Unwrapping the McDonald's model: An introduction to dynamic social theory

Abstract

George Ritzer's famous McDonaldization thesis describes how principles used by this fast-food chain dominate many sectors of society. First published by the Journal of American Culture in 1983 in the article “The ‘McDonaldization’ of Society,” the thesis developed Max Weber's argument that bureaucracy and capitalism trap people in an “iron cage” (stahlhartes Gehäuse) of rationality. Ritzer showed how Max Weber's characteristics of rationalized systems—efficiency, predictability, calculability, the substitution of non-human for human technology, and control over uncertainty—are used in many areas of society, including the “predictability and uniformity of work on the “academic assembly line” (Ritzer, 1998, 49). Ritzer tells a good story about how corporate rationalization spread across the world, through “such disparate phenomena as fast food restaurants, TV dinners, package tours, industrial robots, plea bargaining, and open-heart surgery on an assembly-line basis” (Ritzer, 1983, 100). He correctly anticipated the beginning of a “process that promises even more extraordinary changes” (100). His 20th anniversary edition predicted the “most likely scenario is the continued expansion of the McDonaldization of society” (Ritzer, 2013, x). And so it proved. Since 1983, McDonald's has grown from fewer than 10,000 outlets to about 40,275 locations in over 100 markets by 2023, while its stock (share) price has risen from US$1.12 ($3.38 in 2023 values) to US$270.00 in March 2023, giving it a market capitalization of almost $200bn as the world's 46th most valuable company (Google Finance)—see Figure 1. However insightful, Ritzer's analysis does not enable people to solve social problems or improve society. If anything, it paralyzes people into believing McDonaldization is an unstoppable behemoth they are powerless to influence. In their controversial book, Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving, Charles Lindblom and David Cohen lamented “the relatively thoughtless wastefulness” of much social research that is “a positive obstruction to social problem solving” (Lindblom & Cohen, 1979, 86). The eminent sociologist Jonathan Turner observed that research “has become increasingly an end in itself without reference to the accumulation of knowledge or to the theoretical cumulation that comes with systematic tests of theories” (Turner, 2001, 10). Five years later, in The Production of Knowledge: The Challenge of Social Science Research, William Starbuck observed that “Hundreds of thousands of talented researchers are producing little of lasting value” because they are focused on producing journal articles rather than knowledge (2006, 5; 142). This futility is compounded by the inability to replicate many social science experiments, and the fact that papers on non-replicable findings are cited more than replicable ones (Serra-Garcia & Gneezy, 2021). The problem is that the “academic assembly line” criticized by Ritzer creates a culture of social science that separates research from social practice, reducing impact (Bastow et al., 2014, 54; 100–4). It does not have to be like this. Social sciences offer many insightful methods and findings to improve society. In How Social Science Got Better Max Grossman says, “social science will play an important part in the human future,” though it “can make no claim from its own studies that its insights will be usefully incorporated into public opinion or governance” (Grossman, 2021, 250-1). For their insights to be used, social scientists need to help people use knowledge better, as advocated by Chris Argyris et al. through “Action Science” (1985). Lindblom and Cohen point out that “Much of the world's work of problem solving is accomplished not through PSI [professional social inquiry] but through ordinary knowledge, through social learning, and through interactive problem solving” (Lindblom & Cohen, 1979, 91). This essay addresses the challenge posed by Ritzer's conclusion— “What is ne