24 THE McOONAlOIZAnON OF SOCIETY 5 The Past. Present. and Future of McDonaldization 25

BUREAUCRATIZATION: MAKING LIFE MORE RATIONAL

A bureaucracy is a large-scale organjz.,tion composed of a hierarcby ofoffices. In these offices, people have certain responsibilities and must acrin accordance with rules, written regulations, and means of compulsionexercised by those who occupy higher-level po itions.

The bureaucracy is largely a creation of the modern Western world.Although earlier societies had organizational structures, they were notnearly as effective as the bureauc.racy. For example, in traditional societies,officials performed their tasks because of a personal loyalty to their leader.These officials were subject to personaJ whim rather than impersonal rules.Their officcs lacked clearly defined spheres of competence, there was noclear hierarchy of positions, and officials did not have to obtain technicaltraining to gain ::l position.

Ultimately, the burcaucracy diffcrs from earlier methods of oJ:ganizingwork because of its formal structure, which, among other things, allows forgreater efficiency. Institutionalized rules and regulations lead, even force,rJlose employed in the bureaucracy to choose the best means to arriveat their cnds. A givcn task is broken down into components, with eachoffice responsible for a distinct portinn of the larger task. Incumbents ofeach oflice handle their part of the task, usually following preset rules andregulations and often in a predetermined sequence. When each of theincumbents has, in order, handled the required part, the task is completed.By handling thc task this way, the bureaucracy has used what its pasthistory has shown to be the optimum means to the desired end.

Weber's Theory of Rationality

The roors of modern thinking on bureaucracy lie in the work of the turn-of-the-century German sociologist Max Weber.' His ideas on bureaucracy areembedded in his broader theoty of the rationalization process. In the latter,

Weber described how the modern \'Vcsrcrn world managed to become increas-ingly rational-that is, dominated by efficiency, predictabilit)·, .calculability,and nonhuman technoLogies that control people. He also examtned why therest of the world largely failed to rationalize.

As you can sec, lvJcDonaldiz3tion is an amplification and extensiOl.l ofWeber' theory of rationalization, especially into the realm of consumption.For Weber, the model of rationalization was the bureaucracy; for me, th.efast-food rcstaurant is tbe paradigm of McDonaldization.'

Weber demonstrated in his research thar the modern Westew world hadproduced a distinctive kind of rarionaLity. Various types of rationality hadexisred in aLL societies at one time or another, but none had produced thetype that Weber called formal rationality. This is the sort of rationality I referto when I discuss McDonaldiz3tiOll or the rationalization process m general.

What is formal rationaLity? According to Weber, formal rationality meansthat the search by people for the optimum means to a given end is shapedby rules, regulations, and larger social structures. Individu?ls are not le.ft totheir own devices in searching for the best means of arraming a gIven obJec-tive. Weber identified this typc of rationality as a major dcvelopment in thehistory of the world. Previously, people had been left to discover such mech-anisms on their own or with vague and general guidance from larger value sys-tems (religion, for example)' After the development .of formal rationality,they could use institutionalized rules that help them even dictate tothem-what to do. An important aspecr of formal rationality, then, IS that Itallows individuals little choice of means to ends. In a formally rational system,virtually everyone can (or must) make the same, optimal choice. . .

Weber praised the bureaucracy, his paradigm of formal rationality, forits many advantages ovcr other mechanisms that help people discover andimplement optimum means to ends. The most important are thefour basic dimensions of rationalization (and of McDonald.zatlon).

First, Weber viewed the bureaucracy as the most efficient structure forhandling large numbers of tasks requiring a great deal of paperwork. As anexample, Weber mighr have used the Internal Revenue ServIce (IRS), for noorher structure could handle millions of tax returns as well.

Second, bureaucracies emphasize the quantification of as many thingsas possible. Reducing performance to a series of quantifiable tasks helpspeople gauge success. For example, an lRS agent is expected to process acertain number of tax returns each day. Handling less than tbe reqUIrednumber of cases is unsatisfactory performance; handling morc is excellence.

The quantitative approach presents a problem, however: no con-cern for the actllal quality of work. Employees are expected to [,l11sh a taskwith little attention paid to how well it is handled. For instance, IRS agentswho receive positive evaluations from their superiors for managing large

24 THE McOONAlOIZAnON OF SOCIETY 5 The Past. Present. and Future of McDonaldization 25

BUREAUCRATIZATION: MAKING LIFE MORE RATIONAL

A bureaucracy is a large-scale organjz.,tion composed of a hierarcby ofoffices. In these offices, people have certain responsibilities and must acrin accordance with rules, written regulations, and means of compulsionexercised by those who occupy higher-level po itions.

The bureaucracy is largely a creation of the modern Western world.Although earlier societies had organizational structures, they were notnearly as effective as the bureauc.racy. For example, in traditional societies,officials performed their tasks because of a personal loyalty to their leader.These officials were subject to personaJ whim rather than impersonal rules.Their officcs lacked clearly defined spheres of competence, there was noclear hierarchy of positions, and officials did not have to obtain technicaltraining to gain ::l position.

Ultimately, the burcaucracy diffcrs from earlier methods of oJ:ganizingwork because of its formal structure, which, among other things, allows forgreater efficiency. Institutionalized rules and regulations lead, even force,rJlose employed in the bureaucracy to choose the best means to arriveat their cnds. A givcn task is broken down into components, with eachoffice responsible for a distinct portinn of the larger task. Incumbents ofeach oflice handle their part of the task, usually following preset rules andregulations and often in a predetermined sequence. When each of theincumbents has, in order, handled the required part, the task is completed.By handling thc task this way, the bureaucracy has used what its pasthistory has shown to be the optimum means to the desired end.

Weber's Theory of Rationality

The roors of modern thinking on bureaucracy lie in the work of the turn-of-the-century German sociologist Max Weber.' His ideas on bureaucracy areembedded in his broader theoty of the rationalization process. In the latter,

Weber described how the modern \'Vcsrcrn world managed to become increas-ingly rational-that is, dominated by efficiency, predictabilit)·, .calculability,and nonhuman technoLogies that control people. He also examtned why therest of the world largely failed to rationalize.

As you can sec, lvJcDonaldiz3tion is an amplification and extensiOl.l ofWeber' theory of rationalization, especially into the realm of consumption.For Weber, the model of rationalization was the bureaucracy; for me, th.efast-food rcstaurant is tbe paradigm of McDonaldization.'

Weber demonstrated in his research thar the modern Westew world hadproduced a distinctive kind of rarionaLity. Various types of rationality hadexisred in aLL societies at one time or another, but none had produced thetype that Weber called formal rationality. This is the sort of rationality I referto when I discuss McDonaldiz3tiOll or the rationalization process m general.

What is formal rationaLity? According to Weber, formal rationality meansthat the search by people for the optimum means to a given end is shapedby rules, regulations, and larger social structures. Individu?ls are not le.ft totheir own devices in searching for the best means of arraming a gIven obJec-tive. Weber identified this typc of rationality as a major dcvelopment in thehistory of the world. Previously, people had been left to discover such mech-anisms on their own or with vague and general guidance from larger value sys-tems (religion, for example)' After the development .of formal rationality,they could use institutionalized rules that help them even dictate tothem-what to do. An important aspecr of formal rationality, then, IS that Itallows individuals little choice of means to ends. In a formally rational system,virtually everyone can (or must) make the same, optimal choice. . .

Weber praised the bureaucracy, his paradigm of formal rationality, forits many advantages ovcr other mechanisms that help people discover andimplement optimum means to ends. The most important are thefour basic dimensions of rationalization (and of McDonald.zatlon).

First, Weber viewed the bureaucracy as the most efficient structure forhandling large numbers of tasks requiring a great deal of paperwork. As anexample, Weber mighr have used the Internal Revenue ServIce (IRS), for noorher structure could handle millions of tax returns as well.

Second, bureaucracies emphasize the quantification of as many thingsas possible. Reducing performance to a series of quantifiable tasks helpspeople gauge success. For example, an lRS agent is expected to process acertain number of tax returns each day. Handling less than tbe reqUIrednumber of cases is unsatisfactory performance; handling morc is excellence.

The quantitative approach presents a problem, however: no con-cern for the actllal quality of work. Employees are expected to [,l11sh a taskwith little attention paid to how well it is handled. For instance, IRS agentswho receive positive evaluations from their superiors for managing large

26 THE McDONALDIZATlON OF SOCIETY 5 The Past. Present. and Future of McDonaldization 27

numbers of cases may actually handle the case poorly, costing the govern-ment thousands or even millions of dollar in uncollected revenue. Or theagents may handle cases so aggressively that taxpayers become angered.

Third, because of their well-entrenched rules and regulations, bureaucra-cie also operate in a highly predictable manner. Incumbent of a given officeknow with great as urance how the incumbents of other offices will behave.They know what they will be provi led with and when they will receive it.Outsiders who receive the ervices that bUl'eaucracies dispense know with ahigh degree of confidence what they will receive and when they will receiveit. Again to use an example Weber might have used, the millions of recipi-ent of check from the Social Security Administration know precisely whenthey will receive their checks and exactly how much money they will receive.

Finally, bureaucracies emphasize control over people through the replace-ment of human judgment with the dictates of rules, regulations, and struc-tures. Employees are controlled by the division of labor, which allocatesto each office a limited number of well-defined tasks. Incumbents IDU t dotho e and no other, in tile manner prescribed by the organization. Theymay not, 111 mo t cases, devise idiosyncrati ways of doing tho e ta ks.Furthermore, by making few, if any, judgments, people begin to resemblehuman robots or computers. I-laving reduced people to this state, leaders of

can think about actually replacing human beings with machines.ThIS replacement ha already occurred to some extent: In mallY settings,

have taken over bureaucratic tasks once performed by humans.the bureaucracy's clients are also controlled. They may receive only

certam services and not other from the organization. For example, the IRScan offer people advice on their tax returns but not on their marriages. Peoplemay also receive appropriate ervices in certain way and not other. Forexample, people can receive welfare payments by check not in cash.

Irrationality and the "Iron Cage"

Despite the advantages it offer, bureaucracy suffers from the irra-tionality of rationality. Like a fast-food restaurant, a bureaucracy can be adehumanizing place in which to work and by which to be served. RonaldTakaki characterizes rationalized settings as places in which the "self wasplaced in confinement its emotions controlled, and it pirit subdued." Inother words, they are settings in which people cannot always behave as humanbeing -where people are dehumanized.

fn addition to dehumanization, bureaucracies exl1ibit other irrationali-of remaining efficient, bureaucracies can become in reasingly

,?efficlent of tangles of red tape and otheL' pathologie . The empha-SIS on qua?t,flcatlon often lead to large amounts of poor-quality work.Bureaucracies often become unpredi table as employees grow llllclear about

what they are suppo ed to do and clients do not get the service they expect.Because of the e and other inadequacies, bmeaucracies begin to lose con-trol over those who work within and are served by them. Anger at the non-human technologie that replace them often leads employees to undercut orsabotage tlle operation of these technologie . All in all, what were de ignedas Ilighly rational operation often end up being quite irrational.

Although Weber was concerned about the irrationalitie of for-mally rationalized systems, he was even more animated by what he calledthe "iron (or steel) cage" of rationality. fn Weber's view, burcaucracie arecages in tl,e sen e that people are trapped in tllem, tbeir basic humanitydenied. Weber fearcdmo t that bureaucracie would grow more and morerational and that rational principle would come to dominate an increasingnumber of sectors of society. He anticipated a ociety of people lockedinto a series of rational tructures, who could move only from one rationalystem to another-from rationalized educational institutions to rational-ized workplaces, from rationalized recreational setting to rationalizedhomes. ociety would eventually become nothing more than a eamles webof rationalized strucrure ; there would be no escape.

A good example of what Weber feared i found in the contemporaryrationalization of recreational activities. Recreation can be thought of as away to escape the rationalization of daily routine. However, over the years,these escape routes have themselves become rationalized embodying thesame principle as bureaucracie and fa t-food restaurants. Among the manyexample of the rationalization of recreation6 are cruises and cruise lines/chains of campgrounds, and package tours. Take, for example, a seven-dayMediterranean cruise. The ship sails around at least a part of the Mediter-ranean, stopping briefly at major tourist attraction and towns along thecoast of, ay, outhern Europe. This route allows tomi t to glimp e themaximum number of site in the even-day period. At particularly interest-ing or important ights, the ship docks for a few hour to allow individualto debark, have a quick 10 al meal, buy ouvenirs, and take some pictures.Then a quick trip back to the ship, and it i off to the next locale. The cruisegoer leep during tlle overnight trips to these locales and take most of theirmeals on board ship. They awaken the next mOrniJlg, have a good breakfa t,and there they are at the next site. It's all very efficient.

With the rationalization of even their recreational activitie , people docome clo e to living in Weber's iron cage of rationality.

SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT: FINDING THE ONE BEST WAY

A less dramatic but no less important precursor to !v1cDonaldization was thedevelopment of scientific management. [n fact, Weber at time mentionedscientific management in hi discussion of the rationalization

Scientific management was created by Frederick W. Taylor III the late] 9th and early 20th cenruries. His ideas played a key role in shaping the

26 THE McDONALDIZATlON OF SOCIETY 5 The Past. Present. and Future of McDonaldization 27

numbers of cases may actually handle the case poorly, costing the govern-ment thousands or even millions of dollar in uncollected revenue. Or theagents may handle cases so aggressively that taxpayers become angered.

Third, because of their well-entrenched rules and regulations, bureaucra-cie also operate in a highly predictable manner. Incumbent of a given officeknow with great as urance how the incumbents of other offices will behave.They know what they will be provi led with and when they will receive it.Outsiders who receive the ervices that bUl'eaucracies dispense know with ahigh degree of confidence what they will receive and when they will receiveit. Again to use an example Weber might have used, the millions of recipi-ent of check from the Social Security Administration know precisely whenthey will receive their checks and exactly how much money they will receive.

Finally, bureaucracies emphasize control over people through the replace-ment of human judgment with the dictates of rules, regulations, and struc-tures. Employees are controlled by the division of labor, which allocatesto each office a limited number of well-defined tasks. Incumbents IDU t dotho e and no other, in tile manner prescribed by the organization. Theymay not, 111 mo t cases, devise idiosyncrati ways of doing tho e ta ks.Furthermore, by making few, if any, judgments, people begin to resemblehuman robots or computers. I-laving reduced people to this state, leaders of

can think about actually replacing human beings with machines.ThIS replacement ha already occurred to some extent: In mallY settings,

have taken over bureaucratic tasks once performed by humans.the bureaucracy's clients are also controlled. They may receive only

certam services and not other from the organization. For example, the IRScan offer people advice on their tax returns but not on their marriages. Peoplemay also receive appropriate ervices in certain way and not other. Forexample, people can receive welfare payments by check not in cash.

Irrationality and the "Iron Cage"

Despite the advantages it offer, bureaucracy suffers from the irra-tionality of rationality. Like a fast-food restaurant, a bureaucracy can be adehumanizing place in which to work and by which to be served. RonaldTakaki characterizes rationalized settings as places in which the "self wasplaced in confinement its emotions controlled, and it pirit subdued." Inother words, they are settings in which people cannot always behave as humanbeing -where people are dehumanized.

fn addition to dehumanization, bureaucracies exl1ibit other irrationali-of remaining efficient, bureaucracies can become in reasingly

,?efficlent of tangles of red tape and otheL' pathologie . The empha-SIS on qua?t,flcatlon often lead to large amounts of poor-quality work.Bureaucracies often become unpredi table as employees grow llllclear about

what they are suppo ed to do and clients do not get the service they expect.Because of the e and other inadequacies, bmeaucracies begin to lose con-trol over those who work within and are served by them. Anger at the non-human technologie that replace them often leads employees to undercut orsabotage tlle operation of these technologie . All in all, what were de ignedas Ilighly rational operation often end up being quite irrational.

Although Weber was concerned about the irrationalitie of for-mally rationalized systems, he was even more animated by what he calledthe "iron (or steel) cage" of rationality. fn Weber's view, burcaucracie arecages in tl,e sen e that people are trapped in tllem, tbeir basic humanitydenied. Weber fearcdmo t that bureaucracie would grow more and morerational and that rational principle would come to dominate an increasingnumber of sectors of society. He anticipated a ociety of people lockedinto a series of rational tructures, who could move only from one rationalystem to another-from rationalized educational institutions to rational-ized workplaces, from rationalized recreational setting to rationalizedhomes. ociety would eventually become nothing more than a eamles webof rationalized strucrure ; there would be no escape.

A good example of what Weber feared i found in the contemporaryrationalization of recreational activities. Recreation can be thought of as away to escape the rationalization of daily routine. However, over the years,these escape routes have themselves become rationalized embodying thesame principle as bureaucracie and fa t-food restaurants. Among the manyexample of the rationalization of recreation6 are cruises and cruise lines/chains of campgrounds, and package tours. Take, for example, a seven-dayMediterranean cruise. The ship sails around at least a part of the Mediter-ranean, stopping briefly at major tourist attraction and towns along thecoast of, ay, outhern Europe. This route allows tomi t to glimp e themaximum number of site in the even-day period. At particularly interest-ing or important ights, the ship docks for a few hour to allow individualto debark, have a quick 10 al meal, buy ouvenirs, and take some pictures.Then a quick trip back to the ship, and it i off to the next locale. The cruisegoer leep during tlle overnight trips to these locales and take most of theirmeals on board ship. They awaken the next mOrniJlg, have a good breakfa t,and there they are at the next site. It's all very efficient.

With the rationalization of even their recreational activitie , people docome clo e to living in Weber's iron cage of rationality.

SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT: FINDING THE ONE BEST WAY

A less dramatic but no less important precursor to !v1cDonaldization was thedevelopment of scientific management. [n fact, Weber at time mentionedscientific management in hi discussion of the rationalization

Scientific management was created by Frederick W. Taylor III the late] 9th and early 20th cenruries. His ideas played a key role in shaping the

30 THE McDONALDIZATION OF SOCIETY 5 The Past. Present. and Future of McDonaldization 31

work world throughout the 20tb century.17 Taylor developed a series ofpLinciples designed to rationalize work and was llired by a number of largeorganizations (for example, Betl1lehem Steel) to implement those ideas,mostly in their factories.

Taylor was animated by the belief that the United States sufferedfrom "inefficiency in almost aU our daily acts" and that tl1ere was a needfor "greater national efficiency"; his followers came to be known as "effi-ciency experts." His "time-aod-motion" studies were designed to replacewhat Taylor called the inefficient "rule-of-thumb" methods, which domi-nated work in hi day, with what he thought of as the "one best way"-that is, the optimum means to the end of doing a job.'8 Taylor outlined aseries of steps to be followed in time-and-motion studies:

1. Find a number of workers, preferably in divcrse work scnings, who arcparticularly skillful ar rhe work in que tion.

2. Make a careful srudy of rhe elemeJlrary movements (as well as rhe rools andimplemenrs) employed by rhese people in rheir work.

3. Time each of tbese e1emenrary sreps carefully (here was one of rbe wayin which Taylor emphasized calculability) with the aim of discovering themosr efficiem way of accomplishing each step.

4. Eliminate inefficienr sreps, such as "all false movements, slow movements,and useless movemenrs."

5. Finally, after all unnecessary movements have been eliminared, combine rhemosr efficienr movements (and tools) to creare the "one best way" of doinga job. I?

Scientific management also placed great emphasis on predictability.Clearly, in delineating the one best way to do a job, Taylor sought anapproach that each and every worker could lise. Taylor also believed thatallowing workers to choose their own tools and methods of doing a job ledto low productivity and poor quality. Instead, he sought the complete stan-dardization of tools and work processes. In fact, he felt that poor standardswere better than 110 standard at all because the)' caused at leasr someimprovement in productivity and quality, Of course, Taylor favored clearand detailed standards that made sure all \Vorkers did a given type of jobin exactl), the same way and would therefore consistently produce high-quality work.

Overall, scientific management produced a nonhuman technolog), thatexerted great control over workers. When workers followed Taylor's meth-ods, employers found that they worked much more efficiently. that everyoneperformed the same steps (that is, their wOl:k exhibited predictability), andthat the)' produced a great deal more while their pay had to be increased

only slightly (another instance of emphasizing cal:lIlability). Taylor's meth-ods thus meant increased profits for those enterprises that adopted them.

Like all rational systems, scientific management had its irrationalities.Above all, it was a dehumanizing system in which people wereexpendable and treated as such. workers dJd oneor a few tasks, most of their skills and abilities remamed unused. Tht haddisastrOUS consequences, and by the 1980 , American industry found itselfoutstripped by Japanese industry, which had found a way not only tobe.formally rational but also to use the abilities of its workers more fu.lly.20As of this writing (2007), the American automobile companies have notlearned from thi experience and have fallen further behind Japanesecompetitors, as well as those from other countries. ..

Although one hears little these days of Taylor, effICIency experts, .andtime-and-motion studie , their impact is strongly felt in a McDonaldJZedociety. For instance, hamburger cbains strive to disco."er and implementthe "one best way" to grill hamburgers, cook french fries, prepa.reproce S customers, and the rest. The most efficient ways of handlll1g a vafl-ety of tasks have been codified in training manuals and. taught. to managerswho in turn teach them to new employees. The deSign of the fast-foodrestaurant a;d itS various technologies have been put in place to aid in theattainment of the most efficient means to the end of feeding large numbersof people.11 Here, again, McDonald's did not invent these ideas but, rather,brought them together with the principles of the of rheassembly line, thus contributing to tbe creation of McDonaldlzatlOn.

THE ASSEMBLY UNE: TURNING WORKERS INTO ROBOTS

Like modern bureaucracy and scientific management, the assembly line cameinto existence at the dawn of the 20th century. Pioneered in the bureaucra-tized automobile industry, the ideas of scientific management helped shapethat industry. Henry Ford generally receives credit for tl1e invention of theassembly line, although it was mainly a product of Ford engineer .22

The automobile assembly line was invented mainly because Fordwanted to save tim.e, energy, and money (that is, to be more efficient).Greater efficiency would lead to lower prices, increased sales, and greaterprofitability for the Ford Motor Company.

Ford got the idea for the automobile assembly line from the overheadtrolley system used at the time by Chicago meatpackers catrle.As the steer \'\Ia propelled along on tne trolley system, a lme of spe-cialized butchCJ:s pedormed specific tasks so that, by the end of thesteer had been completely butchered. Thi system was clearl), more effICIentthan havillg a single meat cutter handle all these tasks.

30 THE McDONALDIZATION OF SOCIETY 5 The Past. Present. and Future of McDonaldization 31

work world throughout the 20tb century.17 Taylor developed a series ofpLinciples designed to rationalize work and was llired by a number of largeorganizations (for example, Betl1lehem Steel) to implement those ideas,mostly in their factories.

Taylor was animated by the belief that the United States sufferedfrom "inefficiency in almost aU our daily acts" and that tl1ere was a needfor "greater national efficiency"; his followers came to be known as "effi-ciency experts." His "time-aod-motion" studies were designed to replacewhat Taylor called the inefficient "rule-of-thumb" methods, which domi-nated work in hi day, with what he thought of as the "one best way"-that is, the optimum means to the end of doing a job.'8 Taylor outlined aseries of steps to be followed in time-and-motion studies:

1. Find a number of workers, preferably in divcrse work scnings, who arcparticularly skillful ar rhe work in que tion.

2. Make a careful srudy of rhe elemeJlrary movements (as well as rhe rools andimplemenrs) employed by rhese people in rheir work.

3. Time each of tbese e1emenrary sreps carefully (here was one of rbe wayin which Taylor emphasized calculability) with the aim of discovering themosr efficiem way of accomplishing each step.

4. Eliminate inefficienr sreps, such as "all false movements, slow movements,and useless movemenrs."

5. Finally, after all unnecessary movements have been eliminared, combine rhemosr efficienr movements (and tools) to creare the "one best way" of doinga job. I?

Scientific management also placed great emphasis on predictability.Clearly, in delineating the one best way to do a job, Taylor sought anapproach that each and every worker could lise. Taylor also believed thatallowing workers to choose their own tools and methods of doing a job ledto low productivity and poor quality. Instead, he sought the complete stan-dardization of tools and work processes. In fact, he felt that poor standardswere better than 110 standard at all because the)' caused at leasr someimprovement in productivity and quality, Of course, Taylor favored clearand detailed standards that made sure all \Vorkers did a given type of jobin exactl), the same way and would therefore consistently produce high-quality work.

Overall, scientific management produced a nonhuman technolog), thatexerted great control over workers. When workers followed Taylor's meth-ods, employers found that they worked much more efficiently. that everyoneperformed the same steps (that is, their wOl:k exhibited predictability), andthat the)' produced a great deal more while their pay had to be increased

only slightly (another instance of emphasizing cal:lIlability). Taylor's meth-ods thus meant increased profits for those enterprises that adopted them.

Like all rational systems, scientific management had its irrationalities.Above all, it was a dehumanizing system in which people wereexpendable and treated as such. workers dJd oneor a few tasks, most of their skills and abilities remamed unused. Tht haddisastrOUS consequences, and by the 1980 , American industry found itselfoutstripped by Japanese industry, which had found a way not only tobe.formally rational but also to use the abilities of its workers more fu.lly.20As of this writing (2007), the American automobile companies have notlearned from thi experience and have fallen further behind Japanesecompetitors, as well as those from other countries. ..

Although one hears little these days of Taylor, effICIency experts, .andtime-and-motion studie , their impact is strongly felt in a McDonaldJZedociety. For instance, hamburger cbains strive to disco."er and implementthe "one best way" to grill hamburgers, cook french fries, prepa.reproce S customers, and the rest. The most efficient ways of handlll1g a vafl-ety of tasks have been codified in training manuals and. taught. to managerswho in turn teach them to new employees. The deSign of the fast-foodrestaurant a;d itS various technologies have been put in place to aid in theattainment of the most efficient means to the end of feeding large numbersof people.11 Here, again, McDonald's did not invent these ideas but, rather,brought them together with the principles of the of rheassembly line, thus contributing to tbe creation of McDonaldlzatlOn.

THE ASSEMBLY UNE: TURNING WORKERS INTO ROBOTS

Like modern bureaucracy and scientific management, the assembly line cameinto existence at the dawn of the 20th century. Pioneered in the bureaucra-tized automobile industry, the ideas of scientific management helped shapethat industry. Henry Ford generally receives credit for tl1e invention of theassembly line, although it was mainly a product of Ford engineer .22

The automobile assembly line was invented mainly because Fordwanted to save tim.e, energy, and money (that is, to be more efficient).Greater efficiency would lead to lower prices, increased sales, and greaterprofitability for the Ford Motor Company.

Ford got the idea for the automobile assembly line from the overheadtrolley system used at the time by Chicago meatpackers catrle.As the steer \'\Ia propelled along on tne trolley system, a lme of spe-cialized butchCJ:s pedormed specific tasks so that, by the end of thesteer had been completely butchered. Thi system was clearl), more effICIentthan havillg a single meat cutter handle all these tasks.

32 THE McDONALDIZATlON OF SOCIETY 5 The Past. Present. and Future of McDonaldizaaon 33

n the ba i of this experience and his knowledge of the automobilebu ine Ford developed a et of principle for the con truction of an auto-mobile as erubly line, principles that to this day tand a model of efficiency:

• Worker are not to rake any unnecessary step' work-related movements arcreduced to an ab olute minimum.

• Parts needed in the assembly process are to travel the least possible distance.• Mechanical (rarher than human) mean are to be used to move the car (andpans) (rom one tep in the a embly proces ro rhe next. {At (ir r, gravirywa used, bur later, electrical conveyor heir were employed.)

• omplex ers o( movement are eJimin;ued, and the worker doe "a nearlya possible only one rhing with one movement."n

The japanese adopted American assembly-line technology after WorldIT and then made their own distinctive contributions to heightened effi-

cIency. For example, the japanese "just-in-time" system replaced the American"just-in- ase" system. Both systems refer to dle supply of needed part to a

operation. In the American system, parts are tored in the plantunnl, or In case, they are needed. This ystem leads to inefficiencie such a thepurcha. e and storage (at great cost) of parts that will not be needed for quite

tune. To counter these ine.fficiencies, the japanese developed the jusr-ill-time sy tern: Needed parts arrive at the as embly Line JUSt a they are tobe placed in the car or whatever object is being manufactured. [n effect, all the]apane e company's uppliers become part of the assembly-Line process.

In either system, the assembly line permit the quantification of manyelement of the production process and maximizes the number of aI's or othergood produced. What each worker on the line doe, ucb a putting a hubcapon each pas ing car is highly predictable and lead to identical end product.

The a embly line is al 0 a n nhuman technology that permit maximumcontrol Over worker. It is immediately obvious when a worker fail to per-form the required ta ks. There would, for example, be a mis ing hubcap ast.he car move down the line. The limited time allotted for each job allowlittle or no room for innovative way of doing a specific task. Thu , fewer, as

a less-skilled, people are able to produce car. Furthermore, the pecial-JZatlon of each task permits the replacement of human worker with robots.Today mechanical robots handle more and mar assembly-line task.

As has been well detailed by man)' observers, tbe a sembly line carrieswith i.t much irrationality. For example it can be a dehumanizing erringm wh,ch to work. Human being, equipped with a wide array of kills andabilitic , arc asked to perform a limited number of highly simplified ta kover and over. Instead of expre ing their human abilities on dl> job, peopleare forced to deny their humanity and to act like robots.

Despite it flaws, the a mbly line represented a remarkable step for-ward in the rationalization of production and became widely used through-out manufacturing. Like bureaucracy and even the Holocau t, the automobilea sembly line i an excellent illustration of the basic elements of formalrationality.

The as embly line also ha had a profound influence on the developmentof the fast-food restaurant. According to a management expert: "The peoplewho pioneered fast food revered Ford's a embly-line methods. 'N The mo tobvious example of thi mimicry is tbe conveyor belt u ed by Burger King tocook its hamburger. Les obviou is the fact that much of the work in a fa t-food restaurant is performed in a sembly-lin fa JUon, with tasks brokendown into their implest component. For example, 'making a hamburger"means grilling the burger, putting them on the rolls mearing on the" pe-cial auce," laying on dle lettuce and tomaro, and wrapping the fully dre edburgers. Even customer face a kind of a sembly line, the drive-through win-dow being the most obvious example. As one observer notes, "The basicelements of the factory have obviousl)' been introduced to the fa t-foodphenomenon ... [with] the advent of the feeding machine."25

In addition to being a precursor, the automobile assembly line laid thegroundwork for McDonaldization in another way. Ma s production gavemany people ready acce to affordable automobiles, whicb in turn led todle immen e expansion of the highway y tern and the tourist indu try thatgrew up alongside it.26 Re taurants, hotels, campgrounds, gas tation, andthe like aro e and erved a the precursors to many of the franchises that lieat the heart of the McDonaldized society.27

32 THE McDONALDIZATlON OF SOCIETY 5 The Past. Present. and Future of McDonaldizaaon 33

n the ba i of this experience and his knowledge of the automobilebu ine Ford developed a et of principle for the con truction of an auto-mobile as erubly line, principles that to this day tand a model of efficiency:

• Worker are not to rake any unnecessary step' work-related movements arcreduced to an ab olute minimum.

• Parts needed in the assembly process are to travel the least possible distance.• Mechanical (rarher than human) mean are to be used to move the car (andpans) (rom one tep in the a embly proces ro rhe next. {At (ir r, gravirywa used, bur later, electrical conveyor heir were employed.)

• omplex ers o( movement are eJimin;ued, and the worker doe "a nearlya possible only one rhing with one movement."n

The japanese adopted American assembly-line technology after WorldIT and then made their own distinctive contributions to heightened effi-

cIency. For example, the japanese "just-in-time" system replaced the American"just-in- ase" system. Both systems refer to dle supply of needed part to a

operation. In the American system, parts are tored in the plantunnl, or In case, they are needed. This ystem leads to inefficiencie such a thepurcha. e and storage (at great cost) of parts that will not be needed for quite

tune. To counter these ine.fficiencies, the japanese developed the jusr-ill-time sy tern: Needed parts arrive at the as embly Line JUSt a they are tobe placed in the car or whatever object is being manufactured. [n effect, all the]apane e company's uppliers become part of the assembly-Line process.

In either system, the assembly line permit the quantification of manyelement of the production process and maximizes the number of aI's or othergood produced. What each worker on the line doe, ucb a putting a hubcapon each pas ing car is highly predictable and lead to identical end product.

The a embly line is al 0 a n nhuman technology that permit maximumcontrol Over worker. It is immediately obvious when a worker fail to per-form the required ta ks. There would, for example, be a mis ing hubcap ast.he car move down the line. The limited time allotted for each job allowlittle or no room for innovative way of doing a specific task. Thu , fewer, as

a less-skilled, people are able to produce car. Furthermore, the pecial-JZatlon of each task permits the replacement of human worker with robots.Today mechanical robots handle more and mar assembly-line task.

As has been well detailed by man)' observers, tbe a sembly line carrieswith i.t much irrationality. For example it can be a dehumanizing erringm wh,ch to work. Human being, equipped with a wide array of kills andabilitic , arc asked to perform a limited number of highly simplified ta kover and over. Instead of expre ing their human abilities on dl> job, peopleare forced to deny their humanity and to act like robots.

Despite it flaws, the a mbly line represented a remarkable step for-ward in the rationalization of production and became widely used through-out manufacturing. Like bureaucracy and even the Holocau t, the automobilea sembly line i an excellent illustration of the basic elements of formalrationality.

The as embly line also ha had a profound influence on the developmentof the fast-food restaurant. According to a management expert: "The peoplewho pioneered fast food revered Ford's a embly-line methods. 'N The mo tobvious example of thi mimicry is tbe conveyor belt u ed by Burger King tocook its hamburger. Les obviou is the fact that much of the work in a fa t-food restaurant is performed in a sembly-lin fa JUon, with tasks brokendown into their implest component. For example, 'making a hamburger"means grilling the burger, putting them on the rolls mearing on the" pe-cial auce," laying on dle lettuce and tomaro, and wrapping the fully dre edburgers. Even customer face a kind of a sembly line, the drive-through win-dow being the most obvious example. As one observer notes, "The basicelements of the factory have obviousl)' been introduced to the fa t-foodphenomenon ... [with] the advent of the feeding machine."25

In addition to being a precursor, the automobile assembly line laid thegroundwork for McDonaldization in another way. Ma s production gavemany people ready acce to affordable automobiles, whicb in turn led todle immen e expansion of the highway y tern and the tourist indu try thatgrew up alongside it.26 Re taurants, hotels, campgrounds, gas tation, andthe like aro e and erved a the precursors to many of the franchises that lieat the heart of the McDonaldized society.27

42 THE MeDONALDIZATION OF SOCIETY 5 The Past Present. and Future of MeDonaldization 43

. Of course technological change ha probably played the greate t role111 the uccess of McDonaldized sy terns. Initially, technologies such asbureaucracies, cientific management, the assembly line, and the major

of that production system, the automobile, all contributed to thebIrth of the fast-food ociety. Over the years, innumerable technologicaldevelopments have both spurred, and been spurred by, McDonaldization:automatic drink dispensers, supermarket scanners, foods that cook them-selves, the microwave oven, the 24-second clock in professional basketballATMs, voice mail, On5tar navigation systems, laptop, iPods, PDAs, andmany others. Many tecl1l10Jogicai marvel of the future will either arisefrom the expanding needs of a McDonaldizing society or help create newarea to be McDonaldized.

Today, the computer is the technology that contribute the most to thegrowth of McDonaldization.55 In this vein, mention should be made of theburgeoning importance of the Internet. Internet technology such a portal(for example, Internet Explorer) and earch engines ( uch as Google andYahoo!) have greatly rationalized and implified acces to the Internet.Today, the Internet is u er-friendly and acces ible to over a billion people whoare largely ignorant of computer technology and computer programming.56However, use is highly stratified, with almost 70% of the North Americanpopulation accessing the Internet but only 3.5% of the African population.57

All of the above factors are associated with aspects of the contem-porary world associated with "modernity" and the "modern" world. Thereare many who argue, however, that we have moved, or are in various ways

a modern world to one that is described as being beyond-postllldustrJal, post-Fordist, postmodern.

Other Major Social Changes:McDonaldization in the Era of the "Posts"

The idea to be discussed in this section imply that "modern' phenom-ena uch a McDonaldization are likely to soon disappear. I maintain, how-ever, that McDonaldization and it modem (as well as its industrial andFordist) characteri tic are not only here for the foreseeable future but arealso influencing society at an accelerating rate. Although important postin-dustrial, po and postmodern trends are also occurring, somethll1kers associated With these perspectives have been too quick to declarean end to modernity, at least in its McDonaldized form.

Postindustrialism and McDollaldizatioll:"Complexification" and "Simplification"

Daniel Bell (and many other) argue that we have moved beyond indus-trial ociety to a new, po tindustrial ociety. Among other things, thichange means that the focu in ociety has shifted from producing good toproviding ervices. Throughout most of the 20th century, the production ofgoods uch a teel and automobiles dominated the economy of the UnitedStates. Today, however, the economy i dominated by services such as tho erelated to education, computers, health care, and fast food. The rise of newtechnologies and the growth in knowledge and information processing isalso characteristic of po tindustrial society. Profe sionals, scientists, andtechnicians have increased in number and importance. The implication isthat po tindustrial society will be dominated by creative knowledge workersand n t by routinized employee of McDonaldized y tem .

However, the low-statu service occupations that are so central to aMcDonaldized society show no sign of disappearing. In fact, they haveexpanded. McDonaldization i built on many of the idea and system ofindustrial society, especially bureaucratization, the a embly line, andscientific management. Society is certainly postindustrial in many way,and knowledge worker have grown more important, but the spread ofMcDonaldization indicates that some aspects of indu trial society are tillwith us and will remain so for some time to come.

In Post-Industrial Lives, Jerald Hage and Charles Powers argue In favorof the postindustrial thesis. 59 Among other things, they contend that a newpostindustrial organlzation has arisen and coexists with the classic industrialorganization, as well as with other organizational forms. The postindustrialorganization has a Illunber of characteristics, including a leveling of hierar-chical distinctions, a blurring of boundaries bet\iVeen organizations, a moreintegrated and less specialized organizational structure, an increase in behav-ior that i not bound b}' rule, and hiring policies that emphasize the creativ-ity of potential employees. In contra t, McDonaldized organizations continueto be hierarchical, the behavior of employees and even managers is tightlybound by rule, and the last thing on the minds of tho e hiring for most jobis creativity. Hage and Power contend tbat jobs involving "tasks that aremo t clearly defined, technically simple, and most often repeated" are beingeliminated by amomation.60 While many such job have been eliminated inheavy indu try, they are not only alive and well but growing in McDonaldizedservice organizations.61 Postindustrial organizations are also characterizedby customized work and products, whereas standardized work (everyone fol-lows the same procedures, scripts) and uniform products are the norm inMcDonaldized settings. Unquestionably, postindu trial organizations are on

42 THE MeDONALDIZATION OF SOCIETY 5 The Past Present. and Future of MeDonaldization 43

. Of course technological change ha probably played the greate t role111 the uccess of McDonaldized sy terns. Initially, technologies such asbureaucracies, cientific management, the assembly line, and the major

of that production system, the automobile, all contributed to thebIrth of the fast-food ociety. Over the years, innumerable technologicaldevelopments have both spurred, and been spurred by, McDonaldization:automatic drink dispensers, supermarket scanners, foods that cook them-selves, the microwave oven, the 24-second clock in professional basketballATMs, voice mail, On5tar navigation systems, laptop, iPods, PDAs, andmany others. Many tecl1l10Jogicai marvel of the future will either arisefrom the expanding needs of a McDonaldizing society or help create newarea to be McDonaldized.

Today, the computer is the technology that contribute the most to thegrowth of McDonaldization.55 In this vein, mention should be made of theburgeoning importance of the Internet. Internet technology such a portal(for example, Internet Explorer) and earch engines ( uch as Google andYahoo!) have greatly rationalized and implified acces to the Internet.Today, the Internet is u er-friendly and acces ible to over a billion people whoare largely ignorant of computer technology and computer programming.56However, use is highly stratified, with almost 70% of the North Americanpopulation accessing the Internet but only 3.5% of the African population.57

All of the above factors are associated with aspects of the contem-porary world associated with "modernity" and the "modern" world. Thereare many who argue, however, that we have moved, or are in various ways

a modern world to one that is described as being beyond-postllldustrJal, post-Fordist, postmodern.

Other Major Social Changes:McDonaldization in the Era of the "Posts"

The idea to be discussed in this section imply that "modern' phenom-ena uch a McDonaldization are likely to soon disappear. I maintain, how-ever, that McDonaldization and it modem (as well as its industrial andFordist) characteri tic are not only here for the foreseeable future but arealso influencing society at an accelerating rate. Although important postin-dustrial, po and postmodern trends are also occurring, somethll1kers associated With these perspectives have been too quick to declarean end to modernity, at least in its McDonaldized form.

Postindustrialism and McDollaldizatioll:"Complexification" and "Simplification"

Daniel Bell (and many other) argue that we have moved beyond indus-trial ociety to a new, po tindustrial ociety. Among other things, thichange means that the focu in ociety has shifted from producing good toproviding ervices. Throughout most of the 20th century, the production ofgoods uch a teel and automobiles dominated the economy of the UnitedStates. Today, however, the economy i dominated by services such as tho erelated to education, computers, health care, and fast food. The rise of newtechnologies and the growth in knowledge and information processing isalso characteristic of po tindustrial society. Profe sionals, scientists, andtechnicians have increased in number and importance. The implication isthat po tindustrial society will be dominated by creative knowledge workersand n t by routinized employee of McDonaldized y tem .

However, the low-statu service occupations that are so central to aMcDonaldized society show no sign of disappearing. In fact, they haveexpanded. McDonaldization i built on many of the idea and system ofindustrial society, especially bureaucratization, the a embly line, andscientific management. Society is certainly postindustrial in many way,and knowledge worker have grown more important, but the spread ofMcDonaldization indicates that some aspects of indu trial society are tillwith us and will remain so for some time to come.

In Post-Industrial Lives, Jerald Hage and Charles Powers argue In favorof the postindustrial thesis. 59 Among other things, they contend that a newpostindustrial organlzation has arisen and coexists with the classic industrialorganization, as well as with other organizational forms. The postindustrialorganization has a Illunber of characteristics, including a leveling of hierar-chical distinctions, a blurring of boundaries bet\iVeen organizations, a moreintegrated and less specialized organizational structure, an increase in behav-ior that i not bound b}' rule, and hiring policies that emphasize the creativ-ity of potential employees. In contra t, McDonaldized organizations continueto be hierarchical, the behavior of employees and even managers is tightlybound by rule, and the last thing on the minds of tho e hiring for most jobis creativity. Hage and Power contend tbat jobs involving "tasks that aremo t clearly defined, technically simple, and most often repeated" are beingeliminated by amomation.60 While many such job have been eliminated inheavy indu try, they are not only alive and well but growing in McDonaldizedservice organizations.61 Postindustrial organizations are also characterizedby customized work and products, whereas standardized work (everyone fol-lows the same procedures, scripts) and uniform products are the norm inMcDonaldized settings. Unquestionably, postindu trial organizations are on

44 THE McDONAlDIZATION OF SOCIETY 5 The Past. Present, and Future of McDonaldization 45

the ascent, but McDonaldizcd organizations are also spreading. Modernsociety is sustaining contradictory organizational developments,

Hage and Powers envision a broader change in society as a whole. Theemphasis will be on creative minds, complex selves, and communication3J11?ng who .these characteristics. They argue that ((complexifi-cation wIll be the prevailing pattern of social change in postindustrial soci-

»62 Although some aspects of modern sociery arc congruent with thatImage, l\1cDonaldizarion demands uncreative minds, simple selves and min-imal communication dominated by scripts and rOlltines.emphasizes "simplification," not ucomplexificatiOIl."

]n SUIll, the postindustrial thesis is nor wrong bur is mOrc limiredthan many of its adherents believe. Postindustrialization coexists withMcDonaldization. My view is that both complexification and simplificationwill prevail bnt in different sectors of the economy and the larger society.

Fordism and Post-Fol'dism: Or Is It McDonaldism?

A iss,lIe concerns a number of thinkers, especially those associ-ated WIth MarXism, who claim that iJldustry has undergone a transition

1:;'ordis1l1 to post-Ford ism. FordiSI11 , of course, refers to the .ideas, prin-and systems spawned by Henry Ford and discussed previously.

]'orc!JSIll has a number of characteristics:

. • Mass /Jroduction of homogeneous products. While they offer infi-more variation than Ford's original Model-T, today's auromobiles

remam largely homogeneous, at least by type of automobile. In fact, we. now sec a number of so-called wodd cars, automobiles that are sold withmany of the same cOlllponents in man}' global markets.

•. Inflexible technologies, such as the assembly line. Despite the intro-duction ,of robots to replace human workers and ongoing experi-ments with altermg assembly lines, today's lines look much like they did inHenry Ford's day.

• Standardized work routines, or Tayloris111. The person who putShubcaps all cars does the same task over and over, more or less the sameway each time.

" • to increase productivity, Increases in productivity come £romof scale as well as the deskilling, inrcnsifkatioll, and homoge-

of labor. »63 Economy of scale means simply that larger factoriesproduClllg larger numbers of products can manufacture each individualproduct mare cheaply than small factories producing goods in small numbers.

De-skilling indicates that productivity increases if many workers do jobsrequiring little or no skill (for example, putting hubcaps on cars) rather than,as had been the case in the past, a few workers with great skill doing all thework. Tntensification means that the more demandi.ng and faster the produc-tion process, the greater the productivity. Homogenization of labor denotesthat workers do highly specialized work (putting au hubcaps, for example),making them easily replaceable.

• Market for mass-produced items. Such a market is related tothe homogenization of consumption patterns. In the automobile indllstf}/,Fordism led to a national (now international) market for automobiles inwhich similarly situated people bought similar, if not identical, automobiles.

Although Fordism grew throughout the 20th cenrury, especially in theheavy industry of the United States, it reached its peak and began to declinein the 1970s. The oil crisis of 1973 and the subsequent downturn in theAmerican automobile industry (and the rise of its Japanese counterpart)were primary factors ill the decline of Fordism.

Some argue that the decline oJ Fordism has been accompanied by the riseof post-Fordislll, which has a number of its own distinguishing characteristics:

• Declining interest in mass products and growing interest ill 11'lOre cus-tomized and specialized products. Style and quality are especially valued .Rather than drab and uniform products, people want flashier goods rJ,atare easily distinguishable. 64 Post-Fordisl consumers ate willing to pay morefor distinctive, high-quality products.

• Shorter production runs. The more specialized products demandedin post-Fordist society require smaller and more productive systems. "Hugefactories producing uniform products are replaced by smaller plants turn-ing alit a wide range of products.

• Flexible /Jroduction. In the post-Fordist world, new technologies makeflexible production prOfitable. For example, computerized equiVl11ent thatcan be reprogrammed to produce different products replaces the old, single-function technology. This new ptoduction process is controlled throughmore flexible systems-for example, a mOre flexible form of management.

• More capable workers. Post-Fordist systems require more from work-ers than was required from their predecessors. For example, workers needmore diverse skills and better training to handle the morc demanding, moresophisticated technologies. These new technologies reqllil:e workers whocan handle more respollsibiJjty and operate with greater autonomy.

44 THE McDONAlDIZATION OF SOCIETY 5 The Past. Present, and Future of McDonaldization 45

the ascent, but McDonaldizcd organizations are also spreading. Modernsociety is sustaining contradictory organizational developments,

Hage and Powers envision a broader change in society as a whole. Theemphasis will be on creative minds, complex selves, and communication3J11?ng who .these characteristics. They argue that ((complexifi-cation wIll be the prevailing pattern of social change in postindustrial soci-

»62 Although some aspects of modern sociery arc congruent with thatImage, l\1cDonaldizarion demands uncreative minds, simple selves and min-imal communication dominated by scripts and rOlltines.emphasizes "simplification," not ucomplexificatiOIl."

]n SUIll, the postindustrial thesis is nor wrong bur is mOrc limiredthan many of its adherents believe. Postindustrialization coexists withMcDonaldization. My view is that both complexification and simplificationwill prevail bnt in different sectors of the economy and the larger society.

Fordism and Post-Fol'dism: Or Is It McDonaldism?

A iss,lIe concerns a number of thinkers, especially those associ-ated WIth MarXism, who claim that iJldustry has undergone a transition

1:;'ordis1l1 to post-Ford ism. FordiSI11 , of course, refers to the .ideas, prin-and systems spawned by Henry Ford and discussed previously.

]'orc!JSIll has a number of characteristics:

. • Mass /Jroduction of homogeneous products. While they offer infi-more variation than Ford's original Model-T, today's auromobiles

remam largely homogeneous, at least by type of automobile. In fact, we. now sec a number of so-called wodd cars, automobiles that are sold withmany of the same cOlllponents in man}' global markets.

•. Inflexible technologies, such as the assembly line. Despite the intro-duction ,of robots to replace human workers and ongoing experi-ments with altermg assembly lines, today's lines look much like they did inHenry Ford's day.

• Standardized work routines, or Tayloris111. The person who putShubcaps all cars does the same task over and over, more or less the sameway each time.

" • to increase productivity, Increases in productivity come £romof scale as well as the deskilling, inrcnsifkatioll, and homoge-

of labor. »63 Economy of scale means simply that larger factoriesproduClllg larger numbers of products can manufacture each individualproduct mare cheaply than small factories producing goods in small numbers.

De-skilling indicates that productivity increases if many workers do jobsrequiring little or no skill (for example, putting hubcaps on cars) rather than,as had been the case in the past, a few workers with great skill doing all thework. Tntensification means that the more demandi.ng and faster the produc-tion process, the greater the productivity. Homogenization of labor denotesthat workers do highly specialized work (putting au hubcaps, for example),making them easily replaceable.

• Market for mass-produced items. Such a market is related tothe homogenization of consumption patterns. In the automobile indllstf}/,Fordism led to a national (now international) market for automobiles inwhich similarly situated people bought similar, if not identical, automobiles.

Although Fordism grew throughout the 20th cenrury, especially in theheavy industry of the United States, it reached its peak and began to declinein the 1970s. The oil crisis of 1973 and the subsequent downturn in theAmerican automobile industry (and the rise of its Japanese counterpart)were primary factors ill the decline of Fordism.

Some argue that the decline oJ Fordism has been accompanied by the riseof post-Fordislll, which has a number of its own distinguishing characteristics:

• Declining interest in mass products and growing interest ill 11'lOre cus-tomized and specialized products. Style and quality are especially valued .Rather than drab and uniform products, people want flashier goods rJ,atare easily distinguishable. 64 Post-Fordisl consumers ate willing to pay morefor distinctive, high-quality products.

• Shorter production runs. The more specialized products demandedin post-Fordist society require smaller and more productive systems. "Hugefactories producing uniform products are replaced by smaller plants turn-ing alit a wide range of products.

• Flexible /Jroduction. In the post-Fordist world, new technologies makeflexible production prOfitable. For example, computerized equiVl11ent thatcan be reprogrammed to produce different products replaces the old, single-function technology. This new ptoduction process is controlled throughmore flexible systems-for example, a mOre flexible form of management.

• More capable workers. Post-Fordist systems require more from work-ers than was required from their predecessors. For example, workers needmore diverse skills and better training to handle the morc demanding, moresophisticated technologies. These new technologies reqllil:e workers whocan handle more respollsibiJjty and operate with greater autonomy.

46 THE McDONALDIZATION OF SOCIETY 5 Tile Past Present. and Future ofMcDonaldization 47

• Greater differentiatioll. As post-Fordist workers become more differ-entiated, they come to want more differentiated commodities, lifestyles, andcultutal outlets. In other words, greater differentiation in the workplaceleads to greater differentiation in the society as a whole. The result is morediverse demands from consumers and thus still greater differentiation in theworkplace.

Although these elements of post-Ford ism have emerged in the modernworld, elements of old-style Fordism persist and show 110 signs of disap-pearing. There has been no cleat historical break wjth Fordism; in fact,"McDonaldism," a phenomenon that clearly has many things in commonwith Fordism, is growing at an astounding pace in contemporary society.Among the things McDonaldism shares with Fordism are the following:

• Homogeneous products dominate a McDonaldized world. The Big Mac, theEgg MciVluffin, and Chicken McNuggcrs arc identical from one rime andplace (Q another.

• Technologies such as Burger King's conveyor system, as well as the frenchrry and soft drink machines throughout the fast-food industry, arc as rigidas many of the reclmologies in Henry Ford's assembly-line system.

• The work routines in the fast-food restaurant arc highly standardized. Evenwh;lI' the workers say to customers is routinized.

• The jobs in a fast-food rcsrauram 3rc de-skiIJed; they take little or 110 skill.• The workers afC homogeneolls and interchangeable.• The demands and the act.ions of the customers arc homogenizcd by theneeds of the fMt-food restaum1lt. Don't darc ask for a llot-so-wcll-doncburgcr; what is consumed and how it is consllmed are homogcnized byMcDonaldization.

Fordism is thus alive and well in the modern world, although it hasbeen transformed to a large extent into McDonaldisrn. Furthermore, classicFOtdism-for example, in the fotm of the assembly Une-remains a signifi-cant presence in American indusrry.

Postmodemism: A Radical Break?

The more general theoretical perspective known as Upostl11odernism"65argues that we have entered) or are entering, a new society that represents aradical break with modern society; postmodernity follows and supplantsmodernity. Modern society is thought of as highly rational and rigid, whereaspostmodern soc.iety is seen as less rational, more irrational, and more flexible.To the degree that postmoderniry is seen as a successor to modernity, pos£-modern social theory stands in opposition to the McDonaldization thesis:The idea that irrationality is increasing contradicts the view that there is an

increase.in rarionality. If we have., in fact, entered a new postmodcm era, rhenMcDonaldization would be confronted with a powetful opposing force.

However, less radical postmoderll orientations allow us to see phe-nomena such as McDonald's as having both modern and post1l1odern char-acteristics. li6 Although l\llcDonald's can be associated with postlllodernism,it can also be linked to various phenomena that could be identified withIllodernism (as well as with industrialislll and Fordjsm). McDonald's is inmany ways lTlore like a modern factory than a restauranr. However, it is not3 "sweat shop for its cusromersJ but a hjgh tech factory."67

David Harvey offers a different, but still moderate, postmodernist atgu-men£. Harvey sees great changes in society, but he also sees many continu-ities between modernity and postmodernity. His maior conclusion is that,although "there has certainly been a sea change in tl,e surface appearanceof capitalism since 1973, ... the underlying logic of capitalist accumulationand its crisis tendencies remain the same..,68

Central m Harvey's argument is the idea of time-space compression. Hebelieves that modernism compresses both time and space, speeding the paceof life and shrinking the globe (for example, computers allowing us to sende-mail messages almost instantly to anywhere in the world), and that theprocess has accelerated in the posrmodcrtl era. But earlier epochs in capital-ism have undergone essentially the same process: "\Y/e have., in short, wit-nessed another fierce round in that process of annihilation of space tlll"oughrime that has always lain at the center of capitalism's dynamic. "69 Thus, toHarvey, po [modernity is not discontinuous with modernity; the)' both reflectthe same underlying dynamic.

As an example of space compression within the McDonaldized world,consider that foods once available only in foreign countries or large citiesare now quickly and widely available throughout the United States becauseof the spread of fast-food chains dispensing ltalian, Mexican, or Cajunfood. Similarly, in the realm of time compression, foods that formerly tookhours to prepare can now take seconds in a microwave oven or be pur-chased ill minutes at shops and supermarkets offering pre-prepared foods.

Time-space compression is manifested in many other ways, as well.For example, in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, television (especially CNN andMSN"BC) transported viewers instantaneollsly from one place to anorher-from air raids in Baghdad, to correspondents embedded in military unitsdeep in Iraqi rerritory, to military briefings in Qatar. Viewers learned aboutmany military developments at the same time, perhaps even before, the gen-erals and president of the United States did.

The best-known argument linking modernity and postmodernity ismade by Fredric Jameson.7• Jameson's position is that capitalism (certainlya phenomenon) is now in its «late'" phase, although it co.l1tinucsto dominate today's world. However, it has now spawned a new cultural

46 THE McDONALDIZATION OF SOCIETY 5 Tile Past Present. and Future ofMcDonaldization 47

• Greater differentiatioll. As post-Fordist workers become more differ-entiated, they come to want more differentiated commodities, lifestyles, andcultutal outlets. In other words, greater differentiation in the workplaceleads to greater differentiation in the society as a whole. The result is morediverse demands from consumers and thus still greater differentiation in theworkplace.

Although these elements of post-Ford ism have emerged in the modernworld, elements of old-style Fordism persist and show 110 signs of disap-pearing. There has been no cleat historical break wjth Fordism; in fact,"McDonaldism," a phenomenon that clearly has many things in commonwith Fordism, is growing at an astounding pace in contemporary society.Among the things McDonaldism shares with Fordism are the following:

• Homogeneous products dominate a McDonaldized world. The Big Mac, theEgg MciVluffin, and Chicken McNuggcrs arc identical from one rime andplace (Q another.

• Technologies such as Burger King's conveyor system, as well as the frenchrry and soft drink machines throughout the fast-food industry, arc as rigidas many of the reclmologies in Henry Ford's assembly-line system.

• The work routines in the fast-food restaurant arc highly standardized. Evenwh;lI' the workers say to customers is routinized.

• The jobs in a fast-food rcsrauram 3rc de-skiIJed; they take little or 110 skill.• The workers afC homogeneolls and interchangeable.• The demands and the act.ions of the customers arc homogenizcd by theneeds of the fMt-food restaum1lt. Don't darc ask for a llot-so-wcll-doncburgcr; what is consumed and how it is consllmed are homogcnized byMcDonaldization.

Fordism is thus alive and well in the modern world, although it hasbeen transformed to a large extent into McDonaldisrn. Furthermore, classicFOtdism-for example, in the fotm of the assembly Une-remains a signifi-cant presence in American indusrry.

Postmodemism: A Radical Break?

The more general theoretical perspective known as Upostl11odernism"65argues that we have entered) or are entering, a new society that represents aradical break with modern society; postmodernity follows and supplantsmodernity. Modern society is thought of as highly rational and rigid, whereaspostmodern soc.iety is seen as less rational, more irrational, and more flexible.To the degree that postmoderniry is seen as a successor to modernity, pos£-modern social theory stands in opposition to the McDonaldization thesis:The idea that irrationality is increasing contradicts the view that there is an

increase.in rarionality. If we have., in fact, entered a new postmodcm era, rhenMcDonaldization would be confronted with a powetful opposing force.

However, less radical postmoderll orientations allow us to see phe-nomena such as McDonald's as having both modern and post1l1odern char-acteristics. li6 Although l\llcDonald's can be associated with postlllodernism,it can also be linked to various phenomena that could be identified withIllodernism (as well as with industrialislll and Fordjsm). McDonald's is inmany ways lTlore like a modern factory than a restauranr. However, it is not3 "sweat shop for its cusromersJ but a hjgh tech factory."67

David Harvey offers a different, but still moderate, postmodernist atgu-men£. Harvey sees great changes in society, but he also sees many continu-ities between modernity and postmodernity. His maior conclusion is that,although "there has certainly been a sea change in tl,e surface appearanceof capitalism since 1973, ... the underlying logic of capitalist accumulationand its crisis tendencies remain the same..,68

Central m Harvey's argument is the idea of time-space compression. Hebelieves that modernism compresses both time and space, speeding the paceof life and shrinking the globe (for example, computers allowing us to sende-mail messages almost instantly to anywhere in the world), and that theprocess has accelerated in the posrmodcrtl era. But earlier epochs in capital-ism have undergone essentially the same process: "\Y/e have., in short, wit-nessed another fierce round in that process of annihilation of space tlll"oughrime that has always lain at the center of capitalism's dynamic. "69 Thus, toHarvey, po [modernity is not discontinuous with modernity; the)' both reflectthe same underlying dynamic.

As an example of space compression within the McDonaldized world,consider that foods once available only in foreign countries or large citiesare now quickly and widely available throughout the United States becauseof the spread of fast-food chains dispensing ltalian, Mexican, or Cajunfood. Similarly, in the realm of time compression, foods that formerly tookhours to prepare can now take seconds in a microwave oven or be pur-chased ill minutes at shops and supermarkets offering pre-prepared foods.

Time-space compression is manifested in many other ways, as well.For example, in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, television (especially CNN andMSN"BC) transported viewers instantaneollsly from one place to anorher-from air raids in Baghdad, to correspondents embedded in military unitsdeep in Iraqi rerritory, to military briefings in Qatar. Viewers learned aboutmany military developments at the same time, perhaps even before, the gen-erals and president of the United States did.

The best-known argument linking modernity and postmodernity ismade by Fredric Jameson.7• Jameson's position is that capitalism (certainlya phenomenon) is now in its «late'" phase, although it co.l1tinucsto dominate today's world. However, it has now spawned a new cultural

48 THE McDONALDllAT/ON OF SOCIETY 5 The Past Present and Future of McDonaldization 49

logic-postmodernism. In other words, although the cultural logic may havechanged, the underlying economic trucrure remain continuous with earliermodern form f capitali m. Furthermore, capitali m continues to be up toits old tricks of spawning a cultural system ro help it maintain itself.

The late phase of capitalism involves "a prodigious expansion of capi-ral into hithert uncommodified areas. »7\ Jameson ees thi expan ion asnot only consistent with Marxist theory but a creating an even purer formof capitalism. For Jame on, the key to contemporary capitalism i its multi-national character and the fact that multinational corporations (such asMcDonald's and Ikea) have greatly increased the range of products trans-formed into commoditie . Even ae thetic elements that people usually a so-ciate with culture have been turned inro commodities (an, for exarnple) robe bought and sold in the capitalist marketplace. As a result, extremelydiver e elements make up the new postmodern ulture.

Jame on's image of po tmodern society has five basic elements, each ofwhich can be related ro the McDonaldization of society.

• Association £/Jith late capitalism. Unquestionably, McDonaldiza-tion can be a ociated with earlier forms of capitali m. For exampleMcDonaldization is often purred on by the material imere ts of ownersand investor. But McDonaldization also exemplifie the multinationali mof late capitalism. Many McDonaldized busines es, as pointed Out above,are international, with theiL major growth now taking place in the globalmarketplace ( ee Chapter 8).

• S£/perficiality. The cultural products of postmodern society do notdelve deeply into underlying meanings. A McDonaldized world i charac-terized by such superficiality. People pa thmugh McDonaldized y ternswithout being rouched by them; for example, cu tomer maintain a fleetingand uperficial relation with McDonald' , its employee, and its product..

• Waning of emotion or affect. Clearly, the McDonaldized world i onein which the incere and extreme expre sion of emotion and affect havebeen all but eliminated. At McDonald's, Little or no emotional bond candevelop among customers, employees, manager, and owners. The com-pany trive to eliminate genuine emotion 0 thing can operate a smoothly,as rationally, a possible.

• Loss of historicity. McDonaldized y tems generally lack a sense ofhistOry as well. People find themselves ill setting that either defy attemptto pinpoint them hi toricaLly or that pre ent a pa tiche of many historicalepochs. The best example of the latter is Disney World with its hodgepodgeof past, pre ent, and flltULe worlds. Funhermore visitors to McDonaldized

ttings tend to lack a ense of the pas age of time. In many cases, thedee igner of the y tern intentionally rem ve to time. be texamples are shopping malls and Las Vegas caslllos both of wlllch usu-II lack visible clocks and windows. However, not all aspect of the

world create such timelessness, indicating their continuingmodernity. For those who cllo e to eat in a fa t-food re tau:aot, babeen made important (for example, by ign giving a 20-ml11ute Illmt onthe u e of tables to prevent people from lingering). On the other hand, thedl'ive-through wind w eem part of a timeless web, one link in an unend-ing chain of destinations.

• Reproductive technologies. Jameson argues that, in po tmodernociety, productive technologies such as the automobile lin.e havebeen replaced by reproductive technologie e pecially electrol1lc media suo has the televi ion et and the computer. That i , po tmodern technolog\reproduce over and over that whi h ha been produ ed before. Unlike t.he"exciting" technologies of the indu trial revolution, these new technologlflatten all image and make eaeh indistinguishable from the other. These"implosive" technologie of the postmodern era give birth to very differentculUlral products than the explo ive technologie of the modern era.

Although the McDonaldized systems do make u e of some of the old-fa hioned productive technologie (the as embly line, for example), they aredominated by reproductive technologie . 1n tbe fiL t part of thi chapter Idiscussed how the fast-food restaurants have merely reproduced products,services, and technologies long in existence. What they produce flat-tened featureless product -the McDonald's hamburger and servIces (thecripted interaction with the coullter person). .

McDonaldization fits Jame 00' five characteristics of po tmodern SOCI-ety but perhap only becau e he see po tmodemity as simpl.y a late tage ofmodernity. In part because of this inability to draw a clear llI1e, omears reject the idea of a new, po tmodem society. ays one, "I do not believethat we live in 'New Times,' in a 'po t-industrial and postmodern age' fun-damentally different from tile capitalist mode of pwduction globally domi-nant for the past two cennlLie ."72 . '

Clearly lcDonaldizacion show 00 igns of di appearll1g and bell1greplaced by new, postmodern structures. However, McDonaldized y terndo exhibit many postmodern characteri tic side-by-side with modern ele-ment . Thus we are safe in aying that the McDonaldizing world demon-strate of both modernity and postmoderoity. And conclu i?oclearly indicates that postmodernity does not repre ent a barner to conon-ued McDonaldization.

48 THE McDONALDllAT/ON OF SOCIETY 5 The Past Present and Future of McDonaldization 49

logic-postmodernism. In other words, although the cultural logic may havechanged, the underlying economic trucrure remain continuous with earliermodern form f capitali m. Furthermore, capitali m continues to be up toits old tricks of spawning a cultural system ro help it maintain itself.

The late phase of capitalism involves "a prodigious expansion of capi-ral into hithert uncommodified areas. »7\ Jameson ees thi expan ion asnot only consistent with Marxist theory but a creating an even purer formof capitalism. For Jame on, the key to contemporary capitalism i its multi-national character and the fact that multinational corporations (such asMcDonald's and Ikea) have greatly increased the range of products trans-formed into commoditie . Even ae thetic elements that people usually a so-ciate with culture have been turned inro commodities (an, for exarnple) robe bought and sold in the capitalist marketplace. As a result, extremelydiver e elements make up the new postmodern ulture.

Jame on's image of po tmodern society has five basic elements, each ofwhich can be related ro the McDonaldization of society.

• Association £/Jith late capitalism. Unquestionably, McDonaldiza-tion can be a ociated with earlier forms of capitali m. For exampleMcDonaldization is often purred on by the material imere ts of ownersand investor. But McDonaldization also exemplifie the multinationali mof late capitalism. Many McDonaldized busines es, as pointed Out above,are international, with theiL major growth now taking place in the globalmarketplace ( ee Chapter 8).

• S£/perficiality. The cultural products of postmodern society do notdelve deeply into underlying meanings. A McDonaldized world i charac-terized by such superficiality. People pa thmugh McDonaldized y ternswithout being rouched by them; for example, cu tomer maintain a fleetingand uperficial relation with McDonald' , its employee, and its product..

• Waning of emotion or affect. Clearly, the McDonaldized world i onein which the incere and extreme expre sion of emotion and affect havebeen all but eliminated. At McDonald's, Little or no emotional bond candevelop among customers, employees, manager, and owners. The com-pany trive to eliminate genuine emotion 0 thing can operate a smoothly,as rationally, a possible.

• Loss of historicity. McDonaldized y tems generally lack a sense ofhistOry as well. People find themselves ill setting that either defy attemptto pinpoint them hi toricaLly or that pre ent a pa tiche of many historicalepochs. The best example of the latter is Disney World with its hodgepodgeof past, pre ent, and flltULe worlds. Funhermore visitors to McDonaldized

ttings tend to lack a ense of the pas age of time. In many cases, thedee igner of the y tern intentionally rem ve to time. be texamples are shopping malls and Las Vegas caslllos both of wlllch usu-II lack visible clocks and windows. However, not all aspect of the

world create such timelessness, indicating their continuingmodernity. For those who cllo e to eat in a fa t-food re tau:aot, babeen made important (for example, by ign giving a 20-ml11ute Illmt onthe u e of tables to prevent people from lingering). On the other hand, thedl'ive-through wind w eem part of a timeless web, one link in an unend-ing chain of destinations.

• Reproductive technologies. Jameson argues that, in po tmodernociety, productive technologies such as the automobile lin.e havebeen replaced by reproductive technologie e pecially electrol1lc media suo has the televi ion et and the computer. That i , po tmodern technolog\reproduce over and over that whi h ha been produ ed before. Unlike t.he"exciting" technologies of the indu trial revolution, these new technologlflatten all image and make eaeh indistinguishable from the other. These"implosive" technologie of the postmodern era give birth to very differentculUlral products than the explo ive technologie of the modern era.

Although the McDonaldized systems do make u e of some of the old-fa hioned productive technologie (the as embly line, for example), they aredominated by reproductive technologie . 1n tbe fiL t part of thi chapter Idiscussed how the fast-food restaurants have merely reproduced products,services, and technologies long in existence. What they produce flat-tened featureless product -the McDonald's hamburger and servIces (thecripted interaction with the coullter person). .

McDonaldization fits Jame 00' five characteristics of po tmodern SOCI-ety but perhap only becau e he see po tmodemity as simpl.y a late tage ofmodernity. In part because of this inability to draw a clear llI1e, omears reject the idea of a new, po tmodem society. ays one, "I do not believethat we live in 'New Times,' in a 'po t-industrial and postmodern age' fun-damentally different from tile capitalist mode of pwduction globally domi-nant for the past two cennlLie ."72 . '

Clearly lcDonaldizacion show 00 igns of di appearll1g and bell1greplaced by new, postmodern structures. However, McDonaldized y terndo exhibit many postmodern characteri tic side-by-side with modern ele-ment . Thus we are safe in aying that the McDonaldizing world demon-strate of both modernity and postmoderoity. And conclu i?oclearly indicates that postmodernity does not repre ent a barner to conon-ued McDonaldization.

128 THE McDONALDIZATION OF SOCIETY 5 Comrol 129

CONTROLLING THE PROCESS AND THE PRODUCT

In a society undergoing McDonaJdization, people are the greatest threat ropredictability. Conrrol over people can be enhanced by controlling processes andproducts, but conrrol over processes and products also becomes valued in itself.

Food Produetion, Cooking, and Vending: It Cook.s Itself

In the fast-food industry, companies have lengthy procedure manualsthat exert considerable control over processes and products. For example, asa result of such procednres, Burger King Whoppers are cooked the sameway at all restaurants in the chain, and the same is true for the McDonald'sQuaner Pounders and their garnishes.46

Technologies designed to reduce uncerrainries are also found throughoutthe manufacture of food. For example, the mass manufacruring of bread isnor conrrolled by skilled bakers who lavish love and attenrion on a few loavesof bread at a time. Such skilled bakers cannot produce enough bread ro sup-ply the needs of our society. Furthermore, the bread they do produce can suf-fer from the uncertainties involved in having humans do the work. The breadmay, for example, turn out ro be too brown or roo doughy. To increaseproductivity and eliminate these unpredictabilities, mass producers of breadhave developed an auromated system in wbich, as in all auromated systems,humans playa minimal role rigidly controlled by the technology:

The most advanced bakeries now resemble oil refineries. Flour, water. a score ofaddidves. and huge amounts of yeast, sugar, and water arc mixed into a broththat ferments for an hour. More flour is then added, and the dough is extruded

into pans, allowed {O rise for an hour, then moved through a runnel oven. Theloaves emerge a(rer eighteen minutes, ro be cooled, sliced, and wrapped. of?

In onc food industry after another, production proccsses in whichhumans play little more than planning and maintenance roles have replacedthose dominated by skilled craftspeople. The warehousing and sbipping offood has been similarly automated.

Further along in the food production process, other nonhuman tech-nologies have affected how food is cooked. Technologies such as ovens withtemperature probes "decide" for the cook when food is done. Many ovens,coffecmakers, and other appliances can turn themselves on and off. Theinstructions on all kinds oJ packaged foods dictate precisely how to prepareand cook the food. Premixed products, such as Mrs. Dash, eliminate theneed for the cook to come up with crearive combinations of seasonings.Nissin Foods' Super Boil soup-"the soup that cooks itself!"-has a specialcompartment in rhe bottom of the can. A turn of a key starts a cbemicalreaction that evemually boils the soup." Even cookbooks were designed totake creativity away from the cook and comrol the process of cooking.

Some rather startling technological developments have occurred inthe ways in which animals are raised for food. For instance, "aquacul-ture"" is growing dramatically because of the spiraling desire for seafoodin an increasingly cbolesterol-conscious population.so Instead of the oldinefficiem, unpredictable methods of harvesting fish-a lone angler castinga line or even boats catching tons of fish at a time in huge nets-we nowhave the much more predictable and efficient "farming" of seafood. Morethan 50% of the fresb salmon found in restaurants is now raised in hugesea cages off the coast of Norway. Almost all of the shrimp consumed inthe United States is farmed and imported.

Sea farms offer several advamages. Most generally, aquaculture allowshumans to excrt far greater control over the vagaries that beset fish in theirnatural habitar, thus producing a more predictable supply. Various drugsand chemicals increase predicrability in the amOunt and quality of seafood.Aquaculture also permits a more predictable and efficient harvest becausethe creatures arc confined to a limited space. In addition, geneticists canmanipulate rhem to produce seafood more efficiently. For example, it takesa standard halibut about 10 years ro reach market size, bur a new dwarfvariety can reach the required size in only 3 years. Sea farms also allow forgreater calculability-the greatest number of fish for the least expenditureof time, money, and energy.

Relatively small, famiJy·run farms for raising other animals are beingrapidly replaced by "facrory farms. "51 The first animal to find its way imo thefacrory farm was the chicken. Here is tbe way one observer describes achicken "factory":

128 THE McDONALDIZATION OF SOCIETY 5 Comrol 129

CONTROLLING THE PROCESS AND THE PRODUCT

In a society undergoing McDonaJdization, people are the greatest threat ropredictability. Conrrol over people can be enhanced by controlling processes andproducts, but conrrol over processes and products also becomes valued in itself.

Food Produetion, Cooking, and Vending: It Cook.s Itself

In the fast-food industry, companies have lengthy procedure manualsthat exert considerable control over processes and products. For example, asa result of such procednres, Burger King Whoppers are cooked the sameway at all restaurants in the chain, and the same is true for the McDonald'sQuaner Pounders and their garnishes.46

Technologies designed to reduce uncerrainries are also found throughoutthe manufacture of food. For example, the mass manufacruring of bread isnor conrrolled by skilled bakers who lavish love and attenrion on a few loavesof bread at a time. Such skilled bakers cannot produce enough bread ro sup-ply the needs of our society. Furthermore, the bread they do produce can suf-fer from the uncertainties involved in having humans do the work. The breadmay, for example, turn out ro be too brown or roo doughy. To increaseproductivity and eliminate these unpredictabilities, mass producers of breadhave developed an auromated system in wbich, as in all auromated systems,humans playa minimal role rigidly controlled by the technology:

The most advanced bakeries now resemble oil refineries. Flour, water. a score ofaddidves. and huge amounts of yeast, sugar, and water arc mixed into a broththat ferments for an hour. More flour is then added, and the dough is extruded

into pans, allowed {O rise for an hour, then moved through a runnel oven. Theloaves emerge a(rer eighteen minutes, ro be cooled, sliced, and wrapped. of?

In onc food industry after another, production proccsses in whichhumans play little more than planning and maintenance roles have replacedthose dominated by skilled craftspeople. The warehousing and sbipping offood has been similarly automated.

Further along in the food production process, other nonhuman tech-nologies have affected how food is cooked. Technologies such as ovens withtemperature probes "decide" for the cook when food is done. Many ovens,coffecmakers, and other appliances can turn themselves on and off. Theinstructions on all kinds oJ packaged foods dictate precisely how to prepareand cook the food. Premixed products, such as Mrs. Dash, eliminate theneed for the cook to come up with crearive combinations of seasonings.Nissin Foods' Super Boil soup-"the soup that cooks itself!"-has a specialcompartment in rhe bottom of the can. A turn of a key starts a cbemicalreaction that evemually boils the soup." Even cookbooks were designed totake creativity away from the cook and comrol the process of cooking.

Some rather startling technological developments have occurred inthe ways in which animals are raised for food. For instance, "aquacul-ture"" is growing dramatically because of the spiraling desire for seafoodin an increasingly cbolesterol-conscious population.so Instead of the oldinefficiem, unpredictable methods of harvesting fish-a lone angler castinga line or even boats catching tons of fish at a time in huge nets-we nowhave the much more predictable and efficient "farming" of seafood. Morethan 50% of the fresb salmon found in restaurants is now raised in hugesea cages off the coast of Norway. Almost all of the shrimp consumed inthe United States is farmed and imported.

Sea farms offer several advamages. Most generally, aquaculture allowshumans to excrt far greater control over the vagaries that beset fish in theirnatural habitar, thus producing a more predictable supply. Various drugsand chemicals increase predicrability in the amOunt and quality of seafood.Aquaculture also permits a more predictable and efficient harvest becausethe creatures arc confined to a limited space. In addition, geneticists canmanipulate rhem to produce seafood more efficiently. For example, it takesa standard halibut about 10 years ro reach market size, bur a new dwarfvariety can reach the required size in only 3 years. Sea farms also allow forgreater calculability-the greatest number of fish for the least expenditureof time, money, and energy.

Relatively small, famiJy·run farms for raising other animals are beingrapidly replaced by "facrory farms. "51 The first animal to find its way imo thefacrory farm was the chicken. Here is tbe way one observer describes achicken "factory":

130 THE McDONALDIZATION OF SOCIETY 5 Control 131

A broiler producer today gets a load of "\ 0,000, 50,000, or even morechicks from the hatcheries, and puts them straight into a long, windowless shed.. , . Inside the shed, every aspect of the birds' cnviml1mcnt is controlled to makethem grow faster all less feed. Food and water are fed automatically from hop·pefS suspended frolll the roof. The lighting is adjusted.... Fo.r instance, theremay be bright light twenty-four hours a day for the first week or two) to encoUl'·age the chicks to gain ,"wcightl quickly.Toward the end of the 8· or 9-wcek life of the chicken, there may be as little

as half a square foot of space per chicken-or less than the area of a sheer ofquarto paper for a 31h-pound bird,s2

Among its other advantages, such chickcn farms allow onc person to raisemore than 50,000 chickens.

Raising chickens this way cnsurcs control over all aspects of the busi-ness. For instancc, the cruckens) size and weight is morc predictable than thatof free-ranging chickens. "Harvesting" chickens confined in this way is alsomOre efficient than catching chickens that roam over la[gc areas, However,confining chickens in such crowded quarrel'S creates ullpredicrabilities, suchas violence and even cannibalism. Farmers deal with these irrational "vices"in a variety of ways, such as dimming the lights as chickens approach full sizeand "debeaking" chickens so they cannot harm ettch other.

Some chickens are allowed to mature so they can be used for egg pro-duction, However, they receive much the same treatmen.t as chickens raisedfor food. Hens are viewed as little more than "converting machines" thatrransform raw marerial (feed) into a finished product (eggs). Peter Singerdescribes the technology employed to control egg production:

The cages arc stacked in tiers, with food and water troughs running along therows, filled automatically from a cemral supply. They have sloping wire floors.The slope ... makes it mOre difficult for the birds to stand comforrably, but itcauses the eggs ro roll to the from of the cage where they can easily be collected... landl) in thc more modern plants) carried by conveyor belt to a packingplant.... The excrement drops through I'thc wire floor] and can be allowcd topile up for many mOllths until ir is all removcd in a single operation.-B

Th.is system obviously imposes great control over tbe production of eggs,leading to greater efficiency, to a more predictable supply, and to mOre uni-form quality tban the old chicken coop.

Other animals-pigs, lambs, steers, and calves especially-ate raised sim-ilarly. To pI;cvent calves' muscles from developing, which toughens the veal,they are immediately cOllfined to tiny stalls where they cannot exercise. As theygrow, they may not even be able to turn around. Being kept in stalls also pre-vents the calves from eating grass, which would cause their meat to lose its palecolor; the stalls are kept free of straw, which, if eaten by the calves, would also

darken the meat. "They are fed a totally liquid diet, based on nonfat milkpowder with added vitamins, mine[3ls, and growth-p.romoting drugs," saysPeter Singer in his book Animal Liberation.s'l To make sure the calves take inthe maximum amount of food, thcy are given no water, which forces them tokeep drinking their liquid food. By rigidly controlling the size of the stall andthe diet, veal producers can maximize two quantifiable objectives: the produc-tion of the largest amount of meat in the shortest possible time and the cre-ation of the tenderest, whitest, and therefore most desirable veal.

Employment of a variety of tecbnologies obviously leads to greatercontrol over the process by which animals produce meat, thereby increasingthe efficiency, calculability, and predictability of meat production. In addi-tion, the technologies exert cont.rol over farm workers. Left to their owndevices, ranchers might feed yotlng steers too little or the wrong food Or per-mit them too much exercise. In fact, in the rigidl}' conu"olled factory ranch,human ranch hands (and tbeir unpredictabilitiesl are virtually eliminated.

130 THE McDONALDIZATION OF SOCIETY 5 Control 131

A broiler producer today gets a load of "\ 0,000, 50,000, or even morechicks from the hatcheries, and puts them straight into a long, windowless shed.. , . Inside the shed, every aspect of the birds' cnviml1mcnt is controlled to makethem grow faster all less feed. Food and water are fed automatically from hop·pefS suspended frolll the roof. The lighting is adjusted.... Fo.r instance, theremay be bright light twenty-four hours a day for the first week or two) to encoUl'·age the chicks to gain ,"wcightl quickly.Toward the end of the 8· or 9-wcek life of the chicken, there may be as little

as half a square foot of space per chicken-or less than the area of a sheer ofquarto paper for a 31h-pound bird,s2

Among its other advantages, such chickcn farms allow onc person to raisemore than 50,000 chickens.

Raising chickens this way cnsurcs control over all aspects of the busi-ness. For instancc, the cruckens) size and weight is morc predictable than thatof free-ranging chickens. "Harvesting" chickens confined in this way is alsomOre efficient than catching chickens that roam over la[gc areas, However,confining chickens in such crowded quarrel'S creates ullpredicrabilities, suchas violence and even cannibalism. Farmers deal with these irrational "vices"in a variety of ways, such as dimming the lights as chickens approach full sizeand "debeaking" chickens so they cannot harm ettch other.

Some chickens are allowed to mature so they can be used for egg pro-duction, However, they receive much the same treatmen.t as chickens raisedfor food. Hens are viewed as little more than "converting machines" thatrransform raw marerial (feed) into a finished product (eggs). Peter Singerdescribes the technology employed to control egg production:

The cages arc stacked in tiers, with food and water troughs running along therows, filled automatically from a cemral supply. They have sloping wire floors.The slope ... makes it mOre difficult for the birds to stand comforrably, but itcauses the eggs ro roll to the from of the cage where they can easily be collected... landl) in thc more modern plants) carried by conveyor belt to a packingplant.... The excrement drops through I'thc wire floor] and can be allowcd topile up for many mOllths until ir is all removcd in a single operation.-B

Th.is system obviously imposes great control over tbe production of eggs,leading to greater efficiency, to a more predictable supply, and to mOre uni-form quality tban the old chicken coop.

Other animals-pigs, lambs, steers, and calves especially-ate raised sim-ilarly. To pI;cvent calves' muscles from developing, which toughens the veal,they are immediately cOllfined to tiny stalls where they cannot exercise. As theygrow, they may not even be able to turn around. Being kept in stalls also pre-vents the calves from eating grass, which would cause their meat to lose its palecolor; the stalls are kept free of straw, which, if eaten by the calves, would also

darken the meat. "They are fed a totally liquid diet, based on nonfat milkpowder with added vitamins, mine[3ls, and growth-p.romoting drugs," saysPeter Singer in his book Animal Liberation.s'l To make sure the calves take inthe maximum amount of food, thcy are given no water, which forces them tokeep drinking their liquid food. By rigidly controlling the size of the stall andthe diet, veal producers can maximize two quantifiable objectives: the produc-tion of the largest amount of meat in the shortest possible time and the cre-ation of the tenderest, whitest, and therefore most desirable veal.

Employment of a variety of tecbnologies obviously leads to greatercontrol over the process by which animals produce meat, thereby increasingthe efficiency, calculability, and predictability of meat production. In addi-tion, the technologies exert cont.rol over farm workers. Left to their owndevices, ranchers might feed yotlng steers too little or the wrong food Or per-mit them too much exercise. In fact, in the rigidl}' conu"olled factory ranch,human ranch hands (and tbeir unpredictabilitiesl are virtually eliminated.

Retail Google Eats

Google Shops

Google Eats: A business built on openness What would a restaurant run according to Googlethink look like—other than being decorated in garish primary colors with a neon sign, big balls for seats, and Fruit Loops and M&Ms on every table?

Imagine instead a restaurant—any restaurant—run on openness and data. Say we pick up the menu and see exactly how many people had or-dered each dish. Would that influence our choice? It would help us dis-cover the restaurant’s true specialties (the reason people come here must be the crab cakes) and perhaps make new discoveries (the 400 people who ordered the Hawaiian pizza last month can’t all be wrong . . . can they?).

If a restaurateur were true to Googlethink, she would hunger for more data. Why not survey diners at the end of the meal? ! at sounds frightening—what if they hate the calamari?—but there’s little to fear. If the squid is bad and the chef can hear her customers say so, she’ll 86 it o" the menu and make something better. Everybody wins. She’ll also im-press customers with her eagerness to hear their opinions. !is beats wan-dering around the tables, randomly asking how things are (as a diner, I find it awkward and ungracious to complain; it’s like carping about Grandmother’s cranberry sauce on !anksgiving). Why not just ask the question and give everyone the means to answer? Your worst diner could be your best friend.

!e more layers of data you have, the more you learn, the more useful your advice can be: People who like this also like that. Or here are the

154 What Would Google Do?

popu lar dishes among runners (a proxy for the health-minded) or people who order expensive wines (a proxy for good taste, perhaps).

If you know about your crowd’s taste in wine, why not crowdsource the job of sommelier? Have customers rate and describe every bottle. Show which wines were ordered with which dishes and what made diners happy. If this collection of data were valuable in one restaurant, it would be expo-nentially more valuable across many. !inking openly, why not compile and link information from many establishments so diners can learn which wines go best with many kinds of spicy dishes? If you want to be coura-geous, why not reveal that people who like this restaurant also like that one? Sure, that sends the other guys business—it’s linking to them—but in an open pool of information, they will also send business back. No-body eats at the same place every night (well, there was the time when I went to McDonald’s entirely too often). Even a restaurant can think as a member of a network in a linked information economy.

Networks force specialization. In a linked world, you don’t want to be all things to all people. You want to stand out for what you do best. ! at’s why chef Gordon Ramsey focuses the menus of the restaurants he fixes on his show, Kitchen Nightmares, so they know the business they’re in. Serve your niche instead of the mass. Do what you do best.

Now, as Emeril would say, let’s kick it up a notch: Open- source the restaurant. Put recipes online and invite the public to make suggestions and even to edit them on a wiki. Maybe they’ll suggest more salt. Maybe they’ll go to the trouble of cooking the dish at home, trying variations, and reporting back. In the early days of the web, I worked on the launch of Epicurious .com, the online site for Gourmet and Bon Appétit maga-zines, where I was amazed to see people share their own recipes—there’s the gift economy—and also share their comments and variations on the magazines’ recipes. For example, a Gourmet adaptation of a bakery’s rec-ipe for Mexican chocolate cake brought suggestions to replace the water with espresso (many commenting cooks liked that idea, tried it, and shared their endorsements); double the cinnamon; add Kahlua or rum to the glaze; use cream-cheese frosting instead of the glaze; use neither top-ping but serve it with whipped cream and berries; toast the nuts; substi-tute milk and orange juice for buttermilk; coat the cake pan with cocoa powder (helps with the sticking, you see); and even add cayenne pepper

Jeff Jarvis 155

(pepper?). With these adaptations, you could argue the dish is no longer the same; could be better, could be worse. I’m not suggesting that recipes or menus become ballots; see the preGoogle rule about too many chefs spoiling the broth. It’s the chef, not the public, who will be held to ac-count if the cake is too peppery. So I’ll violate Jarvis’ First Law—I won’t hand over complete control. But why not gather and use the wisdom of the dining room? A good restaurant has people who appreciate and know good food. It should respect their taste and knowledge, the Google way.

People want to create, remix, share, and make their mark. Perhaps a restaurant could be their platform. Maybe it could stage bakeo!s: Try the chef ’s version of the cake and Jane’s—the winner gets on the menu. " e public could suggest dishes they would like the chef to cook: “I had a deli-cious tart at a café in Vienna and I’d kill to have it again here in Boise.” A cook worth her salt would take that as a compliment.

Of course, the best advertisement is a happy customer; this rule is truer with restaurants than with most other businesses. Local restaurants—or national networks of heart-healthy restaurants—can join in relevant con-versations and groups online, not to spam them with advertising but to hear ideas and desires and make them come true. Plenty of food fans are already talking online. "e FoodBlogBlog counts 2,000 blogs and that’s just a start; the U.K. has a Food Bloggers Association; Chowhound.com has outposts all across America. See Chowhound’s What’s My Craving? forum in New York, in which diners ask fellow diners where to fi nd pap-usa (thick, stu!ed tortillas), a proper Indian biriyani, or Korean jajang-myun (noodles with a black soybean paste). If you think of food as the basis of communities—and it is—then you’ll think like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and help them organize. Perhaps diners would like to gather parties and you can provide the forum to help. Your restaurant could be-come the venue for blind dates made on craigslist: get dinner, get drunk, get lucky, get married.

A vibrant online community buzzing around a restaurant will help market it. A social restaurant will soar in search-engine results as diners/ users discuss it and link to its recipes. A transparent restaurant that puts much of itself online—recipes, wine reviews, taste data—will also rise in Google search, especially now that Google is making search more local (tell Google where you live and the next time you search for “pizza” it will

156 What Would Google Do?

give you joints in the neighborhood). If people search for where to have a killer sou!é in the area, the name of a restaurant where diners are dis-cussing said sou!é and its recipe should rise as high as the dish.

A Google- driven restaurant won’t become a computer-run bistro with the algorithmic menu: roborestaurant. "at’s not what Googlethink is about. Instead, these tools enable any business to build a new relationship with customers. Not every customer will want a personal relationship; most will eat and run. Following Wikipedia’s 1 percent rule, it takes only a small proportion of customers to get involved and contribute great value.

Restaurants are even being crowdsourced. Trend-tracker Springwise reported that a restaurant called Instructables, where customers will make all decisions, is launching in Amsterdam. "e Washington Post reported on the creation of an eatery called Elements, whose owners claim it is America’s first crowdsourced restaurant. Its volunteers collaborate on con-cept, design, and logo. "e crowd will share 10 percent of the restaurant’s profits based on the depth of their involvement. As a fan of sizzling burgers and steaming burritos, I am less than enthralled with Elements’ concept: a “sustainable vegetarian/raw foods restaurant” (in the online discussion, there was talk of adding kosher and gluten-free to the mission with round- the-clock breakfast featuring salads and green smoothies). " e owner, says "e Post, is “creating raw food treats such as oat-hemp balls.” I might find a di# erent crowd.

So far, I’ve suggested that restaurants use the internet to turn the spot-light on diners. Googley restaurateurs can also use the web to become stars. Judging by the popularity of kitchen-based reality shows, I think it’s time for chefs to come out from behind the stove. Restaurants have sto-ries, dramas, comedies, and knowledge to share. If I were a chef, I’d blog about my restaurant; my taste, travels, and inspirations; and the trends I see. I’d be blunt and honest. Howard Stern has succeeded on radio and chef Ramsey has succeeded on TV with that formula. So, too, could neighborhood chefs become local stars. I’d make videos teaching people how to cook—remember that the gift economy works both ways. I’d start a cooking club with my most loyal fans—my best customers, my partners—and let them in on discussions if not decisions on the menu and recipes. I might even hand the place over to my community for a night, playing Ramsey in real life and making the restaurant a show. Res-taurants don’t just sell food—cooked atoms. "ey are a platform for the