From Big Mac to Rice Burger — Globalization: McDonalds in Japan
December 10, 2009
When you speak of globalization, companies like McDonald’s are one of the first things that come to mind when trying to picture the concept. After all, the concept of ‘globalization’ is hard to grasp but the big bright yellow triple ‘M’ can be seen all over the world and therefore embodies the concept in a certain way.

Here I will explore the impact of the spread of McDonald’s to the world, but, specifically, to Japan. Has the coming of McDonald’s restaurants brought American culture to Japan? And, if so, to what extend can we speak of cultural imperialism?

Before I go further into the case study of McDonald’s to Japan, I will briefly explain the concept of globalization. After a short history of McDonalds’ restaurants, I will illustrate the coming of this chain to Japan in the third paragraph, and the effect it has had on society. In the end I will draw a conclusion on how the globalization, in the form of McDonald’s, eventually affected Japan.

Globalization

Globalization exists in many forms. You can speak of ‘globalization’ in economic terms: countries all over the world are becoming more dependent of each other when it comes down to trade and computer connections. Cities like London, Tokyo and New York are closely connected in these ways. But globalization also works politically when countries develop closer ties (Wilterdink and Heerikhuizen 2003, 34). Lastly, you can also speak of globalization in cultural terms. In “Global Culture: Dreams, Nightmares and Scepticism”, John Tomlinson writes about a ‘world culture’. This illustrates the idea that, as Hannerz points out, the world has become a network of social relationships where cultural practices and experiences are spread all over the globe (Tomlinson 1999, 71). By world culture he means the circumstances where these practices integrate and flow together.

When discussing the topic of globalization, we often speak of ‘cultural imperialism’. This popular ‘cultural imperialism thesis’ concerns the idea that certain dominant cultures (generally, American or western culture) are overruling other ones that are weaker (80). You especially sense this idea of imperialism with consumer goods like food, clothes or music that you can see everywhere in the world. But you can also think about the way that certain western key institutions like industrialism or urbanism are spreading across the globe (91).

Although Tomlinson’s article mainly focuses on the idea of cultural imperialism, he is highly critical in his use of the term. He makes two general observations: First of all, he speaks of ‘cultural deterritorialization’. By this, he explains how the modern-day globalized culture (that is actually dominated by the West) is not experienced by westerners as being their own (local) culture. This points out that the global modernity is ‘placeless’ and ‘decentred’ (95). It turns out to be nobody’s own culture in the end; it is deterritorialized. The West is not convinced of its own cultural superiority, and therefore, as Tomlinson says ‘(..) it seems unconvincing to speak of the present or future global cultural condition as the ‘ Triumph of the West’’ (96).

Secondly, Tomlinson certainly does not think that other cultures will just disappear under the domination of the West (96). On the contrary, he believes that each culture will adapt new cultural systems or goods to their own society. This is called ‘indigenization’: the receiving culture gives his own flavour to the cultural goods that are imported (84).

Although Tomlinson does not deny the fact that globalization is always an uneven process where there will winners and losers (97), he shows us through his observations that cultural imperialism maybe is not as bad as it sounds: it does not necessarily mean that the whole world will be Americanized or westernized.
For now, let us turn to the case-study of McDonald’s.













McDonald’s in Japan

The first McDonald’s in Los Angeles in 1954 was not more than an ordinary looking drive-in where people could get cheap hamburgers and did not need to tip the waitresses. At the time it was Ray Kroc, a salesmen of paper cups and mixers, who signed a contract with it’s owners, Dick and Mac McDonald, to further spread the McDonald’s concept. In 1974, the analysis of the McDonald’s company was the following:

The basis of McDonald’s success is serving a low-priced, value-oriented product fast and efficiently in clean and pleasant surroundings. While the Company’s menu is limited, it contains food staples that are widely accepted in North America (Ray Kroc 1977, 177).

Ray Kroc was a risk taker who believed in the simple formula of the clean and cheap McDonald’s restaurants. The Big Mac was introduced in 1968. In 1976, the 4000th restaurant was opened in America. Right now, McDonald’s has globally spread to 118 different countries.

McDonald’s has gone a long way from being just a simple drive-in. In 1971 the chain reached Japan and it immediately was a huge success. McDonald’s Japan was the same concept as McDonald’s America, but they did adjust the menu a bit to suit the Japanese taste. For example, McDonald’s introduced the Teriyaki Burger, the Rice Burger and the Green Tea Ice-cream.
Except for the slight changes in menu, there are other differences between McDonald’s America and Japan as well. This has to do with the way McDonald’s was received by the Japanese consumer. In Ohnuki-Tierney’s chapter “McDonald’s in Japan: Changing Manner and Etiquette”, she writes about the fact that McDonald’s food is actually considered a snack instead of a meal, and therefore has never posed a serious challenge to the Japanese lunch or dinner market (Ohnuki-Tierney 1997, 164). There are several ways to explain this conception of McDonald’s food as a snack. First of all, McDonald’s food cannot be shared: sharing is an important part of the Japanese dinner or lunch time because it brings a sense of community (169).

Secondly, McDonald’s food consists mostly of meat and bread. To the Japanese, meat has always been a part of the Western diet and not of their own traditional lifestyle. Therefore, the combination of meat and bread is in fact quite alien to the Japanese. In addition, the fact that McDonald’s food lacks rice makes it unsuitable for a proper dinner or lunch: according to Japanese, a real meal always includes rice, which is not only seen as good nutrition but also as a metaphor for Japanese national identity (166).

McDonald’s did not only introduce a new type of food to Japan, it also introduced a new way to eat. These table manners are actually the opposite of the Japanese way to eat. At McDonald’s, you eat whilst standing instead of sitting, and you use your hands instead of chopsticks. Also, McDonald’s made it more common to drink soda’s directly out of the bottle and to eat ice-cream (179). Although all these things were previously considered very negative, McDonald’s gave a positive twist to to them. But, as Ohnuki-Tierney writes: ‘In the public sphere the “new” forms of etiquette gradually became the norm; the fashionableness of eating fast food wore thin as the restaurants became a routine feature of everyday, working life’ (181). McDonald’s became an ordinary feature within Japanese society.

Global goes Glocal

McDonald’s was initially a symbol of America; or, a symbol of America as perceived by the Japanese. It gave people a chic and exotic feeling. Nowadays, McDonald’s has actually become ‘local’ in a certain way. I would rather call this ‘glocal’; a concept to illustrate the intermingling of the global and the local.

McDonald’s is indigenised by the Japanese. Japan adapted McDonald’s to suit it’s own society. McDonald’s is a place to have a quick snack. Japanese can eat a Teriyaki or Rice Burger, drink Oolong tea, and read the Japanese McJoy magazine. When looking at the case of McDonalds, I think that Tomlinson is right when he sketches the idea that cultural imperialism is not as bad as some people claim it is. McDonald’s is embedded in Japanese culture now, and the concept of McDonald’s is not interpreted the same way all over the world: each culture, like Japan, fits this into society the way they find appropriate. In this way, no matter how globalized the world will be, we will still have diversity in cultures: global will just become glocal. In the end, it cannot be denied that there is a difference between a Big Mac and a Rice Burger.

Sources:
*Kroc, Ray. 1977. Grinding it Out: The Making of McDonald’s. Berkley: St. Martin’s.
*Ohnuki-Tierney, Emiko. 1997. “McDonald’s in Japan: Changing Manners and Etiquette”. Pp. 161-182 in Golden Arches East: McDonald’s in East Asia, edited by J.L. Watson. California: Stanford University Press.
*Tomlinson, John. 1999. “Global Culture: Dreams, Nightmares, and Skepticism.” Pp. 71-96 in Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
*Wilterdink, Nico and Bart van Heerikhuizen. 2003. Samenlevingen: Een Verkenning van het Terrein van de Sociologie. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.