Abstract: Habermas’ definition of the public sphere is complex and intricate and sheds light upon many aspects of what occurred in the coffeehouses of London at a pivotal time in history. This includes a place to distance oneself from the government, be accessible to all, have rational debates, put aside private issues, allow for public opinion, have government be willing to provide information, gain information through media, and have the freedom of expressing an opinion. Coffeehouses became a gathering place for people to discuss politics, business, and trade. However, there were some complexities to the coffeehouse culture. The coffeehouses did not always serve as a place for wholesome discussions. They became a place where men went to gossip and drink. In some instances, people’s opinions are swayed. The serving of coffee was seen as bad because some thought coffee was harmful. A lot of women thought the coffeehouses were taking their husbands away from them. But for the most part, Habermas’ definition of the public sphere is a valid characterization of the London coffeehouses in a time of great social and political change.
Key Words: Habermas; Public Sphere; Public Opinion; Coffeehouses; London; Pepys; Rose
Introduction
History has taught us that for a society to function, freedom of public discourse and opinion is needed. This is represented in the coffeehouses and is demonstrated in the form of the public sphere. Public opinion is being formed in many instances, whether it is through discussion or observation.
Concept Definition & Literature Review
Habermas (1964) (Fig 1) explores the idea of the public sphere interpreting it as “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” (198). The public sphere is a place in which the public itself is able to create opinions.
Habermas (1964) explores the idea that the public sphere is separated from the government. He points out that although “state authority is so to speak the executor of the political public sphere it is not a part of it” (198). The public sphere provided the opportunity for the public to gather and communicate with one another in an open way outside of the confines of government.
Habermas (1964) explores the idea of the public sphere interpreting it as “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” (198). The public sphere is a place in which the public itself is able to create opinions.
Habermas (1964) explores the idea that the public sphere is separated from the government. He points out that although “state authority is so to speak the executor of the political public sphere it is not a part of it” (198). The public sphere provided the opportunity for the public to gather and communicate with one another in an open way outside of the confines of government.
The author observes that people from all walks of life were welcome in the coffeehouses. “Access is granted to all citizens” (Habermas 198). He is referring to the fact that the coffeehouses were open to all of British society, regardless of their social class, gender, race, age, or religious beliefs, thus making the coffee houses more universal gathering places.
Habermas (1964) for his definitions of the public sphere states that there was an opportunity for the public sphere to foster rational debates in the coffeehouses. Rational discussions in the public sphere were sparked by a segment of society who introduced them as another form of openness. “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 ” (198). These discussions in the public sphere have grown and are now somewhat rational, however are swayed sometimes, and some people get carried away by gossip (Ellis 63).
Another part of his definition of the public sphere is the idea of coffeehouses being a place where people could assemble and put aside or leave behind their private interests. “They then behave neither like business or professional people transacting private affairs” (Habermas 198). This indicates that they are not acting as professionals and are unable to put aside their private issues.
The public sphere is a place where public opinion could be created. Public opinion is what the majority of the people feel about a particular issue. “The public sphere as a sphere which mediates between society and the state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion, accords with the principal of the public sphere” (Habermas 198). The coffeehouses became the centers of public opinion.
The public sphere is also a place where a transparent government is willing to provide information about affairs of state. The author states 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” (Habermas 198). In order to have an informed discussion, there needs to be information provided, perhaps about affairs of the state.
The public sphere also may allow for people to gain information through media, including newspapers, radio, tv and the internet. “Today newspapers and magazines, radio and television are the media of the public sphere” (Habermas 198). These examples of media are seen as great ways for people to get information and news and are the ‘media of the public sphere.’
Habermas discusses how the public sphere could be a place where freedom of expressing an opinion is encouraged. Freedom of speech is critical for a society working effectively. “Citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion- that is, with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions- about matters of general interest” (198). People are able to speak freely and say what is on their minds in the public sphere.
These contexts for the definition of the public sphere were essential for life during the era of coffeehouses. Although, it is questioned whether or not the public sphere was emerging in the coffeehouses of London.
Samuel Pepys in the Coffeehouses
After Samuel Pepys (Fig 2) moved to the Axe Yard in January of 1660 with his family, consisting of his wife and servant Jane, he soon found an interest in the coffeehouse culture. It is clear from his diary entries in this period that a particular coffeehouse of the name Turk’s Head, home of the Rota Club founded by utopian writer James Harrington, became one of Pepys’ favorites venues. As he writes in one of his entries on Tuesday, 10 January 1660, he goes to the coffeehouse where there was, “a great confluence of gentlemen” including, “Mr. Harrison, Poultny, chairman, Gold, Mr. Petty” and he would listen to club debates. On Saturday, 14 January 1660, Pepys mentioned that he went to, “the Coffee-house, and heard exceeding good argument” (Pepys). He was impressed by what people were saying and the discussions taking place at the coffeehouses. When at the coffeehouses he “heard very good discourse” (Pepys).
However, he soon saw that the coffeehouse discussions were not always rational or of good nature. “Seeing this evidence of how the club could waste its time on procedural matters reminded him more of the interminable wranglings of the Rump itself than any utopian model of a future commonwealth” (Ellis 50). Debating Harrington’s principles of government was decided on a ballot. In addition, “the choosing of a committee for orders” (Ellis 51) was considered procedural to Pepys. During the end of the Cromwellian republican experiment, people in London were dissatisfied with the Commonwealth, and they would discuss Harrington’s utopian book Oceana. They were looking for an alternative political organization, and the coffeehouses was the vehicle to transform that ideal through new ideas and open discussion, and Oceana was an example of that.
He also spent some time in the coffeehouse in Cornhill. On Monday, 10 December 1660, he found much pleasure in it, “through the diversity of company and discourse” (Pepys). On Friday, 14 December 1660, he met a group of persons interested in biology with whom he had a “very good discourse concerning insects and their having a generative faculty as well as other creatures” (Pepys). Yet this was not always the case. Not all visits to coffeehouses resulted in meaningful debates. One night, on Friday 23 January 1662, he “turned back again to a coffee-house, and there drunk more till I was almost sick, and here much discourse, but little to be learned” (Pepys).
Health Advantages and Disadvantages of Coffee
Along with going to the coffeehouses for activities including having debates about various topics, people spent their time at coffeehouses enjoying the physical effects of drinking coffee. Coffee contains a drug, caffeine, that is known as being a stimulant. Walter Rumpsey being the “first Western scientific treatise wholly devoted to coffee was that of the Welsh barrister and judge” supposed that coffee “not only helped with vomiting, but also had the benefit of promoting farting” (as cited in Ellis 132). It helped men in coffeehouses as they were saying it was healing and seemed to cure stomach problems. Coffeehouse customers “revelled in the extravagant therapeutic claims they could make about the effects of their product” (Ellis 135).
Pasqua Rose was a coffeehouse owner opening his first coffeehouse in London in 1652 on St. Michael's Alley (Ellis 30). His “enterprise was apparently successful” and he would promote coffee having beneficial effects (Ellis 32-33). He states in his pamphlet that coffee was brought to England from Arabia and is “drunk generally” (Rose 2) and the quality is seen as being “cold and dry” which may not be appealing to everyone. But the drink, coffee, was seen to have some rather good benefits that could help with people’s health. “This drink will very much quicken the spirits, and make the heart lightsome. It is very good for sore eyes, and the better, if you hold your head over it and take in the steam that way” (Rose 2). Coffee was seen as “excellent to prevent and cure the Dropsy, Gout, and the Scurvy. It is very good to prevent Miscarryings in Child-bearing Women” (Ellis 135-136).
Coffee, however, was also seen as having some harmful physical effects during 1657. “By contrast, coffee, as a hitherto unknown botanical simple, presented complex problems of definition and description, especially as it was seemingly possessed of powerful medicinal properties” (Ellis 133). Thoughts “remained unclear about the science of coffee itself” (Ellis 141). Will’s had looked into the health benefits and disadvantages of coffee and found that “drinking coffee in excess, he continued, could exacerbate ‘Headach, Vertigo, the Palpitation of the Heart, the trembling or numness of the joints” (Ellis 142). The offering of coffee with debates and conversations in the coffeehouses had “altered its culture history” (Ellis 149) and the advertising of coffee would continue. It was hard to determine whether coffee was a good or bad stimulant.
Petitions About Coffee
Fig 3: Men's Answer to the Women's Petition Against Coffee from 1674.
Not everyone thought that the coffeehouses were the best of places for people to be spending their time. In 1674 the wives of many men became unhappy with how they were being treated and felt neglected when their husbands would spend all their time at the coffeehouses. The men would come home tired and not wanting to give them any attention. So, there was a petition created targeted towards the men called “the women’s petition against coffee,” which was not actually written by women.
Ellis talks about this petition saying it “is not sexual prowess: rather it is the new urban manners of masculine sociability that coffee represents” (138). The men think that the women think they are whoring in the coffeehouses, although the men are in reality spending their time “talking, reading and pursuing their business” (Ellis 138). With drinking coffee the women’s petition said, signs such as “restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face, and a rambling flow of thought and speech, not to mention diuresis, gastrointestinal disturbance, muscle twitching, tachycardia or cardiac arrhythmia and psychomotor agitation” (Ellis 38) start to show. Not only are the coffeehouses negatively affecting the women’s husbands but also the coffee itself.
The men then created a response to this petition (Fig 3) called “The men’s answer to the women’s petition.” In this they said their wives were “ungrateful women” (Anonymous 1). They thought that a woman’s pleasure demanded from a man was exclusively sexual as they say they have “been pimps to our own wives” (Anonymous 1) and thought women have no reason to complain. The men of the petition say, “yet being rob’d of nothing we can miss, home you come in railing humour, and at last give us nothing for supper but a Butter’d Bun” (Anonymous 5). The men were becoming unhappy with how their wives were providing for them and claimed that coffee had health benefits. The men felt that they should not be penalized or scolded for going to coffeehouses. (Anonymous 4)
Convivial Sociability in Coffeehouses
During the 17th century the concept of convivial sociability became present in coffeehouses, meaning having free, enjoyable and lively social interactions (Ellis 163). There was a huge transition during this time in the coffeehouses as they were now believed to be a meeting ground for merchant’s stock. It allowed for people to converse and connect through the current news and trade. This shift had a positive impact on the economy during a time when trade was expanding in Britain. “London itself had become the largest port and market for international trade in the world: the economy of London and Britain was undergoing a transformation that economic historians have described as ‘a financial revolution’” (Ellis 171).
Gaining information became a key aspect of life in the coffeehouses and news became very essential for doing business. This allowed for many people to have access to different types of information and knowledge they were able to collect. “Its sociable habits, its open-ended conversations between strangers, made it an ideal location for encountering news, undertaking analysis into its value and credibility, and for the performance of strategy and deception” (171). The coffeehouses were a great place for people to converse about current topics.
Certain coffeehouses allowed for different things, the rise of new Jonathan's coffeehouse had a great impact on stock exchange (Ellis 171). Lloyds became the birthplace in London as the biggest insurance company. “Even to this day, when Lloyd’s of London is the world’s largest insurance market and is housed in an elegant steel-and-glass building designed by Richard Rogers (184). Having the coffeehouses and being a part of them was important for many businessmen and their counterparts.
Final Analysis
The paradox of the coffeehouse culture is that the ‘public sphere’ was present in coffeehouses but also was not present. The coffeehouses were a place to access knowledge, an outlet for public opinion, a social gathering spot for all, and a destination for common understanding. But coffeehouses were also corrupt and problematic at times. The history of coffeehouses changed over the span of years that they existed, both in good and bad ways.
Pepys thought the coffeehouses operated as well-rounded establishments, but in some instances seemed to be a waste of time. Rose claims that coffee was good for people and helped with their health, along with Rumpsey who said it was very beneficial. Although Ellis concluded that coffee could be harmful at times. The anonymous author of the women's petition stated many instances in which the coffeehouses were not beneficial to their husbands, although the men’s answer to their petition seemed to argue the opposite. The coffeehouses were also a great place for businessmen and their ventures as cited in Ellis.
Habermas’ idea of the public sphere was not always completely true for the coffeehouses, although they were still a place where public opinion could be formed. But like any society, there are certain nuances that complicate a single definition of what the coffeehouses of London represented. Once you look below the layers of a society you can see the intricacies of the coffeehouse culture that are not only complex but also fascinating from a historical perspective.
Bibliography
Anonymous. “The Men’s Answer to the Women’s Petition Against Coffee.” 1674.
Anonymous. “The Women’s Petition Against Coffee.” 1674.
Habermas, Jürgen. “The Public Sphere.” Communication and Class Struggle, edited by Armand Mattelart and Seth Sieglaub, International General, 1980, pp. 198-201.
Markman, Ellis: The Coffee House: A Cultural History. London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 2004. Kindle Version.
Pepys, Samuel. “The Diary of Samuel Pepys.” 1660-1669.
Rose, Pasqua. “The Vertue of the Coffee Drink.” 1652.
About the Author
Zoe Toulmin is a first year student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York. At school she plans on majoring in the English and Environmental Studies combined major. She is part of the club tennis team on campus and dreams of being a journalist one day!
Zoe is currently enrolled in the first year seminar class London Coffeehouse Culture & Modernity. This class focuses on the art of researching, public speaking/presenting and writing, applying concepts of London's coffeehouses to its society in the 1700’s.
When not at school, Zoe lives in Lexington, MA just outside Boston with her parents, older brother Henry and dog Bailey. She enjoys the outdoors including skiing, hiking, sailing and spending time at the beach. She also loves music, photography and hanging out with her friends.