Exploring representations of Black masculinity and emasculation on NBC’s Parenthood

ABSTRACT

Here, representations of Black masculinity and emasculation are explored on NBC’s Parenthood. We question whether depictions of Black masculinity represented through Parenthood’s character, Alex, are empowering or stereotypical; how do they reflect, destabilize, and/or reinforce heteronormative depictions of Black community members? Two seasons were analyzed using Owen’s thematic analysis. Ultimately, Black males are portrayed as being societal failures, criminals, violent, and hypersexualized through his character. This embodiment ultimately preserves long-held images of Black men as “Toms, coons … bucks … as oversexed, aggressive, violent, animalistic, or emasculated” (Jackson, R. L. II. 2006. Scripting the black masculine body: Identity, discourse, and racial politics in popular media. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press). Practical recommendations and suggestions for researchers and media practitioners are provided.

KEYWORDS:

• Black masculinity
• Blackness
• prejudice
• media representations
• Black men

Opening a magazine or a book, turning on a television set, watching a film, or looking at photographs in public spaces, we are most likely to see images of Black people that reinforce and reinscribe White supremacy. Clearly, those of us committed to the Black liberation struggle, to the freedom and determination of all Black people, must face daily the tragic reality that we have collectively made few, if any, revolutionary interventions in the area of race and representation.—hooks (1992)—Jackson (2006)

Above, bell hooks describes the problematic nature of the media and the ascription of Black identity. Though her words were penned late in the twentieth century, the problematic representation of Black community members persists in the twenty-first century (Castle Bell, Hopson, Weathers, & Ross, 2014; Jackson, 2006). We utilize Heuman’s (2004, 2006) phrasing of community members in an effort to speak with cultural group members and not for or about them. “The Black body (continues to be) the primary site and surface for race and representation” (Jackson, 2006, p. 1), reflecting the complexity of racial and sexual politics (Shabazz, 2008). Primetime television provides evidence that this practice persists. Indeed, twenty-first century television representations of Black characters and the meaning embedded in their depictions reveals how perceptions of Blackness and “being Black” are often embedded in “a composite of other meanings, not one singular instance” (Jackson, 2006, p. 3). Unfortunately, these images—which do not depeict Black folks accurately—are positioned to represent Black people for television audiences. Therefore, it “continues to be imperative that concerted efforts be made to decenter [existing images and ideologies] that marginalize and racialize [the lived] experiences of people of color” (Harris, 2001, p. 116).

Hyper-stereotypical images of Black folks have historically been depicted as violent, involved in criminal activity, deadbeat drunks or drug-addicts, unable to control themselves sexually, financially, or physically, Mungos or “buffoonish characters” (Jackson, 2006), working-class poor, and/or generally uneducated Sambos who are “inadequate, non-intellectual, and incompetent” (p. 21). These images render the Black middle class invisible and reduce Blackness merely to pejorative categories. Such descriptions of Black masculinity are problematic for media consumers and emasculating for Black folks (Boylorn, 2008). For media viewers, such images relegate Blacks and/or Blackness to the role of being “the problem” and Whiteness as what is normal, typical, and ideal in comparison (Jackson & Balaji, 2015). Further, portrayals of Blackness juxtaposed against the backdrop of “Whiteness as the ideal” are problematic. They enable the media to influence how audience members construct and/or “view” members of various cultural communities and impact how traditionally marginalized community members may view themselves (Harris & Weber, 2010).

The images of Blacks, as the stereotypic minstrel, where they are dehumanized and reduced to “darkies in opposition to Whites who were cultured ladies and gentlemen” (Jackson, 2006, p. 21) remains all too familiar on television. Orbe and Harris (2015) argue the media is a critical factor influencing the ways in which our perceptions of race and racial communities are created, maintained, and subsequently transformed. This is due in large part to the racial hierarchy that positions Whiteness as most valuable, resulting in the racial framing of the proverbial other. More pointedly, such negative framing is largely due to White privilege, or the unearned advantages White folks have because they have White skin. White characters do not have the same risk of perpetuating stereotypes as there are a plethora of positive counterimages that frame them as heterogeneous. Given this marked disparity between racial groups and their respective representations, it is imperative that we critique the ways in which historically oppressed groups continue to be depicted in mass mediated texts.

Unfortunately, the prevalence of negative representations were also perpetuated in NBC’s Parenthood. Of particular interest here are the ways Black masculinity is constructed and performed when a lead White (or European American) female character, Haddie Braverman, becomes involved in a serious interracial dating relationship with Alex, a Black (or African American) male played by Michael B. Jordan (Toby, 2013) on NBC’s Parenthood (We use the terms Black and African American interchangeably throughout the manuscript. We prefer the term Black, to be inclusive of Blacks who are not African American, but use each to represent all possible avowed identities). We acknowledge that other shows such as Scandal (ABC), Shameless (Showtime), How to Get Away with Murder (ABC), Black-ish (NBC), True Blood (HBO), and The Haves and the Have Nots (OWN) also feature some stereotypical images. However, our central concern surrounds the ways in which such representations continue to perpetuate long-held stereotypes of Blacks in their storylines, featuring Parenthood as the show of interest. Some may argue that counterimages (positive depictions) are embedded within these visual texts (i.e., “it is good to see Black characters in leading roles on television”). However, a closer examination suggests that a double standard exists. Ultimately, the performance of Blackness illustrated through such characters requires our attention.

In an effort to further illuminate this double standard, we examine representations of Black masculinity and Black emasculation represented through Parenthood’s character, Alex, played by Michael B. Jordan. Specifically, we examine the degree to which “these images are positioned to represent and express the lived realities of Black men” (Hopson, 2008, p. 441). We subject Alex’s images to examination and question whether they are empowering or stereotypical to the extent that they reflect, destabilize, and/or reinforce heteronormative depictions of Black community members. Given the reality of the racial tensions in North America and the implications thereof, we demonstrate the critical role that mediated images play in impacting societal perceptions of African American men.

Research questions

The depiction of Black masculinity in primetime television remains highly problematic. While critics and viewers alike may argue that male characters that “happen to be Black” are telling raceless stories about the trials of humanity, it is imperative that we recognize the problems that arise when race and gender intersect (Collins, 2005). In the case of Black men, gendered and racialized identities function to perpetuate familiar controlling images that are accepted as truthful depictions of Black masculinity in the twenty-first century. Therefore, through a critique of the character Alex in Parenthood, we aim to explore the following two research questions:

RQ1: How is Black masculinity portrayed, constructed, and performed through the character of Alex?

RQ2: Are these images consistent with traditional stereotypical representations of Black men?

Review of Parenthood, theoretical foundations, and relevant literature

Contextualizing Parenthood

During the Fall 2010 season, NBC introduced viewers to their new television program, Parenthood, a life-like family drama and comedy (e.g., dramedy) showcasing the lives of three generations of the Braverman family (Braverman family, 2011). Inspired by the Ron Howard movie Parenthood released in 1989, the show centers on the trials and tribulations of the Buckman family. Howard adapted the film to television, but was unsuccessful in securing ratings necessary to remain on the air. However, the twenty-first century reinterpretation of this family-centered dramedy secured its place on primetime television. The Braverman family represents the lives of children, parents, and grandparents throughout many stages and seasons of life. The Parenthood series finale took place in 2014 after several successful seasons.

Theoretical foundations: Scripting the Black, masculine body

In order to better understand this phenomenon, we begin our critique with a discussion of the notion of ascription. The Black body is a text to be read and/or interpreted by audiences internationally, in person, at home, on television, in the community, at work, or even at school. According to Jackson (2006), the ascription process occurs as Black individuals in everyday life are read as “actors on stage” (p. 53). Thus, when we gaze at Black bodies and make judgments about Black people, we engage in ascription (p. 11). Specifically, “to actively script someone else’s body is to inscribe, or figuratively place, oneself, one’s worldview, or ascriptions onto another text while redefining the oppositional text as the ‘Other’” (p. 53). For mass media and television audiences, the act of scripting is embedded in writing and interpreting the text—a process in which both writers and audience members participate, consciously (on purpose) and unconsciously (out of ignorance). Philosophically, we explore several positions about this ascription process: (a) discursive, (b) inscripted, (c) collective, and (d) problematic.

Philosophy of ascription

First, like Jackson (2006), we posit that Black bodies are historically discursive texts, which are “socially understood … and read by interactants, [television audience members which] fuel race contemporary notions of race and racism” (p. 2). Second, we position Black bodies [as] inscripted texts [to which meaning is ascribed]; they are “acted upon, inscribed, peered into, extracted, and imposed upon” (p. 12). We contend that most textual representations are imaginative, and most likely actually represent nonfactual character imaginary performances of Blackness from the perspective of White writers. Third, we argue that the ascription process is a collective representation that is interdependent (either interdependent with or dependent upon/on) upon previous televised ascriptions of Blackness (Jackson & Hopson, 2011). Collectively, such character depictions enable viewers to ascribe identity to Black males who are not on television, which is troublesome for several reasons.

Fourth, we position current television, and subsequently film, inscriptions as problematic representations of Blackness that preserve established racial inscriptions and do not provide space for audience members to either: (a) view alternate representations, or (b) empower television viewers to question the stereotypical representations they find on primetime television (Jackson, 2006). A final concern regarding accepting television images as reality is that some White audience members may be more likely to believe television images actually represent Black people they encounter in daily life. This is especially true in the absence of interracial interactions (Orbe & Harris, 2015) and when White people do not have genuine intercultural friendships with Black community members (Jackson & Balaji, 2015). These relationships would ideally function, in some ways, to deconstruct these familiar yet troubling images because people would have a lived reality with which they could compare television representations of Blackness. Unfortunately, without such friendships, these stereotypes remain unbridled on primetime television, popular media, and in reality (Jackson, 2006). The result: It is challenging to dismantle fictional television depictions of Black community members and difficult to discern fact from media performance fabrication.

Theoretical foundations: Black emasculation

Here, Black emasculation is situated within a present twenty-first-century and historical framework. We acknowledge that the past and present are interdependent. As such, we contend historical types of emasculation which position Black males as inferior and keep them in their place persist through twenty-first-century media depictions (Collins, 2005; Condit, 1999). Jackson (2006) provides several examples of historical emasculation.

The first type of historical (and present) emasculation is lynching. Lynching refers to any race-based murder, historical or present (Hopson, 2011). “Lynchings were about Black prohibition and White privilege … as Blacks were lynched for acting suspicious, obnoxious, unpopularity, frightening a White woman, and arguing with a White man” (Jackson, 2006, p. 18). Lynching continues today, albeit in different forms. The second type of historical (and present) emasculation is castration. Castration literally refers to the removal of male genital organs. This method of coercion was used as a historical form of control—to reprimand Black slaves and Black community members who overstepped the boundaries of White privilege or White southern laws. Historically, “Blacks were sometimes castrated for having an association with White women … the slave would [then] be killed or auctioned as damaged goods, since he would no longer be used for siring more children” (p. 18). Essentially, castration as a form of Black emasculation rhetorically communicates that Black males need to be “obedient, servile, docile, or they will be punished” (p. 19).

Not surprisingly, primetime television contributes to the emasculation and de-humanization of Black males in very pronounced and disconcerting ways (Jackson & Hopson, 2011). Emasculation persists as Black bodies are scripted on television. For example, the roles to which Black males are assigned continually position them as inferior (e.g., gang members, criminals, supporting actors) to their White counterparts. Further, emasculation is manifested via the depictions of Black characters as being problematic, sexual objects, and uneducated ex-cons who also have personal issues and serious hardships, such as drug additions and homelessness, and are relationally disconnected from their familial and cultural communities as a result of a larger (seemingly) dysfunctional African American culture. Alex’s Parenthood character embodies these complex intersectionalities of Black masculinity in very troubling yet critical ways, as we demonstrate in the forthcoming data and analysis section.

Television and the communicative construction of reality

According to Fiske and Hartley (1978), television has the ability to “structure and present its picture of reality [through discourse and images that] present [audience members] with updated versions of social relations and cultural perceptions” (p. 5). Moreover, the meaning communicated through television “usually coincides with the perceptions of the dominant sections of society” (p. 5). For people watching a television show, the characters may “represent a real person [and] illustrate what someone is really like” (Fiske, 1987, p. 152). Thus, it is logical to conclude that television represents and/or expresses various pictures of reality. Such misrepresentations perpetuate issues of race in the United States and beyond—the reality is lost: Black people are more than the sum of the characters depicted on television.

Audience members understand television characters through the physical images portrayed on the screen as well as through the discourse other characters use to describe the character of interest (Fiske, 1987). In the viewers’ minds, characters may unconsciously represent an entire cultural group. Since people likely associate television characters with real people and real cultural groups, “we need to be very cautious about our portrayal” (Condit, 1999, p. 505). In the case of Parenthood, Alex’s character’s actions as a Black male served to generally represent all Black males. It is dangerous and highly problematic to make such assumptions about an entire group of historically marginalized group. For example, if television depicts African Americans as violent criminals, how do these representations impact the way we perceive or read Black bodies in the community? This is quite possibly the case with the recent senseless deaths of Black men and women (e.g., Philandro Castile, Alton Sterling, Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Eric Gardner, Trayvon Martin). Surely, these tragedies also illustrate the ingrained, stereotypical connections made between Black males and crime. Just as one Black person does not speak for the entire community at large, one character cannot feasibly accomplish such a task.

Ultimately, audiences need to be able to identify inaccurate representations of marginalized group members, rather than attribute truth claims to television images. It is not enough to celebrate the presence of Black bodies on twenty-first century primetime television—even when their characters have leading roles. We must consider how such television images function to misrepresent and (dis)empower traditionally marginalized group members. Thus, it is imperative that we seek to understand how such images impact the ways in which, we as a society communicate with Black community members in daily life. Essentially, we must question how what we see on television impacts daily intercultural communication. We must interrogate our perceptions and replace them with counterimages. Such mindfulness is vital especially when contextualized within current media depictions and representations of Blackness on television, which we articulate below.

Criminal representations of Black men on television

Representations of African Americans on the news are negative (Dixon, 2008a, 2008b). In their investigation of depictions of violence on local television news in Chicago, Entman and Rojecki (2000) found a tremendous racial slant. Their results demonstrated that Blacks are depicted as individuals who commit a lot of crime, while Whites are positioned as being crime victims. We see a very similar presentation on primetime television today. What is interesting about their results—is that Black community members were improperly represented as criminals even though “Blacks in Chicago are more likely than Whites to be victimized” (p. 81). Even still, Whites are pictured as being victimized by Blacks on the news and on television shows (Dixon, 2008a).

Television has played a critical role in the criminal stereotypes people have of Black people. As Dixon (2008b) found, news viewing was responsible for “the frequent activation of the Black criminal stereotype” (p. 108) for participants in a study on local news program and crime news. These findings are consistent with other research that shows a strong belief that African Americans are inherently criminal. For example, Entman and Rojecki (2000) report that “the FBI estimated [that] 41% of those arrested for violent crimes were [B]lack, while 57% were White” (p. 79). These statistics are problematic and “highlight the media’s ability to construct realities that do not necessarily accord with official statistics and other factual data” (p. 79). Per the FBI’s most recent Uniform Crime Reports, (2011) based on data collected in 2009, Black individuals accounted for 28.4% of violent crime arrests, while White individuals composed 69.2% of violent crime arrests.

Such misleading representations “can activate crime stereotypes regarding Blacks that can be used in subsequent judgments” (Dixon, 2008a, p. 321). Thus, what we come to believe from the television media inevitably impacts our communicative interactions with Black people in everyday life. If Blacks are criminals, when Whites see them on the sidewalk, they may hug their purse tighter, or cross the street to the other side. This is entirely problematic insomuch as the news portrayals may influence perceptions of race and crime and may impact how television viewers form opinions about Black community members (Dixon, 2008a).

All too often, it becomes difficult to accept alternate views of individuals (Harris & Porter, 2013). Entman and Rojecki (2000) explain “people tend to disregard counter-stereotypical or counter-schematic information … because it takes active, self-critical awareness and discipline to counteract schematic tendencies in one’s own thinking” (p. 215). As television producers encode and viewers decode messages, viewers often fail to question whether these racialized depictions are accurate. Thus, rather than accept an alternate representation, people seek to reconfirm their original assessments—even when presented with evidence to the contrary. With disconcerting regularity, dominant stereotypic representations are accepted by viewers, as it requires much less thought than questioning the encoded messages. Media images reinforce prejudice and racism and “are often assumed to represent the entire race and gender” of the individuals depicted (Boylorn, 2008, p. 423). This is generally problematic for television audiences and for race relations.

Methodological framework

Sample

This qualitative interpretive analysis examined the myriad images and meanings that NBC’s Parenthood viewing audience may observe about Black men and Black masculinity overall. The data came from the second season of NBC’s Parenthood (2010–2011), which featured actor Michael B. Jordan as “Alex,” Haddie Braverman’s love interest.

Self-reflexivity

According to Steier (1995), most research questions flow from the interests of scholars borne from their life experiences. Qualitative scholars are encouraged to acknowledge how their lives are intertwined with the development of their research questions. We were individually surprised and happy that Parenthood diversified its cast by integrating Black and White interracial couples into the storyline. However, we quickly questioned whether these representations were empowering, or if they functioned to perpetuate long-held Black stereotypes. We utilize our positionality to address the conflicting images of race and gender in a television show that attempts to “normalize” contemporary conceptions of the family (e.g., single mother, divorce, child with Asperger syndrome).

The first author identifies as European American, occupies a middle-class position, is the White partner in a Black/White interracial marriage, and a mother to a multiracial baby boy. The second author identifies as an African American or Black female and has extensive personal and professional experience with racism and the media. We recognize that our interpretations are not universal. We do not attempt to speak for community group members, but to speak with them regarding issues of Black masculinity and emasculation in the media and on this primetime television show specifically. We acknowledge that we hope to raise the consciousness of those in media production and media consumers, ultimately resulting in the introduction of new counterimages that debunk the many stereotypical images associated with Black community members and members of other historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and cultural groups.

Episode transcriptions

We watched NBC’s Parenthood as viewers throughout the show’s first two seasons in 2009–2010 and 2010–2011. Thereafter, we observed the season a second time for coding and observation of the interpersonal interactions between Alex and Haddie as well as the other characters’ discussions about the couple and/or about Alex in particular. All of these interactions were fully transcribed, yielding a total of 20 pages of single-spaced transcriptions from every scene that featured Alex’s character.

Data and analysis

Owen’s (1984) thematic analysis provided a means for generating theme-driven categories. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze transcriptions of the couple’s interactions and other characters’ discussions about Alex and Haddie during the season of focus. During this process, we were attentive to: (a) repetition “the explicit repetition of key words, phrases, or sentences” (Owen, 1984, p. 296), (b) forcefulness identified by “vocal inflection, volume, or dramatic pauses, which serve to stress and subordinate some utterances from others” (p. 276), and (c) recurrence “present when at least two parts of a report have the same thread of meaning” (Keyton, 2006, p. 296). The most significant and frequent themes were retained and will be presented in the data and analysis section below.

Data interpretation: Voice, gaze, and space

While audience members read televisual messages and interpret the characters through various “modes and means of representation” presented via programing, we acknowledge that other factors impact character interpretations (Fiske, 1987, p. 153). Audience members may be influenced to accept television depictions of characters based on: (a) what audience members hear (voice); (b) what audience members see (gaze); and finally (c) how characters are positioned on television (space; Hopson, 2011).

When examining NBC’s Parenthood, voice can be understood by asking the question, “What do we hear while the characters are speaking?” Hopson (2011) explains that to “gaze is to see, stare, to ponder, to focus, to envision, to imagine, and or to examine power within social relationships … it is to challenge oppressive power by exposing it” (p. 36). Hopson further notes that “space illuminates the ways in which context, situation, and environment can empower or (dis)empower communicators … [and maintains that] physical and psychological space exists all around us” (p. 70). As such, it may be argued that part of understanding the multiple ways a text can be interpreted comes from questioning what is heard and seen, and how Black male characters are positioned on television.

Member checks

According to Maxwell (2005), member checks give the researcher the opportunity to ask members of the same population questions about “data and conclusions” (p. 111). Moreover, conducting member checks and respondent validation is an avenue for managing researcher objectivity so the researcher does not impose his or her viewpoints on the data (Patton, 2002). To manage subjectivity, we discussed each of the scenes presented as data and the multiple interpretations presented in the analysis and conclusion sections with two members of the Parenthood viewing population, one Black male and one White male respectively.

Data and analysis

In the following data and analysis section, representations of Black masculinity and Black emasculation are explored through the representations of Alex’s character. Two major themes are examined: (a) Black emasculation; and (b) images of Black Masculinity. Each are presented below with relevant subthemes, which serve as exemplars of images that function to construct Black masculinity and emasculate Black men through Alex’s character. The following themes also highlight instances where the Parenthood storyline conforms to historic, negative images and to stereotypical meanings of Blackness, the Black male body, and Black masculinity.

Black emasculation

From a mass media perspective, Black emasculation positions Black males as inferior, attempts to “keep them in their place,” and contributes to the perpetuation of marginalization. Much like other Black male characters, Alex is observed going through cycles of oppression that undermine the personhood, dismantle sense of self, or weaken the ability of Black men to avow their own identities. Below, we present three themes, which are instances where Alex’s character was emasculated on screen: (a) perpetual (closeted) alcoholic: drunken deadbeat; (b) hypersexual romantic; and (c) fatherless manchild. We define them and provide communicative excerpts to illustrate the emasculation of Alex’s character. Theoretical analysis immediately follows each thematic presentation.

Perpetual closeted alcoholic: Drunken deadbeat

Viewers are introduced to Alex’s character in episode six, when Haddie joins her grandmother Camille in volunteer work at the Oakland Food Bank (Braverman family, 2011), where we learn Camille has volunteered for more than 10 years (Patrick, 2011). Haddie is preparing for college and needs to complete 100 hours of community service for her application statements (Braverman family, 2011). On Haddie’s first visit there, we meet Alex, who is the manager of the Oakland Food Bank and in charge of Haddie’s volunteer schedule. This introduction initially frames Alex as a good-hearted, community-centered young man, and for three episodes, we watch Alex and Haddie interact in a professional manner. Because Alex looks slightly older than Haddie and dresses in business casual attire, the assumption is that he graduated from college and found a job he loved working in social services. As episode six progresses, Haddie and Alex express romantic interest in one another, as evidenced through their consistent, fairly innocuous flirting. But the audience’s perception of Alex is shattered as his personal struggles are revealed and he is reframed as a troubled young Black man.

In episode eight (“If This Boat is a Rockin”), the audience watches as Alex and Haddie’s relationship escalates to a romance. The scene of focus begins with the two laughing while sitting on the edge of an empty U-Haul truck after moving a homeless family into a new house together. It is inferred that, because the storyline is not unfolding in “real time,” the characters have had multiple interactions that have facilitated their emotional connection to one another. They are talking about the day and laughing when Haddie kisses Alex. Haddie thus, makes it explicitly clear to Alex that she has romantic feelings for him through this action. Although he kisses her back, he then immediately expresses reservations by stating that, “That’s not a good idea.” Although the audience is not made aware of his internal thought process, it is inferred that Alex has given considerable thought to having a romantic relationship with Haddie, and for reasons yet unknown, he is very reluctant to do so. Even still, we see him continue to flirt with her onscreen.

In episode nine, Haddie is observed responding to Alex’s semirejection. After arriving for work at the Oakland Food Bank, Haddie knocks on Alex’s office door and apologizes for initiating a kiss with him. Rather than avoiding the topic, Alex takes a very mature approach and offers the following explanation to Haddie regarding his reticence.

I am an alcoholic; I have been in recovery for five months. I am telling you this because romantic relationships just aren’t good for me right now. … I like you. I don’t want you to think that you are not attractive, because you are. You are really amazing, actually. It is just that I am not in a place to do anything about those feelings.

From this disclosure, the audience gains increased insight into the complexity of Alex’s character. With this discourse, he transitioned from being a middle class, stable Black male to a recovering alcoholic who, as the audience soon learns, comes from a very troubled past. In the next episode we learn that Alex has been on his own since his early teens because of his troubled family life (Patrick, 2011), which ultimately led to his homelessness and finding solace as a resident at the Oakland Community Center and Food Bank. Due to his difficult life circumstances and inability to cope, Alex dropped out of school and resorted to alcohol.

Coupled together, these new revelations about Alex’s character ultimately function to reframe Black masculinity in very troubling ways. While Alex has and continues to have hardships that can befall anyone regardless of their racial/ethnic background, the decision by the show’s producers to take this character down a dark path is problematic. Alex subsequently conforms to the stereotype of the undependable, troubled, and uneducated Black man. He is emasculated through the revelation that he is a recovering alcoholic when we observe Alex covertly leaving the Community Center for his Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting. Alex knows it is against the rules to start a romantic relationship, yet the positioning of Haddie as a future romantic interest anyways, begins the construction of Black masculinity as hypersexualized. Alex becomes another Black man who is unable to help himself as he is willing to risk his sobriety and personal accomplishments to be with Haddie. We acknowledge that Alex is working arduously to right his past, but presenting him as a fractured male in a very racist society only serves to perpetuate a controlling image of Black males as highly dysfunctional.

Hypersexual romantic

This theme speaks to Alex’s character’s quality of being a hopeless romantic with the inability to make the best life decisions (e.g., sobriety), a struggle that we witness as he fails to avoids romantic relationships while completing the 12-step program. As a result, in the episodes following the eighth episode, we observe Haddie and Alex as they attempt to have a platonic relationship while working together. However, the lines become blurred as an emotional connection develops. We witness Haddie accompanying Alex to his AA meeting where he earns his six-month sobriety chip. Their relationship eventually turns into a romantic dating relationship, despite Alex’s admission several episodes prior that “romantic relationships just aren’t good for me right now.” Kristina, Haddie’s mom, sees them kissing outside the food bank and invites Alex, now labeled as Haddie’s boyfriend, over for family dinner. Up until this point, Adam and Kristina, Haddie’s parents, have been oblivious about their romantic relationship (Patrick, 2011).

This emphasis on Alex’s sexuality is reminiscent of the Black Buck stereotype associated with Black men (Collins, 2005). More pointedly, the intersection of his romantic interest and his race call to into question his sex drive or desire for sexual relations in all interactions with women, namely White women. Ultimately, Alex could not resist his romantic feelings for Haddie and acted on them. Alex’s character thus represents the stereotypical Buck when he “essentially refuses to even attempt to control his insatiable sexual desires and urges” (Jackson, 2006, p. 41). Rather than avoid a romantic entanglement with Haddie, which will assuredly derail him from his personal development goals, he seemingly has to enter into a romantic relationship with Haddie, despite what was best for him.

Fatherless manchild

In addition to experiencing Black emasculation as an alcoholic Black male who cannot help but be romantic with a woman he desires, Alex is more fully emasculated as we learn he represents another poor, uneducated, fatherless Black male. The fatherless manchild is an African American male who is the stereotypical product of a single-parent home and lacks a male role model from whom to learn, understand, and negotiate his Black masculinity. When Alex comes to Haddie’s home for dinner with her family, immediately, the audience learns more about Alex’s very troubled past as a fatherless manchild over their dinner conversation.

Adam (Haddie’s Dad):

So Alex, how did you get involved with the food bank?

Alex:

That’s a funny story. I used to eat there. Yeah, that place saved my life. My mom passed a few years ago.

Kristina (Haddie’s Mom):

Awe honey, I am sorry to hear that.

Alex:

My dad never really recovered. He was in a bad place. He had some demons he couldn’t get rid of, he wouldn’t get help, so I ate quite a few meals there. You cannot make people’s choices for them you know, so when I was 16, I emancipated myself.

Kristina:

So you have been living like an adult since you were Haddie’s age, 16?

Alex:

Yep, to tell you the truth I did not know what I was getting myself into. But I am getting myself together now, I am getting my credits together to finish high school, managing the food bank. What I really want to do is have a career in social services. … I really want to give back to the system first.

Adam:

Do you want to go to college?

Alex:

College, I would like that, I would have to figure some things out first. But right now I really want to get through a year on the program. I’m in AA. … I have been sober for six months, I just got my six month chip.

Adam and Kristina:

Good for you, you should be really proud of yourself, that is tough.

Alex:

Umm, I am solid. I want you guys to know that. I get that you guys are parents and all of this sounds crazy. But you go down the road you go down when you are younger, you learn what you learn from watching what is right in front of you, but when you grow up you get to make your own choices that define who you are, your morals, what you will stand for and fall for. I want to be completely honest so thank you for letting me be.

As this scene demonstrates, Alex further shifts from a male to a Black male beleaguered by nearly insurmountable obstacles on his road to recovery. This is the Bravermans’ first encounter with Alex, and he immediately is viewed as a threat to the “purity” (e.g., innocent, naïve) of their beloved Haddie. Later, Kristina and Adam express their reservations. Although they believe Alex is a nice guy, they forbid Haddie to date him because he is “too mature” for her (Patrick, 2011), which could be coded as he is “too Black.” However, Haddie purposely deceives Alex by telling him that he passed the test. Attempting to escape the strict rules of her parents, Haddie moves in with her grandparents. However, her efforts to reconcile with her parents ultimately lead to parental approval of their relationship and Alex spending considerable time with the whole Braverman household.

During this dinner conversation, Alex comes to discursively represent a parentless, struggling Black teenager who carries baggage from his rough childhood, embodied by his major struggle with alcoholism, his education status (GED), and assumed lower socioeconomic position. Ultimately, audiences are presented with an image that prompts them to gaze upon Alex as yet another struggling, unsuccessful, criminal Black character on a television show. This communication interaction transforms Alex into a stereotypical Black man, or as hooks (1992) explains, a “failure … and psychologically fucked up” (p. 89). These depictions are dangerous. “These narrow representations of Black masculinity, perpetuated stereotypes, and myths” (p. 89) about Black men, may impact how audience members view reality for all Black men.

Images of Black masculinity

Hypersexualized buck

In addition to watching Alex’s emasculation, reducing him to a poor, uneducated, fatherless, alcoholic Black male with a troubled past, he also comes to represent the hypersexualization of Black men. The hypersexualized Black male, or Buck, is believed to have had multiple sex partners, to possess a very high sex drive, and is consumed with sexual desire in the presence of women in general, and White women in particular. The stereotype of the hypersexual Black male emerges during Alex and Haddie’s physical and communicative interactions together. As early as episode nine, we begin to see Alex as a sexual being through their romantic conversations and the images depicting their physical contact. Two prominent examples are the two scenes we titled “I know how you like to get dirty” and “prom night sex.”

It is important to note that, unlike White male characters of the same age and life circumstances, Alex’s character is not afforded the luxury of escaping the cultural markers of race and gender that frame him as a potentially threatening, hypersexual male when gazing at specific television scenes. The guise of a harmless man overcoming life’s obstacles is eclipsed by his Black masculinity, introducing a foreboding interpretation of maleness that is problematized by race. Each of the following scenes illustrates the hypersexualization of Alex’s character. Theoretical analysis immediately follows each thematic presentation.

“I know how you like to get dirty.”

The first specific scene that foregrounds this stereotype involves a phone conversation between Haddie and Alex. Haddie calls Alex at the community center to ask him “if she wrote down that she would work the following day” (Patrick, 2011). Seeing this as an opportunity to get to know Haddie by spending more time with her, Alex places her on hold, pretends to check the schedule, and confirms that she did sign up to volunteer for the next day. When she says she will see him tomorrow, he responds with, “You are lucky, too. There is a big compost pile out back with your name on it. I know how you like to get dirty.” Haddie smiles, appears giddy and replies, “Yeah, I’ll see you tomorrow.”

While this exchange may appear innocent on the surface, it seemingly becomes sexual, as Alex appears to make a sexually suggestive comment to and about Haddie and her sexual proclivities. In a same-race context, this might be perceived as flirtatious; however, because of historical framings of Black males as hypersexual, it is quite easy for the audience (and possibly other characters) to view and accept Alex’s words as a threat to Haddie’s purity. Haddie in some ways represents the iconic White standard of beauty whose purity is being threatened by the “Black Buck” who has encroached upon the safe White space of the Braverman family. The couple ends up having a sexual relationship, which becomes the focus of each scene they have together for the rest of the season.

Prom-night sex

Haddie is excited about attending her first prom, and now that she is officially dating Alex, her excitement is heightened by the anticipation of the North American tradition of “prom night sex.” By extension, the sexual tension between them intensifies when Haddie asks Alex to be her date and he accepts (Patrick, 2011). While dancing at prom, their conversation topic pointedly shifts to sex when Haddie says, “Ahh, you know how people kind of get rooms after, ahh, have you ever thought about that?” Alex pauses for a moment and ends the conversation about sex, saying, “When the time is right, we are going to know. Baby, there is no rush. I’m not going anywhere.” However, in the next scene, he and Haddie leave prom early and go back to Alex’s apartment. As there are kissing outside his apartment door, she reminds him of their discussion about “when the time is right,” and declares that, “I feel like now is the right time.” Alex immediately responds with, “I don’t want you to feel pressured because it is prom night and your friends got rooms.” Nevertheless, Haddie reassures him sharing, “I feel good.” Alex responds by opening the door to his apartment while saying, “Then I feel good.”

Violent Black men: Perpetual criminals

In addition to hypersexualization, stereotypical images of Black masculinity are constantly revealed through Alex’s appearances on Parenthood, as the show dismantles his character with one final pejorative image of Black masculinity: Black men are criminals. The trope of Black men as perpetual violent criminals is defined here as a Black male who resorts to violence due to an innate or uncontrollable urge to resolve conflict through verbal and/or physical altercations. We argue that, because of media socialization and framing of men of color as criminals, and African American males specifically (Dixon, 2015; Dixon & Linz, 2000), there are various degrees of aggressiveness associated with these men. Thus, there is an assumption that they possess a proclivity for violence regardless of their background. This trope emerges through a pivotal scene where Alex falls victim to yet another negative representation of Black males and when he becomes violent. The point is made as you watch the scene unfold: Black men are criminals who resort to violence to resolve conflict.

Season three begins with the knowledge that Haddie and Alex have been seriously dating for a year and have been sexually active for 6–10 months (Patrick, 2011). On the first day of senior year, Haddie is invited to a high school senior’s party where she knows there will be alcohol. She really wants to go, but only if Alex accompanies her. He insists that she go alone in an attempt to avoid any temptations to break his sobriety. After agreeing to meet up with Haddie after, Alex arrives and waits patiently outside for Haddie. When she fails to emerge from the house, he opts to search for her in the sea of people inside. Alex scans the crowd and soon discovers a drunken underage Haddie, sitting on one of her girlfriends’ lap. She stands up to greet him and stumbles while walking toward him, greeting him with a big kiss hello. When he tastes alcohol on her lips, he says, “Haddie, what is wrong with you? Are you drunk?” and immediately pulls away from her.

Concerned for her safety, Alex calmly waits as Haddie introduces him to her friends and declines an offer of an alcoholic beverage. Alex politely attempts to remove a drunk Haddie from the party to drive her home. He conveys his anger that she got drunk, when Zach (the host), confronts Alex under the assumption that Alex is taking her against her will. Zach asks, “Excuse me, is there a problem?” Alex assures him that “Everything’s fine. I’m just taking her home.” Zach suspects that Alex intends to harm Haddie because she seems upset, completely dismissing Alex’s explanation that he is Haddie’s boyfriend. Zach physically confronts Alex, aggressively ordering him to leave the party. Alex repeatedly warns Zach (who is now standing 8–15 inches away from his face) to not to touch him, as if trying to avoid a physical altercation, but to no avail: Zach steps closer and Alex punches him in the face. Despite Zach’s role as antagonist in this altercation, Alex’s Black masculinity implicates him as the perpetrator. The season very dramatically ends with Alex being escorted away by the police in handcuffs and blue lights flashing in the background (Patrick, 2011).

For the start of the next season, Haddie contacts her lawyer-aunt, Julia, to bail Alex out of jail. Aunt Julia assumes that Alex is “a sympathetic defendant, you don’t have a previous record,” but Alex is forthcoming and explains that, “this is not my first offense.” Because they live in California, and Alex has two prior offenses, the audience recognizes that the “third strike” law will automatically invoke a life sentence for Alex in jail unless the charges are dropped. From this tragic turn, Haddie and Alex’s blossoming relationship naturally takes a dramatic turn. Although the charges are eventually dropped, Alex and Haddie end their relationship. It is in the next episode (four, season three) Alex breaks up with Haddie. Although we do not see this occur, we witness Haddie sobbing on her bed as she professes to her mother: “He doesn’t love me.”

Conclusion

It is critical for audiences to be cognizant of the ways in which, race, gender, and class collide to influence their interpretations of characters on the screen (Collins, 2000) and to examine how television impacts how viewers then position traditionally marginalized group members in daily life. Our analysis revealed that stereotypical images of Black emasculation and masculinity are present in Alex’s character. Specifically three instances of Black emasculation impact Alex’s character: (a) perpetual (closeted) alcoholic: deadbeat drunk; (b) hypersexual romantic; and (c) fatherless manchild. Representations of Black men as violent, perpetual criminals are also present as Alex gets into a physical altercation with one of Haddie’s male friends and is taken off to jail in handcuffs where we learn he has a prior arrest record and could spend life in prison.

Table

Black Emasculation	Pejorative Black Masculinity
Perpetual Closeted Alcoholic: Deadbeat Drunk Hypersexual Romantic Fatherless Manchild	Hypersexualized Buck I know how you like to get dirty Prom-night sex
	Violent Black Men: Perpetual Criminals

At first glance, the show appears to celebrate race through its casting of Black actors in recurring supporting roles. However, upon closer examination, the seemingly innocuous storyline actually reinforces stereotypical, pejorative representations of Blackness and Black masculinity in subtle ways that must be deconstructed. Although Parenthood attempts to depict the complexity and beauty of familial relationships, the show does a disservice to societal perceptions of African Americans through its representations of Alex’s character. Moreover, the seemingly obligatory inclusion of a supporting Black male character does little to illuminate the reality of life on the margins in a hegemonic society. Instead its Black masculine representations reinforce stereotypes of Black men as affable failures, who are emasculated through pejorative character portrayal. Here, the following negative identity ascriptions were attributed to Alex’s character: drunken deadbeat, relationally unstable and unavailable, hypersexual, an overly interested, highly sexual being who cannot help himself, a fatherless manchild, and a perpetual subscriber to violence or other criminal activity to handle conflict.

The implications for these observations remain problematic, particularly when television viewers have little or no real-life contact with Black community members (Harris & Weber, 2010; Orbe & Harris, 2015). When viewers have no intercultural friendships, it is dangerous for race relations and interracial communication. Those lacking meaningful intercultural relationships may perceive television images to be accurate representations of everyday Black people (Bell-Jordan, 2008; hooks, 2004; Jhally & Lewis, 1992). Mass media images perpetuate this problem. Rather than challenge these racial and gendered stereotypes by presenting middle-class Black characters who have it together, the show’s creators strategically avoid counterimages of the everyday, middle-class Black man, woman, and family, thus rendering them invisible. Moving forward, we cannot be complicit consumers of such negative representations without resisting them. We must challenge and counter these pejorative images, regardless of how innocent they may appear. We need to ask three questions: “What does this image convey?”; “How do I respond to these images?”; and finally, “How do these images impact how I communicate with traditionally marginalized group members in my daily life, if they do at all?”

As our critique demonstrates, it is imperative that communication scholars and consumers of mass media work to dispel stereotypes about Black males, Black bodies, and imaginary Blackness on television. Jackson (2006) argues that we must “all participate in a process of textual deconstruction” by questioning images rather than accepting them as (T)ruth (p. 12). This process must be a collective effort. We challenge scholars and media consumers alike to introduce counterimages of Black males that embody positive qualities and characteristics.

Philosopher and systems theorist Ludwig Von Bertalanffy (1967) explains the systemic nature of reality construction. He proclaims that people are more than the sum of their various parts. In relation to Black males, we argue that they are significantly more than the sum of their media representations, ascriptions, and character portrayals. This complexity is rarely, if ever, captured or reflected in the media. While we encourage and challenge action on behalf of cultural consumers and critics to question these mediated messages, we also encourage media producers to answer the moral call to create counterimages that provide multiple positive yet complex images of historically marginalized groups, much like their racial counterparts. The end-gain is more accurate reflections of the very reality that they are trying to recreate in their creative works. While all will not be compelled to do so, the consequences are that these television images will continue to distort the cultural realities of particular community members who account for a large percentage of the viewing audience (Orbe & Harris, 2015). Thus, we hope to encourage ourselves and others not only to question these images, but to strategically and purposefully construct and display alternative or counterimages of Black community members that are more heavily nuanced than the current depictions pervading mass media outlets.