1
Labor Process Analysis and the McDonaldization of
Society Thesis: Revisiting Boundary Problems
Stephen J. Jaros and John M. Jermier
University of South Florida
Address correspondence to:
Stephen J. Jaros or John M. Jermier
University of South Florida
College of Business
Tampa, Florida 33620
USA
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Internet:
813-974-4155
813-974-3030
DMHAPAA@CFRVM or Jermier@CFRVM.CFR.USF.EDU
2
Introduction
Since publication of Braverman's (1974) foundational work,
Labor
and
Monopoly
Capital,
researchers
who
study
the
labor
processes of western capitalist societies have focused on two
important themes: processes of control and resistance;
and the
development and nature of the subjectivities of labor process
participants. Interest in the first theme is rooted in Marx's
(1867/1972) conceptualization of the capitalist workplace as a
site
of
simultaneous
conflict,
between capital and labor.
in
the
perception
that
class
struggle,
and
compliance
Interest in the second theme is based
Marx
and
Braverman
largely
ignored
subjectivity in their analyses, or a recognition that when they
did
address
unsubstantiable
subjectivity,
essentialist
they
notions.
relied
While
on
a
empirically
great
deal
of
research has addressed these issues (see Knights & Willmott, 1990
for a review), recent assessments indicate that labor process
theorists have not yet developed fully adequate accounts of either
control and resistance, or subjectivity (Jermier, Knights, & Nord,
1994).
Advances in Theorizing Control, Resistance, and Subjectivity
3
Analysis of control and resistance in the labor process has
progressed through distinct stages.
Braverman's (1974) analysis
was brilliant as far as it went, but was severely limited by his
simplifying assumptions.
His emphasis was on obvious, visible
control strategies, such as the use of direct supervision and
deskilling
on
the
part
of
management,
and
on
either
compliance or overt labor unrest on the part of workers.
assumed
Friedman
(1977), Edwards (1979), Salaman (1979), and others improved on
this
analysis
managerial
by
expanding
control
understanding
mechanisms.
Work
by
of
Davis
the
range
(1975),
of
Dubois
(1979), Edwards and Scullion (1982) and others improved on this
analysis by suggesting that hidden forms of resistance needed to
be considered in analyzing capitalist labor processes.
The
importance
of
worker
subjectivity
was
signalled
by
Burawoy's (1979) study of shopfloor gameplaying and "making out."
He
revealed
how
the
social
psychology
of
powerlessness
and
organizational incentive schemes can defuse conflict, creating
relations between capital and labor that are largely consensual.
In a later work (Burawoy, 1985), he explained how control can be
maintained in circumstances where deskilling is not viable.
Burawoy's
criticized
in
accounts
of
considerable
worker
detail
by
subjectivity
labor
process
have
been
theorists
(e.g., Knights & Willmott, 1985 & 1989; Knights, 1990; Willmott,
1990; Collinson, 1992; Collinson, 1994; Jermier et al., 1994).
The result is that
progress has been made in developing his
4
original insights.
other
dimensions
Critical analyses of work, gender, sexual and
of
identity
have
led
to
more
sophisticated
understandings of how self is constituted in the labor process
(cf. Kondo, 1990; Clegg, 1994).
However,
a
comprehensive
critical theory of control, resistance, and subjectivity in the
labor process still does not exist. There is a need to theorize
and research the ways in which control configurations, resistance,
and
identity-formation
practices
at
the
point
of
production
influence and are influenced by forms of global domination (cf.
Sakolsky, 1992).
scope
of
labor
This involves addressing issues related to the
process
analysis
and
determining
which
global
processes are the most relevant to consider.
Boundary Problems and the McDonaldization of Society Thesis
In one of the few sustained discussions of the theoretical
boundary conditions of labor process analysis, Thompson (1990)
pointed to a concern similar to that identified in the previous
paragraph.
He raised the issue about the extent to which specific
labor processes can be understood apart from analysis of general
production processes.
search
theories
for
Thompson argued that it is "unproductive to
totalizing
reflecting
the
explanations,
complex
and
and
more
useful
interrelated
to
layering
see
of
social experience" (p. 113).
This is the starting point of our paper.
We see the boundary
problem as a key to advancing understanding of control-resistance
dynamics and subjectivity within the labor process.
In section
5
two, we revisit discussions about whether it is theoretically
useful, for analytical purposes, to isolate the labor process from
other aspects of the capitalist mode of production [such as the
"full circuit" of capital (Kelly, 1985), external labor markets
(Warde, 1992), and other social and cultural forces (Knights &
Willmott, 1990)]. We identify and discuss three approaches to
conceptual and
analytical boundary problems that have been used
by labor process researchers to understand workplace phenomena.
In
section
three,
Ritzer's
(1993)
McDonaldization
of
Society
thesis is proposed as an example of an hypothetical form of global
domination in order to consider more deliberately the boundary
problem in labor process theory.
substantial
interest
and
Ritzer's thesis has provoked
discussion
and
seems
to
provide
an
important challenge to labor process theorists who contend that it
is possible to understand dynamics at the point of production
without
integrating
analysis
beyond
the
sphere
of
local
production. Thus, we provide a careful examination and critique of
the thesis, and an assessment of how it may be related to the
development of labor process theory.
Finally,
in
section
four,
we
follow
this
trajectory
by
explicating how McDonaldization processes might influence control
and
resistance,
subjectivity,
and
process at the point of production.
other
aspects
of
the
labor
This leads us to reconsider
critiques of Braverman's (1974) deskilling hypothesis which have
supposedly
debunked
the
notion
of
a
trend
towards
deskilling
6
(e.g.,
Burawoy, 1979; Thompson, 1989; Sturdy, Knights & Willmott,
1992; Smith, 1994).
Concerning subjectivity and resistance, we
examine how the McDonaldization model might be useful for thinking
about the ways in which individuals' multiple, socially-derived
identities influence their subjective statuses as "workers" within
the
labor
process
and
estimate
the
potential
for
meaningful
resistance in light of the dominating processes that have emerged
in a McDonaldized world.
We also explore the idea that the
McDonaldization thesis might complement a core theory of the labor
process by helping to integrate some of the many case studies of
individual work settings.
We conclude with a discussion of the
implications of these ideas for future labor process research.
Thus, we have three interrelated purposes in writing this
paper.
First, we attempt to refocus attention on the boundary
problem in labor process theory and address again the issue of the
specific and proper object of analysis for labor process theory
(cf. Thompson, 1990).
(1993)
framework
for
contemporary society.
Second, we provide a summary of Ritzer's
the
analysis
of
workplace
dynamics
and
Third, we begin to make an assessment of
the potential of Ritzer's (1993) framework for developing labor
process theory.
of
linkages
We do this by providing a preliminary formulation
between
McDonaldization,
labor
suggesting
process
some
dynamics
points
of
and
processes
integration
synthesis.
Boundary Problems in Labor Process Theory
of
and
7
Thompson
(1990)
notes
that
arguments
about
the
proper
conceptual and analytical limits of labor process phenomena have
always played a key role in the development of labor process
theory.
Beginning with the Brighton Labour Process Group 's
(1977) contention that the empirical specificity of the labour
process
as
justifies
a
site
its
its
theoretical
production", labor
boundaries
with
that
own
"determinations
abstraction
from
and
results"
"general
social
process researchers have strived to delimit
provide
optimal
frameworks
for
understanding
labour process phenomena.
Boundary issues are crucial because they have implications
for the viability and necessity of labor process theory as a field
of study, and on the usefulness of our work for creating knowledge
and understanding about workplace phenomena.
For example, a core
idea of traditional labor process theory is that capital-labor
dynamics at the point of production are particularly important to
understanding both the nature of specific workplaces and broader
social and economic processes. This notion justifies a "privileged
analysis" of the labor process.
But, if we cannot delimit the
proper analytical boundaries of the labor process, it is difficult
to
maintain
the
tenability
of
this
claim,
and
there
is
no
justification for developing theories that focus on the labor
process. Likewise, if we cannot draw conceptual boundaries around
specific labor process phenomena, we limit our ability to generate
understanding
about
them.
Thus,
addressing
analytical
and
8
conceptual boundary problems are of fundamental importance to the
labor process project.
Conceptual Boundary Problems
One boundary problem involves the specification of boundaries
around important labor process concepts. For example, researchers
have disagreed about the meaning of the concept of "labor."
approach,
typified
by
early
labor
process
theorists
such
One
as
Braverman (1974) and Poulantzas (1975), argues that meaningful
labor is characterized by the creation of material products that
have use or exchange value. Others, including Burrell (1990),
point out that this conception of labor excludes any form of
mental work, or work performed by managerial, clerical, and staff
employees, even though such work is crucial to the realisation of
surplus-value, and is often organized similarly to manual work.
Also, many feminist theorists (see West, 1990) argue that the
concept
of
housework,
labor
on
the
must
include
grounds
that
non-workplace
work,
this
is
activity
such
as
crucial
to
producing and reproducing a key raw-material input to the labor
process -
the worker.
Boundary debates over the conceptual limits of categories
like "labor", while important on their own terms, are also related
to boundary debates over the proper analytical limits of labor
process theory - i.e., what social phenomena can be usefully
characterized as part of the labor process, or have important
influences on labor process dynamics. For example, the concept of
9
labor outlined by Poulantzas (1975) is theoretically congruent
with a view of the labor process that limits analysis to events
that take place at the "point of production," while a feminist
perspective on labor, as outlined above, would require a labor
process theory that broadens our focus to include social forces
such as patriarchy to understand the gendered nature of the labor
process.
Thus,
framing
analytical
boundaries
should
help
us
clarify conceptual boundaries around the concepts of subjectivity,
control, and resistance. Labor process researchers have developed
three general approaches to delimiting the analytical boundaries
of labor process theory - traditional labor process theory, the
full
circuit
of
capital
model,
and
the
internal/external
perspective.
Three Perspectives on Analytical Boundary Problems
Traditional Labor Process Theory (Braverman, 1974; Brighton
Labour
Process
Group,
1977;
Cohen,
1987)
draws
analytical
boundaries around the labor process by hewing closely to Marx's
(1867/1972) admonition to focus on the "hidden abode" of the
workplace as the site where important capital-labor dynamics are
produced
and
conceptualized
reproduced.
as
the
point
Thus,
of
the
"labour
production
-
the
process"
place
is
where
surplus value is created and extracted. This perspective argues
that the labour process can be treated as autonomous, because it
is at the core of the substructure of capitalist society. While
the labor process is viewed as interacting with and reproducing
10
broader social phenomena (class relations, patriarchy, etc.), it
is viewed as the locus of social dynamics. Therefore, if one is
interested
in
understanding
the
capital-labor
relation,
it
is
possible, and analytically desirable, to privilege the point of
production over other social factors, because events there have a
decisive influence on broader superstructural dynamics.
A
second
(Kelly,
1985),
perspective,
proposes
the
that
full
the
circuit
labor
of
capital
process
model
cannot
be
privileged for analysis over other aspects of the capital-labor
relation. In Kelly's formulation, the labor process (i.e., the
point
of
production,
where
surplus
value
is
extracted)
is
conceptualized as one of three interdependent components of the
full circuit of capital, along with the labor market (where labor
is purchased), and the product market (where surplus value is
realized). Because these components are interdependent, corporate
profitability is posited to depend on the smooth functioning of
this circuit. Disarticulations, or disruptions between any of the
three components are therefore threats to the survival of the
firm, and are often addressed by management by making changes in
workplace practices. Therefore, the labor process is viewed as not
autonomous with respect to the other components of the circuit of
capital, because circuit interdependencies are likely to have a
stronger influence on workplace practices than the inner dynamics
of the labor process. However, it may be inferred that the full
11
circuit is autonomous, and influences superstructural and other
components of society.
A third approach, the internal-external perspective, argues
that while the labor process (located at the point of production)
is the most important influence on workplace practices, broader
social forces also have significant, if secondary, influences (cf.
Edwards, 1990; Wardell, 1990). The labor process is identified as
an "internal" (inside the workplace) factor that directly affects
workplace behavior, while the impact of "external" social forces
(e.g.,
gender,
external
labor
market
conditions,
social
and
cultural values) are moderated by these labor process dynamics.
Thus, the labor process is viewed as a "membrane" or "filter"
which modifies the influence of external factors on workplace
phenomena. Since each workplace is characterized by a more or less
unique
frontier
of
control
(Edwards
&
Scullion,
1982),
an
implication of this notion is that the influence of external
forces is almost never uniform across organizations.
This
perspective
posits
that
the
labor
process
is
semi-
autonomous: while labor process dynamics such as factory regimes
(Burawoy, 1979) and frontiers of control often reflect capitallabor dynamics that are unique to particular workplaces, and these
dynamics
directly
influence
workplace
practices
such
as
the
organization of work, these practices are also influenced by the
interaction of the "internal" labor process and must be permeable
12
enough to allow for the influence of broader social forces (cf.
Edwards, 1990).
This approach is consistent with Thompson's (1990) view.
He
argues that the labor process is properly conceptualized as a
locus of intersecting social spheres that have varying effects on
workplace
practices.
Thus,
multiple
social
spheres,
capital-labor relations, racial factors, gender
such
as
divisions, and
cultural influences are viewed as being equally present within the
workplace.
A key implication of this perspective is that labor
process theory - which is derived from a Marxian concern for
analyzing the social sphere of capital-labor relations at the
point
of
production
-
is
workplace
practices,
because
inadequate
this
for
theory
understanding
generates
many
conceptual
viewpoints that are "blind" to the influence of other social
spheres (i.e., gender, race, etc.). Thus, for example, an adequate
analysis of female wage labor would require the application of
both
labor
process
theories
of
control
and
exploitation
and
feminist theories of patriarchy and gender relations. Likewise,
the full-circuit of capital perspective is inadequate, because it
fails to recognize the influence of social spheres that are not
articulated within the full-circuit.
Summary
This discussion reveals both commonalities and differences
among the three perspectives on the boundaries of labor process
13
analysis. On one hand, the three perspectives agree that the
"labor
process"
is
properly
conceptualized
as
the
point
of
production, where surplus value is created. However, they differ
in their assessment of the autonomy of the social dynamics that
unfold
there.
autonomous
influence
Traditional
labor
of
process
broader
labor
that
social
is
process
theory
largely
forces,
and
is
proposes
isolated
the
from
core
of
an
the
the
capital-labor relation that drives all other social relations.
Thus, the point of production should be privileged for analysis.
The full circuit model proposes that the point of production is
but one part of a circuit of capital that also includes product
and labor markets, and that social dynamics in one part of the
circuit are fundamentally intertwined with dynamics in the other
parts. Thus, an understanding of workplace phenomena cannot be
gained by privileging the labor process over any other part of the
full
circuit,
and
requires
a
broader
analytical
focus
that
captures the dynamics of the full circuit of capital. Finally, the
internal-external perspective proposes that the labor process is a
site of intersecting social spheres, some of which (e.g., gender
relations, racial factors) are based in social relations that are
often articulated far from the point of production or the full
circuit of capital. While labor process dynamics are posited to
have a primary influence on the capital-labor relation, other
social spheres are also influential. This perspective advocates
14
conjunctive analysis of the labor process whereby other theories
are brought in to complement labor process theory.
Evaluation of the Three Perspectives
It is our contention that the internal-external perspective
is the most compelling approach to both conceptual and analytical
boundary problems in labor process theory, because this approach
overcomes the main weaknesses of the others. By recognizing the
influence of multiple social spheres, it develops an understanding
of
the
labor
process
that
is
more
comprehensive
than
the
empirically unjustifiable reductionism of traditional theory. And
unlike the full-circuit argument, it recognizes the impact of
social spheres other than the full-circuit of capital. Thus, the
intersecting
spheres
approach
leads
to
the
development
of
conceptualizations of control, resistance and subjectivity that
have these advantages over conceptualizations derived from the
other three perspectives.
However, while empirical and theoretical work reflecting the
intersecting spheres approach has increased our understanding of
workplace
provided
control,
resistance
satisfactory
phenomena.
Although
and
explanations
recent
subjectivity,
for
research
some
has
it
aspects
has
of
emphasized
not
these
social
influences on the local, capillary manifestations of control and
resistance at individual workplaces (Collinson, 1994; O'Connell
Davidson, 1994; Jermier, Knights & Nord, 1994), it has neglected
the social effects of these processes beyond the micro (individual
15
workplace) level. Left unanswered are questions pertaining to what
all of these micro-dynamics add up to at a social level. This is
surprising, because much of this research has drawn on Foucaultian
theory, which emphasizes the relationship between micro and macro
dynamics
(Foucault,
relationships
have
1980;
not
Sakolsky,
been
1992).
articulated.
So
Also,
far,
while
these
recent
research into worker subjectivity (cf. Knights, 1990; Willmott,
1990;
Clegg,
1994;
Collinson,
1994)
has
generated
important
insights about worker identity formation, there is evidence that
labor process theory may overemphasize both the importance of
point-of-production experiences in forming worker subjectivity (Du
Gay & Salaman, 1992), and may overstate the extent to which nonworkplace experiences have
fragmenting or contradictory effects
on worker subjectivity.
In section three, we examine Ritzer's (1993) McDonaldization
of Society thesis as a means of exploring these unresolved issues.
We argue that embedded within Ritzer's discussion is empirical
evidence of the mutual influence and congruence of workplace-level
control and resistance dynamics and global forms of domination.
There is also evidence of the role that non-workplace experiences
play in the formation of individual identity.
Thus, Ritzer's
thesis has the potential both to enhance our understanding of
control, resistance, and subjectivity in the labor process and to
inspire further thinking about what plant-level studies of the
16
labor process mean in a more general context of economic and
social change.
The McDonaldization of Society Thesis
In an article that makes a strong attempt to re-ground labor
process analysis in traditional Marxist categories of valorization
and exploitation, Cohen (1987) provides her answer to the boundary
problem.
examine
However, it is equally clear that she sees a need to
the
changing
nature
of
phenomena such as McDonaldization:
the
capitalist
economy
and
"The context of exploitation
today is as likely to be the fast-food, fast-turnover environment
of
a
McDonald's
chain
as
the
more
familiar
setting
of
manufacturing and assembly within a large industrial plant" (p.
47).
We turn now to a detailed summary of the phenomenon of
McDonaldization and to Ritzer's (1993) description and analysis of
the changing character of contemporary social life.
The McDonald brothers opened their first fast-food restaurant
in Pasadena, California in 1937.
Using assembly line technology
for cooking and serving food, a highly specialized division of
labor ("grill men," "shake men," "fry men," etc.), and extensive
rules and procedures, they laid the foundation for the pattern of
organizing that emerged in the form of the "fast-food factory."
Nearly twenty years later, Ray Kroc, often credited (or blamed)
with
creating
the
McDonald's
empire,
combined
organizational
principles used by the McDonald brothers with a sophisticated
17
understanding of scientific and "rational" systems management and
a strong passion for franchise marketing.
Thus, the phenomenon of
McDonaldization began to loom.
The
central
emergence
of
thesis
Kroc's
of
Ritzer's
restaurants
(1993)
book
represented
is
a
that
the
monumentally
important development in industrial history because the practices
it routinized and spawned engulf, today, more and more aspects of
everyday life in most areas of the world.
Since the author
identifies the book early on as "essentially a work in social
criticism" (p. viii), it is clear from the beginning that this
will be a hard-hitting analysis by a critical social scientist and
not a McDonald's public relations document produced by a corporate
consultant.
But, of course, the target of Ritzer's criticism is
not the McDonald's restaurant chain, per se, but the process of
McDonaldization.
manifestation
rhetorical
of
McDonald's
this
flourish
was
process,
than
some
and
and
of
is
lends
the
the
most
itself
important
better
to
alternatives-'Burger
Kingization,' 'Seven Elevenization,' 'Fuddruckerization'... 'Jiffy
Lubeization,' or 'Nutri/Systemization'" (p. xiii), but according
to the author, the real target of the analysis is a "wide array of
social phenomena ... linked together under the broad heading of
McDonaldization" (p. xiii).
The
book
consists
of
nine
chapters.
In
the
first
two
chapters, the author draws on Weber's (1978 [1922]) theory of
domination
and
begins
to
develop
the
concept
of
formal
18
rationality, the distinctive and degraded type of reasoning that
has reigned in the Western world for most of this century and that
began moving toward ascendancy during the industrial revolution.
Formal rationality reigns when individuals rely exclusively or
very heavily on predetermined rules, procedures and larger social
structures in choosing methods to reach taken-for-granted ends.
According to Ritzer, "[in] a McDonaldized society, people rarely
search for the best means to an end on their own.
Rather, the
previously discovered best possible means to innumerable ends have
been institutionalized in a variety of social settings" (p. 34).
While arguing that the modern fast-food restaurant has antecedents
in a range of historical factors (Scientific Management, Bureaucratization, automobile assembly-line production systems, Fordism,
cheap automobiles, massive highway systems, suburbanization, the
"malling of America," etc.), the author states that it represents
a "quantum leap in the process of rationalization" (p. 34).
Of
course, following (Weber, 1978 [1922]), this is not a leap toward
elevated reasoning involving the application of good judgement,
sound sense, and intelligence.
Instead, the leap moves societies
and the world closer to domination through formal rationality and
the "iron cage of rationalization"--a seamless web of rationalized
structures (p. 22).
In Chapters 3-6, Ritzer begins to explain more completely
what he means by the concept of McDonaldization and presents
evidence
and
analysis
in
support
of
the
assertion
that
19
McDonaldization is sweeping through society.
McDonaldization is,
first,
procedures.
a
process,
or
a
formal
system
of
When
something is McDonaldized, it is heavily processed in that it is
put
through
the
sequential
steps
of
a
prescribed
procedure.
Second, the process of McDonaldization
has four defining qualities:
defined
in
terms
of
speed
efficiency (best possible means
and
effortlessness);
calculability
(emphasis on things that can be quantified and the use of quantity
in place of quality--bigger is better); predictability (standardization of product or service across time and space--no surprises);
and
external
control
of
employees
and
customers
through
impersonal, semi-automated technologies.
In each of chapters 3-6, Ritzer attempts to build a case for
the idea that everyday life is profoundly McDonaldized.
This
leads him to present evidence and analysis related to food and
diet,
shopping,
broadcasting,
conditioning
reading
the
material,
body,
entertainment,
sexuality and a myriad of other domains.
presents
is
more
in
the
education,
genre
of
sports,
news
human
Although the evidence he
personal
observation
than
positivistic fact, he does offer a surprisingly robust array of
data points.
We found ourselves being swayed more by his analysis
than we imagined we would be, despite being skeptical about a
number
of
examples.
organizational
dominated
by
and
the
That
everyday
processes
is,
he
life
he
in
persuaded
general
describes
than
us
that
both
are
much
more
we
originally
20
thought.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate
convincing support for an assertion such as "more and more social
phenomena are being McDonaldized to an increasing degree" (p. 16).
However, our reading of this section led us to conclude that even
if application of the principles of the fast-food factory is not
occurring at the accelerating pace Ritzer contends, the theory of
rationalization remains a powerful lens through which to view the
world.
This is significant because there are a number of recent
perspectives that suggest that the "modern" world has given way to
a post-industrial, post-Fordist, or postmodern world.
8,
the
author
concludes
that
explores
the
these
forces
alternative
propelling
In Chapter
perspectives
McDonaldization
in
and
the
present and into the future dwarf by comparison alternative views.
For example, he points to increased competitive pressures and the
drive for higher profits and lower costs.
He also argues that
McDonaldization is now a culturally embedded force of tradition,
and even a "sacred icon" (see pp. 4-7).
Furthermore, he argues
that McDonaldization meshes well with other changes occurring in
American society as well as around the world, such as dual-career
households, single-parent families, heightened mobility and pace
of
life,
and
increased
affluence.
These
forces
impel
the
"seemingly unstoppable spread of McDonaldization" (p. 151), the
"inexorable
process"
(p.
1)
sweeping
through
undetected by the vast majority of the populace.
society,
largely
21
In
chapter
7
("The
Irrationality
of
Rationality"),
after
conceding that there are some specific advantages associated with
McDonaldization, Ritzer begins to draw conclusions concerning the
great costs of McDonaldization.
He argues that this method of
organizing does not deliver in its own terms.
For example, it
does
there
not
uniformly
produce
efficiency
(often
are
long
lines), or bang for the buck (you can eat more cheaply at home).
Worse yet, McDonaldized systems "deny the basic humanity, the
human reason, of the people who work within them or are served by
them" (p. 121).
Finally, they are potentially alienating systems
in that they seem to be increasingly outside the control of human
beings.
They seem to dominate their creators.
On balance, in
Ritzer's view, these are overwhelmingly irrational systems.
The
final
chapter
raises the question:
("Coping
with
a
McDonaldized
what is to be done?
Society")
After acknowledging
that many people might experience McDonaldization as either a
velvet cage or a rubber cage rather than an iron cage, Ritzer
discusses
how
McDonald's
itself
has
changed
in
the
face
of
consumer health and environmental concerns.
He identifies some
"reasonable"
Jerry's
company.
alternatives,
And,
he
offers
such
as
Ben
&
some
individualized
ice
cream
suggestions
for
subverting the process of McDonaldization, such as getting to know
the counter people at McDonald's if you are a regular customer and
leaving the receiver off the hook for an extended period of time
after receiving a computerized phone solicitation.
But, in the
22
conclusion,
Ritzer's
pessimism
about
the
change echoes his statement in Chapter 7:
possibility
of
real
" ... it is difficult,
if not impossible, to turn back the process of rationalization"
(p. 139).
This book is something of a tour de force.
bold
and
easy
to
access.
It
is
a
highly
provocative read with all its overblown imagery.
It is quirky,
interesting
and
We recommend it
highly as an antidote to all the propaganda promoting McDonaldized
systems because of their supposed universal advantages.
Ritzer
makes it clear that these processes benefit some while harming and
exploiting
others
(e.g.,
advantageous for whom?).
efficient
for
whom?;
economically
It also does a nice job putting all the
post-bureaucratic hype and postmodern fantasies in perspective by
relabelling them more as future possibilities than as descriptive,
contemporary realities.
Perhaps Modernism begets MODERNISM and,
then, HYPERMODERNISM and, then, human civilization as we know it
ends.
Our enthusiasm for this book does not prevent us from noting
some of its limitations.
For example, the thesis is not very
original,
a
the
concept
of
McDonaldized
setting
is
not
very
distinct (how does it really differ from machine bureaucracy?),
the theme of McDonaldization is not very sharp (since it is a
process, is it the system of procedures used in the fast-food
factory or does it refer to the system of procedures through which
the fast-food factory formula is spreading at an accelerating
23
pace--the
latter
being
more
a
set
of
issues
at
the
core
of
institutional theory (which Ritzer does not address), and the
evidence
supplied
impressionistic.
set out to do:
in
support
of
the
thesis
is
highly
On balance, though, Ritzer accomplished what he
"alert readers to the dangers of McDonaldization
and ... motivate them to act to stem its tide" (p. 187).
Labor Process Analysis and McDonaldization
What are the implications of this thesis for labor process
theorists and researchers?
How might the McDonaldization thesis
be used to enrich labor process theory without shattering the
boundaries of the latter?
Consistent with previous labor process
theorists who attempted to circumscribe the conceptual domain such
that it focuses on dynamics at the point of production (Brighton
Labour Process Group, 1977; Cohen, 1987; Thompson, 1990), we favor
analytically
privileging
the
hidden
abode
of
production
and
advocate an incisive critique of workplace activities relying on
concepts
such
valorization.
as
surplus
value
extraction,
exploitation
and
However, we also see potential in Ritzer's (1993)
thesis to stimulate a reclaiming of the political tradition in
labor process analysis.
micro-politics
transformative
of
social
Because his thesis suggests how the
production
processes,
relate
it
to
provides
more
some
sweeping,
guidance
in
linking workplace dynamics described in the plethora of labor
process case studies with broader political movements.
Thus, we
contend that Ritzer's (1993) thesis can be utilized by labor
24
process theorists in two ways:
the
idea
that
the
(1) conjunctively, by examining
micro-politics
of
production
in
many
contemporary workplaces add up to a McDonaldized world; and (2)
synthetically, by examining the ways in which central concepts in
the core theory of the labor process can be integrated with the
McDonaldization
thesis.
The
latter
approach
to
the
boundary
problem goes beyond the internal-external perspective described
earlier and involves an attempt to synthesize the two frameworks,
labor process theory and McDonaldization theory.
First, we sketch
some ways that McDonaldization processes can be integrated with
labor process theory concepts and then we turn to the potential
for conducting an ascending analysis of power in contemporary
society by making a conjunctive analysis.
Integrating Labor Process Theory and McDonaldization Concepts
Perhaps the main point is that if Ritzer is correct in his
mapping of social trends, we remain locked in the "iron cage of
rationalization."
hypermodern
processes.
one
The future we are best able to imagine is a
that
is
dominated
by
more
and
more
refined
The philosophies of organization that rule, those that
correspond most closely with practical action in the real world of
organizations, are still focused on "la technique"
and are underwritten by mechanistic imagery.
(Ellul, 1964)
Organization is
still best understood in terms of building great formal systems
and structures.
25
Central concepts in the core theory of the labor process
identified in the first part of this paper, such as control,
resistance and subjectivity, remain viable but reflect different
processes in the light of the McDonaldization thesis.
These
processes have not received much attention from labor process
theorists.
Likewise,
the
McDonaldization
thesis
has
some
limitations that prevent it from capturing fully the nature of
work
organization
in
capitalist
societies.
The
move
toward
synthesizing the two frameworks promises to enrich understanding
of the organization of work in capitalist societies.
Although
labor
process
theorists
remain
interested
in
concepts of managerial strategy and struggles for control of the
labor process, analysis has stalled and has not moved much beyond
the deskilling debate and the distinction between direct control
and responsible autonomy (cf. Friedman, 1977; Knights & Willmott,
1990).
In proposing a new model of managerial control, Ritzer
(1993) challenges labor process theorists to consider what is
arguably the most sophisticated method of generating surplus value
yet devised.
It appears that Ritzer has captured a new form of
control
more
with
management,
hidden
assembly-line
and
sinister
technology,
force
and
than
scientific
bureaucratic
control
combined.
At the heart of Ritzer's model is a highly perfected fusion
of twenty-first-century computer technology with twentieth-century
bureaucratic
procedures
with
nineteenth-century
time-and-motion
26
studies (cf. Garson, 1988).
Analysis of deskilling and other
basic production processes in an age of labor degradation, as laid
out by Braverman (1974), has been thrown into disrepute by recent
labor process theorists, but the core of this model and the basic
theme may deserve more attention.
The framework advanced by
Edwards (1979) for understanding systems of organizational control
is perhaps the closest approximation to Ritzer's approach but has
some
limitations by comparison:
unfolding
of
simple,
technical
a) it proposes an historical
and
bureaucratic
control
mechanisms, missing the idea that they might co-occur; b) it
focuses on assembly-line technology and only sketches the nature
of
advanced
computerized
controls;
and
c)
it
understates
the
degree to which everyday working practices could be driven by
bureaucratic procedures.
In addition, the physical architecture
of
is
McDonaldized
settings
designed
to
be
open
enough
workers and customers are in constant view of one another.
that
As
lines of customers develop, employees in McDonaldized settings
feel the pressure to work more intensively to minimize waiting the
waiting time of their "guests" and there is always pressure from
these sources to keep things cleaned up.
Thus, McDonaldized
systems
behavior
for
externally
controlling
employee
may
well
represent, as claimed by Ritzer, a new paradigmatic period in the
process
of
development
rationalization
in
industrial
and
history.
a
monumentally
Indeed,
important
McDonaldized
work
settings are extreme in the degree to which control is mechanized
27
and subtlely submerged in structural configurations (cf. Morgan,
1986; Edwards, 1979).
Degradation of labor in these settings is
obvious and profound, but structural controls also minimize the
role of most employees.
This is well illustrated in the comments
of Jon DeAngelo, a first-line store manager, made just prior to
resigning
his
position:
McDonald's manager.
"...
there
is
no
such
thing
as
a
The computer manages the store" (Garson,
1988, p. 39).
There are also some reasons to rethink labor process analyses
of subjectivity and resistance in light of Ritzer's framework.
His use of Weber's (1978[1922]) theory of domination and the
concept of formal rationality presents a baseline image of the
limited way the human mind is used by the vast majority of people
in the modern world.
achievement
as
preprogrammed
minds.
Substantive rationality is usually an heroic
people
circuit
There
is
questioning goals.
compete
after
no
time
to
plug
another,
devoted
their
after
to
bodies
turning
raising
The busy life of the
into
off
one
their
assumptions
or
contemporary person
precludes pausing to ask why; indeed, pausing to ask why is one
mark of the irrational and maladjusted.
intellectual
capabilities,
desires
for
In Ritzer's picture, the
freedom,
and
spiritual
passions of the populace are continuously eroded by exposure to
McDonaldized settings.
The modern man, woman or child lives in a
continuous state of capture, not rapture, as an appendage rotating
through an array of processes.
Subjectivity is best described as
28
a superficial state of engagement with processes in the external
world.
The engagements do not generate deep states of fulfillment
or a lasting sense of well-being but it is easy to rationalize
continued
involvement
in
these
processes
because
life
is
understood more in terms of quantity of activity than it is as
quality of experiences.
What
about
involvement
patterns
in
a
of
McDonaldized
identity
formation
world?
Is
it
and
work
possible
to
manufacture loyalty to McDonaldized work organizations and consent
to produce at high levels in such settings, as is the case in
settings
managed
through
less
degraded
practices?
Is
the
subjective world of the modern employee working in a McDonaldized
setting
characterized
by
high
involvement with the company?
levels
of
identification
and
Ritzer does not provide an answer
to this question but descriptions of these processes by Garson
(1988) and Reiter (1991) begin to shed some light.
First, it is important to realize that workers are selected
for
employment
options.
in
McDonaldized
Inexperienced
settings
teenagers,
who
have
women
few
with
other
family
responsibilities, minorities, immigrants, handicapped, and other
people who usually find their employment options very limited
comprise the majority of the workforce in McDonaldized settings.
Even
though
they
are
benefits,
irregular
schedules
and
other
offered
and
minimum
inflexible
hardships,
many
wages,
employment,
secondary
minimal
coerced
labor
or
no
work
market
29
employees are grateful to get jobs.
With this as backdrop, some
degree of loyalty and consent is possible despite the generally
exploitative circumstances.
Second, many workers are surrounded virtually from birth with
corporate images carefully cultivated by companies which practice
McDonaldized
management
(cf.
Reiter,
1991).
In
the
case
of
McDonald's restaurants, the golden arches are nearly sacred icons
and most people know the company's other symbols, such as Ronald
McDonald, The Ronald McDonald House, and McDonald's programs for
school children (Ritzer, 1993).
In addition, McDonaldization as a
pattern of organizing can seem like second nature to those with
little
work
experience
and
exposure
organizing work (cf. Morgan, 1986).
to
alternative
styles
of
Thus, both the corporate
symbols and practices of many McDonaldized firms can function as
powerful ideological traps that cajole employees into states of at
least partial loyalty and consent.
Third, displayed positive emotions are evoked in conformance
with written procedures as a routine aspect of employment.
Smiles
and greetings, comments, purchase suggestions and other pleasant,
everyday interactions with customers are structured by company
procedures.
The procedures are practiced and learned so that
positive emotions can be displayed whenever it seems advantageous
for the company or the individual employee.
This manipulation of
subjectivity may have profound consequences on the psyches of
employees who are obligated to engage these routines daily.
It
30
may even be the case that the routine display of positive emotion,
even
though
sanguine
for
it
is
the
insincere,
actor.
fixes
Evidence
a
state
from
of
mind
cognitive
that
is
dissonance
studies in social psychology suggests this as it is believed that
repeated behaviors, if not highly coerced, lead the actor's state
of mind to correspond with the pattern of behavior regardless of
the initial attitude toward the behavior.
Finally,
there
is
evidence
that
firms
using
McDonaldized
practices attempt to offset degraded working conditions with human
relations
manipulations,
pseudo-participative
management,
open
communication programs, teamwork ideologies, and planned social
events (see Reiter, 1991).
For example, despite the mechanical
nature of the work role, supervisors are encouraged to tell each
worker just how important he or she is to the production process
and are trained to be sensitive to personal problems of employees.
They emphasize giving employees the feeling that they are in the
know and that their opinions about the workplace matter.
Perhaps
most significantly, athletic analogies based in teamwork concepts
are stressed.
Competitions are staged among stores with winning
and losing at stake and a "best darn team" award is given to the
group that produces the most profit for the company (Reiter, 1991,
p. 137).
Of course none of the profit is shared with the team
members responsible for the win but there is apparently enough
psychic
credit
to
go
around.
Competitions
are
staged
among
employees in each store as teams organized around separate cash
31
registers vie to be number one.
Again, the rewards to winning
team members are strictly psychic.
organize
and
participate
in
Employees are pressured to
social
events,
such
as
picnics,
dances, baseball games, and garage sales, but are not given a
budget to do so by the employer.
They are expected to raise the
money to hold the event themselves and, in the spirit of "all for
one and one for all," they are expected to show up for these
after-work, team-building activities.
Resistance to McDonaldized processes is largely undocumented
but appears to take three primary forms:
a) eating more food on
the job than is authorized or giving it away to friends and other
customers; b) missing scheduled work; and c) quitting (Garson,
1988; Reiter, 1991; Ritzer, 1993).
More research is needed to
develop a better understanding of how workers really cope with
McDonaldized work settings.
In summary, McDonaldized work settings seem to be replete
with an unprecedented amount of degradation in the nature of
overall
working
conditions.
Patterns
of
subjectivity
and
resistance that manifest in these settings may be muted due to
deeper
patterns
of
consciousness
marked
unaware application of formal rationality.
by
the
routine,
but
If Ritzer's (1993)
thesis is valid, the new forms of domination in society leave
little time for rectification.
Theory: Further implications
McDonaldization and Labor Process
32
Much
of
the
labor
process
research
associated
with
the
internal-external perspective on the boundary problem is derived
from
accounts
of
the
labor
process
that
have
a
distinctly
Foucauldian flavor (Thompson, 1991). As noted earlier, this work
has been inspired by the perceived inadequacies of traditional
Marxian approaches to labor process theory (cf. Braverman, 1974)
which
have
been
critiqued
for
their
explanations
of
both
organizational behavior and broader social dynamics. Attacks on
traditional
labor
process
theory
notions
of
organizational
behavior have focused on their perceived reliance on essentialist,
determinist, and totalizing conceptualizations of class struggle,
power-resistance,
and
the
development
of
class
consciousness
(Collinson, 1992; Sakolsky, 1992). Likewise, the Marxian model of
social change has also been critiqued by researchers such as
Thompson (1990) who attack the notion that labor process dynamics
result in the formation of a class-conscious working class that
will inevitably overthrow capitalism. However, these attacks have
had the effect of undermining labor process theory's original
emphasis on the relationship between workplace dynamics and social
change, and its political orientation. In this subsection, we
discuss how the McDonaldization thesis can be used in conjunction
with labor process theory to rehabilitate these issues.
The neo-Foucaultian impact
The emergence of neo-Foucaultian perspectives on the labor
process
(Knights
&
Vurdubakis,
1994)
has
led
to
far-reaching
33
consequences.
It
has
produced
an
unsettling
underlying paradigm (see Thompson, 1991).
effect
on
the
Also, it has challenged
totalizing notions of subjectivity that presuppose collectivist
consciousness,
such
as
class,
gender,
and
so
on,
laying
the
groundwork for developing more complex interpretations of selfformation and deep subjectivity.
based
on
Foucault's
writings
has
complexity
of
the
micro-physics
dynamics,
and
the
importance
context
for
explaining
Equally importantly, research
emphasized
of
of
control
the
specific
the
local,
richness
and
and
resistance
socio-historical
strategies
of
control
and
resistance (see Kondo, 1990; Collinson, 1992 & 1994; Austrin,
1994; Knights & Willmott, 1989). That is, what has been emphasized
in
the
derived
numerous
case
body
research
of
studies
is
that
an
comprise
interest
this
in
Foucauldian-
identifying
the
capillary-level dynamics of the labor process.
The
infusion
of
Foucaultian-inspired
thinking
into
labor
process analysis has been useful in generating nuanced, finegrained
analyses
of
labor
process
dynamics
within
particular
workplaces. But, because much of this work has been inspired by a
rejection
of
Marxian
transformation,
it
has
notions
proceeded
of
macro-social
without
much
dynamics
attention
and
being
given to what all the local dynamics add up to and without proper
consideration being given to how local labor process dynamics are
affected
by
more
general
mechanisms.
Paradoxically,
it
has
neglected Foucault's emphasis on these social dynamics. In his
34
lecture on methodological precautions, Foucault (1980, p. 99) made
it clear that:
"One must rather conduct an ascending analysis of power, starting
... from its infinitesimal mechanisms, which each have their
own history, ... and then see how these mechanisms of power
have been--and continue to be--invested, colonized, utilized,
involuted, transformed, displaced, extended, etc., by ever
more general mechanisms and by forms of global domination."
Thus, it is our contention that the case studies that comprise
this
body
of
work
have
advanced
our
understanding
of
the
"infestisimal mechanisms" of the labor process, but have neglected
to address the general mechanisms and forms of domination which
may flow from them. Addressing this issue could provide a "fuller
picture" of the causes, nature, and consequences of labor process
dynamics.
We take Ritzer's description of McDonaldization as parallel
to Foucault's (1980) notion of global domination and as an example
of how micro-technologies of discipline employed in workplaces and
other social sites spread throughout a social system if they
provide political and/or economic advantages to individuals and
groups positioned to employ them. Most of the key components and
precursors of McDonaldization, including Scientific Management,
bureaucratization, and Fordism were originally developed to solve
issues
such
as
control,
productivity,
calculability,
and
efficiency within particular workplaces. Because of their success
35
in conferring economic advantages to organizational adopters (and
particularly to those service and information-sector industries
that have combined these practices), these techniques have invaded
many
other
development
social
of
spheres.
This
McDonaldization
account
of
parallels
the
empirical
Foucault's
(1980)
theoretical account for the development of micro practices and
discourses into social level domination. He argues that " ... all
of a sudden ..."
these micro-technologies "come to be colonized
and maintained by global mechanisms and the entire State system ..
[they] come to be incorporated into the social whole" (p. 101).The
result has been a process of McDonaldization that reflects both
behavioral and normative practices and beliefs in organizations,
and a dominant discourse in western culture.
When combined with our analysis in the previous section on
the
effects
of
McDonaldization
on
workplace
phenomena
(i.e.,
control, power, resistance), it becomes clear that an implication
of our analysis of the McDonaldization phenomenon is the need to
use theories such as the McDonaldization thesis that study the
nature of it and other labor-process influenced modes of social
domination (such as Du Gay & Salaman's (1992) "enterprise culture"
discourse) in conjunction with labor process theory to map their
reciprocal interrelationship with the labor process.
Political implications
The
political
micro-Foucaldian
dimension
of
perspective
labor
process
has
also
theory.
affected
Five
years
the
ago,
36
Thompson (1990: 114) noted that "The debate on the politics of the
labour process has always tended to lag behind other aspects of
the
issue".
Since
then,
this
situation
has
not
noticeably
improved. Few studies have appeared that even discuss the politics
of labor process theory, and those that have done so have focused
on what Thompson (1990) calls the "struggles of resistance" i.e., workplace-level or local politics that reflect struggle over
workplace conditions. These include Warde's (1992) account of the
influence
of
local
politics
on
capital
labor
relations
in
Lancaster, Rothschild & Miethe's (1994) analysis of the politics
of
whistleblowing,
political
effects
Furthermore,
reluctance
(and
to
and
of
Austrin's
appraisal
clearly
specify
what
(1994)
and
consistent
political
description
grievance
with
the
positions
of
the
hearings.
Foucaultian
should
be
advocated) what has been emphasized in these case studies is
describing actual workplace politics, they do not articulate what
the role of labor process theory should be in the political arena.
There has also been a neglect of the other component of
Thompson's political typology - the politics of transformation,
which relate to struggles over "macro" social conditions. While we
do not discount the importance and meaning of local workplace
politics,
we
agree
with
Thompson
that
restoring
the
"radical
intent" of labor process theory is desirable, and requires an
articulation of a politics of social transformation that would
improve the lives of all non-elites. While Thompson (1990) does
37
not attempt to articulate a full-blown idea of what the political
agenda and practices of labor process theory should be, he begins
the
process
of
articulation
by
arguing
that
"the
fundamental
guiding principle of a socialist politics of production should be
that
it
is
work-directed
......
the
political
goal
of
labor
process theory should be to develop ideas and practices which
empower workers and their organizations" (p. 122).
While completing Thompson's project of describing a complete
politics of production is beyond the scope of this (or any single)
paper.
Our
analysis
of
McDonaldization
can
contribute
to
its
further articulation. If existing social relations are buttressed
by McDonaldization, then a political focus on the workplace may by
inadequate. For if we develop ideas and practices that aim to
empower people as workers, but ignore other social and cultural
arenas
where
McDonaldization
is
enacted
and
reproduced,
the
political gains are likely to be confined to workplaces. Thus,
while
the
include
a
political
focus
focus
workplace
on
of
labor
process
conditions
it
should
should
certainly
also
be
articulated to work in conjunction with political prescriptions
(such as those outlined by Ritzer (1993)) that include ideas and
practices that challenge McDonaldization wherever it exists.
38
References
Austrin, T. 1994. Positioning resistance and resisting position:
Human resource management and the politics of appraisal and
grievance hearings. In Jermier et al, (eds.), Resistance and
Power in Organizations. London: Routledge.
Rothschild, J. & Miethe, T. 1994. Whistleblowing as resistance in
modern
work
organizations:
organizational
(eds.),
Routledge.
Resistance
deception
and
and
Power
The
politics
abuse.
in
In
of
Jermier
Organizations.
revealing
et
al.,
London:
39
References
Braverman, H. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Brighton Labor Process Group. 1977. The capitalist labour process,
Capital and Class, 1: 3-26.
Burawoy, M. 1979. Manufacturing Consent. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Burawoy, M. 1985. The Politics of Production. London: Verso.
Burrell, G. Fragmented labors. In Knights, D. & Willmott, H.
(eds.), Labour Process Theory. London: Macmillan.
Clegg, S. 1989. Frameworks of Power. London: Sage.
Clegg, S. 1994. Power relations and the constitution of
resistant subject. In Jermier et al. (eds.), Power
Resistance in Organizations. London: Routledge.
the
and
Cohen, S. 1987. A labour process to nowhere? New Left Review, 165:
34-50.
Collinson, D. 1992. Managing the Shopfloor: Subjectivity,
Masculinity and Workplace Culture. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Collinson, D. 1994. Strategies of resistance: power, knowledge,
and subjectivity in the workplace. In Jermier, et al. (eds.),
Resistance and Power in Organizations. London: Routledge.
Davis, M. 1975. The stop watch and the wooden shoe: Scientific
management and the Industrial Workers of the World. Radical
America, 9 (1): 69-95.
Dubois, P. 1979.
Sabotage In Industry.
Penguin Books.
Middlesex, England:
40
Du Gay, P. & Salaman, G. 1992. The cult[ure] of the customer.
Journal of Management Studies, 29: 615-633.
Edwards, P.K. & Scullion, H. 1982.
The Social Organization of
Industrial Conflict:
Control and Resistance in the
Workplace.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Edwards, R. 1979. Contested Terrain. New York: Basic Books.
Ellul, J. (1964).
Books.
The Technological Society.
New York:
Vintage
Foucault, M. 1980: Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
Friedman, A. 1977. Industry and Labour:
Class Struggle at Work
and Monopoly Capitalism. London: Macmillan.
Garson, B.
1988.
The Electronic Sweatshop.
New York:
Penguin.
Jermier, J., Knights, D., & Nord, W. 1994. Resistance and power in
organizations: Agency, subjectivity and the labor process. In
Jermier, J., Knights, D. & Nord, W. (Eds.), Resistance and
Power in Organizations. London: Routledge.
Kelly, J. 1985. Managements's redesign of work. In D. Knights et
al. (Eds.) Job Redesign. Aldershot: Gower.
Knights, D. 1990. Subjectivity, power, and the labour process. In
Knights, D. & Willmott, H. (Eds.), Labour Process Theory.
London: Macmillan.
Knights, D., & Vurdubakis, T. 1994. Foucault, power, resistance
and all that. In Jermier, J., Knights, D. & Nord, W. (Eds.),
Resistance and Power in Organizations. London: Routledge.
Knights, D. & Willmott, H. 1985. Power and identity in theory and
practice. The Sociological Review, 33: 22-43.
Knights, D. & Willmott, H. 1989. Power and subjectivity at work:
from degradation to subjugation in social relations.
Sociology, 535-558.
Knights, D. & Willmott, H. (Eds.) 1990. Labour Process Theory.
London: Macmillan.
41
Kondo, D. 1990. Crafting Selves: Power, Gender, and Discourses of
Identity in a Japanese Workplace. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Marx, K. 1867/1972. Capital.
Morgan, G.
1986.
New York:
Dutton.
Images of Organization.
Newbury Park:
Sage.
O'Connell Davidson, J. 1994. The sources and limits of resistance
in a privatized utility. In Jermier, et al. (eds.),
Resistance
and Power in Organizations. London: Routledge.
Poulantzas, N. 1975. Class in Contemporary Capitalism. London: New
Left Books.
Reiter, E. 1991. Making Fast Food: From the Frying Pan into the
Fryer. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Ritzer, G. 1993. The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation
Into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life.
Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Salaman, G. 1979.
Work Organizations:
London: Longman.
Resistance and Control.
Sakolsky, R. 1992. Disciplinary power and the labour process. In
Sturdy, et al. (Eds.), Skill and Consent: Contemporary
Studies
in the Labour Process. London: Routledge.
Smith, V. 1994. Braverman's legacy: the labor process tradition at
20. Work and Occupations, 21: 403-421.
Sturdy, A., Knights, D., & Willmott, H. 1992. Skill and Consent:
Contemporary
Studies
in
the
Labour
Process.
London:
Routledge.
Thompson, P. 1991.
The fatal distraction:
Postmodernism and
organizational analysis.
Paper presented at the Conference
on New Theories of Organization, Keele University, April.
Thompson, P. 1990. Crawling from the wreckage: the labour process
and the politics of production. In Knights, D. & Willmott, H.
(Eds.), Labour Process Theory. London: Macmillan.
42
Thompson, P. 1989. The Nature of Work (Second edition). London:
Macmillan.
Warde, A. 1992. Industrial discipline: factory regime and politics
in Lancaster. In Sturdy et al., (Eds.), Skill and Consent:
Contemporary Studies in the Labour Process. London:
Routledge.
Weber, M. (1978 [1922]).
Economy and Society:
An Outline of
Interpretive Sociology.
(2 vols.; edited by G. Roth & C.
Wittich). Berkeley: University of California Press.
West, J. 1990. Gender and the labour process: A reassessment. In
Knights, D. & Willmott, H. (eds.), Labour Process Theory.
London: Macmillan.
Willmott, H. 1990. Subjectivity and the dialectics of praxis:
opening up the core of labour process analysis. In Knights,
D.
& Willmott, H. (Eds.), Labour Process Theory. London:
Macmillan.
43
John:
This
is
text
introduction/synopsis
I
deleted
from
the
original
Ritzer (1993) draws on the Weberian notion of the "iron cage"
to argue that western capitalist societies are undergoing a
process
of
unprecedented,
intensive
rationalization-McDonaldization. He
identifies Scientific Management, Fordism,
and Bureaucratization as precursors of McDonaldization.
But,
McDonaldization reflects the development of combinations of these
precursors into "interlocking rational systems" that represent a
qualitatively
different
(i.e.,
hyper-rationalized)
mode
of
organization that is permeating Western culture. The case is made
that
everyday
life
in
Western
societies
is
profoundly
McDonaldized.
Ritzer presents evidence and analysis relating to
food and diet, shopping, body conditioning, education, mass media,
entertainment, and human sexuality.
Furthermore, he links
McDonaldization to other changes in Western society, such as dualcareer households, single-parent families, and heightened mobility
and pace of life.
Ritzer also describes the concurrent
development of cultural beliefs and values that foster emotional
commitment to the tenets of McDonaldization.
We take this description of McDonaldization as parallel to
Foucault's (1980) notion of global domination and as an example of
how micro-technologies of discipline employed in workplaces and
other social sites spread throughout a social system if they
provide political and/or economic advantages to individuals and
groups positioned to employ them. Foucault (1980) makes the point
that " ... all of a sudden ..." these micro-technologies "come to
be colonized and maintained by global mechanisms and the entire
State system .. [they] come to be incorporated into the social
whole" (p. 101).
The Neo-Foucaultian Impact
The emergence of neo-Foucaultian perspectives on the labor
process (Knights & Vurdubakis, 1994) has led to far-reaching
consequences.
It has produced an unsettling effect on the
underlying paradigm (see Thompson, 1991). Also, it has challenged
totalizing notions of subjectivity that presuppose collectivist
consciousness, such as class, gender, and so on, laying the
groundwork for developing more complex interpretations of self-
44
formation and deep subjectivity.
Equally importantly, research
based on Foucault's writings has emphasized the richness and
complexity of the micro-physics of
control and resistance
dynamics, and the importance of the local, socio-historical
context for explaining specific strategies of control and
resistance.
That is, what has been emphasized from Foucault is
his interest in identifying the capillary-level dynamics of power.
The infusion of Foucaultian-inspired thinking into labor
process analysis has been insightful in many ways, but it has
proceeded without much attention being given to what all the local
dynamics add up to and without proper consideration being given to
how the local control-resistance dynamics are affected by more
general mechanisms. In his lecture on methodological precautions,
Foucault (1980, p. 99) made it clear that:
"One must rather conduct an ascending analysis of power, starting
... from its infinitesimal mechanisms, which each have their
own history, ... and then see how these mechanisms of power
have been--and continue to be--invested, colonized, utilized,
involuted, transformed, displaced, extended, etc., by ever
more general mechanisms and by forms of global domination."
The primary purpose of this paper is not to argue that the
McDonaldization thesis is compelling in its conceptual refinement
or empirical validity such that it must be incorporated into labor
process theory.
Its empirical validity will be probed in our
analysis. And, there are several vague and contradictory aspects
to this thesis that we will clarify and challenge. However, we do
think that Ritzer's (1993) thesis is bold, provocative and worthy
of consideration by labor process theorists because it raises some
interesting questions about the theoretical boundaries of labor
process analysis.
We explore the idea that while local contexts and conditions at
the firm or labor market level may prevent the use of deskilling
or make it profitable for capital to re-skill workers (for example
through employee involvement or quality circle programs), all
firms in western capitalist societies are embedded within a hyperrational, disciplinary grid that causes a tendency toward the use
of deskilling and other direct forms of control.
This accounts
for commonalities in the use of control strategies across
industries.
It also accounts for the phenomenal growth of lowskill service sector jobs in the U.S., which numerically swamp the
increase in "re-skilled" manufacturing jobs pointed to by many
labor process theorists.
45
We consider the idea that workplace experiences may have been
over-emphasized as determinants of worker subjectivity in even the
most sophisticated research (see Smith, 1994).
This opens the
door to re-examining the hypothesis that an individual's nonworkplace
experiences
are
necessarily
"fragmenting"
or
contradictory in nature. We question whether McDonaldization may
have led to the formation of common cultural or wide-spread
subcultural values that serve as the basis for secure, nonworkplace identities.
III. Boundary Issues and Control, Resistance and Subjectivity
As noted previously, there is a close relationship between
the conceptual boundaries that are drawn around specific labor
process concepts such as "labor" and "capital" and the analytical
boundaries that have been drawn around the labor process itself.
The relationships between the concepts of control, resistance and
subjectivity and the three analytical boundary perspectives
described in the previous section are sketched below:
1)
Traditional theory: Consistent
with
this
perspectives'
belief that the labor process is fundamentally autonomous,
meaningful control and resistance dynamics are the result of and
are reflected in class struggle at the point of production. Worker
subjectivity is conceptualized as class consciousness (cf.
Braverman, 1974).
2)
Full-circuit of capital: While not directly addressed by
full-circuit theorists, control and resistance can be reasonably
conceptualized as being present throughout the full-circuit - in
the labor market, the labor process, and the product market, and
manifested in conflict or disarticulations between the three
components (Kelly, 1985). We can also argue that worker
subjectivity can be conceptualized as influenced not only by
point-of-production experiences, but equally by experiences in the
product or labor markets.
3)
Internal/External theory: Reflecting the semi-autonomous
conceptualization of the labor process, control and resistance (or
consent) dynamics are viewed as resulting primarily from
"internal" class relations at the point of production. However,
the concepts of control and resistance are expanded to include the
influences of "external" forces, such as gender effects or
external
labor
market
conditions,
which
can
affect
the
distribution of power among workers and capital in particular
46
firms, and the choice of control and resistance strategies and
tactics used in particular workplaces (cf. Warde, 1992; Edwards,
1990; Edwards & Scullion, 1982; Friedman, 1977; Burawoy, 1985).
Researchers who assume this perspective on the boundaries of
the labor process have used Foucaultian-derived theories of
"capillary
power"
to
conceptualize
workplace
control
and
resistance as resulting from the simultaneous effects of a variety
of social spheres, including class dynamics (Jaros, 1992), gender
effects (Collinson, 1994), local social and cultural values
(Collinson, 1992), and political and institutional contexts
(O'Connell Davidson, 1994). Also consistent with this perspective
are recent research on worker subjectivity that conceptualize it
as a product not only of "gameplaying" and other point-ofproduction activities (Burawoy, 1979), but also the interplay of
labor process dynamics and the effects of other social spheres
such as masculine identity (Knights, 1990; Kerfoot & Knights,
1993), and the identity-fragmenting nature of popular culture
(Willmott, 1990).
Much of contemporary leadership theory presupposes that a
fundamental paradigm shift has begun, is the probable future, and
is highly desirable. Radically new ways of thinking about people,
work and consumption, political economy, the natural environment,
spirituality, and other aspects of modern life are being proposed
with increasing frequency. Leadership that is transformational or
"values-driven" (cf. Badaracco & Ellsworth, 1989) proposes to do
more than manipulate people into believing that their oppressive
and mundane world of work is actually one with transcendental or
at least cultural significance.
It proposes to elevate human
beings, their production systems and the nature of civilizations
to higher moral planes of existence.
Ritzer challenges us to think about the possibility that the
human condition in modern life is such that people not only submit
to "heavy processing" in every domain of existence, but that we
cheerfully celebrate this way of life.
In my view, this is
clearly not the best human beings are capable of and need not be
the future we construct, but it is apparent that major differences
in opinion exist about just how degrading and debilitating this
way of life is.
Leadership philosophers, theorists and
researchers will continue to formulate new approaches that point
to more reasonable paradigms and alternative futures.
The
McDonaldization of Society is a potentially useful resource that
can serve as a reminder of how far we may already have come down
47
the track of rationalization and of how difficult it may be to
embrace the new paradigms and alternative futures.