In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • The Brother Code: Manhood and Masculinity among African American Males in College ed. by T. Elon Dancy
  • Laura E. Struve (bio)
T. Elon Dancy, II, The Brother Code: Manhood and Masculinity among African American Males in College. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2012. xviii + 200 pp. ISBN 9781617357602 paper.

College campuses are comprised of students who embody multiple dimensions of identity: different cultures, genders, religions, socioeconomic statuses, and numerous other identifiers of personal experience merge in an environment that affects the collective campus culture, attitudes, and, ultimately, academic achievement. T. Elon Dancy’s The Brother Code: Manhood and Masculinity among African American Males in College engages in an in-depth inquiry and evaluation of the nuanced intersections that African American males in college manage, specifically their formation and definitions of manhood and masculinity as African Americans. This comes at an especially relevant time, which Dancy also indicates, as the significance of research regarding gender, race, and the multiple dimensions of these intersections in college is bourgeoning.

Part I provides a comprehensive chronicalization of six eras of African American malehood history and context within the African and American masculine experience, from pre-transplantation to the civil rights era. This in-depth perspective offers a strong foundation for the subsequent inquiry into contemporary African American college males’ conceptualizations, which cannot be wholly understood without acknowledging the milieu of preceding eras in African American history, which continues to inform African American identity and experiences today. Multiple theoretical models are appropriately employed in order to contextualize the voices from Dancy’s study, including the theory of double consciousness, Cross’s theory of nigrescence, and Tinto’s retention modeling (1975, 1987, 1994) all adequately address the social, racial, and educational intersections of these men’s identities that we hear from in Part II.

In Part II, chapters 5 through 8 build on the established literature and illuminate the personal perspectives these men offer of their meaning-making. Definitions of manhood are also interwoven with Dancy’s astute perceptions, [End Page 113] which deliver a richer understanding of these men’s experiences. Chapter 5 outlines the definitions and constructions of these men’s self-expectations, “dueling expectations,” and community expectations of themselves. In this chapter, Dancy directs us to one of the most resonating findings of his study, which is the different ways in which mothers and fathers influence each man’s manhood and masculinity formations. These findings call to a need for greater exploration into the perceived and real differences between mothers’ and fathers’ behavioral vs. ideological impact into masculinity formation.

Chapter 6 concentrates on the role of the college institution on the men’s reinforcement of manhood ideals, specifically institutional (in)attention and (disavowal), relationships with faculty, mentoring and supporting, and bridging campus and community (p. 105). Dancy points to the variance men experience regarding their faculty’s expectations and treatment, the institutional infrastructure available to them, as well as the need to establish strong community support. Also, importantly, Dancy finds that the racial compositions of each institution were “critical components to differential reinforcements of the men’s understanding of their manhood” (p. 124), but also the difference that institutional type (HBCU vs. HWI) has in their constructions. In a time when affirmative action continues to be relevant in our education and judicial systems, this finding further supports the significance that institutional racial composition can have on men’s conceptualizations, academic achievement, and success.

Chapter 7 outlines the emergent four typologies of manhood found from this study, which include the sexualizer, transgressor, misogynist, and self-actualizor. The significance of these typologies are not necessarily the characteristics of each or the individuals who subscribe to them, rather Dancy points to those who move both between typologies and, more importantly, those who defy the embodiment of the Brother Code, which reinforces classic hegemonic subscriptions.

Finally, chapter 8 applies these found masculine constructs, oppositional identities, and expressed need for equal support both within and between higher education institutions to adequately address the unique needs of these students. Six specific points for policy and practice in higher education are outlined, one of which is consistently reinforced in this work and applicable to diverse student populations...

pdf

Share