Abstract: Within this essay, one will learn about the London coffee-houses and the roles they played throughout England. Jurgen Habermas created his own theory of the public sphere, in which he discussed his beliefs on how they connected to the London coffee-houses. The reader will explore the people and the culture that took place in London, England during the 1600s to late 1700s; including various rulers that guided England and the people who filled London’s population during their reigns. There was one thing that all of these people shared, however, and they were the London coffee-houses. Despite the social class of one living in London, the coffee-houses were always there and ready to monitor your discussions. They played a major role within the 17th and 18th centuries and were a key factor that tied London and its people together.
Key Words: London, King Charles II, Habermas, coffee-houses, coffee, 17th century, public sphere, public opinion, England.
Coffee-houses and the Public Sphere
Jurgen Habermas’ Theory
This essay illustrates the importance of London coffee-houses in 17th century London, England. Jurgen Habermas theorized that within the late 1600s to early 1700s, the public sphere created London’s society and organized the way the government, citizens, and politics worked. Habermas claims that much of the public sphere is involved with London coffee-houses that were so popular throughout the 17-18th centuries.
In the 20th century, Jurgen Habermas defined the public sphere as, “a realm of our social life…” (Habermas 198). Habermas’ definition of the public sphere relied on 8 main concepts. His first concept was that the public sphere is separated from the government. Habermas states that “a sphere which mediates between society and state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion” (198).
According to Habermas, the public sphere guarantees access to all citizens, regardless of social class, gender, race, age, religious belief, etc. Habermas argues that, “Access is guaranteed to all citizens” (198). Habermas claims that the public sphere fosters rational debate through coffeehouse discussion (198).
The public sphere is a place for people to put aside their private interests when they are engaged in discussion. Habermas says that “private individuals assemble to form a public body” (198). Citizens are encouraged to discuss what they think would be most beneficial to England, while leaving their interests and personal opinions at home.
Another concept that Habermas establishes is that of the public opinion, which is a direct product of the public sphere. He indicates this by stating that, “realm of social life in which something approaching public opinion could be formed” (198). Habermas further claims that the public sphere must have a transparent government that is willing to provide information about affairs of state. Habermas asserts that “only when the exercise of political control is effectively subordinated to the democratic demand that information be accessible to the public” (198).
People gain information that enables them to create an informed public opinion through the many different forms of media, Habermas claims (198). He supports this claim by stating that, “today newspapers and magazines, radio and television are the media of the public sphere” (198). Lastly, Habermas discusses the last concept of the public sphere is the freedom to express an opinion. Habermas believes that encouraging difference of opinions is what guarantees freedom of assembly and gives citizens “the freedom to express and publish their opinions-about matters of general interest” (198). I have hypothesized that although Habermas projects factual claims, there are still numerous instances where his definition of the public sphere does not apply to the lifestyles within coffeehouses during 17th century London, England.
Having technical difficulties uploading my Story Map.
The Rulers vs the Government
This image portrays King Charles II during his reign.
King Charles and the Government
England underwent a period of time where there was no ruler: the Restoration period. The Interregnum took place between the years 1649 to 1660. In 1649, King Charles I was beheaded for running the country of England poorly and therefore a man named Oliver Cromwell became in charge of London (“Restoration”). In 1658, Cromwell died, making England in need of a new ruler for the people. In 1660, the Restoration period began when Charles I's son, Charles II came from Paris in order to reign in the people of London (Wikipedia). It is called the Restoration period because the country of England was being restored.
King Charles II ruled England from 1660 to 1685. During his reign, there were many improvements to the social lives of the citizens. From lavish lifestyles, scientific discoveries, and reemergence of the arts, Londoners enjoyed the opportunity to express their opinions freely (Wikipedia).
As King Charles ruled over England, he was always making sure that he knew the peoples thoughts and ideas about him and the government. Since the people of London supported expressing one's opinion in the coffee-houses, King Charles II had to take measures to ensure nobody would talk badly of his policies and ruling practices. He tried to suppress the news numerous times, however most of his attempts had failed, and if he didn’t approve of what was said about him he would project it as fake news (Ellis 69).
In order to secure his rule as king, Charles II repeatedly threatened anyone who spoke poorly of him. King Charles II tried to suppress coffee houses in fear of being talked about in the paper and created an act in order to suppress the print, “The Licensing Act of 1662 had established a system of censorship by a range of authorities (the church, the universities, the Lord Chancellor and the secretaries of state ), enabled to license approved books before publication” (Ellis 71). To refrain from being targeted in the papers, he choose to release two papers a week, under his control, in order to dictate what the papers say. King Charles II ensured that the government was involved in the public affairs of the people. He had ears in and around the city reporting back to him, making it not only so that people were threatened when speaking openly, but also that the government was never fully removed from the public.
King Charles II ensured that he knew what people were saying by setting men up to become spies and listen to people’s conversations within coffee-houses. “Clarendon advised either a proclamation to suppress the coffee-houses, or the organisation of 'some Spies, who, being present in the Conversation, might be ready to charge and accuse the Persons who had talked with the most Licence in a Subject that would bear a Complaint'.” Ellis cites (59). The king is very particular about what is said about him because he wanted to elongate his place as ruler for as long as possible. Since the King was so paranoid about being gossiped about, journalists have to go against the will of the government to leak information. This is why King Charles II wanted to shut down coffee houses along with speech licenses (69).
Women's Point of View on London Coffee-houses
Women within London in the 17th Century
The London coffee-houses were a huge influence on the people who were a part of them. In 1674, during the time King Charles II was in power, coffee-houses were popular spots for men to sit around drinking coffee and gossiping with their peers (Ellis 50). However, the women whom these men are married to, started to dislike and protest against the coffee-houses.
From the women’s point of view, coffeehouses were emasculating their husbands and causing them to become more effeminate. Wives complained that their husbands were not performing in the bedroom as they typically did (The City-Wifes 1). One satirical article printed that their men lack masculinity in bed by saying they, “are not able to and to it, and in the very first charge fall down flat before use” (4). Women stated that the act of love making was cut short due to lack of arousal and therefore aggravating their lovers. This frustrated the wives of these men who frequently visited the coffee-houses and in turn, caused them to protest coffee-house in 1674. This petition was made for other women and housewives that were undergoing the same situations. Though women were behind the idea of the petition, it was neither written nor distributed by women.
Changes after the Glorious Revolution
This is an image of the original copy of The Spectator, a famous piece of writing during 17th century England
As time progressed in London, so did the government and forms of communication. In 1688, the Glorious Revolution changed England’s absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, and gave more freedom to the people. In 1689, the Bill of Rights, which was an act that ensured that future kings do not abuse their power, was made in England. (Wikipedia).
Soon after the Glorious Revolution, in the year 1694, the Triennial Act was established, which meant that every three years, elections were held to elect a new Parliament. In 1695, the Licensing Act was not renewed and therefore there was no more censorship on the press. This meant that there was an influx of political literature printed, “The combined effect if the triennial act and the abandonment of the licensing system was a tremendous growth in the production of political literature” (Downie 1). This act helped literature in the late 1600s grow. Authors spoke openly, writing about events happening and their opinions about them, and citizens relied heavily on the spread of news that was presented to them. Daniel Defoe was among many authors who wrote political publications for Robert Harley that were delivered to the public (Downie).
Daniel Defoe and Robert Harley within the Media
Robert Harley, a royalist, comes to power wanting control of the press. Since this took place after the Glorious Revolution, there are limitations to his reign and he can easily be thrown out. Harley makes a deal with writer Daniel Defoe in order to control the press without looking too controlling (Downie 2). He did this in order to control public opinion through newspapers because public opinion was heavily influenced by the news, and if Harley was able to control what people read he could control their opinions as well. Defoe wrote for a wide variety of people so that his writings about Harley reached those across London (6). The news is shared among many people once newspapers arrive at coffee-houses and is discussed thoroughly by the men there, even if the conversation is just banter (Ellis 138).
Harley’s intentions were to hire Defoe to make himself look better. Regardless of whether citizens read his papers or not, the public opinion was established in Defoe’s writing. Once the papers were printed, the men of London would read and converse about the shared article in coffee-houses. Defoe had the power to change people’s mind through his writing and create his own public opinion that would be invisibly forced upon the people (Downie).
Much like Daniel Defoe, two journalists by the names of Robert Steele and Joseph Addison also wrote papers for the citizens of London in the 1800s. Addison and Steele differed from Defoe, however, because unlike Defoe, the two men were financially stable and regardless of profit, they had the power to promote their own ideas. Addison and Steele wrote to influence the people of London and in 1853, they created a very popular paper called The Spectator (Downie 9).
The Spectator reflects the normative ideal of what Addison and Steele believed to be the best parts of the coffee-houses they visited. They explain that people are always looking and responding to news that comes out daily. This affected the people of London because that’s how they got much of their information--through different media outlets.“Reading the news, discussing scandal and repeating gossip in coffee-houses, clubs and taverns made the populace articulate and politically aware” (Ellis 42). The only way one could keep up with the world’s issues was through the spread of news.
The Public Sphere within London Coffee-Houses
This applies to Habermas’ conception of how people are able to gain information through media because Addison and Steele talk about the way men receive information through newspapers every day. Their very popular The Spectator is itself an example of how the newspapers influenced public opinion and affected the public sphere through their writing. Media is spoken of and shared within coffee-houses, therefore distributed throughout towns and cities passing the information along the way.
Habermas makes various hypotheses about the public in London coffee-houses, in which he supports them with valid information. Although much of what Habermas says is true, there are some situations where his evidence does not completely agree with his claim. As stated above, Habermas made critical points that associate with the public sphere. Some of his claims are supported by people like Robert Harley, and some of his claims are debunked by people like King Charles II and the city wives of London who have different experiences involving the coffee-houses.
Who Agrees and Disagrees with Habermas' Theory of the Public Sphere?
Robert Harley’s actions seem to agree with Jurgen Habermas’ conception of the public sphere because Habermas states that public opinion can be created within the coffee-houses. Harley shows first hand that one can manipulate the thoughts of other people by giving them information. Despite what the information is, Harley was able to persuade the thoughts of Londoners by producing news that would benefit him (Downie 7), and this complies with Habermas’ idea of creating public opinion.
An example of Habermas’s idea of the public sphere being incorrect within London is King Charles II’s role in the government and the city. This contradicts Habermas’ idea that says the public sphere is separated from the government. Habermas states that, “a sphere which mediates between society and state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion” (Habermas). Habermas says there is a separation between London and its government, but King Charles II ensured that the government was involved in the public affairs of the people by having ears in and around the city reporting back to him (Ellis 59).
Habermas’ idea of the public sphere differs with the city-wives view of London as well. It contrasts with Habermas’ concept of using the public sphere to express one’s own opinion because although the women fought to remove London coffee-houses, their voices were heard only through the papers. Women weren’t allowed to go into coffee-houses and voice their opinions like men could. The only women allowed in coffee-houses were those who worked there as a coffee-woman and were used mainly to attract customers (Ellis 111). Women had little power within the realm of coffeehouses in London during the 16th and 17th centuries.
Final Analysis
Although Habermas makes claims about the public sphere being present in London coffee-houses, I think his hypothesis has many errors and is not 100% truthful. As one reads above, there is more information that opposes his ideas and defies his work. Habermas has strong arguments that support his theories, however there is much evidence provided through readings and papers (seen above) that counteract his claims.
I'm Rebecca, but people call me Rebs, and I am 19 years old from Plymouth, New Hampshire. I live with my parents and older brother in the White Mountains. I am currently on the St. Lawrence Alpine Ski Team where we compete on the Division One circuit against various colleges around the east. My hobbies include skiing, hiking, camping and mostly doing anything outdoors. At school I love hanging out with my friends and getting brunch on Sunday mornings before starting my immense amount of homework. You can always find me at the gym or doing work in the sunshine. When I'm home during the summer I'm a life guard and work with many of my friends. I am constantly getting ice cream or driving to a peak to watch the sun set. I'm always looking to go on adventures and live life to fullest!
I had a great first year at St. Lawrence and was devastated to realize nobody was going back after spring break, however this will make the fall so much better when I'm back with the people I love! Very excited for Fall 2020 and all it has in store for me.