Yep.

Exploring ideas is a cliché that is one of the most overused phrases in English classes today, second only to the recognizable ‘discuss and analyze’. These pretentious and sometimes superfluous terms are known to create confusion and frustration, but are accepted around the country as something that is a common description necessary for a writing assignment.

However, much like McDonalds, these terms are ones which society has come to expect and recognize, familiarize and become cozy with, which is anything but acceptable. The objective of this particular essay is to cover the major (coupled with random minor) points which Spurlock made in Super Size Me and made in the interview with Ritzer, titled The Death Of Authentic American Culture.

Spurlock takes a tangent on a common ‘fast food is the problem’ argument and decides to eat nothing but McDonalds for a month, three times a day. Rules for this challenge withstanding, it’s interesting to explore some of the views portrayed that were not necessarily ideas. For example, Spurlock vomiting the recently consumed double-quarter pounder out of a car window displays what a healthy (as was described by the trio of doctors) digestion system does to the food served at a McDonalds restaurant, or should do. The fact that Spurlock had no known illnesses and was taking no medication should indicate that there would be no natural reason to regurgitate a half pound of cooked beef.

Regardless, the movie takes a few side streets on its path to completion, specifically through an elementary school where the children are served what looks like highly salty and sugary foods; namely Swiss Rolls, pizza and French fries. The woman being interviewed at the school stated that they intend for the children to make the ‘right choice’, while giving them no option of raw vegetables or fresh fruit, aside from possibly an apple. Disregarding the fact that it was entirely hypocritical of the woman to state that they need to make the right choice without giving that choice as an option to the children, the fact that no one was making an effort to provide a truly healthy lunch to the children should be an issue which is instantly resolved.

However, as Spurlock moves through his documentary, he points out indirectly that this is all due to money. The lowest bidder gets to provide the food for the school, and the school seemingly does not care about what their students ingest as it is no skin off of their bones, so to speak. While this goes on in almost every facet of day to day life, it is more extreme when shot at an angle which Spurlock portrays.

As the movie continues, it shows the vast amount of refined sugar which is consumed daily by Spurlock. As he states, “I consumed over thirty pounds of sugar. That’s an average of a pound of sugar a day.” This fact alone should be disturbing. While rationing sugar or inventing some sort of punch card for sugar consumption would be outlandish, the ability to consume that much sugar in items that most likely do not weigh more than four times their sugar value in itself could be a documentary.

By the end, the motion picture has implanted a general feeling of dislike (or for a more successful viewing, loathing) into the captivated audience. This information, while publicly accessible is hardly public knowledge. An informed consumer may be a dangerous one to the vendor, but to generate a better product from the vendor it is necessary. In this case, the impact was so great that McDonalds stated they would remove the super-size option from their menu entirely; an unexpected victory for the author.

Spurlock did, however, prove that McDonalds is unhealthy to his system with his movie, and in doing so accomplished his goal. The movie may have been one-sided, what with a constant banter against the giant corporations, but in lieu of his information, banter seems to be the only thing deserving of the so-called crimes McDonalds and other food corporations have committed.

Ritzer, on the other hand, goes into great detail on the psychological effect of McDonaldization, which he describes as, “the process by which the principles of the fast-food industry … are being applied to more and more sectors of society in more and more parts of the world.” Going into detail on which parts of life are being McDonaldized, Ritzer’s idea sums up to one thing; society is being programmed to react certain ways to certain things without thinking for itself, examples ranging from cleaning your own tray at a fast food restaurant to expecting the same thing at the same restaurants everywhere traveled.

While not an entirely novel idea, it can be presented so to those who have not seen the information before. While over exaggeration may be the key to getting the point across, stereotyping a single human into a category is correct to enough of a point that Ritzer is able to prove his statements. Questioning the beliefs of others, one has to wonder how incorrect Ritzer is in assuming the assumptions made by society when in a rational, or McDonaldized setting.

He goes on to state that schools are, “cathedrals of consumption,” by pointing out the advertising angles of universities (which are fast food based) as well as the assumption which states, “if kids are raised on fast-food restaurants and the Mall of America, how can a school compete? Logic suggests that we take what these places have done so well and apply it to the educational settings.” How can it be viewed any other way? Obviously the universities are successful in this venture, otherwise less of it would be seen, and Ritzer would not have accented on it.

Ritzer begins to close with the ‘code’. He describes it as, “a kind of hidden set of rules that teaches us how to understand and interpret things in our society.” Who is the teacher, tutoring the masses? Based on the direction of the interview, it would be the input of media. Who controls the media? The highest bidder, and based on the facts in Spurlock’s documentary, that would be McDonalds, Pepsi, and other unhealthy consumables. Commercials, ads and the like all dictate the code which is subliminal at best, but still learned and re-acted by the consumer.

The code also governs ‘a system of rewards’. Ritzer states, “Our economic system rewards people for certain behaviors with profit and, more deeply, power.” What type of behavior? Simply enough, the type dictated by the code, which is defined by the highest bidder. It’s the influential shove and pull of the corporations to do what they want, and in return, a gift of what they define as a reward, which is constantly reworked into something they can mass market cheaper and faster.

A great example by Ritzer is one of the Old Navy bags, where he states, “When you walk in, you are handed a big net bag that says Old Navy on it. … Old Navy isn’t just being considerate. They know that people tend to buy more when they’ve got a bag than when they’ve just got their hands. … when you check out, the cashier asks if you’d like to buy the bag.” This is an excellent example for the afore mentioned fact. Not only is Old Navy giving a code for how to act with the bag, but they are also rewarding the consumer with the bag, for a price. They are controlling the consumer through the entire process, start to finish.

He finalizes by pointing out, “customers are lured into doing something that’s not in their best interest.” When added to the fact that customers are the ones paying for this, they are essentially digging their own grave. Not only are they funding more unhealthy alternatives to unnecessary systems, but they are willingly proving to the corporations that they are interested in their service and desire more of it.

In conclusion, it’s quite obvious that society is going to keep moving down this path as long as the resources for the production of unhealthy and unwise products are available. While it is always an option to do something else, the media is what controls the ‘fun’ education, and what they dictate sticks. As for now, society is stuck on what is dictated as easy, which is food that takes longer to acquire for a greater cost, pieces of plastic that cost money to use money and labels which dictate what a person is by what they wear. While who is at fault may now be readily available, the question is which party is required to make the first move?