http://gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/illumina%20folder/kell30.htm

* In this article, the blogger is talking about the problems of calculability, predictability and efficiency. Here, the blogger is saying that McDonalds products are not healthy because it is overlly saturated with salt, sugar and fats. The writter here mentions that a company cancer expert agreed to the fact that McDonalds' diet cause cancer of the breast and bowl and heart disease. In addition, the writer also mentions that Ritzer suggested that there is a big mark- up profit in the fries, drinks, burgers and other products sold and the multi- billion dollar profit margin every year confirms that consumers are not getting a good value from the product but instead, enriching the corporation at their own expense. When looking at all I said previously, we can see the problem in calculability. Is the more the better? The more amount of McDonalds product you eat, the more unhealthier you will get. Also, do you really think you are getting what you pay for?


The writter aslo adds that McDonalds' goal is to guarantee a ten minute eating experience, and their production and consumption operation gear into getting their costumers in and out of the restaurant as quick as possible. Here, we can see the efficiency problem. Eating quick is not good for your health and the fact that their production and consumption gear into getting us in and out of the restaurant as quick as possible means that they are getting us used to a quick life. We should think if that really brings a positive effect in us.


The problem about predictability is also mentioned in the article. The writer says that we are forced to order from a small range of choices, fitting our tastes to the company. These will lead us to performed sameness and homogenization by standardizing consumption and production. The writer here uses the word "mold" which I believe is an appropriate word. Do we really want to be molded and controled by a company? Do we want to find the same food anywhere we go and loose the beauty and happiness of being able to taste different food in different places? 


In addition to all those problems, a problem related to calculability is also mentioned in the article. McDonald's products help increasing the environmental problems according to what the blogger wrote because their products are environmentally degrading and contribute to depreciation of the soil, rain forests, and grain and other resources that are used to make its beef and dairy products. The production of beef uses a lot of land and resources that could be used to produce more nutritious food and produces an excessive waste. Not only that but McDonald's denied that they brought their beef from rainforest areas that were threatened by excessive deforestation but it was revealed that they do bring their beef from those areas. So, after reading this, should we keep on thinking that "the more is the better"?


Lastly, a problem related to control is mentioned too. Shifts of 9 to 10 hours a day, seven days a week are mandatory for McDonald's workers and their wage rate is between 6~8 cents an hour.  Because of fatigue and lack of ventilation, 200 women fell ill, 25 collapsed and 3 were hospitalized as a result of exposure to acetone. Continued exposure to chemical solvents can cause dizziness, unconsciousness, damage to the liver and kidneys and chronic eye, nose, throat and skin irritation. McDonald's workers don't even receive compensation for injury or sickness. When thinking about all those things, there might be a positive side for the problem of the humans being replaced by non- human technologies.

Following is the article that was discussed until now.

The Case Against McDonald's

I want to mobilize a variety of perspectives in this section to criticize the McDonald's corporation and its product. This process is facilitated by the existence of an extremely impressive website which furnishes a vast amount of information about McDonald's and offers ample material for a substantive critique.[9] This site was developed by two British activists who were sued by McDonald's for distributing leaflets denouncing the corporation's low wages, advertising practices, involvement in deforestization, harvesting of animals, and promotion of junk food and an unhealthy diet. ……

Building on material assembled in this site, one can construct a very strong case against McDonald's. To begin, from a nutritional point of view, I think it is fair to say that McDonald's food is simply junk -- as indeed the popular term "junk food" denotes. As Ritzer himself notes (1996, 126ff and 179f), McDonald's food is overly saturated with salt, sugar, and fats, producing high cholesterol and dubious nutrients. It is standardized and homogenized fare, providing predictably bland and unexciting taste. As Joel Kovel remarks, the label "junk food" is perfectly appropriate

in light of the fact that nutritional experts almost universally agree that the kind of food sold by McDonald's is bad for you. With 28 grams of fat, 12.6 of which are saturated, in a Big Mac, and 22 more grams in an order of French fries, along with 52 additives being used in its various food products, it is scarcely surprising that an internal company memorandum would state that: "we can't really address or defend nutrition. We don't sell nutrition and people don't come to McDonald's for nutrition." When the company's cancer expert, Dr. Sydney Arnott, was asked his opinion of the statement that "a diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals is linked with cancer of the breast and bowl and heart disease," he replied: "If it is being directed to the public then I would say it is a very reasonable thing to say."

Although the McDonald's corporation defends their products as forming part of an overall "balanced diet," Professor Michael Crawford, a consultant to the World Health Organization, testified at a public hearing: "Not only are McDonald's encouraging the use of a style of food which is closely associated with risk of cancer and heart disease, whilst health professionals are trying to reduce the risks to Western populations, but they are actively promoting the same cultures where at present these diseases are not a problem" (McLibel Support Campaign, 1994). In addition, in relation to the challenge of more health-conscious parents seeking better diets for their children, McDonald's is now targeting more advertising at children, aggressively using tie-ins with popular films and pop culture artifacts, their Ronald McDonald clowns, and heavy advertising to children in order to attract younger customers who presumably will persuade their parents to take them to eat at McDonald's.

…… From my current perspective of concern with health and nutrition, I would not without guilt eat any fatty burger, but would argue that even within the range of possible burgers McDonald's is among the most mediocre and over priced. And from the perspective of choosing from the possible range of health and gourmet foods open to us, I would say that from the standpoints of culinary taste and nutrition, McDonald's offers an obviously inferior option.

Ritzer … suggests that there is a tremendous mark-up of profit in the fries, drinks, burgers and other products sold (1996, 60f.) and the multi-billion dollar profit margin every year would confirm that consumers are not getting a good value from the product, but are enriching the corporation at their own expense. This is obviously true and McDonald's decline in sales over the past year may in part be consumer recognition that they were getting ripped off, that McDonald's did not give good food value.

In addition, the McDonald's experience in eating is an example of assembly-line consumption that is hardly conducive to conversation and social interaction, and is thus rarely a quality family social experience or communal eating experience. The McDonald's goal is to guarantee a ten-minute eating experience (Love 1986), and the production and consumption operation is geared to getting customers in and out of the restaurant as quickly as possible. As a corporation, McDonald's ads which celebrate traditional and family values, as well as good value, are thus highly misleading and as Ritzer points out, its practices often contradict the imperatives of value, efficiency, and wholesomeness that its ads and corporate propaganda proclaim (1996, 121ff).

… The whole McDonald's experience forces one into the mold of preformed sameness and homogenization; one orders from a small range of choices and one must fit their taste to the corporate experience. Whereas standard multipage menus address consumers as individual subjects, with their own complex likes and taste, in which one can privately contemplate the range of choices, the McDonald marquee illustrates the product in a public space, fitting the individual into the slot of homogenized consumer subject. McDonaldization in this sense is essentially a phenomenon of modernization, part and parcel of the mass society with its frenzied pace and standardized consumption and production.

……

Architecturally, the McDonald's environment is a sterile and dehumanizing site of standardized and banalized design and structure signifying sameness, corporate homogeneity, and artificial standardized space.

In addition, from an environmentalist perspective, McDonald's products are environmentally degrading and contribute to depreciation of the soil, rain forests, and grain and other resources that are used to make its beef and dairy products. Moreover, the production of beef in particular uses territory and resources that could produce more nutritious food and contributes to environmental pollution from excessive waste products involved in the production of beef. Cattle require a tremendous amount of resources to produce with a single beefsteak requiring up to 1,200 gallons of water, up to sixteen pounds of soybeans and grain are required to produce one pound of meat, and cow manure is a major source of pollution (see Rifkin 1992). Whereas McDonald's initially denied that it imported beef from rain forest areas like Costa Rica and Brazil that were threatened by excessive deforestation, subsequent legal procedures revealed that McDonald's did receive supplies of meat from these areas (McLibel Support Campaign, 1994 and www.mcspotlight.org). Thus, while McDonald's made concessions to environmental concerns -- under intense public pressure -- to substitute more biodegradable products for their previously non-biodegradable styrofoam cups and other packaging materials, on the whole its products and practices are environmentally harmful.[10]

Overtime is mandatory: shifts of 9 to 10 hours a day, seven days a week. Wage rates average between six cents and eight cents an hour--well below subsistence levels. Overcome by fatigue and poor ventilation in late February, 200 women fell ill, 25 collapsed and three were hospitalized as a result of exposure to acetone. Acute or prolonged exposure to acetone, a chemical solvent, can cause dizziness, unconsciousness, damage to the liver and kidneys and chronic eye, nose, throat and skin irritation. All appeals from local human and labor rights groups continue to be rejected by Keyhinge management which refuses to improve the ventilation system in the factory or remedy other unsafe working conditions. Along with demanding forced overtime, Keyhinge management has not made legally mandated payments for health insurance coverage for its employees, who now receive no compensation for injury or sickness. …

Thus, I would strongly support Ritzer's concluding call for what amounts to a boycott of McDonald's in the interests of good health, quality eating experience, environmental concerns, and socio-political concerns with McDonald's labor practices and corporate policies. To critics who argue that such condemnation negates the popular pleasures of members of socio-economic groups other than one's own, I would argue that there are a variety of objective reasons devolving around health, environment, economics, and politics that would justify critique of McDonald's and resistance to its products.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTW0y6kazWM: Video clip showing the problem when non human technologies replace human beings.


http://learn.bowdoin.edu/sociology/soc101/?p=103


* A Viewer commenting on the issue of predictability, calculability, control and glocalization

Christopher Houdlette says:

November 7, 2009 at 3:01 pm

I honestly think McDonaldization is a really horrible global trend. It is a giant concept that is slowly changing how humans perceive and interact with the world. My biggest problems with McDonaldization is the way it standardizes experiences no matter where in the world you are, uses technologically to subjugate humans, and values quantitative results rather than quality of individual experiences.
With McDonaldization the same companies, firms, and brands are popping up all over the world and starting to dominate many local economies. No matter where you go in the world a McDonald’s or other fast food chain is probably nearby. The companies themselves argue that their menus and restaurant styles in different areas reflect and cater to the individual tastes of those countries (i.e. the mayo and shrimp crust in Japan which many of us in class were disgusted by). However, I feel that those companies are essentially duping the mass population; a Pizza Hut in America is the same as a Pizza Hut in Japan… it is still an extension of a western brand. I can see the McDonaldization of restaurants and businesses extending to other facets of culture as well. In the future how will we differentiate between countries when we consume the same media, wear the same clothes, eat the same food (selected for us by these powerful corporations)? McDonaldization breaks down the barriers and cultural differences between countries and could very well end up destroying what makes these different places so unique.
McDonaldization is also impacting the labor force here and abroad. It aids in creating a very large pool of uneducated individuals essentially tied to these huge companies for their continued existence. Technology essentially controls these people and soon there jobs will most likely be replaced by computers and machines. What will these people be able to do when Mcdonald’s replaces them with automated systems? All they are accustomed to is flipping burgers and following carefully regimented directions… how will they be able to respond to this growing information and knowledge based economy which they don’t posses skills to be a part of. What responsibility does Mcdonald’s and other companies have to the human capital it exploits?
My last qualm with Mcdonaldization lies in how it is changing the values of our society through hyper-consumption. People are now trying to consume as much as possible. This pattern is corroborated by these business practices of these McDonalized firms. These firms only see the value in the quantitative aspects of their businesses (getting as many people in and out eating burgers as possible) they don’t pay as much attention to the qualitative aspects of their businesses (how the burger tastes, the environment of their restaurant, clean bathrooms). They just want to get as many people consuming as quickly as possible and make massive profits off those activities. It seems like this has created a shift in out present society where people are essentially competing to consume as much as possible (see for example rising obesity rates… people are physically consuming way more than is actually needed to “please” themselves). It takes the focus of our lives away from the quality of the experiences we have and we are now more focused on quickly and superficially consuming as much as possible. I see this as having very negative repercussions on the future of our society.
I think McDonaldization is doing very, very bad things to the world we live in today!


* A viewer commenting on the issue of a homogenized world.
 With the Christopher' view, he is against with McDonalization's controll system. Without human- being, it is impossible to make food only automatic system which McDonald provides nowdays. By making the food with the automatic system effects on the food quality. That's why McDonald's low quality of food. McDonald makes many obese people, with providing many food by ignoring the one adults energy consuming rates in a day.

talhia says:

November 9, 2009 at 2:42 pm

I agree with Kirin and Chris, and the comment of Walmart destroying community connections reminded me of a conversation I had earlier this semester with an older women at Bowdoin, (though i can’t remember who). I simply remember commenting on how there are a few shops on main street that or stocked, yet I never see open, such as the small hardware store near Hanaford. She told me how Maine Street used to be much different that it is today. It was booming with people from the town and neighboring towns going into the little book stores and hardware stores, for example, on maine street. Then Walmart came and a lot of the business closed down, or just haven’t been doing as well. This was interesting to me because it is a concept we covered, yet it hits so close to us. Though she said Brunswick Maine St. used to be the quite the popular town, I personally beg to differ today. And why? For cheaper prices and less quality items.
On a cultural note, though I haven’t been lucky enough to travel nearly as much as I feel other students here at Bowdoin have, I still very much value the different cultures of different countries. I feel that eventually when I do get the chance to travel, everything will be very homogeneous. I’ve already begun to notice this in my travels to Mexico and Peru. My cousins in Mexico tell me about how they go to the starbucks at the local shopping mall to hang out with their friends–something i visualize a very cheesy teenages in a hollywood movie type of thing to do. Also, I really saw this contrast on my community service trip to Peru. At night we stayed and spent our “fun” times in the city of Lima, where again there were indoor malls that reminded me of the malls back home, with small boutiques of westernized clothing, and of course, McDonalds. I thought to myself that I really would have liked to experience more of the Peru I had in mind: the native people and the native food. If I wanted McDonalds I would have stayed home.
But then, when we went to work during the day into the poor shanty towns on the outskirt of Lima, I really got a taste of the Peru I had envisioned. and why? because they had not been westernized or globalized. I mean, we were building them simple stairs and they took that as a sign of social and political advancement in their community. The women made us home made meals that consisted of potatoes with a delicious sauce (I don’t remmeber what it was called), and of course, we had Inka Cola, not Coca Cola.
Long story short, my point here is that I think that McDonaldization will eventually McDonaldize cultures completely. We will lose the different and very interesting cultures around the world and everyone will even look the same, like westerners (Like in the coca cola billboard in china).

McDonalization vs Glocalization

- I believe that glocalization is another strategy companies use to Mcdonalize the world. What do you think about this?

- Are both "McDonalization" and "Glocalization" doing any good to the society?

- When looking at the 4 primary components of Mcdonalization, do you find any problems?

 

Why am I investigating it?

I am investigating it because I can see a McDonalds anywhere I go nowadays and I thought it would be an interesting topic to talk about and it’s something we should all think about.

What is the problem or tension?

McDonalization itself is very dangerous. Is a process of homogenizing the world. It’s strategies might seem rational but can lead to harmful and irrational outcomes. When we look at the 4 primary components of McDonalization, we can find problems in each of them. To begin with, the efficiency process, as I said in the previous page, can lead to a lamb- like acceptance of what the surrounding institutions consider efficient which may be different from what could actually be efficient for either the employees or the consumer. You don’t want to be manipulated by a company that wants to train you to be a better worker for the McDonalized society. In addition, when it comes to the calculability process, is the more the better? We should think about this more because this might lead us to an obese world in the future and not only that but should we really think that quantity= quality? Moreover, the process of predictability makes us think whether if we want the same food and service anywhere we go or whether if we want a variety of food and service. Lastly, when we come to the control process, do we really want non- human technologies to take our place? If non- human technologies start taking our place, then what where would we work? How will we be able to earn money?

Being more efficient, controlled and consistent, having measurable outcomes, it all sounds so good but we should also think about the unexpected side effects!

Why is it an important issue?

It is an important issue because it might change our future.

What is "Glocalization"?

“Glocalization” is a blend of two words, globalization and localization. It happens when companies adapt their products to the people they want to sell their products to. It is when a product is made for the purpose of global marketing but customized to suit the local culture. The term “glocal” in the word “glocalization” refers to “the individual, group, division, unit, organization, and community which is willing and able to think globally and act locally.” (Wikipedia)

“Glocalization" is done to appeal to individuals in a specific location. A product, when it comes to its globalization, is more likely to succeed when it is adapted to a specific local area or culture it is marketed in because when if the product is adapted to a specific local area or culture, it means that the company pays attention to the customer’s different needs and different cultural approaches and who wouldn’t like a product specially made for oneself?

It can also be said to be the dialogue between the global and local sectors. So, a global corporation’s goal wouldn’t be to say “here’s your product” but “how can we make a product that will satisfy you?”

What is McDonalization?

Sociologist George Ritzer defines it as “the process by which the principles of the fast- food restaurants are dominating more sectors of American society as well as the rest of the world. This process extends its practices into businesses and lifestyles of all types. As people adjust to the McDonalization of business it crosses over into their everyday lives.”

“In the process of McDonalization, a task is taken and broken down into smaller tasks. This is repeated until all tasks have been broken down to the smallest possible level. The resulting tasks are then reorganized to find the single most efficient method for completing each task. All the other methods are seen as inefficient and are discarded. The result of McDonalization is an efficient, logical sequence of methods that can be completed the same way every time to produce the desired outcome. The outcome is predictable, all aspects of the process are easily controlled and additionally, quantity becomes the measurement of good performance.”

Being more efficient, controlled and consistent, having measurable outcomes, it all sounds so good but there is a problem here. Over- rationalizing a process like this has an unexpected side effect called “irrationality” (when a rationalized system results in events or outcomes that were neither anticipated or desired, and in fact, may not be so good).

 

The 4 primary components of McDonalization are:

- Efficiency: The fastest method to get from A to B. Efficiency in McDonalds means the minimization in time. In the McDonalization process, you are forced to accept the efficiency of the surrounding institutions instead of choosing your own methods of efficiency. This may lead to a lamb- like acceptance of what the surrounding institutions consider efficient which may be different from what could actually be efficient for either the employees or the consumer.

Eg. Salad bars, ATM machines

Problem: Do you want to be trained to be a better worker for the McDonalized society? You are being forced to deal with computers or salad bars.

- Calculability: The objective should be quantifiable rather than taste. Quantity= quality. A large amount of product delivered to the costumer in a short amount of time represents a high quality product. Is an emphasis on the quantitative aspect of products sold (portion size, cost) and service offered (the time it takes to get the product). This makes people think how much they are getting versus how much they are paying. Companies want costumers to think that they are getting a large amount of product for not a lot of money. Workers in these companies are judged by how fast they work instead of the quality of work they do.

Problem: The more the better? Think about it…

- Predictability: No matter where the customers go, they will receive the same service and product every time they interact with a McDonalized company. Emphasized such things as discipline, order, systemization, formalization, routine, consistency, and methodical operation. In such a society, people prefer to know what to expect in most settings and at most times. This applies to the workers in those companies too. Their tasks are highly repetitive, highly routine and predictable.

- Control: Replacement of human by non- human technologies.

* The McDonalization strategy which seems to be rational, can lead to outcomes that are harmful and irrational. If we let convenience and efficiency flourish or spread, the world will become a homogenized world.