The McDonaldization of Society
The critical review of the process of McDonaldization of the society highlights the main challenge that the world could face by embracing the element of rationality. The article describes McDonaldization as the process by which the principles of fast food restaurants, as introduced by McDonalds, have come to dominate all the sectors in the American and global society at large (Ritzer 100). A higher level of efficiency, predictability, calculability, and substituting human labor for technology explain the process. Thus, the article emphasizes the attributes of the McDonaldization model, which are likely to impose a great change in modern life.
While some attributes could be considered positive, a critical review could blame the system on contradiction. In fact, while the features can be appreciated for improving the everyday life of the modern people, a critique notes that the system imposes an equal measure of constraint. For instance, while the fast food restaurants present a quick solution to the hunger needs of millions without wasting much time, high costs and false realities emerge with the rise of living costs and the loss of employment to the mechanization processes. Consequently, as the discussion becomes more controversial, Ritzer recommends objectivity in the thoughts about McDonaldization. The principles apply at the micro and macro levels; no human being could claim to be free from McDonaldization. In fact, the process has had the effect of eradicating the human emotions and traditions and replaced them with rationality.
Accordingly, from a subjective perspective, I find the process more harmful to the traditional human society. The standardization of processes denies the modern civilization the beauty of diversity and increased creativity. Therefore, the discussion recommends the reconstruction of the thought to encourage a higher level of diversity as against the unification of daily processes as encouraged by McDonaldization.
Ritzer, George. “The “McDonaldization” of Society.” Journal of American Culture vol. 6, no.1, 1983, pp. 100-107.