The Globalization of Nothing

Citation

Collins, D. (2005), "The Globalization of Nothing", Critical Perspectives on International Business, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 64-68. https://doi.org/10.1108/17422040510580803

Sweet nothings? Odd reviews of The Globalization of Nothing by George Ritzer

Dear Dr Cairns,

Thank you for your recent invitation to review George Ritzer's latest work. As you can see I have now had time to reflect upon The Globalization of Nothing. Yet rather than write a traditional review of this text I have instead opted to appraise the book by unconventional means. I offer, therefore, two rather odd reviews (or three, if you count this prefacing statement!).

Given that Ritzer's text is promoted as one that might be used with students I offer one review – announced in a deliberately impersonal way as a McUniversity inspired memo – which envisages how this text might be introduced to a student audience. Following this I offer another non‐conformist review styled as a “reader's report”.

Ritzer, as I am sure you are aware, argues that the process of capitalist globalization produces a world emptied of distinctive, substantive content. Indeed, he spends a considerable amount of time bemoaning the loss of person‐to‐person contact and the loss of authentic communication consequent upon the processes of this globalized world. Given this, I felt that a review in the form of a reader's report might be both purposeful and entertaining.

In my experience, readers’ reports are essentially private reviews. As a consequence they tend to be full of those quirky features that Ritzer's text suggests are in decline. Thus my reader's report on Ritzer's text has been designed deliberately to be more personal, somewhat more pithy and rather more conflicted than the reviews normally produced for publication in academic journals.

Memorandum

This month I have chosen two books for discussion:

1. 1.

   The first is a sociological text: George Ritzer (2004) The Globalization of Nothing, London: Pine Forge Press.

2. 2.

   The second is a novel: Julian Barnes (1998) England, England, London: Random House.

As we shall see, both books share a common concern with globalizing corporations, with consumption and with notions of authenticity.

A brief overview

Barnes's novel is concerned with the activities of a large corporation that is managed by a larger than life character (apparently a composite of Bob Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch plus a number of additional characteristics and weaknesses for good measure) called Jack Pitman. Noting that tourists seem to prefer simulations to the “real things” (note for example the proliferation of Irish themed bars). And observing that travellers seem to prefer experiences that combine adventure and convenience; thrills without risks, a plan is hatched to collect all of England's geographically dispersed treasures together in a single convenient location. In short, Pitman decides to produce a managed, off‐shore theme‐park, crammed with the artefacts, sights and treasures of the high‐points of English history called England, England.

Parodying the excesses of modern, global corporations, Barnes allows his corporate characters to buy up all of England's treasures and to create England England with the maximum of control and the minimum of fuss. Yet having allowed this Barnes then invites us to question both the limits and the effects of such corporate manipulation.

Despite setbacks – for example when Robin Hood and his Merrie Men “get into character” and begin robbing park patrons – England England flourishes as a tourist destination. In contrast dear old blighty becomes a sleepy backwater.

Robbed of its landmarks and tourist attractions, England becomes a quiet and under‐developed land shunned by tourists and global corporations alike. Due to a shortage of hard currency, England reverts both socially and economically to the “between the wars” state that has so enraptured commentators on English culture and identity such as George Orwell. Indeed starved of oil and other productive resources, England becomes, once more, an Orwellian world of decency, dreaming spires, old maids on bikes, village churches, friendly Bobbies, county fairs and gentle cyclists. In a delicious twist, therefore, England is stripped of its popular‐cultural history and as a result regains its heritage.

Such romantic dreams of the simple‐life figure strongly in Ritzer's latest account of globalization. Although it must be said that Ritzer takes a much more serious – in fact a rather deadpan approach to his subject matter.

Focusing upon consumption, Ritzer agrees with Barnes's parody on corporate capitalism. He argues that thanks to the influence of globalizing corporations our social world is increasingly characterised by “nothing” – “a social form that is generally centrally conceived, controlled, and comparatively devoid of distinctive substantive content” (3).

Reflecting upon the social and economic consequences of this movement, Ritzer argues that the production and consumption of “nothing” is dehumanising because it depends upon efficiency, calculability, predictability and control to achieve its homogenizing effect. In contrast he argues that the production and consumption of “something” is inherently unpredictable, and so, enchanting. Indeed, he argues that consuming “something” is meaningful and beguiling because the act itself is, if you will, rationally, irrational being founded upon authentic person‐to‐person communication. In short Ritzer enthuses that the consumption of “something” affirms our humanity because it reaffirms our ties to, if not the soil, then at least to a particular place and culture.

Yet having constructed this binary opposition between “nothing” and “something”, Ritzer then proceeds to do something strange. Noting the complexities of consumption he collapses and yet extends this opposition as he warns us that a continuum of possibilities unites these apparently polar opposites.

Central to Ritzer's analysis is the argument that the history of globalizing capitalism is hinged upon the systematic manufacture of “nothing” from “something”. Yet, what first appears to be a determining force soon becomes a dominant tendency that is nevertheless occasionally subject to reversal. Thus Ritzer concedes that “nothing” may become “something”, for example when Japanese teenagers convert fast‐food restaurants, informally into community centres or when a mass‐produced item (such as the VW Beetle) is infused with meaning by its consumers.

This sensitivity to the complexities of consumption is useful and laudable but I suspect that some of you may become frustrated by Ritzer's willingness to backtrack from the boldness of his opening statements.

Overall Ritzer bemoans what might be termed the homogenization of life and is it seems, drawn to products and social forms that are indigenously conceived, locally controlled and rich in substantive content. This gives Ritzer ample opportunity to celebrate all that is good in the “simple life” of “something” such as French truffles and rustic ham. However it is worth noting that Ritzer seems to imply that such authentic delicacies may be enjoyed with a clear conscience only when consumed in sight of the pigs!

For our meeting can I suggest we might proceed by reflecting upon the following:

• •

  Ritzer focuses almost exclusively upon consumption, does this amount to an unwarranted neglect of production matters?

• •

  In an interesting discussion of social movements and change, Ritzer suggests that “glocal” attempts to domesticate the wild forces of globalization, will inevitably subordinate local concerns to global imperatives. Yet despite this analysis the text seems to conclude with a call to action that is hinged around a commitment to the efficacy of ‘glocalization’ as a strategy for adaptation, if not wholesale change!

Dear Jerry,

Reader's report: The Globalization of Nothing

I hope you will forgive me if I do not use the pro forma for the report that you sent me – I find that these tend to restrict both the scope and the flow of my reviews. I know that you will protest that this makes my report more difficult to tabulate at your end to which I say: When you pay the going rate for my reviews you may then (and only then) dictate their form!

So to the review:

1. 1.

   I had been looking forward to reviewing this text. Let's fact it Ritzer is a brand in his own right these days. You know what you are getting with George: A scholarly work that attacks and critiques modern capitalism and a book that might be used for teaching. This makes Ritzer a bankable commodity!

   Yet I was disappointed with this book. In comparison to the work on McDonaldization, for example, it lacked pace and vigour. In fact I found the text to be a bit repetitious and more than a little a bit poh‐faced! Perhaps you could get George to put some pep in it? Perhaps the length of the book could be reduced? Readers today want portable ideas in a portable format. They need pace, rhythm and energy!

2. 2.

   I think I accept much of what Ritzer has to say about the problems and processes of modern consumption. The problem I have is that this just doesn't seem like news. Nor, I might add does this cannonade on modern corporations seem especially radical. I will admit that I liked the opening segments when he describes his continuum and the various sub‐continua – very nice, almost (but not quite) Dickensian in its feeling for word‐play.

   But on the issue of the analysis itself: Well I seem to remember that twenty years ago Prince Charles suggested that something would have to be done to retain the individuality of British towns before they surrendered completely their identities to High Street chainstores.

   Reading Ritzer's text I can almost here Orwell ranting about vegetarian, pansy, sandal‐wearing lefties! So how will George (Ritzer – that is) counter the objection that his text represents at best, a rather Fabian concern with Prince Charles's pastoralist ideal?

3. 3.

   Ritzer attempts to be even‐handed. He concedes that there are advantages to consuming “nothing”. Yet despite this defence of “nothing”, I keep getting the feeling that he is looking down his nose at me. In his previous works I just didn't get this feeling. In earlier works Ritzer allowed me to feel like I was on the inside of the debate, sympathising with the poor saps who work for the McDonaldizing corporations. Now that he is focusing upon consumption matters and discussing good taste, I no longer feel like I am on the inside showing concern – now I feel like I am on the outside trying not to notice the sneer on George's face as I “go large”!

4. 4.

   Is Ritzer's argument and analysis enough to sustain a whole book? I don't suppose George will go for this but I wonder if this topic area would be better covered by an edited collection of invited contributions. George could write the introductory chapter and might contribute the chapter on the internet while allowing others to offer their own ideas.

   This could make for an interesting collection not least because:

• •

  You could gather a number of high profile (branded and bankable!) names – Schlosser, Bauman and the like (if existing contractual arrangements will allow) within one volume.

• •

  You could invite the “grocalizers” and the “grobalizers” to duke it out.

• •

  You could also invite contributors to talk about the different ways in which “the globalization of nothing” might be conceptualised. In this regard Naomi Klein springs to mind since her account of “nothing” is different to that of Ritzer insofar as it relates to production matters and is concerned with the activities of “hollowed out” corporations and the off‐shore manufacture of “signature products”!If you decided to go along with the idea of an edited collection I think that it would be worthwhile commissioning pieces from those who can talk about the globalization of nothing in specific contexts. I am thinking, for example, about works like Monbiot's analysis of the UK planning regulations that facilitate superstore development in Britain (I note that Gordon Brown the UK Chancellor has just reversed government policy to allow further development of out of town shopping!).

1. 1.

   What is the final message of this book? What would Ritzer have us do? I ask this because the text seems curiously non‐political. Having focused upon consumption matters – and having considered the matters that facilitate the globalization of nothing in abstract and without any real reference to context – Ritzer seems unable to produce any manifesto for action. Indeed, the sum total of his advice seems to be that we should sign up to the “Slow Food” web site. In fact Ritzer makes only three references to how we might resist the globalization of nothing and each time he directs us to “Slow Food”!

   If this is the sum total of his advice and action then it amounts to a very limited manifesto indeed. In fact it seems to me that in a period when capitalist globalization is destroying species and their natural habitats, enslaving populations and facilitating human trafficking Ritzer has developed a gastronomic manifesto and a concern for endangered ham!

Hope this helps – by the way can you send me the URL for “Slow Food”? A mutual friend with one of the larger international food retailers reckons he'll be able to make a real killing if he can obtain the futures on the rusticated Italian hams!