George Ritzer is a professor of Sociology and author of the book The McDonaldization of Society - An Investigation into the Changing

Character of Contemporary Social Life. (Published 1993, Pine Forge Press. Revised edition published 1996.) Ritzer served as Chair of the American Sociological Association's Sections on Theoretical Sociology and Organizations and Occupations. A Distinguished Scholar-Teacher at the University of Maryland, Professor Ritzer has been honored with that institution's Teaching Excellence award. We were taken to a fast food caf where our order was fed into a computer. Our hamburger, made from the flesh of chemically impregnated cattle, had been broiled over counterfeit charcoal, placed between slices of artificially flavored cardboard and served to us by recycled juvenile delinquents. -- Jean Michel Chapereau

Introduction to McDonaldization.com
A few years ago a huge store was built near my house. It was a so-called "gigastore" (because it dwarfed other consumer electronics superstores) that would sell everything from music and movies to computers and software to appliances, home stereo, televisions, telephones, and much much more. In fact, the store was so big, it was even going to contain a fully functional McDonald's restaurant! (Even though an existing McDonald's was less than half a mile away.) The store was called Incredible Universe. The parent company was Tandy (aka Radio Shack). My family shopped there from time to time. The store was always packed. Just finding a parking spot could be a chore. Once inside, it was quite a frantic experience, with lots of busy shoppers crowded together and bustling from area to area. They'd look up and gaze in wonderment at the giant screen televisions and the karoke sound stage. Tired shoppers would take a break at the McDonald's for a much needed 6-piece Chicken McNugget with a medium Coke and a Happy Meal for the kids. We'd shop there because it was close to our house and it had a lot of the consumer goods we wanted. It was convenient to find so many different types of products housed under one roof. I could pick up a piece of computer software while my wife went shopping for a cellular phone and a video for the kids. Not long after, when the store was closing (it was to be sold to Fry's Electronics), the newspaper ran a very interesting story about the store. It said that the chain just wasn't profitable enough. According to industry analysts, it said, the cost to maintain a single store for one year was $50 million. The chain only had sales of $55 million to $65 million per store, so the "category killer" gigastore was to be killed itself. (Like five of the other 17 stores in the chain, the one we shopped at was sold to Fry's, which turned out to be a very similar store.) The story really surprised me. $50 million (per store) just to break even? Wow! Even so, the average store did $55 million to $65 million in sales. That was a profit of $5 million to $15 million per store, wasn't it? That's not so bad, I thought. With those kinds of numbers, I certainly would have stayed in business! (NOTE: See side note below.) I wondered just how busy a store had to be to be successful. That store was practically the most happening place in town, yet it was closed down because it only made about

$5 - $15 million a year per store? (According to USA Today, Tandy lost $90 million on the gigastore experiment. I guess that explains why they pulled the plug. Even though on average stores appeared to be profitable, I assume that things like startup costs and such are to blame. They never make it to the promise land of "break even" for the Return On Investment.) My conclusion: Just how successful do you have to be in today's world to "make it?" That store was always crowded, often to the point of lunacy, and yet they closed down for not making enough money. It hit me real hard - As consumers in this society, just how packed like sardines are we going to get? How much is enough? Does the end always justify the means??? Welcome to the world of McDonaldization! Side Note On April 9, 2002, I received the following anonymous email, so I'll reply to it here: just fyi - on your intro page you mention that the gigastore had sales of $55 million and that the cost to run the store was $50 million...that doesn't equate to a $5 million profit as you state. you'd have to deduct the cost of goods sold from the sales figure to determine profit unless everything they sold they got for free. so if they had a profit margin of 20%, then the profit on $55 million is only $11 million. if the store costs $50 million and you only make $11 million, then you're taking a $39 million loss. that's why they pulled the plug. Well, I'm not an accountant, so maybe I got this part wrong. The point I was trying to make was that the store was extremely busy, but yet still failed for not making enough money. Such is the high-stakes game that huge corporations seem to play.

What Is McDonaldization?
Efficiency verview
McDonaldization is the term invented by George Ritzer to describe a sociological phenomenom that is happening in our society. You may think it started with Ray Kroc in the 1950's when he bought his first hamburger restaurant, but it's origins were actually much earlier than that. In fact, Henry Ford was the first McDonaldization pioneer with his vision of an assembly line for improving the production of automobiles. His revolutionary idea dramatically changed how many automobiles could be produced and was very efficient. In essence, McDonaldization is the process of rationalization, albiet taken to extreme levels. Rationalization is a sociological term that simply means the substitution of logically consistent rules for traditional (or illogical) rules. One of the fundamental aspects of McDonaldization is that almost any task can (and should) be rationalized.

Calculability

Predictability

Control

The process of McDonaldization takes a task and breaks it down into smaller tasks. This is repeated until all tasks have been broken down to the smallest possible level. The resulting tasks are then rationalized to find the single most efficient method for completing each task. All other methods are then deemed inefficient and discarded. The result 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. Additionally, quantity (or calculability) becomes the measurement of good performance. By now, you might be thinking that this all sounds pretty good. After all, being more efficient is a good thing. Controlled, consistent and measurable outcomes also sound good. So, what's the problem? It turns out that over-rationalizing a process in this manner has an unexpected side effect. It's called irrationality. In a sociological context that simply means that a rationalized system may result in events or outcomes that were neither anticipated or desired, and in fact, may not be so good. Take the example of the McDonald's chain of restaurants. Where is the irrationality? The premise of fast food often turns out to be just the opposite - long waits in lines. Fast food is not necessarily good food - in fact, McDonald's food is extremely unhealthy and the taste is average and bland. The system of efficiently producing and distributing their food has some other consequences, namely millions of tons of trash each year (disposability) and a food cultivation system of questionable ethics. According to Ritzer, the four main dimensions of McDonaldization are: Efficiency - The optimum method of completing a task. The rational determination of the best mode of production. Individuality is not allowed. Calculability - Assessment of outcomes based on quantifiable rather than subjective criteria. In other words, quantity over quality. They sell the Big Mac, not the Good Mac. Predictability - The production process is organized to guarantee uniformity of product and standardized outcomes. All shopping malls begin to look the same and all highway exits have the same assortment of businesses. Control - The substitution of more predictable non-human labor for human labor, either through automation or the deskilling of the work force.

There are other dimensions of McDonaldization that Ritzer didn't include with the main four, but are worthy enough for prime attention. They are: Irrationality - A side effect of over-rationalized systems. Ritzer himself hints that this is the fifth dimension of McDonaldization. An example of this could be workers on an assembly line that are hired and trained to perform a single highly rationalized task. Although this may be a very efficient method of operating a business, an irrationality that is spawned can be worker burnout. Deskilling - A work force with the minimum abilities possible to complete simple focused tasks. This means that they can be quickly and cheaply trained and are easily replaceable. Consumer Workers - One of the sneakiest things about McDonaldization is how consumers get tricked into becoming unpaid employees. They do the work that was traditionally performed by the company. The prime example of this is diners who bus their own tables at the fast food restaurant. They dutifully carry their trash to friendly receptacles marked "thank you." (The extreme rationalization of

this is the drive-thru; consumers take their trash with them!) Other examples are many and include: ATM's, salad bars, automated telephone menus, and pumping gas.

Efficiency
Efficiency is the process of "...choosing the optimum means to a given end (p. 36)". Efficiency is something that is sought after by many people, even without the shackles of McDonaldization. The difference is that in a McDonaldized society, efficiency is thrust upon a person, so instead of choosing your own methods of efficiency, you are forced to accept the efficiency of the surrounding institutions. In fact this can lead to a lamb-like acceptance of what the surrounding institutions consider efficient. Which may be vastly different from what would actually be efficient for either the employees or the consumer. Ritzer uses the examples of salad bars: in essence, with a salad bar, you buy an empty plate, go to the bar and create the salad yourself. This is very efficient for the restaurant, but makes more work for the consumer. In other words you have to pay for the privilege of making your own salad. Another example of this inefficient efficiency is the ATM machine, popular at many banks. The consumer has to fill out all of the paper work, enter in the deposit or withdrawal to the computer, and, on top of all this, pay for the privilege of being a bank teller. Many would argue that both the salad bar, and the ATM are conveniences, rather than inconveniences. With the salad bar, you are not limited by what the cook wants to put in the salad, and ATMs allow you to do your banking any time you want, unhindered by inefficient bank hours. However, keep in mind, that both of these serve to reduce the level of human interaction. Consumers are forced to deal with computers or salad bars and not people, training them to be better workers for the McDonaldized society.

Calculability
I like big things The size of them impresses me Just give me plenty Forget about the quality And I like fast food The burgers always taste the same No snotty waiters, Escargot or Beaujolais Music Time Dennis DeYoung/Styx Actually, Dennis mentions two of McDonaldization's themes in this song. "The burgers always taste the same" is a reference to predictability. "Big things," however, is calculability all the way. He just mentioned two out of the four main dimensions of

McDonaldization without even trying. The second aspect of McDonaldization is calculability. Calculability is " ... an emphasis on the quantitative aspects of products sold (portion size, cost) and service offered (the time it takes to get the product). (Page 9)" Ritzer goes on to point out that this emphasis leads to the erroneous conclusion that more is better. If there is a lot of a product then it must be good. This is why we "super size" our "Double" Big Mac "extra" value meal. It is thought of as a better product.

Predictability
As the term predictability would indicate, a McDonaldized society, "...emphasizes 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 (page 79)." This has a two-fold effect. It makes the experience of the consumer the same at every location of a McDonaldized company. It also makes the work routine for the employees of that company. Some people like this predictability, and would argue that it is a good thing, you don't have to worry about eating a bad burger. Burgers from one McDonald's to the next will taste the same. Workers, don't have to worry about thinking for themselves, they will have time to concentrate on other things, while they go through the motions of performing their jobs. But, is this predictability better? When you travel to a different area, do you want the experience to be the same? If you are in France, touring the city of Paris, do you really want to eat at McDonald's? Doesn't that detract from the whole experience of a different culture? It is true, many employees don't want to have to think while they are working, but isn't a job that is challenging better? This predictability has spilled over into more than just jobs and food. The most popular movies out today are sequels. Sequels are great, because they are almost assured to make money for the studio, writer's don't have to work as hard, because the characters have already been developed. Consumer's love them because they also don't have to think. The moviegoer is usually familiar with the characters in the sequel and know what to expect, making the movie experience more of a passive one. Television is even more infamous for its predictability. It has been said that there are only 40 different sitcom situations, and have been since the 1960's. These situations are used over and over again, from one sitcom to the next, without fail. Occasionally a new plot will be introduced, but next week it is back to the same old situations. Next time you are watching your favorite sitcom, think of these ten experiences, and think to see if it is being done, or has been done on your show: Sitcom family or group goes camping. One member of the sitcom family or group feels unloved, or unneeded and the rest of the episode is spent convincing that person he or she is a necessary part of the family. One member of the sitcom family borrows another member's car (usually child borrowing parent's) and gets into an accident with it. The person who borrowed the car tries to cover it up.

One cast member is accidentally labeled a genius through a computer malfunction. A member of the cast is forced to get a job in a fast-food restaurant. A cast member (usually the resident "nerd") gets to be the hero as a member of a sports team. A female member of the cast gets pregnant. The most unlikely male cast member is forced to go to Lamaze class with her. The same female cast member will eventually go to the hospital to have the baby, leading to a "zany hospital" episode, ending in a touching newborn baby scene. An episode will center around a car coming through the wall of a house. One of the children of the sitcom family attempts to move out on his or her own, only to find out the he or she still needs the family, and moves back home.

If you can recognize these plots from more than one sitcom, then you, hopefully, can see what is meant by the predictability of television.

Control
The final aspect of McDonaldization is control. Control over both employees and customers because, " [people are] the great source of uncertainty, unpredictability and inefficiency in any rationalizing system...(page 101)". By increasing control, through increased mechanization, employers maintain a better control over the entire rationalization process. Ritzer's focus involves control through the substitution of non-human for human technology. By making tasks repetitive and forcing employees not to think, employers can maintain a tighter control over them. Then we go home, and the money we take from the bank is decided by the computer. Our meals are frozen, we microwave our popcorn (our microwaves even have "popcorn" buttons on them, so the popcorn is perfect every time), and our salads come pre-made in bags--just open and pour. Pilots have begun to rely more and more on automated systems, Hertz Rent-A-Car is installing computerized maps in their cars, and scientists are experimenting with cars that have built-in guides all in a futile attempt to eliminate the fear that accidents will occur due to human error. However, each of these "advances" becomes a step back. We are in less control and computers are in more control As things become more automated it is easier to replace workers, and as we spend more time on front of the television and less time thinking for ourselves. We become more dependent on the very things that McDonaldization

1. What are the "means of consumption"? 2. What are the attractions of fast food? 3. What unique organizational innovation did Roy Kroc make to the fast food industry? Why was this successful? 4. How are capitalism and rationalization intertwined?

5. Why is government committed to economic growth in the modern era? 6. What is the role of competition in the relationship between capitalism and rationalization? 7. What is Americanization? 8. What critique of Americanization is made by your professor? 9. Why have the consumption habits of Americans changed in the last 20 years? 10. How does Ritzer characterize globalization? 11. What are "parish churches of consumption"? 12. How does Ritzer characterize the goods produced by large, centralized corporations? 13. How do locally produced goods differ from those produced by centralized corporations? 14. What is the irrationality of rationalization? How does this apply to the fast food industry? 15. What impact does rationalization have on indigenous cultures? 16. What is the iron cage that both Weber and Ritzer have written about? 17.
The MCDonaldization thesis: exploration and extensions by George Rtizer (p16) Max Webers theory of rationalisation lies at the base of the McDonaldization thesis (Kalbert, 1980; Levine, 1981). This theory provides a rich resource, there are reasons why one might want 2 look elsewhere 4 additional theoretical inspiration. Weber was far from clear about the rationalisation process. More fruitful theoretical resources r needed for deepening our understanding of rationalisation and McDonaldization. The theory that suggests itself most strongly is Karl Mannheim whose work is based in part on Webers ideas, Simmels thinking on rationality, Turner 1986 . Mannheim he wants to examine and contrast it where necessary to Weber. In Ideology and Utopia (1929/1936) Mannheim offered a gross distinction between rationality and irrationality which he refined and altered dramatically in his later work. (p17) Settled and routiinized procedures (Mannheim, 1929/1936:113) are a general component of McDonaldization. McDonaldized systems generally institute such procedures in order to control what employees, customers and many others (eg suppliers) do. These procedures exist in order to deal with recurrent situations (eg the ordering of goods and services by customers). Grill men were instructed to put hamburgers down on the grill moving from left to right, creating six rows of six patties each. And because the first two rows were farthest from the heating element, they were instructed (and still are) to flip the third row first, then the fourth, fifth and sixth before flipping the first two (Love, 1986: 141-2; italics added)

Employees who follow these procedures are behaving rationally, at least in terms of Mannheims early sense of such behaviour. He defines the irrational sphere residually: the irrational must be those domains in which there is an absence of settled, routinized procedures for dealing with recurrent situations. McDonaldization given its association with such procedures, serves to reduce and ultimately eliminate irrational domains. The objective is to create more and more such procedures to cover as many recurrent situations as possible. (In Weberian terms, the construction of the iron cage of rationality would be complete when all such situations are covered by procedures). That irrationality which persists is most likely to be found in non-recurrent situations as well as more generally in less and non-McDonaldized sectors of society. For Mannheim the solution to the problem of irrationality lay in greater planning. Planning would provide the routinized and settled (p18) procedures (as well as the objective tests needed in the stratification system) that would make greater rationalisation possible. While Mannheim was thinking about central planning, McDonaldized systems involve much more, albeit far less centralized, planning than non McDonaldized alternatives and thereby limit irrationality more effectively. While the irrational continues to predominate, Mannheim seems to imply (as I do with the McDonaldization thesis) that rationalisation is a process that has invaded various sectors of society and that others are likely to come under its sway in the future. The chief characteristic of modern culture is the tendency to include as much as possible in the realm of the rational and to bring it under administrative control and, on the other hand, to reduce the irrational element to the vanishing point. (Mannheim 1929/1936:114). Mannheim was forced to back away from this optimistic view in his later work in the face of the increasing prevalence of such irrationalities as economic depression, war and Fascism. It became difficult to argue that irrationalities were disappearing. If anything, the opposite seemed to be the case. McDonalds (as well as most franchisers) have a minimal bureaucratic staff and structure, but it nonetheless has been able to develop and implement settled and routinized procedures that it imposes on franchisees, managers and employees. Macs has succeeded in developing methods that leave its employees with little or no room for personal decision making. Mannheim contrasts rational action to conduct which begins where rationalisation has not yet penetrated, and where we are forced to make decisions in situations which have as yet not been subjected to regulation (Mannheim, 1929/1936:115). In this early work conduct (behaviour) is associated with the irrational realm and Mannheim holds the view that conduct, like irrationality more generally, will sooner or later come to be limited or even be eliminated by the process of rationalisation. (p19) In these terms, McDonaldized systems have succeeded in greatly restricting conduct. Rules, regulations, scripts and the like have increased significantly the regulation of the behaviour of those associated with McDonaldised systems. McDonaldization, in Mannheims terms, brings with it a decline in irrationality. Mannheim had much more to say about rationality and irrationality, and he said it very differently in Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction (1935/1940). His thinking on rationality had grown far more refined: he differentiated between 2 types of rationality and 2 varieties of irrationality. He argued that both rationality and irrationality can be subdivided into the substantial and the

functional (paralleling, at least to some degree, Webers distinction between substantive and formal rationality). Substantial rationality and irrationality deal with thinking, while functional rationality and irrationality are concerned with action. Substantial rationality is defined as an act of thought which reveals intelligent insight into the interrelations of events in a given situation (Mannheim 1935/1940: 53; italics added). Clearly very different from Mannheim earlier work. Here rationality involves intelligent thought whereas previously his more global sense of rationality (closer to what he now thinks of as functional rationality; see p.21) implied an almost complete lack of thought.