Would you like efficient and productive fries with that?

Sociologist George Ritzer, in his book “The McDonaldization of Society” emulates the excessive amount of rationalization evident in our society and how that amount continues to increase. In order to display this rationalization, Ritzer uses the fast food industry through the term McDonaldization to clarify his thoughts. Before McDonaldization, and rationalization for that matter, society had little control, efficiency, productivity, predictability and organization. Standardization was definitely lacking. However, ever since rationalization came into the picture, systems have become incredibly competent and dynamic with methods to complete tasks in a much smaller window of time. As far as the fast food industry, for example, employees are given a very specific task to focus on. Their only goal is to complete that task in a quick manner. With this strategy, fast food restaurants do not require much multitasking, therefore, ensuring a much faster turnaround between each order. The technology in our society also plays a key role in allowing systems to become much more efficient and organized. Duties requiring humans in the past can now be completed by a machine. Through McDonaldization, companies soon become obsessed with calculability and quantity of food instead of its quality. Ritzer’s main theme in this article surrounded the idea of bureaucracy, which identifies all the key components of rationalization – rules and regulation.

After reading this article as well as discussing the idea of McDonaldization of my sociology class, I definitely agree that our society is being much more rationalized and systemized. If you think about it, the majority of us go by a set schedule every day. This dehumanization is most definitely depicted in the fast food industry. So many individuals are always on-the-go, creating the perfect opportunity to fall into the trap of constantly grabbing fast food on-the-go. I know, personally, my family hardly every eats home-cooked meals as a family anymore. Everyone runs on such a rationalized schedule, it is hard to make time for a sit-down meal. On the contrary, my sociology course has discussed the idea of de-rationalization. However, I still see McDonaldization as having a bigger impact on our society – it is what we are used to. And we all know how much Americans hate change. In my opinion, I definitely do not see a decrease in rationalization in the future, but I do see its rapid increase certainly slowing down.

• What is your opinion of Ritzer’s idea of McDonaldization? Good for society? Harmful?
• Do you think task completion in our society is slowly turning into robotic?
• How can we individually help decrease this rationalization?
• Do you think McDonaldization is going to slow down?

Why are Pollan, Goodall, and Nestle not fat?

Julie Guthman, in her article, Can’t Stomach It, presents a unique perspective regarding ‘one of the greatest public health threats of our times’ – obesity. Many overweight individuals are obsessed with ways to be thin and beautiful. This obsession results in an incredibly profitable industry where product and services such as plastic surgery are certainly successful. While most of society turns to this industry to ‘get skinnier’, authors such as Pollan, Goodall, and Nestle approach the obesity dilemma in the fact that the horrible eating habits of individuals are the reasoning for gaining weight. On the contrary, most writers reflect on fat growing culprits such as television viewing, long drive-to-work times, supermarket product placement, working mothers as well as poverty.

“Pollan is much more pointed in his analysis. As he puts it, ‘All these explanations are true, as far as they go. But it pays to go a little further, to search for the cause behind the causes…When food is abundant and cheap, people will eat more of it and get fat” (76). This sums up Pollan’s views on the matter of obesity perfectly. Before critiquing Pollan’s work, Guthman makes sure to objectively present his arguments. She then begins to question Pollan on why isn’t the entire society then overweight. Food is abundant and cheap for all individuals, but not all indulge in this phenomenon. Pollan, Goodall, and Nestle are thin and able to resist overindulgence. As a result, these authors, especially Pollan, choose to look down upon the overweight. One example Guthman’s text gives is that in the film “Super Size Me”, obese people are often left anonymous and only shown from neck down. On the other hand, skinny Americans are not hidden at all. Pollan creates a shameful vision of fat people while never mentioning the struggles some may be experiencing in order to eat healthy such as the high prices of healthier foods and knowledge of good eating habits.

I was personally very surprised concerning the information I learned from Can’t Stomach It. I have seen “Super Size Me” twice and I have never questioned why the obese individuals were never revealed. I also never recognized how much Pollan ranks himself above those suffering from obesity. I have always thought that the reason obese people couldn’t eat healthier was because of the incredibly difficult ability to change their eating habits. However, I am now much more aware that most fat people are not financially capable of changing their ways of eating. Pollan simply claims that these people have no self-control, portraying his own average weight as being superior to those with obesity. I am disappointed that I continued to support Pollan’s views without even looking at the contrary side.

·         Were you previously swayed by Pollan’s biased views against obesity before reading this?

·         Can you think of anything society can do to better balance this division between upper-class normal weight individuals and lower-income obese individuals?

·         Do you think our country will ever be able to offer healthier foods at a cheaper price in order to downsize the obesity epidemic?

Guthman, Julie. "Can't Stomach It: Why Michael Pollan et al. Made Me Want to Eat Cheetos".

Gastronomica. 2007. 

Stop Being So Lazy America

Sidney Mintz, in his writing of “Eating American” could not be said more perfectly. Though many Americans do not want to believe in many statements Mintz makes, it is the unfortunate truth. The writing begins with a discussion of how Americans do not come from one background or specific culture. Groups of individuals enjoy different cuisines. For example, while some enjoy Chinese food, others constantly consume Mexican food. One reasoning for this diverse cuisine is due to the enormous amount of immigrated people within America. This creates a problem when America tries to classify their own cuisine. Many think immediately of fast-food restaurants when they hear ‘American food’. “Eating American” presents the commonly discussed dilemma of Americans choosing to eat out way too often. If they are going out to eat, they are getting food delivered or ordering take-out. Overall, this is assuming that Americans ‘do not have the time’ to make home-cooked meals. Their worlds are too busy to take the time to create a healthier food choice option. This is the excuse the majority of America uses when confronted with why they eat out so much. Mintz makes the intelligent conclusion that if these lazy individuals spent more time concerned with their food consumption instead of completely indulged in electronics and more many less valuable activities than maybe American cuisine would not have such an unhealthy reputation.

After reading this writing of Mintz, I am much more aware that America does not have its own personal cuisine. Instead, Americans feed off the cuisines of other cultures. I found this writing to illustrate my beliefs in America’s eating habits almost to a tee. I am certainly not implying that I do not fall guilty of this laziness. I am fully aware of my bad fast-food eating habits as well as my immense time spent watching television and on the computer. However, as we have said multiple times, I, along with the rest of America, will not be able to switch this laziness off automatically. As long as we make the conscious decision to begin to consider our food options more carefully than we are on a good track. One example of this would be for a family to start having a home-cooked meal at least twice a week. Each person has their own unique starting place in order to make this transition successful. Nonetheless, this transition from lazy, constant fast-food eating would also directly and positively affect the high risk Americans have come to obtaining diabetes.

·         Would you be willing to give up some of your time spent with electronics in order to cook more home-cooked meals?

·         Do you agree in the case that America does not have its own cuisine and that it feeds off other cultures?

·         How can Americans individually choose better eating habits? How about as a nation in whole?