The McDonaldization of Gay Culture and Dating
This piece was submitted by frequent TNG contributor, J. Clarence Flanders.
Gay culture has been radically transformed by the Internet in ways it seems no one could have ever predicted during the early years of the World Wide Web. Overall, the integration of the Internet into gay culture has been positive. It has allowed gay people across the globe, who previously might have lived in isolation – due to either anti-gay laws or social pressure to remain in the closet – to connect and interact with each other, and it has connected gay people with critical resources for their health and well-being that they may not have been able to access otherwise.
Nevertheless, there has been one area in which the Internet has had a questionable impact on gay culture, and that is the dating world. The Internet has more or less transformed the dating paradigm, making it more akin to placing an order at a fast food restaurant than actually having an emotional interpersonal experience of trial and error. For some, this has been a welcome change, as it offers them some level of certainty; when we place an order at McDonald’s for their world famous fries, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that we will get what we asked for, regardless of how many times we’ve asked for it. However, the worry here is that the (increasing) McDonaldization of gay culture and dating carries with it the potential to generate negative consequences that impede the gay community’s ability to be a cohesive community – something the gay community already has trouble achieving.
In 1993, sociologist George Ritzer coined the term “McDonaldization” in his book The McDonaldization of Society. Ritzer analyzed the ways in which the social paradigm has begun to take on many of the characteristics of McDonald’s. The four components to McDonaldization, as Ritzer saw it, are (1) efficiency, (2) calculability, (3) predictability and (4) control. From the outset, these components do not come across as inherently bad; what is, in fact, bad is the potential for unintended harmful outcomes. Human beings would interact with each other in a society that structurally adhered to the traits of McDonaldization – and that is where gay dating comes into play.
We can clearly see the characteristics of McDonaldization play out in online social networking and dating services like Manhunt, Adam4Adam.com, Craigslist and others. These services provide the user with an efficient, calculable, predictable and controlled environment in which to find someone for sex. In comparison to the alternative, which often involves going to a bar or club, spending money on drinks, and having to devote time – sometimes hours – playing the trial and error game with no guarantee of leaving with someone, a service like Manhunt draws parallels to the invention of the wheel, at least in terms of achieving the stated goal while using the least amount of energy and resources.
To be clear, these services are not inherently bad – just like McDonald’s and other fast food restaurants, the underlying problem is the extent to which we use them. Spending money on a cover at the door, drinks, clothes, cologne, etc. is expensive, so we should not merely frown upon the decision to use a service which can achieve the same effect at a lower cost. What does need to be examined is the tendency of some to rely primarily, or in some cases solely, on these services to find partners. The underlying motivation in those situations might not simply be about frugality, but rather an issue that as a community we need to look at – i.e. the marginalization of certain groups within our community.
On a macro level, we have already seen this new paradigm take its toll on the gay community. No place has been harder hit than the gay bar in the Internet Age. To some extent, the death of the gay bar scene was imminent anyway; as gay and lesbian Americans become more integrated into mainstream society, the need for a specific, exclusive place to gather decreases. However, the growth in popularity of these social networking services has expedited the end of an era of gay life.
Though they have always had their flaws, gay bars served for many years as the de facto forums of the gay community. They were places where young and old gay people came together to interact and have both sexual and non-sexual encounters. These places were, for many, surrogate homes. Just as it is not surprising that the civil rights movement grew out of the black church, it should come as no surprise that the gay rights movement grew out of the gay bar scene. People went there to get the latest news about what was happening in their neighborhood and around the country.
The effect that such a physical meeting place had on the overall community cannot be understated, especially as we now live in a world where communal meeting places are either non-existent, existing online, or in some rare circumstances a hybrid of both. Online meeting places, while better than nothing, have inherent limitations and could never truly replace the interpersonal dynamics that exist in a physical setting – they should be used as a conduit to facilitate physical interactions.
The McDonaldization of the gay dating paradigm through the Internet has also contributed to the perpetuation of our rigid caste system of attractiveness and sex appeal; it provides the platform that not only makes it acceptable, but encourages it. We have all heard or seen it – lines in personal ads online that state things like, “No fats, fems, blacks, Asians,” and so on. While very often in social settings we are forced to confront our long-held intuitions, that opportunity often does not exist in online mediums. If we can just filter through those we perceive we may not like by merely pressing a button, we are inevitably isolating ourselves.
We are never given the chance to challenge ourselves if the medium we are using says, “Why bother, when you can have it your way?” (The hat tip to Burger King seemed appropriate.)
This is a problem that also exists outside of the Internet, of course. We know that our bars and clubs are heavily segregated, not just by race, but also by other variables like class, size, age, gender identity, etc. The Internet simply makes the segregation more user-friendly. This kind of stratification, both on and offline, may add efficiency and enhanced control to our lives, but it is not helpful in the sense of building a community.
The long-term effects of the McDonaldization of gay culture are unknown. We could very well wake up one day and decide that this trend is in fact not what we want, and then begin the process of “de-McDonaldization,” as Ritzer coined it. Or maybe we won’t. And if that winds up being the case, we could continue to see the further stratification of the different groups that compose the gay community – after all, our culture would effectively be encouraging us to do so.
First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...
I think the internet may have been the means, but the motivation has been our culture’s increasing need to commodify everything, including experiences, and now even love. We don’t so much experience and be present in life and our relationships as we simply try to consume them. Buy the burger, see the film, have the hook-up, and on to the next thing. The internet simply assisted the commodification process.
This is our sense of entitlement brought to it’s logical ends. I have a right to have my burger my way. I have a right to get exactly the shirt I want, in my colors and my size. I have a right to have the boyfriend I exactly want.
Human relationships, of course, are far more nuanced, messy and fluid, and therefore ultimately cannot be commodified. And no one is entitled to have a boyfriend exactly as they would want. In fact, no one is entitled to have a boyfriend – we are merely entitled to pursue love. Whether we get it is due to a complex intersection of people, places, opportunities, etc.
But I wonder whether the answer would be simply logging off and going to the bars. I would hope we would be more creative than that. The bars have their own drawbacks, as you’ve mentioned, to which I would add this particular flaw: drunk people. How can a person possibly find good relationship potential in a room full of drunks?
First, let me just say that I unapologetically love McDonalds. I love their fries. I love the Filet-o-Fish. I even love the little bits o’ fake onion that they use to spruce up their hamburgers. And don’t get me started on the Egg McMuffin…
One thing I just have to point out is that websites like Manhunt are not “dating services”. There ain’t no dating goin’ on at Manhunt. And while Craigslist does have a “romance” section in their personals, the bottom line is that people are just looking to hook up. I do think this is worth noting in order to understand the root of the problem. Yes, every once in a while someone does meet someone on Manhunt that turns out to be more than just sex. But I think those are the exceptions and not the rule. I think if you log into Manhunt expecting anything more, then you’re gonna be really disappointed.
As far as the bar scene goes, I think we might be in the midst of the rebirth of the gay bar. At least here in San Francisco, there are a ton of options to pick from if you like going out instead of collecting pics online (yeah, you know who you are). It helps that San Francisco has one of the best (if not *the* best) cocktail scenes in the world. I think even Out Magazine had an article about the gay bar renaissance a few issues ago. I know I spent my Sunday afternoon hungover thanks to my Saturday night bar crawl. And, I got a hot guy’s phone number, too!
I really love the apple pies and yeah, I’ll admit I love the fries too. Great now I’m hungry for MacDonald’s. Thanks a lot J. Clarence!
And Bryan, it’s good to hear you don’t think the bar culture is dying. While I probably don’t get out as much as I should, I’d much rather be able to see the goods in person rather than ordering online. I’m very picky about the fruit I pick out of the produce section, why should a man be any different?
@jimbo – I suspect it is different because: a) the fruit picks back; and b) human beings, regardless of intelligence level, etc., aren’t produce. But I appreciate your comment, because it really backs up what I said about our culture’s tendency to commodify every freaking thing.
This piece is strong in many ways, but pretty weak overall. As someone pointed out above, it’s not about Gay Culture and Dating in as much as gay male sex. Gay hookups have been commodified and McDonaldized since the advent of the sex club and the cruising ground. I think there is a lot to say about how the internet has changed gay dating and culture, I just don’t think that using Manhunt as an example works towards that end.
I’d encourage the author to rewrite this piece ignoring online sex sites, since they have analogies in the real world, and focus on better supporting examples.
I am a American Black homosexual and I wish you White American homosexuals stop referring to yourself as queers. It’s QUEER ro be attracted to something opposite of what you are, something you are different from physically and mentally. Who’s the queers?
And I wish gay people would stop calling themselves “homosexuals”, perpetuating the use of language that’s been used to pathologize us. (/sarcasm off) Where do you get off telling people what they get to call themselves?
Women and men aren’t “opposites” (gender *and* sex are spectra), and not all men are the same “physically and mentally” (having a penis trumps age, build, culture, race, philosophy…? That’s not reductive or anything.)
@ Alex
Homosexual is your sexual orientation. You were born homosexual.
You were not born “Gay”. Gay is an acquired cultural identity.
Humans are born with biologically determined sexual orientation. They are not born loving Cher.
Being born homosexual is biologically normal, just as is being born heterosexual and being born anywhere within the full spectrum of bisexuality – all of these states are normal, biologically speaking, just as blue eyes, hazel eyes and brown eyes are all normal.
Speaking culturally, however, in the US, Protestant-based, white heterosexual male dominated culture, homosexuality is not normal. ‘Normal’ in this culture is: heterosexual, male, of northern European descent and Protestant, middle class and pro-capitalist. Therefore I am manifestly NOT normal, and I have no intention ever of conforming to that definition of normality. Thus, I am very proudly QUEER.
And I think its funny how far off topic we have strayed.
Kyle, by your definition, all people of color, women and non-Protestant people are also queer. Was that your intention?
@ Mark
The essentialist perspective of sexual orientation has by no means been proven. One may be born with a predisposition to an orientation, or to find a certain set of people attractive, but how that manifests in adult behaviour is certainly informed by upbringing and culture. That aside, the particular history of the word (not the idea) is rooted in our patholigisation by the medical community – we can find a different word for that, or we can decide that “gay” means that (since lots of us have already decided that “gay” doesn’t mean “loving Cher”. Example: the title of this blog)
However, that is entirely besides my point (did you miss the sarcasm note?). People may call themselves whatever they wish. John wants to call himself homosexual? Great. I want to call myself queer, and whether I was born that way or not is entirely irrelevant.
@QB: maybe not “queer” per se, but by our culture’s definition, not normal. I think it’s up to them to grasp their own labels.
@ Alex
“The essentialist perspective of sexual orientation has by no means been proven. One may be born with a predisposition…but how that manifests in adult behaviour is certainly informed by upbringing and culture.”
1) If you have any doubt as to whether or not sexual orientation is biologically determined why don’t you start asking all the heterosexuals you know when they chose to be straight?
2) Trans – if humans are born without sexual orientation then they cannot also be born transgender either. Are you prepared to explain why everyone reflexively accepts the premise it is possible to born “in the wrong body” and why that is a lie also?!
“I want to call myself queer, and whether I was born that way or not is entirely irrelevant.”
Wrong. Heterosexual men do not call themselves “Queer” or “Gay”. The sexual orienation (or any biological trait) you were born with is entirely relevant to how you identify culturally. Those born Greek to Greek families do not identify as Polish. Asians do not identify as Latino. Heterosexuals do not identify as homosexual.
Anyone can appropriate any cultural identity and call themselves whatever they want. What they can’t do is pretend biology is not the basis of culture and culturally constructed identity…regardless of whether that identity is assimilationist or oppositional.
To say that it is “not strictly biologically determined” (and I didn’t say there were no biological factors; I just don’t think it’s cut-and-dried) is not equivalent to it being a choice. For example: I am American. I did not chose to be American (and I can’t choose to be, say, French except in legal technicalities), and I’m not biologically American. Maybe, some day, we will find absolute, concrete, 100% biological factors that determine sexuality. But that day is not today, and I am not convinced that, were I to have been born in a different time, place and/or culture that my sexuality would definitely and adequately be described as “homosexual”.
“everyone reflexively accepts the premise it is possible to born ‘in the wrong body’ ” Hahaha, no. Never mind straight people, there are plenty of gay and lesbian people who will argue that trans people are mentally ill.
And I do know heterosexual men who identify as queer. People who are into BDSM. Polyamorous guys. Straight trans men.
So wait… why can’t I call myself queer?
So I guess without “100% biological factors that determine sexuality” we should just all go to Ex-Gay camps, destroy Gay fetuses and let Focus on the Family run the country?
Sexual orientation is as evident as natural skin, eye and hair color and reveals itself as self-evident to all humans. By your argument all heterosexuals are either Bisexual or Gay who chose to be straight.
“So wait… why can’t I call myself queer?”
What part of this did you not understand?
“Anyone can appropriate any cultural identity and call themselves whatever they want. What they can’t do is pretend biology is not the basis of culture and culturally constructed identity…regardless of whether that identity is assimilationist or oppositional.”
Call yourself whatever you want. You are delusional if you think your identity is not rooted in biology.
I think some people feel like they would be missing out on life if they didn’t have a lot of sex with different people. But isn’t that ideology a handicap sometimes? We think life is unfair and so want to make up for it as fast and efficiently as we can. But does it really help? How much of it is “just psychological”? Could we do better for ourselves if we didn’t believe in quantity?
Funny to read the argumentation about what makes an individual an individual or better what forms the “social self”. It is known that sociologists and biologists do not agree on what factors that contribute to the self.
For the one it is “culture and social interaction” for the other “biological factors”.
So who is right if both have a strong thesis?
Leave your response!
Recent Coments
Most Commented
Most Viewed - 30 Days