在當(dāng)代社會性別研究中，普遍認(rèn)為，男性氣概的主要形式與社會權(quán)力的主要形式相關(guān)聯(lián)。在當(dāng)代資本主義的討論，它被認(rèn)為是最強大的機構(gòu)，除非主要國家，是跨國企業(yè)在全球市場的經(jīng)營。這些突出的事實很少被放在一起。以前的論文（Connell 1998）認(rèn)為他們應(yīng)該和全球企業(yè)經(jīng)濟可能是一個新的霸權(quán)的男性氣質(zhì)模式的設(shè)置，特別是在全球流動的管理人員發(fā)現(xiàn)。這一模式提出了跨國經(jīng)營的男性氣概。我們現(xiàn)在重新考慮作者的注意：我們感謝我們的回答者，他們的時間和他們的勇氣，在討論困難問題的磁帶上。作者感謝羅克雷奇默，一個特殊的面試。

In contemporary gender studies, it is widely acknowledged that dominant forms of masculinity are associated with major forms of social power. In discussions of contemporary capitalism, it is widely acknowledged that the most powerful institutions, excepting only major states, are transnational corporations operating in global markets. These two conspicuous facts have rarely been put together. A previous paper (Connell 1998) argued that they should be and that the global corporate economy might be the setting for a new pattern of hegemonic masculinity, found particularly among globally mobile managers. The name transnational business masculinity was proposed for this pattern. We now reconsider Authors’Note: We are grateful to our respondents for their time and for their courage in discussing difficult issues on tape. The authors thank Renate Kretschmer, an exceptional interviewer. 

The research was partly funded by the Australian Research Council and partly by the University of Sydney. this idea in the light of some life-history research with businessmen in Australia. Hegemonic forms of masculinity in modernity are historically derived from the growth of industrial capitalism and the growth of imperialism. The bourgeois masculinities produced by these processes had many local variations, from the colonial settler elite of Natal (Morrell 2001) and the urban establishment of postcolonial Peru (Fuller 2001) to the corporate salaryman of Japan (Dasgupta 2003) and the industrial managers of Britain (Roper 1994). These had, nevertheless, key features in common: association with authority; social conservatism; compulsory heterosexuality; integration with a family division of labor; strongly marked, symbolic gender differences; and emotional distance between men and women. The men who were the bearers of these configurations of practice generally controlled the key industries in the local economy, so the locally hegemonic patterns of masculinity were typically integrated with the local patterns of capitalism. 

Capitalism changes, however. One of its central trends has been the replacement of family enterprises by corporations, which, in turn, have grown on an ever-larger scale. Although reports of the death of the capitalist in a “managerial revolution” are exaggerated and family capitalism persists (Gilding 2002), this long-term trend has certainly heightened the importance of managers as a social group. Men continue to be the overwhelming majority of managers, especially at the top levels of organizations (Hearn and Parkin 2001, 129). Managers have thus become, as Collinson and Hearn (1996) show, a key group for the understanding of modern masculinities. They are, nevertheless, a complex group. In a striking case study, Messerschmidt (1995) has shown how different patterns of managerial masculinity may underpin different sides of an argument in a life-and-death decision. Masculinities, it is now widely recognized, are constantly subject to change as a result of generational differences in gender attitudes and practices (Zulehner and Volz 1998), structural changes in the gender order itself (Connell 2002), and changes in the social structures with which the gender order is linked. Among the most important of recent environmental changes are the economic, political, and cultural shifts that have been labeled globalization. Globalization is by no means a simple fact. Although media discussions often picture the world being homogenized, wealth and power remain centered in the economies of the former imperial powers, Europe, the United States, and Japan (Hirst and Thompson 1996). The cultural effect of globalization also is very uneven (Altman 2001; Bauman 1998). However, the growth of global markets, the new electronic communication technologies, the reduction of tariff and other barriers to the movement of capital and goods, and the rising importance of multinational corporations and global capital markets are real social forces and, as will be seen below, very much present in the minds of Australian managers. How much effect these forces have already had on managerial masculinities is open to question. Wajcman’s (1999) important study focused on multi-national-oriented companies in the United Kingdom. Her research suggests the persistence of conservative gender patterns and a masculinized model of management to which women executives were obliged to conform. Ogasawara’s (1998) study in large Japanese corporations suggested, if anything, even more deeply entrenched gender conservatism, especially a rigid gender division of labor. But Hooper (2000), examining the representationof masculinity in a British-based business newspaper, points to an emphasis on cooperation and teamwork; a technocratic, new-frontier imagery associated with globalization; and few traces of old-style patriarchal masculinity. There is also clear evidence of uncertainty about gender strategies among young Japanese middle-class men (Taga 2001), and there has been public questioning and joking about the “salaryman” model of life, as the Japanese boom economy faltered and Japanese firms retreated from the old certainties (Dasgupta 2003).

THE WORK OF MANAGEMENT
BODY, SELF, AND LOCATION
GLOBALIZATION
BUSINESS MASCULINITY
CONCLUSION


REFERENCES文獻(xiàn)

Altman, Dennis. 2001. Global sex. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bauman, Zygmunt. 1998. Globalization: The human consequences. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Collinson, David L., and Jeff Hearn, eds. 1996. Men as managers, managers as men: Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities and managements. London, Sage.
Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Sydney, Allen & Unwin. 1998. Masculinities and Globalization. Men and Masculinities 1 (1): 3-23.
2002. Gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Dasgupta, Romit. 2003. Creating corporatewarriors: The “salaryman” and masculinity in Japan. In Asian masculinities: The meaning and practice of manhood in China and Japan, edited by Kam Louie and Morris Low, 118-34. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Donaldson, Mike. 1998. Growing up very rich: The masculinity of the hegemonic. Journal of Interdisciplinary
Gender Studies 3 (2): 95-112.
Fuller, Norma. 2001. The social construction of gender identity among Peruvian men. Men and Masculinities 3 (3): 316-331.
Gee, James Paul, Glynda Hull, and Colin Lankshear. 1996. The new work order: Behind the language
of the new capitalism. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Gilding, Michael. 2002. Secrets of the super rich. Sydney, Australia: HarperCollins.
Glass Ceiling Commission (U.S.). 1995. Good for business: Making full use of the nation’s human capital. The environmental scan. Washington, DC: Author.
Hearn, Jeff, andWendy Parkin. 2001. Gender, sexuality and violence in organizations: The unspoken forces of organization violations. London: Sage.
Hirst, Paul, and Grahame Thompson. 1996. Globalization in question: The international economy and the possibilities of governance. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Hochschild, Arlie. 1983. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Hooper, Charlotte. 2000. Masculinities in transition: The case of globalization. In Gender and global restructuring, edited by Marianne H. Marchand and Anne Sisson Runyan, 59-73. London: Routledge.
Kondo, Dorinne. 1999. Fabricating masculinity: Gender, race and nation in a transnational frame. In Between woman and nation: Nationalisms, transnational feminisms, and the state, edited by Caren Kaplan, Norma Alarcón, and Minoo Moallam, 296-319. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Messerschmidt, James W. 1995. Managing to kill: Masculinities and the space shuttle Challenger explosion. Masculinities 3 (4): 1-22.
Morrell, Robert. 2001. From boys to gentlemen: Settler masculinity in colonial Natal, 1880- 1920. Pretoria: University of South Africa Press.
Niva, Steve. 1998. Tough and tender: New world order masculinity and the Gulf War. In The “man” question in international relations, edited by Marysia Zalewski and Jane Parpart, 109-28. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ogasawara, Yuko. 1998. Office ladies and salaried men: Power, gender and work in Japanese companies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Roper, Michael. 1994. Masculinity and theBritish organizationman since 1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taga, Futoshi. 2001. Dansei no jenda keisei: “Otoko-rashisa” no yuragi no naka de [The gender formation of men: Uncertain masculinity]. Tokyo: Tôyôkan Shuppan-sha.
Tillner, Georg. 2000. The identity of dominance: Masculinity and xenophobia. In Male roles,masculinities and violence: A culture of peace perspective, edited by Ingeborg Breines, Robert Connell, and Ingrid Eide, 53-9. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Wajcman, Judy. 1999.Managing like a man:Women andmen in corporate management. Sydney,Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Zulehner, Paul M., and RainerVolz. 1998. Männer im Aufbruch:Wie Deutschlands Männer sichn Selbst und wie Frauen Sie Sehen. Ostfildern, Germany: Schwabenverlag.