Big chain restaurants and stores have always just been a part of life for me. Take a road… Big chain restaurants and stores have always just been a part of life for me. Take a road trip or drive through your town and they’re as natural to the American landscape as grass and trees. But recently, I’ve started to notice that some have extremely strong feelings about chains — feelings that are both positive and negative.

My boyfriend, for example, is very stubbornly opposed to chains of all kinds. Anytime I mention a craving for McNuggets or a Frosty, he shakes his head in disapproval. He’s one of the crowd who’s all about supporting your local restaurants. My best friend, on the other hand, was raised without fast food’s greasy goodness, and now she’s always giddy over the prospect of eating at a chain restaurant.

After listening to both sides of the argument, I am left somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, chains are often more reliable and less expensive than their independently owned counterparts. You always know what you’re getting with a chain, whereas independent establishments are more of a gamble. But at the same time, it’s hard to argue with the benefits of supporting local business.

Rejection of chains is not as much about the quality of the business or food as it is a statement against the evils of capitalism and corporations. When someone opposes a chain, what he’s more likely opposing is not the establishment itself, but the system that allows corporations to take business away from small and independent business owners.

When you think about it this way, it’s easy to see why some people hate the thought of chains. But on another level, there is something distinctly American behind the whole idea. After all, what would the United States be like without McDonalds and Starbucks? More so, what would the world be like? Well, it would be different; some would say for the better.

Since the first chain stores started proliferating in the United States in the early 20th century, the country has attained worldwide status partly from chain restaurants branching out internationally. And whether that status is more a matter of notoriety or prestige is a question that continues to fuel the debate.

Perhaps it should quite simply be a matter of taste. For example, I much prefer the local Pittsburgh diner Pamela’s to the chain IHOP. Does this mean that independent establishments are inherently better? Well, no, because it’s also common knowledge — or, at least, it should be, in my opinion — that nobody makes better iced-coffee than the global franchise Dunkin’ Donuts.

So perhaps it’s counterproductive to make a judgment call based on one’s personal preferences. Sure, some swear that everything is better when it’s independently owned, but it just seems unfair to hate something simply for being a chain.

I can’t help but think that chains and independent establishments are perfectly capable of living happily alongside one another. Just take a peek down Forbes Avenue and you’ll see Panera Bread, Chipotle and Rite Aid sitting beside independently owned businesses like Red Oak Café, Pamela’s and Vera Cruz.

Yes, big business is considered evil in some circles, but just try to imagine an America where you can’t get an ice cream sundae for $1 at 3 a.m. without getting out of your car. Such a thought boggles the mind. A country without independently owned businesses, however, would be equally upsetting in the monotony of choices. I say, allow the two to live together in harmony and try not to get caught in the middle of the great chain debate. For breakfast, I’ll take the best of both worlds: pancakes from Pamela’s and iced coffee from Dunkin’ Donuts.

E-mail Katie at [email protected].