“I’m a Work in Progress” : Rethinking Posttraumatic Growth Among Low-Income Black Men

Abstract

Low-income Black men in the United States experience cumulative trauma shaped by structural violence, including poverty, residential segregation, over-policing, mass incarceration, and community violence. These systemic harms disrupt identity, relationships, and opportunity, constraining both exposure to trauma and pathways for recovery and growth. Drawing on Tedeschi and Calhoun’s posttraumatic growth (PTG) framework, integrated with socioecological and culturally grounded perspectives on resilience, this study examines how low-income Black men make meaning of trauma and pursue transformation amid structural constraints. Using in-depth qualitative case studies with 10 men, we highlight four focal cases to illustrate diverse trajectories of growth. Findings show that PTG unfolds as an iterative, contextually embedded process: some men achieved comprehensive transformation through prosocial engagement, fatherhood, and relational repair, whereas others navigated persistent structural barriers yet demonstrated growth through survival, persistence, and redefined purpose. By situating PTG within systemic inequality, relational networks, and cultural context, this study extends the framework beyond individual cognition, emphasizing how structurally and socially mediated pathways shape PTG among marginalized Black men.

Low-income Black men in the United States experience multiple and intersecting forms of trauma rooted in structural violence (Hinton & Cook, 2021)—the systemic and institutional inequalities that constrain opportunity and produce chronic exposure to harm (Farmer, 2004; Galtung, 1969). Manifesting through poverty, housing inequality (e.g., residential segregation and redlining), state-sanctioned harm such as over- and under-policing (Brunson & Wade, 2019), and mass incarceration, structural violence also extends to the “invisible punishments” of criminal legal system involvement, including felony disenfranchisement and social exclusion (Western, 2018). These conditions, compounded by community gun violence, produce cumulative trauma or the repeated and compounding adversities that erode psychological, social, and physical well-being across the life course (Quinn et al., 2020). Such structurally produced harms are further reinforced through daily interactions with institutions that reproduce inequity and stigma. A robust body of research demonstrates how law enforcement, employers, and social service systems routinely dehumanize low-income Black men through surveillance, criminalization, and exclusion (Goff et al., 2014). This systemic devaluation constitutes a persistent form of structural violence that not only shapes exposure to trauma but also constrains the very conditions under which recovery and posttraumatic growth (PTG) can occur (Goff et al., 2014).

Even in the context of enduring structural harm, processes of healing and transformation unfold in nuanced and often overlooked ways, as emerging research frames trauma not only as a site of suffering but also as a potential catalyst for meaning-making and growth within conditions of constraint and inequity (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). The PTG model conceptualizes growth as a positive psychological change that emerges not from the traumatic event itself, but from the process of cognitive and emotional restructuring that follows, which results in new perspectives on the self, relationships, and the world (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

However, existing PTG research has largely focused on individual-level cognitive and emotional processes, often neglecting how structural and sociocultural conditions (e.g., poverty, exposure to violence, police violence) shape opportunities for growth. Emerging scholarship challenges this individualistic orientation by demonstrating that trauma can also catalyze collective forms of growth grounded in shared meaning-making and social connection (Muldoon et al., 2023), emphasizing collective healing despite enduring structural inequities. Yet, limited research has examined how the chronic cumulative and socially embedded forms of trauma that characterize the lives of low-income Black men, often beginning early in life and compounded by systemic inequities (Herman, 1992; van der Kolk, 2005), shape their capacity for growth. These forms of trauma frequently disrupt identity formation and relationships, rendering the pursuit of PTG not only complex but also deeply contextual.

To address this gap, the present study integrates the PTG framework with socioecological and sociocultural perspectives (Payne, 2011; Ungar, 2011) that conceptualize resilience as contextually and structurally embedded, situating trauma and recovery within broader systems of meaning, power, and opportunity. Ungar’s (2011) work reframes resilience as a socially and ecologically situated process, emphasizing that structural conditions rather than individual deficits shape access to coping resources, opportunity structures, and community supports that influence how individuals navigate adversity. Similarly, Payne’s (2011) Sites of Resilience (SOR) framework conceptualizes Black men’s responses to the everyday realities of structural violence as encompassing any behavior or attitude employed to survive adverse social conditions, whether deemed adaptive or not, thereby framing such acts as forms of resistance in service of survivability.

By situating PTG (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) within these socioecological and sociocultural frameworks, this study extends the concept of PTG beyond individual psychological change to encompass the structural and cultural contexts that shape the lived experiences of low-income Black men. This theoretical integration addresses critical gaps in the PTG literature, which has historically overlooked how structural violence, racialized oppression, and constrained ecologies influence both the possibilities and expressions of growth following trauma. Reinterpreting these domains through a socioecological and culturally embedded lens enables a more accurate understanding of the contextual and collective nature of growth among marginalized Black men who navigate cumulative and systemic trauma.

Guided by this framework, the study draws on a subsample of Black men (n = 10) who directly link their experiences of cumulative trauma to subsequent behavioral change. Using a case study approach, we examine the narratives of four focal participants—Eric, Jordan, Glen, and Rob—whose stories reveal distinct yet interconnected trajectories of transformation. Their accounts illuminate the factors that facilitate growth, the complexities of navigating cumulative trauma, and the influence of marginalization within Western society, where traditional conceptualizations of PTG often fail to serve as normative benchmarks of change for low-income Black men. By exploring growth within conditions of structural constraint and reinterpreting outcomes that diverge from normative White, middle-class standards, this study advances a more contextually grounded understanding of posttraumatic change.

PTG Theory

Distinct from resilience, which denotes a return to baseline functioning or recovery following adversity, PTG refers to surpassing pre-trauma levels of functioning and experiencing profound personal change (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). PTG can be understood both as a process and an outcome. As a process, it is initiated by trauma and unfolds through a psychological struggle that ultimately facilitates growth. As an outcome, PTG represents changes that become integrated into an individual’s sense of self and worldview. Central to this framework is the idea that trauma must be sufficiently severe to disrupt one’s core beliefs and assumptions about the world (Calhoun et al., 2010), which forces the individual to reevaluate their current life circumstances. Through deliberate rumination individuals engage in cognitive restructuring that allows them to integrate their experiences into a coherent life narrative (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004), prompting deep reflection aimed at mean-making and understanding the implications of the trauma, what has been learned, and how it reshapes their understanding of self and world.

According to Tedeschi and Calhoun (2004), PTG can manifest in following five domains: including increased personal strength, the recognition of new possibilities, enhanced relationships with others, a deeper appreciation for life, and strengthened spiritual or existential beliefs. Growth in self-perception involves redefining one’s identity from that of a “victim” to a “survivor,” incorporating experiences of adversity into a life narrative that affirms perseverance and self-efficacy (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Changes in relationships may also emerge, as trauma can strengthen existing bonds or lead to new, supportive connections. Finally, trauma can prompt heighted existential and spiritual reflection, leading to a deeper appreciation of life or renewed faith that provides meaning and psychological stability (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

Theoretical Limits of PTG

Although the PTG framework has been extensively nationally and internationally among various populations, most research relies on predominantly White samples, limiting its generalizability to racially and structurally marginalized populations (Lindstrom, 2019). In addition, PTG research typically examines the impact of a single traumatic event, despite evidence that most trauma survivors, particularly marginalized Black men, experience multiple, compounding traumas over their lifetimes (Green, 2024). As a result, focusing on a single traumatic event does not accurately capture the experiences of marginalized Black men and significantly underestimates the adverse impact of trauma among this population.

Another limitation of the PTG literature is its insufficient attention to behavior within the change process. While Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (2004) framework emphasizes the cognitive and meaning-making aspects of growth following trauma, it gives little focus to how behavioral shifts contribute to or sustain that growth. More research is needed to understand how behavior facilitates PTG and where in the change process is behavior best equipped to promote and sustain growth. This study attends to both cognitive and behavioral change by illustrating how participants initiate and, in some cases, sustain change within contexts of structural constraint.

Finally, much of the empirical research on PTG has relied on quantitative methods, particularly the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI). While valuable, this focus on measurement often overlooks the cultural, structural, and contextual forces shaping growth. Qualitative inquiry is therefore critical for capturing the lived experiences and meaning-making processes of those navigating systemic inequities. This study adopts a qualitative approach centered on low-income Black men, examining how structural violence, racialized trauma, and lifelong adversity condition the processes and expressions of growth.

Integrating Structural Violence and PTG

Taking a socioecological perspective highlights how structural conditions can both constrain and enable posttraumatic growth. When situated within the structural realities of low-income Black men, the domains of PTG may take on distinct meanings. Growth in personal strength might manifest as perseverance within environments marked by structural violence rather than as individual triumph. The recognition of new possibilities may emerge through redefined life priorities or prosocial engagement rather than traditional socioeconomic advancement. Changes in relationships may involve greater selectivity, intentionality in forming supportive networks or renewed commitment to kinship networks. A deeper appreciation for life might be rooted in survival gratitude amid structural violence, while spiritual and existential growth may draw upon culturally grounded belief systems and communal practices that reframe suffering and sustain purpose (Chatters et al., 2008).

Trauma and growth for many Black men is simultaneous rather than sequential, unfolding as an iterative and context-bound process processes of adaptation and meaning-making amid ongoing adversity. Unlike dominant PTG perspectives, this study does not interpret behaviors diverging from White, middle-class norms as maladaptive but instead situates them within their sociocultural contexts (Payne, 2008; Ungar, 2011, 2013). Under conditions of deprivation, participation in informal economies or ties with criminally involved peers may represent survival strategies and contextually adaptive forms of resilience (Payne, 2011). Recognizing these complexities expands PTG theory to include structurally constrained pathways to adaptation and growth. Recognizing this complexity is essential for expanding PTG theory to include structurally constrained pathways to adaptation and meaning-making among low-income Black men.

Although traditional PTG models emphasize individual cognitive change (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004), emerging scholarship highlights collective processes of mean-making (Muldoon et al., 2023). For low-income Black men, whose trauma is embedded in structural racism, community violence, and economic precarity, growth is inseparable from collective experiences of racialized oppression and communal survival. By reinterpreting PTG through a socioecological and culturally embedded lens, this study extends the framework to more accurately capture the contextual, collective, and culturally grounded nature of growth among low-income Black men navigating cumulative and systemic trauma. This theoretical integration broadens the PTG framework beyond individual cognitive change to encompass the structural, cultural, and communal dimensions of adaptation, addressing a critical gap in PTG research and advancing a more contextualized understanding of growth amid structural constraint.

Method

Data Procedures

Data for this analysis were drawn from a larger preceding study that conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 20 low-income Black men across the United States (M. Q. Patton, 2002). Inclusion criteria required participants to identify as (a) Black male, (b) aged 21 to 40, and (c) having experienced or witnessed severe forms of “street violence,” operationalized as exposure to gunfire, shootings, stabbings, physical assaults, or killings. Recruitment occurred between February 2018 and November 2020 following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Initially, a staff member from a local nonprofit organization assisted in recruiting participants in the Midwest, resulting in 14 in-person interviews conducted in a private office setting. Due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, recruitment strategies were adapted, and the first author enlisted additional participants through personal contacts, resulting in six interviews conducted by telephone.

All participants were informed of the study’s voluntary nature, assured confidentiality, and provided a consent form. Pseudonyms were assigned to protect identities, and participants received a list of culturally competent local mental health and support services, with multiple access options to accommodate transient circumstances. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked for accuracy by the lead author. Interviews began with grand tour questions (Spradley, 1979) that addressed participants’ childhood upbringing, familial dynamics, and memorable early life experiences. Subsequent questions delved deeper into participants’ encounters with violence, encouraging them to reflect memories of being a witness, victim, or perpetrator of violence. Follow-up questions explored the long-term consequences of these experiences. The final interview sections explored participants’ resilience strategies and the formal and informal supports they used to cope with violence and trauma. Interviews averaged 1 hr and participants received a $20 honorarium.

A Note on Data Collection During Sociopolitical Contexts

Although interviews were conducted across distinct sociopolitical moments both before and after the onset of COVID-19 and the racial justice uprisings following the murder of George Floyd, these events did not fundamentally alter the core dimensions of trauma described by participants. Rather, the experiences of men interviewed after 2020 reinforced the enduring and cumulative nature of racialized trauma that characterized all narratives. While the racial reckoning following George Floyd’s murder intensified public discourse around systemic injustice and the visibility of Black men’s vulnerability, it did not substantially change how participants themselves made meaning of trauma. For most, these events confirmed what had long been understood; that racialized violence, economic instability, and structural neglect are persistent and normalized aspects of daily life. Participants interviewed in the aftermath of 2020 often spoke more about the acute financial challenges brought on by the collapse of the secondary labor market during COVID-19 than about shifts in racial consciousness. Collectively, these accounts underscore continuity rather than rupture in meaning-making, illustrating how broader sociopolitical moments may heighten awareness of long-standing inequities without transforming the deeply rooted ways Black men have learned to navigate and make sense of trauma.

Given the sensitive nature of this study and the vulnerability required for men to openly share their experiences, establishing rapport and trust was essential (M. Q. Patton, 2002). As Black Americans faced a “dual pandemic,” grappling with disproportionate rates of death from COVID-19 alongside continued state violence, the first author intentionally created space to acknowledge this collective trauma before beginning the formal interview. These unprompted discussions provided the opportunity for shared recognition of trauma amid both crises.

Study Sample

To examine how Black men make meaning of cumulative trauma and how these experiences shape identity and resilience, we drew on a purposive subsample (n = 10) from a broader set of semi-structured interviews. Although participants in the broader sample often expressed general desires for change and future aspirations, these 10 men explicitly linked their histories of cumulative trauma to by way of racialized and structural violence to behavioral and cognitive change. These findings illuminate the ways Black men navigate, interpret, and grow from cumulative trauma within sociocultural and systemic contexts. For this analysis, we conducted in-depth interviews with 10 Black men, ages 25 to 38 (M = 32). All participants reported exposure to multiple adverse childhood experiences and the loss of loved ones to violence. With the exception of one individual, all were either unemployed or employed in the secondary labor market (e.g., fast food, construction). These participants’ narratives form the foundation of the study, providing the analytical focus for exploring how cumulative trauma, situated within racialized and structural contexts shapes PTG among Black men.

Data Analysis

All transcription data were coded manually by the first author in Word. Data were analyzed using abductive analysis (Tavory & Timmermans, 2014), an iterative approach that integrates inductive and deductive reasoning to refine and expand theory. Abductive analysis moves between data and theory to generate insight while staying open to contextual understanding.

This analytic approach was particularly well suited to the study’s focus on PTG among low-income Black men, as it allowed for theoretical refinement while attending to participants’ lived experiences of cumulative and racialized trauma.

As part of a doctoral dissertation, coding was conducted solely by the first author, with analytic rigor strengthened through ongoing consultation with the dissertation committee, who reviewed transcripts, memos, and coding definitions. These consultations served as peer debriefing (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), supporting reflexivity and validation of analytic decisions. Analytic memos were maintained throughout the process (Charmaz, 2006), facilitating comparison between data and theory, refining categories, and identifying gaps.

Initial codes were developed deductively using Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (1996) PTG framework, reflecting five domains: changes in self-perception, relationships with others, appreciation of life, recognition of new possibilities, and spiritual or existential change. Each code was clearly defined to ensure consistent application (Saldaña, 2016). Subsequently, new codes were generated through inductive analysis to capture how racialized marginalization, community violence, and systemic inequities shaped participants’ understandings of trauma and growth. This phase recognized that growth among low-income Black men cannot be disentangled from the social and structural environments that shape their daily lives. Next, axial coding was used to examine relationships among these codes, identifying how structural conditions (e.g., poverty, violence, incarceration), actions (e.g., behavioral change), and outcomes (e.g., redefined purpose) interacted to produce distinctive pathways of growth (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Finally, codes were synthesized into broader conceptual themes illustrating how transformation and growth unfolded within the constraints of systemic marginalization for low-income Black men. Three interrelated themes emerged from participants’ narratives, illustrating how Black men experienced growth within conditions of constraint: (a) Survival as Growth, where enduring and adapting amid structural violence itself reflected PTG; (b) Relational and Collective Meaning-Making, in which growth unfolded through repaired relationships, mutual support, and generativity within family and community networks; and (c) Reimagining Masculinity and Manhood, as participants redefined masculinity through care, vulnerability, and nurturing fatherhood, rejecting hegemonic ideals.

As a result, we identified four focal cases—Eric, Jordan, Glen, and Rob—using a criterion-based approach (M. Q. Patton, 2002) to highlight variation in the pathways to PTG among participants. These cases were chosen because they provided sufficiently detailed narratives that captured the process of growth rather than solely its outcomes. Each participant’s story illustrates distinct trajectories of meaning-making and adaptation shaped by sociocultural and structural conditions, such as economic precarity, racialized surveillance, and community context. The aim was not to select the most compelling stories, but rather those that offered analytic richness and depth for understanding how growth unfolds within and against these broader contexts. Our findings demonstrate how structure and sociocultural considerations can play a role in understanding how marginalized Black men talk about change in their lives.

Ethical Considerations and Positionality

Due to the sensitive nature of this study and the interview questions, some participants might have experienced emotional or psychological discomfort while recalling and discussing their exposure to violence. For many, this was their first time verbalizing these experiences aloud. Several precautions were implemented to protect participants from harm. The first author sought to create a safe and supportive space for participants to share their stories and reminded them that they could skip any question, pause, or terminate the interview at any time. When discussions became emotionally heavy, the first author pivoted to less distressing topics to ease the psychological load, allowed participants to take breaks, or sat in silence until participants felt ready to continue. No participant chose to terminate the interview due to psychological distress. Each interview concluded on a positive note, inviting participants to reflect on their goals, aspirations, and hopes for the future.

Prior to data collection, the first author was aware that her race, age, gender, and physical appearance could influence participant engagement. As a Black woman researcher, the first author leveraged her insider status to build rapport and trust, an essential component given the sensitizing nature of the study. Interviews were often conducted in African American Vernacular English (AAVE), which allowed for a more natural conversational flow and supported relational authenticity. The first author’s personal experiences with community and interpersonal violence informed the motivation for this study and shaped the approach to this work, grounding it in deep empathy and a commitment to ethical care. Throughout the research process, the first author remained attentive to power dynamics inherent in researcher–participant relationships (Fine, 1994). Participants were treated as experts of their own lived experiences, and interviews were framed as collaborative conversations. To mitigate bias and maintain analytic rigor, the first author kept a reflexive journal (see Lincoln & Guba, 1982) to document methodological decisions, emergent insights, and reflections on positionality and power. This reflexive practice ensured that interpretations remained grounded in participants’ voices and that the analysis resisted reproducing unequal power relations embedded in traditional research paradigms (Hooks, 1989).

Findings

Framed through socioecological and sociocultural lenses, growth is understood as a process shaped by and in resistance to structural violence. The cases of Eric, Jordan, Glen, and Rob show growth not as an escape from adversity, but as the ongoing reconstruction of identity, purpose, and connection amid systemic challenges. By integrating PTG with these contextual frameworks, this study moves beyond individualistic assumptions, foregrounds cumulative trauma, and highlights growth as a dynamic process of adaptation, meaning-making, and growth within conditions of structural oppression.

Eric’s life. Eric’s life trajectory reflects the experiences of most of the men in this study. Born into poverty, abandoned by his parents, and raised as a ward of the state, Eric sought belonging in a Crip street gang, which led to cycles of incarceration, violence, and victimization. Saddled with extensive trauma, his path toward positive change unfolded through shifts in relationships, reorientation around fatherhood, and the mental fortitude to transform his life, despite the persistent constraints of structural inequality. His 2015 incarceration marked a turning point, prompting deep self-reflection and a renewed sense of purpose around fatherhood: “I couldn’t come home and say I’ma do something different and still fuck with the same niggas . . . I can’t keep doing my babies like that.” Across participants, the most consistent domain of growth was a change in relationships. Black men reported becoming more open to emotional vulnerability, seeking out supportive networks, and striving to be better fathers in the aftermath of trauma. For Eric, change was not solely prompted by incarceration itself but by recognizing the emotional toll it imposed on his children. This realization deepened his commitment to fatherhood and initiated a gradual process of cognitive and behavioral transformation.

Participants’ growth processes were fundamentally relational, emerging through connection and repair rather than internal reflection alone. Eric’s transformation was incremental and relationally driven, aligning with Hammond and Mattis’s (2005) framing of growth among Black men as rooted in care and restored kinship ties. Following a brief reincarceration in 2017, he leaned on his cousin, also formerly incarcerated, for grounding and support: “That’s my dude, man . . . he keep me grounded. If I could just talk, just to get it out, I’m cool. I can keep it pushing.” Reaching out to family, friends, and peers enabled men to rebuild trust, express vulnerability, and resist isolation. These connections provided emotional regulation and solidarity, underscoring the centrality of relationship-based support and kinship in sustaining growth after trauma.

In situations of marginalization (e.g., low income, racial oppression, community violence), men may adopt alternative masculinities, such as nurturing fatherhood, to respond to structural constraints and reclaim agency (Hammond & Mattis, 2005). For Eric, fatherhood became a central site of meaning-making and transformation. Supported by his cousin following trauma, he found greater enjoyment in his relationships with his children and reframed masculinity around nurturing and presence rather than toughness or economic provision: “I ain’t in the streets no more . . . I just stay to myself, smoke a little weed, fuck with my babies; the park, the zoo . . . My princess wanna pet the stingrays so I gotta make it shake.” Rejecting traditional hegemonic models of masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005), Eric embraced what McGill (2014) terms “contemporary fathering,” grounded in emotional connection and caregiving. For many participants, this shift represented a redefinition of manhood shaped through everyday negotiations of survival, caregiving, and responsibility amid structural violence (Borinca & Gkinopoulos, 2025).

Yet, despite emotional and relational growth, Eric’s progress remained constrained by structural inequities. Reflecting on his long work hours and financial precarity, he lamented: “I’m poor . . . After taxes I barely bring home [$20,000] . . . I can’t keep doing this man. It’s wearing and tearing on me.” Like many men in this study, Eric’s growth was defined not by transcendence but by persistence within harsh material realities. Maintaining employment, avoiding reincarceration, and sustaining family connections amid poverty, stigma, and exclusion constituted success. For low-income Black men, survival itself represents a form of PTG, an adaptive response shaped by racialized structural violence. Eric’s story underscores that growth does not signify escape from trauma but for some Black men in this study, the capacity to persist, and to reorganize self and meaning within the constraints imposed by structural inequities.

Jordan’s life. Jordan was one of only two men in this study who described a complete life transformation and sustained trajectory of success. At 34, Jordan a married father of a young son, and worked as a social worker with at-risk youth. Growing up amid parental mental health and substance use challenges, Jordan’s early life was marked by instability and violence, including frequent confrontations with his father and brother. Jordan’s story illustrates how transformation can evolve through collective and prosocial environments. After years of instability and anger, he found purpose in education, community responsibility, mentorship, and fatherhood. Reflecting on his past, he shared, “At a point I just knew I was gonna end up being killed, or I’ma kill somebody . . . It takes two seconds to ruin your life. After a while I just said, I gotta do something different.” Echoing Manove and colleagues (2019), Jordan’s physical removal from his neighborhood proved pivotal, as college exposure to new social networks and opportunities expanded his self-concept and sense of possibility. Within this predominantly White institution, he encountered peers and mentors who modeled prosocial pathways and affirmed his potential for growth.

Like Eric, Jordan’s transformation was deeply relational. His wife and son provided emotional grounding and motivation to sustain change. He described, “What keeps me going now? Of course, it’s my son and my wife . . . I want anybody that comes after me to understand you can do it. I just wanted different.” This reflects the relational domain of PTG (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004), where strengthened bonds and caregiving roles create new meaning and purpose. His wife’s consistent support served as both an emotional anchor and a catalyst for maintaining behavioral change, illustrating how kinship and caregiving relationships reinforce growth. Beyond relational repair, a focus on current relationships, Jordan’s transformation embodied generativity, a desire to nurture and guide the next generation (McAdams & de St Aubin, 1992). Through mentoring and social work, Jordan sought to interrupt intergenerational cycles of trauma and create alternative pathways for youth. This expression of moral responsibility and communal care represents what Herman (1992) terms a “survivor mission,” the transformation of personal suffering into collective purpose (Muldoon et al., 2023). From a turbulent childhood to becoming the first in his family to graduate college, Jordan exemplifies how trauma, when met with prosocial opportunity and relational support, can catalyze growth that extends beyond the self toward communal care.

Glen’s life. Glen, a single Black man with no children, described a life shaped by loss, substance use, and neighborhood violence. After years of instability and street involvement, a court-mandated treatment program became a catalyst for transformation. Now 5 years sober, Glen reflected that his recovery was not simply about abstaining from alcohol but rebuilding relationships and rediscovering purpose. Glen’s transformation was deeply relational. Reconnecting with his family provided emotional grounding and a renewed sense of belonging: “It was two things that really made me stronger . . . actually having my family be my family and loving them. That right there, that’s something I’m starting to really relish because family and friends is really happiness.” Through these renewed relationships, Glen learned to cope adaptively, express vulnerability, and maintain accountability, illustrating that change was not a solitary pursuit but a collective process of repair.

Before entering treatment, Glen was deeply embedded in street life, engaging in drug dealing and gang violence as a member of the Bloods. While he no longer participates in gang-banging or illicit activity, he maintains symbolic and emotional ties to his set:

I ain’t out [the gang] . . . it’s been dormant meaning it’s not a priority. The day yall get rid of all the KKK, is the day I’ll get out of Blood. I don’t see why I should have to dead our cultures, which was built because of them.

For Glen, this affiliation remains a source of identity and belonging, reflecting street-oriented resilience (Payne, 2011) as a form of resistance to structural exclusion. For many Black men, gang membership or affiliation arises as a survival strategy in segregated, under-resourced communities where conventional pathways are blocked.

Glen’s case illustrates how growth among marginalized Black men can coexist with enduring attachments to nontraditional support networks. His story reveals how transformation unfolds through relational and collective meaning-making, where survival, sobriety, and belonging operate as interconnected expressions of growth within structural constraint. His continued identification with his gang reflects an effort to reframe, rather than reject aspects of his past identity to sustain meaning and connection.

Rob’s life. Rob, a 38-year-old Black man, grew up in a poverty-stricken neighborhood where violence and scarcity were constant. By adolescence, he had joined the Bloods, and by his late twenties, he was deeply embedded in the underground economy through drug dealing and robbery; activities he viewed as necessary means of survival. Reflecting on his past, Rob said, “At the end of the day, I have to realize that it ain’t worth it. I’m here, I still got my life . . . It’s taught me love, appreciation, and accountability.” Rob’s reflections reveal a growing sense of self-awareness and gratitude, core components of PTG (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004) even as his behavioral transformation remained incomplete.

Although Rob sought prosocial opportunities, structural barriers—unemployment and the stigma of a criminal record—continued to limit legitimate options and pushed him back toward illicit work to provide for himself and family. He spoke candidly about code-switching to navigate different social environments:

You can take me to the Whitest neighborhood and they’ll think I’m some Oreo. But I can go back to the hood and be just as gangsta as you. I had people look at me, like “you been in prison how many times?” “I know, I’m not supposed to look like it.” When you do things out in these streets you not supposed to look like it. This pretty smile got you thinking I’m all cuddly inside until I slice your throat.

Rob’s ongoing reliance on robbery to make ends meet highlights the blurred boundary between survival and transformation under systemic constraint. Structural exclusion, particularly through criminal record discrimination, severely limits access to legitimate employment and income stability for Black men (Western, 2018). According to Payne (2008, 2011) and Ungar (2011), resilience among marginalized Black men must be understood as contextually embedded within systems of racialized inequality, where illegal economies often serve as adaptive strategies for survival and masculine identity formation. Rob’s persistence, despite his continued entanglement in illicit work, underscores how PTG may coexist with moral ambiguity and constrained agency. His story highlights that for men navigating structural violence, growth emerges through adaptive strategies that sustain life and dignity within oppressive conditions.

Discussion

This study applied Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (1996) PTG framework to examine how low-income Black men make meaning from cumulative trauma and pursue positive life changes within contexts shaped by racialized structural violence. Although PTG has been widely used to describe transformative outcomes following trauma, it has rarely been applied to Black men whose lives are shaped by chronic adversity, systemic exclusion, and limited access to supportive systems. By centering the narratives of four men who connected their trauma exposure to intentional change, this study addresses a critical gap.

Findings show that PTG for low-income Black men is best understood as a contextual, relational, and structurally constrained process rather than a discrete or universal psychological phenomenon. Participants’ narratives illustrate forms of transformation that extend beyond traditional PTG domains, revealing culturally grounded, community-based, and structurally informed pathways to healing. Consistent with existing research, trauma was described not as an isolated event but as an ongoing condition produced through racialized inequities in housing, employment, safety, and care (Author, 2024). Yet, participants also demonstrated that growth can occur within and in response to these constraints.

Three themes emerged across narratives. Survival itself functioned as a form of growth, as men described sustaining employment, managing relationships, and avoiding further harm amid structural barriers. This reframing challenges PTG models that assume stability and resource availability. For these men, growth is inseparable from the ability to endure ongoing threats and exercise agency in the face of constrained choices. Their stories underscore that survival is not the absence of transformation but one of its clearest expressions. Structural violence was not merely a backdrop to growth but a constitutive context shaping its possibilities and limits. Participants’ growth was both because of and in spite of structural oppression. Relational and collective mean-making also played a central role, healing unfolded through kinship, mentorship, and reciprocal support. Growth became generative when participants invested in younger community members and rebuilt trust with family. Finally, men engaged in reimagining masculinity, rejecting restrictive hegemonic gender norms that equate masculinity with dominance, emotional restriction, and material provision, in favor of emotional openness, nurturance, and responsible fatherhood. These identity shifts represent both personal transformation and a challenge to dominant narratives surrounding Black masculinity.

Our findings align with scholarship documenting PTG among Black men as emerging from cumulative adversity rather than singular traumatic incidents (Quinn et al., 2020). Participants described identity reconstruction, strengthened relationships, and prosocial goals—consistent with core PTG domains, yet these shifts were filtered through racialized structural disadvantage. Growth was not solely cognitive; social networks, kinship bonds, and community resources were essential to catalyzing change. For many, transformation resembled a “survivor mission” (Muldoon et al., 2023), in which cumulative trauma was repurposed into collective responsibility and community-oriented action. Thus, the findings highlight the need to understand social networks as critical sources of support for Black men pursuing PTG.

The study also highlights constraints within the PTG framework. Although men described meaningful transformation, structural barriers, such as criminal labeling, limited employment opportunities, and ongoing surveillance shaped the extent to which change could be sustained (Singletary, 2020). Eric’s experience demonstrated how personal motivation and social support facilitated growth, yet his criminal record curtailed full reintegration. Others, such as Glen and Rob, redefined growth on their own terms, maintaining gang ties or engaging in criminalized economies as adaptive responses to structural exclusion. These cases challenge assumptions that PTG necessarily involves full disengagement from deviance; instead, they illuminate how individuals pursue meaning, dignity, and stability despite constrained choices (Payne, 2008; Shorter-Gooden, 2004). In contrast, Jordan’s trajectory underscores the transformative impact of structural access. Educational and prosocial opportunities enabled him to pursue a college degree and build a career supporting foster care youth. His experience illustrates that positive change for Black men is not solely rooted in identity reconstruction; it is contingent upon the availability of meaningful opportunities and broader efforts to dismantle structural inequalities that shape the boundaries of growth (Bailey et al., 2023).

These findings suggest that traditional PTG models inadequately capture the forms of change available to Black men navigating racialized structural inequality. Growth may include behaviors that do not align with dominant norms but nonetheless reflect adaptive strategies and culturally informed definitions of progress. Therefore, we call for a more inclusive and contextually grounded understanding of PTG is required; one that accounts for the social, structural, and cultural dimensions shaping how growth manifests among marginalized populations. Finally, these findings also point to critical policy implications. Removing structural barriers to employment and education for justice-impacted individuals is essential, including ban-the-box initiatives, reentry-centered career pathways, and institutional support for first-generation and formerly incarcerated students (Western, 2018). Such interventions align with participants’ trajectories, which revealed that access to opportunity greatly influenced the sustainability of growth. Recognizing alternative expressions of progress and designing equitable, context-sensitive supports remain central to advancing meaningful change for Black men affected by trauma.

Limitations

Despite this study’s contribution, we acknowledge several limitations of our study. First, the small sample size of four marginalized Black men and from a single geographic area limits the applicability of our results to diverse cultural contexts. Second, our cross-sectional study and reliance on retrospective reflections from participants introduces potential recall bias, as participants’ interpretations related to their growth may have nuances over time. Although the PTG framework offered a useful theoretical lens, it poses limitations to participants’ interpretation of growth-related constructs. Future research should consider other sociopolitical or psychological dynamics related to growth and these lived experiences.

The mean age of the sample (32) may have influenced participants’ reflections on trauma and their decisions to pursue change, potentially shaping how posttraumatic growth was expressed. As individuals mature, they may gain greater emotional regulation and life experience, which can enhance meaning-making and facilitate shifts in identity, relationships, and life goals. Thus, the findings may reflect developmental differences in how PTG manifests, and younger or older individuals might exhibit distinct trajectories of change. Further research is needed to examine how age, developmental stage, and access to structural resources may interact with trauma exposure and posttraumatic growth, particularly among diverse populations.

Finally, a nascent body of research suggests that frequent trauma exposure may lead to a form of “toughening” or increased preparedness to manage subsequent adversity (Janoff-Bulman, 2004). For Black men navigating chronic structural violence, this may manifest not as emotional hardening but as the development of adaptive vigilance, relational strategies, and survival-oriented competencies that complicate traditional understandings of PTG. Future research should examine how these context-specific adaptations intersect with opportunities for healing and transformation, and how structural conditions may amplify or foreclose their potential benefits.

Conclusion

This study contributes to a more nuanced and equitable understanding of PTG by foregrounding the lived experiences of low-income Black men navigating cumulative trauma and structural marginalization. While Tedeschi and Calhoun’s framework provides a useful starting point, it does not fully account for the racialized, relational, and structural contexts shaping growth for marginalized populations (Ungar, 2013). Participants’ narratives show that growth does not necessarily involve full disengagement from street life or alignment with mainstream norms of success. Rather, they redefined change in ways that reflected their realities, needs, and available options (Shorter-Gooden, 2004). Taken together, these findings reveal that Black men’s pathways to growth cannot be understood through frameworks that overlook structural conditions, collective meaning-making, and culturally specific identity transformations.

This article moves beyond identifying limitations in existing PTG models to propose a constructive reframing grounded in Black men’s lived experiences. To address these limitations, we propose a contextual and culturally anchored model of PTG, one that conceptualizes growth as a dynamic, situational, and relational process rooted in structural conditions, community connections, and evolving identities. Transformation was reflected in participants’ capacity to navigate constrained environments while cultivating connection, responsibility, purpose, and redefined understandings of manhood. This model expands the PTG framework beyond individual cognitive shifts to incorporate the structural, cultural, and communal dimensions of adaptation.

Future research should develop inclusive frameworks that integrate race, structural inequality, and chronic trauma into models of positive change. Longitudinal and mixed-method designs are especially valuable for capturing how growth unfolds over time and how personal agency interacts with systemic barriers. Such approaches can better illuminate the relational, and context-dependent nature of transformation for Black men navigating persistent adversity. Ultimately, trauma-informed practice must be both culturally grounded and structurally responsive, honoring Black men’s capacities for transformation while confronting the conditions that reproduce harm.

These insights broaden the conceptual vocabulary available to researchers, practitioners, and policymakers supporting Black male survivors of violence. They underscore the need for approaches that recognize diverse expressions of growth and design interventions aligned with how healing and transformation actually occur within marginalized communities. By advancing models that are responsive to both lived experience and structural realities, this work lays groundwork for more equitable and effective pathways to PTG.