The McDonalization of Society

                Rationalization of society is the main topic of George Ritzer’s essay, The McDonalization of Society. Rationalization is a term that characterizes a society by its efficiency, predictability, calculability, substation of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty. Although these characteristics can be applied to almost any sector of society, Ritzer uses the fast food industry as a prime example of how the society is facing what he calls the “irrationality of rationality.” This oxymoron basically takes the rational model and looks at the problems it creates. Ritzer says the trend towards rationalization is inevitable, but the society should put a leash around it so it doesn’t get out of hand. He also suggests trying to eliminate the undesirable outcomes of rationalization.

                Efficieny in the fast food industry is a must. Their goal is to feed as much people in the fastest ways possible. The same can be said for TV dinners. American society is so busy that most people don’t leave time for cooking their meal because they want to use that time for things they deem more important. These alternative meal choices may be more efficient, but they have its costs. Not only is it unhealthier, but it creates a distance from what food really is and how it should be enjoyed. Predictability is found within fast food from one hamburger or order of fries to the next. This leaves no room for creativity or individualization. Another problem is quantity rather than quality. McDonald’s and other fast food places are known to sell billions of burgers on a daily basis, and society disregards the quality of their food because they can get it faster and cheaper.

                I do not frequently eat fast food, but it’s not because of the problems of rationalization that Ritzer points out. I do however agree that sometimes it is just easier to buy from a fast food restaurant because someone is hungry and busy and needs a quick meal. Its undeniable that most people would choose this tradeoff because our society revolves the ideas of rationalization. Even though one may feel satisfied for the time being, eating from these fast food places will lead to future health problems. Because society is pushing for a more efficient present with advanced technology and such, they lose sight of the consequences that will arise in the future.

Questions:

Are the people or is the system to blame?

Is there a way to stop this trend of rationalization?

The Omnivore's Dilemma: Chapter 17

Chapter 17 of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma is a part of a bigger section called The Forest. In this section of the book, Pollan plans to search for his own food as the hunter-gatherers did before the invention agriculture. However, before hunting for his food, Pollan had to consider the implications of hunting and eating meat in general. He took on the challenge of becoming a temporary vegetarian in and this mindset, he developed his own view of the ethics of eating animals. Pollan cites many vegetarians and animal rights activist to explain the problem vegetarians face eating meat. Pollan says this growing trend of vegetarians has changed the society’s eating habits as a whole and redefined our culture. Pollan argues that although humans have been omnivores for several thousands of years, more and more people are becoming conscious about animal suffering and animal happiness. Pollan brings up an important distinction between human and animal suffering. He provides one side of the argument about “specicism”  which is having more moral consideration for the human race than animals. Pollan came to the conclusion that what’s wrong with eating animals is the practice, not the principle. Pollan believes that watching the killing process of an animal will help people decide whether they should become vegetarians or if they can still handle eating meat. This look into animal agriculture will hopefully improve animal treatment and thus people can eat meat with a clear conscience and be more respectful towards their food.

Although I have no problems with vegetarians, I believe this lifestyle choice isn’t for everyone. I would like to think that the meat I’m eating comes from an animal that was humanely treated and killed, but this isn’t always true. Because of this, I would sometimes rather not think too much about how the animal was killed which might make me ignorant and thus make ill informed decisions about my eating habits. However, it would drive me crazy if I had a devil on my shoulder making my conscience guilty everytime I ate meat. I believe that Pollan is right about the complicated but dependent relationship between humans and animals. Therefore, eating meat should not be condemned, but omnivores should respect the animal that gave them the food.

Questions:

Will more vegetarians be willing to convert if animals were treated more humanly?

Do animals suffer more in their natural habitats or under human confinement?

The Pleasures of Eating

In the essay The Pleasures of Eating, Wendell Perry criticizes American consumers for forgetting the root of their food. He believes consumers are trapped in ignorance when it comes to the act of eating. Perry is very critical of the commercial aspect of the food industry and he believes consumers are a victim to the industrial food chains profit motive. He says that most Americans can’t even tell what their foods came from or what’s in it because of the obscure way prepared foods and other fast foods look.   He puts part of the blame on how Americans want to achieve a high quality lifestyle. He explains it as a paradox where people want to improve their quality of life by making time for everything else besides enjoying the pleasures of eating healthy and thus end up facing health problems among other societal issues.

            He promotes eating responsibly by finding the connection between the food they eat and the land it comes from.  He suggests participating in food production by growing something so we can better understand the cycle of our food. He also advises to prepare our own food so we are in control of what we eat. His other suggestions revolve around buying local produce and in turn helping the local economy.

            What it all comes down to is having the knowledge to back up what we choose to eat. I agree with Perry consumers should be aware that their eating habits have political, economical, and environmental consequences, but I do not think it is as bad as Perry exaggerates. I don’t think we need to eat all organic and locally produced food to understand where our food comes from and how is produced.When Berry blows up the problem of our ignorance of where our food comes from and how it is produced, it really does take some of the pleasure out of eating.

Questions:

 1. What kind of background in food does Berry have?

2. How can we prevent the food industry and technology from spiraling out of control?

The Omnivore's Dilemma: Chapter 8

                In this section of the novel, Pollan visits an organic farm, Polyface Farm that prides itself on its grass. Pollan meets a farmer named Joel Salatin who preaches the importance of grass in the food chain. Pollan explains that flesh is grass and evolution has created it so animals could convert this energy for human consumption. Pollan praises the sustainability of the farm and Salatin explains that it’s the animals doing all the work. Salatin’s farm recycles resources and puts back into nature as much as he takes out.

                Pollan also introduces a new term called the industrial organic. When comparing Naylor’s farm to the Polyface farm, Pollan lays out an obvious difference in the effects of industry on agriculture and the all organic farming techniques. Pollan has an obvious bias towards the organic model. However, Salatin says that it’s not possible for the organic food chain to expand to American supermarkets and fast-food outlets without sacrificing its ideals.

                I agree with Salatin’s practical outlook of the future of agriculture. As an “beyond organic farmer, “ Salatin holds high values for the food he produces. It is hard for this strict guideline of how food should be produce to be used on all farms. Also, Salatin only believes in selling his produce locally which means cutting out the energy to transport it to urban areas where it is more populous. This ideal of not damaging the environment is hard to follow if organic food were to supply supermarkets and other venues. I believe the big question comes down to if organic farming can keep up with feeding America like industrial farming can.

Discussion questions:

What is industrial organic?

How does the government define organic farming?

                

The Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals

                Blake Hurst is a farmer in Missouri and his article attacks the ideas of the critics of industrial farming. He believes that the critics should not blame industrial farmers for their practices based on what they read in a book or heard from another person. He in turn criticizes the critics for being ignorant. He explains that farmers take into account the environment, food safety, and costs when determining their farming practices because they care about the wellbeing of their crops or livestock and the society.

Hurst uses his knowledge as farmer to clear up misunderstandings and debate the criticism from who he calls the “agri-intellectuals.”  In particular, Hurst attacks Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Hurst says the solutions Pollan have for using renewable energy to farm are unrealistic. Farmers have already been trying to protect natural resources, but commercial fertilizer is still needed. Pollan also suggests using cover crops to increase nitrogen output. Hurst agrees that this would be for the best, but it is not realistic because of weather and other factors. Hurst puts down all of Pollan’s ideas as impractical because he does not consider other problems that may arise.

After reading Hurst’s first-hand account of what farming is really like, it makes me more objective of Pollan’s novel. I realized that although Pollan emphatizes with the farmers and offers solution to modern day industrial farming, he is not a farmer. Pollan’s solutions do not always work because he doesn’t realize all the negative consequences of changing a farming practice. I don’t think industrial farming is necessarily a bad thing because I now have a better understanding of why farmers use industrial tools and other technological advances to aid them. However, I don’t agree with Hurst when he says “we have to farm “industrially” to feed the world.” With Pollan's example of commercial corn, there is a huge surplus of crops because of industrial farming. Therefore, industrial farming can be harmful at the same time if not controlled properly. Also, just because farmers yield more food, there will still be people who starve.
Questions
1.  Who should be in charge of changing farming practices: the farmers, the government, critics like Pollan?
2. Do other industrial farmers agree with Hurst?

Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan Chapters 1-3

           
             In the first few chapters of the novel, the author introduces to the reader the concept that “corn is king.” He illustrates that corn is involved in a multitude of foods and other consumer products. He then hones in on the industrial aspect of corn and explains how it is failing as a commodity by taking the reader through his experience with a corn farmer from Iowa.

            The first chapter focuses on the biological, cultural, and historical aspects of corn. The author took time to explain the importance of corn and the biological survival of it over other plants. This also ties into why it continues to be in abundance and why Americans as the author likes to put it are “walking processed corn.” The author indicates a strong connection between the human interaction and the evolutionary abilities of corn. He says that Americans are dependent on corn and vice versa.

            The second chapter explores how rapidly corn production has increased over the past decades. The author looks into the economical and political effects due to the overproduction of corn. After the discovery of synthetic nitrogen as a fertilizing agent, corn and other crops began to rapidly increase in yield. This changed society as a whole causing prices of corn to fall and thus the farmers could not support their lifestyles anymore. Although prices continue to fall to an all time low, the farmers continue to overproduce because they have no other option if they want to make ends meet. The author describes it as a cycle that disobeys the standard economic model. The author also connects this economic problem to the government’s involvement with subsidizing the farmers.

            In the third chapter, the author goes to the grain elevators where the corn is stored and distributed to other companies. The author paints a picture of how the overproduction of corn exceeds the ability to hold it in the storage vessels. The author tries to explain where most of this commodity corn ends up and explains that no matter how cheap the corn is, Americans can only consume so much of it. Therefore, the problem of overproduction cannot be easily fixed.

As a journalist, the author gives the reader a larger amount of research as well as his own passionate stance on his discovery of industrial corn. The author’s writing style is enjoyable because he is able to include facts in an interesting way using humor. He is also very descriptive, which allows the reader to paint a mental picture of the situation. For example, the first scene in the supermarket was very realistic and his description of the corn pyramid was creative.

The way the author approached industrial corn with a sociological eye made me see the connection described in the previous readings by Collins and Mills and “Exploring the Social Appetite.”  The author was able to connect food to society through culture, history, economy, and politics. Also, by following one farmer’s life, the author was able to see how an individual’s problem also displayed a trend of societal issues in the farming community.

Questions:

Although the author focuses on commodity corn, do the same problems apply for the raw corn that we eat?

Why does the government continue to practice subsidizing farmer’s wages when they know it’s not benefiting them in the long run?