Breaking Down the "Walls of a Facade": The Influence of Compartmentalization on Gay College Males'...

CULTURE, SOCIETY &MASCULINITIES1941-5583 (PRINT) 1941-5591 (ONLINE)

VOLUME 5ISSUE 22013

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

PUBLICATION DETAILS, INCLUDING INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION:http://www.mensstudies.com/content/121105/

TO LINK TO THIS ISSUE

http://www.mensstudies.com/content/r38234n12u5x/

FULL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE: http://www.mensstudies.info/Terms_and_Conditions.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-li-censing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly for-bidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. Theaccuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, ac-tions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the useof this material.

CCuullttuurree,, SSoocciieettyy &&MMaassccuulliinniittiieess

Volume 5, Issue 2 Fall 2013

TT HH EE •• MM EE NN ’’ SS •• SS TT UU DD II EE SS •• PP RR EE SS SS

MEN AND MASCULINITIES INHIGHER EDUCATION

GUEST EDITOR: JASON A. LAKER

MEN’S STUDIES PRESS, LLCPO BOX 32HARRIMAN, TN 37748 USAWWW.MENSSTUDIES.COM

423-369-2375 (PHONE)423-369-1125 (FAX)

127

CULTURE, SOCIETY & MASCULINITIES, VOLUME 5 ISSUE 2, FALL 2013, PP. 127–146ISSN 1941-5583 (PRINT) 1941-5591 (ONLINE) • CSM.0502.127/$15.00 • DOI: 10.3149/CSM.0502.127

COPYRIGHT © 2013 BY THE MEN’S STUDIES PRESS, LLC. HTTP://WWW.MENSSTUDIES.COM

“I don’t really feel like I had my own identity because the identity I had wasso crafted in a way to make these walls stay up—these walls of a façade—sothat no one really knew who I was, but I could come across as who I wantedto be in high school. So that’s how I came across: a nice, funny guy who wasalways in a relationship with a girl or hooking up with a girl. That was whatI just made sure to do even though that wasn’t who I was.”—Peter, dis-cussing the compartmentalization of his gay identity in high school.

“I’ve definitely had to compartmentalize my life and separate. There’s a hugeseparation. I think it’s a bigger separation than most straight people have toseparate. And their separation—their reasons for separation—are probablydifferent. But for me, it’s most just protecting myself. So it has been difficult,and sometimes I think it’s taken a toll on me, but I just ignore it. And I justsay that I’m going to get through it.”—Mason, discussing the compartmen-talization of his sexual identity while being involved in the Navy ROTC.

This study examined how the act of compartmentalization influenced gay malecollege students’ meaning-making of their multiple identities. This study, in-volving 17 males attending colleges in Southern California, explored how thesestudents compartmentalized their identities within different cultures, includingrace, religion, and socioeconomic class, as well as in different student cultures,such as fraternities and student organizations. The findings of this constructivistgrounded theory study illuminate how compartmentalization of one’s identityis seen at the individual, group, and systemic levels within society to help andhinder these gay males’ holistic sense of self. Additionally, implications for pro-fessional practice and research are offered to assist gay males in college towardintegrative approaches to one’s identity.

Keywords: gay males; compartmentalization; meaning-making; multiple identitydevelopment

* University of Maine.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the author, 5749 Merrill Hall, Uni-versity of Maine, Orono, ME. Email: [email protected]

BREAKING DOWN THE “WALLS OF A FAÇADE”:THE INFLUENCE OF COMPARTMENTALIZATIONON GAY COLLEGE MALES’ MEANING-MAKING

DANIEL TILLAPAUGH*

128 ■TILLAPAUGH: BREAKING DOWN THE “WALLS OF A FAÇADE”

Peter and Mason (pseudonyms are used for all participants) were two gay-iden-tified males attending college in San Juan Miguel (a pseudonym), a metropolitancity in Southern California. At first glance, that was where their similarities ended.Peter, a White male from a wealthy, Catholic family originally from the PacificNorthwest, was a member of a campus fraternity, a leader in student government,and is an extremely popular figure on his campus. He had an athletic build andhandsome features. Mason, a Filipino-American male, came from a middle-classmilitary family. He was short and slender, but wore his formal Naval ROTC dressuniform during his interviews. He spoke softly, and when speaking about hisROTC experience or his thoughts on masculinity, his speech seemed hesitant. Buthis speech and mannerisms shifted dramatically once he began talking about hiscoursework, his interest in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues,or his involvement as a resident advisor on campus.

While Peter and Mason may have been distinctively different from one another,both expressed that they had compartmentalized aspects of their social identity—particularly their gay identity—in different circumstances or instances within theirlives, as they discussed above. Mason’s gay identity as a member of the NavyROTC had served as an obstacle for him. Peter’s realization in high school that hewas gay was deeply compartmentalized and hidden from friends and family—andeven from himself—until it drove him to attempt suicide. Moreover, Mason andPeter’s experiences were not unique. The implications of compartmentalization onone’s meaning-making of gay college males’ sense of self varied. However, the re-search discussed in this particular article shows that compartmentalization has avery real influence on gay males’ lives, especially during their college experience,in ways that both help and hinder their overall sense of self. Throughout this arti-cle, I synthesize relevant literature with the narratives of the study participants todiscuss the phenomenon of compartmentalization and its impact on gay males’meaning-making.

RELEVANT LITERATURE

This study was informed by four major categories of literature, which included(1) gender identity development; (2) sexual identity development; (3) intersection-ality; and (4) meaning-making. In this section, I provide a brief overview of this lit-erature.

Gender Identity Development

The concept of gender as a main element of one’s personal identity has been dis-cussed extensively, especially within the social sciences. Gender identity is a self-expressed and articulated sense of one’s gender that involves how one displaysgender (West & Zimmerman, 1991), how one engages within the systemic prac-tices of gender (Connell, 2005), and how one is influenced by one’s setting and con-text (Connell, Hearn, & Kimmel, 2005). The performativity of one’s gender servesas the means by which individuals express their gender identity (Butler, 1993). Asbell hooks (2004), the Black feminist scholar, writes, “Performance is different fromsimply being” (p. 11). Performing masculinity is another way to come to under-stand and define masculinity. In her discussion of performativity, Butler writes,“Performativity is thus not a singular ‘act,’ for it is always a reiteration of a norm

or set of norms, and to the extent that it acquires an act-like status in the present, itconceals or dissimulates the conventions of which it is a repetition” (1993, p. 12).Thus, performativity of masculinity means that males are constantly following andpracticing set gender norms in a systematic way that creates privileged hierarchiesto those who meet those standards and norms most often. Indeed, these privilegedhierarchies, rooted in hegemonic masculinity, then create systems in which thosewho do not meet the traditional norms and expectations for gender performancebecome alienated and marginalized (Butler, 1993; Lorber, 2001; Reeser, 2010).

Within Western society, the performativity of masculinity tends to uphold andreify traditional hegemonic masculinity (Lorber, 2001; Plummer, 1999). Donaldson(1993) proposes that hegemonic masculinity includes the ways in which those withpower (e.g., heterosexual males) establish means of domination through organiza-tional structures, systems, and institutions. The larger system works in collusionwith individuals to value masculinity and manhood and women are seen as sexualconquests and/or objects for men (Donaldson, 1993; Kimmel, 2006, 2010). Likewise,these same systems also create norms that men cannot be sexual objects for othermen (Donaldson, 1993). Particularly within the context of educational institutions,scholars (Edwards & Jones, 2009; Harris, 2006; Pascoe, 2007) have discussed howhegemonic notions of masculinity are intertwined into the student experience, par-ticularly through heteronormativity and homophobia.

The concept of heteronormativity refers to the socialized belief that heterosexu-ality is the natural inclination for individuals based upon the need to reproduce(Reeser, 2010). Connell (2005) terms this idea as compulsory heterosexualitywhereby individuals gain a sense of dependency on one another (typically menand women in heterosexual pairings) for sex. This reliance on heterosexual as-sumptions further creates alienation and isolation for those who may not be het-erosexual; additionally, this automatic assumption and privileging ofheterosexuality impacts the legitimacy of any other types of sexual pairings orgroupings outside of that realm and ultimately limits the freedom and fluidity ofsexuality as a practice (Reeser, 2010). As a result, heteronormativity is protected bylarger systemic and sociopolitical means through various forms of discriminationagainst those who are non-heterosexual, including marriage laws, emergency med-ical decision-making rights for domestic partners, and exclusion from religiouspractices and rites (Chambers, 2007). These systems of discrimination further rein-force the idea that anything beyond heterosexuality is neither natural nor appro-priate; therefore, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendercommunity feel a sense of rejection and punishment from those in privilege (But-ler, 1993; Chambers, 2007).

Gay Identity Development

In addition to the discussion of gay masculinities by men and masculinities schol-ars, developmental theories of sexual identity play a significant role in our collec-tive understanding of LGBT-identified individuals. As a result, there has beentremendous growth in how one conceptualizes sexual orientation identity devel-opment over the last four decades (Bilodeau & Renn, 2005; Cass, 1979; D’Augelli,1994; Fassinger, 1998). Early models on sexual orientation identity development,such as Cass’s (1979) seminal work, were linear, stage-based models in which theindividual moves from a non-homosexual identity to a full acceptance of one’s ho-

CULTURE, SOCIETY & MASCULINITIES 5(2) ■ 129

mosexual identity. In more contemporary models, the identity formation processinvolves one’s lifespan as well as an ecological and environmental lens. InD’Augelli’s (1994) model, one moves from a heterosexual identity and then intovarious aspects of their gay identity, including becoming a gay offspring or enter-ing the gay community. Likewise, Fassinger and her colleagues (1998) created amodel that looks at the “coming out” process within two contexts: individual andcommunity. In this way, Fassinger demonstrates that her work has resulted in anidentity development model that attempts “to create a model of LGB developmentthat is more inclusive of demographic and cultural influences and less reliant onidentity disclosure as a marker of developmental maturity” (1998, p. 16). BothD’Augelli and Fassinger’s works offer a new way of viewing sexual orientationidentity development that helps provide a better prospective of the sociopoliticalramifications of embracing an identity that is in opposition from the heteronorma-tive constructs in our current society. However, these identity development mod-els continue to be limited in that they often do not look at the intersections of one’sidentities. None of the contemporary sexual identity development models use anintersectional lens to understand how gender, race, religion, or other social identi-ties influence one’s understanding of sexual identification.

Intersectionality

Understanding the interplay among and between one’s social identities is par-ticularly important as it relates to one’s holistic development. Thornton Dill andZambrana (2009) defined intersectionality as “an innovative and emerging field ofstudy that provides a critical analytic lens to interrogate racial, ethnic, class, phys-ical ability, age, sexuality, and gender disparities and to contest existing ways oflooking at these structures of inequality” (p. 1). By understanding the constructionof knowledge at the intersections of one’s multiple identities and the systems ofwhich one is a part, intersectionality provides insight for one’s holistic develop-ment while challenging notions of power and privilege (Jones & Abes, 2013). Thefirst model to look at multiple identity development within the context of highereducation was Jones and McEwen’s (2000) Model of Multiple Dimensions of Iden-tity (MMDI). However, Jones and Abes (2013) admit that the original MMDI wasnot developed with an intersectional lens in mind; the individual aspect of one’smultiple identity development was an aspect of the model, but it lacked the sys-temic interrogation of power and privilege. Instead, Jones and Abes (2013) presentthe Intersectional Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (I-MMDI), a more com-plex model which includes one’s core, a meaning-making filter, sites of identity in-tersections, as well as micro and macro analyses.

While scholarship on intersectionality in higher education is becoming moreprevalent, there is still a dearth of knowledge on how particular sub-populationsof college students make meaning of their multiple identities. Abes, Jones andMcEwen’s (2007) revision to the Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity aimedto integrate the capacity for meaning-making of one’s multiple identities. This wasa seminal piece bridging the work on multiple identity development and mean-ing-making using Abes and Jones’ (2004) longitudinal data on lesbian college stu-dents and their development. Their work was an important contribution yet didnot provide any insight into how gay college males made meaning of their multi-ple identities.


Meaning-Making

Daloz Parks (2011) situates the developmental task of meaning-making as a threepronged model including “(1) becoming critically aware of one’s own composingof reality, (2) self-consciously participating in an ongoing dialogue toward truth,and (3) cultivating to respond—to act—in committed and satisfying ways” (p. 12).Making meaning of one’s multiple identities becomes a vital aspect of one’s holis-tic development. However, as previously mentioned, developmental theoristsstudying gay identity development (D’Augelli, 1994; Fassinger, 1998) suggest thatthe compartmentalization of one’s sexuality is inherent in the “coming out”process. Moving from a heterosexual identity to a gay identity is one way that gaymales attempt to align their sexual identity authentically. Showers (1992) definescompartmentalization as “the tendency to organize positive and negative knowl-edge about the self into separate, uniformly valenced categories (self-aspects)” (p.1036). In their research on compartmentalization and its influence on one’s self-es-teem, Showers and Zeigler-Hill (2007) found that individuals who compartmen-talize were more apt to experience low self-esteem and instability; however, theauthors found that individuals who had a more integrative sense of self possessedgreater self-reliance, healthier coping mechanisms, and increased emotional sta-bility. These concepts of compartmentalization and integration connect to theprocess of one’s meaning-making (Baxter Magolda, 2001; Daloz Parks, 2000; Kegan,1982). Showers and Zeigler-Hill’s (2007) work indicates that individuals who drawupon a more integrative self-concept may possess the ability—from both a psy-chosocial and cognitive perspective—to make meaning of their holistic sense of selfwhereas those who compartmentalize may not. Therefore, it may be assumed thatthose individuals who compartmentalize aspects of their social identities (e.g.,being gay) may be at greater risk in terms of their emotional well-being and abil-ity to make meaning of their holistic sense of self.

While scholars have forwarded substantial contributions in terms of the devel-opment of one’s masculinities or one’s sexuality, there has been very little researchon gay college males and how they make meaning of their multiple identities usingan intersectional perspective. Therefore, this research is significant for attemptingto address this gap in the extant literature. For the purpose of this article, I focus onhow the role of compartmentalization influences the meaning-making of gay col-lege males, particularly their sense of gender and sexuality. In particular, two re-search questions are foundational to the research in this article. First, how do gaycollege males experience compartmentalization as it relates to their social identities?Second, how does compartmentalization either help or hinder one’s meaning-mak-ing of their holistic sense of self?

METHOD

As previously mentioned, the data for this article stem from a larger study onhow gay college males make meaning of their multiple identities. The 17 partici-pants in this study attended three different universities in San Juan Miguel, a pseu-donym for a metropolitan city in Southern California. They participated in twosemi-structured, in-depth interviews over a five-month span. These students fit thestudy’s criteria, which stipulated that the participants (1) identify as cisgender male;(2) identify as gay; (3) be between 18 and 23 years old; (4) be a current junior, sen-


ior, or recent graduate (of no more than six months); and (5) be out to friends and/orfamily.

Participants were recruited via e-mails sent out to students affiliated with theircampus LGBT student organizations or their student organization’s Facebook pageor group. Additionally, I made announcements about my study at a LGBT studentorganization meeting at two of the three research sites. Interested students weredirected to an online participant demographic survey, which included informationabout their race, religion, gender identity, sexual identity, campus involvement,and academic profile. I used maximum variation and discriminate sampling tech-niques (Patton, 2002) to select a diverse group of participants for the study and nar-rowed down the 31 respondents of the study to 20. Three of the participants did notcomplete all aspects of the study; thus, their data were not used.

The gay males involved in this study ranged between 20 to 23 years old. Ten ofthe participants were in their senior year, with four being juniors, and three beingrecent alumni. Racially, there were eight participants who identified as White, threewho identified as biracial, two Filipinos, one Latino, one Taiwanese, and one Cam-bodian. Eight of the men identified themselves as being raised in a middle-classhousehold, six came from working-class backgrounds, and three identified them-selves as being wealthy. The academic majors for the participants varied exten-sively, from communications to architecture, international relations tomicrobiology. Additionally, their campus involvement reflected a diverse array ofinterests, but included competitive athletics and intramural sports, student gov-ernment, fraternity membership, residential leadership positions, and militarypreparation training (ROTC) programs. All but two participants were involved insome type of LGBT organization and/or program on their respective campus.

Constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) was used as the larger study’smethodology. Adapted from traditional grounded theory (see Glaser & Strauss,1967), Charmaz offers that constructivist grounded theory aims to understand aphenomenon through the collection and analysis of data, but that the meaning ofthe phenomenon is co-constructed between the researcher and the participants.Likewise, the participants’ environment, context, and culture(s) are additional im-portant considerations that constructivist grounded theory researchers must takeinto consideration when analyzing data (Charmaz, 2006). Therefore, the construc-tivist grounded theory allows for further examination of the social contexts inwhich people live that then informs the data and its emergent theory.

Data analysis for the study occurred throughout data collection in three stages(see Saldaña, 2009). Initially, I used initial open and “in vivo” coding, which hon-ors the voice of the participant by taking codes directly from their actual words. Forthe second level coding, I used axial coding, which narrowed down the initial codesinto clustered categories. Finally, I then moved those categories into a skeletal frameof the emergent theory, which is known as theoretical coding. After the initial the-ory emerged, I used a focus group as a means of triangulating the data. Eight of thestudy participants participated in a two-hour-long focus group during which I pro-vided an overview of the initial themes and subthemes and asked for their feedbackas a means of member checking (Glesne, 2006; Patton, 2002). Through this process,the participants provided their feedback, but also engaged in rich dialogue aboutthe emergent theory as it related to their lived experiences. Data for this particulararticle highlighted the relevant findings and the relationship between compart-mentalization (a key theme in the larger study) and its influence on the meaning-


making of gay males’ multiple identities, particularly the intersections of their mas-culinity and sexuality.

FINDINGS

As I worked with the data regarding how the act of compartmentalization in-fluenced gay college males’ meaning-making of their sense of self, it became clearthat the compartmentalization was experienced on three different levels: (1) an in-dividual level (e.g., personal experiences whereby the males compartmentalizedtheir identities to themselves or others); (2) the group level (e.g., experiences wherethe gay males would choose not to disclose or discuss aspects of their identitywithin certain cultures or communities of which they were a part; and (3) the sys-temic level (e.g., experiences in which the males were influenced, either consciouslyor subconsciously, by certain agents of socialization, including but not limited to re-ligious institutions, media, and one’s family). Within this section, I aim to illumi-nate how these particular gay males in college used compartmentalization as itrelates to their identities.

Figure 1. The influence of compartmentalization on gay college males’ meaning-making.

Individual Level: Compartmentalizing Aspects of One’s Self

For each of the gay males in this study, the act of compartmentalization, partic-ularly around their gay identity, influenced how they made meaning of their mul-tiple social identities on a personal level. Within this section, I discuss two specificsub-themes that emerged from the data. These sub-themes include (1) experiencesof gender coding and transgressions by others, and (2) restriction in behaviors oraccess to the LGBT community.


Individual Level: Compartmentalizing Aspects of One’s Self

• Experiences of gender coding and policing by others • Restricting personal behaviors

Group Level: Influence of One’s Cultures on Compartmentalization of One’s Self

• Tensions experienced between one’s sexual identity and other social identities • Messages internalized by involvement in student cultures

Systemic Level: External Influences on One’s Meaning-Making

• Societal expectations rooted in heteronormativity and hegemonic masculinity • Socialized messages of masculinity and sexuality through media

Influences on Gay College Male’s Meaning Making of Multiple Identities

Experiences of gender coding and policing from others. Gender coding andpolicing were behaviors enacted by one’s self or others (i.e., peers, teachers, familymembers) to enforce gender role expectations and punish those who did not followgendered norms (Berila, 2011; Kimmel, 2008). Experiencing this gender coding andbeing the victims of gender policing throughout their lives, many of the partici-pant recalled experiences where they would be scolded or disciplined for behav-ing in ways that did not fit the traditional notions of what it meant to be a man orto be masculine. While most of the participants discussed some examples of gen-der role enforcement in their lives, the men of color often recalled these experiencesquite vividly. For example, both Matt and Mason, two Filipino-identified individ-uals, spoke about their desire to play with toys as children that were deemed asonly appropriate for girls. Matt was interested in playing with Barbies, but his par-ents would scold him for doing so. Meanwhile, Mason reflected on how jealous hewas of his sister’s E-Z Bake Oven, but how he knew that she would yell at him forplaying with it because he was a boy. Matt’s parents and Mason’s sister werethereby serving as gender enforcers of traditional notions of hegemonic masculin-ity, which taught both important lessons about what was unacceptable behavior foryoung males.

The issue of gender coding and policing continued well beyond childhood for themen. Reflecting on his college experience, Mason found that he had difficulties con-necting meaningfully with other men, gay or straight, due to how he had beentreated by them due to his gender performativity. While he himself identified as“not masculine at all,” he recounted a particularly painful experience of a gay malepeer in college who said that he was not interested in being friends because he wastoo feminine. This type of gender coding, while certainly hurtful, had a significantimpact on Mason’s meaning-making around his sense of gender, further isolatinghim from other males and feeling as though he does not live up to the “masculinestandard” of what it means to be a “real” man. Likewise, Victor, who identifies asbiracial (Greek and Mexican), spoke about how he sometimes carries a small bagwith him that could be misconstrued as a purse. He recounted how his Mexican-American mother did not like him to carry it in public while with her. He said, “Acouple weekends ago, I went up to go see her, and I had one of my bags. She said,‘You can just leave that in the car’ because we were going to lunch. And I was like,‘Ugh. Fine.’” Victor’s mother’s discomfort with his bag and her request for him torestrict his use of it in public with her serves as an example of his mother policingVictor’s gender due to her own perceived notions of masculinity. She was rein-forcing socialized notions of gender role expectations and attempting to have Vic-tor follow traditional notions of masculinity. This bombardment of gender codingand policing created some difficult experiences for the gay males around how theymade meaning of their own identities, given that often they would hold back intheir interactions with their friends or family. This also had an impact on their abil-ity to make meaning of their holistic sense of self due to the fact that they often re-ceived this messages of how to act from those who were most important to them:their family and friends.

Restricting personal behaviors. Some of the participants indicated that, at times,they restricted themselves in their interactions with others, particularly heterosex-ual males. For instance, Craig discussed his friendships with his straight malefriends as “very heteronormative.” He goes one to say,


I don’t really talk about my sexual identity or anything with them. We dotalk about theirs, like women and hot chicks and stuff like that. But we keepin it in shadows, my own, that kind of thing. I mean, I guess they don’t wantto talk about it or they’re probably not comfortable talking about it, so youknow, in a way, I kind of fall under their own rules.

The permissive behaviors of being able to discuss matters of heterosexuality openlywhile silencing matters of homosexuality reinforce heteronormativity, which is en-forced and regulated by gender coding.

Jonathan and Peter echoed Craig’s thoughts mentioning the relationships theyhave with their college friends, who tend to be other gay males, were very differ-ent than the relationships they have with their best friends back home who happento be heterosexual and male-identified.

Similarly, Luke discussed his own behavior with his straight male friends. Hecommented,

I would say that my straight friends together, especially in a group where it’spredominantly gay, give off that … macho vibe. So when I’m in that [envi-ronment], it almost makes me feel awkward because I’m not—at this pointof my life, I’m not going to go out of my way to try to do that. I might refrainfrom saying something a certain way or refrain from saying something at all,but I’m not going to full on change what I’m doing, what I’m saying to fit in,so that can be an awkward thing.

This “macho vibe” was also discussed by Peter, who recalled his experienceswith his friends in high school. He said,

When you hear from your friends, you know, “faggot” and “that’s so gay”used in such condescending ways, and then everyone’s just making fun ofgay people or just making fun of effeminate guys in the class, you just dis-tance yourself from that further and further.

The influence of one’s friends certainly had a strong impact on the restriction, andtherefore the compartmentalization of one’s gay identity, in one’s behaviors, butone’s family tended to have an influence as well.

Parental or family influences on how gay males compartmentalized aspects oftheir identity played out in a variety of ways. The participants largely discussedways in which comments or attitudes from their parents, siblings, or extended fam-ily tended to influence their decisions on how open to be about their sexuality.Growing up in a politically conservative, White, Catholic household, Jonathan hada very close relationship to his father. However, after coming out to him, they didnot speak for six month as his father struggled to understand and be comfortablewith Jonathan’s sexuality. He reflected on this, saying

Up to that point … [h]e was always, always, there for me, always. And … Iknew in the back of my mind, there was this one thing [my sexuality] that Iwas hiding that could truly change everything. So until that point, I madesure I was the perfect son. I never got in trouble. I got perfect grades. I was


the star athlete. Everything you could have wanted as a high school son, thatwas me.

In many ways, the relationships between the participants and their fathers wereoften discussed as contentious, as some of the participants often felt as though theirsexuality created unvoiced barriers in the father-son relationship. For some, likeLuke, this feeling of tension was never discussed, and often he attempted to avoidconversations about his sexuality with his father.

On the other hand, participants like Peter and Bryan tended to follow and en-gage in gender performance that aligned with their father’s notions of masculinity,including participating in athletics and reifying hegemonic masculinity, while re-stricting other behaviors that may be perceived as feminine or fitting into perceivedgay stereotype. Interestingly, the White males in this study engaged in these be-haviors more often than did the males of color, who frequently did not have strongrelationships with their fathers. This pattern of socialized behavior taught by fatherto son fits the notion of restrictive emotionality, one of the six patterns exemplifiedby gender role conflict (O’Neil, 1981). O’Neil indicates that restrictive emotionalitycreates conditions by which “men will have difficulty in self-disclosure, recogniz-ing feelings, and processing the complexities of interpersonal life” (1981, p. 206).This restriction of one’s emotionality stems from a fear of femininity (O’Neil, 1981),a pattern certainly set in both Peter and Bryan’s lives as gay males. These personalrestrictions of behaviors or attitudes play a significant role in how these males per-form their gender and sexuality.

For many of the males in this study, the restriction of behaviors and the experi-ence of gender coding and policing were in line with Baxter Magolda’s (2001) no-tion of following external formulas. The participants largely were making meaningof their multiple social identities through the input and voices of others (e.g., par-ents, siblings, friends), not themselves. Largely, the participants recalled this typeof meaning-making early on in their lives: from childhood to their early collegeyears. As they continued through their college experiences, the participants dis-cussed their meaning-making of their multiple identities in more sophisticatedways, often due to other critical influences that largely occurred at the group orcommunity level.

Group Level: Influence of One’s Cultures on Compartmentalization of One’sSelf

At the group or community level, the gay males in this study were immersed invarious student cultures, such as their campus’ student organizations, but also en-gaging in different spaces within their local city and its various neighborhoods.Additionally, the participants also were part of specific cultures or communitiesbased upon other dimensions of their social identities, including their race, reli-gion, or socioeconomic status. Many of the males experienced aspects of compart-mentalization within one’s culture around aspects of their identity. In this section,two sub-themes emerged and will be discussed. These include: (1) tensions expe-rienced between one’s sexual identity and other social identities; and (2) messagesinternalized by involvement in student cultures.

Tensions experienced between one’s sexual identity and other social identi-ties. Apparent from discussions with the participants, many of the gay males often


had to negotiate internal and external tensions that arose from conflicts betweentheir sexual orientation and other social identities. This led to the compartmental-ization of aspects of one’s self in terms of one or more social identities; in particu-lar, socio-economic class, religion, and race were three social identities that usuallynegatively influenced one’s meaning-making of their sexuality and gender.

Socioeconomic status added greater complexity to one’s meaning-making ofone’s sexuality and masculinity for the gay males in this study, particularly for themen who came from wealthy and working class families. The intersections of so-cial class, race, gender, and sexuality had varied levels of impact on the partici-pants’ meaning-making of their holistic sense of self. The gay males who identifiedas being from White upper-class families, including Jonathan, Peter, and Sean,stressed the importance of following family expectations and perceptions of one’sself and family. Therefore, they each discussed, at length, ways in which they com-partmentalized aspects of their identity. Jonathan stated,

I’m more okay with who I am than I ever have been before. But on the flipside, it just is still a constant fight with who I’ve been told, “This is whoyou’re going to be. This is who you’re going to like. This is what you’re goingto be. This is going to be your job.” All these expectations have been laid onme, and it’s just a constant struggle of identity with me, and some days arebetter than others.

He goes on to state that he negotiates his sexuality in different ways in variousspaces. For instance, he is quite open about his sexuality at college yet he often feelsas though he cannot be open about being gay back home in fear that he mightshame his family. This worry of bringing shame to the family name was reflectiveof others who were from upper-class families. At the same time, these participantswere also more likely to be involved student leaders on campus, participated intraditional social fraternities, and accessed the off-campus gay community, in-cluding gay bars and dance clubs, due to financial resources available to them.Therefore, they compartmentalized aspects of their gay identities in different waysdepending upon the social spaces in which they were a part.

Conversely, the males from working class families experienced different issuesdue to their socioeconomic status. Within this particular study, the males fromworking class backgrounds tended to be males of color. Craig named his socialclass as a reason why he had compartmentalized his gay identity, saying that com-ing from a working class background is “definitely more heteronormative;” thus,he chose not to come out to his family as he worried that he would be disowned.Being from the working class also resulted in larger issues in terms of accessingnecessary resources and limited financial capital for engagement within the broaderLGBT community, at times. Craig explained that being gay and poor “means it’s alot of oppressive factors playing in your life, and don’t have resources other peo-ple have, you also have a conflicting identity because there’s a certain communitythat goes around with low income.” Mason put himself through college by beinga part of the ROTC program at his university. Without the means to help pay forhis college education, his family was proud of his service, but he knew that he hadsacrificed aspects of himself, particularly the need to be closeted when at work, forhis own advancement pertaining to his education. Socioeconomic status was justone identity status that created tensions for the males’ holistic selves; religionserved as another.


Several of the participants grew up in religious families, and religion served asa central component of their lives growing up. Raised by a single mother who wasextremely devout, Brandon grew up within the church and was very involved inchurch-related activities, including being president of his high school’s ChristianClub. However, it was during this time in high school when he began to realizethat he was gay. He explained, “It was really hard to reconcile [my sexuality andmy religion], and in the end, I didn’t. I ended up dropping Christianity.” In fact, hewas removed by clergy from his church and his leadership positions after he hadconsulted with them regarding his confusion about his sexual orientation. UnlikeBrandon, Matt grew up in a Catholic Filipino household, and he felt as though theCatholic doctrine in which his parents believed hindered his ability to be openabout his sexual orientation. He explained,

It was hard for me to come to terms with my sexuality because I was a Chris-tian…. Most Christians are against it and see it as a sin. And so that, that wasreally hard for me, so I have a feeling that’s the reason why it took me solong to come out and be comfortable with it.

However, Matt was able to find a spiritual home, rooted in Christianity, that wasgay affirming, and he identified that as a positive step in the meaning-making ofhis overall sense of self. Religion served as a particularly salient agent in one’s com-partmentalization; however, race played a central role for the males as well.

For the gay males of color, they often received messages through their racial com-munities about their sexuality that made them feel as though being gay and beingmales of color were at odds. As a result, they occasionally compartmentalized ei-ther their race or their sexuality in different ways. For example, Robert, a Latinomale originally from Texas, recounted his experiences of being immersed in a Mex-ican-American community and that he tended to be in the closet about being gay“since most of them are so conservative.” He continues,

That’s the nature of the Hispanic culture. It definitely made me feel like Ineeded to push [my sexuality] to the back burner or just not think about it ornot really act on it or not be open about it.

As Filipino males, Mason, Matt, and Craig each discussed the ways in which Fil-ipino culture affected how they viewed their sexuality. For Craig and Matt, theyspoke about how Catholicism was deeply intertwined with Filipino culture, whichresulted in more conservative thoughts on homosexuality in their families. At thesame time, they acknowledged the general acceptance of flamboyant gay males asdrag queens and comedic characters on television in Filipino culture, which createdsome paradox. However, they largely wanted to avoid conflict with their familiesand tended to compartmentalize their gay identities at home. The role of race, re-ligion, and socioeconomic status each played a significant role in how compart-mentalization was used by the gay males as it related to their meaning-making.

Messages internalized by involvement in student cultures. Similar to messagesreceived due to one’s religion, race, and social class, the participants also discussedhow their involvement in certain student cultures also played a significant role inhow they made meaning of their sense of self. Once again, the gay males tended to


compartmentalize aspects of their identity within these student cultures. Related totheir compartmentalization, the participants’ performativity of their gender andsexuality shifted within gay-affirming versus non-gay-affirming spaces.

Gay-affirming student cultures, such as LGBT student organizations, served avital role for many of the gay males and their meaning-making. It was in thesespaces that the males felt most authentic. LGBT student organizations on campuspositively influenced the gay males’ meaning-making in allowing the males to becritically reflective of their gay identities as well as to create social supports withpeers and campus administrators. In discussing his involvement in his campus’LGBT organization, Nate stated,

When I’m there, I feel closest to being my complete self, just exactly who Iam, not trying to watch out for what I do or what I say or how people per-ceive my actions because people have known me for a year and we’ve hadsome pretty intimate discussions.

Similarly, Jonathan discussed his role as the facilitator of a men’s group affiliatedwith his campus’s LGBT Resource Center. He recalled, “Men’s Group definitelyhelped me come to terms with the gay part of me without feeling demasculinizedbecause of it.” Participation in these LGBT student organizations provided safespaces for students on campus and allowed for students to making meaningfulfriendships with their peers.

Additionally, three of the participants in this study were affiliated with a pro-gressive gay and bisexual fraternity. This fraternity was recognized officially at oneof the study’s research sites, although its members included students who attendeda variety of institutions within San Juan Miguel. As practice, the fraternity held itsmeetings and many of its programs within the gay neighborhood of San JuanMiguel. Victor, president of the fraternity, discussed the importance of havingmembers connect together within that specific neighborhood. He said, “That’s whatmakes this place [the gay neighborhood] so important…. We’ll have the meetinghere because everyone knows where it is, it’s central to everyone, and we’re com-fortable here.” A sense of comfort was something that each of the fraternity mem-bers discussed in relation to being a part of the larger organization. Matt discussedhow the fraternity helped him and his sense of who he was, particularly his senseof masculinity, saying, “It just grounds me and keeps me comfortable where I’m atright now. I don’t feel like I need to be any more masculine than I should or wantto be.” Likewise, Robert expressed similar sentiments saying that the fraternityhelped him feel more confident and comfortable in terms of his sexual identity.

Some of the participants were engaged in student cultures that tended to be non-gay-affirming. These tended to be traditional social fraternities, athletics, or militarytraining programs. Peter, Marc, Nate, and Robert each had been members of a so-cial fraternity during college, and each experienced some degree of compartmen-talization with their gay identity within fraternity functions. Peter reflected uponthis, saying,

When I’m at the fraternity or around people in my fraternity or in a frater-nity meeting, I just talk about certain things, act a certain way because youtend to act similar to those around you…. I think when I’m in the fraternity,


I’m much more aware of what it means to be a stereotypical man, what itmeans to be masculine, and fit into that more specific gender role.

Likewise, Nate discussed being a part of a group of students starting a new socialfraternity on his campus. Expressing concern about his involvement, he stated, “I’mafraid that I’m putting on, like, an alternate kind of Nate. It’s still me, but I feel likeI definitely hide the gay part of me a little bit, which is frustrating.” This type ofcompartmentalization of one’s identity played a significant role on many of themen, and ultimately, Marc, Nate, and Robert each disaffiliated from the fraternitydue to the heteronormative environment that felt uncomfortable to them.

Athletic programs and military training programs also were spaces in whichsome of the study participants experienced challenges due to homophobia and het-erosexism. Bryan had been an All-American Division II athlete at his college; hewas the only openly gay male student athlete at his institution, a distinction forwhich he was proud, and also became his team’s captain. By and large, he felt sup-ported in terms of his sexuality, and he tried to make it a non-issue by being the bestathlete possible. However, he did recount one experience where he was teased byanother teammate when dancing to a song he liked at a swim meet. He said,

I was really into it, and I was doing some stupid—I don’t even rememberwhat I did—but I was really into the song. And one of the guys on the teamsaid, “Oh, other than being gay”—or “Other than liking guys, that’s thegayest thing you’ve ever done.” And I was just, like, so taken back. I was like,“Okay. Shouldn’t be doing that” kind of a deal.

The gender coding Bryan experienced from his peer served as a vital reminder forhim to restrict his gender and sexuality performativity, which he did throughoutthe remainder of his college experience.

As students in military training programs, Mason and Sean both dealt with theirown challenges within those environments due to their sexual identity. Due to thehomophobic environment within the military, Mason described the need to de-velop his skill of observation and adaptation in order to protect himself. This typeof behavior exemplifies the compartmentalization of his gay identity. He stated,

So with the military or with the Navy, I know that there’s homophobia, andI know that there’re some people that are safe to talk to. And I come out tothose people, but to the rest of the organization, I don’t act too gay. I turn theflame down when I’m doing the Navy thing because my environment does-n’t, isn’t receptive to that, but when I’m in the dorms [back on campus], oh,I turn it up.

Discussing his experiences of attending a military institution for the first twoyears of his undergraduate students, Sean recalled how finding an undergroundnetwork of gay students and alumni became transformative to his experiencesthere. He reflected that the “tipping point was when I found that group,” and con-tinued to say that “it wasn’t a question of gay or straight or should I do this or that,but it was just being comfortable for once.” However, he also acknowledged thathe had to suppress his gay identity outside of the underground network, which


certainly restricted his holistic sense of self. Ultimately, it was due to these feelingsthat he transferred out of the institution.

As the gay males continued to experience critical influences in college that pro-vided them opportunities to make meaning of their multiple identities, they ex-hibited some growth and development in relation to self-authorship. Theircompartmentalization of identity in social spaces became more nuanced over timedue to increased social support networks (e.g., connecting with other gay males, in-volvement in the LGBT community) as well as engaging in critical self-reflection(e.g., involvement in gay-affirming student organizations, participation in diver-sity/social justice education). To some of the participants, their behaviors signifiedmovement from following external formulas to being a crossroads, which BaxterMagolda (2001) outlines as a temporal space where individuals begin to questionexternal influences in their lives and begin to rely on their own internal thoughts,feelings, and insights for meaning-making. For example, Mason’s compartmental-ization in different spaces becomes an opportunity for him to adapt in differentspaces while still trying to be true to himself. While he may not be as open abouthis sexuality when in ROTC-related spaces, he is still very aware of his sexuality yethe negotiates that on his own terms by disclosing his identity to some peers whohe feels would be supportive and performing his gender identity to the degree inwhich he feels comfortable. These connections related to his meaning-making ofhis identity are important as he continues to become self-authored.

Systemic Level: External Influences on One’s Meaning-Making

From a systemic level, various external influences affected the gay males andtheir meaning-making. In some cases, the participants were explicitly aware ofthese systemic influences; however, in others, the males demonstrated implicitlyhow these systems played a role in their meaning-making. For the males in thisstudy, the subtheme of societal expectations rooted in heteronormativity and hege-monic masculinity was discussed as a key influence on their identity development.

Societal expectations rooted in heteronormativity and hegemonic masculin-ity. Heteronormativity and hegemonic masculinity have played a significant roleover the lifespan of the participants. Reflecting back on their early childhood, someof the participants discussed the ways in which messages rooted in heteronorma-tivity and hegemonic masculinity were reinforced to them. The aforementionedexamples of Matt playing with Barbies and Mason’s desire to play with the E-ZBake Oven served as key moments in which the males, as young boys, were told tofollow traditional gender norms. While these were mentioned at the individuallevel, these heteronormative and hegemonic masculinity ideals were socializedgeneration to generation on a societal scale. In their experiences, Matt and Mason’sfamily members learned from their families (as well as other social institutions andsystems) this perception that heterosexuality and hegemonic masculinity was thenorm; they, in turn, were attempting to teach their sons (or siblings) these samemessages. Therefore, gender coding and policing also served a societal function ofupholding hegemonic masculinity and heteronormativity.

Likewise, other participants learned that engaging in activities and behaviorsthat reinforced traditionally-held gender roles led to positive affirmation. Craigcited his early involvement in Little League as a way to be rewarded by his family


for following gender norms. He said, “Growing up, I was put into Little League….It’s just kind of how you’re supposed to act when you’re a guy.” Similarly, manyof the males discussed the ways in which their fathers attempted to connect to themas young boys through sports. Discussing his strained relationship with his father,Brandon spoke of how he participated in swim team and water polo growing upall because of his father’s desire to have him play sports. He recounted, “I didn’tnecessarily like either one of them, but I kind of did them because they were goodfor me and my dad was into it type deal.” Other participants echoed Brandon’ssentiment that they would follow through on certain behaviors or interests in an ef-fort to connect with their fathers in meaningful ways.

Ultimately, these systemic notions of heteronormativity and hegemonic mas-culinity boxed the participants into certain ideas of what was permissible and whatwas not in terms of gendered behaviors. Mason acknowledged his own internalizedhomophobia due to the fact that “society has told us that being a man is being het-erosexual.” Likewise, acting “effeminate” as a gay male was typically seen as neg-ative by the participants, especially in light of a strong desire to avoid falling intotraditionally-held stereotypes of what it meant to be gay. Often, the participantsdiscussed these stereotypes in relation to gay characters on television shows or inthe movies who often did not exemplify their own lived experiences as gay males.Related to this attempt to avoid being a stereotype, the males internalized thesemessages and restricted their behaviors in terms of sexual roles (e.g., many of theparticipants discussed not wanting to be perceived as the “bottom” or the one beingpenetrated during anal sex) and choices of sexual or intimate partners (e.g., mostof the males identified that they would not date someone who was less masculinethan they were). By limiting themselves in these ways, they often used languagethat was rooted in internalized homophobia or that reified hegemonic masculinity.

The systemic impact of societal expectations rooted in hegemonic masculinityand heteronormativity reinforced the participants’ meaning-making and self-au-thorship journey. For some of the males, there was a definite movement to act in ac-cordance to one’s identities and personal values. Rather than blindly acceptingsocietal norms and expectations, the participants often began to clarify their ownallegiances to student organization (e.g., challenging fraternity cultures or beingdisaffiliated from those organizations) or seek out opportunities to consider one’smultiple identities outside of the framework of college. For example, many of theparticipants who were seniors discussed their thoughts and concerns about beingout at work after graduation and how the decisions to be open about their sexual-ity may affect their professional lives. The males’ discussion around this topic ex-emplified Daloz Parks’s concept of acting in committed ways, which connectedwith Kegan (1982) and Baxter Magolda’s (2001) work on self-authorship.

IMPLICATIONS

Understanding the influence of the compartmentalization of one’s sexuality ongay males’ meaning-making is particularly important for higher education profes-sionals as well as others working with gay males beyond college. As has been es-tablished within this article, colleges and universities continue to perpetuatesystems informed by hegemonic and patriarchal practices (Harper & Harris, 2010;Laker & Davis, 2011; Kimmel, 2008). While many males are coming to college witha clearer understanding of their sexual identities than ever before (Savin-Williams,


2005), it must be acknowledged that some males are still exploring their sexualidentities and development within the college environment (Rankin, Weber, Blu-menfeld, & Frazer, 2010; Stevens, 2004; Wilkerson, Ross, & Brooks, 2009). As a re-sult, higher education professionals must begin to interrogate the systems in whichwe replicate hegemonic and heteronormative practices to disrupt the societal ho-mophobia gay males (and others within the LGBT community) may experience.

Providing gay-affirming spaces on campus is one significant implication thatpromotes beneficial meaning-making of one’s integrated identities. Those studentswho were deeply committed and involved in their campus LGBT student organi-zations had stronger support networks with both peers and campus administrators,engaged in critical self-reflection of their multiple identities, and felt more authen-tic in terms of who they are holistically in those spaces. This also connects withStevens’ (2004) work on the importance of environments and safe spaces for gaymale students. It is critical that these types of organizations are made available toLGBT students. Conversely, participation in non-gay-affirming cultures, such astraditional social fraternities, athletics, and military training programs, served aspredictors for increased compartmentalization of one’s identities and exacerbatedfeelings of isolation, tokenization, and alienation by the gay males affiliated withthese student cultures. As a result, higher education professionals must challengethe pervasive hegemony that these types of cultures reify. If colleges and universi-ties provide these opportunities for student engagement, increased oversight mustbe given to challenge the heteronormative, homophobic, and/or hegemonic ideasbeing reinforced by these organizations.

The connection between one’s compartmentalization of identity and mentalhealth and wellbeing is an important implication of this research. For students likePeter, Jonathan, and Nate, the pressure to keep up a façade in terms of their gen-der role expectations and gender performance resulted in struggles with their men-tal health. Each of these participants were White males who were extremely activein athletics and seen as stand-outs in their respective sports; additionally, they eachalso had some of the strongest self-concepts around their masculinity. O’Neil’s(1981) work on gender role conflict and strain is connected to these gay males’ ex-periences. Jonathan, Peter, and Nate discussed their fear that they would be “de-masculinized,” to use Jonathan’s word, by coming out as gay. The fear of femininitystemming from their gender role conflict, at the times they were struggling, mani-fested in the compartmentalization of their gay identity, but also compelled themto either contemplate or attempt suicide. From the participants’ own lived experi-ences, dialoguing about the intersections of gender and sexuality for the gay maleswas pivotal in their lives. Whether in a therapeutic relationship, facilitated peerdiscussion groups, or even through participation in a research study such as thisone, it was clear that for most of these men being provided a space to engage withone’s self and others around making-meaning of their identities was an importanttool. Individuals working in higher education should give greater consideration toways that they can have male students communicate around the concept of their in-tersecting identities.

Further research that expands on the role of compartmentalization and its influ-ence on gay males is another implication of this study. While I gained insightfuldata from the participants of this study about how compartmentalization influ-enced their meaning-making, this was not the main focus of my larger study, butinstead a sub-study. By expanding upon this initial study, one can expand on the


base of knowledge that we have to support gay males in college who use com-partmentalization as a means for navigating their meaning-making. Related to this,it would be helpful to understand compartmentalization as an aspect of one’s cog-nitive development within college. For example, the relationship between com-partmentalization of one’s identity(s) and cognitive complexity may be animportant meaning-making tool as it relates to Maria Lugones’ (1987) concept of“world”-travelling. Speaking from her own experience as a woman of color navi-gating the intersectional complexities of her multiple identities in a patriarchal,White dominated society, Lugones discusses “world”-travelling as a liminal spacewhere one’s shift, or travel, “may not be willful or even conscious, and one may becompletely unaware of being different than one is in a different ‘world,’ and maynot recognize that one is in a different ‘world.’ Even though the shift can be donewillfully, it is not a matter of acting” (p. 11). For many of the participants in thisstudy, the ways in which they have compartmentalized aspects of their selves is, inessence, “world”-travelling. If gay males’ use of compartmentalization impactsone’s meaning-making, the connection can be made that compartmentalization hasimplications for one’s critical thinking, moral development, and other aspects ofhow one thinks about himself. However, more research is needed to understandthese concepts as they relate to gay males in college.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I return to Peter’s phrase of “these walls of a façade” at the start ofthis article. The act of compartmentalization clearly plays a significant role in thelives of the gay males in this study; each gay male building his own façade. How-ever, their continued growth and development provides them an opportunity tomake meaning of who they are, and through that process, they have begun to teardown that façade to stand firm in their sense of self. Each participant’s journey ofself-discovery is unique. Throughout their lives, they have learned what it meansto follow (and break) the rules and expectations set for them, and they have a keensense of how those experiences have influenced how they think about themselvesas gay males. Compartmentalization has been but a tool in the process of theirmeaning-making of their sexuality and masculinity. For some, compartmentalizingaspects of their identities highlight concerns for one’s safety; for others, they maybe seen originating it fear or shame. Regardless of their reasons, it is true that it hasinfluenced them on an individual, group, and systemic level, and most likely, itwill continue to play a role. It is my hope though that they feel empowered enoughto hold steady in the journey ahead as “world”-travelers and live a more integratedlife. By breaking the “walls of a façade,” they continue that journey to themselves.

REFERENCES

Abes, E.S., & Jones, S.R. (2004). Meaning-making capacity and dynamics of lesbian col-lege students’ multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development,45(6), 612-632.

Abes, E.S., Jones, S.R., & McEwen, M.K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multi-ple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the constructionof multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 1-21.


Baxter Magolda, M. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher edu-cation to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Berila, B. (2011). Queer masculinities in higher education. In J.A. Laker & T. Davis (Eds.),Masculinities in higher education: Practical and theoretical considerations (pp. 97-110). NewYork, NY: Routledge.

Bilodeau, B., & Renn, K. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development models andimplications for practice. In R. Sanlo (Ed.), Gender identity and sexual orientation: Re-search, policy, and personal perspectives. New Directions for Student Services, 111 (pp. 25-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex.” New York, NY: Rout-ledge.

Cass, V.C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Ho-mosexuality, 4(3), 219-235.

Chambers, S.A. (2007). ‘An incalculable effect’: Subversions of heteronormativity. Polit-ical Studies, 55, 656-679.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitativeanalysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Connell, R.W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Connell, R.W., Hearn, J., & Kimmel, M.S. (2005). Introduction. In M.S. Kimmel, J. Hearn,

& R.W. Connell (Eds.), Handbook of studies on men & masculinities (pp. 1-12). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

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

Daloz Parks, S. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their searchfor meaning, purpose and faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Daloz Parks, S. (2011). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring emerging adults in theirsearch for meaning, purpose, and faith (rev. 10th anniv. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society, 22(5), 643-657.

Edwards, K.E., & Jones, S.R. (2009). “Putting my man face on”: A grounded theory ofcollege men’s gender identity development. Journal of College Student Development,50(2), 210-228.

Fassinger, R.E. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity and student development the-ory. In R.L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college stu-dents: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 13-22). Westport, CT: GreenwoodPress.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for quali-tative research. New York, NY: Aldine.

Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:Pearson.

Harper, S.R., & Harris, F. III (2010). College men and masculinities: Theory, research, andimplications for practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Harris III, F. (2006). The meanings college men make of masculinities and contextual influ-ences on behaviors, outcomes, and gendered environmental norms: A grounded theory study.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,CA.

hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity and love. New York, NY: Washing-ton Square Press.


Jones, S.R., & Abes, E.S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frame-works for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, S.R., & McEwen, M.K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of iden-tity. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 405-414.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Kimmel, M.S. (2006). Manhood in America: A cultural history (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Ox-ford University Press.

Kimmel, M.S. (2008). Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. New York, NY:HarperCollins.

Kimmel, M.S. (2010). Misframing men: The politics of contemporary masculinities. NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Laker, J.A., & Davis, T. (2011). Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and practicalconsiderations. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lorber, J. (2001). “Night to his day”: The social construction of gender. In T.F. Cohen(Ed.), Men and masculinity: A text reader (pp. 19-28). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lugones, M. (1987). Playfulness, “world”-travelling, and loving perception. Hypatia,2(2), 3-19.

O’Neil, J.M. (1981). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear of femi-ninity in men’s lives. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60(4), 203-210.

Pascoe, C.J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.Plummer, D. (1999). One of the boys: Masculinity, homophobia, and modern manhood. New

York, NY: Harrington Park Press.Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 State of higher educa-

tion for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride.Reeser, T.W. (2010). Masculinities in theory: An introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Black-

well.Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Savin-Williams, R.C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.Showers, C.J. (1992). Compartmentalization of positive and negative self-knowledge:

Keeping bad apples out of the bunch. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6),1036-1049.

Showers, C.J., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2007). Compartmentalization and integration: The eval-uative organization of contextualized selves. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1181-1204.

Stevens, R.A. (2004). Understanding gay identity development within the college envi-ronment. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 185-206.

Thornton Dill, B., & Zambrana, R.E. (2009). Emerging intersections: Race, class, and genderin theory, policy, and practice. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S.A. Farrell (Eds.),The social construction of gender (pp. 13-37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wilkerson, J.M., Ross, M.W., & Brooks, A.K. (2009). Social constructions influencing so-ciosexual identity development of collegiate gay and bisexual men. Sexuality Research& Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, 6(2), 71-87.


Breaking Down the "Walls of a Facade": The Influence of Compartmentalization on Gay College Males'...

Documents

Transcript of Breaking Down the "Walls of a Facade": The Influence of Compartmentalization on Gay College Males'...