Integration vs Homogenization

Living in America, it’s difficult to think that there’s any other place: all the movies we watch are American, all of the music we listen to is American and the only people we care about are Americans. Oddly enough, my French roommate tells me it’s very similar where she comes from. Around the world, people watch American shows, listen to American music and rave about American celebrities; the products they buy are American and they all own American flag T-shirts. I ask myself, could this all have happened because of a single burger joint, McDonalds?

            It has been said that McDonalds is the most disgusting, greasiest, least healthy “restaurant” available, and I would completely agree. Why, then, does this chain serve “47 million customers each day in 119 countries” (Simon)? McDonalds’ globalization methods have been praised infinitely and reproduced so many times that we realize it is not the product, but the production that makes it so successful. Corporations such as Starbucks and KFC have made millions by using the McDonald’s method. Every country now has a McDonalds, Starbucks, Haagen-Dazs, Pizza Hut or KFC, or all of the above. However, many civilizations claim that this “McDonaldization” (Ritzer) has been a huge disadvantage to the cultures of the countries and that it “destroy[s] culture and diversity” (Cowen).

         While I understand the logic behind the whole “your culture is taking over ours” idea, I don’t fully agree with it. Sure, a McDonalds in the middle of Athens sort of takes away from the cultural experience and it may demote smaller restaurants at some times, but it also illuminates the tradition of the country as well. For example, when traveling through Barcelona, my friend remarked that she saw a few McDonald’s around and that it only made her think, “Why would I eat that when I could eat authentic Spanish food?” Furthermore, my roommate can go on for hours about how in France, they love to buy from local vendors in spite of the American integration. So, in actuality, it can be argued that the infusion of Western culture on the rest of the world has actually strengthened the pride of the individual diverse cultures.  In the same regard “the very foundations of the West […] are multicultural products, resulting from the international exchange of goods, services, and ideas” (Cowen).  Therefore, the internationalization of “Western” products simply promotes the original, more authentic product.

            Kwame Anthony Appiah, in “Cosmopolitanism”, speaks about the idea of Western infiltration into other parts of the world. For example, he comments on the fact that the French watch American movies and how they “would like to have a significant number of films rooted deeply in French life, which they watch alongside all those American movies” (Appiah). This goes to show that while American culture has indeed been injected into the lives of most other cultures, there is still a sense of nationalism that exists within the people of those countries or villages. They are not abandoning their own culture by buying into others they are simply embracing others. Though there are homogenous aspects running through every civilization, the heterogeneous aspects still exist and thrive.  Appiah notes that because these peoples are constantly “inventing new forms of difference: new hairstyles, new slang, even, from time to time, new religions” that there is no way that “the world’s villages are—or are about to become—anything like the same.

            Personally, I feel that the globalization of products, ideas, and media has not fully changed any one culture. Through my experience, it is the people who decide whether or not traditions and customs remain, not corporations. Furthermore, if small businesses ARE suffering from the “McDonaldization” that is occurring, it is the people’s job to impede that from taking place. As some organizations have invoked, boycotts and strikes against large corporations have made huge differences. For example, the recent “Chick-fil-A anti-gay” campaign brought considerable attention to the corporation. If people were to strike against McDonalds for hindering the small-businesses’ success, there would be a lot of talk and hopefully, some action could be taken. However, I do not believe that these corporations are particularly threatening to smaller enterprises because the two offer completely different experiences: McDonalds and fast-food chains offer sub-par food for a low cost in a timely manner; family-owned restaurants offer unique and delicious food for any range of price in the owner’s own time.  Essentially, I believe that the globalization of businesses is beneficial and is not responsible for any “deculturalization”.