Abstract: Philosopher Jürgen Habermas identified the idea of the public sphere – an environment that fosters rational debate where all are welcome. London coffeehouses from 1680–1730 possessed many characteristics that were attributed to the public sphere. Through the analysis of primary sources such as A Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffeehouses (Anonymous Author, 1675) and the diary of Samuel Pepys, a member of Parliament in the late seventeenth century, I analyze how close the normative ideal of Habermas’ public sphere matches the social reality of London coffeehouses. The conclusion drawn is based on just a few of the many accounts of what social life was like in the coffeehouses, and so many stones are left unturned, but there is no doubt that there are parallels between the two environments.
Key words: public sphere; Jürgen Habermas; coffeehouses; London; social reality; normative ideal; the Golden Age of London coffeehouses (1680 – 1730)
Introduction
Today, coffee is a staple in millions of people’s morning routines. All over the world it is depended on as a caffeine source by people of all ages: college students cramming for an exam, doctors working 20 straight hours, security guards on the night shift, even those working traditional nine to five jobs may rely on a cup of coffee to kickstart their day.
In London, England, coffee made its debut when Pasqua Rosee, a Greek servant to merchant Daniel Edwards, founded the first coffeehouse in St. Michael’s Alley in 1652 (Ellis, 2004, pp. 27-31). At the time, the sanitary situation in the big cities like London was precarious, and the water was not drinkable on its own. Ale, mead, and liquor were the drinks of choice until coffee arose as an alternative. It was cheaper than tea and did not have the properties of alcohol that hindered a person’s senses (p. 29). Because of this, discussion and debate in coffeehouses was much more civil and they had the potential to emulate a public sphere (p. 38).
Habermasian Ideal
Jürgen Habermas (1980)(Fig. 1), a German philosopher, claims that the public sphere is “a realm of social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” (p. 198). He further claims that it is “a sphere which mediates between society and the state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion” (p. 198). In order for the public sphere to truly function perfectly, there are eight conditions that need to be met.
The first of these conditions drawn up by Habermas (1980) instructs that the public sphere must be separated from the government (p. 198). He asserts that “although state authority is so to speak the executor of the political public sphere, it is not a part of it.” This would ensure that people could voice their opinions without fear of retribution by the government. Not only does the public sphere have to be completely separate from the government, but the government also has to be transparent towards the people and be willing to provide information about affairs of state. He claims that “only when the exercise of political control is effectively subordinated to the democratic demand that information be accessible to the public, does the political public sphere win an institutionalized influence over government” (p. 198). Additionally, Habermas argues that in order for the public sphere to succeed, access should be guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of social class, gender, race, age, or religious belief (p. 198).
The public sphere must also be a place that fosters rational debate. According to Habermas (1980), “public discussions about the exercise of political power which are both critical in intent and institutionally guaranteed have not always existed – they grew out of a specific phase of bourgeois society” (p. 198). In order for this rational debate to be conducted, Habermas identifies another condition: persons assembled must put aside their private interests. He claims that people of the public sphere “behave neither like business or professional people transacting private affairs nor like members of a constitutional order subject to the legal constraints of s state bureaucracy” (p. 198). Once personal interests are put aside, and all government activities are made known, public opinion can be created. This is an essential part of the purpose of the public sphere, as Habermas asserts that “the public sphere is a sphere in which the public organizes itself as the bearer or public opinion” (p. 198).
Public opinion can only be determined if every individual expresses their own true opinion. Habermas (1980) argues that “citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion – that is, with the guarantee of freedom to express and publish their opinions- about matters of general interests” (p. 198). To form their opinions, people gain information when they meet face-to-face in physical public sphere or through different media sources, which constitute the virtual public sphere. “Today newspapers and magazines, radio and television are the media of the public sphere,” explains Habermas (p. 198).
These conditions are the foundation for a system of communication that encourages the spread of ideas and creates an environment where debate can thrive. It is, however, uncertain the extent to which the Habermasian normative ideal corresponds to the social reality of the London coffeehouses during what the author claims was their Golden Age, between 1680-1730 (Habermas, 1991, p. 32).
The Rota Club
Coffeehouses were the talk of the town, and thousands of people traveled to them to see if they were worth all the commotion. One individual in particular, a young man named Samuel Pepys visited a coffeehouse by the name of Turk’s Head in 1659 and proceeded to write about what he witnessed in his diary (Ellis, 2004, p. 46). Turk’s Head was home to the Rota club, an institution created by a lawyer James Harrington with the intent “to reorientate discussion: to render to rational, critical, civil, serious” (cited in Ellis, 2004, p. 48). Because this was during the Interregnum, a time between monarchs when Oliver, followed by Richard Cromwell, held power as Lord Protector, the goal of the Rota club was to debate how the government should be run and come up with a plan based on the results of the discussions.
Pepys was impressed by the coffee club where he “heard very good discourse” and the debate was settled by a “ballat” where people could vote for Harrington’s government plans (p. 48). He did however point out flaws such as the fact that one day “there was nothing done but choosing of a committee for orders,” which, to Pepys, came across as a large waste of time. Another visitor of Turk’s Head was John Aubrey (cited in Ellis, 2004), a writer and philosopher, who claimed that the coffeehouse “admits of no distinction of persons, but gentleman mechanic, lord, and scoundrel mix, and are all of a piece, as if they were resolv’d into their first principles” (p. 49).
Coffeehouses vs. The Crown
With the fall of Richard Cromwell in 1659 came the end of the Commonwealth in England, and thus began the restoration of the monarchy with King Charles II(Fig. 2) returning to the throne. Eager to renew order after all the period of chaos, the Londoners celebrated, what they did not see coming however, was the king’s intentions to suppress the coffeehouses that they had grown so fond of. After unsuccessfully taxing the establishments, in 1675 King Charles II made a second attempt to censor the conversation taking place in the coffeehouses throughout London by issuing a proclamation. A Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffeehouses (Anonymous Author, 1675) claimed that in the coffeehouses, “divers false, malicious and scandalous reports are devised and spread abroad, to the defamation of his Majesties Government, and to the disturbance of the peace and quiet of the realm” (p. 1). The proclamation also stated that all current licenses for the selling of coffee must be recalled or made void, and that for the future, all officials must not “make or grant any such license or licenses, to any person or persons whatsoever” (p. 1).
The owners of these coffeehouses and people of London did not take this news very well, as it was a threat to their livelihood and a hinderance of their freedom of speech (Ellis, 2004, p. 86). The coffee-men knew that tax on the coffee they were selling was one of the biggest moneymakers for the government and sent an organized group of petitioners with a plea to keep the coffeehouses open, saying that he would be foolish to willingly give up all of that profit. To counter the king’s proclamation, the coffee-men made one of their own, pledging themselves as spies to the government in return for their coffeehouses remaining open (p. 96). The king conceded to this request, but with the coffee-men acting as informants, he saw that he could use this partnership to judge and manipulate public opinion in his favor and ensure that no republicans were plotting against the crown (p. 96).
Propaganda and Manipulation
The London coffeehouses became a place where individuals came to get news about what was happening around them (Ellis, 2004, p. 69). This became especially important during the Interregnum and the Restoration period because England was in a state of instability. After the Glorious Revolution, where the Catholic King James II was replaced by the protestant rulers William and Mary, news became one of the main incentives for going to the coffeehouses, with each individual paper being read by twenty people (Downie, 1979, p. 9). The successor to William and Mary was Queen Anne, and during her reign a man by the name of Robert Harley served as the de facto prime minister of England. “The combined effect of the triennial act and the abandonment of the licensing system was a tremendous growth in the production of political literature,” and Harley, like the previous rulers before him, saw open discussion in coffeehouses as a threat (Downie, 1979, p. 1). Learning from the mistakes of Charles II, he knew that he could not just declare a proclamation and expect the problem to go away; instead, he came up with a way to change the topics of discussion in the coffeehouses and the opinions that people formed by secretly taking control of the newspapers. He hired writers such as Johnathan Swift and Daniel Defoe to write for popular papers in ways that would persuade the people of London to support Harley’s political moves (Downie, 1979, p. 2).
One of the results of this strategy was a pamphlet that Defoe wrote in support of the Union between Scotland and England; little did everyone know that he was not merely sharing his own opinion, but was getting paid by Harley because the union of England and Scotland would be very beneficial to the English government (Downie, 1979, p. 3). Defoe, speaking on behalf of the Scottish people claimed that “if we do not cheerfully and with Thanks to the Almighty Providence, embrace the Present Opportunity, offered us, whereby we can settle ourselves and our Posterity in a lasting Peace, and a Demonstrative Scheme of Honor, Wealth, and Grandeur, we shall give the World too much Occasion to call us, True Scots-men wise behind the hand” (Defoe, 1706, p. 33). Because news was taken so seriously in the coffeehouses and just in general, this was a very effective way of getting to the people.
The Spectator
In the early 1700s, The Spectator was one of the most popular published works in London. Co-written by Addison and Steele, these entries caught the attention of many coffeehouse-goers. One issue in particular, The Spectator No. 49 (Addison and Steele, 1711, pp. 314-317), focuses on the coffeehouses themselves and provides a description of the people and the conversations that they contain. Mr. Spectator, the imaginary character created by Addison and Steele, claims that in the coffeehouses “men differ rather in the time of day in which they make a figure, than in any real greatness above one another” (p. 314). At six in the morning Beaver the haberdasher and his friends all read the newspapers and listen as Mr. Beaver explains the international measures he believes will solve England’s problems (Addison and Steele, 1711, p. 315). Then around eight well-dressed students arrive along with some others who appear to have just rolled out of bed. (p. 315). Later on, the businessmen arrive and those who have “come to the coffee-house either to transact affairs or enjoy conversation” (p. 315).
In the middle of the day there is Eubulus who, like the fake politician figure from ancient Athens, “does the office of a counsel, a judge an executor, and a friend to all his acquaintance” (p. 316). He commands the coffeehouse and has great authority over the perception of the news that it read while he is there (p. 317).
Finally, there is Tom the Tyrant who closes down the coffeehouse, giving “his orders in the most arbitrary manner to the servants below him, as to the disposition of liquors, coal, and cinders” (Addison and Steele, 1711, p. 137). Mr. Spectator describes a typical day in the coffeehouse from sunrise to sunset, shedding a light on one of London’s greatest novelties at the beginning of the eighteenth century.
The Public Sphere
Habermas’ image of the public sphere is a utopian idea that would likely take a miracle to perfectly recreate in reality, however, the London coffeehouses seemed to get pretty close. The Spectator No. 49 shows the different walks of life that can be found in the coffeehouses, suggesting that access is guaranteed to all, there is, however, no mention of women in this issue. Newspapers were read by multiple people each day (Downie, 1979, p. 9), proving that media played a large role in the spread of news and information in London and that from this news, people formed opinions of their own that collectively made up the public opinion. Despite this, the actions of Robert Harley and King Charles II show that the coffeehouses are not entirely separate from the government, and that English leadership is not willing to be transparent about their affairs of state. According to Pepys, The ROTA Club participated in rational debate, but that is not to say that emotions never got the best of the men and chaos ensued.
The research that I have presented does not contain enough information to comment on all eight of Habermas’ principles of the public sphere. Because of this, I cannot say for certain whether the London Coffeehouses truly allowed for opinions to be freely expressed or if all personal interests were put aside. It is clear, however, that while the London coffeehouses did meet a lot of Habermas’ principles at a surface level, when taking a deeper look, the social reality did not quite live up to the normative ideal.
Emma Donohue
About the Author
Emma Donohue is a first-year student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York and is hoping to pursue a degree in Business and Economics. On campus, Emma is a student editor of the Gridiron yearbook and a member of the women’s club lacrosse team.
Emma is currently enrolled in London Coffeehouse Culture & Modernity, a course for first-year students aimed at developing more advanced research and oral presentation skills. The course focuses on the social and political roles of the London coffeehouses in the late 1600s to early 1700s in contrast to philosopher Jurgen Habermas’ theory of the public sphere.
When she is not on campus, Emma lives in the Boston suburbs in the town of Marlborough, MA with her younger sister, her parents, and her new puppy, Murphy.
Bibliography
Addison, J., & Steele, R. (1711). The Spectator No. 49 Vol. 1. D. Appleton & Company. New York.
Anonymous Author. (1675). A Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffeehouses. John Bill and Christopher Barker. London.
Defoe, D[1]. (1706). The advantages of Scotland by an incorporate union with England. Unknown Publisher. Edinburgh.
Downie, J. A. (1979). Robert Harley and the press: Propaganda and public opinion in the age of Swift and Defoe. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, M. (2004). The coffee house: A cultural history. Weidenfield & Nicolson. London.
Habermas, J. (1980). The public sphere. In A. Mattelart, & S. Sieglaub (Eds.), Communication and class struggle (pp. 198-201). International General.
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (pp. 32-33). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[1] Originally published as an anonymous work, only later attributed to Defoe