McDonaldization of Society PDF

Theorizing/Resisting McDonaldization: A Multiperspectivist Approach
Douglas Kellner
(http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/kellner.html)
George Ritzer's The McDonaldization of Society has generated an unprecedented number of sales
and scholarly interest, as demonstrated by highly impressive sales figures, new editions of the
book, and the growing critical literature dedicated to the phenomenon of which this book is a
part (see also Alfino, Caputo and Wynard 1998 and Kincheloe and Shelton, forthcoming).
Ritzer's popularization of Max Weber's theory of rationalization and its application to a study of
the processes of McDonaldization presents a concrete example of applied social analysis which
clarifies important developments in the present moment, calling attention to their costs and
benefits, their positive and negative sides. The wide-spread reception -- and the controversy it
has evoked -- suggests that Ritzer has touched upon some vital nerve centers of the
contemporary era which I suggest have to do with discontents over modernity and ambivalent
attitudes toward the rapid transformation of the present for which the term "postmodernity" has
been coined.
The choice of McDonald's restaurants as an example of defining problematical aspects of our
contemporary world is a felicitous one. The phenomenon of "McDonaldization" which Ritzer
elicits from his analysis of McDonald's fast-food restaurants encompasses both production and
consumption, and is applied to a broad scope of economic, political, social, and cultural artifacts
and mechanisms. Ritzer is able to apply his concepts to phenomena ranging from work to leisure,
from food to media, from education to politics. Encompassing such a diverse field of topics and
artifacts exemplifies the sociological moment of illuminating abstraction, of generating a concept
so broad as to conceptually grasp and interpret a wealth of data in a way that theorizes defining
and constitutive features of the present moment. Such a mode of theorizing -- now under attack
by some modes of postmodern theory -- helps us critically view key social dynamics, institutions
and problems, thus exemplifying the major strength of classical social theory.[1]
In this study, I will attempt to illuminate both the strengths and weaknesses of Ritzer's theory of
McDonaldization and will suggest some alternative perspectives. I will first discuss how Ritzer
theorizes McDonaldization, focusing on his mode of social analysis and will argue that Ritzer
fails to adequately explicate its cultural dimensions. Drawing on contemporary cultural studies, I
accordingly add a cultural perspective to Ritzer's analysis and discuss whether McDonaldization
is properly a phenomenon of modernity or postmodernity, and whether it is better grasped by
modern or postmodern theory. I then take on the issue of the standpoint and strategy of critique
of key phenomenona like McDonald's, or McDonaldization, and sketch out some critical
perspectives and strategies of resistance that explicate and supplement Ritzer's normative stance.
My argument is that Ritzer does not adequately distinguish between McDonald's and the
broader phenomenon of McDonaldization, that his taking the infamous fast-food company
McDonald's as the paradigm of McDonaldization skews his analysis negatively, missing the
dialectics of McDonaldization, its positive and negative features. Yet I also want to argue that
Ritzer does not develop an adequate standpoint of critique to evaluate either McDonald's or

McDonaldization and this this problem results from excessive dependence on Weber's theory
and that a multiperspectivist method can overcome these problems. Accordingly, I argue for a
multiperspectivist approach to capture the complexity of McDonald's and McDonaldization so as
to better critically evaluate its multifarious aspects and effects.
McDonaldization, Social Theory, and Cultural Studies
The McDonald's fast-food restaurants certainly provide a useful example of a familiar
sociological artifact that can be analyzed to generate a more general and macro level of
conceptualization. Few artifacts and institutions of the contemporary world are as well-known
and ubiquitous as McDonald's with its Big Macs, Golden Arches, Ronald McDonald's,
promotional tie-ins with popular films and toys, its charities, and saturation advertising. Both the
rationalization of production and consumption in McDonald's is unparalleled in the
contemporary era, and serves as a model for what Ritzer calls the "McDonaldization of society"
defined by increased efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control through substitution of
human labor power with technology, all of which constitute a quantitative and to some alarming
growth of instrumental rationalization.
Ritzer's project combines use of Weber's sociological theory to generalize about McDonald's
with a wealth of empirical data to illustrate and flesh out the points. His research method follows
what Alvin Gouldner called "newspaper sociology" (1976), assembling information and news on
McDonald's through gathering and citing newspaper articles to illustrate his arguments -- as
opposed to historical sociology, ethnography, phenomenology, cultural studies, and so on.[2]
This perspective combines a theoretical optic with empirical illustration to enable the reader to
see how the general theoretical points are embodied in concrete phenomena that can be observed,
confirmed, and discussed.
Ritzer privileges Weber's conception of rationalization to theorize the phenomenon of
McDonaldization which he sees as "coming to dominate more and more sectors of American
society as well as of the rest of the world" (1996, 1). Ritzer extends Weber's analysis to a wealth
of phenomena, demonstrating that the principles of McDonaldization are restructuring a vast
array of fields, ranging from the food, media, education, and health care industries,
encompassing fundamental life processes from birth to death (1996, 161ff). The strength of the
analysis is the light that such strong perspectives shed on general social dynamics and the
mapping of the macro structures of contemporary social organization. The limitation of the
analysis is that the Weberian-inspired perspectives often generate a one-sided and limited optic
that needs to be supplemented, corrected, and expanded by further critical perspectives.
We might, for instance, deploy a Marx/Weber synthesis to theorize McDonaldization as a
combination of instrumental rationalization of production and consumption with a sustained
corporate attempt to increase profit.[3] Indeed, McDonaldization seems to equally involve
commodification and rationalization, to commodify food production and to rationalize its
production and consumption so as to increase profitability. While Ritzer applies the
McDonaldization model to production and consumption, he largely emphasizes consumption and
thus downplays the ways that McDonaldization has revolutionized production -- despite some
references to Taylorism and Fordism (Ritzer 1996, 24-27, passim). Likewise, although he

stresses the role of profit in driving McDonaldization (1996, 44, 62f, 87f, passim), Ritzer could
better contextualize the phenomenon within the framework of a restructuring of capitalism,
aiming at the increase of productivity and profit through rationalization of production and
consumption. For in addition to being part of a rationalization process, McDonaldization is part
of a new global form of technocapitalism in which world markets are being rationalized and
reorganized to maximize capital accumulation.[4]
Equally, while Ritzer's largely sociological analysis illuminates key features of McDonald's fast-
food chains and the applicability of its principles to a variety of other phenomenon is striking, he
neglects the cultural dimensions of the McDonald's phenomenon and in particular the ways in
which the corporation mobilizes advertising campaigns and promotional stunts to create an
experience of fun, of family togetherness, of Americanization itself which is associated with the
McDonald's experience. Thus, when one bites into a Big Mac s/he is consuming the sign values
of good times, communal experience, consumer value and efficiency, as well as the (dubious)
pleasures of the product. McDonald's is not just selling fast-food, but a family adventure of
eating out together, intergenerational bonding, and a communal experience, as their advertising
campaigns reiterate over and over in various ways. Purchasing and ingesting a specific food
product is only one part of this experience, which includes the consumption of sign values such
as inexpensive food, a family outing, Americana, or modernity (see the detailed analyses in
Goldman 1992: 85ff. and Kincheloe 1997: 249ff.).
McDonaldization is thus an ideology as well as a set of social practices, a cultural construct with
its myths, semiotic codes, and discourses. McDonald's itself projects an ideology of the U.S. as a
melting pot in which all citizens participate equally in its democratic pleasures, irregardless of
race, class, gender, and age. It furnishes a model of the United States as a land of consumer
innovation and technical rationality which produces inexpensive and desirable goods for all,
serving its customer's needs and providing a valuable product. McDonald's associates itself with
traditions like the family, national holidays, patriotism, Christian charity, and the icons of media
culture. Going to McDonald's for denizens of the U.S. is thus joining the consumer society,
participating in the national culture, and validating common values.
Ritzer thus underplays the ways that McDonald's is an ideological and cultural phenomenon, as
well as an economic and sociological set of practices. Although he applies his analysis of
McDonaldization to a wide range of cultural phenomena (the media, education, travel, food,
etc.), Ritzer does not really engage the specifically cultural dimension of the operation. In
Weberian terms, he neglects the charisma of the Golden Arches, Ronald McDonald's and
McDonaldland, the tie-ins and promotions, and the ubiquitous advertising, aimed at a variety of
gender, race, class, and national subject positions.[5]
Consuming McDonald's
Ritzer also excessively generalizes his analysis of the homogenization, massification, and
standardization of McDonaldization, neglecting the variety and diversity of consumer practices
in different regions and parts of the world and the various uses to which consumers can put
McDonaldization, using its products and procedures to serve their own needs. British cultural
studies has stressed the importance of analyzing the ways that audiences or consumers create

their own meanings and experience. The McDonald's fast-food chains and other aspects of what
Ritzer calls McDonaldization generate a variety of ways specific pleasures, meanings, and
effects which a micro analysis of particular forms and experiences of McDonaldization can
interrogate. As I suggest below, people in different countries no doubt experience both
McDonald's and McDonaldization in a variety of ways and there are different gender, race, class,
and regional differences in the phenomena of fast-food and societal rationalization that Ritzer
fails to explore in much detail.
By largely privileging Weber's theory of rationalization in his analysis of McDonaldization,
Ritzer thus misses the subjective aspects of the process and the ways that various individuals and
groups deploy McDonaldization to serve their own needs and interests. His privileging of the
category of rationalization is thus too objectivistic and fails to articulate the subjective and
cultural complex of McDonaldization. Indeed, I am not sure that Weber's metaphor of the "iron
cage" that Ritzer suggests, nor the alternative metaphors he proposes of the "velvet" or "rubber"
cage, are the best ways to interrogate the McDonald's phenomenon. In the case of McDonald's --
and many other fast-food emporiums, sites of mass entertainment and consumption, and media
culture --, perhaps something like "the plastic fun house" is more appropriate. Whereas societal
rationalization accurately describes aspects of the socio-economic roots of McDonaldization,
there is a more hedonistic and fun-oriented cultural side that metaphors of a "cage" do not
adequately capture.
It is, for example, unlikely that many McDonald's customers see themselves as trapped in a
cage, although no doubt most of its workers feel enclosed and encaged in their constrictive labor
conditions, as evidenced by their especially high turnover rates (see below). On the cultural side,
McDonaldization hides the conditions of rationalization with a colorful environment, often
decorated with images from current films and icons of popular entertainment to provide a
funhouse experience and to entertain the customer as well as to fill their stomachs. Beneath the
glitzy and kitchsy appearance, inexorable conditions of rationalization (and attempts to maximize
profits) work behind the backs of the customers, masked by the facade of the promised
experience of McDonald's restaurants as providing fun and pleasurable fast eating for a fast-
paced consumer society.
McDonald's Between the Modern and the Postmodern
Rationalization is itself equated with modernization in standard interpretations of Weber, and
one might raise the question of whether McDonaldization is properly interpreted as an
expression of modernity, as Ritzer argues (1996, 148f.), or of postmodernity. Clearly, the
rationalization or industrialization of food production constitutes a rupture with traditional life
(For earlier analyses of the mechanization of agriculture, food, labor, house-cleaning, the objects
of everyday life, and death, see Giedion 1969). As Ritzer argues, following Weber's model,
increased rationalization of everyday life involves ruptures with tradition and the substitution of
new "modern" forms, thus creating tensions between the modern and the premodern. Claims that
we are now leaving modernity behind for a new postmodernity would suggest that we are
leaving modern social and cultural forms like McDonaldization behind in favor of new
postmodern conditions.

Against extreme binary either/or positions which would hold that we are either within modernity
or a new postmodernity, I would argue that we are currently between the modern and the
postmodern, in a borderline space between two cultural and social paradigms (Kellner 1995; Best
and Kellner 1997), and that there are identifiable features of both the modern and the postmodern
involved in McDonaldization. In particular, McDonaldization as a rationalization of production
and consumption is clearly modern in inspiration and form, whereas the proliferation of sign
value in the McDonald's experience through advertising and publicity stunts has postmodern
ramifications, as its consumers enter a quasi-mythical hyperreal world of Americana, family fun,
and good times.[6]
In other words, I would argue that whereas initially McDonaldization was preeminently an
expression of modernity in its mass production and consumption of food, it crossed the
postmodern divide through its phantasmagoric advertising and commodity spectacle, drawing its
customers into a world of simulation, hyperreality, and the implosion of boundaries, especially as
it became globalized and part of postmodern hybridization that synthesizes signs of modernity
with local traditions and culture. Thus, it seems to me a mistake to either insist that
McDonaldization is primarily an expression of modernity or of postmodernity, for it is arguably
both. Indeed, McDonaldization relates not only to both Weber's analysis of rationalization and
Marx's theory of commodification, but also postmodern conceptions are involved in it. Thus,
Baudrillard's investigations of implosion, hyperreality, and simulation, as well as analyses of
postFordist globalization, the hybridization of identity, and semiotic practices that some see as
central to the postmodern condition can usefully be deployed to analyze McDonaldization.
Interpreted from a Baudrillardian postmodern perspective, McDonald's cuisine can be seen as a
simulation of food, since its artificial products, tastes, and pleasures simulate such familiar
products as burgers, fries, and shakes. The products themselves are heavily dependent on
chemical additives and artificial substances for their flavor, texture, and materiality, and can thus
serve as examples of artificially-produced food stuffs. McDonald's products thus constitute a
technological model of fast-food production and consumption reconstituting food itself, using
food technologies to produce novel substances, tastes, and substitutions, and hence anticipating
the artificial technofoods of the future.
The McDonald's experience is a hyperreal one, in which its model of fast-food consumption
replaces the traditional model of home-prepared food with commodified food, which then
becomes a model for food production, replicated through frozen and prepared food and the
spinoff of countless other chain fastfood restaurant businesses. In other words, McDonald's
provides a new hyperreal model of what food and eating are, mediated by its food technologies
and organization of food production and consumption. As suggested earlier, the McDonald's
customer is also made to feel that they are especially virtuous and smart to take out their family,
or to treat themselves or their friends to a fast, inexpensive, and ready-made meal. And the
advertising and promotion enables the McDonald's customer to participate in the hyperreal
ideologies of Americana, family togetherness, and social bonding. McDonald's also implodes
boundaries between tradition and the contemporary, coding their ads with traditional images of
Americana and family ideology, as it undermines family eating practices and redefines diet and
culinary value, familial togetherness, and communal experience.

Ritzer is thus probably mistaken to distance his analysis of McDonaldization from postmodern
theory (1996, 153ff), though he is certainly correct to see and emphasize the links with
modernity and modernization. Ritzer's downgrading of the postmodern elements of
McDonaldization are related to his failure to adequately theorize the cultural dimension of
McDonaldization. And yet Ritzer does see how there is something like a McDonaldization of
culture in the culture industry's rapacious lust for audiences and profits and rationalized cultural
production. Likewise, it is clear that McDonaldization can be linked with globalization,
including its postmodern elements. Part of a postmodern globalized culture is the way that
transnational cultural forms help produce a global culture, but one that is inflected by local
conditions and practices (see the studies in Cvetovitch and Kellner 1996 for examples of the
dialectic between global and local).
McDonald's Between the Global and the Local
There is no doubt that McDonaldization is spreading as an international phenomenon. As the
London Economist notes, "McDonald's reported that in 1996 and 1997 they intended to open
around 32,000 new restaurants (compared to 1,787 in 1994 and 2,430 in 1995) of which around
two-thirds would be outside of the USA.... [Whereas] in 1985, some 22% of units were located
overseas accounting for $2.2 billion (20% of total) sales and 18% of operating profit: by 1996
these figures were $14 billion (47% of total)" (xx, 1996). Ritzer is aware of the globalization of
McDonald's and notes how it varies its product, architecture, and atmosphere to local conditions,
but does not adequately analyze the different meanings, social functions, and experiences
McDonald's generates in a variety of local conditions.
For instance, I experienced its varied dynamics myself one night in Taichung, Taiwan, as I
sought a restroom in the midst of the city. While wandering through the space of the local
McDonald's -- a three-story building within a densely populated urban region --, I noticed that
the place was packed with students studying, young people talking, and couples coupling. My
host said that in a crowded city, McDonald's was a good site for study and socializing, and the
locals were taking advantage of this. Obviously, the social purposes and functions were quite
different in Taiwan than in the U.S. which neither encouraged, nor in some cases did they even
allow, hanging out and using the site as a study den, or make-out pit. The point is that
McDonald's, or any global artifact, has very different meanings and functions in different regions
and parts of the world, and a concrete analysis should interrogate local conditions in which
consumers provide their own narratives of their site-specific and particular experiences to
capture the variety and diversity of meanings of the McDonald's effect.
My Taiwanese host told me that it was especially young children who sought the McDonald's
eating experience, demanding of their parents to take them to McDonald's for special treats or
celebrations. For people in non-Western societies, McDonald's seems to signify Western
modernity and to offer alternatives in terms of cuisine and social experience. Yet no doubt it is
also advertising and promotion that helps produce these meanings, providing a postmodern
hyperreal and hybrid consumer experience for denizens of the many corners and crevices of the
globe who consume Western modernity when they ingest a Big Mac. Moreover, McDonald's
adapts to local cultures and cuisines, serving noodle dishes in Asian countries, along with the Big
Macs, and allows local owners to vary the menu according to local tastes. Thus, while on one

level, McDonald's helps standardize and homogenize a global consumer culture, on another level
it brings variety, diversity, and novelty to many parts of the world, thus contributing to the
creation of a hybridized postmodern global popular.
There are consequently both modern and postmodern aspects to the phenomenon of
McDonaldization and the perspectives of both modern and postmodern theory can illuminate the
phenomenon. In analyzing a complex phenomenon like McDonaldization, it is important to focus
on both production and consumption, grasping both the modern dimension of rationalized
production and consumption, and the postmodern cultural dimension of hyperreal and hybridized
consumption. Some of Ritzer's critics focus too exclusively on the domain of consumption,
which often leads them to defend McDonaldization on the grounds that Ritzer overlooks the
variety and diversity of consumer practices and the varied meanings and effects
McDonaldization can have on different types of consumers (see Parker 1998 and Miles 1998).
While there is some validity in this criticism, it overlooks the extent to which McDonaldization
constitutes a standardization and homogenization of production and consumption that is often
highly dehumanizing and degrading to workers and consumers.
Thus, in my reading, McDonaldization is linked to the problematics of global capitalism and the
project of rationalization of the labor process, markets, and consumption to increase capitalist
profitability and power. McDonaldization thus encompasses, from this perspective, both the
forces of instrumental rationality and efficiency and a postmodern realm of hyperreality,
simulation, implosion, and hybridity. While it is perhaps the intensity and the relentlessness of
his application of the Weberian optic that lends Ritzer's analysis both its power and limitations,
other modes of interpreting McDonaldization could be deployed to supplement, complement,
and correct Ritzer's perspectives.
I would thus argue for what I call a multiperspectivist social theory (Best and Kellner 1991 and
1997; Kellner 1995) to engage the phenomenon of McDonaldization and to provide a more
contextual and multidimensional paradigm for analyzing the multiplicity of economic, socio-
political, and cultural aspects of McDonaldization. This requires mobilizing the resources of both
modern and postmodern theory, using both Marx and Weber, and Baudrillard and postmodern
theory, as well as the resources of cultural studies and a critical multiculturalism, to theorize the
full-range of the phenomenon of the global hybridization of McDonaldization, its cultural and
ideological construction, and its complex effects. McDonaldization is a many-sided phenomenon
and the more perspectives that one can bring to its analysis and critique, the better grasp of the
phenomenon one will have and the better one will be able to develop alternative readings and
generate oppositional practices.
Criticizing/Resisting McDonaldization
Ritzer's critics often complain that he is too pessimistic, does not adequately articulate resistance
to McDonaldization, and/or is too totalizing in his criticism (Parker 1998; Rinehart 1998; and
Taylor, Smith and Lyon 1998). While Ritzer adds a list of the positive features of
McDonaldization to the most recent edition of his book (1996, 12f), on the whole his
interpretation is primarily negative, although, as I argue, he fails to develop adequately a critical
standpoint to take on his target. For the most part, Ritzer uses Weber's conception of the

irrationality of rationalization, of the ways that it comes to contradict its own goals, to reprimand
McDonaldization, thus developing an immanent critique of the irrationalities that are produced
by McDonaldization. In this section, by contrast, I will develop a multiperspectivist normative
position to develop a more systematic and contextual critique.
Ritzer's critical optic is similar to some extent to the Frankfurt School critique of mass society
that expands homogenization, standardization, commodification, and instrumental rationality in
such ways that produce a decline of individuality, freedom, and, in Habermas' terminology,
create a colonization of the life world by the social system.[7] These critical perspectives on
modernity and rationalization articulate people's fears of increased conformity, loss of freedom
and diversity, and domination by external societal forces bound up with the evolution of modern
societies. McDonald's encapsulates in a provocative way these concerns and itself can thus serve
as a target for the discontents with modernity and its problematical aspects.
On the whole, it is the merit of Ritzer's study to raise the question of from what standpoint one
can critique a popular phenomenon like McDonald's and how one can justify one's critique
without falling prey to charges of elitism. Ritzer is to be commended for taking on a popular part
of American and now global culture like McDonald's and generating a critical discussion.
Ritzer's critics often accuse him of elitism (Parker 1998; Rinehart 1998; Taylor, Smith and Lyon
1998), but themselves often fall prey to an uncritical populism (Parker 1998; Taylor, Smith and
Lyon 1998), or fail to offer adequate responses or to articulate in more detail how one resists
McDonaldization (Rinehart 1998). Many of Ritzer's critics thus create apologetics and
celebration of the mass culture he criticizes, thereby uncritically replicating a position
increasingly widespread in cultural studies that puts all the weight of praxis and production of
meaning on the side of the subject, thus effectively erasing the problematics of domination,
manipulation, and oppression from critical social theory (see the critique of this position in
Kellner 1995). Such positions put a positive gloss on McDonaldization, mass culture, or
consumerism in which moments of resistance and the construction of meaning are highlighted, as
if these phenomena merely furnished resources to empower individuals and to resist dominant
meanings or practices.
In general, it is a mistake to be overly abstract and one-sided in relation to a complex
phenomenon like McDonaldization, or, for that matter, such things as mass culture,
consumerism, or the consumer society itself. Contemporary positions often are skewed into one-
sided optics that primarily celebrate or denigrate the phenomenon under scrutiny, rather than
providing a more contextual and dialectical approach that evaluates specific phenomena,
articulates negative and/or positive dimensions, and then makes nuanced judgments. Perhaps
Ritzer does not adequately appreciate or valorize the positive features of McDonaldization, but
often his critics do not acknowledge the negative side, and are all too eager to defend mass
culture, consumption, or McDonaldization against Ritzer's often scathing criticisms.
In my own view, Ritzer's book is valuable for provoking a theoretical and practical debate
concerning key novel and defining features of our contemporary world and forcing us to define
our response to crucial aspects of our everyday life. Although many of Ritzer's critics chide him
for being too pessimistic and negative, this dose of critical negativity is salutary in an age of
positive thinking only too eager to embrace and celebrate the joys of consumer capitalism.

Ritzer's analysis of McDonaldization is thus valuable for articulating discontents of critical
individuals with relentless rationalization and accordant standardization, homogenization, and
massification of experience.
Indeed, in response to his many critics who argue that Ritzer is too hard on McDonaldization
and rationalized consumer practices, I would argue that at least his sharp critique of McDonald's
itself is perfectly justified and that there is little good which one can say of this particularly
noxious institution.[8] Yet neither Ritzer himself nor many of his critics always adequately
distinguish between McDonald's and the broader phenomenon of McDonaldization. Failure to
make this differentiation often skews normative judgements and evaluations of the respective
phenomena. In other words, one should distinguish between specific concrete examples of
McDonaldization such as the McDonald's corporation and the more general societal dynamics
associated with rationalization and the application of instrumental rationality to social
phenomena, relations, and institutions.
For instance, I would not hesitate to develop the most sharp negative critique of McDonald's as
a corporation and junk food emporium, while at another level, I would propose a more nuanced
evaluation of McDonaldization as a social phenomenon. In the following analysis, I will
accordingly articulate a multiperspectivist approach to criticize and resist McDonald's and
McDonaldization, offering separate criticisms of these two phenomena. While I draw on Ritzer's
appropriation of Weber's notion of the irrationality of rationalization in my critique, I argue that
it does not provide an adequate standpoint to criticize either McDonald's nor McDonaldization.
Moreover, as my drawing on and expanding specific criticisms made by Ritzer of McDonald's
suggests, he himself contributes aspects of a stronger evaluative position, which he does not,
however, adequately articulate.
The Case Against McDonald's
I want to mobilize a variety of perspectives in this section to criticize the McDonald's
corporation and its product. This process is facilitated by the existence of an extremely
impressive website which furnishes a vast amount of information about McDonald's and offers
ample material for a substantive critique.[9] This site was developed by two British activists who
were sued by McDonald's for distributing leaflets denouncing the corporation's low wages,
advertising practices, involvement in deforestization, harvesting of animals, and promotion of
junk food and an unhealthy diet. The activists counterattacked, organized a McLibel campaign,
assembled a McSpotlight website with a tremendous amount of information criticizing the
corporation, and assembled experts to testify and confirm their criticisms. The five-year civil
trial, Britain's longest ever, ended ambiguously on June 19, 1997, with the Judge defending some
of McDonald's claims against the activists, while substantiating other of their criticisms. The
case created unprecedented bad publicity for McDonald's and was circulated throughout the
world via Internet websites, mailing lists, and discussion groups. The McLibel/McSpotlight
group claims that their website was accessed over twelve million times and the Guardian
reported that the site "claimed to be the most comprehensive source of information on a
multinational corporation ever assembled" and was part of one of the more successful
anticorporate campaigns (February 22, 1996; the website is at: http://www.mcspotlight.org).

Building on material assembled in this site, one can construct a very strong case against
McDonald's. To begin, from a nutritional point of view, I think it is fair to say that McDonald's
food is simply junk -- as indeed the popular term "junk food" denotes. As Ritzer himself notes
(1996, 126ff and 179f), McDonald's food is overly saturated with salt, sugar, and fats, producing
high cholesterol and dubious nutrients. It is standardized and homogenized fare, providing
predictably bland and unexciting taste. As Joel Kovel remarks, the label "junk food" is perfectly
appropriate in light of the fact that nutritional experts almost universally agree that the kind of
food sold by McDonald's is bad for you. With 28 grams of fat, 12.6 of which are saturated, in a
Big Mac, and 22 more grams in an order of French fries, along with 52 additives being used in
its various food products, it is scarcely surprising that an internal company memorandum would
state that: "we can't really address or defend nutrition. We don't sell nutrition and people don't
come to McDonald's for nutrition." When the company's cancer expert, Dr. Sydney Arnott, was
asked his opinion of the statement that "a diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt and low
in fibre, vitamins and minerals is linked with cancer of the breast and bowl and heart disease," he
replied: "If it is being directed to the public then I would say it is a very reasonable thing to say."
Although the McDonald's corporation defends their products as forming part of an overall
"balanced diet," Professor Michael Crawford, a consultant to the World Health Organization,
testified at a public hearing: "Not only are McDonald's encouraging the use of a style of food
which is closely associated with risk of cancer and heart disease, whilst health professionals are
trying to reduce the risks to Western populations, but they are actively promoting the same
cultures where at present these diseases are not a problem" (McLibel Support Campaign, 1994).
In addition, in relation to the challenge of more health-conscious parents seeking better diets for
their children, McDonald's is now targeting more advertising at children, aggressively using tie-
ins with popular films and pop culture artifacts, their Ronald McDonald clowns, and heavy
advertising to children in order to attract younger customers who presumably will persuade their
parents to take them to eat at McDonald's.
Moreover, from the perspective of culinary taste, one could argue that McDonald's is regressive,
even in terms of hamburgers and fast-food. I remember going to my first drive-in hamburger
stand in Virginia in the 1950s and discovering the pleasures of a juicy cheeseburger with all the
trimmings, a thick milk shake, and crunchy french fries. I remember the introduction of
McDonald's from this same era and how bland and boring its fare was in comparison with the
rich and succulent burgers and shakes from the local hamburger joint. From my current
perspective of concern with health and nutrition, I would not without guilt eat any fatty burger,
but would argue that even within the range of possible burgers McDonald's is among the most
mediocre and over priced. And from the perspective of choosing from the possible range of
health and gourmet foods open to us, I would say that from the standpoints of culinary taste and
nutrition, McDonald's offers an obviously inferior option.
Ritzer uses Weber's theory of rationalization and argues that even from the standpoint of
economic rationality, McDonald's does not provide the value that it promises. He suggests that
there is a tremendous mark-up of profit in the fries, drinks, burgers and other products sold
(1996, 60f.) and the multi-billion dollar profit margin every year would confirm that consumers
are not getting a good value from the product, but are enriching the corporation at their own
expense. This is obviously true and McDonald's decline in sales over the past year may in part be

consumer recognition that they were getting ripped off, that McDonald's did not give good food
value.
In addition, the McDonald's experience in eating is an example of assembly-line consumption
that is hardly conducive to conversation and social interaction, and is thus rarely a quality family
social experience or communal eating experience. The McDonald's goal is to guarantee a ten-
minute eating experience (Love 1986), and the production and consumption operation is geared
to getting customers in and out of the restaurant as quickly as possible. As a corporation,
McDonald's ads which celebrate traditional and family values, as well as good value, are thus
highly misleading and as Ritzer points out, its practices often contradict the imperatives of value,
efficiency, and wholesomeness that its ads and corporate propaganda proclaim (1996, 121ff).
From the standpoint of the production and consumption of food, McDonaldization articulates
the tendencies toward conformity and massification noted by social theorists of the 1950s. The
whole McDonald's experience forces one into the mold of preformed sameness and
homogenization; one orders from a small range of choices and one must fit their taste to the
corporate experience. Whereas standard multipage menus address consumers as individual
subjects, with their own complex likes and taste, in which one can privately contemplate the
range of choices, the McDonald marquee illustrates the product in a public space, fitting the
individual into the slot of homogenized consumer subject. McDonaldization in this sense is
essentially a phenomenon of modernization, part and parcel of the mass society with its frenzied
pace and standardized consumption and production.
But McDonald's homogenization of food consumption went so far that it appears now as a
caricature, a joke, the ultimate in kitchiness and trash. From a postmodern perspective that
valorizes difference, otherness, and variety, McDonald's is the paradigm of mass homogeneity,
sameness, and standardization, which erases individuality, specificity, and difference. In this
sense, McDonald's is thus profoundly out of synch with the postmodern turn and if it survives, it
is because of the weight of nostalgia, tradition, and habit that will drive those previous
consumers back to the site of earlier pleasant experiences. McDonald's ads indeed stress the
continuity, stability, and tradition guaranteed by the corporation, with one ad picturing a man
returning to his town after many years away and finding that everything has changed, that much
has disappeared, except for the good old McDonald's, still serving the same fare in the same
place after all these years (see the detailed analysis in Goldman 1992: 97f).
Curiously enough, those who defend McDonald's, who are still attached to it, are nostalgic for
those very institutions of modernity that destroyed tradition. Indeed, the paradox of McDonald's
longevity is that an institution which destroyed tradition (i.e. home cooking, individualized
family restaurants, a balanced and healthy diet) has itself become tradition that accrues nostalgia
and the aura of Americana -- in part the result of McDonald's advertising campaigns. Yet
nostalgia for McDonald's, continuing loyalty to its product and institution is in part the result of
its longevity, of the fact that it has by now accumulated billions of consumers who return to the
site of pleasant remembrances of when one was younger.
Architecturally, the McDonald's environment is a sterile and dehumanizing site of standardized
and banalized design and structure signifying sameness, corporate homogeneity, and artificial

standardized space. As for its workers and conditions of labor, the McDonald's production
mechanism is an extremely blatant and degrading form of low-paid and alienated labor which is
a career dead-end, "minimum wage from cradle to grave," generating extremely high turnover
rates. McDonald's is notorious in resisting unionization and firing workers who try to create a
union. While writing this article, I received the following bulletin concerning workers who
produce products for McDonald's:
Urgent action alert! Disney & McDonald's Linked to $0.06/Hour Sweatshop in
Vietnam
Summary: Seventeen year old women are forced to work 9 to 10 hours a day,
seven days a week, earning as little as six cents an hour in the Keyhinge factory in
Vietnam making the popular giveaway promotional toys, many of which are
Disney characters, for McDonald's Happy Meals. After working a 70 hour week,
some of the teenage women take home a salary of only $4.20! In February, 200
workers fell ill, 25 collapsed and three were hospitalized as a result of chemical
exposure.
Background: Included in the Happy Meals sold at McDonald's are small toys
based on characters from Disney films. According to McDonald's senior vice
president Brad Ball, the Happy Meals characters from the "101 Dalmatians"
movie were the most successful in McDonald's history. Ball adds, "As we embark
on our new global alliance, we anticipate ten great years of unbeatable family fun
as customers enjoy 'the magic of Disney' only at McDonald's" (PR Newswire
Associates, March 19, 1997).
Located in Da Nang City, Vietnam, the Keyhinge Toys Co. Factory employs
approximately 1,000 people, 90 percent of whom are young women 17 to 20
years old.
Overtime is mandatory: shifts of 9 to 10 hours a day, seven days a week. Wage
rates average between six cents and eight cents an hour--well below subsistence
levels. Overcome by fatigue and poor ventilation in late February, 200 women fell
ill, 25 collapsed and three were hospitalized as a result of exposure to acetone.
Acute or prolonged exposure to acetone, a chemical solvent, can cause dizziness,
unconsciousness, damage to the liver and kidneys and chronic eye, nose, throat
and skin irritation. All appeals from local human and labor rights groups continue
to be rejected by Keyhinge management which refuses to improve the ventilation
system in the factory or remedy other unsafe working conditions. Along with
demanding forced overtime, Keyhinge management has not made legally
mandated payments for health insurance coverage for its employees, who now
receive no compensation for injury or sickness. Many of the young women at the
Keyhinge factory making McDonald's/Disney toys earn just 60 cents after a 10
hour shift. The most basic meal in Vietnam--rice, vegetables, and tofu--costs 70
cents. Three meals would cost $2.10. Wages do not even cover 20 per cent of the
daily food and travel costs for a single worker, let alone her family
([e-mail]" [3-May-1997 07:19:40.99]).

In addition, from an environmentalist perspective, McDonald's products are environmentally
degrading and contribute to depreciation of the soil, rain forests, and grain and other resources
that are used to make its beef and dairy products. Moreover, the production of beef in particular
uses territory and resources that could produce more nutritious food and contributes to
environmental pollution from excessive waste products involved in the production of beef. Cattle
require a tremendous amount of resources to produce with a single beefsteak requiring up to
1,200 gallons of water, up to sixteen pounds of soybeans and grain are required to produce one
pound of meat, and cow manure is a major source of pollution (see Rifkin 1992). Whereas
McDonald's initially denied that it imported beef from rain forest areas like Costa Rica and
Brazil that were threatened by excessive deforestation, subsequent legal procedures revealed that
McDonald's did receive supplies of meat from these areas (McLibel Support Campaign, 1994
and www.mcspotlight.org). Thus, while McDonald's made concessions to environmental
concerns -- under intense public pressure -- to substitute more biodegradable products for their
previously non-biodegradable styrofoam cups and other packaging materials, on the whole its
products and practices are environmentally harmful.[10]
Thus, I would strongly support Ritzer's concluding call for what amounts to a boycott of
McDonald's in the interests of good health, quality eating experience, environmental concerns,
and socio-political concerns with McDonald's labor practices and corporate policies. To critics
who argue that such condemnation negates the popular pleasures of members of socio-economic
groups other than one's own, I would argue that there are a variety of objective reasons devolving
around health, environment, economics, and politics that would justify critique of McDonald's
and resistance to its products.
Evaluating McDonaldization
The phenomenon of McDonaldization, however, interpreted as a set of processes geared at
increasing efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control is more complex and ambiguous.
There are times when one wants what Ritzer calls McDonaldization, when efficiency and various
modes of instrumental rationality are particularly beneficial and when one desires to avoid their
opposite. Rationalization/McDonaldization of labor might serve to deskill labor and oppress the
work force as Braverman (1974) and Ritzer remind us, but this same procedure might free
workers from dehumanizing and alienating labor that is better done by machines and automation.
Likewise, there are some products and services that one wants to be as rationalized, predictable,
and instrumental as possible, such as safe and efficient air travel and habitable hotels. Ritzer's
celebration of such things as bed-and-breakfast establishments or the older forms of non-
franchised motels could be the site of unpleasant surprises, as well as quirky and pleasing
novelty or more customized service. When travelling, seeking food or shelter in unfamiliar
environments, or utilizing machines and products, one often wants rationalized and predictable
forms of goods and services, while other times one goes for the more novel and unpredictable
experience.
The same dialectical analysis can be applied to Weber's analysis of bureaucracy and
rationalization as Gouldner (1976) and others argue. Whereas bureaucracies can be insensitive to
individual differences and oppressive of particularity, highly rational and legally-articulated rules
and regulations can protect individuals against the excessive power of potentially oppressive

institutions. Although within universities, all students and teachers have suffered from the
oppressive force of bureaucracy, it is often useful to have articulated, calculable, efficient, and
controllable bureaucratic rules, procedures, and practices. Thus, rationalization can promote the
forces of domination and hierarchy, but it can also empower individuals against institutions via
standardized practices and regulations.
In terms of resisting McDonaldization as societal rationalization, one needs to organize
oppositional practices and subcultures that provide alternatives to more rationalized corporate
forms of social and economic organization. Food coops, health food or ethnic restaurants, and
growing and preparing one's own food generates alternatives to the sort of massified and
standardized food that McDonald's offers and in terms of health care, travel, and a variety of
other everyday practices one can often seek or devise alternatives to the corporate mainstream. In
each case, it is a question as to whether the rationalized service and product does or does not
serve individual needs in a socially responsible manner, produce a useful product or service at a
fair price, and proffer a reasonable product in comparison with other alternatives -- and whether,
in specific cases, one enjoys the luxury of choice.
On the whole, one might rationally choose to pursue alternatives to corporate rationalization and
mass-produced goods and services, and to avoid McDonaldization at all costs. On the other hand,
one is sometimes forced to utilize services or products from large McDonaldized corporations if
there are no reasonable alternatives. Ritzer's critique, however, in some ways replicates the
critique of mass society and culture produced by both the left and the right. Such critique
bemoans the increase in the contemporary world of standardized sameness and homogenization,
and the decline of individuality, diversity, and multiple taste cultures. Ritzer also seems to
assume that McDonald's is inexorably and relentlessly homogenizing the world, obliterating
individuality and diversity. While there are undeniably tendencies toward homogenization,
massification, and globalization taking place for which the rubric McDonaldization provides a
partial optic, there is also a proliferation of difference, diversity, variety, and heterogeneity, as
some forms of postmodern theory suggests. And while globalization partially involves the
homogenizing of local culture and differences, it also involves proliferation of difference,
hybridization, and the expansion of consumer and life-style choices -- at least for some
privileged groups and individuals.
Consequently, while Ritzer primarily focuses on the phenomenon from the vantage-point of
Weber's theory of rationalization, I have been arguing for what I call a multiperspectivist social
theory to engage the phenomenon of McDonaldization in terms of theoretical analysis, social
critique, and resistance. While Ritzer's strong Weberian perspective calls attention to and
illuminates key elements of what he calls the McDonaldization of society, I have proposed that
adding other perspectives produces a fuller grasp of the McDonaldization phenomenon, thus
supplementing Ritzer's analysis and critique. Which perspectives one deploys depends on one's
own theoretical and practical projects and the specific contexts and extent of one's inquiry. In
this paper, I have obviously been limited to making a few theoretical and practical proposals
which I hope facilitates critical discussion of the constitution and effects of the present
organization of society.

Concluding Remarks
In sum and to conclude, Ritzer's study is valuable for helping us better understand important
changes in the contemporary world that enable us to practically intervene and shape the social
conditions that circumscribe our everyday experience and to empower us against oppressive
forces. Ritzer's critical analysis calls attention to the dehumanizing and irrational sides of
McDonaldization and forces us to articulate a standpoint of critique and to think of forms of
resistance and alternatives. This involves producing individual and group strategies of resistance,
as well as the production of viable and socially responsible alternatives. Perhaps Rinehart (1998)
is right that Ritzer's approach is too individualistic and fails to articulate collective responses to
McDonaldization, but most of his critics do not themselves spell out specific collective social
alternatives and contestatory practices, projects that would have to be undertaken in any case by
oppositional groups and social movements.
Yet Ritzer challenges us to consider precisely what form of society, values, and practices we
desire. There is no question that McDonaldization is here to stay and that we need to decide how
social rationalization can serve individual and social needs and what sorts of alternatives we need
to McDonaldization. I have suggested that we should simply refuse McDonald's (and other junk
food sites) as a form of culinary practice, that we should exercise Herbert Marcuse's "great
refusal" (1964) and refuse to have anything to do with this highly objectionable form of
assembly-line junk food. The social dynamics of McDonaldization are more complicated to
evaluate, however, and Ritzer leaves us with the challenge to determine which forms of
McDonaldization are positive and beneficial and which are harmful and destructive. It is the
merit of Ritzer's book to force us to reflect upon these issues, and I have argued that thinking
through McDonaldization from a multiperspectivist approach will help us to better understand
the current form of contemporary society and to attempt to conceive of and create a better one.
Notes
1. Ritzer himself defines his project: "As a theoretically based work in social criticism, this book
is part of a historical tradition in the social sciences in which social theory is used to critique
society and thereby to provide the base for its betterment" (1993: xiii). Thus, he situates his
problematic in the tradition of classical social theory.
2. For an ethnographic account of McDonald's which draws on personal experience to analyze
the menu, the line, the order, and the dining, see Shelton 1996. Goldman 1992 and Kincheloe
1996 dissect the ideological and cultural meanings of McDonald's, while there are several
histories that contain a wealth of stories, anecdotes, and lore concerning the origins, history, and
dynamics of McDonald's as a corporate organization, and product of individuals (e.g. Love
1986). Ritzer, by contrast, uses grand theory to map the phenomenon of McDonaldization and
journalistic accounts to document its contemporary manifestations and effects.
3. For examples of the Marx-Weber dialogue and the issues involved, see Antonio and
Glassman 1985. My own take on the connections between Marx, Weber, and critical theory are
contained in his article (Kellner 1985).

4. Offe 1985 and Lash and Urry (1987 and 1994) describe this process as "disorganized
capitalism" while I would stress that capitalism is currently reorganizing itself on global and
what Ritzer describes as McDonaldized lines. See the discussion of globalization in the
introduction to Kellner and Cvetovitch 1996.
5. McDonald's has expanded its target audiences over the years, moving from family-oriented
ads to targeting urban minorities and even GenXers (see Goldman 1992: 89 and Goldman and
Papson 1996: 11f. and 237f.).
6.. Ritzer emphasizes the former, but neglects the hyperreal cultural aspects of the McDonald's
experience in which consumption of sign value is as fundamental as actually consuming the
products in the act of eating. In other words, the McDonald's customer is not only chomping a
burger, but gaining identity as a McDonald's consumer, participating in the communal
experience of family fun or social belonging promised by the McDonald's ads and promotions.
Or, alternatively, many McDonald consumers may identify themselves as thrifty shoppers who
are getting a good value for their money as they consume McDonald products -- a false
conception as I argue later.
7. For my take on the relation between Weber and the Frankfurt School, see Kellner 1985 and
for my views on critical theory, see Kellner 1989a. For Habermas' interpretation of the dialectic
of system and lifeworld, which he relates to Weber's theory, see Habermas 1984 and 1987.
8.. Ritzer himself says that "I bear no particular animus toward McDonald's" (1996: xix), though
I am suggesting that McDonald's itself deserves a negative animus from many possible
perspectives, while McDonaldization itself is more complex and must be judged in its particular
manifestations in specific contexts in order to adequately appraise its effects, as I argue in the
following pages. I also believe that Ritzer derives his predominantly negative evaluation of
McDonaldization by taking McDonald's itself as the primary focus of his analysis.
9. For a more detailed account of the McLibel campaign, see Kovel 1997: 26ff. I might add
parenthetically that computer data bases and especially the World Wide Web supersede the sort
of newspaper sociology that was widespread earlier and that Ritzer put to good use in his study.
It used to be that one way to gather sociological data was through compiling newspaper articles
on one's topic of inquiry. This was a highly specialized and time-consuming mode of research --
that I myself engaged in for years -- requiring access to a large number of newspapers, the ability
to find material in periodic reader's guides, and the patience to search out the articles in question.
Computer data bases simplified this process and I was able to publish my book on the Gulf War
the year after the event itself (Kellner 1992), thanks to the use of Nexis-Lexis data bases, as well
as PeaceNet and alternative sources. This mode of research was even more costly and
specialized, unless one had access to a free University account -- as I did. But now the World
Wide Web makes accessible a tremendous amount of information, collecting newspaper articles,
scholarly studies, and a wealth of other material. This source, of course, generates its own
problems as well (reliability of information, information overload, learning how to access the
most productive sites, etc.), but revolutionizes research and makes it relatively easy to track the
fortunes and vicissitudes of a corporation like McDonald's.

10. The McSpotlight web site notes that despite lipservice to environmental concerns, the actual
impact of McDonald's on the environment is extremely harmful. As Kovel (1997: 30) notes:
"Professor Graham Ashworth (director-general of the Tidy Britain Group sponsored by
McDonald's) had to testify that McDonald's was in the 'top 1 or 2 percent' of all companies
whose products end up as litter, it being estimated that on a given day in the UK, the company
disgorges 7.9 million items as takeout that end up on the street.... When multiplied by the
number of stores in the world, the inhouse garbage is equivalent to over 1 billion pounds of
waste every year."
Works Cited
Alfino, Mark, John S. Caputo and Robin Wynyard, editors (1998). McDonaldization Revisited:
Critical Essay in Consumer Culture. Wesport Conn.: Praeger.
Antonio, Robert J. And Ronald Gassman, editors (1984). The Weber-Marx Dialogue. Lawrence,
Kansas: University of Kansas Press.
Best, Steven and Douglas Kellner (1991). Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations. London
and New York: Macmillan and Guilford Press.
Best Steven and Douglas Kellner (1997). The Postmodern Turn. New York: Guilford Press.
Braverman, Harry (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Cvetkovich, Ann and Douglas Kellner, editors (1997). Articulating the Global and the Local:
Globalization and Cultural Studies. Boulder: Westview.
Giedion, Siegfried (1969 [1948]). Mechanization Takes Command. New York: Norton.
Goldman, Robert (1992). Reading Ads Socially. London and New York: Routledge.
Goldman, Robert and Papson, Stephen (1996). Sign Wars: The Cluttered Landscape of
Advertising. New York: Guilford.
Gouldner, Alvin (1976). The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology. New York: Seabury Books.
Habermas, Jurgen (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume One. Reason and the
Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
______________ (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume Two. Lifeworld and
System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston: Beacon Press.
Kellner, Douglas (1985). "Critical Theory, Max Weber, and the Dialectics of Domination," in A
Weber-Marx Dialogue editors, Robert J. Antonio and Ronald M. Glassman. Lawrence :
University Press of Kansas: 89-116.

_______________ (1989a). Critical Theory, Marxism, and Modernity. Cambridge and
Baltimore. Polity Press and John Hopkins University Press.
______________(1989b). Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond.
Cambridge and Palo Alto: Polity Press and Stanford University Press.
______________ (1992). The Persian Gulf TV War. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press.
______________ (1995). Media Culture. London and New York: Routledge.
Kincheloe, Joe (1997). "McDonald's, Power, and Children: Ronald McDonald (aka Ray Kroc)
Does It All for You," in _Kinderculture. The Corporate Construction of Childhood_, editors,
Shirley Steinberg and Joe Kincheloe. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press: 249-266.
____________ (forthcoming). The Sign of the Burger: Double Takes on McDonald's. Boulder,
CO.: Westview Press.
Kovel, Joel (1997). "Bad News for Fast Food. What's wrong with McDonald's?" Z Magazine
(September): 26-31.
Lash, Scott and John Urry (1987). The End of Organized Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
______________________ (1994). Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.
Love, J.F. (1986). McDonald's: Behind the Arches. New York: Bantam Books.
Marcuse, Herbert (1964). One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press.
McLibel Support Campaign (1994).
Miles (1998) in Alfino, et al.
Offe, Claus (1985). Disorganized Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Parker, Martin "Nostalgia and Mass Culture: McDonaldization and Cultural Elitism" (1998). in
Alfino, et al.
Rifkin, Jeremy (1992). Beyond Beef. The Rise and Fall of Cattle Culture. New York: Plume.
Rinehart, Jane, "It May Be Polar Night of Icy Darkness, But Feminists are Building a Fire,"
(1998) in Alfino, et al.
Ritzer, George (1993; revised edition 1996) The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks,
Ca.: Pine Forge Press.
Shelton, Allen (1995) "Where the Big Mac is King: McDonald's, USA." Taboo, Volume II

(Fall): 138ff.
Smart, Barry, editor (1998) Resisting McDonaldization. London: Sage.
Taylor, Stephen, Sheena Smith, and Phil Lyon (1998) "McDonaldization and Consumer Choice
in the Future: An Illusion or the Next Marketing Revolution?" in Alfino, et al.
Vidal, John (1997). McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial. New York: The New Press.
Watson, James L. (ed) (1998). Golden Arches East: McDonald's in East Asia. Palo Alto,
California: Stanford Univ Press.