God Bless the Child Who Got His Own: Toward a Comprehensive Theory for African-American Boys and Men

After more than 40 years of research, no uniform theory has emerged as a foundation and frame that explains the lives of African American boys and men. In fact, a significant number of studies and other scholarly writings over the aforementioned epoch concerning African American boys and men can be characterized as having no explicitly stated theoretical framework. There have been some attempts at theory, for example, Majors and Billson's (1993) cool pose framework, which has led to an emergent discussion around a theory of Black masculine literacies (Kirkland & Jackson, 2009; Tatum, 2005). Yet, these efforts have gained little traction in the area of study and are specifically focused on groups or segments under certain conditions within the general population of African American boys. In recent years, the preponderance of social science literature, particularly in the educational body of research, has drawn upon Critical race theory (CRT) to demystify and encapsulate the lives of African American boys and men (Donnor, 2005; Duncan, 2002; Howard, 2008; Lynn, 2006; Singer, 2005; Stinson, 2008). Additionally, there are even more studies that though CRT is not cited directly, it is implicit in the frame (Cox Edmondson, 2009; Fenning & Rose, 2007; Maylor, 2009; Noguera, 2003; Skiba, 2002; Wood & Turner, 2011). While we categorically affirm the necessity of considering racism, power, and cultural hegemony as a framework to analyze and situate this population, drawing on CRT as the sole theory offers a myopic viewpoint and provides a limited foundation on which to build. We aspire for a more dynamical lens and thereby borrow liberally from ecological systems theory, which allows for more fluid interaction and juxtaposition of abstract and concrete concepts, environments, time periods, and other phenomena. To this end, African American boys and men need their own theoretical framework that can articulate their position and trajectory in the world drawing on and accounting for pre- and post-enslavement experiences while capturing spiritual, psychological, social, educational development and station. The task of developing a comprehensive theory is enormous and will require the input from a variety of scholars and laymen/women from a mixture of disciplines and backgrounds. Thus, it is our aim in this current paper to a) summarize the development of African American male studies; b) discuss the problematics of CRT and other attempts at theorizing lives of African American boys and men; and c) at minimum, by building on aspects of ecological systems theory, provide some basic tenets to help situate and construct a dialogue towards a theory of African American male development, position, and practice. While our work is challenging, it is paramount to note that other historically excluded populations have constructed theories and frameworks around the narratives specific to their group. Our work should be viewed in many respects as a continuation of preceding theories such as Black feminist and womanist theory (Cannon, 1988; Collins, 1990), Feminist theory (Kolmar & Bartkowski, 2005), Latino and Latina critical theory (LatCrit) (Bernal, 2001; Fernandez, 2002; Solorzano & Bernal, 2001), Tribal critical race theory (TribalCrit) (Brayboy, 2005), African-centered theory (Asante, 1980/2003, 1990; Asante & Mazama, 2005; Mazama, 2001), and Kawaida theory (Karenga, 1980). The Study of African American Men and Boys and Social and Political Movements The broader field of Adult Development is a recent occurrence barely in its adolescence. Similarly, the study of men is in its infancy, beginning in the early 1970s. Men, specifically White males, have always been highlighted in history for their conquests, but not until the last 40 years have they been examined in regard to their sex-role development, masculinities, and specific male experiences. There were several major contributors to the early general study of men (see Brod, 1987; Connell, 1995; Franklin, 1984; Kimmel, 1987, 1995; Pleck & Pleck, 1980; Pleck, 1981). …