The Metamorphosis of Jihad and McWorld

Over half a century ago, Marxist philosophers from the Frankfurt School, Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, wrote that the culture industry was negatively impacting our society. Not only does the industry eliminate consumers’ choices, but people passively consume mass-produced culture without critically questioning society. Their theory remains relevant today, especially when examining globalization. Globalization is not only the exchange of ideas and art but the penetration of markets. It is commonly believed that brands enter foreign markets because of foreign demand, but it seems to be the opposite. Brands create a foreign demand by entering foreign markets.

Benjamin R. Barber, in his book, Jihad vs. McWorld, claims that our world democracy is threatened by the clash and dialectic between Jihad and McWorld. He says, “Can it be that what Jihad and McWorld have in common is anarchy: the absence of common will and that conscious and collective human control under the guidance of law we call democracy?” (48). Jihad-McWorld dialectic is based upon the idea that each cannot survive without the other, and they exist by attacking and reinforcing each other (49).

In an article published on YaleGlobal Online, “Global Brands Contend With Appreciation for the Local,” Bryant Simon contends that fast-food brands such as McDonalds and Starbucks have contributed to the consumer resistance towards global brands and the revival of local establishments. Indications from our society would point to the consumers as being the Jihadists that Barber described and that their opposition is the conglomerates that Adorno and Horkheimer described.  However, do these two groups fit their roles exactly as these critical theorists described?

Is every consumer a Jihadist? In history, there have been groups that have made it a point to resist popular culture. The Amish are a present-day example of people who resist modernization. In a way, American colonists can be considered jihadist; although it was not their sole mission to do so, they resisted British mercantilism through successful boycotts and campaigns. A recent Jihadist group could easily be today’s ever-elusive hipsters. However, in being anti-mainstream, they have become mainstream. This point supports Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory, in that every sub-culture created becomes mainstream simply by being offered by the market. A niche market can become a global market.

What about the individuals who work in the culture industry? They are part of the McWorldian conglomerates, yet consume themselves. Can one individual belong to both McWorld and Jihad? Yes, it’s true that not one individual is responsible for controlling McWorld, or any aspect of a conglomerate. However, if someone is making executive decisions about a company’s business strategy, are they not becoming one of the higher officers in the army of McWorld? And at the same time, are they not people with material goods?

How does the duality of these individuals affect the dialectic? The Jihadists working for McWorld clearly reinforce McWorld. As consumers, they are familiar with what people need in their daily lives, what people are attracted to, and what will easily sell. By being introspective, they can contribute to the business strategy of McWorld and contribute to McWorld.

How the McWorldian job reinforces the Jihad-self remains less clear. Perhaps the job does not reinforce the Jihad-self, but rather, destroys it as Adorno and Horkheimer suggest. It certainly takes away their consumer-choice for the product that their McWorldian company produces.

But does it reinforce their conviction as a consumer for other products? Perhaps. Participants in local-farming and the demand for farm-to-table eateries have risen in the past decade. However, even the movement has a name, the sustainable growth movement, and is a popular new approach to food-consumption. By labeling it and campaigning for it, the movement has become an enterprise of McWorld.

Still, aspects of the sustainable growth movement remain Jihad. The movement that becomes popular through McDonalidization advocates for a Jihadist-attitude towards factory farming.

In class, we discussed how McWorld can be Jihad, and vice-versa. Therefore, I am convinced that everything and everyone has a McWorldian mechanism and a Jihadist perspective on choice. Just how Jihad and McWorld clash and threaten democracy, consumers and conglomerates fight for control of the markets and ultimately, destroy choice.

Works Cited

Barber, Benjamin. “Jihad vs. McWorld.” The Atlantic: n. pag. Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By

Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.