I’ll Take a Big Mac
Introduction
Why do we allow Big Macs to enter our physical body? Why and how do we allow our physical body to enter a fast-food restaurant named McDonalds? Have we been influenced with the globalization of McDonalds that challenges us to violate proper nutrition guidelines and eat a Big Mac? This scenario is played out within the framework of contemporary social theory.
Social theory seems to be an enigma that Anthony Elliott found difficult to define in his book, “Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction.” Elliott claims “I have tried to cover most of the major traditions of thought – from the Frankfurt School to postmodernism, from structuralism to post- feminism – along with overviews of many recent cutting edge developments.”[1] The concepts that are associated with social theory, and even more challenging is to work within the confines of and idea defined as “contemporary”, create a challenge to writer and reader alike.
The reviews, by collegiate educators inside the front cover, praise Elliott for his sociological prowess and willingness to engage in an extremely difficult subject matter. Elliott is revered as one of the top educators in regards to contemporary social theory. His “Contemporary Social Theory” is considered an exhaustive work on a difficult subject.
Summary
Elliott begins his genesis for his work from the Nazi-influence of the Frankfurt School originating in the 1920’s to sexual orientation and globalization theories of contemporary times. “Contemporary Social Theory” is an attempt to define the influence and impact that occurs when both social norms and social abnormalities are inflicted on a society. Elliott transparently states, “There is, to date, no single adequate definition of society in social theory – and indeed one objective of this book is to trace the various definitions of society that have emerged in social theory during the course of the twentieth century and into the early 2000s.”[2]
Elliott proposes that there are “basic” societal norms that can be challenged. These challenges can run the gambit from Freud to the feminist movement. I struggled to grasp Elliott’s thought process and how he was challenged to even define what contemporary social theory.
My research revealed that there was “The Routledge Companion to Social Theory”. Elliott wrote in the introduction, “social theory is not the province of any one discipline in the social sciences, although it has certainly been institutionalized and professionalized in some disciplines – such as sociology, political science and anthropology, for example. Such a rough definition of social theory, I would suggest, goes to the heart of the problem of the production and reproduction of society, as well as of the relation between human agency and social structure, all of which can be traced out in social-theoretical debates in the social sciences throughout the nineteenth, twentieth and, now, twenty-first centuries.”[3]
Elliott attempts to merge multiple disciplines in his book from sociology to anthropology. Elliott attempted to define his work by stating that, “Social theory is the systematic analysis of the broad developmental contours of modernity, involving the multidisciplinary reconstruction of terms, issues and problems in the social sciences such as human agency, intersubjectivity, social structure and society.”[4]
Analysis
The McDonalds phenomena garnered my attention on several levels. Elliott allows a fast-food icon to be linked to the throws of social theory in globalization and standardization. Elliott states, “The smooth, regulated world of McDonald’s is a life without surprises: whether you are in Tokyo or Tehran, Melbourne or Memphis, an order for a Big Mac will get you . . . well, a Big Mac!”[5]
I found myself at the Hong Kong Advance walking into a McDonalds. I made an assumption that it would be near or exactly the same experience that I would get in Arizona. The globalization, standardization, and acceptability of the brand lured me in to a Hong Kong McDonalds.
Elliott theorizes and I accepted his hypothesis based on my personal response. My Hong Kong McDonalds met my criteria because of the “central defining aspects of McDonaldization? Ritzer identifies four dimensions: (1) efficiency; (2) calculability: (3) predictability: and (4) control. At its starkest, McDonaldization is a process geared towards regulatory control, standardization and the administered ordering of consumption processes. We are talking, in short, about the framing of a society without disruption.”[6]
If that same thought process happens with McDonalds, does sexuality, Marxism, morality, feminism, structuration, social norms and religious experiences fall into the same social theory? I do believe that we are heavily influenced by social processes that lead to social theories that we accept as normal. Fast food’s presence throughout the world has reach the place of globalization. What seven billion people “are witnessing today, through the process of McDonaldization, is a globalization of American fast food culture.”[7]
Our DMin program is to explore the “practice” of ministry. Elliott has challenged me to believe that the Great Commission from Matthew 28 and Mark 16 is achievable. If a Big Mac can be purchased globally with acceptability, well knowing that it is fast-food that challenges nutritional laws, what should we be doing with the ministry of Jesus Christ in the world?
Instead of ordering a Big Mac at a global McDonalds worldwide, I should be encouraging others to make Jesus known globally. Jesus’ unity prayer in John 17 was for us to be one as He and the Father are one. That is standardization and globalization at its best!
[1] Anthony Elliott, Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2014), xii.
[2] Ibid., 4.
[3] Anthony Elliott, The Routledge Companion to Social Theory (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), xi.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Elliott, Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction, 25.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 24.
11 responses to “I’ll Take a Big Mac”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks Phil, I like your Big Mac example, it shows us how God can use anything as a message and it is a great blog. I would agree with you that McDonald is been spread abroad by introducing all culture to American hamburger, but on the other hand as Christians, we are to go and make disciples. The question to me,
Why are we in the DMin program? Is it to practice ministry or is it a preparation for ministry; because when it comes to our ministerial leadership, it is carried out through the practices of teaching, preaching, pastoral care, worship, social ministry, and administration for the sake of nurturing the life of discipleship in the community of believers… We must examine in terms of who the minister is, not what the minister does. But the vocation to ministry must be understood as a call to identity as well as to practice, one that is rooted in Jesus’ life and ministry as well as the Spirit’s charism.
These are just my thoughts on that issue. Please feel free to correct me and give me a better inslight of why you made the comparison.So why are in the DMin Program?
The Big Macs analysis was great, using your own experience to bring life and give us better picture of Elliott’s social theory. You nail it. Thanks Rose Maria
Rose:
My “practice” statement was a reiteration of what was said by the GFU faculty…..a DMin is the “practice” side of ministry. To get to proper practice we need critical thinking that propels us to the next level in HIM, not in just our intellect.
The “practice” is tied back to “Why Do We Need Theology?” question. If it is just for ministerial prowess, that is not what I am insinuating.
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, “We must examine in terms of who the minister is, not what the minister does. But the vocation to ministry must be understood as a call to identity as well as to practice, one that is rooted in Jesus’ life and ministry as well as the Spirit’s charism.” That is first and foremost….the heart of the minister. We cannot forget the process, practice and intellect on how to deliver what is in the heart.
Phil
Phil,
Great blog! I remember that McDonald’s trip all too well! How do you see the “McDonaldization” of the church? Is it good or bad or even existent?
Aaron
Aaron:
The “McDonaldization” of the church should be linked to the “standard” of the “corporate DNA – mission and vision”. My opinion is that we have flirted with it but not embraced His view of what is His church in the earth.
Where is the standardization that follows through with globalization. I see more of a sectarian, individualistic, and narrow view of what the church is in the eyes of the individual instead of Christ.
It is amazing to think that His church should be conducted and ran according to His tenets and boundaries versus ours.
Phil
Hi Phil. Your blog made me hungry!
A few years ago I read John Drane’s, “McDonaldization of the Church.” Like your blog, he talks a lot of the McDonalds effect around the world and even in the church in a negative manner. Your blog takes a positive spin as McDonalds as a metaphor for spreading the gospel around the world. Do you see any potential pitfalls with this?
Aaron:
Pitfalls? You better believe it. What is the “standardization” that needs to be globalized? If the church has fought for these many years on fundamental doctrine from the sacraments to Christology, no wonder the world struggles with the “McDonalds” called the church. You don’t know for sure what you will get when you walk in…….from meaningless liturgy to snake handling.
Does that mean we stop? No….we keep seeking Him.
Phil
I remember that early morning journey to Mc Donald’s more than once on our trip to Hong Kong. Amazing as we talked there of all the different countries just that the 6 of us had been in. Yes they were the same but each with their different twists. What fit the culture they had as well. They brought a central product to everyone but they also adapted to the soup and noodle culture that would be Hong Kong breakfast. How can the gospel do that same thing? Lots of methods but only one message. Thanks for enlightening us and making us hungry. Do you think the modern mega church or even the Island ECC church are starting to figure this concept out in the modern social generation?
Kevin
Kevin:
“Standardization” of what are essential truths. It is the “message” versus the “method” analogy. In regards to mega churches and EC Church, I do believe that there are advances that are having a global positive to the Gospel.
Hillsong and Brian Houston have made their mark with leadership and worship in major cities around the world, yet they have kept Christ as the center of their message. My opinion is that as long as Christ is kept “exclusively” as the focus, the methodology is adaptable. The Hong Kong McDonalds had the standard menu that is worldwide but had added some items that had impact to the Hong Kong culture.
Phil
Phil,
I think the last two paragraphs in your blog were the best.
If McDonald’s can find a way to ride the waves of globalization, shouldn’t the Gospel of the trans-cultural Lord?
I’m intrigued by the challenge of maintaining the standards of the Gospel, and making it understandable in various cultures. It should be the most universally applicable.
Marc:
I understand your challenge to the standards of the Gospel. The sectarian, denominational standards have eroded what is the Gospel. We had the Apostles Creed and various councils that have issued their edicts yet we still major divisions in the contemporary church.
I hope that we are not idealistic to believe that the Gospel can be trans-cultural and become a force for Christ in the earth.
Phil
Phil,
I like the Big Mac thought. Do you think that it we sometimes make the Gospel to complicated? Do think if we were simplistic in our approach across the world, we would see more success?
Thanks.
J