McDonalds and Coke: Globalization and the Creation of Culture - Research Paper Example

McDonald’s and Coke: Globalization and the Creation of Culture In Jihad vs. McWorld, Benjamin Barber writes, “McDonald’s in Moscow and Coke in China will do more to create a global culture than military colonization ever could” (Barber in Ritzer, 2002, p.195). In the present age of globalization, such a statement offers a different insight into the nature and phenomenon of a so-called globalized culture. In this paper, the author examines the significance of forces such as consumerism and the accompanying symbolisms in the encroachment of a global culture. Towards the end of the paper, the author offers a modest critique of what is referred to by sociologists such as George Ritzer, as the “McDonaldization” of society. McDonald’s, Coke, and Colonization McDonald’s and Coke are just two names that carry highly significant meanings, meanings that are borne out of signs and images attached to them. In a sense, they serve as very potent means and instruments of globalization, precisely because of the power that they wield in terms of sharing positive symbols. Notice how, in the process of marketing their products, McDonald’s and Coca-Cola both portray a kind of lifestyle that is characterized by a very uplifting picture: people coming together, having fun, enjoying each other’s company over a burger or a coke. Coca-Cola, in particular, endorses a kind of “unity through Coke” campaign wherein people of various nationalities and races are shown to be united in their thirst for the beverage. This is just as true of McDonald’s. In its spread to other countries, McDonald’s became modified to suit that locality’s tastes. Whether done on purpose or not, this localization process has the consequence of turning the foreign into something local. This element of localization adds to the wide acceptance of the fast food chain in various parts of the world, and it likewise makes it a cultural force to be reckoned with. If this is to be seen as a colonizing power, then it is a very discreet, internal, and efficient one. Because the encroachment occurs in a manner that is portrayed as a very acceptable picture, its spread does not encounter much resistance. In fact, the opening of a McDonald’s branch is sometimes seen as a monumental event itself, as with the fairly recent market launch of Coca-Cola’s “Coke Zero”. In talking about what he refers to as the “McWorld” or the “Globalization of Politics”, Barber writes: Four imperatives make up the dynamic of the McWorld: a market imperative, a resource imperative, an information-technology imperative, and an ecological imperative. By shrinking the world and diminishing the salience of national borders, these imperatives have in combination achieved a considerable victory over factiousness and particularism, and not least of all over their most virulent form – nationalism (p.192). The sense of individualistic localities is slowly being erased in the wake of a globalization of culture. Looking closely at the system of signs attached to the “Golden Arches”, it can be seen that what McDonald’s offers is not simply a combo meal of burger and fries, but something far from it. It is a signifier of a whole set of imperatives, as Barber calls them. McDonald’s contains a culture of its own, a system that is far more efficient in creating a productive culture than military means. In contrast, military colonization is a forceful and often straightforward enterprise. In the context of the balance of power, it is a head-on approach that necessarily invites both open and subdued resistance. This is not a very efficient deployment of power, for as Michel Foucault says: If power were never anything but repressive, if it never did anything but say no, do you really think one would be brought to obey it? What makes power hold good, what makes it accepted, is simply the fact that it doesn’t only weigh on us as a force that says no, but that it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse. It needs to be considered as a productive network which runs through the whole social body, much more than as a negative instance whose function is repression (Foucault in Rabinow, 1984, p.61). In other words, globalization through military conquest is not very effective because it does not conquer overtly; instead, it creates undercurrents of resistance, even if the colonization is successful on the surface. Morgenthau (1948) states that there are basically two patterns by which the struggle for power on the international scene can be carried out: the pattern of Direct Opposition, and the Pattern of Competition (pp.166-171). While this is true not only for a state’s deployment and use of military forces, it is here argued that these patterns in the interplay of power networks are often not as economical as the internal, localizing process that McDonald’s and Coca-Cola have utilized. The concept of military globalization invites resistance from the local points of conquest themselves. “Military globalization can be conceived very crudely as a process which embodies the growing extensity and intensity of military relations among the political units of the world system” (Held, et al, 1999, p.88). This includes foreign military presence that translates into a general feeling of encroachment on the part of the locals. It is rather difficult to conceive of a way to transform this foreign element into something local. There is, in other words, the question of how to “localize” military arms and procedures. Consider on the other hand, McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, while symbolizing capitalism politically, invite lesser resistance precisely because they represent the things that people all over the world generally strive for: contentment, happiness, sharing, etc. it is fairly easy for these to pass over into localized forms of presentation and taste. Thus, it has a very effective manner of influencing cultures. One can imagine a whole generation born with the presence of a local McDonald’s. This entire generation will grow up without ever feeling that McDonald’s was a foreign import, or that there was a time when Coke was not a commonplace beverage for the entire family. Localization of the Global and Globalization of the Local One of the facets of globalization is the migration of forces from one locale to another. This fact is significant in terms of how such transfers ultimately affect the culture of the recipient locale, and how that locale also transforms the migrant culture. This means that the collection of experiences, responses to the world, and general belief system of a people all come into play when establishing a community in a given locality. As a result, there is, in a sense, a creation of a new culture, one that is not necessarily a imposition of one on another, but more of a modification. This process or phenomenon of migration can be understood as a parallel phenomenon in the spreading of McDonald’s as an experience of eating itself. Seen as representing and carrying a whole lifestyle rather than just a menu or a combo meal, McDonald’s is therefore a culture-bearer in the truest sense of the word. Taking into consideration the localization of McDonald’s, it can now be seen how such a fast food chain can have the capacity to be culturally significant. As already noted elsewhere in this paper, it is very easy to adapt the McDonald’s experience to suit the local taste. James Watson writes: Variations on McDonald’s original, American-style menu exist in many parts of the world: Chilled yogurt drinks (ayran) in Turkey, espresso and cold pasta in Italy, teriyaki burgers in Japan (also in Taiwan and Hong Kong), vegetarian burgers in the Netherlands, McSpagetti in the Philippines, McLaks (grilled salmon sandwich) in Norway, frankfurters and beer in Germany, McHuevo (poached egg hamburger) in Uruguay (Watson in Ritz, 2002, p.229). This is what makes the foreign-originated McDonald’s experience a local one, and this is the reason why it is very easy for the recipient locale to accept it. The McDonald’s enterprise has the ability to adapt and thereby make itself both literally and figuratively, palatable to almost any part of the world. But it cannot be denied that it still carries with it the symbol of American capitalism and consumerism. As a result, because of the symbols attached to it, attacks on capitalism and anything Americana tend to be vented on McDonald’s. What is worth noting at this point is that both McDonald’s and Coca-Cola are very powerful icons, that they are seen to embody a particular culture. Now, because of the acceptability of the meanings, associations, and experiences attached to them, it is very easy for these culture-bearers to gain ground in many parts of the world. This conscious spread of McDonald’s in turn symbolizes the current global trend of migration, or in Stephen Castles’ words, a “globalization of migration” (2000, p.10). Language and the Phenomenon of McDonaldization There is an element in globalization that is being given emphasis in various for a, and that is the role of language in the globalization process. Closer examination reveals that perhaps globalization is made possible in the first place through the mediation of a global language. In the case of McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, they serve to function as language themselves. Across the globe, people of various nationalities all have a basic understanding of what a BigMac or an Egg McMuffin is. There is a universal script for employees of McDonald’s, whether one is in Moscow or in Norway, a prescribed mode of behavior that is sought to be standardized and operationalized if McDonald’s is to remain efficient in its operations and services. In other words, the experience itself of eating at a McDonald’s branch while drinking a regular-sized Coke, can be taken as a shared mode of communication, hence, a global language. This means that wherever one goes, the experience of ordering a burger and fries combo meal (along with the interaction inside the place and the performances as a customer) will be predictable understandable. This globally shared collective experience is what this author believes to be constitutive of a globalized language. It might even be argued that culture is created through language. If indeed such is the case, then it simply strengthens Barber’s insight into the power of McDonald’s and Coke to effect cultural transformations. This leads to the question of whether or not the signification McDonald’s and Coca-Cola has a universality to them. Put in another way, could it be the case that the reason behind the rapid acceptance of these institutions is a result of a universal element found in them. It might appear that one can indeed make a case for such a position. One need only to recall the associations made with McDonald’s and Coke, and notice how they serve to function as signs that people, regardless of race, seem to identify with: the importance of warm, family relationships, friendships, small successes, celebrations, intimacy, fun, and so on. Ritzer writes: Eating fast food at McDonald’s has certainly become a “sign” that, among other things, one is in tune with the contemporary lifestyle. There is also a kind of magic or enchantment associated with such food and their settings (2002, p.16). It can be argued that these images and meanings are universally sought and understood. It is difficult to conceive of anybody who is unable to relate to a birthday party with clowns, balloons, party hats, toys, and of course, food. In short, the whole McDonald’s package is a language on its own, and a culture on its own as well, hence the earlier claim that perhaps it is really language that paves the way for culture. This global spread of McDonald’s hints at something more than just the simple spread of an industry or an organization. Rather, it hints at the widespread adoption of certain principles that seem to operate in most developing countries. This is what George Ritzer refers to as the “McDonaldization of society”, that is, the continual adoption by societies of principles of production and modes of consumption that is best modeled by McDonald’s. He goes on to identify these principles as: 1. Efficiency, that is, the best way to provide a type of product or service to the customers; 2. Calculability, referring to the quantitative side of services and products; 3. Predictability, referring to the assurance that there is consistency and standardization of processes, products, and services, regardless of the locality; 4. Control through nonhuman technology, that is, the continual progression into mechanizing the workforce to eliminate unnecessary expenditures in al aspects. Ritzer argues that developing societies are slowly but surely being encroached by this systematizing and rationalizing of institutions, the so-called McDonaldization of societies. This is an important observation, precisely because it serves to underscore the main point of Barber’s statement as regards the capacity of such corporations to effectively create a culture on a global scale. Various sectors of any given society can be demonstrated to follow a type of trend, indeed a McDonaldization in the sense that the principles behind the successful outward ventures of the McDonald’s corporation are subtly implemented and applied. While it is without question that this phenomenon has a number of advantages, such as producing a more efficient workforce, there are likewise some problems. Ritzer himself pointed out the main problem, that in the process of rationalizing society, McDonaldization seems to have the paradoxical result of irrationalizing society. This means that because of the high degree of control in many organizational processes, there is no more need for man to utilize rationality. Hence, the logical end of McDonaldization would be a society whose members do not really know how to think rationally for themselves, since there would in fact be no need to. Critique and Conclusion Insofar as the phenomenon of McDonaldization is concerned, this author poses the question of whether or not Ritzer is unnecessarily positing a new label for the simple phenomenon of institutionalization. Might it not be the case that the principles of efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control are simply facets of the effective deployment of power within institutions? There is no need to label it as “McDonaldization” for the sake of emphasizing McDonald’s as THE model of the efficient institution. There are numerous other institutions that are just as efficient, if not more so, than McDonald’s. The army, the school, the factory, and even the church are very good models of the efficient deployment of power through the utilization of various mechanisms of control. It can be noted that the four principles mentioned are likewise hinged on the notion of a Foucauldian gaze, that is, the efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control of a system all depend in varying degrees, to a disciplinary gaze, without which the system would fail. In sum, there is value in the insight provided by Barber in making sense of how nations are subtly linked, interestingly by something as unassuming as a fast food chain. Bibliography Barber, B. 2002. Jihad vs. McWorld, in McDonaldization: The Reader, ed. George Ritzer, Sage, USA. Castles, S. 2000. Ethnicity and Globalization, Sage, London. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. 1999. Global Transformations, Polity, Cambridge. Kim, Y. 1999. Constructing a Global Identity: The Role of Esperanto, in Constructing World Culture, eds. John Boli & George Thomas, Stanford University, California. Morgenthau, H. 1948. Politics among Nations, Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Ritzer, G. 2002. An Introduction to McDonaldization, in McDonaldization: The Reader, ed. George Ritzer, Sage, USA. - - - - - 2001. Explorations in the Sociology of Consumption, Sage, London. - - - - - 2004. The Globalization of Nothing, Sage, London. Watson, J. 2002. Transnationalism, Localization, and Fast Foods in East Asia, in McDonaldization: The Reader, ed. George Ritzer, Sage, USA. Sheehan, M. 1996. The Balance of Power, Routledge, London. Smart, B. 1999. Resisting McDonaldization, Sage, London. Read More