McDonaldization provides many goods and services that consumers value. It has also proven not only a successful and often profitable business model, but one that has spread far from its origins as a way to produce and sell ‘fast food.’ Keeping in mind, that is, that McDonaldization is, according to the Sociologist (George Ritzer) who coined the term, a subset of a much older and broader historical process–rationalization. 

As by this point we’ve discussed some of the consequences of McDonaldization that may not seem rationalized, in fact may seem irrational (e.g., imagine the double drive-thru lanes with long lines of cars while the inside of the restaurant remains empty), let’s address some of these in more depth.

Discomplexity

I might have mentioned in class how newspapers have, over time, lowered their reading levels. It turns out it’s complicated to assess putting a grade level to a newspaper. You could measure word complexity, sentence complexity, word length of articles, paragraph length, syllables, etc. So assessing reading grade levels for newspapers could use some McDonaldization, maybe (just kidding!). The highest-scoring, like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, would be upper-class high school level for most content. Other dailies might dip into middle school and grade school. The trend is clear, though–reading levels have dropped over the decades. 

“So what?” you might ask. “I don’t need a novel to follow the news, just the facts” (just kidding again! Sort of). As we discuss with respect to Orwell’s 1984 and his language concepts, there is an effort in the book, on the part of the state (government), to ‘dumb down’ language, going so far as to create a ‘new’ language, ‘newspeak,’ as opposed to ‘oldspeak.’ Newspeak is streamlined, many words and concepts have been removed from the language, but not randomly. It is the logical conclusion to ‘doublespeak,’ which is an attempt to pervert the meaning of words, for instance:

• War is peace
• Freedom is slavery
• Ignorance is strength

Obviously the state wants to remove ‘problematic’ concepts from the language, perhaps to reduce the likelihood the population will know what they mean or have any expectation that they could live without war, experience freedom, and seek knowledge. But, Orwell’s Winston imagines, why not just eliminate them entirely from the language? Hence newspeak. It’s shiny and new and clean! And who doesn’t love that??? Why, it’s double plus good! You may find the afterword by Psychologist Erich Fromm useful for understanding some of Orwell’s many references to language (starts on page 4).

To bring this back to the class a bit and whether any of it is a problem (‘Why shouldn’t we want to streamline our reading? Hasn’t speed reading been around for a long time, mmmm?‘). Soc 205 is focused on social problems, but the way I teach this class, it’s really as much an exercise in critical thinking. Let’s use the concept of ‘freedom’ as an example. What does it mean? Freedom from (oppression, violence, hunger, etc.)? Freedom to (express myself and my views, own firearms, go maskless during a pandemic in public, have and pursue my professional ambitions, break laws I don’t agree with, etc.)? It gets complicated quickly. And yet politicians pretend ‘freedom’ is this one-dimensional concept, essentially there for me to use as I see fit to pursue my ‘freedom.’ Or ‘take it back’–vape at a basketball game, Stephen! (certainly the tobacco industry would like people to be free to smoke or vape anywhere, anytime, versus other people’s freedom from breathing second-hand smoke)

• Medical freedom? That meant to many people and politicians no pandemic regulations. Does that put more people at risk? Of course. Starting with healthcare providers who would have to deal with higher infection rates. 
• Freedom of speech? Does this include only speech that I might agree with? 
• Hate speech? Does hate speech include any speech by people or organizations or ideologies with which I don’t agree? Is hate speech simply criticism? No. Not if it’s a meaningful concept.

So if we can think critically about what freedom means, and when one person’s freedom might be infringing on another’s, we can try to wrap our minds around a complex topic. There is no question that the freedom to bear arms–“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”–leads to higher rates of gun violence and death in the US than in other countries with more laws and regulations (keeping in mind that when the 2nd amendment was adopted, the framers reference was muzzle loaders, not AR-15s). But is it simply a choice between ‘freedom’–unrestrained access to all manner of firearms, including semi-automatic assault rifles–and tyranny (which the National Rifle Association labels as anything that restricts firearm ownership)? Are there no grey areas in between those that could reduce gun violence yet still provide law-abiding citizens access to firearms?

So the capacity for critical thought can be useful, just as the ‘dumbing down’ of language could be vulnerable to manipulation by those with the power to control media and frame issues for public consumption. Does McDonaldization create conditions where many in the public are more prone to propaganda and persuasion, talking points and sound bites substituting for actually expecting a politician to be able to think on their feet and respond to unwelcome questions? If, as we’ve discussed in class a bit, McDonaldized efficiency is coupled with calculability, are there effects on people’s quality of lives or experiences? An example: Can politicians get us to vote for them, without knowing anything but their political party affiliation? And if so, what kind of politician would want an electorate that was unable or unwilling to engage in critical thought? What kind indeed (the kind that doesn’t expect any critical thought from me). That is, by the way, a concept from Social Psychology called a heuristic, a mental shortcut, so to speak. So you see, even the brain, as an example–like society–of a self-organizing system (our neural circuitry is pretty malleable, one interpretation is that changes represent learning), seeks to manage complexity, in this case by filtering out what it considers ‘non-essential’ information. But is it ‘non-essential’ to know something about a candidate, rather than just voting party line?

Enter Government

Why the focus on government and politicians, you might ask? Well as we’ve discussed, to understand social problems, already complex, without understanding how they may be produced by structures in society (of power, of economics, of predominant culture, etc.), leaves people open to efforts to convince them that there is no need for structural solutions (much more likely coming from government), and it’s up to individuals to choose whether or not to change their behaviors or perspectives in order to address a social problem. Governments can do things that individuals can’t–we couldn’t have created a health insurance law that covered 30 million previously uninsured people, for instance. But it involves people participating in a democratic form of government, represented by people voted into office as public servants by an informed electorate.

The alternatives to greater (though not universal) healthcare? Use the emergency room and hope for the charges to be forgiven, don’t get sick, find a great job with benefits and insurance, etc. And if you do find that job (I hope you do), and you find your rates increasing and the fees being charged increasing, hopefully you can engage in some critical thought to ask ‘So who is paying for those ER charges–the most expensive care available–to be forgiven, and wouldn’t it make more sense to keep people healthy through regular, subsidized care, rather than have them wait until they’re on their deathbeds and pass the costs on to the patients lucky enough to have a job that provides insurance?‘

Hopefully some of the other possible downsides to McDonaldization are a little more straightforward:

• Homogenization–imagine the subdivision of identical houses, the creation of a network of superhighways to move masses from homes to work (and the need for fossil fuels to accomplish that); or the online universities that offer cookie cutter classes, with a diploma at the end if you’ve paid your bills–does that sound somewhat like calculability and quantity over quality? Not saying students don’t learn, but the system is engineered to produce degrees–in a highly competitive market–as much or more than learned citizens and professionals.
• Dehumanization–There are lots of people who don’t get their satisfaction from work. That could be because they have other more interesting pursuits waiting at home, or it could be that work is mind-numbingly dull and workers are not valued beyond possessing the most basic of skill sets. Another example–let’s say an artist or musician wanted to make some sort of social comment about the process of McDonaldization and how it affects their craft. But what if artists, writers, musicians, poets, etc., in the era of A.I. and digital reproduction, have difficulty finding gainful and meaningful work? Where people have neither the time nor the inclination to ponder something that can’t be plugged into an A.I. app for a quick summary? 
• ‘Unreality‘–We discussed a bit in class how the digital world can provide virtual experiences, but they may be of a different quality. Most people would probably agree that it’s easier to start a venomous debate in social media than it is with two people having to talk to each other in the same room at some public forum. 
• Consumption, the environment–This one should be a little easier to grasp. If McDonaldization, through mass production, creates more consumptive opportunities at lower prices, what will this mean for conserving the Earth’s capacity to support humans with abundant energy and resources? What about those externalized costs that consumers don’t see, that aren’t included in the price of goods (increasing consumption …), that Annie Leonard so unceremoniously tosses in our faces? 

Last, as you read 1984, be thinking a bit about whether there are any parallels. Are we creating a new and less-threatening (to the ruling class) newspeak? Do we even notice when the Government stops using the word ‘torture’ and begins calling it ‘enhanced interrogation?‘

And . . . Oceania in 1984 represents some pretty heavy-handed social control, involving threats of torture, death, mass brainwashing, relentless propaganda, constant surveillance, and–maybe creepiest of all–‘thought crimes.’ But could McDonaldization represent a much more warm and fuzzy means of social control? The ‘velvet cage‘ kind of control? Its spread throughout society suggests that it has widespread appeal. It has ushered in a dramatic shift in eating habits and diets. It makes higher levels of consumption possible–with all of its benefits and drawbacks–making the ‘American Dream’ seem more accessible to the masses. 

One more example. So we have discussed at several points in the term the structure/agency dynamic–to what extent do we make our own decisions, or are they partly shaped by structures, seen and unperceived? The food industry contends that it simply provides goods and services, and consumers make personal choices. No influences from ads or simply the saturation of processed foods at (seemingly) inexpensive prices. McDonaldization’s pervasiveness suggests it has a structural influence on, at a minimum, how many people eat, if not (being more speculative) their capacity for critical thought. Orwell might have said something like (though more eloquently) ‘Well you don’t have to hold a gun to people’s heads or threaten them with torture to steer them in a direction favorable to your interests, do you?’ 

None of this is to cast aspersions on McDonaldization as a trend for US Society. We live in mass society, and we live with systems of mass production and consumption. McDonaldization in some ways created a niche, and it has proved wildly successful from a business perspective.

My job, as I see it, is to make observations, ask some of those stubborn questions, and let students use and refine their own critical thinking skills in examining these complex concepts, and hopefully seeing that they do operate in all of our lives, there to be observed, if or when we choose. 

Can we streamline complexity? Probably not without losing something in the process. And maybe getting better acquainted with our new best friend, A.I.