Given the combination of current cultural tensions and the volatility of social media, it is impossible to predict where controversy will erupt next. Of all things, at the moment, it’s at Cracker Barrel.
If you haven’t been on social media, watched the news or talked to another human being in the past while, then you might be surprised to learn that the beloved American restaurant chain has been causing something of a stir. Known for its family-style “home cooked” meals, rocking chairs and quaint wall décor, the relatively new CEO of the company, Julie Masino, has undertaken a controversial rebrand, shifting the old-fashioned motif into formalized patterns and introducing more contemporary menu items. Most contentious of the changes includes the perceived Stalin-esque erasure of “Old Timer”, the gentleman leaning against the barrel in the company logo.
So why all the hubbub? After all, brand updates are a regular occurrence in the commercial world. McDonalds, Wendy’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken and many other restaurant brands have all updated their look in the past few years. The earliest version of the logo from 1969 is in fact much closer to the 2025 version. Indeed, the “old” look of Cracker Barrel was not, in fact, original but had been the result of a brand update in 1977.
What makes the 1977 logo and brand design so significant is what it tells us about the much earlier past. 1977 was one year after the nation’s bicentennial. The two hundredth anniversary of the country had sparked a nostalgia for all things colonial. People in the mid-70s were decorating their houses with old spinning wheels, milk jugs and assorted farm implements. Cracker Barrel, like many restaurants and businesses at the time, was simply tapping into this trend, with a slightly more southern accent. In other words, Cracker Barrel’s presentation of the past was not a natural or authentic development from southern culture. It was the result of a recently formed corporation carefully curating nostalgic elements to attract customers.
The historian and cultural theorist, Ian McKay, tells us that whenever we encounter older “heritage” in a new setting (as we see southern heritage presented in the modern Cracker Barrel restaurants), we should ask how it is being presented to us and why it is being presented in that way. In stepping back and asking such questions, we can not only become more aware of how we are being shaped and influenced by this presentation of history, but also how we can better respond to it.
McKay points out that, as the world becomes increasingly more complex, more industrialized, more unfamiliar and more alienating, we increasingly seek relief and comfort in the past. This is sometimes called anti-modernism.
One could see Cracker Barrel as a perfect example of anti-modernism. By promoting the simpler life, one centered around “home cooking”, the past and rural concerns, these restaurants serve as a counternarrative to increasing urbanization and industrialization, both of which had led to an abandonment of traditions, a loss of historical identity and the fragmentation of the family.
Yet Cracker Barrel, as a major corporation, aspires to expand its appeal to new audiences. It can only do so by dropping some of its cultural specificity and presenting itself in a more neutral way, which they believe will attract new customers who do not have a nostalgia for old Americana, the way its current customer base does.
And this is why this new project is running into opposition from its traditional customer base, who see Cracker Barrel as a reprieve from the anonymity and conformity of the modern world. By updating or modernizing its look, Cracker Barrel is becoming precisely what its older customers were seeking to escape, namely, just another sterile, streamlined restaurant chain, with no attachment to regional roots or history.
While it is necessary to recognize that corporations should be allowed to make alterations to their brands where they see fit, these same corporations should also be mindful of how much heritage and tradition their brand may have come to represent for many of their customers. This is something that is not often appreciated by more progressive executives, and in the case of Cracker Barrel, this oversight might finally prove financially fatal.
For conservatives, the case of Cracker Barrel should also serve as a warning. It shows that we need to ask just how much of our past and heritage we want to have controlled by large corporations, many of which increasingly show little to no interest in our other values.
Perhaps it is time to take the presentation and interpretation of our collective past, tradition and customs more into our own hands, instead of relying on fickle and changeable businesses to do so. After all, nothing beats a home-cooked meal that’s actually served at home.
Michael J. Plato is the associate professor of Philosophy within the School of Theology in Colorado Christian University’s College of Undergraduate Studies and is a fellow with the Centennial Institute. He holds a B.A. in Philosophy from Trinity College at the University of Toronto, an M.A. in Popular Culture from Brock University, an M.T.S. in Historical Theology from Toronto Baptist Seminary, and is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy at the Free University of Amsterdam.
