In any domain of study, the knowledge front is the area where specific and intentional questions are asked. One side of the front unravels facts, the kinds of things on which members of the field agree without dispute. The other side is mainly concerned with the unknown, where we do not yet have the tools to investigate. Knowledge front can be defined as the relationship between the available facts and the unfamiliar circumstances, which need further investigation to establish the truth. This means that when examining knowledge front in any field of study, things are open to further interrogations, and certain demanding questions are capable of being specifically answered. Since inquiry is ongoing in all fields, it is important to clearly understand knowledge front and how it relates to various disciplines.
Facts about the Text
This text tells us more specific issues about the kinds of things, which scholars in the field of masculinity studies are concerned with. It involves hegemonic masculinity and globalization in terms of how they relate. Moreover, the explanations are closely related to the views of R. W. Connell, who is a scholar in masculinity studies. According to Elias and Beasley (2009), neoliberal globalization creates a better understanding of hegemonic masculinity with emphasis on its modern materializations. The authors were categorical that gender identities have a significant role in neoliberal globalization, which is a major issue in the application of hegemonic masculinity in international relations and development. The other fact in this text is that neoliberal global market orientation is pegged on rhetorical gender neutrality in deciding global diplomacy, formulation of international economic policies, world politics, and activities of international institutions. These factors are very critical when studying feminism and international relations.
On the other side, the text assumes a number of issues on the topic. For instance, the authors did not recognize the capabilities of each gender in articulation of global businesses and politics. In essence, different situations call for different measures, which need diverse approaches. Some approaches and working environment may be difficult for a given gender, making it extremely challenging for them to perform effectively. A good example is that when the situation is chaotic, the performance of female gender might be compromised. Secondly, the text assumed different cultural environments under which various international businesses are conducted. These cultural environments might also affect the manifestation of hegemonic masculinity.
Arguments that the Text Makes
In this text, some of the specific arguments about hegemonic masculinity and globalization include the following. First, the text makes it clear that even though hegemonic masculinity is difficult to achieve, it is more pronounced, inevitable and manifested in global arena because of the gender imbalance in different spheres of life, such as politics and economics. In addition, the social processes and relationships are also very important in understanding hegemonic masculinity. In this regard, the text makes a presumption about mobilization and legitimization of hegemonic masculinity in terms of gender domination of the female by the male in most spheres of life. The authors claim that hegemonic masculinity is largely ideological and viewed in a monolithic perspective by equating it with ‘transitional business masculinity’. According to the authors, gender orders exist in most societies depending on the ideology that the people embrace and the hegemonic masculinity that dominates in that particular context. The text also recognizes the variations in all masculinities around the world, but these diversities are equated with specific qualities of each gender. The other argument is that there is a multifaceted power that involves economic and military coercion. Moreover, power is also acquired depending on hegemonic masculinity dominance within a society. The text also indicates that hegemonic masculinity is perceived “as a singular monolithic”, depicting a pyramid.
The Kinds of Evidence Used in the Text
This text employs research and practical evidences in making assumptions and conclusion about hegemonic masculinity. Comparative literature and scholarly arguments have been used to drive the point home. For example, the views of R. W. Connell on this topic have been thoroughly scrutinized in order to create a better understanding of the subject.
Creating Own Relation to the Issue
In considering this text and making own relationship to the front, there are important issues to be considered here. In fact, many researchers and scholars have recently differed on the proper approach that the international business community should apply in global markets regardless of one’s hegemonic masculinity. Notably, the strategy used in marketing the product in the world shows that the market entirely depends on the brand uniqueness. The same applies to international politics, which must demonstrate a clear understanding of diversity and environmental uniqueness. Understanding the assumption of environmental uniqueness and its importance for the international marketing policies are essential in determining the underlying philosophy of hegemonic masculinity. There are also market aspects, which could undermine the global divergent and global convergent. Therefore, global standardization could succeed in the worldwide market in bringing convergence rather than divergence.
Rationale for Choosing this Text
The text is important because it integrated theoretical and practical issues in creating a better understanding of hegemonic masculinity. It also considers diversity, gender aspects and environmental uniqueness in making the main parts of the presentation. Furthermore, the text provides current issues, such as international politics and economic situations that are affected by hegemonic masculinity.
Factors of Motivation
I was motivated by the clarity and objectivity of the research. It was extensive because a number of scholarly works were consulted to enhance the views of the authors. The text also clarified the difference between hegemonic masculinity and globalization, as well as their relationships.
Areas of Dispute that were Immediately Recognizable
After completely checking the text, the area that was written in Chinese was immediately recognizable and disputable because not all the readers could neither read nor understand the part. This was not good for academic paper that could be used to conduct further research in the same field. The other area of dispute had a lack of proper organization of the paper, particularly literature review.
Areas of Dispute or Disagreement that Seemed more Obscure at First
Some parts of the paper seemed obscure, but turned to be disputed. For example, there was no clear introduction and definition of the term despite the part that followed abstract depiction. This could make the reader get confused on what the research paper was all about, as well as it could be complicated to identify the criteria that was to be used. The other part that raised concern was the conclusion because it did not indicate the recommendations for future research as was expected. This means that it was up to the reader to make his or her own recommendations for the entire paper.
The Kinds of Specific Research Questions I would like to Answer
If I had the time and resources, some of the specific questions, which I would have answered, include the following. What are the contributions of gender power and capabilities in shaping international businesses and policies? How can social and cultural diversity help in shaping people’s understanding of hegemonic masculinity?