Abstract: This paper explores Jürgen Habermas’ theory of the public sphere and compares his normative ideal to the social reality of the London coffeehouse during the 17th and 18th centuries. Habermas believed that his concept of the public sphere was first exhibited in western history in the London coffeehouses during the Golden Age of London coffeehouses (1680-1730). In entries of Samuel Pepys Diary there is evidence that the sophisticated coffeehouse discourse did agree with Habermas’ theory of the public sphere. However in other historical documents such as King Charles II’s royal proclamations, essays from The Spectator, and in Robert Harley’s press, it is evident that the social reality of the coffeehouses was not always in agreement with Habermas’ perspective.
Keywords: public sphere; public opinion; coffeehouse; London; Habermas; Charles II; Samuel Pepys; Robert Harley; The Spectator; social reality; normative ideal
Figure 1: Jürgen Habermas was born in 1929 and is a German philosopher who proposed his own theory of the public sphere in 1980.
According to Habermas (1980), the public sphere is defined as “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” (p. 198). Under Habermas’ theory, the public sphere provides a place where different people can come together and freely discuss, connect, and exchange ideas assuming eight different preconditions.
Firstly, according to Habermas (1980), the public sphere is separated from the government. He describes that the behavior of people in the public sphere is independent from government regulation. “They then behave neither like business or professional people transacting private affairs, nor like members of a constitutional order subject to the legal constraints of a state bureaucracy,” Habermas claimed (p. 198). The segregation of state and public ensures that people within the public sphere are unrestricted, and maintain freedom of assembly.
Next, Habermas (1980) requires that access to the public sphere is guaranteed to all citizens. Habermas goes on to emphasize the free access to the public sphere due to its presence in all aspects of public assembly. “A portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body,” the author noted (p. 198). This precondition implies that accessibility of the public sphere is not dictated by wealth status, race, or gender, but instead the public sphere promotes inclusivity as it can be accessed by all.
The author further details that the public sphere only supports rational and sensible opinions. “Public opinion can by definition only come into existence when a reasoning public is presupposed,” the author said (p. 198). Opinions are welcome and encouraged in the public sphere, however these opinions must be logical so that actions and debate remain rational. A civil arena can only be maintained given that discussions are fostered by sensible ideas and opinions.
Another prerequisite of the public sphere is that once someone enters it, their private interests are left behind. “A portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body,” according to Habermas (p. 198). Discussion is meant to be inclusive and open, not narrowed down by private interests. Bringing together individual people into the public sphere forms a group of people which dissolves private concerns.
Habermas (1980) also mandates that the public sphere provides a space which fosters freedom of opinion. He stated that the public sphere is a sphere “which mediates between society and state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion, accords with the principle of the public sphere” (p. 198). This social arena harbors free expressions of opinions allowing discussion to flow openly amongst the people.
Habermas (1980) also says that the government must be transparent and willing to share state affairs. “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 the government through the instrument of Law-making bodies,” says the author (p. 198). People reserve the right to be informed of the affairs of their own government which fuels democracy in the public sphere.
Habermas (1980) also states that people can get information in places outside of conversation. “Today newspapers and magazines, radio and television are the media of the public sphere,” says Habermas (p. 198). This indicates that people also have the ability to gain information through media and not just by regular conversation.
Lastly, Habermas (1980) requires that people are actually able to freely express their opinion in the public sphere. The author said that citizens behave as a public body when they “confer in an unrestricted fashion --' with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions” (p. 198). People in the public sphere are governed only by their own selves, not over any external factors which restricts social freedom such as politics or economics.
Habermas’ definition of the public sphere expresses the normative ideal of the public sphere or his preconceived idea of what it should be. Habermas (1989) claimed that his definition manifested for the first time in western history in the London coffeehouses during the Golden Age of London coffeehouses (1680-1730) (p. 32). Many aspects of Habermas’ normative ideal were verified by coffeehouse culture due to its place in business and formation of comradeship. However, it is also evident that coffeehouse culture deviated from many of Habermas’ eight preconditions primarily due to the ever changing political climate of 17th-18th century London.
The Introduction of Coffeehouses to London
Ellis (2004) claimed that consumption of coffee and gatherings at coffeehouses all began with one man named Pasqua Rosée. He came to London from Smyrna where he was originally a servant to businessman Daniel Edwards (p. 28). In London, Rosée opened the first ever coffeehouse in Christendom. He established his coffeehouse in 1652 on St. Michael’s Alley by the Royal Exchange, which was an epicenter for merchants. He hoped that this location would attract the merchants to try his new product, which of course was coffee. This location was also ideal due to its commercial nature where many business and retail entities thrived (p. 30-31).
Rosée opened his coffeehouse during the Puritan Era (1649-1660). Puritans sought to reform the English church of Roman Catholics, however more important to Rosée, the Puritans despised alcohol, so many of them drank his coffee. Coffee in time also became the official drink of the merchants due to its ability to stimulate alertness.
Coffeehouses quickly took off throughout London and many more opened up. The coffeehouses were especially successful during the political chaos of the Restoration Era (1660-1666) when King Charles II was restored to the throne. They became a social safe haven providing a space for the public to assemble, discuss, and connect (pg. 38). Thus, this was where Habermas argues that his definition of the public sphere was first erected.
Figure 3: Samuel Pepys (1663-1703) was a member of the English Navy and kept a diary from 1660-1669 which significantly accounts the English Restoration Era.
Samuel Pepys’ (1663-1703) Account of the Coffeehouses
Coffeehouses played pivotal roles in the politics, economics, and society of London during the 1660s. Ellis (2004) cited Samuel Pepys’ diary frequently as his diary was the first complete account of coffeehouse visits and customs. “Pepys’s diary records his enjoyment of the convivial fellowship he found there, always noting the topics he heard discussed, always listing the men he met,” claimed Ellis (p. 57). The singularity of coffeehouses is also exemplified by their preference over drinking in taverns or pubs. Ellis alluded to Pepys and the desire for coffee over alcohol. “Drinking made him unfit for business, but also he realized that pubs were appropriate for a young man...they were not the place great men socialised,” argued Ellis (p. 57).
The importance of the coffeehouse is further grounded in an entry of Pepys’ diary on Monday December 10th in 1660. “In the evening to the Coffee House in Cornhill, the first time that ever I was there, and I found much pleasure in it, through the diversity of company and discourse,” noted Pepys (2020). On Friday January 23rd in 1662, Pepys also mentioned that coffeehouse “discourse was well worth hearing” indicating the value of coffeehouse conversation. Ellis (2004) offered that coffeehouses were important to Pepys for intimate discussion and friendship. “The attraction of the place was never simply the coffee...but rather the potential he found there for social intercourse and companionship,” claimed the author (p. 56). Pepys always noted the people he met in coffeehouses and detailed their entertainment or use to him. Ellis also illustrated that the ability for people like Pepys to gain an insider’s perspective of politics was also of high value to coffeehouse conversation. “Coffee-house were also centers for the circulation of unprinted news. The association of coffee-houses with news did much to build their cultural association with debate, controversy, and in later decades, sedition,” said Ellis (p. 69).
Men also conducted business in coffeehouses as the sophisticated social nature of the coffeehouse provided the ideal atmosphere over drunken men in pubs. Ellis (2004) claimed that Pepys used the coffee house as a platform to reach higher business and for making more acquaintances (p. 57). Ellis also described that Pepys frequently visited the coffeehouses in Exchange Alley so most men he met were merchants or economists and he learned much about their business practices and how they related to his work with the Navy Office (p. 57). Pepys (2020) indicated the rationality and interest of one conversation he had in a coffeehouse on Wednesday January 27th in 1663. “Up and to the office, and at noon to the Coffeehouse, where I sat with Sir G. Ascue and Sir William Petty, who in discourse is, methinks, one of the most rational men that ever I heard speak with a tongue,” Pepys recorded in his diary. Coffeehouse culture allowed different types of men to congregate and be immersed in stimulating conversation fit for socializing or for business which is thoroughly detailed in Pepys’ account.
Figure 4: King Charles II (1630-1685) was crowned the king of England in 1660 marking the beginning of the Restoration Era and he ruled until his death in 1685.
The Royal Proclamations By King Charles II (1630-1685)
Along with fostering rational conversation, the coffeehouses were also viewed as a capital for public opinion during the Restoration Era (1660-1666). They provided a space which encouraged freedom of speech, a liberty embedded in the English constitutional tradition. Ellis (2004) indicated the importance of coffeehouses in supporting freedom of speech. “Coffee-houses were also centers for the circulation of unprinted news, both hand-written manuscript form, and also in oral forms of gossip, rumour, and scandal,” claimed Ellis (p. 69). This involved uncensored and unique perspectives on politics in England, especially those pertaining to political dissent and sedition. These perspectives arose due to the restoration of the monarchy following the Interregnum period in which England was ruled by the parliament and military because of King Charles I’s execution.
The openness of conversation and opinion was a staple of the coffeehouse, however King Charles II was restored to rule in 1660, ending Interregnum. Under his rule, legislation over the coffeehouses became much more strict in an attempt to silence the political dissent and negative talk of anti-loyalists who defied Restoration. The Excise tax of 1660 was the only regulation over coffeehouses at the beginning of Restoration which limited the manufacture and purchase of coffee. However, this did not address the ideas of sedition and political opposition in coffeehouses. In response to the suspected scandalous talk about the monarchy, King Charles II enacted A Proclamation to Restrain the Spreading of False News and Licentious Talking of Matters of State and Government which directly targeted the coffeehouse rebellion against his rule. His proclamation “promised to punish all spreaders of false news or promoters of any malicious colonies against the state” (Anonymous, 1674, p. 1).
King Charles II was ruthless and in 1675, another one of his proclamations titled the Royal Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffeehouses aimed to subdue coffeehouse businesses. In this proclamation King Charles II illustrated his concerns over the actions of the coffeehouse goers. “At their coffeehouse meetings, divers False, Malitious, 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,” the proclamation read (Anonymous, 1675, p. 1). As a result King Charles II enforced the suppression of coffeehouse business. Coffeehouse owners were forced to abstain from selling their drinks which attracted so many people. Ellis (2004) noted the betrayed reaction the public had to the royal proclamations. “To the people of London was a calamity: a challenge to their liberty of assembly and free speech,” claimed Ellis (p. 86). Coffeehouse owners were also forced to stop selling their drinks under this royal order. This new legislation threatened free speech and the livelihoods of many coffeehouse owners.
The royal proclamations failed in the end due to a few different reasons. First, the government used the coffeehouses as a gauge for public opinion which aided them in policy-making. Without the coffeehouses, the government had no insight on how the public felt about the government action. Ellis (2004) noted the use of spies to gain this information. “After the second proclamation the coffee-men appeared to have been turned into domestic spies. Rather than allowing their common rooms to be the center of the circulation of news and libels, they were to be at the forefront of the effort to control them,” stated the author (p. 100). The suppression of coffeehouses reduced the tax revenue that the government was collecting from the purchase of coffee drinks which also contributed to the failure of the proclamations.
Robert Harley and Free Press
Another divergence from Habermas’ normative ideal is seen after the Glorious Revolution (1688). During this time, the Triennial Act (1694) and freedom of the press had huge impacts on politics and propaganda in England, and much of which took place in the coffeehouses. Downie (1979) argued that a significant divide arose between the Tory and Whig camps, which was only worsened by propaganda caused by the Triennial Act and the expiration of the Licensing Act of 1662 in 1695. “The years from 1701 to 1715 — those in which the press made its most spectacular growth in the public imagination — witnessed the most severe party conflict, as party considerations permeated every feature of English society,” claimed Downie (p. 5). With the political uproar in England, free press and the Triennial Act, both caused a tremendous surge in political literature and press in 1695 (Downie p. 1).
Robert Harley being in the run for the Earl of Oxford in 1704 needed to find a way to keep his status and political goals afloat amidst the pressure of constant electioneering and free press. One strategy Harley used to navigate this challenge was the exploitation of writers including Jonathan Swift and Daniel Defoe which allowed him to dominate the press. Downie detailed Harley’s public manipulation and use of the press. “On his return to office in 1710 at the head of the ostensibly tory administration, Harley was finally in a position to put into practice the methods and theories for manipulating public opinion through the press that he had formulated in twenty years of practical politics,” claimed Downie (p. 2). The papers which Harley controlled were often provided and read in coffee houses. This clearly indicates that the coffeehouses were not always conducive to public opinion much like they were prior to free press. Instead coffeehouse culture was vulnerable to press and propaganda driven manipulation by people like Robert Harley.
Figure 6: The Spectator was a publication produced by Jospeh Addison and Richard Steele from 1711 to 1712 and it advocated for social reformation.
The Spectator By Joseph Addison and Richard Steele (1711-1712)
In the thick of a press-consumed society and in addition to Harley’s papers, The Spectator produced essays which promoted social reformation. In the 1700s Joseph Addison and Richard Steele advocated for the reformation of society in England through The Spectator. Ellis (2004) noted the importance of The Spectator in urban life. “The Spectator argued that the sociable instinct was both the first cause and the greatest effect of modern city life,” according to Ellis (p. 185).
Addison and Steele (1853) wanted to elicit reform in social behavior through the urbanization of philosophy. This meant that they could introduce their philosophical ideals to urban life. “It was said of Socrates, that he brought philosophy down from heaven, to inhabit among men; and I shall be ambitious to have it said of me, that I have brought philosophy out of closets and libraries, schools and colleges, to dwell in clubs and assemblies, at tea tables and in coffee-houses,” stated the authors (p. 129). Coffeehouses were a large part of urban life, and therefore served as a focal point for where this social reformation could take effect. Addison and Steele wanted a civil and polite society which fostered citizens who simply acted out of the kindness of their hearts and maintained rational discourse. They created this character called Mr. Spectator who observed the coffeehouse scene and he was ultimately the writer of the essays in The Spectator. Ellis (2004) identifies Mr. Spectator’s outlook on the importance of the coffeehouses in implementing his philosophy. “He mobilises a new model citizen from the interaction of many different social orders. The coffee-house was exactly the kind of arena where this social mixture and affective mobilisation could occur,” noted Ellis (p. 189).
For society to reach this enlightenment outlined by Mr. Spectator, it had to be done through the coffeehouse by creating this utopian society that was polite, civil, and rational. On this notion, Ellis concluded that The Spectator was not effective in social reform. “The essays do not attempt a realistic description of the coffeehouse…it remains a socially exclusive vision of moral reform extending to only other men like Steele, to property-owning men of similar outlook,” said the author (p. 203). Addison and Steele crafted a perspective on normative ideal through their essays in The Spectator of which was unrealistic to materialize in coffeehouses due to its crowded and chaotic nature.
Final Analysis
Through the above depictions of the coffeehouse, Habermas’ normative ideal philosophy of the public sphere does not completely agree with the social reality of the coffeehouses. Recalling Habermas’ precondition that coffeehouses foster rational discourse, Pepys’ account indicates that this was true through his valuable interactions in business, companionship, and news circulation. Ellis also contrasts the sophisticated atmosphere of the coffeehouse with the obnoxious atmosphere of the taverns and pubs emphasizing the cultivation of Habermas’ public sphere in coffeehouses. Pepys social engagements in the coffeehouse depict the coffeehouse as conducive to public opinion and rational discourse.
However, Habermas’ normative ideal did not always accord to the social reality of the London coffeehouses. We see this in King Charles II’s efforts to quell public opinion in coffeehouses with the royal proclamations. These suppressed coffeehouse businesses so people could not attend coffeehouses and converse with others. Coffeehouses played such a huge role in public assemblies and public opinion that this was a challenge to freedom of speech. This challenge hindered the circulation and sharing of public opinion. The consequent failure of the proclamations also indicates opposition to Habermas because the coffeehouses were not independent of government regulation with the presence of spies gauging public perspective. This description of the social reality in the coffeehouse disagrees with Habermas’ theory that the public sphere is a place separated from government which also encourages public opinion.
In addition, Robert Harley’s control over the newspapers manipulated public opinion which disagrees with Habermasian philosophy. Harley dominated the media that the public relied on to form their own perspectives on politics and society. Instead, Harley’s press dictatorship forced his desired perspective onto the people. This strays from the normative ideal that requires public opinion to be both free and rational in the public sphere.
Lastly, we also observe deviation from the normative ideal in Addison and Steele’s unrealistic ideas of social reformation where Habermas draws many of his conclusions from. Addison and Steele’s depictions in The Spectator illustrated how they wanted to socially reform the coffeehouses, not the social reality. Their philosophy created this citizen who was friendly, rational, and knowledgeable, and they want him to be emulated in actual society. However, the nature of coffeehouses was already understood, and it was impossible to reform every single person who attended the coffeehouse. The ideals of this citizen in The Spectator never actually materialized in coffeehouses, so Habermas’ conclusion that his theory of the public sphere manifested in coffeehouses cannot be completely accurate.
In these examples we can conclude that Habermas’ theory was right in some aspects of the coffeehouse. Although, on many accounts the social reality of the coffeehouse was not always in agreement with the normative ideal, so we cannot really say that Habermas’ public sphere was flawlessly paralleled in the 17th-18th century London coffeehouses.
A Tour of London History
Bibliography
Anonymous. (1674). A proclamation to restrain the spreading of false news and licentious talking of matters of state and government. London.
Anonymous (1675). A proclamation for the suppression of coffee-houses. London.
Chalmers, A. (1853). The Spectator. Appleton & Co.
Daily Entries from the 17th Century London Diary (n.d.). The Diary of Samuel Pepys. Retrieved May 2, 2020, from
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1664/01/27/
Downie, J. A. (1979). Robert Harley and the press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, M. (2004). The coffee-house: a cultural history. London: Weidenfield & Nicolson.
Habermas, J. (Author), Mattelart, A. & S. Siegelaub (Eds.) (1980). The public sphere. Communication and Class Struggle, Vol. 1, pp. 198.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
About The Author
Olivia Nicole Colarusso is a first year student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York. Originally a biology major, she recently changed her path to an international economics-french major and she is minoring in Italian studies.
Olivia is taking a first-year seminar class called London Coffeehouse Culture and Modernity which is focused on research, writing, and presentational skills. She enjoys learning about the rich history of London and the elaborate impact that something as simple as a coffeehouse had on the development of a country’s society.
In Olivia’s free time she enjoys skiing, listening to music, eating good food, exercising, and watching The Vampire Diaries. At St. Lawrence, she is a part of the SLU Advocates club and will be interning at the Language Resource Center next fall.
Her hope is to travel to Europe one day and see all the places she’s only ever dreamed of, such as London!