I have just read the book authored by the sociologist George Ritzer and I tried to absorb as much as possible all the concepts that he tried to bring up. While in the process of reading the book I was taking down notes although I couldn’t capture as much as I wanted to because time is not a leisure I can afford. The best I can do is to take note several terminologies which I believe are rather significant as well as some concepts/ claims by the author that I wish to expound on or re-evaluate.
I am not attempting a comprehensive book review although to some extent maybe that is what I am doing. What I am going to write about is a point by point (randomly selected by virtue of what my mind specifically targeted) analysis of some of the ideas presented/ introduced in the book. Might I remind the reader of this piece that I am merely reacting on impulse and giving way to the free flow of thoughts inside my head which doesn’t necessarily aim to contradict the book although in some instances this may seem the case. I am writing it down for academic purposes (perhaps for future reference). I am reminded by what my Humanities I professor said at our first meeting “Don’t trust the teacher.” This is perhaps why I tend to question (intentionally or unintentionally) every bit of information I get hold of. By the way, as the rule of dialectics goes, a thesis will always beget and spawn off an antithesis. This by far the limit that I can reach, I am not brilliant enough to concoct my own thesis (as Ritzer has done) nor am I learned enough to extrapolate a reliable synthesis.
§ Quotable quote: William Kowinski argues that the mall “was the culmination of all the American dreams, both decent and demented; the fulfillment, the model of the post war paradise.”
§ On Levittown Houses (mass-produced prefabricated houses pioneered by Abraham Levitt and his sons. The company built 17,447 homes which later roofed 75,000 people): It was said in this section (at least from what I infer) that the idea of building uniform houses dehumanizes its residents because the land developers’ only aim is to profit from the large quantity of houses that they would construct to decrease the cost per unit (making it more enticing to low income earners). To a certain degree it strips the individuality and originality accorded to humans; this is claimed to be a form of dehumanization. I don’t fully agree to this. For one, I can see that the author errs in presenting this as a form of dehumanization perhaps because he views it too much from a theoretical point of view. I have had first hand experience in a low cost housing project in Bulacan called DecaHomes. The principle is very much the same; I have seen the entire process in fact how the floors, walls and wirings are prefabricated in an assembly like manner. To this extent maybe it is McDonaldized. I have interacted with the families who have availed of these houses with full knowledge of the uniformity of their residences, and it’s not an issue for them. Having a roof over their heads at the lowest possible cost is much more a priority. Men are entitled to food, clothing and shelter and experiencing these rights are the first steps to the concretizing humanization.
§ It was also mentioned that (fast food) workers are working “numbered hours of robotized actions” and that this is said to be dehumanizing. I believe that no one can bring down a person’s worth or value without his or her consent; it’s just a matter of perspective. People who go into the fast food industry or a kind of work being of similar nature to the former are aware of what they are going into. It is a lucid act that they commit to with full knowledge of the circumstances involved so in essence they do this in good faith. Plus, they are compensated (justly we might assume, unless specified otherwise which makes the case more complicated) for it. In this sense people have a livelihood from which they can obtain an income to pay for their food, clothing and shelter which we can call the experience of humanization. It would be more harassing if in the first place they have no employment from which they can earn a salary that would support the basic survival needs of an urban individual. It maybe true that it is a trade off; one has to undertake a repetitive/ uncreative job in order to afterwards reap the fruits of his labor an live on it; but it doesn’t have to be dehumanizing or idolizing when the person concerned refuses to view it as such.
§ With regards to the aforementioned point, it may be true that flipping burgers repetitively may become boring and would eventually suck out the creative potentialities of the individual performing it. A person will only become mechanical if he succumbs to the idiotizing aspect of his job. I view it as mind over matter; it’s rather surprising that a sociologist overlooked the fact that collectivizing its subjects (or collectively addressing its subjects) would run the risk of oversimplifying situations or deleting alternative but plausible scenarios. For example a worker can rise above the “dehumanizing” quality of his work if he sees the logic behind it. Why flipping burgers in the exact specified process is efficient has a logical/ reasonable origin. In fact a worker can benefit from this if he applies theses basic principles in his life. People would have to agree with me that a McDonaldized system is neatly organized and if this orderly fashion is selectively applied in appropriate aspects of the personal life, solving problems would be easier (it would be in a systematized less chaotic manner). With what I have said, a supporter of the author’s arguments would rebut me by saying that I am guilty of romanticizing the situation. I say, in my defense that romanticizing the situation brings back the innate humanistic side of the argument as opposed to the rigid (to an extent even harsh) depiction or interpretation of this existent reality. I am not totally disregarding or dismissing the whole notion that dehumanization is existent, I am merely saying that sometimes people, in their attempt to capture the essence of a certain concept tend to exaggerate or overemphasize specific matters to the extent that other equally important matters about the subject are neglected/ forgone.
§ From page 41 I quote (parenthesis not included): In a McDonaldized society, people rarely search for the best means to an end on their own (it’s a waste of time). Rather, they rely on previously discovered and institutionalized means. Thus, when people start a new job, they are not expected to figure out for themselves how to do the work most efficiently. Instead they undergo training to teach them what has been discovered over time to be the most efficient way of doing the job. I included this quote because it can be used to substantiate a claim on Schumpeterian profits. Ford pioneered the use of the assembly line and by doing so it amassed great profit. It is the earnings that an innovator would get to compensate for the rigorous and often costly process of research and development. This goes true with McDonalds who continually strives to perfect the process of rationalization to maximize efficiency.
§ In the book, various forms of “conveniences” have been criticized because service-providers have the tendency to quantify almost every aspect of it. The scenarios particularly used to illustrate this claim are the entry of a group of people (presumably a family) to Disneyland or a fast-food drive thru. These have been juxtaposed with how commodities are placed in a kind of conveyor belt that would undergo the “production process”. There may be a superficial similarity but I refuse to subscribe to this limited interpretation of reality. People should not be treated like commodities to be quantified. Aiming to intellectualize things to make them seem scientific is as crass/ crude as treating them as mere commodities. The fun that one can get out of being entertained cannot be objectively quantified nor should it be. In a family for instance, the parents may have spent money (quantifiable) on the different rides (measurable) of an amusement park (rationalized) but the psychological (psychosocial/ emotional) gain by the whole family from is priceless. (ß just like the series of credit card commercials; there are in reality things beyond our “price designation” capacity… no wonder the advertisement sounds so pleasing)
§ In page 55, it was said that the presence of many search engines in the Internet such as Yahoo (and Google) de-skills people. It used to be that before, computer users had to be equipped with certain skills in order for them to navigate the worldwide web. On my part though, this is not much a trade off, in fact the presence of search engines are advantageous to computer users. Knowledge and information are now more accessible than ever. It doesn’t de-skill people but it does the opposite. For one, programmers constantly improve the internet so it means that new knowledge is being put to good news. People who have a degree or specialize on computers upgrade their knowledge and skills by inventing new ways of how the Internet would become faster, more powerful and efficient. On the other hand, ordinary users do not need to hassle themselves with technicalities for them to acquire information/ knowledge that would eventually enhance/ catalyze an advancement of their skills in different fields.
§ From page 71 I quote: Television programming is heavily, if not exclusively determined by quantitative factors. The ratings of a program, not its quality, determines the advertising revenue it is likely to generate and therefore its longevity. In this I decisively agree. I am particularly critical of the popular (I don’t exactly know why) noontime show Wowowee. Its ratings are sky-high yet I do not see it as a show of good quality more so of good taste. The dancers are annoying; they not only degrade themselves but all other women as well. The way they dance and dress is not even wholesome; we can only imagine the impact/ influence the show has on its audience (most especially on the kids). The host, I especially abhor because of his disgusting reputation (note: this is highly subjective) and he doesn’t seem sincere as a host. The way I see it, he finds amusement (from the look of his face) in humiliating people or watching people humiliate themselves in front of him/ national television. He doesn’t look the least bit sympathetic about his fans’ condition (that most of them aren’t exactly rich). No, it’s not about the Ultra stampede although that’s an additional; it’s about the whole mediocre concept of the show. At least in other game shows like Game Ka Na Ba people learn things from watching. The dancers, the host, the nonsensical jingle that’s played over and over and the entire concept (of preying on the masses); it’s just so despicable. George Ritzer has claimed that the quality of television programs are sacrificed for quantity, well I say he should have drawn his example from Philippine primetime. (I am reminded of a painting that I saw in the newspaper once entitled “Kinaka-wowowee”. In the painting there is a contestant with a sad expression and he/she is surrounded by the host and contestants who seem to be ridiculing her. Oh, how it perfectly encapsulates my sentiments! It’s a shame I couldn’t remember the name of the artist.)
§ From page 93: …to overcome the problem of unpredictable appearance and behavior among employees, Disney has developed detailed guidelines about what Disney employees should look like (the “Disney look” and how they should act. Disney has assembled a long list of “dos” and “don’ts” for different kinds of employees. Female “cast members” (a Disney euphemism for its park employees)who are not in costume must not wear jeans, clinging fabrics, athletic shoes, socks of any kind, hoop earrings, bracelets, or more than two necklaces. Female hosts may not use eyeliner or frost their hair; they must use a deodorant or antiperspirant. Mustaches and beards are unacceptable for male hosts. The list goes on and on. …At Busch Gardens, Virginia, “a certain amount of energy is devoted to make sure that smiles are kept in place. There are rules about short hair (for the boys) and no eating, drinking, smoking or straw chewing on duty (for everyone). I know how it feels to be restricted in such a manner (that to a point it seems already abusive). For more than a decade I studied at an exclusive all-girls school and I know how taxing it feels to obey every single rule on the handbook. The soles of our shoes shouldn’t be more than 1 &1/2 inch thick, our socks should be folded twice and shouldn’t go beyond the ankle, the skirt had to be 2 inches below the knees (teachers really literally measure them with yardsticks).We had to wear our IDs all the time. No bracelets, necklaces and dangling earrings are allowed. Our hair accessories are limited to the colors blue, white, black and brown and absolutely no hair color is allowed other than the natural. Our brassieres should only be white or skin-tone because it’s not nice to see fancy colors under a white blouse… plus whole lot more! (The shear agony that our individuality suffered!) But looking back, it wasn’t rigid conformity that learned from it, it was how to be more disciplined. There is a reason why regulations are decreed in the first place. For one, it maintains a certain standard of hygiene that is good for the individual (deodorants are a must). Secondly rules are what are generally acceptable to most people. Sometimes, people tend to be caught up in the latest fashion sense that they tend to be eye-catching and daring. It isn’t exactly professional to wear distracting clothing; neither is it of good etiquette. Also, the customers feel safer when they see “predictable” clothing on workers. The stereotyped clean-cut image that is portrayed puts the customer more at ease. Personally, would you trust your kids to mount on a ride operated by a bearded, tattooed, multiple-body-pierced smoking guy with purple hair color? But of course there is a limit on what employers should “prescribe” to their employees. For instance I don’t really approve of sales ladies wearing short skirts. A professor of mine included this topic in her undergraduate thesis that the human resource department of shopping malls is required to check on the legs of applicants (there should be no unsightly scars, etc). I find this utterly degrading.
§ From page 98: Another form of entertainment that aims to provide no surprises is the package tour, which is as oriented to predictability as it is to efficiency. Tour operators have turned travel into a highly predictable product by creating trips that allow minimal contact with the people, culture and institutions of visited countries. This creates a paradox: people go to considerable expense and effort to go to foreign countries where they have little contact as possible with native cultures. This is a very good point to raise but we also have to remember that not everyone is equipped with“sensitivity” to other cultures. Even social scientist who are supposed to be experts of the field make mistakes; what more ordinary unaware people. Tourists are the ones alien to the land and what if the do something that offends the way of life of the natives? It’s rather unfair if that happens. Though mistakes are unintentional, sometimes moral damage is done.
§ From page 125: Cohen underscores at least three different irrationalities: (1) Rational systems are not less expensive, (2) they force people to do unpaid work, and (3) most important here, they are often inefficient. It might be more efficient to deal with a human teller, either in a bank or at a drive-through window, than to wait in line at the ATM. For the first, I argue that they are cheaper, for the whole economy that is. It is true that the use of sophisticated machines are costly but imagine if individual restaurants were to do their own research and development to find out the most efficient way to run the business and not adopt a “prefabricated rationalized model”. Although the world may benefit from the diversity of possibilities at gaining success, to an extent it’s a foolish waste of money. With regards to adding on to the original value, of course producers will do so for profit. But still, individually producing, say a can of soda is a lot more expensive than buying it from a mass-producer. (Besides if a consumer purchases a commodity it means he agrees to the market price, so what he purchases amounts at the least to the price set by the producer). For the second, I argue people should not be treated like dummies because they are fully capable of doing the work being specified. In the book the unpaid work being pertained to that a customer does, include throwing the trash at the waste receptacles, lining up and the like. This requires a negligible amount of energy. Kung sa Pilipinas, kusa na yang ginagawa. Tamad na ang turing sa mga taong hindi gumagampan sa mga gawaing tulad ng nabanggit. Personally, I don’t really mind cleaning up the mess I made before I leave or lining up when necessary (granted that the workers are doing there job accordingly). I don’t consider it as “unpaid labor”; it’s more like a responsibility so that the society will run in a less chaotic manner. For the third, I say that rationalized systems are efficient although admittedly they have flaws and defects. Monetarily speaking, it saves the economy a lot of money. Plus they are more convenient. If rationalized systems were not efficient, then how come people are still patronizing them? A world without ATMs, efficient? I don’t think so…
§ From page 136: The spread of American and indigenous fast-food causes less and less diversity from one setting to another. In the process, the human craving for new and diverse experiences is being limited, if not progressively destroyed. It is being supplanted by the desire for uniformity and predictability. I don’t believe that the spread of indigenous and mainstream fast food limits diversity. Rather, it even contributes to diversity. Individually these two categories will spawn their own breed. Eventually there will come a point when they will be fused to produce a hybrid which will then spawn its own kind. At one locale, there will be more to choose from, much more when a person goes from place to place. And besides countries, regions, states and islands have their own distinct culture so people need not fear the occurrence of absolute uniformity. Rationalized systems still have varied effects from one place to another; so uniformity or less diversity is a myth or at the very least a false alarm.
Terminologies:
Edutainment
Infotainment (news)
Retailtainment (mall)
McDoctors/ Docs-in-a-box
Unreality industry (example lemon scent detergent but there’s no lemon)
False fraternization (illusion of concern/ commodify emotions)
Tentative pregnancy
Designer deaths/ modern dying
Kevorkianism (Dr. Jack Kevorkian à give back to people control over their death)
Post-humus reproduction (sperm from a dead man)
Bureaucracies/ scientific management/ assembly line
McDonaldization: cultural imperialism vs. transnational phenomenon (monolithic vs. federation of semi-autonomous enterprises)
Kimchi: spicy pickled cabbage
Financescape: movement of megamonies through national turnstiles at blinding speed
Ethnoscape: movement of a large number of people throughout the world through tourism
Cultural homogenization vs. hybridization under globalization)
Glocalization: complex interplay of local and global
Coca-colonization: furor in France during the 1940s on the importation of Coke
Complexification (prevailing pattern in post industrial society) vs. simplification (engendered by McDonaldization = uncreative minds, simple selves, minimal communication)
Modern and post modern: compression of space and time
Sneakerization: customization
From page 181: Fordism has a number of characteristics:
Mass production of homogenous products
Inflexible technologies, such as the assembly line
Standardized work routines or Taylorism
Efforts to increase productivity (economies of scale, deskilling, intensification, homogenization of labor)
Market for mass-produced items
From page 182: Post-Fordism’s distinguishing characteristics:
Declining interest in mass products and growing interest in more customized and specialized products
Shorter production runs
Flexible production
More capable workers
Greater differentiation
From page 186: Five basic elements of a post-modern society
1. Association with capitalism
2. Superficiality
3. Waning of emotion of affect
4. Loss of historicity
5. Reproductive technologies
Quotable quote from page 192: McDonald’s is a symbol of problems such as environmental degradation, dietary dangers, the evils of capitalism, poor working conditions, faltering unionization, neglected children, and the threat of Americanization.
Note: sorry for the grammatical errors in this document, I was in a hurry to finish it