Cultural Globalization, McDonaldization, and Social Change

Introduction: What Is Globalization?

Globalization is becoming an increasingly common term, present on the lips of more and more individuals. But what exactly does this concept imply? Globalization is a generic term that encompasses a wide series of changes occurring across various levels and domains, including economics, politics, medicine, technology, and culture. As one widely cited definition puts it, "globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world" (Globalization 101, 2008).

Globalization is generally attributed to the interests of large corporations, which pressure governments into promoting laws for their own benefit. These corporations have then, as one commentator provocatively put it, "achieved what Alexander the Great, Caesar, the Spanish conquistadors, Napoleon, the British Empire, and Hitler never could: They rule the world" (Walljasper, 1996).

The phenomenon has been analyzed from various perspectives and has raised both supporters and critics, most of them discussing its economic and political implications — both positive and negative. A newer way of approaching globalization is from a cultural standpoint. In this particular sense, the central question explored here concerns the cultural implications of a globalized community.

Cultural Globalization: Glocalization and Grobalization

Critics of the international phenomenon have often argued that globalization creates opportunities for scale economies. This is possible due to increased access to resources — including capital, labor, and technologies — which can be exploited by a given country or corporation to manufacture product lines placed onto national and international markets at uncompetitive prices. These accusations have been taken a step further to suggest that globalization supports the creation of monopoly economies, in which one corporation or a group of companies holds full control over a market and the industry in which they operate. While it cannot be said that McDonald's holds a monopoly, it is true that it is the largest fast food chain in the world and its presence has been felt across many countries. The territorial expansion of the American chain has only been possible through the globalization of international markets. The countries in which McDonald's operates have developed a strong fast food culture, and the approach taken by the chain has been adopted by other corporations as well — a situation often referred to as McDonaldization. Through generalization and the inclusion of other American corporations operating internationally, the term "Americanization" has been introduced as a near-synonym for globalization. But is this indeed true? Have American corporations exported United States culture to various parts of the globe? And is cultural globalization as powerful a force as some declare?

A dual approach to the globalization of culture has been developed through two terms: glocalization and grobalization. Glocalization represents the integration of the international phenomenon with the unique features that define the country or region of expansion. Grobalization, on the other hand, refers to the influences felt by local communities as a result of the territorial expansion of international corporations. "Glocalization is a term that was invented in order to emphasize that the globalization of a product is more likely to succeed when the product or service is adapted specifically to each locality or culture it is marketed in. The term combines the word globalization with localization" (Search CIO, 2008). "Grobalization is the growing influence of centralized organizations on other parts of the world — not just the happy mixture of glocalization, but an imposition of forms" (Hernandez-Diaz, 2004). The very existence and definition of these two concepts reveals the true importance of cultural globalization.

In Globalization of Nothing 2 (2007), George Ritzer concludes that "globalization is a very broad process that encompasses a number of major subprocesses. One way of looking at globalization is to see it as encompassing a wide range of processes that form a continuum ranging from the well-known glocalization on one end to the newly coined grobalization on the other. The idea of a continuum makes it clear that most of what we think of as globalization falls somewhere between these two poles. Another way of saying this is that both glocalization and grobalization are ideal types, with few, if any, actual global processes being purely one or the other. Thus, in looking at global processes or phenomena, we must assess their relative degree of glocal and grobal elements. The local is largely downplayed in this formulation because it has been, or is being, decimated by the grobal. That which remains of it is integrated into, and adulterated by, the grobal."

Social Effects of Cultural Globalization

A country's culture is formed from all the features that give it identity, such as language, religion, nationality, and ethnicity — features that have all begun to change once globalization took hold. Consider, for instance, the market liberalization that has allowed an easier transfer of labor. As a result, numerous individuals have left their native countries in search of better-paid jobs abroad. This has led to larger and more significant communities of immigrants, generating changes in the demographic features of their regions of origin. From another angle, increasing numbers of emigrants have produced a reduction in the native population of their home countries. Take the case of Mexico, which has lost large portions of its workforce. Many working-age individuals left the country and established new residences in the United States, leaving their families behind — and those who remained were generally the elderly and children. These children were then forced to grow up without their parents, generating a serious social problem with wide-ranging implications.

The children of immigrants represent a social concern, as they must grow up and develop as social individuals without the guidance of their parents. While the latest figures have shown that poverty rates among these children have decreased, one must ask whether the price is too high. Improperly supervised children can easily fall prey to temptations with harmful consequences. Crime rates among youth are elevated, suicide rates are higher, and despite their parents' efforts to provide a better life, these children are often insufficiently educated.

Some immigrants choose to bring their children with them, often after working abroad for a few years and becoming better able to provide for their families. But even this scenario is not as optimistic as it might initially seem. The children of immigrants face numerous barriers in their new country: they may not understand or speak the language, they encounter difficulties adjusting and interacting with native peers, or they show limited engagement in academic activities. Carola Suarez-Orozco and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco (2002) have examined the problems faced by immigrant children in the United States in depth: "For immigrant children, it is the best of times and the worst. These children are more likely than any previous generation of immigrants to end up in Ivy League universities — or unschooled, on parole, or in prison. Most arrive as motivated students, respectful of authority and quick to learn English. Yet, at the same time, many face huge obstacles to success, such as poverty, prejudice, the trauma of immigration itself, and exposure to the materialistic, hedonistic world of their native-born peers."

The effects of cultural globalization are varied, and the scholarly literature presents a wide array of empirical evidence supporting both negative and positive implications. Jay Walljasper (1996) organized his concerns under the following set of questions: "Are you nervous that fierce economic competition may force your employer to slash jobs or relocate overseas? Do you worry that your kids spend too much time absorbed in the violent, flashing images of television and video games? Have you watched small shops and businesses in your neighborhood go broke as commerce flows toward mammoth superstores on the edge of town? Has your hometown recently turned harder-edged, with more crime, more poverty, and less confidence that we can do anything about these problems? Does your life seem to move at a faster and more uncomfortable pace? Is it your perception that no matter how hard you try, you always wind up feeling poorer, fatter, drabber, less sexy, less happy, and less fully alive than the people portrayed in advertisements? If so, you're not alone. Almost six billion people on the planet feel much the same way."

It cannot be said, however, that globalization has only negative effects on modern society and culture. Culture by definition consists of all the features that identify a nation, and it is formed over centuries. Across history, societies have always been subjected to various changes that shaped their current cultural and social characteristics. In that light, the following concerns are frequently raised about cultural globalization:

Countries may eventually become culturally unified and lose traces of cultural individuality; "the process will lead to a stripping away of identity and a blandly uniform" outcome (Rothkop, 1997). Conflicts may arise between more traditional groups and those who wish to embrace globalization. The American individual as portrayed in Hollywood films has become a role model for people in every corner of the globe — a concern significant enough that Canada and France have enacted laws restricting American television channels from broadcasting on their territories. Privatization, scale economies, and large superstores will threaten local economies, including craftspeople and other local entrepreneurs who manufacture items of cultural significance to their regions. Ruling powers may gain increased — if not complete — control over a region; the case of Iraq and the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power is one example in which American troops came to control the region, yet violence did not cease nor did the population's living standards improve.