SAIS Review vol. XXIII no.

2 (Summer–Fall 2003)

The Globalization of Nothing

George Ritzer

Globalization is not a singular process with uniform results, but a term that
encompasses a number of transnational processes. This essay distinguishes be-
tween two broad sub-processes under the larger heading of globalization—
glocalization (the integration of the global and the local) and grobalization
(the imposition of the global on the local). It also explores the distinction be-
tween nothing (forms that are centrally conceived and controlled and largely
lacking in distinctive content) and something (forms that are indigenously
conceived and controlled and comparatively rich in distinctive content). The
article focuses on two pairings that result from relating these sets of concepts—
the grobalization of nothing and the glocalization of something. In the realm
of culture in general and consumption in particular, the conflict between these
two processes is a central issue in the world today. The triumph of the
grobalization of nothing promises cultural homogeneity, while the glocalization
of something offers at least some hope for cultural heterogeneity in a world in
which the truly local has almost entirely disappeared.

W hile social theorists have long been interested in globaliza-

tion, there has been an explosion of work on the topic in re-
cent years.1 The flowering of such theories is a reflection of the fact
that globalization is of great concern to, and enormous signifi-
cance for, much of the world’s population. Globalization is trans-
forming virtually every nation and the lives of billions of people.2
The degree and significance of its impact is visible everywhere one
looks, in the shopping malls that increasingly dot many areas of
the developed world, the vast array of franchises found in them,

George Ritzer is Distinguished University Professor at the University of

Maryland where he has also been a Distinguished Scholar-Teacher and won
a Teaching Excellence Award. He was awarded the 2000 Distinguished
Contributions to Teaching Award by the American Sociological Association.
In addition to The McDonaldization of Society (1993, 1996, 2000; translated
into a dozen languages), he is the author of more than twenty books,
including Expressing America: A Critique of the Global Credit Card Society (1995),
Enchanting a Disenchanted World: Revolutionizing the Means of Consumption
(1999), and The Globalization of Nothing (forthcoming). He is also a founding
editor (with Don Slater) of the Journal of Consumer Culture. Among his
forthcoming works are the Handbook of International Social Problems and the
two-volume Encyclopedia of Social Theory.

189

23.2ritzer 189 8/6/03, 3:43 PM

 190 SAIS Review SUMMER–FALL 2003
and the goods and services offered by those franchises, as well as
in the protests against key international organizations such as the
World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), and the World Bank. The frequency and geographic disper-
sion of these protests attest to the fact that people throughout the
world feel very strongly that they are confronting matters of great
importance.
Attitudes toward globalization depend, among other things,
on whether one gains or loses from it. Those in developed nations
who clearly gain from globalization voice less opposition to it than
those in developing nations who feel disadvantaged by it. Oppo-
nents not only feel disadvantaged by globalization, they also balk
at the control that international agencies (such as the IMF) and
other nations (especially the United States) hold over their lives.
They fear that global, or U.S., culture will destroy indigenous cultures.
Given the public furor, and the enormous academic attention
to the topic, the title of this essay may seem counterintuitive. Since
globalization is so clearly something of great importance, how can
I discuss the globalization of nothing? The wording is important
here. I am not arguing that globalization is nothing, but rather that
there is a glo-
Given the public furor, and the balization nothing, and
of

enormous academic attention to the that this form

topic, the title of this essay may seem of globaliza-
tion, like the
counterintuitive. Since globalization process in
general, is of
is so clearly something of great e n o r m o u s
importance, how can I discuss the importance.
Most atten-
globalization of nothing? tion, particu-
larly from op-
ponents of globalization, has ignored the fact that globalization
is not a singular process with uniform results. This essay will de-
fine and explore some of the main processes within what is popu-
larly called globalization, in an attempt to better understand its
spread and impact.
This discussion will focus on globalization in the realm of
consumption, but similar arguments could also be made about
other areas of the economy (especially production), as well as about
politics, religion, medicine, and so on. Consumption is an integral

23.2ritzer 190 8/6/03, 3:43 PM

 THE GLOBALIZATION OF NOTHING 191
part of these other social institutions (e.g. the consumption of
medical services, the voter as consumer, etc.), and of growing im-
portance in the developing and the developed world. However, is-
sues of production are important in this analysis as well, especially
the difference between mass-produced goods and services and
more small-scale, localized, artisanal production.
Defining the Terms of Debate

Before proceeding much further we need some basic definitions.

As the title suggests, consumption can be arrayed along a spectrum
from nothing to something. Nothing is defined as a social form that is,
generally, centrally conceived, controlled, and comparatively devoid of dis-
tinctive substantive content.3 Something can then be defined as a so-
cial form that is, generally, indigenously conceived, controlled, and compara-
tively rich in distinctive substantive content. Nothing and something do
not exist independently of the other: each makes sense only when
paired with, and contrasted to, the other. This implies a continuum
from nothing to something, and that is precisely the way the con-
cepts will be employed here—as the two poles of that continuum
rather than as a dichotomy.4
Thus, for example, in the realm of consumption, the Mills
Corporation and others like it create and control shopping malls
(e.g., Potomac Mills in Virginia, Sawgrass Mills in Florida) as forms
or structures that, in themselves, have little or no distinctive fea-
tures except for comparatively minor variations in structural de-
sign and architectural nuance. The content of any given mall de-
pends on what particular shops, goods, restaurants, employees, and
customers happen to be in it. A mall in London or Hong Kong may
be structured much like a mall in Chicago or Mexico City, but
there will be innumerable differences in their specific contents.
More importantly, people use the mall in different ways, many of
which may not have been anticipated by the mall designers and
owners, and people’s behavior will vary greatly in different parts
of the globe.
If the shopping mall lies toward the nothing end of the con-
tinuum, then we can think of a local farmers market as something.5
That is, it is locally conceived and controlled and each one has a
great deal of distinctive content. To this day, a farmers market is
created anew each time the farmers, who happen at that particu-
lar time to have produce to sell, arrive at the appointed place. The
farmers do not fit into a pre-set structure, although they may by

23.2ritzer 191 8/6/03, 3:43 PM

 192 SAIS Review SUMMER–FALL 2003
custom, sell particular things in particular spots. Which farmers
participate, and what they offer for sale, will vary greatly from one
time to another. Most importantly, once the market has ended for
the day, whatever structure was created will be dismantled and
then recreated again somewhat differently the next market day.
The farmers’ market is no mere throwback to an earlier time pe-
riod, but remains an important institution not only in many ar-
eas of the United States, but also in most other parts of the world,
including the highly developed countries of Western Europe.
Opponents of globalization, fearing the homogenization of
culture around the world, object, mainly, to the spread of what
would be defined as nothing. Yet globalization does not designate
only one kind of process. Globalization can be defined as “the com-
pression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of
the world as a whole.”6 As it has come to be used, however, global-
ization encom-
passes a number of
Opponents of globalization, transnational pro-
fearing the homogenization of cesses that, while
they can be seen as
culture around the world, object, global in reach, are
mainly, to the spread of what separable from
each other. This es-
would be defined as nothing. say focuses on two
of the most impor-
tant of these—glocalization and grobalization.7 The concept of
glocalization gets to the heart of what most contemporary theo-
rists associated with globalization theory think about the nature
of transnational processes.8 Glocalization can be defined as the in-
terpenetration of the global and the local resulting in unique outcomes in
different geographic areas. The concept of grobalization, coined here
for the first time as a much-needed companion to the notion of
glocalization,9 focuses on the imperialistic ambitions of nations, corpo-
rations, organizations, and the like, and their desire and need to impose
themselves on various geographic areas.10 Their main interest is in see-
ing their power, influence, and, in many cases profits grow (hence
the term grobalization) throughout the world. These definitions
should not imply a value judgment: there can be negatives associ-
ated with the glocal, such as a lack of openness to useful grobal
inputs; and positives tied to the grobal, such as the delivery of new
medications and medical technologies.

23.2ritzer 192 8/6/03, 3:43 PM

 THE GLOBALIZATION OF NOTHING 193
Grobalization tends to be associated with the proliferation
of nothing (e.g. the shopping mall), while glocalization tends to
be tied to something (e.g., the farmers’ market) and therefore
stands opposed, along with the local itself, to the spread of noth-
ing. These two processes co-exist under the broad heading of glo-
balization, and because they are, to some degree, in conflict, glo-
balization as a whole does not have a unidirectional effect on the
spread of nothingness. In its grobal aspects, globalization favors
the spread of nothing, while its glocal aspects support the dissemi-
nation of something.
Those who emphasize glocalization tend to see it as militat-
ing against the globalization of nothing and leading to the creation
of a wide array of new, “glocal” forms of something. In contrast,
those who emphasize grobalization see it as a powerful contribu-
tor to the spread of nothingness throughout the world. The con-
cept of grobalization is at odds, to some degree, with the thrust
of globalization theory—especially glocalization—that have the
greatest cachet today. At the risk of being reductive, this divide
amounts to a difference in vision between those who see a world
that is becoming more homogeneous, Americanized, codified, and
restricted, and those who view it as growing more heterogeneous,
diverse, and free.11 Of course, this is a matter of emphasis and both
processes are occurring simultaneously and in varying degrees in
different parts of the world.
While our focal concern is with the globalization of nothing,
that linkage can only be dealt within the broader context of a dis-
cussion of the relationship between grobalization and glocalization
and something and nothing. Figure 1 offers the four basic possi-
bilities that emerge when we cross-cut the continuum from
grobalization to glocalization with the continuum from something
to nothing. While this yields four “ideal types,” there are no hard-
and-fast lines between them.
The relationship between grobalization and nothing and
glocalization and something, as expressed in quadrants one and
four, can be described as involving what Max Weber called an elec-
tive affinity. In neither pair does one of the elements “cause” the
other, but the development and diffusion of one tends to go hand-
in-hand with the other.12 Glocalization creates favorable ground
for the development and proliferation of something—and some-
thing is easily glocalized. Similarly, grobalization creates favorable
ground for the development and spread of nothing—and nothing
is easily grobalized. This analysis focuses on the globalization of

23.2ritzer 193 8/6/03, 3:43 PM

 194 SAIS Review SUMMER–FALL 2003
Figure 1. Glocal-Grobal and Something-Nothing continua with repre-
sentative examples

Glocal

1 2
indigenous crafts, foods souvenirs, kitsch,
“touristy” foods

▲ ▲

▲
▲ ▲

▲
Something Nothing
▲
▲ ▲ ▲
▲

▲
gourmet foods (e.g., Culatella Coca-Cola, Whoppers,
ham); touring museum shows, Benetton sweaters,
orchestras, bands Gucci bags
3 4

Grobal

nothing and the glocalization of something because their relation-

ship to one another represents a key point of tension and conflict
in the world today.13 Clearly, there is great pressure to grobalize
nothing, and the glocalization of something is often all that stands
in its way in terms of achieving global hegemony. We will return
to this conflict and its implications for our analysis below.
More and More Nothing

Grobalization, by its very nature, involves wide dissemination of

innumerable goods and services. Going back to our original defi-
nitions of nothing and something, a “bare bones” model with
minimal content—nothing—lends itself to this kind of mass dis-
tribution. That is, a minimalist phenomenon is far easier to cen-
trally create, reproduce, and disseminate widely than one that is
rich in content. Once one has constructed the basic model, then
all iterations that follow from it are easy to produce since there is
so little substance to the model. The proliferation of nullities
(goods or services at or near the nothing end of the something-
nothing continuum) obviously assumes the existence of entrepre-
neurs in the broadest sense of the term (e.g., corporate executives
at McDonald’s or Gucci; government leaders) who are interested

23.2ritzer 194 8/6/03, 3:43 PM

 THE GLOBALIZATION OF NOTHING 195
in the expansion and exportation of such minimalist creations to
other parts of the world, whether for corporate profit or national
power. Some entrepreneurs do create or develop phenomena that
are rich, elaborate, distinctive, and idiosyncratic, and export them
successfully (the grobalization of something). But, the very nature
of these complex phenomena serves to limit their numbers and
hence their global proliferation. There are only so many world-class
ballet companies, gymnastic teams, and rock groups, and the profit
potential of such groups is limited because they cannot be mass
produced.
In contrast, things derived from the glocal are an idiosyn-
cratic and spontaneous mix of the global and the local, making
them more complex to reproduce in large numbers. By their na-
ture glocal phenomena are produced and marketed in limited geo-
graphic areas and in
small batches, which
means that low levels Thus, the most famous
of production may
be hard-pressed to restaurants in Provence are
satisfy even the local booked long in advance and the
demand, let alone a
global market. Thus, Provencal food served in most
the most famous res- French restaurants throughout
taurants in Provence
are booked long in the world has little resemblance
advance and the to that served in Provence.
Provencal food served
in most French res-
taurants throughout the world has little resemblance to that served
in Provence. This limited area of production may also mean that
demand may be minimal for such idiosyncratic products; to con-
tinue with the example of Provencal cuisine, only a small number
of people outside France are likely to be interested in, able to iden-
tify, and able to afford, Provencal food.
In terms of dissemination, nullities are easier to extract from
the given locality in which they were created and to export to other,
sometimes very different, locales because they lack content. In con-
trast, elaborate and distinctive phenomena are often tied to a spe-
cific locale and the tastes and demands of that locale, making it
difficult for them to take root in other locales, or at least limiting
their geographic adaptability. While Italian Parmigiano Reggiano,
a distinctive cheese product of a particular region of Italy, is avail-

23.2ritzer 195 8/6/03, 3:43 PM

 196 SAIS Review SUMMER–FALL 2003
able globally on a limited scale, it has narrow market potential in
locales outside of Italy. How well does such a distinctive cheese go
with a Tex-Mex dish, an Indian curry, or a Chinese stir-fry?14 Coca-
Cola, on the other hand has proven easier to extract from its
American roots; it goes well with virtually any cuisine (Tex-Mex,
curry, or stir-fry), and has, as a result, been exported successfully
throughout the world. In other words, cola, especially Coca-Cola,
has been grobalized.15 As an advertising campaign in the 1990s
proclaimed, “If you don’t know what it is, Welcome to Planet
Earth.”16
For many of the same reasons, nullities are also easier to ex-
tract from the given time period in which they were created. Coca-
cola, for example, was first produced in an era in which there was
greater tolerance, and less awareness, of drugs and the problems
associated with them, and it originally contained small amounts
of cocaine. But, as times changed, and it became clear that such a
drug had no place in a soft drink, and it was removed. Coca-Cola
with cocaine would be impossible to sell today, but with the of-
fending drug removed, it is saleable almost everywhere.
Products do not necessarily start out as nullities, but become
nullities as they are modified over time, with much of what makes
them distinctive removed so that they can be marketed in a dif-
ferent time period or place. The taco may have deep roots in Mexi-
can culture, but much of what was originally involved in the cre-
ation of tacos—the way they were made, the hot chiles used to give
them their traditional spiciness—has been removed (at least out-
side indigenous areas where the original taco is still made and con-
sumed) to make it the kind of timeless, generic product that Taco
Bell markets today around the world. It is far easier to distribute
such products globally than to distribute those that retain deep
ties to a specific epoch and local area.
The fast food restaurant is a good example of the placeless
and timeless nature of nullities, and a prime model for the pro-
cess of grobalization. The basic model was developed in the United
States in the mid-twentieth century, but it has now been exported
to every corner of the world, proving adaptable to many different
locales. For example, McDonald’s sells a few different things in
various settings (e.g., beer in Germany, McFalafel in Egypt, Teriyaki
Burgers in Japan),17 and adapts its functioning in various ways
(customers in Asian settings are encouraged to linger), but the ba-
sic model remains intact and seems to function quite nicely all over
the world.

23.2ritzer 196 8/6/03, 3:43 PM

 THE GLOBALIZATION OF NOTHING 197
The fact that there is a basic model, and that translation to
a new place requires only minor adaptations, means that the costs
of producing and
modifying settings
and products can be McDonald’s sells a few
kept to a minimum in
comparison to creat- different things in various
ing such things anew settings (e.g., beer in Germany,
in many different
places and times, al- McFalafel in Egypt, Teriyaki
lowing higher profits Burgers in Japan), and adapts
(where the entrepre-
neurs are corpora- its functioning in various ways
tions), and easier dis- (customers in Asian settings
semination. Many
technologies, proce- are encouraged to linger), but
dures, and recipes that the basic model remains intact
work in one place (or
time) can simply be re- and seems to function quite
produced in many
other places (and time
nicely all over the world.
periods), creating
economies of scale. The simplicity of the model keeps personnel
costs low because relatively unskilled and poorly paid workers can
be fitted into the system and perform at reasonably high levels. For
example, automatic french fry machines turn out large numbers
of perfectly cooked fries no matter who happens to be operating
them. For all these reasons, the grobal has a huge competitive ad-
vantage over the glocal.
This means that there are great problems involved in seek-
ing to grobalize the glocal, and that even if efforts were made to
grobalize the glocal, they would be at a great cost disadvantage.
But, the success of any new glocal phenomenon may attract the
attention of entrepreneurs interested in expanding the market for
it. In order to reach other markets, perhaps even global markets,
a familiar dialectic proceeds: the entrepreneur creates a pared-down
version of the glocal phenomenon in an effort to make it attrac-
tive to a broad clientele in many different geographic settings. In
the process, of course, the glocal is transformed into the grobal and
something is transformed into nothing.
Finally, nothing is simply easier to create than something. A
fine, gourmet restaurant is difficult to establish, and relatively few

23.2ritzer 197 8/6/03, 3:43 PM

 198 SAIS Review SUMMER–FALL 2003
succeed for very long. A model that captures all the important de-
tails of a successful gourmet restaurant and can be exported to
other places is that much more difficult to create. Unlike fast food
restaurants, each gourmet restaurant is expensive to create and
maintain. More importantly, creating a chain of such restaurants
and managing them from a central location while maintaining the
high quality has proven almost impossible. It has been done—famous
chefs like France’s Alain Ducasse have opened gourmet restaurants
in several different cities—but the presence of such “chains” in the
global marketplace is insignificant in comparison to the global
proliferation of fast food restaurants.

Fighting Globalization with Globalization

Central to this essay is the argument that a key dynamic under the
broad heading of globalization is the conflict between
grobalization and glocalization. Many observers have tended to see
the defining conflict as that between globalization and the local,
but globalization does not represent one side in the central con-
flict. It is far too broad a concept, encompassing as it does all
transnational processes. The definition of the term needs further
refinement to be useful in this context. The argument made here,
which distinguishes between grobalization and glocalization,
makes it clear that the broad process of globalization already en-
compasses important conflicting processes. Since globalization
contains the key poles in the conflict, it cannot represent one po-
sition in that conflict.
The conception of globalization discussed above relegates the
other side of the traditional dichotomy of conflict—the local—to
secondary importance. The local, to the degree that it still exists,
is increasingly insignificant, and certainly not an important ele-
ment in the dynamics of globalization. Little of the local remains
that has not been touched by global influences. Thus, much of
what we think of as local is, in reality, glocal. The truly local, un-
touched by the global, is increasingly pushed to the peripheries and
interstices of the local community.
In community after community, the real struggle is between
the more purely grobal versus the glocal, because, as noted above,
very few places or things remain untouched by globalization. The
major choice facing communities seems to be between that which
is inherently and deeply globalized (grobalization) and that in
which global and local elements intermingle (glocalization). This
clearly implies the near total triumph of the global throughout the
world.

23.2ritzer 198 8/6/03, 3:43 PM

 THE GLOBALIZATION OF NOTHING 199
Ironically, then, the hope for those opposed to grobalization
lies in an alternative form of globalization. Those who oppose the
grobal form of globalization must support the glocal form of glo-
balization. Important vestiges of the local remain in the glocal. And
the interaction of the grobal and the local produces unique phe-
nomena that are not reducible to either the grobal or the local. It
is even conceivable that the glocal is, or at least can be, a signifi-
cant source of uniqueness, diversity, and innovation.
Those who oppose globalization can continue to support the
local as an alternative to the global. However, the thrust of this
analysis leads to the conclusion that this effort is likely to fail be-
cause of the progressive disappearance of the truly local. Support-
ing the glocal as an alternative to the grobal may be a more suc-
cessful strategy, recognizing the fact that the glocal is an increas-
ingly important source not only of cultural diversity, but also of
cultural innovation. Globalization, while deeply troubling to many,
is neither monolithic, nor uniform in its impacts, offering hope
to those who see menace in the hegemony of grobal phenomena.

Notes
1
A number of leading social theorists have addressed the issue of globalization,
including Zygmunt Bauman, Globalization: The Human Consequences (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1998); Ulrich Beck, What is Globalization? (Cambridge,
UK: Polity, 2000); Anthony Giddens, Runaway World: How Globalization is
Reshaping our Lives (New York: Routledge, 2000); Douglas Kellner, “Theorizing
Globalization,” Sociological Theory 20 (2002): 285–305.
2
As we will see, the meaning of this concept is not unambiguous. An effort will
be made to sort this out in the ensuing discussion.
3
That is, for example, by the headquarters of a multinational corporation or a
national government.
4
For a critique of dichotomous thinking, see Elisabeth Mudimbe-Boyi, ed.,
Beyond Dichotomies: Histories, Identities, Cultures, and the Challenge of Globalization
(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002).
5
Flea markets, craft fairs, and co-ops are other examples of something.
6
Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (London: Sage
Press, 1992), 8.
7
For an excellent overview of globalization processes generally, see Robert J.
Antonio and Alessandro Bonanno, “A New Global Capitalism? From
‘Americanism’ and ‘Fordism’ to ‘Americanization-Globalization,’” American
Studies 41 (2000): 33–77.
8
Roland Robertson, “Globalization Theory 2000+: Major Problematics,” in
George Ritzer and Barry Smart, eds., Handbook of Social Theory (London: Sage
Press, 2001), 458–471. Globalization not only goes to the heart of Robertson’s
own approach, but it is central to that of many others, most notably Arjun
Appadurai. See Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of

23.2ritzer 199 8/6/03, 3:43 PM

 200 SAIS Review SUMMER–FALL 2003
Globalization (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1996). While
John Tomlinson uses other terms, he sees glocalization as “friendly” to his own
orientation. See John Tomlinson, Globalization and Culture (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1999).
9
I feel apologetic about adding yet another neologism, especially such an
ungainly one, to a field already rife with jargon. However, the existence and
popularity of the concept of glocalization requires the creation of the parallel
notion of grobalization in order to emphasize that which the former concept
ignores or downplays.
10
I am combining a number of different entities under this heading (nations,
corporations, a wide range of organizations, and so on), but it should be clear
that there are profound differences among them, including the degree to which,
and the ways in which, they seek to grobalize.
11
However, almost everyone recognizes that grobalization, and more generally
globalization, play themselves out differently in various local and national
contexts. See Mudimbe-Boyi, Beyond Dichotomies.
12
Robert Herbert Howe, “Max Weber’s Elective Affinities: Sociology Within the
Bounds of Pure Reason,” American Journal of Sociology 84 (1978): 366–385.
13
While the other two quadrants are of secondary significance, it is important
to recognize that there is, at least to some degree, a grobalization of something
(quadrant three), and a glocalization of nothing (quadrant two). Some examples
of the former are art exhibits that move among art galleries in many different
countries, Italian exports of specialty foods like Parmiagiano Reggiano and
Culatella ham on a large scale, and touring symphony orchestras and bands that
perform in venues around the world. The production of local souvenirs and
trinkets for international tourists is an example of the latter. While some
examples exist, empirical manifestations of quadrants two and three are not
nearly as common as those associated with the other two possibilities, nor are
the tensions between them as significant. It should also be noted that something
can be transformed over time into nothing, and vice versa. On the one hand,
traditional works of art (for example, kokopellis from the American Southwest
[images of a traditional hump-backed flute player] and stacking or nesting
matryoshka dolls from Russia) that were once something have been transformed
into mass-produced kitsch for the grobal consumer and tourist. On the other
hand, the toys given away or sold by McDonald’s over the years have, in some
cases, become collector’s items.
14
New, eclectic cuisines and cookery do involve the combination of the most
unlikely of foods. Nonetheless, such combinations are unlikely to be attractive
to a large, global population of consumers, or at least one as large and global
as that for, say, Coca-Cola.
15
An apparent exception is the uproar over “Coca-Colonization” in France after
World War II, but that quickly died out and today Coca-Cola is only one of
many non-things widely accepted in France. See, for example, Richard Kuisel,
Seducing the French: The Dilemma of Americanization (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1993).
16
Jane Pavitt, “Branded: A Brief History of Brands: 1. Coca Cola,” The Guardian,
9 July 2001.
17
“Kiwi Burger to Go, Hold the Fried Egg,” Washington Post, 2 December 2002.

23.2ritzer 200 8/6/03, 3:43 PM