How could this be? Something designed to be so easy, efficient, predictable, and good for you could become something irritating, frustrating, controlling and make you think your world is becoming more and more every day like a McDonald's restaurant?? We may not mind eating there, or at least grabbing a bag o' McFood as we quickly McDrive thru, but we probably all want to leave when we're McFinished, and not necessarily go to our pre-fabricated McHome in our McSubdivision, or our McJob as a lab tech where we do the same thing over and over and over and over again, and if we make a suggestion to the lab supervisor we get a look of suspicion, that look that says 'you weren't trying to think creatively there, were you?? I hope not, because we've got 10,000 of these lab tests to do, another contract with the entire country of Bangladesh (where we may be sending you, if you're interested in a citizenship change), and we're not paying you to think.'

First, keep this in mind a few things that characterize McDonaldization:

1. We often see it in the private sector, where competition is cutthroat and profit the prize;
2. It's most common in retail, where companies are working with customers, and customers have certain expectations. But often times the products they sell are put together by McDonaldized processes, too (for instance, the McChickens used in the Chicken McNuggets--we'll stop here ... );
3. McDonaldization works with scale--in other words, Starbucks started out as a quaint coffee shop, and the success has created chain stores around the world. McDonald's revolutionized the idea of franchising--providing incentives for business people to open up chains in various places, provided they followed the formula for success;
4. Not all firms McDonaldize. But in almost any sector of the economy, you'll find some percentage of firms adopting McDonaldization. They're selling efficiency and predictability, quantity over quality (using control over workers, customers, their image, etc.), which may be a different product than a sit-down restaurant. So there's room for both, right??

Inefficiency

In the case of McDonald's:
Meals at home versus McD's:

• overall cost for family of 4 is $15-$20;
• time spent (in traffic, in drive-thru lane, with kids in playground, getting sick from germs);
• in the end, is this an efficient use of customer time, or your money?

Take the case of Jiffy lube: time waiting in line; maybe the oil changer says 'you need other work' (Jiffy Lube is expanding the services it offers). Organizations often do this--it is one means of survival, especially in a competitive business environment. There is increased competition from other jiffy lube-style firms. Like Oil Can Henry's, your full-service oil-change shop that harkens back to the old days with McDonaldized Old-Style® uniforms and Vinyl storefronts that look like old-time garages. How could you not trust someone named Oil Can Henry?? Some of the services are higher-profit activities, like on-board computer system scans, automatic transmission services--how quick are these?

Take the case of grocery stores-they offer express lines to better compete with convenience stores. The express lines get long, so many institute self-checkout. But they often understaff customer support for this, and basically make customers who are interested in 'saving' time learn how to use the system (try finding the produce code for Belgian endive).

Automated customer service-Has anyone had any good experiences with telephone automation of customer service?

How about the surgicenters. They offer same-day outpatient services. Their prices are often much cheaper than a hospital-based surgeon would charge. You can get in on short notice. Providing you have something that falls within the narrow range of expertise of the surgeons on McStaff. Have tonsillitis? Come on in! But neurosurgery may be a special order. Surgicenters (they've shortened the name by combining two words to make it more efficient to say) offer benefits, and may depend on higher volume, because they charge less. They also hire surgeons who are less qualified than, say a general surgeon working in the emergency room of a hospital. They've had less training. And they're paid less money. And their surgeons perform the same surgical procedures, day in and day out. Does this make them better at it? Or bored? Think about the laser eye surgery clinics--that's all they do, in some cases. It's like the person at Jiffy Lube--you're not getting a master mechanic, but how hard is it to change the oil in a car? Or perform a tonsillectomy? Yes, it's quantity over quality. What happens when something goes wrong, though? And is quality more likely to be suspect, statistically speaking, in the McDonaldized setting?

Yes, maybe there are efficiencies at work. But we can ask, efficient for whom? Who is benefiting?

top of page

Unreality

Ritzer discusses creating illusions--wouldn't it be better if people didn't have to actually experience things that might be risky? If we could re-create them using technology, and offer many in the comfort of our homes? Here are some 'unrealities':

• Of place (for instance, Venice in Las Vegas (vs the 'real thing' [that is, a youtube video, music by Mozart!]) . It's easier to get there, there's less laundry hanging out, no sewage in the water, everybody speaks English, and you can walk inside and play the slots!). Virtual reality is an example that will come into its own. Why go to Yellowstone National Park and lower your position on the food chain, or camp out in the cold, hauling food and water all over God's creation, if you can experience Old Faithful, the hot springs, encounters with grizzly bears, etc., by putting on goggles and gloves? Here's a description of some of the tourist attractions available in Japan, with an eye toward re-creating nature.
• Of intimacy. We discussed the idea of mass personalization. And I just want you to know (insert your name here), that I personally feel a real 'educational bonding' and wish you all the best in your academic career, (insert your name here). You get the picture. There are customer service software programs, over the phone and on the web, that 'personalize' your experience. For instance, there's Karen the virtual IFIS rep at the USDA! Ask her how old she is, her favorite color, does she dance, attend church, believe in God, have an offshore bank account, ever lied on her income tax return, etc.Try CajaMadrid if you habla espanol. Miller at Miller (but get your fake ID out if you need it--you'll have to be 21--no irresponsible drinkers allowed!), Phyllis at Defense Logistics Information Service (check on your Iraqi reconstruction bid here!). Well . . . . as you can see if you pursued many of these links, this particular personalizing of the virtual online customer rep experience hasn't taken off--most of these have reverted to simple FAQs for information. Take that, McDonaldization!
• Of competence. Former president Ronald Reagan, when he would have telephone conversations with world leaders, would read off of index cards, because his 'handlers' were fearful that he would make promises or try to strike deals that might be unconstitutional, dubious, or just plain stupid. Presidents use teleprompters. They all have speechwriters, they're reading scripts, their supporters are versed in the administration's 'talking points', distributed on media/news shows, press conferences, etc., and are available for quotes). The idea is to project the image of a competent president, but in many cases it is an illusion brought to us by the media (whether they're complicit or not, it's hard to say).
  President Bush often followed a script. He had only 12 press conferences in his first 4 years. That means the public rarely saw him 'unscripted' (keep in mind, presidents often choose the questioners, from a list, Obama has done this, too, and they often evade the questions when they'd prefer not make the news, and the White House can make it difficult for correspondents with hard questions to get press credentials). Presidents can get in trouble when speaking off script, such as when Bush told the Iraqi resistance to 'bring it on.' Here's Jon Stewart making fun of President Obama using a teleprompter--in a sixth grade classroom.

Some other areas of irrationality
Food

Take the example of factory farming (poultry, beef, fish, pork, veal, etc.). It is efficient in the sense that more animals are raised in confined quarters, brought to market sooner, etc. But mortality rates are higher, there is a certain amount of endemic disease in these factory farms, waste lagoons can be smelled for miles, working conditions are extremely unhealthy, etc.
The Bush administration's approach to meat inspection safety was to communicate to consumers the need to adequately cook food. Great idea, but it wasn't accompanied by any measures to hold food inspectors accountable.

The movie Supersize Me makes pretty clear as well that the revolutionary change in eating habits spawned by McDonald's has public health costs, of which, like global warming, we may be only beginning to see the consequences. What cost cheap, high fat, high carb food to individuals, to children who grow up on it, to the health care system, to society?

Homogenization

Ritzer refers to the 'sameness' of things, in food, housing, cinema, malls, TV, politicians (I added the last one ...).
Here's a traveller's dilemma for you: you drive into town, you've been on the road for 4 hours, it's a small town, and there are two restaurants; one is a local café-Mom's Diner-the other is a national chain-Crackerbarrel. Which do you choose and why? Do you go for the predictability of the national chain, even though each one is the same? Or do you take a chance on Mom's? As for politicians, there is lots of documentation about the conservatives in the republican party staying 'on message.' One hears the same things on news shows, interviews, press conferences, because a script is distributed and party faithful are told not to deviate from the script--it's been designed to appeal to the proper electoral blocs, and even if it means the politician is just reading lines, it should statistically lead to more votes and support. As the Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels said, "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed... The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

In any case, Ritzer says a McDonaldized world is a less diverse world. Think about housing, modern subdivisions. You know, the ones with three shades of beige? The only variation is in whether it's a two- or three-car garage? The original suburb was Levittown, where 80,000 people lived, all white, in 17,000 houses, two styles (Cape Cod Box and Cape Cod Ranch). Efficient, yes, but homogeneous.

Dehumanization

Employees, skills--we discussed the low-skill job market that McDonaldization creates. Firms often take great pains to script employees so that people are treated the same-how to address this? How not to treat people all the same? The McDonaldized version is, mass personalization. Statistically this dehumanization produces more sales.

Low wage employment is costly in the long run, however, and probably increases welfare costs. When people work jobs that don't provide them or their families with a living wage, they may seek welfare assistance. For instance, people with wages below the salary line are eligible for the earned income tax credit (EITC). In essence, EITC helps make up the difference between the low wage job and a living wage. So who does it benefit? It's not a living wage, many people on it are not teenagers but single mothers and others with few job skills, and may have to rely on welfare to make up the difference between an inadequate wage and the costs of living. Now if you go to the Employment Policies Institute (one of the astroturf organizations), you'll get a whole different take on the living wage, which is "an organized effort to force employers to inject a welfare mentality into the workplace." And we all know how bad welfare is, right? It's for people who won't work (for subliving wages?). And here you thought you were done with the media part of the course . . . .

Discomplexity

Learning about complex issues from the mass media is a sort of oxymoron (Iraq and war, the shah, bin Laden, Afghanistan, etc.). The mainstream commercial media focuses on a fairly narrow range of issues and ideas--complexity doesn't help sell advertising, and stories that reflect badly on the owners of media or its advertisers don't increase profits.

What do we know about media? Ownership matters, sources of revenue matter with respect to their political biases (they benefit more from some policies than others).

Ritzer's book-it's pretty disjointed, isn't it? It's clearly written for short attention span--there are headings on almost every page, he's thrown in arguments that are only marginal to McDonaldization (but consistent with Weber's broader concept of rationalization). Who's he written it for?? Is it an example of McDonaldization?? If so, how?

top of page

Some extreme examples: Health

• Take the example of managed care-what is it, what's it supposed to do? (drive down costs, by reducing expensive services)? Managed care means going through your primary care doctor to get any other care you might need. The doctor often has incentives to avoid giving you expensive drugs, tests, etc., because of the cost of these. Often times utilization review boards with accountants make medical decisions about whether patients can get a certain treatment.
• Your 15 minutes is up (for fame, and doctor's appointments). Doctors generally schedule 15 minutes--if you'll need more time, you may have to pay for two appointments. And last I checked, there were no refunds for making you sit for two hours in the waiting room.
• Specialization--We mentioned surgicenters. Now there are hospitalists, who only work in hospitals. Hospitals are complex facilities, with different procedures, etc. Understanding how they work may be important for health care administration. However, it may also mean less continuity of care, that your physician doesn't follow your care. Working in a hospital has become so specialized that we leave it to the specialists. This isn't the case everywhere, just a trend in the field that people have been observing for several years. It's efficient, yes. But like the other changes, efficient for whom?

Childbirth

Let's look at some examples of how childbirth has become more McDonaldized:

• Sex selection (there are even 'gender choice centers'-sounds convenient!)-Are there potential social problems involved in allowing parents to determine the sex of their children (most species populations are pretty balanced naturally around 50-50 between male and female)?
• Amniocentesis versus sex selection-Amniocentesis is a technique for determining sex. It's invasive and occurs after conception. Not very efficient (we don't know about abortion rates among parents whose fetuses were the 'wrong' sex).
• Eugenics and master race-'improving' genetic stock - This is good, isn't it? Having healthier babies with less health problems by doing genetic screening. Adolph Hitler promoted it . . . where do we draw the line between 'superior' genetic stock and letting the gene pool do its thing?
• Gene therapy, genetic disorders-eventually, will we have home genetic testing kits?? This would be fairly severe McDonaldization--why go to a hospital when you can do it at home for half the price?
• Rationalization of childbirth-we use drugs of various kinds, many women have Caesarian sections sometimes these are scheduled, rather than emergency procedures designed to protect mother and baby), we induce labor with various hormones, we give newborns a 'score' (the APGAR scoring system (activity[muscle tone], pulse, grimace [reflex], appearance (skin color), respiration), etc.
• Of course, keep in mind: George Ritzer's never experienced the maternal joys of childbirth, as far as I know. And what should we do? Go back to the Middle Ages and blood letting with leeches?

Death

Think of the medical establishment and dying. We extend lives--that's much of what the health care industry does. We often keep people on respirators, machines, hoping their conditions will improve. In 1920, 20% of deaths took place in hospitals. By 1993, this had increased to 65% (11% in nursing homes, 22% in hospices).

There are funeral home chains, discount funerals (casket prices, standard service with x no. of flower arrangements), theme funerals, etc. Egyptian pharaohs did 'theme funerals,' but not for consumption reasons. Even designer funerals. And shouldn't we expect class differentiation, even in death? You can't take it with you, but you can go in style, is the message. These are extreme examples, but they suggest that much of our society is becoming more rationalized, McDonaldized. Funeral homes often provide instructions for people working there, about how to deal with the bereaved.