McTheories
and
McFallacies
For any country to merit attention, the
presence of a Mcdonalds is essential
...
By Niaz Alam
Success can have its downside, even for
multinationals. For most companies, whilst size
may make them bigger targets for critics,
success usually means association with
profitable, popular products. However, a
multinational company knows it
is really successful, when its brand name is
appropriated as a derogatory term for processes
far broader than its activities alone. Coca Colanisation, to Disney-fy and McJob have all
entered the language because the companies
concerned are the biggest and most well known
in their fields. To the relief of Pepsi, Warner
Bros. and Burger King, who just as eagerly
strive to be No. 1, critics of globalisation,
cultural imperialism, and low paid service jobs,
are far more likely to take their rivals' names in
vain.
McDonalds has emerged as the opinionmonger's favourite transnational corporation.
Newspapers seize upon any differences, lamb
burgers in India , kosher and halal meat in the
Middle East, between its branches. The
Economist, (whose readers to judge from
adverts must employ nannies to take children
for burgers, themselves being too busy talking
to the likes of Henry Kissinger in business
class) has for ten years used the worldwide
prices of burgers to analyse foreign currency
rates via its Big Mac Index.. Cultural critics
have coined the term McWorld to describe the
'emergence of a universal society with profit as
its ideology, built through the worldwide sale
of instantly recognisable branded
commodities.' The list goes on.
The landmark McLibel case, which took over a
record two years just to hear, arose out of a
leaflet originally published in London by a
small collective in the mid 80s, listing
environmental, political and nutritional
criticisms of the company's operations. Against
all odds, with no legal aid or professional
representation, two of the publishers, David
Morris and Helen Steel valiantly defended
themselves against the company's legal
onslaught, and called some 180 expert
witnesses to support their case. The incredible
story of how two otherwise ordinary people
developed to challenge all the resources of a
$30 billion corporation, is now the subject of a
fascinating book by John Vidal. (1)
For the moment though, my favourite McStory
is the thesis claimed by foreign policy writer
Thomas Friedman in the New York Times,
reprinted in the Guardian last December, that
no country with a McDonalds has gone to war
with another that also has McDonalds
branches. As the company recently extended its
chain to its 100th and 101st countries, Belarus
and Tahiti, this could be good news even to
vegetarians. The idea is that when a country is
able
to support McDonalds branches, this is proof
that it is "advanced enough to have been
integrated into the global economy and the
more closely nations are linked in this way, the
more they seek economic and political
stability." Though I suspect the thesis was
partly cooked up to create 'Nobel Peace Fries'
type headlines, it has been taken up at least
semi-seriously by many writers because if civil
wars are discounted, the basic fact on which it
is based is true for now, e.g. Argentina didn't
get a McDonalds till after the Falklands war.
Israel and Egypt have only had branches in the
past ten years etc..
Needless to say, the reasoning doesn't hold up
to any more detailed examination, though far
from ignoring it, liberal proponents of
globalisation such as Francis Fukuyama have
seized on the theory and associated
developments to argue that 'globalisation is
good, its spread is illustrated by the spread of
(brand names like) McDonalds, and so the
spread of McDonalds and/or globalisation is
good and anyone who objects to either is bad.'
None of them ever question their dogmatic
faith in globalisation even where they
acknowledge that as this particular corporation
has only seriously ventured beyond the
members of NATO in the past decade, it may
simply be a matter of time before this particular
theory is disproved.
This unfortunate fact becomes more apparent
when you note that many new 'McDonalds
nations' in the Middle East and South East
Asia, are key customers of the huge defence
industries of the West. Even more obvious is
that when the same product is junk food in
some countries and marketed as a status
symbol in others, the latter countries are much
poorer than the former and it is untrue to say
their populations equally benefit from
globalisation. As Orwell pointed out though,
some theories are so preposterous that only
intellectuals believe them, and will say
anything to justify themselves. Far from being
disappointed were "two McDonalds countries
to go to war," supporters of the thesis have
argued that if this were to happen it would
simply prove that one of the countries was not
'advanced enough' to have been worthy of a
McDonalds branch in the first place!
Opponents of globalisation who see
unrestricted market forces as cover for
entrenching trade systems in favour of the rich
or worse, have long pointed out that the rich
are far keener (and able) to impose market
forces on the poor, while resisting pure free
trade where it acts against their own interests.
Such critics argue that supporters of
globalisation are at least tolerant of, if not
comfortable with, Northern domination of the
planet. Taking some of this thinking to its
logical conclusion the Sunday Telegraph, not
normally a bastion of Chomsky style analysis,
observed that "Those outside the McDonalds
family are dealt with ruthlessly, most
noticeably by the United States. Vietnam, Iraq,
Cambodia and Somalia are all Big Mac free
zones. The great diplomatic question for the
21st century may be how to deal with countries
which, although they have achieved a seat in
the UN General Assembly, are not "advanced"
enough to warrant a McDonalds..."
On one level I wish I was making these quotes
up, as it is depressing to see so much
brainpower diverted by these types of theory,
which clearly originate simply to fill space in
newspapers. On another though, I find them
reassuring. These commentators are among the
cream of defenders of old economics. If they
have to spend their time coming up with
thoughts like "people in McDonald's countries
don't like to fight wars. They like to wait in line
for burgers," it can't be that hard to turn the
tables on them!
"Counter culture vs. Burger culture" by
John Vidal, published by Macmillan £15.99,
pp324.
This is a longer version of an article first
published in New Economics Magazine.
Issue 42. Summer 1997. Vine Court, 112116, Whitechapel Rd. London E11JE. Our
thanks to the author - Ed.