McDonaldization

In the present day, standardization of products is born of a desire for efficiency in mass-production, but prior to the Industrial Era it was a means of cultural control.   It is with some irony that there is harsh criticism of standardization and the development of mass culture in the present day, when it is merely a continuation of previous practices, merely on a grander scale.

In effect, it is not an objection to standardization, merely a power struggle over which individuals set the standards.  The effect of standardization, on any scale, is the removal of options for consumers.   One cannot satisfy or express cultural values or exercise personal choice if the options available to choose among are strictly limited.

It is also worth noting that industrial and commercial standardization is done with the full consent and participating of consumers in the market.  In choosing to accept a standardized product, rather than insisting upon and being willing to pay for something more suitable to their tastes, the consumers have given their consent to standardization.

In the age of mass-production, distribution, and marketing the producers of goods and service benefit from the efficiency of producing uniform products that can be sold to a large number of people.   It has been argued that this provides mass-producers with a competitive advantage over the manufacturers of customize goods, in that the additional margin grants them greater ability to underprice their competition, greater ability to increase the size of manufacturing operations, and greater ability to reproduce retail operations.

Meanwhile, culture is socially constructed and individualism is by necessity uncontrolled – which both are in conflict with decisions being made by a few for the many.   Cultural evolution requires flexibility, and it is likely that the present cultural stagnancy is the result of a lack of flexibility in an economic environment in which the options available to satisfy and express taste are limited by suppliers who unilaterally decide to provide uniform products and services.

To my original point, this is supply-side economics which pointedly ignored that the customer is in control.  Suppliers have no ability to force anyone to buy from them, and seek to cater to the desires of buyers.   If there is any criticism to be leveled, it should be at consumers who sacrifice individuality to save on cost.

Sad another way, it is not "the corporations" that are dehumanizing people by limiting their options, but people who are sacrificing their individuality by accepting the options provided.   Commercial interests will rush to provide anything that people demand - and if their demands are uniform, then uniformity is what will be provided.