What do you think?
Rate this book
Toplumun McDonaldlaştırılması
McDonald's nedir? Basit, işlevsel, modüler yiyecekler; parlak renklerle düzenlenmiş, ışıltılı mekanlar; bir örnek giysili, genç, neşeli çalışanlar; mama sandalyesine kadar her türlü ayrınıtının düşünüldüğü tertemiz aile ortamaları..."fast-food"un adı haline gelmiş bir ticari marka...Amerikalı toplum kuramcısı Georfe Ritzer, bu ilginç çalışmasında, McDonald's teriminin bunlardan ibaret olmadığını yalın ve çarpıcı bir üslupla gösteriyor bize. McDonald's, toplama kampı modelinde ilham alarak bütün dünyayı "akılcılğın demir kafesi" içine hapseden toplumsal, ekonomik, kültürel bir sistemin adı. McDoktorlar'dan McÜniversiteler'e, McGazete ve McEğelence'ye kadar insan yaşamının bütün alanlarını yutmakta olan bir kafes."Toplumun McDonaldlaştırılması" kavramın temsil ettiği akılcılaşma süreci, modern yaşamın ihtiyaçlarına hızlı ve etkili yanıtlar sağlayan dört temel unsura dayanır: Verimlilik, hesaplanabilirlik, öngörülebilirlik ve denetim. Akılcılaşma tüm yaşam alanlarına hakim olmakla kalamaz, yaşamın öncesine ve sonrasına da el atar: McDoğumlar ve McCenazeler, hep bu elden çıkmadır. Ancak akılcılaşma ister istemez kendi içinde akıldışlığı barındırmaktadır ve bu da insansızlaşmayı, insanlıktan çıkmayı getirir: Standart ebat ve lezzetteki patateslerin ardında korkunç bir çevre tahribatı; parlak renklerle döşenmiş bol ışıklı yemek salınlarının gerisindeki mutfakta muazzam bir emek sömürüsü; ekonomik, pratik, öngörülemezliğin tehlikelerinden uzak aile sofralarında "benliğin sınırlandığı, duyguların denetlendiği, ruhun boyun eğdiği" bir dünya vardır.Yer yer sosyolojik inceleme değil kara ütopya hissi veren Toplumun McDonaldlaştırılması'nda Ritzer, teknolojiyi külliyen dışlamadan, nostaljik duygusallıklara kendini kaptırmadan, modern topluma sağlam bir eleştiri getiriyor. Kötümsel ama paniğe kapılmıyor: Bu yoldan dönüş olduğuna inanmasa bile, McDonaldlaştırılmış toplumdan rahatsızlık duyanlar için pratik önlemler sunuyorç Belki de ürünlerin üstüne, yazarın önerdiğigi gibi bir uyarı yazısı koyarak başlanabilir işe: "Dikkat!" Gündelik hayatın "tuzaklarına" düşmek istemeyenlere...
(Tanıtım Bülteninden)
(Tanıtım Bülteninden)
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
113 people are currently reading
3169 people want to read
About the author
George Ritzer
114 books80 followersGeorge Ritzer is Distinguished University Professor at the University of Maryland. He has named at Distinguished-Scholar Teacher at Maryland and received the American Sociological Association’s Distinguished Contribution to Teaching Award. Among his academic awards are an Honorary Doctorate from La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; Honorary Patron, University Philosophical Society, Trinity College, Dublin; and the 2012-2013 Robin William Lectureship from the Eastern Sociological Society. He has chaired four Sections of the American Sociological Association- Theoretical Sociology, Organizations and Occupations, first Chair of Global and Transnational Sociology, and the History of Sociology.
His books have been translated into over twenty languages, with over a dozen translations of The McDonaldization of Society alone.
His books have been translated into over twenty languages, with over a dozen translations of The McDonaldization of Society alone.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 130 reviews
October 9, 2013
I'm pretty sure Goodreads represents the rationalization of book reviews and is putting mom-and-pop book review sites out of business. I can't help using them for recording and rating the books I've read, though. I'm sorry mom (and pop).
December 31, 2016
Really entry level sociology, which is why it is so often referenced/assigned in introductory courses. That said, I don't think it should be avoided by veterans of sociological theory. George Ritzer presents an argument that reinforces Weber's century-old plight of the iron cage but uses a more contemporary backdrop to accomplish it. This is precisely why this book should be used more as a supplement rather than a substitute for Weber.
If you're looking for a really accessible, modern, and comprehensive take on foundational social theory, this book will probably do it for you. I personally enjoy the fact that Ritzer dons a very conversational, and often humorous tone without compromising his subject very often.
While the author offers fairly strong points about our craving for predictability, I think that's the book's main shortcoming. The writing is heavily observational and is noticeably lacking in substantive analysis. Supplementary chapters serve more as padding or restatement rather than further exploration. The amount of research is greatly appreciated, but I'd like to see Ritzer venture off a bit more and offer points that are at least a little more challenging for sociology students of all levels. In my experience, the best social critiques incite debate.
Lastly, (and I may be alone in this point) I often found it incredibly frustrating that the role of social class was downplayed in this book. This point gets a brief address towards the end but in a way that feels neglectful and irresponsible. I feel that this was done intentionally as to not complicate the points outlined in the introduction, which often bleed into each other indistinguishably.
What you get with "McDonaldization" is a study that is wholly accessible, contributing both to its success and its greatest faults. But you also get a solid book! I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this to someone just getting started with sociological texts, nor would I shy away from suggesting it to someone well-versed in the field (in the unlikely event that they haven't read it already). After all, this book is especially useful for spurring discussion of broader possibilities, solutions, and explanations for the contemporary iron cage we've locked ourselves in.
If you're looking for a really accessible, modern, and comprehensive take on foundational social theory, this book will probably do it for you. I personally enjoy the fact that Ritzer dons a very conversational, and often humorous tone without compromising his subject very often.
While the author offers fairly strong points about our craving for predictability, I think that's the book's main shortcoming. The writing is heavily observational and is noticeably lacking in substantive analysis. Supplementary chapters serve more as padding or restatement rather than further exploration. The amount of research is greatly appreciated, but I'd like to see Ritzer venture off a bit more and offer points that are at least a little more challenging for sociology students of all levels. In my experience, the best social critiques incite debate.
Lastly, (and I may be alone in this point) I often found it incredibly frustrating that the role of social class was downplayed in this book. This point gets a brief address towards the end but in a way that feels neglectful and irresponsible. I feel that this was done intentionally as to not complicate the points outlined in the introduction, which often bleed into each other indistinguishably.
What you get with "McDonaldization" is a study that is wholly accessible, contributing both to its success and its greatest faults. But you also get a solid book! I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this to someone just getting started with sociological texts, nor would I shy away from suggesting it to someone well-versed in the field (in the unlikely event that they haven't read it already). After all, this book is especially useful for spurring discussion of broader possibilities, solutions, and explanations for the contemporary iron cage we've locked ourselves in.
August 11, 2021
NOT (@!#*&!) a theoretical book. Basically 300 pages that go something like this (this is a completely random excerpt):
”There are innumerable other Internet sites (e.g., Overstock) where one can efficiently engage in e-tailing and shop for virtually anything. Among the other examples are online banking (the leader is Ally), pharmacies (e.g., Express Scripts, as well as a number in Canada where drug prices are lower than in the United States), grocery delivery (e.g., Amazon and FreshDirect), and flower delivery (e.g., ProFlowers). Consultations with “online doctors” are also available via, for example, TelaDoc and Doctor on Demand.40 Then there is the leading online auction and shopping site eBay (another is eBid), which allows buyers and sellers, both consumers and businesses, to deal with one another, and to buy and sell, in a highly efficient manner. Imagine how difficult and inefficient it would be for such buyers and sellers to find, let alone deal with, one another without eBay. Stubhub, purchased by eBay in 2007, allows for online ticket trading for a wide range of events. Consider how inefficient such trading was before sites like StubHub when, for example, buyers and sellers had to rely on chance meetings outside an event venue. PayPal, also owned by eBay, makes paying for online purchases easy and efficient.”
On the other hand - and this is coming from someone who hasn’t been to McDonald’s in about twenty years - I know I’ll never look at McDonald’s the same way again.
”There are innumerable other Internet sites (e.g., Overstock) where one can efficiently engage in e-tailing and shop for virtually anything. Among the other examples are online banking (the leader is Ally), pharmacies (e.g., Express Scripts, as well as a number in Canada where drug prices are lower than in the United States), grocery delivery (e.g., Amazon and FreshDirect), and flower delivery (e.g., ProFlowers). Consultations with “online doctors” are also available via, for example, TelaDoc and Doctor on Demand.40 Then there is the leading online auction and shopping site eBay (another is eBid), which allows buyers and sellers, both consumers and businesses, to deal with one another, and to buy and sell, in a highly efficient manner. Imagine how difficult and inefficient it would be for such buyers and sellers to find, let alone deal with, one another without eBay. Stubhub, purchased by eBay in 2007, allows for online ticket trading for a wide range of events. Consider how inefficient such trading was before sites like StubHub when, for example, buyers and sellers had to rely on chance meetings outside an event venue. PayPal, also owned by eBay, makes paying for online purchases easy and efficient.”
On the other hand - and this is coming from someone who hasn’t been to McDonald’s in about twenty years - I know I’ll never look at McDonald’s the same way again.
December 1, 2020
I've never seen anyone rub two facts together and then jump to an unrelated conclusion quite the way George Ritzer does in The McDonaldization of Society.
A professor of sociology at University of Maryland, College Park, Rtizer expands upon Max Weber's theory of rationalization, positing that the fast food industry (specifically McDonald's) best exemplifies a new instrumental rationality based on the four cardinal commercial virtues of efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. Having laid out his theory, Ritzer proceeds to pound it home over and over - or at least attempt to. For various reasons, I wound up reading the 20th anniversary edition of this book rather than the most recent one, and the distance from publication highlighted some of the wild assumptions the author made, many of which I suspect might get edited out of the current edition. His comments on the downward spiral of publishing based on the low pricing of ebooks, for instance, were garbage, and reflected the author's lack of knowledge in that field (at the time, Amazon was artificially depressing the price of ebooks to corner the market; the prices have since rebounded and stabilized). That's a minor example that just happens to be in my area of expertise, but it made me sensitive to the many, many other places in the book where he presents well-researched facts, and then slaps an assumption atop them. (I kept shouting "Correlation is not causation!" as I read.) It doesn't help that Ritzer closes with an entire chapter devoted to shoring up why his branding on his pet theory is still relevant in the age of Starbucks.
As much as I eyerolled at Ritzer's leaps of logic, it was his callous assumptions about wage workers that almost made me throw this book across the room. I understand that the author himself comes from a blue-collar background, so perhaps he's working off some latent resentment, but his theories treat minimum wage employees like shambling morons, whose jobs are so simple that half-witted robot monkeys could do them. While I understand his point that the industry has deliberately striven to reduce the level of individual thought in entry level positions in order to minimize training costs, food service is still hard. Anyone who says different never worked a grill or waited a table. (As a former manager, I was also horrified when Ritzger suggested that employees could express their individuality at work by throwing food at each other.)
While The McDonaldization of Society is a great conversation-starter about America's commercial priorities and a nice ease-in to Weber, overall it feels like a pet theory, and one which the creator is determined to preserve despite any arguments to the contrary. In such cases, it's best to just roll one's eyes and ask if the author would like fries with his unwarranted assumptions.
A professor of sociology at University of Maryland, College Park, Rtizer expands upon Max Weber's theory of rationalization, positing that the fast food industry (specifically McDonald's) best exemplifies a new instrumental rationality based on the four cardinal commercial virtues of efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. Having laid out his theory, Ritzer proceeds to pound it home over and over - or at least attempt to. For various reasons, I wound up reading the 20th anniversary edition of this book rather than the most recent one, and the distance from publication highlighted some of the wild assumptions the author made, many of which I suspect might get edited out of the current edition. His comments on the downward spiral of publishing based on the low pricing of ebooks, for instance, were garbage, and reflected the author's lack of knowledge in that field (at the time, Amazon was artificially depressing the price of ebooks to corner the market; the prices have since rebounded and stabilized). That's a minor example that just happens to be in my area of expertise, but it made me sensitive to the many, many other places in the book where he presents well-researched facts, and then slaps an assumption atop them. (I kept shouting "Correlation is not causation!" as I read.) It doesn't help that Ritzer closes with an entire chapter devoted to shoring up why his branding on his pet theory is still relevant in the age of Starbucks.
As much as I eyerolled at Ritzer's leaps of logic, it was his callous assumptions about wage workers that almost made me throw this book across the room. I understand that the author himself comes from a blue-collar background, so perhaps he's working off some latent resentment, but his theories treat minimum wage employees like shambling morons, whose jobs are so simple that half-witted robot monkeys could do them. While I understand his point that the industry has deliberately striven to reduce the level of individual thought in entry level positions in order to minimize training costs, food service is still hard. Anyone who says different never worked a grill or waited a table. (As a former manager, I was also horrified when Ritzger suggested that employees could express their individuality at work by throwing food at each other.)
While The McDonaldization of Society is a great conversation-starter about America's commercial priorities and a nice ease-in to Weber, overall it feels like a pet theory, and one which the creator is determined to preserve despite any arguments to the contrary. In such cases, it's best to just roll one's eyes and ask if the author would like fries with his unwarranted assumptions.
June 4, 2009
incompleted :S
Well, the main idea of the book is to show the effects of fast-food chains on society. Given an extremely famous example which is MacDonald, the author explains how such a fast-food chain could influence people's values, perceptions, behaviors and lifestyles. Other examples are mentioned also in the book like IKEA and Starbucks ( Starbuckzation !)and how they changed and affected society's lifestyle to a remarkable extent, especially if you were talking about Arabian or Asian countries. And yeah as you keep reading, you see how the author relates his theories to globalization and westernization because-of course-most of these enterprises come from westren countries.
the concept of the book is very INTERESTING, but unfortunately it's written in a very difficult way. I mean all what you see is figures, statistics and barely understandable assumptions. It's not written in a way where the author explains his theories and observations in an UNDERSTANDABLE manner. In all likelihood, It's written for people who do have a good background in sociological sciences. Maybe that's why it was very hard to me to comprehend!
Well, the main idea of the book is to show the effects of fast-food chains on society. Given an extremely famous example which is MacDonald, the author explains how such a fast-food chain could influence people's values, perceptions, behaviors and lifestyles. Other examples are mentioned also in the book like IKEA and Starbucks ( Starbuckzation !)and how they changed and affected society's lifestyle to a remarkable extent, especially if you were talking about Arabian or Asian countries. And yeah as you keep reading, you see how the author relates his theories to globalization and westernization because-of course-most of these enterprises come from westren countries.
the concept of the book is very INTERESTING, but unfortunately it's written in a very difficult way. I mean all what you see is figures, statistics and barely understandable assumptions. It's not written in a way where the author explains his theories and observations in an UNDERSTANDABLE manner. In all likelihood, It's written for people who do have a good background in sociological sciences. Maybe that's why it was very hard to me to comprehend!
January 14, 2021
Kitapta McDonaldlaşma’yı ispat etmeye çalışırcasına verilen örnekler kimi yerde hayli zorlama örnekler olarak ikna edicilikten uzaklaşıyor. Web 1.0 ve web 2.0 ayrımında hatalar var. Tıpkı Sturbucks ve Türkiye ilişkisinde olduğu gibi yanlış öngörüler de yine bu zorlama hissini artırıyor. Ayrıca kitapta çok fazla tekrar var. Aynı önermeler her bölümde biraz daha genişletilmiş örneklerle tekrar tekrar verilmiş. Kültürel değişikliğin Mcdonald’s süreçleriyle olan benzerliklerini vurgulamak geçekten ufuk açıcı olsa da bunu genel geçer bir kural gibi sunmaya çalışmak kitabı okumayı bir sabır testi haline getiriyor.
May 4, 2024
عدة إشادات لهذا الكتاب:
* الغلاف مريح للعين واختيار العنوان يساعد على جذب القارئ لشراء الكتاب.
*الترجمة ممتازة
* اختلفت مع الكاتب في معظم ما ذكره.. هذا طبيعي نظراً إلى أنه من مواليد ١٩٤٠.. ويبدو أنني من جيل القفص المخملي أو القفص المطاطي.. لكن الرائع أن الكتاب ظل ممتعاً حتى آخر صفحة، وكنت أنتظر الانتهاء من أشغالي حتى أعود إليه.
* الغلاف مريح للعين واختيار العنوان يساعد على جذب القارئ لشراء الكتاب.
*الترجمة ممتازة
* اختلفت مع الكاتب في معظم ما ذكره.. هذا طبيعي نظراً إلى أنه من مواليد ١٩٤٠.. ويبدو أنني من جيل القفص المخملي أو القفص المطاطي.. لكن الرائع أن الكتاب ظل ممتعاً حتى آخر صفحة، وكنت أنتظر الانتهاء من أشغالي حتى أعود إليه.
November 24, 2025
Bu kitap size Weber 101 hariç hiçbir şey vadetmiyor. Weber okumamış ya da kuramını bilmeyen için evet anlaşılır sevilmesi. Ama onun haricinde dünyanın en kolay okunan ve en sıkıcı sosyoloji kitaplarından biri olduğu şüphesiz. Milyon tane örnek yüzünüze çarpıtılmış. Zaten çoğunu ve daha fazlasını biraz okuyan, çevresini inceleyen kişiler yapabilir. Başlıklar çok kötü konumlandırılmış ve hangi alt başlık nereye bağlanıyor bir yerde kopuyorsun çünkü seni örnek okyanusa attığında boğulmamak için çabalaman gerekiyor.
Eleştirilerin çoğuna katılıyorum. Pandemi dönemi yenileme çabası takdire değer ama bir kavramda bu kadar inat etmek çok ilginç. Chatgpt ile bu kitap hakkında yaptığım sohbet daha ufuk açıcı ve geliştirilebilirdi. Rasyonalizm tek olgu, geldiğimiz noktanın tek gücü olarak ele alınıyor. Amerika-merkeziyetçi çizgide olmasına rağmen örneklerin küresel olduğu yanılgısına düşüyor. Tüketiciler çok büyük oranla ele alınırken -ve bu tüketiciler genelde kuklalaşmış, üretim sürecinde değişime bir katkısı olmaz- işçi olarak üreticiler geçiştirilmiş. Evet Weber'de de bu konu hak ettiği ölçüde işlenmiyor ama burada sanki daha da azaltılmış.
Ayrıca modern çağın getirdiği(?) bu yenilikleri çoğunlukla erkek bakış açısı tarafından alınması çok tehlikeli. Amerika işleyişine net vakıf değilim. Ama Türkiye üzerinden örnek verirsek hala evde yemek yapma oranı fazladır son yıllara doğru düşse de. Ancak tarihsel olarak yemek yapma, alışveriş yapma sorumluluklarının kadının sırtına yüklenmesi karşısında bu kadar mikro bir yararın yok sayılması beni sinirlendiriyor. Emek sömürüsü veya Ritzer'in bahsettiği sorunlar sadece Mcdonaldlaştırılmış sektörlerde yok. Her sektör evrimleşti. Çalışan işine yabancılaştı, profesyonelleşti, makineleşti vs. Ancak bunun sadece bu alandaymış gibi gösterilmesi bu noktada ev içi emeğinin her türlü kapitalizm eleştirisinde kenara itilmesine denk geliyor.
Eleştirilerin çoğuna katılıyorum. Pandemi dönemi yenileme çabası takdire değer ama bir kavramda bu kadar inat etmek çok ilginç. Chatgpt ile bu kitap hakkında yaptığım sohbet daha ufuk açıcı ve geliştirilebilirdi. Rasyonalizm tek olgu, geldiğimiz noktanın tek gücü olarak ele alınıyor. Amerika-merkeziyetçi çizgide olmasına rağmen örneklerin küresel olduğu yanılgısına düşüyor. Tüketiciler çok büyük oranla ele alınırken -ve bu tüketiciler genelde kuklalaşmış, üretim sürecinde değişime bir katkısı olmaz- işçi olarak üreticiler geçiştirilmiş. Evet Weber'de de bu konu hak ettiği ölçüde işlenmiyor ama burada sanki daha da azaltılmış.
Ayrıca modern çağın getirdiği(?) bu yenilikleri çoğunlukla erkek bakış açısı tarafından alınması çok tehlikeli. Amerika işleyişine net vakıf değilim. Ama Türkiye üzerinden örnek verirsek hala evde yemek yapma oranı fazladır son yıllara doğru düşse de. Ancak tarihsel olarak yemek yapma, alışveriş yapma sorumluluklarının kadının sırtına yüklenmesi karşısında bu kadar mikro bir yararın yok sayılması beni sinirlendiriyor. Emek sömürüsü veya Ritzer'in bahsettiği sorunlar sadece Mcdonaldlaştırılmış sektörlerde yok. Her sektör evrimleşti. Çalışan işine yabancılaştı, profesyonelleşti, makineleşti vs. Ancak bunun sadece bu alandaymış gibi gösterilmesi bu noktada ev içi emeğinin her türlü kapitalizm eleştirisinde kenara itilmesine denk geliyor.
November 21, 2010
I read this because of a cute classmate of mine. But unfortunately, I found this book largely to be a waste of time. Ritzer defines "McDonaldization as: the process by which the principles of the fast food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of the American society as well as the rest of the world." He then identifies 4 "dimensions" of the McDonaldization process, 1. Predictability 2. Efficiency 3. Calculability 4. Control. I really don't need to explain further what he means by this as it's pretty self explanatory. For the most part, I was left waiting for some explanation on how these dimensions are unique from the standard business model. I find that Ritzer never gives one. To me, these four things are pretty much the basic elements of any, if not ALL, business models. What kind of company would not want to incorporate these things into their MO? A fail company me thinks.
For much of the book, Ritzer is content on giving lots and lots of examples of how these dimension work in our society. He gives so many examples that the meaning that he is trying to convey gets lost in it (i.e. Fast food companies accept debit card and credit card to be more efficient (I do not even understand what he is trying to point out here). He is also very fond of stretching arguments to absurdity, claiming in one chapter that the McDonald business model is much like the Holocaust because the Nazi's were efficient in their extermination of the Jews. What?
Ritzer also spends a lot of time lamenting on how McDonalds has dehumanized us. Really? I don't remember my ego being wounded or degraded because I went into the golden archers for a juicy quarter pounder. Though RItzer does address the fact that this system exists because the market wants it, his arguments largely dismiss this. At some point, he has a condescending view on anyone who doesn't see his thesis as detrimental to society, calling them "automatons."
Although RItzer does bring up some good points, albeit unoriginal good points as the only one that really captured my attention here was Max Weber theories on bureaucracy, he is just mired in terrible misattributions and terrible stretch arguments. The end result of which is book of very poor quality.
For much of the book, Ritzer is content on giving lots and lots of examples of how these dimension work in our society. He gives so many examples that the meaning that he is trying to convey gets lost in it (i.e. Fast food companies accept debit card and credit card to be more efficient (I do not even understand what he is trying to point out here). He is also very fond of stretching arguments to absurdity, claiming in one chapter that the McDonald business model is much like the Holocaust because the Nazi's were efficient in their extermination of the Jews. What?
Ritzer also spends a lot of time lamenting on how McDonalds has dehumanized us. Really? I don't remember my ego being wounded or degraded because I went into the golden archers for a juicy quarter pounder. Though RItzer does address the fact that this system exists because the market wants it, his arguments largely dismiss this. At some point, he has a condescending view on anyone who doesn't see his thesis as detrimental to society, calling them "automatons."
Although RItzer does bring up some good points, albeit unoriginal good points as the only one that really captured my attention here was Max Weber theories on bureaucracy, he is just mired in terrible misattributions and terrible stretch arguments. The end result of which is book of very poor quality.
October 31, 2023
" يؤدي زبائن مطاعم الوجبات السريعة مهام غير مدفوعة الأجر أكثر بكثير ممن يتناولون الطعام في المطاعم كاملة الخدمات."
المكدلة وهو مصطلح يشير إلى وصف الحالة التي نُشرت فيها ثقافة الولايات المتحدة الامريكية ومنتجاتها الاقتصادية إلى العالم ، وبتأثير ليس محدود على الوحبات السريعة بل على جميع المجالات كالصحة والتعليم والرياضة ونهايةً بمكدلة الموت.
يتكلم الكتاب عن كيفية تحول المجتمع في كل أمور حياته المختلفة إلى اللاعقلانية وكيف اصبح كل شيء يشبه ماكدونالدز في طريقة ادارته خصوصاً في جذب المستهلكين ، حيث يركز الكاتب على ٤ عناصر رئيسية للمكدلة وهي الكفاءة ، القابلية للقياس ، القابلية للتوقع وأخيراً السيطرة ويشرح في كل عنصر الأمثلة الموجودة في العالم بالمنتجات وفي جميع المجالات.
الكتاب ممتع ولكن عيبه في تكرار بعض الأفكار اللي يبي يوصلها الكاتب ، كذلك الأسم المترجم ظلم الكتاب بشكل كبير جداً لذلك حبيت اسميه بأسمه الأصلي : مكدلة المجتمع.
المكدلة وهو مصطلح يشير إلى وصف الحالة التي نُشرت فيها ثقافة الولايات المتحدة الامريكية ومنتجاتها الاقتصادية إلى العالم ، وبتأثير ليس محدود على الوحبات السريعة بل على جميع المجالات كالصحة والتعليم والرياضة ونهايةً بمكدلة الموت.
يتكلم الكتاب عن كيفية تحول المجتمع في كل أمور حياته المختلفة إلى اللاعقلانية وكيف اصبح كل شيء يشبه ماكدونالدز في طريقة ادارته خصوصاً في جذب المستهلكين ، حيث يركز الكاتب على ٤ عناصر رئيسية للمكدلة وهي الكفاءة ، القابلية للقياس ، القابلية للتوقع وأخيراً السيطرة ويشرح في كل عنصر الأمثلة الموجودة في العالم بالمنتجات وفي جميع المجالات.
الكتاب ممتع ولكن عيبه في تكرار بعض الأفكار اللي يبي يوصلها الكاتب ، كذلك الأسم المترجم ظلم الكتاب بشكل كبير جداً لذلك حبيت اسميه بأسمه الأصلي : مكدلة المجتمع.
July 19, 2010
This was sitting in a pile of books slated for a garage sale. I picked it up for something to browse for a short time and couldn't put it down. At this point, everyone should already know that McDonalds is unhealthy... that's not what this book is about. It's about how the processes behind the McDonalds formula (rationalization, efficiency, consistency, really the same stuff of Henry Ford's assembly line) has seeped into all aspects of American society (and is seeping into global society), and how this is not often for the better. It's a depressing tale, and Ritzer is Pessimistic about reversing or changing the process on a large scale. But he does talk about possible ways to avoid McDonaldized society if you're one of those who agree with him about its costs.
April 9, 2018
Які принципи лежать в основі діяльності корпорації "МакДональдз"? Адже вони зараз є визначальними і для більшості компаній. І навіть проникають в повсякденне життя більшості людей по всьому світу. Які це може мати наслідки в майбутньому? І як з цією макдональдизацією боротися?
Ласкаво запрошую до перегляду відеоогляду книги Джорджа Рітцера "Макдональдизація суспільства", в якій можна знайти відповіді на ці запитання. Відео доступне за посиланням https://youtu.be/oL_7vaXRTlA
Ласкаво запрошую до перегляду відеоогляду книги Джорджа Рітцера "Макдональдизація суспільства", в якій можна знайти відповіді на ці запитання. Відео доступне за посиланням https://youtu.be/oL_7vaXRTlA
September 16, 2012
The book as a whole felt too repetitive. The ideas given could've been written in half the amount of pages
June 2, 2025
This book wasn't bad, it just had a lot of missed potential. As other reviews have pointed out, almost all of this book is summary and examples and almost none of it is actual analysis. I understand that this is often used as a text for introductory sociology courses, so maybe the author is trying to lean into this being used to spark classroom discussion rather than him doing all the thinking for us. Still, it would have been nicer to cut maybe just a bit deeper into the weeds. For what I think it's trying to be, it's pretty good, but it does get frustrating how little depth there can be at times.
But it's not all bad! Here are some things I liked:
- I liked that he always balanced his arguments. He isn't afraid to say what the "good" aspects of McDonaldization are before getting into why it's actually repugnant. He made the case for grobalization even though he's against it.
- The book is very approachable. He gets into Weber and globalization but in a very non-technical way, user friendly way. This easily could have been a self-congratulatory work written with as many citations and big words as possible but Ritzer chose not to. This makes the book pretty easy to rip through without having to re-read every sentence a few times to figure out what he was trying to say.
- Not really his intention, but the book is pretty funny to read in 2025. He talks about the scourge of touch screen ordering and mobile phones. I especially like when, honest to god, he spends 2 pages explaining what a microwavable meal is (not criticizing it, just explaining it).
- The ending is really good. He finally speaks his mind a bit and he's pretty funny about it.
- I like the part when he suggests the only way to escape McDonaldization might be to kill ourselves.
But it's not all bad! Here are some things I liked:
- I liked that he always balanced his arguments. He isn't afraid to say what the "good" aspects of McDonaldization are before getting into why it's actually repugnant. He made the case for grobalization even though he's against it.
- The book is very approachable. He gets into Weber and globalization but in a very non-technical way, user friendly way. This easily could have been a self-congratulatory work written with as many citations and big words as possible but Ritzer chose not to. This makes the book pretty easy to rip through without having to re-read every sentence a few times to figure out what he was trying to say.
- Not really his intention, but the book is pretty funny to read in 2025. He talks about the scourge of touch screen ordering and mobile phones. I especially like when, honest to god, he spends 2 pages explaining what a microwavable meal is (not criticizing it, just explaining it).
- The ending is really good. He finally speaks his mind a bit and he's pretty funny about it.
- I like the part when he suggests the only way to escape McDonaldization might be to kill ourselves.
May 1, 2022
Great sociology introduction into the irrational world built on “rationality” that we live in. I don’t think it necessitates reading chapter 10 but do so if you please.
November 27, 2016
I read the 2013 revised edition, which still serves as a fairly competent work in the study of social organisation and social processes. Ritzer's "McDonaldization" is essentially a byword for Max Weber's "rationalisation", encompassing four key dimensions: efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. These dimensions are paired, with each pair given its own chapter, and reinforced with a litany of real-life examples of the rationalising imperative Ritzer describes. As the title suggests, this model is concretised in the McDonalds assembly-line system of production. It dovetails nicely with sociology that has come before (Adorno's "culture industry" and Beck's "risk society"), but quickly exposes some problems that these related works also seem to demonstrate.
As one might worry, with any critique of rationalisation there is a possibility of reactionarism - opposing new technological developments because they are new and disturb one's traditional beliefs about the world, etc. Ritzer sometimes slips into this reactionary style of thinking when he implies that DIY pregnancy tests and caesarean section births are bad for healthcare. The final chapter, entitled "The Possibility of DeMcDonaldization," I think promised a future beyond the doomed impulses of 'rationality' Ritzer critiques well in the chapters preceding, but Ritzer does not deliver on this promise. Instead he prefers to disavow even more examples of processes he argues are deceptive, lying about their deMcDonaldizing intent which he calls "surface-level only." So it seems Ritzer denies the possibility of moving beyond this world. This is unsurprising, as this was relatively the same conclusion Adorno and Horkheimer ended up at in their respective works on rationalisation and the dialectic of Enlightenment. They became immensely pessimistic about the possibility of change (and unhelpfully so) towards the end of their lives, succumbing to wherever the winds of this new system of control would take society.
For any future revision I would advise Ritzer to decouple somewhat from the Weberian line (which over-focuses on 'magic' and the 'disenchantment' of a rationalising society) and critique capitalism more directly, as Fordism and the processes the industrial era of Ford entailed were both deeply imbricated in capitalism and influenced its future global course. Ecological concerns are also relevant. How does a hyper-rationalising society run on capital and its ever-expanding capability produce unsustainable outcomes?
As one might worry, with any critique of rationalisation there is a possibility of reactionarism - opposing new technological developments because they are new and disturb one's traditional beliefs about the world, etc. Ritzer sometimes slips into this reactionary style of thinking when he implies that DIY pregnancy tests and caesarean section births are bad for healthcare. The final chapter, entitled "The Possibility of DeMcDonaldization," I think promised a future beyond the doomed impulses of 'rationality' Ritzer critiques well in the chapters preceding, but Ritzer does not deliver on this promise. Instead he prefers to disavow even more examples of processes he argues are deceptive, lying about their deMcDonaldizing intent which he calls "surface-level only." So it seems Ritzer denies the possibility of moving beyond this world. This is unsurprising, as this was relatively the same conclusion Adorno and Horkheimer ended up at in their respective works on rationalisation and the dialectic of Enlightenment. They became immensely pessimistic about the possibility of change (and unhelpfully so) towards the end of their lives, succumbing to wherever the winds of this new system of control would take society.
For any future revision I would advise Ritzer to decouple somewhat from the Weberian line (which over-focuses on 'magic' and the 'disenchantment' of a rationalising society) and critique capitalism more directly, as Fordism and the processes the industrial era of Ford entailed were both deeply imbricated in capitalism and influenced its future global course. Ecological concerns are also relevant. How does a hyper-rationalising society run on capital and its ever-expanding capability produce unsustainable outcomes?
April 17, 2025
اعجبتني هذه الفقرة في نهاية الكتاب:
" لابد من مقاومة المكدلة والعديد من أوجه اللاعقلانية المرتبطة بها، وخاصة تلك الناتجة عن خاصيّة القفص الحديدي (لايمكن اختراق المكدلة والتغلب عليها) . لأنه بدون شئ من المقاومة، غالبا ستصبح قضبان القفص أسمك وأقوى. ….. ولكن ان تواجه قفص ماكس ويبر وصورة مستقبل يسود فيه ليلٌ قطبيّ من الظلام الجليدي القاسي الذي كان يخشاه كثيراً ،
آمل إن لم يكن ثمة أمل آخر ، ان تتذكر هذه الكلمات للشاعر ديلان توماس:
لا تمضِ وديعاً في الليل الحالم… اغضب، اغضب، لا تقبل بموت الضوء"
الجيل الجديد لا يعرف ولن يعرف معنى الشغف والمودة الحقيقية التي يجب ان تتواجد بيت ن البشر
فالله تعالى يقول في كتابنا الكريم
" أنا خلقناكم من ذكرٍ وأنثى وجعلناكم شعوبا وقبائل لتعارفوا"
والمكدلة ستلغي اهم سبب لوجود الخلق الا وهو التعارف، فلا وقت ولا أهمية للتعارف.
عالم مجنون يركض ويسعى الى تدمير نفسه بشتى الطرق( إنسانيا وبيئياً )
ولا حول ولا قوة الا بالله 😔
" لابد من مقاومة المكدلة والعديد من أوجه اللاعقلانية المرتبطة بها، وخاصة تلك الناتجة عن خاصيّة القفص الحديدي (لايمكن اختراق المكدلة والتغلب عليها) . لأنه بدون شئ من المقاومة، غالبا ستصبح قضبان القفص أسمك وأقوى. ….. ولكن ان تواجه قفص ماكس ويبر وصورة مستقبل يسود فيه ليلٌ قطبيّ من الظلام الجليدي القاسي الذي كان يخشاه كثيراً ،
آمل إن لم يكن ثمة أمل آخر ، ان تتذكر هذه الكلمات للشاعر ديلان توماس:
لا تمضِ وديعاً في الليل الحالم… اغضب، اغضب، لا تقبل بموت الضوء"
الجيل الجديد لا يعرف ولن يعرف معنى الشغف والمودة الحقيقية التي يجب ان تتواجد بيت ن البشر
فالله تعالى يقول في كتابنا الكريم
" أنا خلقناكم من ذكرٍ وأنثى وجعلناكم شعوبا وقبائل لتعارفوا"
والمكدلة ستلغي اهم سبب لوجود الخلق الا وهو التعارف، فلا وقت ولا أهمية للتعارف.
عالم مجنون يركض ويسعى الى تدمير نفسه بشتى الطرق( إنسانيا وبيئياً )
ولا حول ولا قوة الا بالله 😔
June 17, 2014
I borrowed this book from the library. I liked it, but I do not think I will get my own copy. It is a sobering discussion on the "irrationality of Rationality" and how the pursuit of efficiency, calculability and predictability can be impoverishing, dehumanizing and de-enchanting. Is some ways, it seems to be a re-statement and update of Weber's "Economy and Society", exploring the consequences of formal rationality in the 21st century. However, Ritzer is rather repetitive in this book, his arguments can be made in 50 pages so the remaining 250 pages or so feel like so much padding to me.
His arguments about formal rationality are quite relevant to my research, but I suspect I will be better off with Weber.
His arguments about formal rationality are quite relevant to my research, but I suspect I will be better off with Weber.
June 3, 2019
McDonald's delivers a cheap, clean meal fast. And people like that, hence it is probably the largest World Wide franchise. Not everyone agrees. Ritzer is concerned about the implications. Now, the women might have an option to not tend the stove, and that is offensive. So Ritzer has a lot of emotional arguments of why he does not like and how people not feeling like him are "destroying" society.
September 6, 2012
An excellent critique of current society and how it operates as well as solutions to the problems it has created.
December 2, 2013
Excellent. Astutely describes the oppressive forces acting in society, outlining the major elements and factors of the modern human condition.
November 6, 2014
This guy is crazy. C-section is not ''McDonaldization of birth", for fuck's sake.
February 11, 2020
El título es muy interesante y alude a un fenómeno muy concreto, la expansión de la cadena de comida rápida Macdonald's. Como es de esperar, la sociología norteamericana logra sus cotas más altas de abstracción en la descripción de los fenómenos más que en las causas. No es que no aborde las causas de los hechos pero las trata superficialmente. Como dijo Octavio Paz, los norteamericanos no desean tanto conocer la realidad como manipularla. Con esto me refiero que quizá la sociología norteamericana busca en la descripción formal de los hechos la tan ansiada predicción de los mismo. Este libro es parte de esa descripción formal de las cosas.
Ritzer refiere al fenómeno de la Macdonalizacion como sinónimo de racionalización y a ratos como globalización. La racionalización implica la eficacia(búsqueda del medio óptimo para alcanzar un fin) ; previsibilidad ( o predicción, ordenamiento, clasificación y reglamentación del mundo) ; cuantificación (cálculo costo- beneficio) y control del trabajo por medio de la tecnología o sustitución de la mano de obra por tecnología.De hecho este último punto termina siendo el más interesante, porque alude a una de las preocupaciones más importantes en el mercado de trabajo a nivel global y que tiene que ver con la automatización del trabajo y por consiguiente el desempleo.
Ritzer sostiene que la Macdonalizacion o racionalización se expande en todos los aspectos de la vida cotidiana ya que el éxito de empresas racionalizadas como Macdonald's constituyen una influencia para la racionalización de otras empresas de distintos rubros abarcando todos los ámbitos de la vida cotidiana. Este último es el núcleo del libro. La expansión de la racionalización en todo orden de cosas y para ello da un sinnúmero de ejemplos sobre empresas que racionalizan variadas actividades como la alimentación, el deporte, la entretención, la actividades domésticas, el trabajo, etc
Un aspecto que trató superficialmente y que no me quedó claro es que trata a los regímenes comunistas como irracionales o no racionalizadas. Esto me llamó la atención, supongo que es porque las sociedades comunistas no están racionalizadas en el sentido económico como las capitalistas, es decir, bajo la hegemonía del cálculo del costo beneficio, mercado, capital y salario, pero es imposible no pensar en el grado de burocratización de las sociedades comunistas y como el Estado allí racionaliza todos los aspectos de la vida bajo los otros principios descritos más arriba. De hecho, si pensamos en regímenes comunistas que por definición tienden o son totalitaristas, con mayor razón es imposible no hallarse ahí en una verdadera "jaula de hierro". Por tanto, es muy ligero tratarlas de irracionales sin más ni más, atendiendo sólo el aspecto económico de la racionalización.
En la última parte del libro, el auto se ciñe sólo a entregar consejos prácticos que orientan al lector en su escape de las empresas/actividades racionalizadas. Aunque admite que sus consejos son muy ingenuos, porque de verdad lo son, hay un punto que es interesante destacar, el tema de la desigualdad en el trabajo, tiempos de ocio y calidad de vida en general . Clases más ricas evidentemente buscarán y tendrán más posibilidades de escapar de la racionalización y la deshumanizacion de la sociedad que aquellas menos privilegiadas. A estos últimos les será más difícil salir del mercado de masas para satisfacer sus necesidades, tendrán menos posibilidades de optar por puestos de trabajo más creativos, liberales críticos y ocuparán más puestos de trabajo repetitivos y en riesgo de automatización. En el campo del ocio, la situación es similar, clases más ricas buscarán y podrán satisfacer el consumo de actividades culturales diferenciadas, específicas, creativas, lúdicas, espirituales o artísticas. Por el contrario, los pobres y la clase media tendrán menos posibilidades de satisfacer sus necesidades de entretencion sin acudir a los mass media.
Finalmente advertir que el autor analiza la sociedad norteamericana, y por tanto la descripción de la macdonalización es también una descripción del pragmatismo norteamericano. Fuera de Estados Unidos, difícilmente el mundo funcione según las principios prácticos de la macdonalización. Por ejemplo, en América Latina la racionalización no ha generado sociedades racionales , eficaces, previsibles, y controladas desde el punto de vista tecnológico, es decir, al modo norteamericano. Es de preveer que la Macdonalizacion en el resto del mundo no opere a la manera de Ritzer de un modo tan pragmático y tan deshumanizador.
Ritzer refiere al fenómeno de la Macdonalizacion como sinónimo de racionalización y a ratos como globalización. La racionalización implica la eficacia(búsqueda del medio óptimo para alcanzar un fin) ; previsibilidad ( o predicción, ordenamiento, clasificación y reglamentación del mundo) ; cuantificación (cálculo costo- beneficio) y control del trabajo por medio de la tecnología o sustitución de la mano de obra por tecnología.De hecho este último punto termina siendo el más interesante, porque alude a una de las preocupaciones más importantes en el mercado de trabajo a nivel global y que tiene que ver con la automatización del trabajo y por consiguiente el desempleo.
Ritzer sostiene que la Macdonalizacion o racionalización se expande en todos los aspectos de la vida cotidiana ya que el éxito de empresas racionalizadas como Macdonald's constituyen una influencia para la racionalización de otras empresas de distintos rubros abarcando todos los ámbitos de la vida cotidiana. Este último es el núcleo del libro. La expansión de la racionalización en todo orden de cosas y para ello da un sinnúmero de ejemplos sobre empresas que racionalizan variadas actividades como la alimentación, el deporte, la entretención, la actividades domésticas, el trabajo, etc
Un aspecto que trató superficialmente y que no me quedó claro es que trata a los regímenes comunistas como irracionales o no racionalizadas. Esto me llamó la atención, supongo que es porque las sociedades comunistas no están racionalizadas en el sentido económico como las capitalistas, es decir, bajo la hegemonía del cálculo del costo beneficio, mercado, capital y salario, pero es imposible no pensar en el grado de burocratización de las sociedades comunistas y como el Estado allí racionaliza todos los aspectos de la vida bajo los otros principios descritos más arriba. De hecho, si pensamos en regímenes comunistas que por definición tienden o son totalitaristas, con mayor razón es imposible no hallarse ahí en una verdadera "jaula de hierro". Por tanto, es muy ligero tratarlas de irracionales sin más ni más, atendiendo sólo el aspecto económico de la racionalización.
En la última parte del libro, el auto se ciñe sólo a entregar consejos prácticos que orientan al lector en su escape de las empresas/actividades racionalizadas. Aunque admite que sus consejos son muy ingenuos, porque de verdad lo son, hay un punto que es interesante destacar, el tema de la desigualdad en el trabajo, tiempos de ocio y calidad de vida en general . Clases más ricas evidentemente buscarán y tendrán más posibilidades de escapar de la racionalización y la deshumanizacion de la sociedad que aquellas menos privilegiadas. A estos últimos les será más difícil salir del mercado de masas para satisfacer sus necesidades, tendrán menos posibilidades de optar por puestos de trabajo más creativos, liberales críticos y ocuparán más puestos de trabajo repetitivos y en riesgo de automatización. En el campo del ocio, la situación es similar, clases más ricas buscarán y podrán satisfacer el consumo de actividades culturales diferenciadas, específicas, creativas, lúdicas, espirituales o artísticas. Por el contrario, los pobres y la clase media tendrán menos posibilidades de satisfacer sus necesidades de entretencion sin acudir a los mass media.
Finalmente advertir que el autor analiza la sociedad norteamericana, y por tanto la descripción de la macdonalización es también una descripción del pragmatismo norteamericano. Fuera de Estados Unidos, difícilmente el mundo funcione según las principios prácticos de la macdonalización. Por ejemplo, en América Latina la racionalización no ha generado sociedades racionales , eficaces, previsibles, y controladas desde el punto de vista tecnológico, es decir, al modo norteamericano. Es de preveer que la Macdonalizacion en el resto del mundo no opere a la manera de Ritzer de un modo tan pragmático y tan deshumanizador.
December 1, 2020
"Above all, when possible, avoid taking your children to fast-food restaurants or their clones in other domains. If no alternatives are present [...] consider blindfolding your child until the ordeal is over."
While a bit outdated (I read the 2004 edition), and an observational rather than a systematic study, this book contained some gems for thinking about the present and future of rationalised systems. It's also funny (my favourite section heading was "THE ILLUSION OF FUN: HA, HA, THE STOCK MARKET JUST CRASHED), and very readable for someone with very limited knowledge of sociology.
My key takeaways:
* rationalisation has grown so much in extent and scope that its nature has changed, necessitating a new term
* there are a variety of responses to McDonaldisation: velvet cage, rubber cage, iron cage
* McDonaldisation creates the illusion of efficiency, predictability and calculability as much as the reality
* there is a lot of the modern in the postmodern
* there is a lot of Fordism (classical rationalisation) in McDonaldisation
* protest does force large organisations to adapt
* key future developments to watch out for are:
_making unpredictability predictable (planned, manufactured imperfections and mistakes)
_the expansion of McDonaldization into new domains (creative work, emotional work such as therapy, "impossible" domains like climbing Everest)
_new non-rationalised ventures will come under pressure to rationalise as they grow
While a bit outdated (I read the 2004 edition), and an observational rather than a systematic study, this book contained some gems for thinking about the present and future of rationalised systems. It's also funny (my favourite section heading was "THE ILLUSION OF FUN: HA, HA, THE STOCK MARKET JUST CRASHED), and very readable for someone with very limited knowledge of sociology.
My key takeaways:
* rationalisation has grown so much in extent and scope that its nature has changed, necessitating a new term
* there are a variety of responses to McDonaldisation: velvet cage, rubber cage, iron cage
* McDonaldisation creates the illusion of efficiency, predictability and calculability as much as the reality
* there is a lot of the modern in the postmodern
* there is a lot of Fordism (classical rationalisation) in McDonaldisation
* protest does force large organisations to adapt
* key future developments to watch out for are:
_making unpredictability predictable (planned, manufactured imperfections and mistakes)
_the expansion of McDonaldization into new domains (creative work, emotional work such as therapy, "impossible" domains like climbing Everest)
_new non-rationalised ventures will come under pressure to rationalise as they grow
July 26, 2024
عرفت هذا الكتاب لأول مرة في 2020 تقريبا ولم يكن مترجم حينها على الرغم من شهرته في الغرب، ثم رأيت منه نسخة مترجمة بالتركي وقد كانت في طبعتها التاسعة عشر تقريبا وهو ما يدل على شهرة الكتاب، وللامانة فقد كنت حزين بأن الكتاب لم يترجم للعربية في حينها، حتى رأيته بالصدفة مرة في احد المكتبات واشتريته.
هذا كتاب بديع، وعلى الرغم ان الكثير من ما ذكر في الكتاب لدي خلفية مسبقة عنه ولكنه كتاب ممتع. الترجمة كانت جيدة للغاية للامانة وهذا ما زاد الكتاب روعة فوق روعته.
لن يكون من المبالغ القول بأن هذا الكتاب مرجع مهم فيما يخص موضوعه ليس فقط عند كتابته ولكن الى يومنا هذا بعد ما يقارب الربع قرن من الطبعة الاولى منه. وما اعجبني ايضا في هذا الكتاب للامانة هو المراجعات المستمرة التي يقوم بها الكاتب والتعديلات التي يراها تستحق، أما الخاتمة فقد كانت اجمل وافضل واروع ما في الكتاب
اقتبس منها:
" لا تمضِ وديعا في الليل الحالك
اغضب، اغضب، لا تقبل بموت الضوء"
وأقول ولعمرك اني قد قررت ان لا اقبل بموت الضوء.
وللعمر بقية
هذا كتاب بديع، وعلى الرغم ان الكثير من ما ذكر في الكتاب لدي خلفية مسبقة عنه ولكنه كتاب ممتع. الترجمة كانت جيدة للغاية للامانة وهذا ما زاد الكتاب روعة فوق روعته.
لن يكون من المبالغ القول بأن هذا الكتاب مرجع مهم فيما يخص موضوعه ليس فقط عند كتابته ولكن الى يومنا هذا بعد ما يقارب الربع قرن من الطبعة الاولى منه. وما اعجبني ايضا في هذا الكتاب للامانة هو المراجعات المستمرة التي يقوم بها الكاتب والتعديلات التي يراها تستحق، أما الخاتمة فقد كانت اجمل وافضل واروع ما في الكتاب
اقتبس منها:
" لا تمضِ وديعا في الليل الحالك
اغضب، اغضب، لا تقبل بموت الضوء"
وأقول ولعمرك اني قد قررت ان لا اقبل بموت الضوء.
وللعمر بقية
April 2, 2018
Es un libro del año 99 y dirigido al público norteamericano. Me da la impresión de que en la vieja Europa tenemos un sentido mucho más crítico de nuestra propia sociedad aunque es indudable que estamos inmersos en esa mcdonalización a la que quizá sería más exacto llamarla globalización, por aquello de que nos vendieron la moto del progreso y lo que hicieron fue convertirnos en el escalón que precede a la esclavitud laboral o algo parecido. No aporta a novedades pero a veces es bueno revisar los orígenes y desarrollo de aquellos sistemas que nos han traído hasta aquí y que (eufemísticamente, al menos para mí) se denominan a si mismos racionales, cuando a muchos esa palabra nos lleva a Descartes, Leibniz... se lee muy rápido y está bien escrito y estructurado.
February 20, 2023
In den 90er Jahren sorgte George Ritzers These der "McDonaldisierung der Gesellschaft" für Furore und verfügte zu diesem Zeitpunkt sicherlich auch über eine gewisse Plausibilität. 30 Jahre später - und spätestens nach Reckwitzs "Gesellschaft der Singularitäten" - wirkt das Buch allerdings etwas angestaubt, denn die formale Rationalisierung, welche der Motor der McDonaldisierung ist, hat ihre überragende gesellschaftliche Bedeutung verloren. Auch an anderen Stellen ist Ritzers Analyse nicht sonderlich präzise. Dazu der ausschweifende Schreibstil, der das Buch unnötig lang macht. Dennoch lesenswert wenn man sich für die Theorie der Gesellschaft interessiert.
Vollständige Review hier: https://www.instagram.com/p/Co4IKDfLIPZ/
Vollständige Review hier: https://www.instagram.com/p/Co4IKDfLIPZ/
February 8, 2024
Yazarın fikrini desteklemek için zorlama örnekler verdiğine dair bazı yorumlar okudum. Bu yoruma bir noktada katılıyorum. Örneğin Hesaplanabilirlik başlığı altındaki spor bölümünde sporcular “işçi” olarak nitelenmiş, ayrıca geçmişle kıyas yapılarak sporda verimlilik sağlanması için birtakım kurallar getirildiği ve sayısal kısıtlarla oyuna egemen olunmaya çalışıldığından bahsedilmiş. Spor etkinliklerinin doğasının televizyon uğruna değiştirildiği hatta “feda edildiği” yorumunu yapmış yazar. Bu noktada yazar takımlar gelirlerini televizyon anlaşmalarından elde ettiği için gerekmediği halde molalar alındığını ve bu sayede televizyon reklamlarından gelir kazanıldığını, bu durumun oyunu duraklattığını ve oyunun seyrine de zaman zaman olumsuz etki ettiğini savunmuş. Bu örnek her ne kadar farklı bir bakış açısı sunsa da yazara bu örnek özelinde katılamadım hatta antitez sunma ihtiyacı hissettim. Örneğin voleybolda her sette takımların 2 adet mola hakkının yanısıra 2 adet 60’ar saniyelik “teknik mola” otomatik olarak uygulanırken bu kural oyunu duraksattığı gerekçesiyle FIVB tarafından kaldırıldı.
Aynı başlık altındaki politika bölümünde ise televizyon öncesinde politik nutukların ortalama bir saat sürdüğü, ancak seyirciden ziyade televizyona göre ayarlanmaya başlandığı için zamanla bu sürenin 20 dakikaya düştüğü söylenmiş (1970’lerde). Günümüzde ise her konu için yaklaşık 1-2 dakika ayrıldığı belirtilmiş. Bana kalırsa yazar politika özelinde seçmenin az ve öz konuşma duyma istediğini atlamış. Her ne kadar Barack Obama özelinde örneklerini genişletse de bu konuda çıkarımların ülkeden ülkeye değişeceğini sanmıyorum bu nedenle Türkiye üstünden yaptığım yorumları ekleyeceğim.
Bir politikacının televizyonda uzun süre konuşması konuyu iyi açıklayacağı anlamına gelmediği gibi çoğunlukla daldan dala atlayıp konudan tamamen sapmasına da sebep olabiliyor. Bu nedenle seçmenin asıl beklentisi daha kısa zamanda lafı dolandırmadan politikacının istediğini mesajı açıklayabilmesi. Bu konuda Amerika’da adayların televizyona çıkıp “münazara” yaptıkları çeşitli programlar var. Konu özelinde hepsine kısa süreler verilse de totalde 2-3 saat süren ve görece az ”reklam”ın olduğu yayınlar bunlar. Dolayısıyla bu başlık altında yazarın hesaplanabilirlik tezine verdiği örnekleri ben de zorlama ve biraz da hatalı buldum.
Süreç ve Ürünün denetlenmesi bölümünde yer alan fikirler oldukça garibime gitti. Yazar öncelikle Sıcaklık ayarı olan fırın gibi teknolojilerin, aşçılar için, yemeğin ne zaman yapılacağına “karar verdiğini” söylemiş. Önceden karıştırılmış ürünlerin aşçıların yaratıcılığını ortadan kaldırdığını, yemeğin nasıl hazırlanıp pişirileceğini detaylıca açıklanmasının ise pişirme sürecini denetlediğini iddia etmiş. Bu fikir bana oldukça absürt geldi. Çünkü ilk defa denenen bir tarifi yönlendirmeye göre yapmamız oldukça normal kaldı ki sonraki denemelerde zaten buna bağlı kalmayarak aslında ilk seferki tecrübemizden yola çıkarak malzemede ya da pişirme ayarında değişikliğe gidebiliyoruz. (Farklı malzeme ekleyerek özgünleşmemek tezini de çürütebiliriz). Bence 5 ve 6. Bölümde (McMeslekler) örneklerin neredeyse hepsi için karşı tezi savunulabilir ve yazarın bu örneklere kendi açısından bakması bu örneklerin toplumu McDonald’laştırdığı söylenemez.
“Rasyonelliğin İrrasyonelliği” bölümündeki Cohen’in yorumu oldukça hoşuma gitti. İşlerimizi hızlıca yapıp bankanın bürokrasisinden uzaklaşmak amacıyla ATM’leri geliştirdiğimiz halde şimdi de onların önünde kuyruklar oluşturuyoruz hatta bankadaki vezne personelinin yaptığı işi tüketici olarak biz yapıyoruz. Bu fikir yazarın da özelikle 1. Ve 3. Bölümde sunduğu fikirleri destekler nitelikte.
Yazar, McDonaldlaşma'dan kaçınmak için "Bireysel Eylemler" başlığı altında rutinlerden olabildiğinde kaçınmamızı, şeyleri her sefeinde olabildiğince farklı yapmamız gerektiğini tavsiye etmiş. Bu öneri her ne kadar doğru olsa da insanoğlunun rutin oluşturmayı sevdiği ve beynimizin rutin oluşturduğunda veriminin arttığına dair bazı çalışmalar var. Bu açıdan da bakıldığında yazarın teziyle çok iyi uyumlanan bir öneri olmuş.
Son bölümde “Küreselleşme”adı altında “Glokalizasyon” ve “Grobalizasyon” kavramlarını açıklayan yazar “Hiçlik” ve “Bir şey” ekseninde bir tablo çıkarmış. Yazarın “Herkesçe Bilinen” dediği bu iki kavramı ben ilk defa duydum. Ve tabloda incelenen örnekler kafamda maalesef hiç oturmadı. Özellikle Grobalizsyon altında incelediği Gucci çantasının “hiçbir şey” olduğu halde pahalı olmasını anlayamadım.
Yine son bölümde yer alan “Starbuckslaşma” kavramı tüm olayın bir de Starbucks üstünden anlatılması güzel olmuş nitekim McDonald’laşmanın daha kapsamlı olduğunu düşünmekle birlikte Starbuckslaşmanın McDonaldlaşma Boyutlarından “öngörülebilirlik” noktasında ayrıldığını düşünüyorum. Dünya’nın yer yerinde McDonald hamburgeri aynı ancak kahvenin tadı baristaya ve kullanılan süte göre net biçimde değişiyor. (Bu noktada kullanılan etin de değiştiğini söyleyebiliriz ama lezzet olarak hamburgerlerin kahvelerden daha “aynı” olduğunu düşünüyorum) Bunun yanı sıra verimlilik açısından da Hamburgerin oluşması için her işçi farklı bir parçayı yaparken (montaj hattı örneği), kahve yapımında çoğunlukla tek barista bütün bir kahve yapımından sorumludur. (Kahveyi makineye koymaktan itibaren bardağa doldurup kapağını kapatana kadar) Her ne kadar Starbucks mekanları ve süreçleri standart olsa da McDonaldlaşmadaki (ya da temelindeki scientific management teorisi) kadar standart değil.
Sonuç olarak katılmadığım bazı noktalar olsa da ufkumu açan ve 5 yıldızı hak eden bir kitap oldu. Yazar bende daha önce hiç düşünmediğim fikirleri uyandırdı ve bazı noktaları sorgulamamı sağladı. Bu nedenle ilgi duyan herkese tavsiye ederim.
Aynı başlık altındaki politika bölümünde ise televizyon öncesinde politik nutukların ortalama bir saat sürdüğü, ancak seyirciden ziyade televizyona göre ayarlanmaya başlandığı için zamanla bu sürenin 20 dakikaya düştüğü söylenmiş (1970’lerde). Günümüzde ise her konu için yaklaşık 1-2 dakika ayrıldığı belirtilmiş. Bana kalırsa yazar politika özelinde seçmenin az ve öz konuşma duyma istediğini atlamış. Her ne kadar Barack Obama özelinde örneklerini genişletse de bu konuda çıkarımların ülkeden ülkeye değişeceğini sanmıyorum bu nedenle Türkiye üstünden yaptığım yorumları ekleyeceğim.
Bir politikacının televizyonda uzun süre konuşması konuyu iyi açıklayacağı anlamına gelmediği gibi çoğunlukla daldan dala atlayıp konudan tamamen sapmasına da sebep olabiliyor. Bu nedenle seçmenin asıl beklentisi daha kısa zamanda lafı dolandırmadan politikacının istediğini mesajı açıklayabilmesi. Bu konuda Amerika’da adayların televizyona çıkıp “münazara” yaptıkları çeşitli programlar var. Konu özelinde hepsine kısa süreler verilse de totalde 2-3 saat süren ve görece az ”reklam”ın olduğu yayınlar bunlar. Dolayısıyla bu başlık altında yazarın hesaplanabilirlik tezine verdiği örnekleri ben de zorlama ve biraz da hatalı buldum.
Süreç ve Ürünün denetlenmesi bölümünde yer alan fikirler oldukça garibime gitti. Yazar öncelikle Sıcaklık ayarı olan fırın gibi teknolojilerin, aşçılar için, yemeğin ne zaman yapılacağına “karar verdiğini” söylemiş. Önceden karıştırılmış ürünlerin aşçıların yaratıcılığını ortadan kaldırdığını, yemeğin nasıl hazırlanıp pişirileceğini detaylıca açıklanmasının ise pişirme sürecini denetlediğini iddia etmiş. Bu fikir bana oldukça absürt geldi. Çünkü ilk defa denenen bir tarifi yönlendirmeye göre yapmamız oldukça normal kaldı ki sonraki denemelerde zaten buna bağlı kalmayarak aslında ilk seferki tecrübemizden yola çıkarak malzemede ya da pişirme ayarında değişikliğe gidebiliyoruz. (Farklı malzeme ekleyerek özgünleşmemek tezini de çürütebiliriz). Bence 5 ve 6. Bölümde (McMeslekler) örneklerin neredeyse hepsi için karşı tezi savunulabilir ve yazarın bu örneklere kendi açısından bakması bu örneklerin toplumu McDonald’laştırdığı söylenemez.
“Rasyonelliğin İrrasyonelliği” bölümündeki Cohen’in yorumu oldukça hoşuma gitti. İşlerimizi hızlıca yapıp bankanın bürokrasisinden uzaklaşmak amacıyla ATM’leri geliştirdiğimiz halde şimdi de onların önünde kuyruklar oluşturuyoruz hatta bankadaki vezne personelinin yaptığı işi tüketici olarak biz yapıyoruz. Bu fikir yazarın da özelikle 1. Ve 3. Bölümde sunduğu fikirleri destekler nitelikte.
Yazar, McDonaldlaşma'dan kaçınmak için "Bireysel Eylemler" başlığı altında rutinlerden olabildiğinde kaçınmamızı, şeyleri her sefeinde olabildiğince farklı yapmamız gerektiğini tavsiye etmiş. Bu öneri her ne kadar doğru olsa da insanoğlunun rutin oluşturmayı sevdiği ve beynimizin rutin oluşturduğunda veriminin arttığına dair bazı çalışmalar var. Bu açıdan da bakıldığında yazarın teziyle çok iyi uyumlanan bir öneri olmuş.
Son bölümde “Küreselleşme”adı altında “Glokalizasyon” ve “Grobalizasyon” kavramlarını açıklayan yazar “Hiçlik” ve “Bir şey” ekseninde bir tablo çıkarmış. Yazarın “Herkesçe Bilinen” dediği bu iki kavramı ben ilk defa duydum. Ve tabloda incelenen örnekler kafamda maalesef hiç oturmadı. Özellikle Grobalizsyon altında incelediği Gucci çantasının “hiçbir şey” olduğu halde pahalı olmasını anlayamadım.
Yine son bölümde yer alan “Starbuckslaşma” kavramı tüm olayın bir de Starbucks üstünden anlatılması güzel olmuş nitekim McDonald’laşmanın daha kapsamlı olduğunu düşünmekle birlikte Starbuckslaşmanın McDonaldlaşma Boyutlarından “öngörülebilirlik” noktasında ayrıldığını düşünüyorum. Dünya’nın yer yerinde McDonald hamburgeri aynı ancak kahvenin tadı baristaya ve kullanılan süte göre net biçimde değişiyor. (Bu noktada kullanılan etin de değiştiğini söyleyebiliriz ama lezzet olarak hamburgerlerin kahvelerden daha “aynı” olduğunu düşünüyorum) Bunun yanı sıra verimlilik açısından da Hamburgerin oluşması için her işçi farklı bir parçayı yaparken (montaj hattı örneği), kahve yapımında çoğunlukla tek barista bütün bir kahve yapımından sorumludur. (Kahveyi makineye koymaktan itibaren bardağa doldurup kapağını kapatana kadar) Her ne kadar Starbucks mekanları ve süreçleri standart olsa da McDonaldlaşmadaki (ya da temelindeki scientific management teorisi) kadar standart değil.
Sonuç olarak katılmadığım bazı noktalar olsa da ufkumu açan ve 5 yıldızı hak eden bir kitap oldu. Yazar bende daha önce hiç düşünmediğim fikirleri uyandırdı ve bazı noktaları sorgulamamı sağladı. Bu nedenle ilgi duyan herkese tavsiye ederim.
August 12, 2021
After reading Introduction/Chapter 1, I thought that this will be a great read but everything that followed was disappointing. After a very nice presentation of the conceptual framework of how the rationalization of contemporary societies will be assessed, the author engaged in a normatively informed critique of these principles of rationalization (even if more indirectly through one's selection of examples in chapters 3 through 6). So read the introduction, maybe chapter 2 if you're interested in specific examples, and spend the rest of your time thinking how society has actually implemented these principles and how it failed to do so in certain instances.
November 6, 2021
Controllo attraverso la tecnologia, sia del cliente che del personale. Quantità come qualità. Razionalità irrazionale. La prima parte del libro fluisce bene, anche se con molte forzature, tipo il confronto del ristorante con il genocidio nei campi di sterminio. Comunque via via il libro finisce per essere molto ripetitivo, con gli stessi temi spiegati. Nel complesso ritengo sia una forzatura parlare di mcdonaldizzazione includendo qualsiasi aspetto della vita quotidiana, dai forni microonde alla medicina. Preferisco autori come Schlosser di Fast food nation, meno teorici e più sui fatti attuali. Troppe congetture rendono illegibile.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 130 reviews