You are on page 1of 17

This article was downloaded by: [187.156.37.

211]
On: 12 April 2014, At: 17:20
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Gender Studies


Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjgs20

Leaving the street alone: Contesting


street manhood as a gender project
Carissa M. Froyum

Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology ,


University of Northern Iowa , Cedar Falls , Iowa , USA
Published online: 24 May 2012.

To cite this article: Carissa M. Froyum (2013) Leaving the street alone: Contesting street manhood
as a gender project, Journal of Gender Studies, 22:1, 38-53, DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2012.681188
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.681188

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE


Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Gender Studies, 2013


Vol. 22, No. 1, 3853, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.681188

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Leaving the street alone: Contesting street manhood as a gender
project
Carissa M. Froyum*
Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,
Iowa, USA

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

(Received 2 March 2011; final version received 9 December 2011)


This study examines the gender project at an after-school program for low-income black
boys in which officials and workers contested street manhood as a legitimate form of
masculinity. Acting street involves establishing respect and status through physical
intimidation, usually when race- or class-disadvantaged boys lack other resources.
For programmers and direct-care workers concerned about boys well-being, changing
the definition of manhood potentially offered boys freedom from harm and a route to
success. This study analyzes the life-skills programs designed to promote alternatives to
acting street. It finds that while trying to protect boys from race- and class-based injury,
these programs reinforced male entitlement to authority, status, and freedom from
scrutiny by legitimizing rationality, responsibility, achievement, and traditional male
roles. Furthermore, workers who implemented the programs often reinforced boys
gender privilege even when they undercut the definition of manhood inherent in the
programs. The findings illustrate how addressing genders internal hegemony
reproduced external hegemony (Demetriou 2001).
Keywords: masculinity; boys; race; US blacks; street culture

A lot of the stuff you read, the statistics of African-American males, that are deadbeats, that
are in jail, that are unemployed. (Edward, administrator, on what he worries about)
Sometimes you have to conform to what society [sees as] acceptable. (Darin, direct-care
worker)

Gender is a social order which systematically differentiates and privileges men over
women and some men over other men (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). According to
Schrock and Schwalbe, men access the symbolic, material, and relational rewards of
manhood by signify[ing] possession of a masculine self (2009, p. 280). These manhood
acts demonstrate capacities to make things happen and to resist being dominated by
others (Schrock and Schwalbe 2009, p. 280). How men and boys do so collectively
constitutes gender projects in which groups grapple with their historical situations in
patterned ways (Connell 2005, p. 72). Gender projects depend on the resources present
within a given milieu at a historical moment, as well as the power relations in other
institutions which intersect with gender, such as states, economies, politics, and families

*Email: carissa.froyum@uni.edu
q 2013 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

Journal of Gender Studies

39

(Carrigan et al. 1985, Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). The global elite establish
manhood by acting instrumentally and rationally and eliciting deference through
institutional authority. These hegemonic practices serve as a cultural ideal that requires
all other men to position themselves in relation to it (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005,
p. 832) through gender projects that form a hierarchy of masculinities.
Research suggests that poverty and racism encourage street versions of manhood
where boys dominate physically rather than institutionally (Majors and Mancini Billson
1992, Anderson 1999, Young 1999, Messerschmidt 2004, Wacquant 2004, Sharkey 2006).
Concern about such boys well-being fueled the mission of Boyworks, an after-school
program in the US for low-income black boys. Edward above feared what many program
officials and workers did: that acting street destined boys to under-achievement and selfdestruction. Boyworks sought to enhance boys opportunities by contesting street
manhood in favor of traditional roles, rationality, instrumentality, and taking
responsibility.
This study examines Boyworks strategies as a gender project in which program
officials and direct-care workers negotiated competing definitions of manhood in order to
maximize boys opportunities. I treat street manhood as complexly entrenched within race
and class dynamics: as constituting practices which some race- and class-subordinated
boys could use to establish masculinity, as a cultural ideal that typifies black boys as street
and criminal, and as a cultural foil to hegemonic manhood. I show how Boyworks
character development mission capitalized on and reinforced gender differences in
order to disrupt racism and poverty.
Street manhood acts
Research frequently focuses on documenting the set characteristics or origins of different
masculinities (for debate, see Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). This is especially the
case regarding non-white and working-class men whose practices research portrays as
socially isolated from or oppositional to mainstream culture. To challenge these
representations, many contend that racial and economic disadvantage threatens males
ability to claim manhood. Subordinated males control others and resist being dominated
using whatever resources are available to establish valued identities (Schwalbe 2005).
Unemployment, for example, limits poor mens symbolic claim to manhood, so many
must do low-wage but degrading work that allows them to claim status, at least, as
workers (Newman 1999). Inner city conditions, especially housing segregation and
concentrated poverty, similarly leave poor black men with limited resources for claiming
meaningful identities. Some men rely on their ability physically to dominate others to
establish status (Majors and Mancini Billson 1992, Anderson 1999, Young 1999,
Messerschmidt 2004, Wacquant 2004, Sharkey 2006). Anderson (1999) found street
men established manhood according to the code of the street: through quickwittedness,
fighting ability, sexual prowess, and tough, disaffected presentations of self. They lived by
an ethos that might makes right and campaigned for respect by intimidating others.
Others similarly document an adaptive street culture in which poor black men display
tough fronts (Dance 2002) or cool poses (Majors and Mancini Billson 1992). Thus,
research contends that poor black men/boys adapt to their oppressive racial and class
conditions through street manhood.
Documenting street acts alone, however, is problematic as it essentializes them and
creates an inaccurate picture of street manhood as uncontested within local settings.
Alternatively, studies examining variation among black boys suggest that oppressive

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

40

C.M. Froyum

conditions facilitate competing definitions of manhood. In Anderson (1999), men codeswitched between street and decent displays. Dance (2002) identified three postures:
hardcore boys who engaged in illicit activity, hardcore wannabes who adopted street
postures but only sporadically joined gangs or sold drugs, and hardcore enough boys,
who avoided street culture by convincing others they chose not to be violent. Schoolboys
(Ferguson 2000) and cultural mainstreamers (Carter 2006) adopted more pro-school
orientations than their peers but risked attacks on their ethnic authenticity and alienation
from peers. Tyson and colleagues (2005) found groups only developed oppositional
orientations when status and opportunity (i.e. tracking into gifted programs) coincided
with broader categories of advantage (e.g. race). This research usually engages
oppositional culture debates rather than gender ones, leaving unexamined the assumption
that boys should dominate others. This leaves unclear how different dispositions relate to
hegemonic masculinity or are consequential for gender inequality generally.
An uncontested model of tough manhood is additionally problematic because
many people associate acting street with trouble-making. Teachers often conflate street
displays with gang membership and criminality and, thus, feel justified in
disproportionately disciplining black boys (Ferguson 2000, Dance 2002, Royster 2003,
Carter 2006). The prevalence, mainstreaming, and appropriation of hip-hop also typify
black boys as street. Globalized entertainment markets have disseminated once localized
street codes (Collins 2006) so that people widely removed from the economic conditions
that produce street styles consume them (Rodriguez 2006). Valorizing tough fronts
creates an ideal image of black manhood as street; black men/boys, then, must contend
with the characterization of street as the black masculinity. Little research examines how
they do so and to what consequence for gender inequality. In Ford (2011), black college
men who did not act thug risked being ostracized as gays, sell-outs, or pretty boys.
Others find black boys act street to establish racial authenticity (Clay 2003, Tyson et al.
2005, Carter 2006).
Street, thus, is more than strategic adaptation to oppressive circumstances; it is a
cultural model of manhood that black boys and those who work with them must
negotiate through gender projects. We know little about how groups adapt to or contest
manhood ideals, let alone how their responses are themselves gendered. Gender projects
reproduce gender inequality insofar as they capitalize on or reinforce what Johnson (2005)
describes as male-domination, male-identification, or male-centeredness. Male-domination is when men wield power over women and disproportionately occupy positions of
power and authority. Male-identification is the convergence of culturally rewarded traits
with those associated with males or manhood; while focusing time and energy on men and
mens pursuits is male-centeredness. Together they constitute the patriarchal dividend,
or the honour, prestige and the right to command (Connell 2005, pp. 79 82) enjoyed by
those who successfully signify a masculine self. When heterosexual men subordinate gay
men by aligning them with women, they reinforce mens entitlement to dominance over
women. Other males reap the patriarchal dividend while not acting rationally or
instrumentally. They are complicit to gender inequality. Demetriou (2001) argues that
hegemonic masculinity maintains its dominance in part by appropriating non-hegemonic
acts and that non-hegemonic masculinities challenge and potentially shape hegemonic
manhood. In order to understand the processes that recreate gender inequality, then, we
must understand how practices of different groups support or challenge hegemonic
definitions of manhood. This study answers this call by analyzing the version of manhood
an after-school program intended to teach, the implementation of its lessons, and their
unintended consequences for gender inequality.

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

Journal of Gender Studies

41

The study
This research derives from field-work and interviews at an after-school program of a large
youth agency, Kidworks, in a moderately segregated US city. It focuses on one location of
Kidworks, which I call Boyworks (BW). BW was universally considered the premier
Kidworks site locally and served boys aged 6 to 12 and teenage boys and girls in a teen
center. According to BWs records, nearly all attendants were black and about 60%
received free or reduced-rate lunch at school. Four full-time self-identified black directors
ran programs, budgeted, and supervised a dozen part-time direct-care workers, almost all
of whom identified as black. Ten of the 17 workers on whom I collected data were men.
As part of a larger project, I conducted participant observation as a volunteer primarily
at two Kidworks sites, including Boyworks, over 21 months between 2004 and 2006.
I joined in life-skills groups, sports, organized and unorganized play, and special events.
I also did formal in-depth interviews with 26 adults from across the organization, including
four administrators, six direct-care workers at BW, nine workers from other sites, and seven
volunteers. Interviews focused on individuals experiences at the program, their
interpretations of their experiences, and their relationships with others. They ranged from
one to three hours. My 300 hours in the field and interviewing at Kidworks produced around
2000 pages of field-notes and transcripts. Finally, I collected artifacts from across the
organization, including volunteer hand-outs, website materials, and curriculum manuals.
I analyzed data continuously and refined my data collection in response to emerging themes
(Charmaz 2001). In the field, I did written jottings, which I expanded into extended fieldsnotes and reflexive memoing (Emerson et al. 1995). Then, I coded and analyzed data more
thoroughly into extensive analytic memos before testing emerging themes against data
I continued collecting in the field. Several Kidworks informants provided me with feedback
on emerging themes. All names of individuals, programs, and locations are pseudonyms.
The project received ethics approval from North Carolina State University.
This study analyzes the models of manhood inherent in BWs narratives, life-skills
curricula, and other programs. Three life-skills programs receive extended analysis. Mighty
Kids, according to its curriculum manual, developed knowledge, skills, self-esteem, and
peer support so children would avoid drug and tobacco use and postpone sexual activity.
Street Intervention helped children counteract the negative lure of gangs, develop effective
conflict resolution and leadership skills, become positive peer helpers, or role models, for
other adolescents, and recognize the virtues of diversity (Street Intervention manual).
Boys-To-Men was a 14-week program for boys to talk explicitly about and model
responsible manhood and to introduce [boys] to good examples of dependable men (BoysTo-Men manual). It covered value-guided decision-making, personal codes of conduct,
wellness, relationships, fatherhood, substance abuse, careers, leadership, and self-esteem.
A national committee of experts designed each program, which then were distributed to
local agencies. My findings begin with analyzing the hegemonic version of manhood
implicit within official narratives and programs as designed. Then, I examine when
workers implementation of the program strayed from the formalized lessons.

Results
From street to hegemonic manhood
Boyworks official mission was to help boys achieve their potential and become
productive adults. The after-school program provided, according to an advertisement,
positive, productive outlets through what a promotional video described as structured,

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

42

C.M. Froyum

enriching, and exciting after-school programs. While Boyworks was open to anyone,
BW targeted its services, according to various documents and officials, to at-risk,
disadvantaged, underprivileged, or really-in-need boys. BW sought to fill the void
in their lives (promotional video).
Local media located boys disadvantage within poor black neighborhoods; a wellregarded daily newspaper (no name is given to avoid identification of the project or the
city involved in the study) devoted several major columns to gangs and crime, while news
programs and documentaries problematized increasing violence at the hands of local black
males. Concern over boys fates led BW to share the conviction of a task force, which
a BW worker served on and BW boys testified to: to confront and reduce the escalating
risks faced by area communities and families of losing young people, especially AfricanAmerican and Hispanic/Latino males, to delinquency, criminality and incarceration.
Various officials and documents implied that socially weaker backgrounds, economically
weaker backgrounds (as a fundraiser explained to potential donors) offered boys
a dysfunctional version of manhood in which boys acted hard, cool, down, or tough
to gain respect among their male peers. Ben, a direct-care worker, explained that BWs
neighborhood created obstacles outside this door. They have drugs, they have violence,
they have gangs. A local newspaper article on Kidworks described the environment as
lur[ing kids] into mischief or worse . . . Without any structured activity or supervision,
a lot of kids end up just hanging out making babies, getting into trouble with the law,
using or selling drugs. Succumbing to the wrong crowd led to problems Ben described
among his friends:
Probably about three or four of us [out of 10 or 15 of my close friends] graduated, went to
college . . . Everybody else was just caught up in the streets . . . People were not choosing the
right things to do right then . . . They were kicked out of school, and pretty much they were
done from [because of] that environment.

Others bemoaned that street culture distracted boys from legitimate sources of status
and success, including schools, families, or jobs. Alex, a direct-care worker, worried that:
the things that theyre putting their energy in are going to get them in trouble. I try to get some
of them to read and no one wants to read, but they could tell you every lyric to every hot new
rap song . . . They dont know how to study or save money, but they know how to buy the
most expensive thing or just be consumers.

BW offered itself as an antidote to street manhood centered on getting into trouble


rather than succeeding. BWs solution was to foster cultural transformation among boys.
Darin, a direct-care worker, explained that BW was trying to discipline kids and give
them knowledge about respect and the character traits and integrity. An administrator
described delivering the message that character counts. Education is important.
Respecting one another. A volunteer characterized the mission as offering a safe
supportive place with good moral people who are helping to develop their character.

Male-identified modes of action


The foundation of character development at BW was replacing street manhood (the image
of black boys disseminated by the media) with a successful and honorable hegemonic
version. The first step in this cultural transformation seemed to be teaching boys to want to
succeed. This orientation, reflected throughout organizationally produced materials meant
to inspire, valued individual achievement. As Darin explained, BW wanted boys to go out
and work for something. Posters promoted a winning attitude and being motivated to

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

Journal of Gender Studies

43

succeed. According to one, for example, Most people never run far enough on their first
wind to find out theyve got a second. Give your dreams all youve got and youll be
amazed by the energy that comes out of you. Focusing on ones future versus today
meant, according to Darin, deciding Im not going to get pregnant at 16. Im going to go
to college. Im not going to go to jail. Im not going to do drugs or be in a gang. The
assumption was that boys lacked the desire to succeed and needed to be taught it.
BW programs provided male-identified modes of action rationality, instrumentality,
and taking responsibility as the paths to success by contrasting these behaviors to
emotionality and street culture. Rationality was considered morally superior to acting
street, which life-skills manuals characterized as impulsive. Level-headedness provided
control through understanding and facilitating desired outcomes, according to a lesson on
impulse control and its consequences. In becoming logical, understanding the
consequences of behavior was essential: boys would reject street manhood if they fully
understood its harms. Thus, life-skills curricula bombarded boys with the negative
consequences of acting tough and cool. Mighty Kids manual instructed facilitators to
emphasize the negative consequences of smoking marijuana: addiction, arrest, damaging
lungs, and getting into trouble at school. Another lesson explained trying cocaine or crack
even once can cause death or serious injury from heart attack, strokes, respiratory failure,
or brain seizure. A lesson on gangs in Street Intervention, similarly, asked boys to list the
negative consequences of being involved in gangs or trying to leave them. The manual
warned, Make sure members see the deep negative effects of even starting to get involved
in gangs, and that they understand the consequences of each decision they make.
To reinforce the message through a realistic look at the consequences of gang
involvement, the manual instructed workers to plan trips to an emergency room, morgue,
or police precinct to see how gang members are processed at each location. The message
would be clear: the risks gangs brought were not worth it.
The curricula, additionally, conditioned acting instrumentally by breaking down
decision-making into rationalized steps that achieve a desired outcome. Mighty Kids
proposed thinking through multiple courses of action, their consequences, and the
potential responses of others. It instructed boys to reflect on the following questions when
faced with a precarious situation:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

What is the decision I have to make?


What are my choices or options?
What are the possible good and bad consequences of each option?
How would my family and friends feel about this choice?
Based on all the information I have, what is the best decision for me?

The lessons also established criteria for prioritizing one decision over others. Manuals
urged boys to compare likely outcomes from different courses of action to those desired by
good or moral or legal authorities (e.g. parents, police, teachers) rather than bad ones.
Another frame of reference was ones own personal code of conduct centered on hard
work, generosity, and dependability. These standpoints juxtaposed street influences,
surmised to be bad, immoral, and undependable, to more legitimate ones, considered
honorable. Rationality, thus, involved not only weighing options rather than acting on
impulse, but also choosing courses of action that aligned oneself with non-street
authorities.
Life-skills programs especially rationalized disputes and conflict resolution. They
taught deep breathing and alternative modes of expression. Street Intervention identified
the signs of anger and harms of rage. Mighty Kids provided 10 different strategies

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

44

C.M. Froyum

for avoiding negative influences. These ways to refuse suggested repeating No, thanks,
giving an excuse (No, its not right), ignoring an instigator, or walking away. Refusals
were most effective, the next lesson taught, when said assertively, with a firm tone while
standing confidently. Once boys learned the instrumental ways to make decisions and
reject bad influences, nearly all of the lesson plans provided role-playing scenarios for
practice. For example, the lesson on decision-making provided six different scenarios
(e.g. pressure to steal or smoke marijuana) to work through. Life-skills lessons, thus, not
only defined rationality as the moral and effective mode of behavior but also provided
practice in acting on it.
Officials structured BW in other ways to emphasize male-identified modes of action.
BWs elaborate education program promoted achievement and instrumentality by
requiring boys to complete their homework before playing and rewarding them with points
for doing so. Workers were supposed to reward boys with the most points with pizza
parties and field trips, although they did not always follow this through. BW also designed
rules for personal conduct and appearance that garnered legitimacy and respect outside
of the streets. Signs posted these rules throughout the building. A teen center sign, for
example, instructed boys how to avoid appearing street:
.
.
.
.
.
.

No disrespect to staff members.


No cursing or profanity.
No [fussing], fighting or picking on others.
No begging or asking for food or money.
Do not destroy or steal Kidworks or other members property.
Do not wear baggy pants, hats, males cannot wear ear rings, or other head gear (rags,
scarfs, sweat bands).

Boys signed forms, which described appropriate dress practice, conferring their
agreement to follow the rules when they joined BW. The policy explained that staff
retained the right to exercise appropriate discretion in implementing this practice.
Appearance of clothing that is disruptive, provocative, revealing, profane or offensive is
prohibited. Staff will ask members to change his or her dress to reflect the dress code
and the mission of the organization. Boys who repeated a violation of the dress code, the
policy warned, were subject to suspension. These rules were designed to encourage boys to
think about the consequences of street appearances and to reward boys for conventionality.
Street Intervention and Mighty Kids advocated male-identified practices even though
they were programs for all children, but Boys-To-Men tied logic and instrumentality to
manhood directly. Boys-To-Men promoted rationality by differentiating between types
of conflict (e.g. content conflict versus ego conflict) and strategies for managing
disagreements (e.g. withdrawal, aggression, persuasion). The tips for handling disputes,
for example, urged boys to act rationally rather than emotionally: stay calm, identify the
real problem, think of solutions, weigh all ideas and options, choose a plan. BoysTo-Men had boys role-play disagreements and apply different conflict resolution strategies
to resolve them all focused on tempering emotional responses and thinking through
compromises. These lessons framed male-identified traits as central to achieving status
and identity as men because they defined rationality and instrumentality as valued
characteristics of men and provided boys practice in developing traits as a matter of
becoming men. The program celebrated boys transformations through journals that
documented their changes, certificates of completion, and rites of passage ceremonies.
Boys could claim their manhood by acting in male-identified ways.

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

Journal of Gender Studies

45

The Boys-To-Mens manual instructed the program to be facilitated by men, to be


about men, to train boys to become men. The male-centered language was intentional
because becoming men was about accessing rewards boys were entitled to as males:
influence and admiration from other males. But this emphasis on propping up men also
marginalized women. When the manual discussed heroes and mentors, it talked about
men whom I admire and expressly excluded women. These role models might be
a person close to us and in our family, such as a father, uncle, or brother, instructed the
manual. He might be someone from our extended community. The manual noted that
when boys did not have a male role model who is a part of his family (such as a father) or
a member of his immediate social group or community, rather than discussing important
or influential local women, he may wish to choose a role model from our popular culture
and, for some, a more distant role model because it may engender easier conversation.
That making conversation easier and more productive meant excluding women suggested
that females were not legitimate authorities and males were valorized as conveners and
benefactors of admiration and influence. Building a wall of heroes of men, as the final
lesson had boys do, reinforced womens marginalization.
A five-activity chapter on relationships with girls in Boys-To-Men, ironically, further
marginalized girls. The introduction for facilitators framed this chapter as an opportunity
to critique various stereotypes [of girls] as objects of desire, intellectually inferior,
over-emotional, dependent, incapable of participating fully in world of business or sports,
or in other ways that tend to objectify or demean them. The lessons, however, facilitated
identifying stereotypes rather than challenging them. The manual instructed workers
to have boys analyze the lyrics of popular songs, for example: for how the song portrays
women, how men treat women, and how women treat men. After boys presented their
analysis to the group and wrote them down, the manual added, Also inquire whether
[boys] think the behavior of the male in the song is appropriate and why. The manual
provided no instructions for challenging the accuracy of the portrayals or the
appropriateness of stereotyping girls. Nor did it propose discussing the consequences of
these portrayals for girls or boys. An activity that had boys list what most girls think . . .
about various topics (e.g. why it is important to look nice, what girls like to study in
school) elicited generalizations about girls. The instructions asked for boys to contrast
girls thoughts to boys. While the manual instructed facilitators to inquire what false
stereotypes do we hold about the girls thoughts, it provided no guidelines for assessing
what was false. Furthermore, the exercise itself relied on stereotyping and treating those
generalizations as real, thereby reinforcing the appropriateness of essentializing girls and
boys in stereotypical ways. The role-playing scenario in this chapter directly objectified
girls by reducing them to objects of conversational advances. The activity on
communicating with girls invited a female participant to act like a potential friend or
classroom partner. The boys, then, practiced approaching the girl and starting
conversations using the various tips the manual provided for starting a conversation,
keeping a conversation going, and ending a conversation. Marginalizing females
suggested that manhood was a homosocial process of gaining other males admiration,
a process that females served as instruments to.
Traditional roles
Programs also represented traditional male roles as legitimate avenues to authority. BoysTo-Men, for instance, emphasized becoming good employees as sources of mens status
and entitlement. The session on codes of ethics provided an example code of work and

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

46

C.M. Froyum

responsibility which framed working for pay as a fundamental American value which
attested to males worth. This code professed: I believe in the dignity of work . . . ,
I believe in the American way of life and the ideals of freedom it represents, I believe in
education because knowledge makes me a better worker . . . , and I believe satisfaction is
achieved by good work. These declarations reinforced signifying ones dignity and
patriotism through work ethic, while valuing education because it enhanced ones
productivity. Other lessons oriented boys towards achieving success through working. In
the session on employment and careers, Boys-To-Men taught the roadmap to success and
the notion that achieving the career dreams or goals that the [boys] have listed usually
means preparing oneself educationally and professionally throughout their school careers.
The manual instructed boys to reflect on attitudes in the work-place that ensure success
by identifying what impressed them as customers so that they would know how to charm
others. Through these lessons, BW conditioned boys to attest to their worth as males by
fulfilling the ideal role of being productive, rationalized, committed workers.
Boys-To-Men similarly suggested that responsible fatherhood and community
leadership entitled boys to credibility and respect. Boys-To-Men activities focused on
models of fatherhood where boys reflected on the responsibilities of fathers and the
authority held by them. The manual discussed what makes a good father around
traditional roles of provider, disciplinarian, and educator: To provide financially for
a family will require the father to have good job skills and to be employed, for example,
and to discipline a child will require the father to be clear himself about what is right and
wrong and to be able to communicate that to his child.
A traditional definition of fathers as protectors and providers was evident in other
lessons, too. BW programs largely framed pregnancy as an emotional and social burden
for girls (Froyum 2010). In fact, Boys-To-Men officially omitted sexuality as a topic.
Mighty Kids, the program for boys and girls, over-emphasized girls subjectivity as
potential reproducers who could get accidentally pregnant (Froyum 2010) and boys
subjectivity through accepting financial responsibility for offspring. During an activity in
which males and females share responsibility equally, a role-play scenario positioned
the boy actor as a sexual aggressor who would also resist paternity. After a boyfriend
repeatedly pressured his girlfriend to have sex (which she refused each time), she
approached him with an acceptance or responsibility contract. This contract stated that if
she were to get pregnant, the boy agreed to pay all maternity expenses, support the
child financially . . . , meet all reasonable expenses relating to the childs education, and
pay for one-half of all child-care expenses in the event the mother decides to work . . .
The two responsibilities unrelated to finances were to allow the child to address him as
a father in public and to meet with the girls parents. These activities defined equal sharing
in stereotypically gendered ways in which boys established their responsibility by
providing financially. Heterosexuality was essential to this traditional man. Kidworks
official position was that sexual relationships should not occur outside marriage and a
committed relationship between a man and a woman.
Similarly, Boys-To-Men defined leadership around fulfilling ones responsibility to
the community. A five-activity lesson on personal leadership and community
responsibility aimed to get boys to consider traits of leaders, and develop an awareness
that responsible adults serve their communities. BW had a leadership organization where
boys displayed authority by serving as officers, acting as ambassadors for BW at public
events, and carrying out community service projects. These programs implied that boys
should take on traditional male roles, assumed readily available to them, in order to
become successful and admired.

Journal of Gender Studies

47

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

In sum, BW challenged the legitimacy and status of being street, the model of
manhood BW assumed boys aspired to, through a mission of cultural transformation. This
gender project, evident in official BW programs, intended to teach boys to reject the streets
in favor of the promises of hegemonic manhood success, achievement, status, and
power. BW redefined rationality, achievement, and taking responsibility as legitimate
modes of action for men, while delegitimating impulsivity and physical aggression.
Similarly, BW programs offered the roles of worker, responsible father, and community
leader as sources of credible authority. By taking on hegemonic manhood, BW programs
implied, boys could access the status and influence entitled to men whom other males
widely respected and admired.
Implementing cultural change
While officials and curricula writers created the mission of cultural transformation built
around a hegemonic definition of manhood, they charged local direct-care workers with
creating change. Because they were surrounded by sometimes hundreds of energetic boys
who demanded their attention, life-skills facilitators had little time to innovate new
programs or go off script. Examining moments of worker improvisation and discrepancy
between workers and official narratives, however, reveal workers sometimes undercut
BWs mission of transforming manhood while maintaining male entitlement to power and
status. BW workers agreed that street manhood, particularly fighting and street styles,
were problematic because several had witnessed related dangers. Warner, a direct-care
worker, for example, grew up in an inner city:
Ive been stabbed 13 times, and Ive been shot once . . . I tell [kids], If you dont listen to your
parents or you dont listen to me, you might not be lucky and you might not get off that operating
table. I got off that operating table a couple of times and kept going. But there are a lot of kids
I grew up with who are six feet under or behind bars and they arent coming out any time soon.

Workers experiences with violence and concern for boys well-being led them to
agree that their job was to disrupt harmful street manhood in order to improve boys lives.
But workers had a more complex view: they also considered acting tough a cultural
style that others used to judge boys. Workers worried that gatekeepers (i.e. teachers,
police, potential employers) unduly stereotyped boys as trouble-makers or criminals.
Street styles seemed to confirm gatekeepers interpretations, thus justifying extra
surveillance and discipline. Darin explained:
You have a perception about you being an African-American male . . . You can be the
smartest, most well respectful kid there is, wont hurt a fly. But you come in here, your pants
hanging down, all these big clothes, earring, head half done theyre never going to get that
part of you.

Within this logic, boys who looked street restricted their opportunities by reinforcing
racial and class stereotypes that positioned them as trouble-makers. [Boys are] putting
their energy in these stereotypical things that people criticize them for, Alex explained,
and if they become the stereotype theyre just falling into oblivion to me. Alternatively,
workers hoped that boys could control their opportunities by disrupting gatekeepers
stereotypes. BW could empower boys by teaching them how to get others to accept them:
Here, its not about being street, Darin argued. We accept everyone here. Some people
think bad things. When you go out on the job market or whatever, you cant have your
pants hanging down. Its all about perception here. We want to overcome these habits.
He told boys: Dont play into that. Dont carry yourself in no way that that [stereotypical]
perception is true.

48

C.M. Froyum

Carmen, a wealthy white board member who mentored several teens, exemplified this
perspective. I cant change it, she said of stereotyping, but I cant deny it, so she taught
her mentees to change their appearance instead:

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

We had a real frank discussion about it. They didnt like being portrayed as because theyre
black theyre going to get into crime and theyre going to do drugs and theyre gangsters and
all of that, even though they like that music. So we talked about the do rags on the head, that
there comes a point in time where you do have to realize when people are going to judge you
on how you look, and how you talk, and how you present yourself . . . unfortunately because
youre black youre going to get more scrutiny . . . And when I take them places, they dress
very nicely.

Perhaps the easiest way to contest street styles was to teach boys the code of conduct.
Workers recited the rules at group meetings, in life-skills groups, and during times of crisis.
Staff devoted the first day of any program or group to presenting boys with rules which
differentiated street behaviors from more mainstream ones. On one day, boys traveled
from program to program learning rules. Darin told the large group not to fight, cuss, or run
inside the building. Then Brandon recited the code of conduct to the life-skills group. Then
Louise, a direct-care worker, explained the importance of showing respect: Dont be
cursing. Be respectful. When someones talking, you listen. Raise your hands. I like to be
respected, call me maam . . . Look up. And no rolling your eyes. Thats a form of
disrespect . . . No sucking your teeth. None of this. (She rolls her eyes and sucks her
teeth.) Other times workers told boys to look people in the eye and remove any earrings or
else put a Band-Aid over it (Darin).
The understanding of street manhood as simultaneously a symptom and cause,
however, facilitated emphasizing fun rather than discipline around rules. Workers
wanted BW to be a safe haven where boys enjoyed themselves rather than worrying
about being surveilled, so they told boys to have fun! and played sports and games
alongside them. Moreover, despite an abundance of rules, workers inconsistently and
superficially enforced them. While workers routinely verbally reprimanded boys, they
rarely directly rewarded obedience or punished disobedience. Workers, for example,
routinely let boys play without doing their homework, despite the rule otherwise; and
timeouts, loss of privileges, and suspension were rare, even during extreme situations.
During a Mighty Kids group, boys trapped each other underneath mats and jumped on
top of them. Even though Brandon screamed, Stop! Get up! Put that away!, he
neither obstructed nor disciplined them. Another day, a boy attacked eight-year-old
Esteban in the bathroom. Esteban, bleeding and visibly shaken, went home with his
mother, while his attacker stayed without repercussion. When workers accused boys of
stealing, they had them line up in rows and turn out their pockets. They only checked
the pockets of the first rows before the boys, lacking direction from workers, returned
to playing. In each instance, discipline was secondary to creating an inviting, fun
atmosphere.
Workers assumed boys were entitled to fun versus discipline because they were boys,
and men protected boys privilege against female workers, who more strictly enforced the
rules. A male supervisor instructed women, especially Louise, to lighten up on boys. They
dont need to suspend people all the time or put them [in timeout], he explained. Tabitha,
a direct-care worker, felt that discipline was too lax after being cussed out by a boy she told
to pick up after himself: He was like, Get out of my m-f-ing face! . . . I dont have to pick
that s-h-i-t up. Tabitha felt the boy was going to attack her so she enlisted the help of
another worker. She made the boy apologize, but Tabitha wanted the boy suspended for
three days. Her male supervisor did not punish him.

Journal of Gender Studies

49

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

Thus, workers taught boys to learn the rhetoric of rules. Even though workers expected
boys to obey authority, their spotty enforcement undercut the programmatic emphasis on
consequences and rationality. This suggested that appearing to follow the rules was more
important than actually doing so. In Darins language, boys learned to put a Band-Aid
over it. Instead, workers tried to transform BW into a haven where their too frequently
stereotyped boys could access the privileges of boyhood enjoyed by others: having fun and
making mischief without permanent consequences.

Authority through toughness


Workers also undercut hegemonic manhood when they reinforced the importance of
physical intimidation as a legitimate source of authority. Besides subjecting boys to
stereotyping, looking street was problematic, from workers perspectives, when boys were
too weak or naive to survive among hardened boys. They cautioned boys that pretending to
be tougher than they were put them in jeopardy:
The little mamas boys [here], theyre not strong enough to be on the streets . . . They portray
something that they dont really want to be and dont need to be . . . Why would you pull your
pants all the way down and put your earrings in your ears like youre the thug from the street,
and youre not? . . . [Because] thats glamorous. So they glamorize things that are not cute and
theyre not fun. And they could get you killed. (Warner)

Warner was trying to problematize street manhood, but he did so by feminizing boys
and justifying their subordination. Understanding their inferior position, Warner believed,
allowed for real change. He described Kraig, a rebellious boy whose father was violent,
as thusly transformed:
I saw him change slowly but surely . . . I was always harping on education and youre not a thug.
Youre a little punk and blah, blah. And he hated that . . . And now all of a sudden, education is
important. And being respectful is important. And leaving the streets alone is important.

Other times, workers derided boys as posers and wannabes. Despite the rules that
emphasized respect, then, workers disrespected boys by calling them names which
belittled them. Doing so reinforced a hierarchy of status and authority based on physical
intimidation, even as they problematized street manhood.
Workers further reinforced this hierarchy when they positioned themselves as
knowledgeable and tough and, therefore, authoritative. Using their own biographies
as examples, they cautioned boys of the dangers of street manhood. To convince boys of
their legitimate authority, however, they framed themselves as hardened experts. Ben
exemplified this approach: I did such-n-such, use it, he explained to boys. Take my
advice. You dont have to experience it yourself and then come back to me and say, Yeah,
youre right. Warner did this above when he described being stabbed and shot. He
cautioned boys: My aggression, fighting, arguing got me in trouble. Because I was fussing
with the police officer. And then when I got to college, I wanted to drink and be a bad boy.
But this behavior got him kicked out of his house and thrown in jail. Louise warned boys to
invest in education and delay child-bearing by describing her struggles as a single parent.
Other times, workers enlisted high-status experts to decry their previous street
orientations. They relayed the negative consequences of partying and money and sex and
women, as Ben put it, to scare boys straight; or workers provided examples of the success
change could bring. Warner held up such a newspaper story:
T used to go to the teen center here and now plays basketball for Georgia. T, as it says, didnt
pay attention to school. His grades slipped, and he became ineligible to play last year. He had

50

C.M. Froyum
to take summer school and get his grades caught up just to be able to play. As the article said,
he had to learn his lesson. You learn from it, too. For all of those who think school doesnt
matter: you have to go to the library, do our homework, do more than that.

Workers intended for stories to be cautionary tales about street life, but they
established credibility based on ones toughness.
Male workers similarly mixed messages when they established themselves as
authoritative through physical confrontation and when they defined their capacity to
dominate as signifying their manhood. When boys did something egregious, Darin
explained:

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

I might take them in a storage room and jack them up. [Grab and slam them against the wall.]
Im not going to hit them. Im not going to beat them. I aint going to threaten them and tell
them this and that. Im going to talk to them on their level.

Despite his claim that he would not hurt boys, talking to boys on their level included
violence and humiliation. When a boy kept picking on smaller children, Darin wanted to
educate him the importance of respecting hierarchy:
I kept telling him and telling him. And one day I just jacked him up. I grabbed him by the
collar of his shirt and dragged him through everybody. And this was through assembly time.
I dragged him through everybody so everybody could see to embarrass him. And I took him to
the bathroom and took my belt off and hit him three times . . . I just wanted to scare him and let
him know that life isnt about you . . . I mean, you want to pick on people? Now Im the
bigger guy. What are you going to do now?

While Darin meant to teach the boy not to abuse others, he made his point by publicly
humiliating him. He placed himself as the ultimate authority because he was more
intimidating and able to dominate more of a man than the boy.
Other workers challenged boys to prove their manhood by stepping outside. Warner
explained:
So I tell them, Lets step outside so I can give you an opportunity to be a man. I aint going to
suspend you. I aint going to call the police. I aint going to kick you out. I aint going to tell
your mom about it. If you want to be a man, lets go out here and do this one on one. Be a man
and fight it out.

While Warner reported regretting using physical force, he and others viewed it as
a necessary evil when boys exaggerated their status or became violent. By couching
physical domination in acting like men, however, workers reinforced that gaining respect
as men sometimes required demonstrating their capacity for violence and the male
workers were men to be respected.

Discussion and conclusions


This study analyzes a gender project as a form of contestation. Previous research focuses
on how racial and economic structures dictate the resources available for determining
manhood acts (Schwalbe 2005). In documenting how racism and poverty facilitate street
styles and intimidation as sources of status and respect for men, research leaves the
(mis)impression that street manhood is taken for granted. This study, however,
demonstrates that BW challenged the legitimacy of street culture through extensive
narratives, life-skills programming, and rules. The problem, official narratives implied,
was a dysfunctional definition of manhood which cut off boys access to the resources and
rewards otherwise entitled to them as males; street manhood led to jail and death rather
than institutional influence. BWs solution was to disinvest boys from street identity stakes

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

Journal of Gender Studies

51

(Schwalbe 2005) and empower them through an alternative definition of character and
honor which attached manhood to more legitimized and moral modes of action (i.e.
rationality, responsibility, achievement) and traditional roles (i.e. worker, father,
community leader). Hegemonic manhood promised power and freedom.
BWs character development, however, had unintended consequences for gender
inequality. BWs gender project primarily challenged genders internal hegemony, the
hierarchy among men (Demetriou 2001). Within this hierarchy, poor black boys are
subordinate to more affluent whites and face stigmatization and social exclusion. BW
intended its gender project to disrupt internal hegemony by raising poor black boys status
in relation to other boys who were race- and class-privileged. This method constituted
a form of normative identification where the subordinate group becomes aligned with the
characteristics of the dominant group (Ezzell 2009), here hegemonic manhood. The
problem was not the pursuit of domination but the less rationalized, less institutionalized,
more physical version of manhood BW associated with poor black boys. But while
disrupting internal hegemony through normative identification was the preferred route to
manhood, workers who implemented the programs also undercut hegemonic masculinity
when they inconsistently enforced rules, broke them themselves, or intimidated others to
gain respect. They unwittingly relayed to boys that appearing to follow the rules was more
important than actually doing so. Promoting hegemonic manhood, avoiding discipline,
and establishing authority through physical domination, however, each involved trying to
access boys assumed right to authority and power as males, entitlement BW thought they
failed to capitalize on. All reinforced domination as the foundational manhood act, even as
they contested the means of supremacy.
Addressing internal hegemony left unchallenged the flip side of the gender coin:
external hegemony or mens institutionalized domination over women (Demetriou
2001). In trying to provide boys access to male entitlement, BW programs unwittingly
reinforced male-centeredness, male-domination, and male-identification (Johnson 2005).
They reinforced male-centeredness by measuring esteem as bestowed by men/boys, while
marginalizing women/girls. Programs taught boys to dominate through traditional male
roles and legitimized male-identified modes of actions as the basis of authority. Rarely did
anyone directly question boys entitlement to freedom and authority or the association of
male-identified traits with power, and, when women did, men undercut their authority.
In shoring up boys patriarchal dividend so that individual boys could succeed, then, BW
reinforced an ideology of male supremacy which justifies male dominance and structures
unequal gender relations despite the fluidity of individual level practices (Lusher and
Robins 2009, p. 395).
Black-centric egalitarian and humanistic definitions of adulthood offer an alternative
model for addressing internal hegemony without recreating external hegemony. Hunter
and Davis (1992) illustrate how black-identified definitions of manhood emphasize selfbetterment, resourcefulness, and responsibility more than competition, aggressiveness,
and power. The college men in Ford (2011) similarly believed that with education and
maturation they would find authenticity and meaning in black manhood centered in
family and spiritual connection. These definitions focus on collective emancipation of the
racially oppressed rather than improving individuals life chances.
Finally, the way workers understood street manhood as a contestable ideal builds on
our understanding of agency at the intersection of inequalities. Men/boys increasingly
negotiate regional (or nation-state) level cultural ideals of manhood: Global institutions
pressure regional and local gender orders; while regional gender orders provide cultural
materials adopted or reworked in global arenas and provide models of masculinity that

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

52

C.M. Froyum

may be important in local gender dynamics (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005, p. 849).
The local, regional, and increasingly global dissemination and consumption of images of
street manhood typify blacks as street while reinforcing stereotypes of poor black boys as
criminals (Collins 2006, Rodriguez 2006). Street manhood is powerful not just
as embodied practices but as cultural images to negotiate wherever black boys are.
Workers here worried that gatekeepers discipline black boys by employing images of them
as trouble-makers, a phenomenon well documented in literature (Ferguson 2000, Dance
2002, Royster 2003, Carter 2006). In response, they problematized street manhood as
reinforcing racial and class stereotypes. They taught boys to distance themselves from
labels to prevent discrimination. This demonstrates that race and class marginalization not
only shapes the content of manhood acts, but workers used manhood as a resource to
disrupt race and class typification.
But hegemonic manhood was unlikely to pay the dividends workers hoped. BW boys
simply do not have the same access to meaningful work and institutional authority which
make hegemonic manhood possible for more privileged whites (Connell 2005). Moreover,
even if black boys act the same ways as whites, authority figures do not reward them the
same (Ferguson 2000, Royster 2003). Manhood through institutional domination, then,
likely does not offer an escape from racial and class inequality but rather a false sense of
escape.
This study has limitations worth noting, which future lines of inquiry should address.
The data presented here focus on the curricula and staffs practices with the kids, rather
than the boys responses to the gender project. Future research should examine how boys
resist, accept, appropriate, and change gender projects intended to provide them with
opportunities. Also, while space does not permit a full-fledged analysis of the interplay of
the gender project and Kidworks racial composition, nearly all of the boys and direct-care
workers were black, while administrators, board members, and some direct-care workers
were white. Research should consider further how racial and gender compositions of the
work-force interact to influence gender projects.
Acknowledgements
A grant from the Institute for Nonprofits, North Carolina State University, funded this research in
part. Thank you to Barbara Risman and Michael Schwalbe for their instrumental roles in shaping my
dissertation, out of which this paper developed. Thank you to Blu Tirohl and anonymous reviewers
for their thoughtful feedback.

Notes on contributor
Carissa M. Froyum is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Northern Iowa and
a deputy editor for the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. She studies the intersection of
inequalities at programs designed to help low-income black kids become upwardly mobile. Her work
appears in Qualitative Sociology; Sexualities; Contemporary Sociology; and Culture, Health, and
Sexuality. She has an article forthcoming in Ethnic and Racial Studies.

References
Anderson, E., 1999. Code of the street: decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Carrigan, T., Connell, R.W. and Lee, J., 1985. Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory and
society, 14 (5), 551 604.
Carter, P.L., 2006. Straddling the boundaries: identity, culture, and school. Sociology of education,
79 (4), 304 328.

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

Journal of Gender Studies

53

Charmaz, K., 2001. Grounded theory. In: R.M. Emerson, ed. Contemporary field research:
perspectives and formulations, second edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 335352.
Clay, A., 2003. Keepin it real: black youth, hip-hop culture, and black identity. American
behavioral scientist, 46 (10), 1346 1358.
Collins, P.H., 2006. New commodities, new consumers: selling blackness in a globalized
marketplace. Ethnicities, 6 (3), 297 317.
Connell, R.W., 2005. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, R.W. and Messerschmidt, J.W., 2005. Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept.
Gender and society, 19, 829 859.
Dance, L.J., 2002. Tough fronts: the impact of street culture on schooling. New York: Routledge.
Demetriou, D.Z., 2001. Connells concept of hegemonic masculinity: a critique. Theory and society,
30 (3), 337 361.
Emerson, R., Fretz, R. and Shaw, L., 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Ezzell, M.B., 2009. Barbie dolls on the pitch: identity work, defensive othering, and inequality in
womens rugby. Social problems, 56 (1), 111 131.
Ferguson, A.A., 2000. Bad boys: public schools in the making of black masculinity. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Ford, K.A., 2011. Doing fake masculinity, being real men: present and future constructions of self
among black college men. Symbolic interaction, 34 (1), 38 62.
Froyum, C.M., 2010. Making good girls: sexual agency in the sexuality education of low-income
black girls. Culture, health & sexuality, 12 (1), 59 72.
Hunter, A.G. and Davis, J.E., 1992. Constructing gender: an exploration of Afro-American mens
conceptualization of manhood. Gender and society, 6 (3), 464 479.
Johnson, A.G., 2005. The gender knot: unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Lusher, D. and Robins, G., 2009. Hegemonic and other masculinities in local social contexts.
Men and masculinities, 11 (4), 387423.
Majors, R. and Mancini Billson, J., 1992. Cool pose: the dilemmas of black manhood in America.
New York: Maxwell Macmillan International.
Messerschmidt, J.W., 2004. Flesh and blood: adolescent gender diversity and violence. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Newman, K.S., 1999. No shame in my game: the working poor in the inner city. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf and The Russell Sage Foundation.
Rodriguez, J., 2006. Color-blind ideology and the cultural appropriation of hip-hop. Journal of
contemporary ethnography, 35 (6), 645 668.
Royster, D.A., 2003. Race and the invisible hand: how white networks exclude black men from bluecollar jobs. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schrock, D. and Schwalbe, M., 2009. Men, masculinity and manhood acts. Annual review of
sociology, 35, 277 295.
Schwalbe, M., 2005. Identity stakes, manhood acts, and the dynamics of accountability. Studies in
symbolic interaction, 28, 65 81.
Sharkey, P.T., 2006. Navigating dangerous streets: the sources and consequences of street efficacy.
American sociological review, 71 (5), 826 846.
Tyson, K., Darity, W.J. and Castellino, D.R., 2005. Its not a black thing: understanding the burden
of acting white and other dilemmas of high achievement. American sociological review, 70 (4),
582 605.
Wacquant, L., 2004. Body and soul: notebooks of an apprentice boxer. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Young, A.A. Jr., 1999. The (non)accumulation of capital: explicating the relationship of structure
and agency in the lives of poor black men. Sociological theory, 17 (2), 201 227.

You might also like