein existing participants were asked to recommend the study to other BGMUs at their university with whom they were familiar. These steps yielded a second wave of participants (n =19), bringing the total sample to 29. Snowball sampling proved most appropriate for accessing this sample of students; therefore, the lead researcher decided to use these procedures to identify “cases of interest from people who know people who know people who know what cases are information-rich, that is, good examples for study, good interview subjects” (Patton, p. 182).

Table 1 shows several major demographic characteristics of the partici- pants, all of whom are identified hereafter by a self-selected pseudonym.

Data collection

Data were collected via semi-structured, in-depth one-on-one interviews over a 24-month period. The purpose of interviewing is to “find out what is in and on someone else’s mind” (Patton, 1990, p. 278). In this case, we wanted to

94 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2

know about Black gay male collegians’ experiences and the meaning they make of manhood and their masculine identities. Interviews were conducted in a way to elicit stories from each participant about his construction and negotia- tion of masculine identity(-ies), as recommended by methodologists (Vy- gotsky, 1987). Interviews, on average, lasted approximately 90 minutes, al- though they ranged from 60 to 200 minutes across the sample. Consistent with the study’s design (Kvale, 1996), interview length varied across participants because some needed more time than others to recall their understanding of manhood and masculine identities, to convey their feelings through spoken words, and to work through some emotions (e.g., crying, anger) that were evoked as they responded to our questions. In some cases, ambiguities and ad- ditional questions were resolved by follow-up correspondence with the inter- viewee via telephone, e-mail, or in-person.

A semi-structured interview protocol was employed that included ques- tions about each participant’s demographic background (e.g., “What is your race/ ethnicity?”); prior schooling experiences (e.g., “Tell me about your time in high school”); and his self-beliefs about, perceptions of, and responses to Black mas- culinity and manhood. Questions were designed to elicit recollections of notable experiences, people, and circumstances related to their development of mascu- line beliefs. Where necessary, follow-up probes were used to prompt reconstruc- tions of BGMUs’ experiences (e.g., “Can you tell me about a time when… ?”).

As this qualitative study sought to understand one’s collegiate experiences and the meanings attached to such experiences, the amount of time required for serious reflection and critical analysis of data was great (Patton, 1990). Thus, all interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed verbatim for subsequent analysis. Transcripts were stored electronically using NVivo®, a quali- tative data analysis and management software. Storing transcripts electronically allowed the research team to retrieve data at any time to read, re-read, and read again the experiences shared by our participants.

Since we wished for our interviews to be candid, we promised our partici- pants confidentiality, which proved to be important to several of our respon- dents. For example, five interviews had to be conducted in clandestine locations away from central campus (e.g., a local coffee shop, a library study room) and some participants asked questions about how interviews would be transcribed, who would see the transcripts, and how they would be accessed in the future. Answering their questions, building rapport, and using pseudonyms provided by participants seemed to quell any concerns about anonymity and confidenti- ality (Glesne, 1989). Although pseudonyms may mask their “real” identities (Grinyer, 2002), participants can be described in “rich, thick description”

terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering Masculinity 95

(Geertz, 1973), which has come to be known as the hallmark of good qualita- tive research.

Data Analysis

Interview data were analyzed in three stages using the constant compari- son method, as described by Strauss and his colleagues (Strauss, 1995; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). First, transcripts were read and re-read to generate initial cat- egories of information or codes that represented “an initial plot of the terrain” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 69); this is known as open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Coding is the process of “organizing the material into ‘chunks’ before bringing meaning to those chunks” (Rossman & Rallis, 1998, p. 171).

Next, codes were collapsed by grouping categories that seemed to relate to each other while leaving intact those that stood independent from all others. This smaller list of categories was used to generate “supercodes,” or prelimi- nary themes. Lastly, themes were compared and contrasted to understand the degree to which they were similar; closely related themes were collapsed or re- named so that the “whole name” reflected the sum of its parts. This iterative process was repeated until no new codes or themes were found—a point called saturation in the literature (Miles & Huberman, 1994). A final list of themes was agreed upon by the researchers to represent the major findings of the study. Each participant reviewed the final list of themes and he was able to clarify, re- vise, ask questions, and add elements, if necessary.

trustworthiness and Quality

Several steps were taken to enhance trustworthiness and ensure quality of the data and subsequent findings in this study. Lincoln and Guba (1986) identify four measures by which rigor and accuracy in qualitative research can be evaluated: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. These four metrics “replace the usual positivist criteria of internal and external validity, reliability, and objectivity” used in quantitative studies (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 21). Credibility was assured through member checks, follow- up correspondence, and storage of all data sources that could be easily retrieved and (re)tested throughout the entire research process. Additionally, members of the research team discussed presuppositions, preliminary ideas, and inter- pretations with each other, as well as with three peer debriefers—that is, disin- terested but skilled peers who were qualitative research experts and/or famil- iar with BGMUs’ issues. For instance, the initial protocol included questions that asked about “gay life.” Peer debriefers offered helpful advice to change the wording so that those who meet the sampling criteria, but may identify

96 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2

differently (see Table 1), could respond without confusion about terminology and language.

To ensure transferability, rich, thick descriptions of both sites and par- ticipants are provided in the report. Findings from this study will likely trans- fer to BGMUs who face similar experiences in other PWIs. But as many have explained, ultimately, transferability is primarily the responsibility of readers (Denzin, 1989).

Finally, dependability and confirmability were ensured through audit trails conducted by members of the research team, peer debriefers, and one ex- ternal graduate student who became involved in the research over time. De- spite our many attempts to render findings that are credible, transferable, de- pendable, and trustworthy, according to Henstrand (1991), we cannot promise that these findings represent anyone’s truth but our own and our best attempt to “re-present” BGMUs’ experiences of (and with) masculinity and manhood as told through their stories, vignettes, and their own voices. Indeed, partici- pants’ perspectives have been interpreted in the section that follows and inter- pretation may distort their intended meaning; however, member checking and related procedures described above should have reduced, if not eliminated, this effect (Glesne, 2006).

FINDINGS

In our attempt to understand BGMUs’ construction and negotiation of Black masculinity(-ies) and manhood, three major themes were identified using the analytic approach described in the previous section: (a) BGMUs, at times, accept, adhere to, and perform traditionally masculine norms, (b) some BGMUs intentionally or subconsciously challenge hegemonic notions of Black masculinity through their behaviors and self-beliefs, and (c) some BGMUs rec- ognize that their constructions of masculinity and manhood are influenced by other social factors and locations. Each of these themes is unpacked and ex- plained below, using verbatim quotes from participants (where possible) to il- lustrate the meaning and significance of the finding.

performing traditionally masculine Norms

A majority of the BGMUs with whom we spoke seemed to subscribe to tra- ditional notions of masculinity and these beliefs were often internalized and shaped their behaviors in academic and social settings. For instance, men in the sample used a limited number of words to describe Black masculinity (i.e., what it means to be a Black man), typically reflecting hegemonic masculine expectations: “tough,” “physically strong,” “athletic,” “tall,” “[economic] provider,” “father,”

terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering Masculinity 97

“HNIC” (which they defined as “Head-Negro-In-Charge”), “baller” (which refers to men who flaunt their material wealth), and “on your grind” (which implies that one is taking care of his business, work, or personal matters).

That so many BGMUs in the study used words typically associated with heteronormative, traditional male roles to describe Black masculinity is worth noting, but it is equally as important to point out the ways in which these mean- ings affected their subsequent performances of masculinity. For example, some Black gay men, like Desmond, spoke at length about engaging in certain campus activities (e.g., intercollegiate sports, competitive debates, and working out in the gym) or social scenes (e.g., bragging about having sex with multiple women on campus) as a way of concealing one’s sexuality and asserting their masculinity or “proving themselves [as men]” to other (Black) men on campus. Other BGMUs in this study shared beliefs that Black masculinity has to do with taking care of one’s family, business, or personal matters. For example, Torre shared how his decision to major in engineering reflected his beliefs about Black masculinity: “When I had to choose a major, I chose chemical engineering because I knew, as a man, I was going to have to make money... lots of it... to take care of my family... my spending habit (laughing)... plus women don’t like broke men.” Accepting and adhering to stereotypically traditional notions of Black masculinity power- fully shaped the decisions and behaviors of BGMUs in this study. In some in- stances, masculine beliefs affected the extent to and ways in which BGMUs dis- closed or concealed their sexual orientation to others.

Not only did BGMUs in our study use a constricted list of terms to describe Black masculinity and report engaging in activities to conceal their sexuality while asserting their masculine identity, but several also talked about how they compensated for failing to meet traditional standards of Black masculinity. For instance, Blake talked about how he “intentionally used his height” (standing over 6-feet tall) and “worked on developing [his] muscles and body to sort of make up for the fact that he was a cheerleader.” As another example, Kameron described himself as “sort of not the average Black guy... [he’s] short, not thuggish, a little girly and most of [his] friends are White.” He went on to explain how he used his athletic prowess (e.g., running fast) to compensate for the lack of meeting his peers’ more traditional standards of masculinity in terms of height, thug-like be- haviors, and style of dress. He shared: “I mean... I think they’re [other Black men] comfortable with me because I’m really athletic and I go to the gym a lot and hang out at parties so they see me... yes, I’m gay but I still do guy stuff, you know.” By engaging in stereotypically masculine activities or displaying physical strength and athletic talent, BGMUs in this study were able to mask or conceal their sexual- ity or “pass as straight” while also asserting their masculine identity to peers.

98 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2

Despite some subtle nuances, BGMUs in this study accepted, adhered to, and performed traditionally masculine norms and used a constricted list of words to describe Black masculinity. The words and their meanings affected their subsequent behaviors or performances of Black masculinity—study par- ticipants reported asserting their masculinity through various activities and scenes. Those who perceived themselves as failing to uphold or embody tradi- tional masculine standards also reported (over-)compensating for such weak- nesses or traits by overindulging in or overperforming “maleness” in other are- nas such as debate, sports, and play. Indeed, there were other differences among the men in the study, which are discussed below.

challenging Hegemonic masculinity through Behaviors and Beliefs

Some BGMUs in this study attempt to challenge or redefine hegemonic masculinity through their pursuit of certain academic majors (e.g., theater, music, nursing) or meaningful engagement in extracurricular activities (e.g., cheerleading, baton twirling) traditionally viewed as feminine or, at least ac- cording to them, as “less masculine.” Beyond taking actions that demonstrated their rejection of traditional notions of masculinity, some BGMUs articulated self-beliefs counter to previously discussed ideas about Black masculinity. For example, “Betsy” highlighted his intentional focus on his academic pursuits, suggesting that even dating comes second to academics. Betsy goes on to say:

I’m very focused in school so I just really don’t want to deal with men right now. Like even now I’m just like I don’t want to date. I just really don’t want to date, and I don’t even want to hook up to be honest with you. I don’t want to do anything right now. I just want to just chill, you know, focus on school and not really get involved in, like, drama and, like, really with the hook up culture because it wasn’t necessarily satisfying, like, last year or so.

Indeed, many of the men in our study reconciled stereotypically masculine be- liefs about Black masculinity with their self-perceptions and interests, thereby rejecting anti-academic or anti-intellectual conceptions and intentionally fo- cusing on their academic success without mention of fear of reprisal from Black male peers.

Several BGMUs shared how traditional conceptions of Black masculinity limited the ways in which they could meaningfully interact with their same-race male peers constructively, but not all participants engaged in “masking,” coping, or compensating activities to fit in with others; some participants saw themselves as markedly different from their peers. For example, study participants spoke, at

terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering Masculinity 99

length, about how most Black students tend to willingly accept hegemonic no- tions of masculinity, which assume that Black men are strong, detached, and competitive, while also being progenitor and conqueror of women, as Kimmel (1996) posited. Adopting social identities and preferences that transgress hege- monic masculine roles and expectations limited what some BGMUs had in com- mon with their same-race, heterosexual male peers and made them “more differ- ent than similar,” recalling one of our sophomore respondents’ words. Elliot provides an example:

I don’t have that many Black male friends because I don’t like to do what they do, you know? Sitting around talking about girls, their breasts, and how many I laid over the weekend is not something I can talk about. And most of the guys don’t want me to talk about what I did for the weekend [laughing].

Another sophomore male discussed his reality as one of only a few openly gay men on campus. His willingness to openly disclose his sexual orientation also makes his interactions with “closeted” gay peers difficult. He suggests:

Everybody else, there are probably like a couple of them, like, one or two more, but they are not necessarily that open about it. Everybody else is ba- sically in the closet, like, they are just in the closet. There’s a lot of down low action going on on this campus, like, a lot of the Black men on this campus are gay and they just don’t know how to deal with it. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s because of, like, the intersection of their, you know, race and sexual identity and they can’t, you know, deal with it, but I don’t know why there’s so many Black men on this campus who are in the closet.

Although it often placed them at odds with their same-race heterosexual male peers, and at times with their gay peers, some BGMUs in this study felt com- pelled to be true to their own identities. This internal goal compelled them to con- sistently challenge hegemonic ideals, as they attempted to assert new notions of Black masculinity consistent with their gay identity. Other factors, as discussed below, affected BGMUs’ understanding of Black masculinity and manhood.

Black masculinity and manhood Affected by Social Factors

A number of participants alluded to the ways in which their masculine conceptions and ideals about Black masculinity and manhood are influenced by myriad social factors, sociopolitical contexts, and social identities or loca- tions such as race, gender, social class, and religion, to name a few. For instance, Angelo and Jeremy explained in great detail how their race, gender, sexuality,

100 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2

and other identities came together in ways that seemed to separate them from other Black men on campus. Consider the following from Angelo:

At times I feel like I do belong and I do participate in some events, but for the most part I don’t feel like I fit in within the gay community or the Black community here and so I don’t really participate in their events. I don’t do a lot with the Black events because I don’t feel comfortable most of the time and it’s not like I can easily take my boyfriend there, even though I’ve heard it has improved somewhat. I don’t feel like I can be who I am... who I really am all the time. I have an isolated belonging and that kind of shows how different I am [from others].

Other participants were just as explicit in their explanation of the ways in which “who they are” (i.e., social identities) and “where they are” (i.e., social locations) powerfully shaped their constructions of Black masculinity and be- liefs about manhood. Cullen said plainly:

I feel like all of them are separate by default because we live in a Black and White, classist, racist, sexist society. The color line exists and there are going to be certain experiences that I’ll go through because of my color and someone else in the gay community won’t go through it because of their color. I’ll go through something in the Black community because I’m gay, but some other Black guy won’t go through it. This creates barriers and for the most part [at said college] the barriers really exist for me. Even in the academic world, people have no problem putting barriers on you.

Cullen’s point alludes to the vivid illustration of the Black gay male’s predica- ment among other Black male peers, as described by Riggs (2001), but Cullen and other men in our study clarify that the same holds true for BGMUs at PWIs. And it’s not just that their social identities and locations distinguish them from their same-race male peers or subject them to scrutiny and ridicule at times, but they also simultaneously influence their beliefs about masculinity and manhood and are often internalized as self-beliefs, which, in turn, can be- come self-fulfilling or even self-defeating (Steele, 2000).

Religion also was identified as a major determinant of masculine beliefs. For instance, Kenny, a first-year dance major—or as he said, “a real dancer”— shared a firm belief that men are “providers” and “head of the household.” When asked about the origin of this belief, he replied, “I don’t know... but mostly church, I guess... I mean, that’s definitely what I was taught.” He was not alone on this point, as many others shared that their religious backgrounds and beliefs often intersected with their perceptions of masculinity and manhood to challenge or reify their self-beliefs about Black masculinity, who Black men really are, and

terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering Masculinity 101

what they do. That BGMUs’ notions of masculinity and manhood are powerfully and, at times, simultaneously influenced by race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, and other social locations is important to note as it may provide a plausible expla- nation for the within-group heterogeneity that we uncovered amongst our par- ticipants. This, along with the other major themes, are discussed in the next section.

DIScuSSION

Recall that the purpose of this study was to understand BGMUs’ con- struction of manhood and masculine identity(-ies) as well as to identify how these beliefs affect their academic and social experiences in college. Analyzing interview data from 29 Black gay or bisexual male collegians at six major PWIs across the nation, we identified three overarching themes that suggest several important conclusions: some accept, adhere to, and perform traditionally mas- culine norms; some intentionally challenge hegemonic notions of masculinity; and they recognize the ways in which their masculine beliefs and construc- tions of identity are influenced by one’s social factors and locations. Findings from the present study also provide insights into the ways in which campus- and other professionals can work with such students to promote their success in college. These conclusions and implications are explained in this section.

First, data from the present study suggest that some BGMUs accept, adhere to, and perform traditionally masculine norms. This corroborates previous find- ings that the internalization of traditional notions of masculinity impacts Black gay men’s acceptance of their gay identities (Brown, 2005). For example, several men in our study highlighted the ways in which they chose activities and organi- zations to compensate for their sexuality and masculine identity. Similarly, other students, such as Black and Kameron, readily acknowledged their need to fore- ground their physical stature or other observable attributes as unequivocal sig- nals of maleness to their Black male peers on campus. While this supports previ- ous findings about Black males’ subscriptions to hegemonic masculine expectations (Majors & Billson, 1992), it also highlights an area that should raise concern for scholars and practitioners alike. That some Black gay men continually feel compelled to conceal their sexual identity, and perhaps try to compensate for it, to be accepted by their campus peers as sufficiently masculine, suggests addi- tional barriers through which BGMUs must persist to be able to affirm a healthy, positive self-conception that successfully integrates their racial, sexual, and even religious identities. Time devoted to concealing one’s personal identities or try- ing to compensate for one’s true self may direct energies away from important

102 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2

tasks or activities such as studying, reading, and thinking about course content. While important to note, we also remind readers that not all BGMUs in this study felt pressured to accept or compensate for such rigid understandings of Black masculinity and manhood.

Second, similar to Butler (1990) and Riggs (2001), we found that some BGMUs intentionally challenge hegemonic notions of masculinity—con- sciously or subconsciously—through their behaviors and self-beliefs. For in- stance, recall Betsy’s focus on academics and his rejection of anti-intellectual expectations or Elliott’s insistence on being true to himself and his rejection of hypersexualized conversations about sex with women, all of which demonstrate the ways in which some BGMUs knowingly or unknowingly challenge hege- monic notions of Black masculinity through their behaviors, expressed self-be- liefs, and decisions. In fact, our one participant’s choice of “Betsy” as his self-se- lected pseudonym is another example of ways in which some BGMUs resist or reject dominant representations of acceptable male attributes or “what’s manly.” That some Black men reject hegemonic masculine norms in hopes of embodying a “truer self,” to quote one of them, is important for scholars, practitioners, and those in helping professions to keep in mind. Previous research has often as- sumed that all Black gay males subscribe to traditional notions of masculinity and that any deviation from that hegemonic norm is a facade or masquerade (Ma- jors & Billson, 1992; McClure, 2006). And though it is not our point to dismiss the possibility of masculine masking among Black men, findings from this study lend support to the idea that Black gay men differ in their subscriptions to mascu- line beliefs, the ways in which they accept or reject such beliefs, and the ways in which racialized masculine beliefs are internalized, challenged, or, as Franklin (1984) noted, enacted in observable and less observable ways.

Not only did BGMUs in the present study use a constricted list of words to define Black masculinity and those words influenced their behaviors and deci- sions, but we also found that BGMUs recognize the ways in which their masculine beliefs and constructions of identity are influenced by one’s social factors and loca- tions. In consonance with previous studies (Butler, 2004; hooks, 2004a), BGMUs, like Angelo and Cullen, articulated the ways in which their racial and sexual iden- tities interacted with gendered masculine conceptions of identity. They articu- lated how the persistence of racism in the larger gay community and homophobia in the Black community contributed to their understanding of self as Black gay men and impacted their sense of belonging within particular social contexts across their collegiate experience. This finding suggests that to further understand how BGMUs’ sense of belonging is facilitated and the university resources needed to enhance their connection to campus, administrators must contend with the

terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering Masculinity 103

inherent complexities in BGMUs’ understanding of their social identities (e.g., racialized understanding of sexuality and masculinity) in light of the particular campus context in which they are situated.

Results from this study are useful for several reasons. First, they may pro- vide insight into a complex issue—the diversity that exists among individual so- cial groups. For instance, scholars have often assumed that “one size fits all” or that members of a single group share a good deal in common with other group members. Indeed, this may be true, but not all Black men “are the same” (Harper & Nichols, 2008). BGMUs in our study demonstrate that social identities, par- ticularly gender, race, and sexual orientation in this instance, do not interact for all people in the same way. In other words, scholars and practitioners should not assume that all BGMUs will experience or understand their social identities nor respond to societal pressures (e.g., expectations to confirm to hegemonic mascu- line ideals) similarly. Much like Angelo and Cullen actively recognized how so- cial identities and social locations influenced the development of their self-con- cept, it is clear that scholars and practitioners, alike, must consider such influences as they work with and write about the experiences of BGMUs. That is, while the one size fits all approach may create parsimonious models to understand a par- ticular social phenomenon, its application to BGMUs may be inadequate, falsely positing that Black masculinity would manifest comparably for all members of this population. Results presented here suggest a plausible explanation for such heterogeneity among Black gay male peers.

Several groups may benefit from the results of this study, one of which would be campus counselors. Counselors are often called upon to offer advice about issues of identity (e.g., sexuality, masculinity), to educate faculty and staff about general trends and student issues, and to talk with students like BGMUs about difficult experiences negotiating aspects of their personal identities. All too often, counselors and those in related professions reach for the “general rule,” the “best practice,” or the “overarching theme” that may have more universal appeal but, consequently, give up a significant degree of accuracy and specificity in ef- forts to assist students in meaningful ways. Results from this study provide coun- selors with data about the diversity of masculine beliefs among BGMUs, varying responses to those beliefs, and the ways in which other social factors intersect and produce relatively distinct beliefs and enactments. As a result, we learn that gen- eral rules rarely apply and “best practices” may be “best” for some but not all. Campus counselors might use this information to (re)examine the types of ad- vice or directions they offer to faculty, staff, and students about such issues.

Information from this investigation also may prove useful to student affairs professionals who work with Black gay male students regularly and those who

104 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2

work in Black cultural centers or serve as advisors to Black student organizations. Black cultural centers have been regarded as positively supportive environments for Black students, especially those attending PWIs—in fact, cultural centers have assumed the role of the proverbial “home away from home” for Black students at PWIs (Strayhorn, Terrell, Redmond, & Walton, 2010). Yet, not all Black students find the campus cultural center welcoming, affirming, or a place where they be- long. Although very little is known about why some Black students feel this way, the same is true for ethnic student organizations such as gospel choirs (Strayhorn, 2011). Results presented herein may suggest one possible explanation. To the ex- tent that some students like BGMUs differ significantly from their same-race peers in their masculine conceptions and enactments, they may be subject to ridi- cule, physical threats, and social isolation. Without intervention, they are unlikely to feel safe, respected, or have a sense of membership in such environments (Stray- horn, 2012) and, thus, may seek acceptance elsewhere among others who share, accept, or affirm their self-beliefs. Cultural center directors and student advisors might consult this information to identify the needs and challenges of diverse stu- dent subgroups, to educate students on ways to relate to others who do not share their beliefs, or to foster a sense of belonging among Black male subgroups that may differ dramatically in their masculine behaviors.

GLBT campus directors might also consider findings from this study as they develop ways to signal the relevance of GLBT centers for queer people of color, especially BGMUs. Similar to how Cullen alludes to racism in the larger gay community as creating a sense of alienation and difficulties not faced by his White gay peers, many Black gay men in this study saw the GLBT center as serving the needs of White GLBT students on campus. This suggests that while GLBT centers have and could provide important resources for coping and sup- port to all students, BGMUs’ perceptions of them inadvertently prevent these students from accessing the resources available. In response, directors of GLBT centers could use findings from this study to acknowledge that current practices may be inhibiting their ability to reach all GLBT people on campus. GLBT center directors may want to intentionally consider how, or if, queer people of color are active in the life of the center, while also thinking of ways to reach BGMUs. For example, the GLBT center may establish support groups specifically targeted toward BGMUs, make intentional efforts to collaborate with the Black Student Union, or, if available, a Black men’s group as a means of outreach to Black students, LGBT and heterosexual alike.

There are several implications for future research and theory that deserve mention. First, this study employed naturalistic or qualitative methods of in- quiry to explore BGMUs’ masculine beliefs, perceptions, and the ways in

terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering Masculinity 105

which they influence their campus experiences. A strength of this approach is the ability to “give voice” to the experiences of students who are rarely heard in the research literature and to do so in a way that preserves their authentic voice on matters (Ferguson, 2000; Hunter & Davis, 1994). On the other hand, a limi- tation of this approach is its inability to yield findings that are generalizable or applicable to a wider group of individuals. Future studies might advance this line of research by estimating relationships between BGMUs’ masculine be- liefs and their experiences using existing scales and correlation-based statisti- cal techniques on large, multi-campus samples. Such studies would expand on the information available about BGMUs in higher education.

Second, the present study explored differences in masculine beliefs, be- haviors, and campus experiences among BGMUs at PWIs. While useful, these results may not apply directly to those in related, yet different, situations. Fu- ture studies might examine issues of masculinity among BGMUs at histori- cally Black colleges and universities, Latino males at PWIs or Hispanic-serving institutions, or even sex differences amongst these populations by paying close attention to variations between Black gay men and lesbian women, for instance. Studies of this kind would expand the base of information available on histori- cally marginalized college student populations.

Finally, the study was significant for future theory. To date, gay identity development theory and Black racial identity theory have focused on how indi- viduals come to assume or accept a non-heterosexual or gay identity (e.g., Cass, 1984), the process through which individuals “become Black” (Cross, 1995), and, with few exceptions (Fassinger, 1998), theorists treat these two as sepa- rate and distinct developmental processes. The present study offers insight into the ways in which BGMUs simultaneously negotiate issues of racial identity, sexuality, and other social identities (e.g., religion) within the frame of their masculine beliefs, no matter how restrictive or liberated. This data might be used to advance existing theory to include information about the influence of masculinity on racial and sexual identity development during college. Future theories might also be a bit more ecological in scope, accounting for gay college students’ multiple identities, contexts, and influences.

cONcLuSION

In closing, we conducted this study in hopes of understanding BGMUs’ construction of manhood and masculine identity(-ies) as well as to identify how these beliefs affect their academic and social experiences in college. Infor- mation presented here adds significantly to what is known about BGMUs,

106 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2

issues of masculinity and sexuality, as well as their racialized conceptions of masculine identity. By turning to college men themselves and asking them about their experiences and capturing the “essence” of their experiences in their own words, we respond to important questions that advance our collec- tive understanding of masculinity(-ies), affirm some previous results, and chal- lenge some prior conclusions in ways that push existing boundaries toward a “queering [of] masculinity” that accommodates their unique perspectives.

NOteS

1. We use GLB without “T” to avoid conflating categories of sexual orientation with gender identity (Renn, 2010).

reFereNceS

Abes, E. S., & Jones, S. R. (2004). Meaning-making capacity and the dynamics of lesbian college students’ multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 612–632.

Battle, J., & Bennett, M. (2000). Research on lesbian and gay populations within the African American community: What have we learned? African American Research Perspectives, 6(2), 35–47.

Bem, S. L. (1987). Masculinity and femininity exist only in the mind of the perceiver. In J. M. Reinisch, L. A. Rosenblum, & S. A. Sanders (Eds.), Masculinity/ femininity: Basic perspectives (pp. 304–311). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brown, E., II. (2005). We wear the mask: African American contemporary gay male identities. Journal of African American Studies, 9(2), 29–38.

Burns, S. (2000). Heterosexuals’ use of “fag” and “queer” to deride one another: A contributor to heterosexism and stigma. Journal of Homosexuality, 40(2), 1–11.

Butler, J. (1990). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenol- ogy and feminist theory. In S. E. Case (Ed.), Performing feminisms: Feminist critical theory and theatre (pp. 270–282). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York, NY: Routledge. Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexuality identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of

Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235. Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexuality identity formation: Testing a theoretical model.

Journal of Sex Research, 9(1–2), 105–126. Cross, W. E. (1995). The psychology of nigrescence: Revising the Cross model. In J. G.

Ponterotto et al. (Eds.), Handbook on multicultural counseling (pp. 93–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1991). Gay men in college: Identity processes and adaptations. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 140–146.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1992). Lesbian and gay male undergraduates’ experiences of harassment and fear on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 383–395.

terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering Masculinity 107

D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312–333). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

D’Emilio, J., & Freedman, E. B. (1988). Intimate matters: A history of sexuality in America. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Dancy, T. E., III. (2012). The brother code: Manhood and masculinity among African American males in college. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Dilley, P. (2005). Which way out? A typology of non-heterosexual male collegiate identities. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 56–88.

Ellis, H. (1901). Studies in the psychology of sex. Volume 2: Sexual inversion. Philadel- phia, PA: F. A. Davis.

Evans, N. J., & Wall, V. A. (1991). Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus. Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Association.

Fassinger, R. E. (1991). The hidden minority: Issues and challenges in working with lesbian women and gay men. Counseling Psychologist, 19, 157–176.

Fassinger, R. E. (1998). Lesbian and bisexual identity and student development theory. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 13–22). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Ferguson, A. A. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black male masculinity. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Foubert, J. D., & LaVoy, S. A. (2000). A qualitative assessment of “The Men’s Pro- gram”: The impact of a rape prevention program on fraternity men. The NASPA Journal, 38(1), 1–13.

Franklin, C. W., II. (1984). The changing definition of masculinity. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Gibson, D. D., Schlosser, L. Z., & Brock-Murray, R. D. (2006). Identity management strategies among lesbians of African ancestry: A pilot study. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 1(4), 31–57.

Harper, S. R. (2006a). Black male students at public universities in the U.S.: Status, trends, and implications for policy and practice. Washington, D.C.: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Harper, S. R. (2006b). Enhancing African American male student outcomes through leadership and active involvement. In M. J. Cuyjet & Associates (Eds.), African American men in college (pp. 68–94). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Harper, S. R., & Nichols, A. H. (2008). Are they not all the same? Racial heterogeneity among Black male undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 49(3), 199–214.

Harris, F., III. (2010). College men’s conceptualizations of masculinities and contextual influences: Toward a conceptual model. Journal of College Student Development, 51(3), 297–318.

Harris, F., III, & Struve, L. E. (2009). Gents, jerks, and jocks: What men learn about masculinity in college. About Campus, 14(3), 2–9.

Harris, W. G. (2003). African American homosexual males on predominantly White college and university campuses. Journal of African American Studies, 7(1), 47–56.

108 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2

hooks, b. (2004a). We real cool: Black men and masculinity. New York, NY: Routledge. hooks, b. (2004b). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. New York, NY: Atria

Books. Hunter, A., & Davis, J. E. (1992). Constructing gender: An exploration of Afro-Ameri-

can men’s conceptualization of manhood. Gender and Society, 6(3), 464–479. Hunter, A., & Davis, J. E. (1994). Hidden voices of Black men: The meaning, structure,

and complexity of manhood. Journal of Black Studies, 25(1), 20–40. Icard, L. D. (1986). Black gay men and conflicting social identities: Sexual orientation

versus racial identity. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 4(1–2), 83–93.

Icard, L. D. (1996). Assessing the psychosocial well-being of African American gays. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 5(2), 25–50.

Icard, L. D., & Nurius, P. S. (1996). Loss of self in coming out: Special risks for African American gays and lesbians. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 1(1), 29–47.

Kimmel, M. S. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York, NY: Free Press.

Kimmel, M., & Aronson, A. (2003). Men and masculinities: A social, cultural, and historical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Loiacano, D. (1993). Gay identity issues among Black Americans: Racism, homopho- bia, and the need for validation. In L. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psycho- logical perspectives on lesbian and gay male experiences (pp. 364–375). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Majors, R., & Billson, J. (1992). Cool pose: The dilemmas of Black manhood in America. New York, NY: Touchstone.

McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. Counseling Psychologist, 24(3), 508–534.

McClure, S. M. (2006). Improvising masculinity: African American fraternity membership in construction of a Black masculinity. Journal of African American Studies, 10(1), 57–73.

Messer, K. L. (2006). African American male college athletes. In M. J. Cuyjet & Associates (Eds.), African American men in college (pp. 154–173). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Micah, L. (2002). Suicide among homosexual youth. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(4), 107–117.

Millett, G., Malebranche, D., Mason, B., & Spikes, P. (2005). Focusing “down low”: Bisexual Black men, HIV risk, and heterosexual transmission. Journal of the National Medical Association, 97(7), 52S–59S.

National Urban League. (2007). The state of Black America 2007: Portrait of the Black male. New York, NY: Beckham Publications Group, Inc.

Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the field. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132–141.

Renn, K. A., & Bilodeau, B. L. (2005). Leadership identity development among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender student leaders. The NASPA Journal, 42(3), 342–367.

terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering Masculinity 109

Riggs, M. (2001). Black macho revisited: Reflections of a SNAP! queen. In R. P. Byrd & B. Guy-Shetfall (Eds.), Traps: African American men on gender and sexuality (pp. 292–296). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Steele, C. M. (2000, February). “Stereotype threat” and Black college students. AAHE Bulletin, 52, 3–6.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2011). Singing in a foreign land: An exploratory study of gospel choir participation among African American undergraduates at a predominantly White institution. Journal of College Student Development, 52(5), 137–153.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2011, June 24). Stubborn and persistent masculine beliefs: Insights from a research study. NASPA Men and Masculinities Knowledge Community. Retrieved from http://naspammkc.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/ stubborn-and-persistent-masculine-beliefs-insights-from-a-research-study/

Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success. New York, NY: Routledge.

Strayhorn, T. L., Blakewood, A. M., & DeVita, J. M. (2008). Factors affecting the college choice of African American gay male undergraduates: Implications for retention. National Association of Student Affairs Professionals Journal, 11(1), 88–108.

Strayhorn, T. L., Blakewood, A. M., & DeVita, J. M. (2010). Triple threat: Challenges and supports of Black gay men at predominantly White campuses. In T. L. Strayhorn & M. C. Terrell (Eds.), The evolving challenges of Black college students: New insights for policy, practice, and research (pp. 85–104). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Strayhorn, T. L., & Mullins, T. G. (2012). Investigating Black gay male undergradu- ates’ experiences in campus residence halls. The Journal of College and University Student Housing, 39(1), 140–161.

Strayhorn, T. L., & Scott, J. A. (2012). Coming out of the dark: Black gay men’s experiences at historically Black colleges and universities. In R. T. Palmer & J. L. Wood (Eds.), Black men in college: Implications for HBCUs and beyond (pp. 26–40). New York, NY: Routledge.

Strayhorn, T. L., Terrell, M. C., Redmond, J. S., & Walton, C. N. (2010). “A home away from home”: Black cultural centers as supportive environments for African American collegians at White institutions. In T. L. Strayhorn & M. C. Terrell (Eds.), The evolving challenges of Black college students: New insights for policy, practice, and research (pp. 122–137). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Strayhorn, T. L., & Tillman-Kelly, D. L. (in press). When and where race and sexuality collide with other social locations: Studying the intersectional lives of Black gay men in college. In T. L. Strayhorn (Ed.), Living at the intersections: Social identities and Black collegians (pp. xx–xx). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Todd, F. L., & Dennis, L. T. (2005). Perceived risks and normative beliefs as explana- tory models for college student alcohol involvement: An assessment of a campus with conventional alcohol control policies and enforcement practices. The NASPA Journal, 42(2), 202–222.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The condition of education 2011 (NCES Report No. 2010-081). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

110 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2

Washington, J., & Wall, V. A. (2006). African American gay men: Another challenge for the academy. In M. J. Cuyjet & Associates (Eds.), African American men in college (pp. 174–188). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Westwood, S. (1990). Racism, Black masculinity, and the politics of space. In J. Hearn & D. Morgan (Eds.), Men, masculinities, and social theory (pp. 55–71). Cam- bridge, MA: Unwin Hyman.