Social organizations: structure, function, and impact

Sociology McDonald's

There are numerous sociological theories for how organizations come together, how they are maintained, how information flows within them, and how they ultimately extend beyond the actions of any single individual within them. Understanding the phenomenon of the organization has become of particular importance in the increasingly globalized world economy; ultimately, this is because the expanding of individual businesses and products has begun to reach the global scale. Along with the emergence of multinational corporations has come the individual ideals, philosophies, ways of conducting business, and underlying values of these corporations. To some extent, corporations like McDonald's have come to represent America itself -- both in terms of capitalistic power and the two's fundamental philosophies. McDonald's, as an organization, is something rather amorphous and, with regard to the individual people working within it, a transitory entity. However, it is also a way of organizing society, the supposed culmination of the "American dream," and it brings along with it an implicit dogma for how wealth and power should be distributed throughout the world. In this way, McDonald's is more than simply a corporation; it is a very real and binding social theory at work in the world today.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the corporate expansion of organizations like McDonald's across the world is the degree of worldwide homogenization that accompanies their expansion, when, at one time, McDonald's was conceived of as a unique approach to business. So, in some ways, the success of McDonald's can be conceived of as a success story in the achievement of the American dream; two brothers started a simple burger store in California in 1945, which eventually made them fabulously wealthy. Yet it is important to point out that the success of McDonald's did not simply stop with the financial success of Dick and Mac McDonald. The organization itself lived-on and quickly subsumed many of the competing individuals and companies that were attempting to sell similar products. This initiated the process of homogenization, which now is apparent national and international levels. One has to only drive through the United States' interstate highways to recognize the emergence of homogenization in the current global economy; you can eat at the same restaurants and buy the same goods at the same stores in Miami, Florida as you can in Billings, Montana.

Essentially, "Homogenization is basically something imposed on people by market forces. It treats people as objects. Even while they use those goods, people can and do assert themselves as subjects, integrating them in their own way of life," (Amaladoss). In other words, many contend that despite the fact that increasingly people all across the world are producing and consuming identical products, the particular cultural forces and uses for those products continue to vary. Additionally, local moral guidelines and values may still be quite different from region to region and from nation to nation. Yet the lesson of the success of McDonald's and the continuing expansion of capitalism around the globe remains that the most economically lucrative approaches to business will tend to work their way into cultural philosophies and gain widespread acceptance.

One of the more revealing critiques of the sociological consequences of the McDonaldization of society comes from Schosser's book Fast Food Nation. He writes, "The sociologist George Ritzer has attacked the fast food industry for celebrating a narrow measure of efficiency over every other human value, calling the triumph of McDonald's 'the irrationality of rationality,'" (Schlosser 9). Yet, this perspective is veiled by the oppressive values of those with substantial power: "Others consider the fast food industry proof of the nation's great economic vitality, a beloved American institution that appeals overseas to millions who admire our way of life," (Schlosser 10). Essentially, Schlosser juxtaposes these competing points-of-view to suggest that the social institution that fast food has become is responsible for its immoral consequences specifically because they are deliberately hidden behind a smiling face and a concept of nationalism rife with inaccuracies. Schlosser contends that the malleable characteristics of human nature lend themselves to the form of control that fast food has taken over their lives.

He writes concerning McDonald's in particular, "The fundamental goal of the 'My McDonald's campaign was to make a customer feel that McDonald's 'cares about me' and 'knows about me,'" (Schlosser 50). Meanwhile, the elemental organization of the company made such understandings of McDonald's deeply fallacious. However, Schlosser argues that fast food corporations have not only been relying upon their ability to portray themselves as something they are not, but that they assert that any negative aspects of national homogenization are inevitable consequences of the free market. Since humans cannot ever completely grasp the causes behind events, most fail to realize, "There is nothing inevitable about the fast food nation that surrounds us -- about its marketing strategies, labor policies, agricultural techniques, about its relentless drive for conformity and cheapness," (Schlosser 260).

Similarly, Weber contends that there is one value that has become almost universal to modern society: the rational pursuit of economic gain. He understands the current form of capitalism in the world as having been born out of specific philosophical points-of-view in Protestant Christianity; the rational pursuit of economic gain, in effect, has become a tenet of the Protestant West. Weber understands this to have occurred because Protestantism has come to value certain activities -- like hard work and material contributions to society -- as being moral behaviors. While this perception of these behaviors was initially just a byproduct of the Protestant worldview, it has come to be the preeminent virtue in capitalistic society. So, it is reasonable to wonder -- from Weber's standpoint -- that if a cobbler hunching over his work daily is a result of his devotion to God at the same time as it is a contribution to society, how should an individual live out their lives who has no tangible skill to donate to society? According to Weber, individuals should be wary of automatically embracing the usual moral frameworks endorsed by society and the government.

Naturally, the most all-encompassing and expansive social control that many sociologists have identified with respect to the United States is the idea of the American dream. C. Wright Mills writes, "It is the proud claim of the higher circles in America that their members are entirely self-made. That is their self-image and their well-publicized myth.... We cannot from upward mobility infer higher merit," (Mills 1959, 348). The American dream essentially signifies the notion that hard and consistent work can eventually provide anyone with what they desire for survival. America is one of the first places in the history of civilization in which the concept that everyone can make something of themselves has been prevalent -- that an individual can start with nothing, and end up with everything. This, however, is merely a theoretical notion; in reality, numerous limitations obstruct acquisition of the American dream from multiple angles. The dream has established a cultural mentality that justifies the status quo, and lends credence to the successes or failures of the individual: it makes the individual the only one responsible for their plight or their dominance. In short, Mills asserts that the American dream in particular is the culmination of the desire of the upper class to maintain their privileged position.

Schlosser identifies this mentality as lending itself to the perpetual reproduction of indistinguishable fast food restraints, their spreading across the nation, and their destruction of local economies. At its heart, the American dream grows out of a specific conception of the free market economy that implies that if a certain restraint is successful it must be innately superior to those which it defeats. However, "While publicly espousing support for the free market, the fast food chains have quietly pursued and greatly benefited from a wide variety of government subsidies. Far from being inevitable, America's fast food industry in its present form is the logical outcome of certain political and economic choices," (Schlosser 8). Even more devious is the manner by which many of these government subsidies are obtained by fast food franchises: "For more than three decades the fast food industry has used the Small Business Administration (SBA) to finance new restraints -- thereby turning a federal agency that was created to help independent, small businesses into one that eliminates them," (Schlosser 101-2). So, the idea that it is possible to be a self-made individual is eliminated in the same way that Mills argues: the belief that people can achieve the American dream prevents people from achieving it.

Of course, this is not the only sociological consequence of the growing success of McDonald's and other enormous multinational corporations. Many of these consequences can be viewed through the lens of sociological conflict theories. The conflict perspective is a particular way to view the nature of human beings and their roles in society: they are seen through the lens of competing goals, and as utilizing their specific levels of power to achieve these goals. With reference to the United States, conflict theory largely pertains to the social controls imposed by the ruling class onto the rest of society. Accordingly, the significance of the application of the conflict perspective to American food is that its accuracy is so blatantly valid that it has progressed almost unnoticed through our nation's history. Out of the philosophical roots of Marx, conflict theory has evolved and broadened its scope; today, it is most commonly used to evaluate the legal system, but the core conflict remains that between the proletariats and the owners of the means of production. In this way, the conflicts surrounding the exponentially expanding fast food industry reach between the working class and the social elite. McDonalds's, in particular, represents one of the most glaring examples of how the social elite in society have managed to package, sell, and justify their prominent position in American society to the masses.

The central premise of social conflict theory is that individuals and groups within society generally use their power -- as much of it as they have -- to gain benefits. Essentially, the resultant jockeying for position tends to strongly guide, though not completely determine, the actions of individual people within a society. The manner by which human behaviors are guided is through social controls; these stand as the formal manifestation of the interests of the ruling class. So, in a way, these social controls act as the structural groundwork for conformity and consensus within society -- in one way they promote obedience. However, they also promote further conflict by virtue of the fact that they exist to oppressively root out competition and crush the aspirations of those seeking to usurp power.

This aspect of social controls comes from the simple observational truth that those with power aim to increase their holdings and extend their influence, while those without much power aim to increase their lot in life. Obviously, these two goals only rarely complement one another. To Marx, the level of economic inequality in a society was directly proportional to the amount of social conflict endemic to that society. Yet, there comes a point where it becomes most advantageous for the ruling class to attempt to socialize the lower classes into accepting inequality upon any moral or pragmatic basis that can be devised. This is the major way in which overt conflict may be mollified in the interests of specific individuals or groups. Thus, within conflict theory, common values and social norms -- in an unequal society -- arise out of economic organization and inequality; they are not, as they superficially appear, examples of moral truths or economic inevitabilities.

Of course, conflict theory is not the only lens through which the emergence of a fast-food culture has taken place. Nineteenth century sociologist Emile Durkheim's theoretical stance is also valuable toward understanding how, if there is such a conflict between the social classes, it has remained relatively beneath the surface in American society. In other words, Durkheim's position is that such injustices have been sold to modern society in a way that has made them attractive and sustained the current social hierarchy. Within his works, Durkheim aimed to find causal links between social truths; and consequently, to add these links together in order to develop a workable model of a true society. Thus, the "normal" society, to Durkheim, is one in which an overarching moral code can be applied that is suitable to a given society during a particular stage in its development. In this way, normal societies promote social health, social integration, and solidarity; but universally applying a moral standard to societies of differing milieus would be a serious mistake. Although social truths are immutable, they are not transferable.

So Durkheim argues that the social order and division of labor within each society are not merely economic phenomena, but they stem from sociological or moral bonds -- these allow a society to function because they are the underpinnings of solidarity. He illustrates this point with examples: "When we desire the repression of crime, it is not we that we desire to avenge personally, but to avenge something sacred which we feel more or less confusedly outside and above us," (Durkheim 100). This is a powerful point asserted by Durkheim; fundamentally, he is arguing that implicit moral codes are associated with each social mileu in which a person lives. In the case of a fast-food driven society, it could be argued that the most potent moral codes are those that grow out of conceptions of the American dream.

One of the conflict perspective's most innovative assertions regarding society and humanity comes from Karl Marx's conception of human nature and our place within history; "Human nature, according to Marx, is not an unchanging inevitable anchor-point for any existing or possible institution. It is very much involved with the nature of specific societies -- as well as with strata within societies. The principle of historical specificity includes the nature of human nature," (Mills 1963, 39). Accordingly, human perception is not fully capable of grasping the truth behind events; it is only able to develop some representative illustration of it. So, the scientific observations of the world and the knowledge gained from these observations enable humans to recognize and impose patterns of behavior upon the physical world, thus, to manipulate it in a manner that can never be completely comprehended. There is no such thing as objective truth, but our patterns of thought can evolve if human surroundings are also to evolve. Accordingly, to uphold the status quo is to selectively ignore the continuing processes of human thought and exploration.

The culmination of this observational notion, to Marx, was that the bourgeoisie class was imposing their aims upon the working class by treating property as a private function, while simultaneously making it a social function. "To make the ownership of industrial capital and the means of production a private concern was immoral because it enabled one man to exploit the labor of others; it was uneconomic because it failed to provide for the proper planning of industry," (Kamenka xxx). The reality of class conflict was not merely the expressions of the fragmentation of social aims into individual aims, but a result of the history of thought. Therefore, the social institutions and norms that had come into existence through similar processes were just as responsible for immoral consequences as individual selfishness.

Durkheim, on the other hand, understands these social divisions, which are primarily determined along lines of one's role in the economy, as merely the consequences of underlying moral assumptions within a given society. Still, Durkheim is perhaps most well-known for introducing his idea of anomie within society. To him, although there are often these abstract compulsions towards solidarity, at certain points in history a distinct lack of moral norms can come about; this, more than anything, rips societies apart and reorganized them, often violently.