Abstract
Jürgen Habermas’ introduction of the notion of the “public sphere,” has redefined the ways in which we understand the idea of socialization and the influence of the public gatherings in the realm of the Democratic government. Jürgen’s theory however, particularly in regards to his claim of the original example of the public sphere being within the Early Modern London Coffee-house, has sparked a great deal of controversy from scholars and historians. One of the most central areas of controversy is in regards to feminine presence within the coffee-house, or rather were women able to participate in the discourse of the coffeehouse. Since feminist philosopher Nancy Fraser offered her landmark critique and consequent revision of the constitutions of the bourgeois public sphere, many scholars far and wide have attempted to examine the conditions of this marginalized group in order to determine their role in the Coffeehouse and the ability to, from a historical context, offer a reasonable claim as to whether or not Jürgen Habermas’s claim still stands when women are entered into the equation (Fraser, 1990). This essay similarly examines the various portrayals and examples of women throughout the late 17th and early 18th centuries and applies them to a broader interpretation of the extent to which the institutions of Habermas’s public sphere were fulfilled.
Keywords: Jürgen Habermas; public sphere; London; coffeehouse; women; prostitution; whores; femininity; bawds
Jürgen Habermas' seminal appointment of the "public sphere" has redefined the means by which we approach the lives of individuals and groups and their roles in society. Even so, his creation and definitions have been widely contested and debated among historians, especially in consideration with Habermas' alleged manifestations of the public sphere.
Jürgen Habermas defines the public sphere as the “realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion may be formed” (Habermas, 1980). According to Habermas, essentially, every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body fulfills some portion of the public sphere. However, there are a few central elements that ultimately set apart the “public sphere” from a mere public gathering (Habermas, 1980).
Firstly, Habermas’ definition of the public sphere requires that “access is guaranteed to all citizens.” In this sense, there should be no factors that inherently exclude any citizen from participating in this body, as it would be relatively infeasible for “public opinion to be formed” if a substantial portion of this public body were to be excluded.
In keeping with this unrestricted nature, another precondition of the public sphere is that individuals must set aside their private interests. As the author indicates, this public body “behaves neither like business or professional people transacting private affairs” (Habermas, 1980). Moreover, those who participate in the public sphere should not be vying for their own ends.

Habermas’ definition of the public sphere also presupposes that there is a “reasoning public,” who is capable of holding discussions that are “critical in intent,” and therefore are conducive to rational discussions and debates. Such reasoned beliefs would stand in contrast mere “opinions,” which would include, “cultural assumptions, normative attitudes, collective prejudices, and values,” which by nature, are driven by emotional and cultural values as opposed to a reasoned defense. (Habermas, 1980)
If this body is large enough, it is also essential that this public has a means by which they can receive information and then analyze it for the sake of their understanding as well as for critical discussion. Therefore, the public sphere must have a mode for “transmitting information broadly and influencing those who receive it.” In other words, there must be a public “media,” which is ultimately independent of state authority from which individuals can receive information.

"Friday at the French Artists’
Salon" (1911)
Insofar as that there is a body that can publish and transmit information, individuals must be allowed to express their opinions openly. As Habermas indicates, “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.” Moreover, in order to fulfill the primary intent of the “public sphere,” that of which is to be “the gauge of public opinion,” it is essential that we allow opinions to be expressed freely. (Habermas, 1980)
Another precondition of the public sphere is that there must be a relatively transparent government that allows that information regarding the affairs of State “be accessible to the public.” This objective would, for the most part, be primarily confined to the Political Public Sphere, as Habermas indicates, “we speak of the political public sphere; in contrast, for instance, to the literary one, when public discussion deals with objects connected to the activity of State.” (Habermas, 1980)
In this essay, I will examine Jürgen Habermas’s definition of the Public Sphere, and his claims that its earliest manifestation was within the London coffee-houses and examine this in contention this claim with the involvement of women. As it is widely known that Habermas examined Addison and Steele’s publication, The Spectator nearly exclusively as his means of information, which, though respected, is considered to be more of a reflection of a "Normative Ideal" than of a "Social reality" (Cowan, 2004). Moreover, this paper will investigate the veracity of the claim that Habermas’s notion of the Public Sphere can be adequately fulfilled when women are considered are factor in the equation, as well as examine the potential inadequacies with Habermas’ almost excessively broad understanding of what the public sphere is, when it was present, and what it means to “participate” in the public sphere (Fraser, 1990).
The Tragedy of The Girlish Men

Female Pyramid"
(1771)
Perhaps one of the most infamous involvements of “women” along the lines of the coffeehouse was the vulgar and almost pornographic Women’s Petition against Coffeehouses, while highly doubtful to be genuinely written by women, nevertheless provides a compelling insight as to the roles of women within 17th Century England and their social positions relative to the coffee-house – predominantly, it appears that there were none (Pincus, 1995). Very explicitly, in both senses of the word, are women’s perceived roles in society. As the author(s) write(s), “we have reason to apprehend and grow Jealous, That Men by
frequenting these Stygian Tap-houses will usurp on our Prerogative of tattling, and soon learn to exceed us in Talkativeness: a Quality wherein our Sex has ever Claimed preeminence” (Anonymous, 1674). Though directed towards men, this likely satirical invective, even so, promotes an archaic notion of femininity which, despite its alleged claims of relativity, nevertheless creates a considerable divide between the Several Thousands of Buxome Good-Women, Languishing in Extremity of Want and their unfortunately enfeebl’d men. “Nonetheless, the ‘clamour’ and ‘confused way of gabbling’ of the coffee-house associates it with gossip, conventionally gendered as feminine.” The women pair this rise of “effeminacy” with an indication of the decline of virility, obviously in sexual terms, meaning men were too impoverished by the deleterious effects of coffee that they could not perform the actions necessary to procure a child, as the author further laments that the coffee has been “Drying up the Radical Moisture, has so Eunucht our Husbands, and Cripple our more kind Gallants, that they are become as Impotent as Age, and as unfruitful as those Desarts whence that unhappy berry is said to be brought.” (Anonymous, 1674)

"The Macaroni" (1773)
Considering the context of relative political unrest in the Restoration Era, this may also be considered work a Tory satire designed as an attack on the men who have engaged themselves into the public sphere, likely in an effort to curtail political dissent. In one section, the women scold the men for their toothless and absurd declarations to create a novel framework for a government body:
“At these Houses (as at the Springs in Afric) meet all sorts of Animals, whence follows the production of a thousand Monster Opinions and Absurdities; yet for being dangerous to Government, we dare to be their Compurgators, as well knowing them to be too tame and too talkative to make any desperate Politicians: For though they may now and then destroy a Fleet, or kill ten thousand of the French, more than all the Confederates can do, yet this is still in their politick Capacities, for by their personal valour they are scarce fit to be of the Life-guard to a Cherry-tree: and therefore, though they frequently have hot Contests about most Important Subjects; as what colour the Red Sea is of; whether the Great Turk be a Lutheran or a Calvinist; who Cain's Father in Law was, &c., yet they never fight about them with any other save our Weapon, the Tongue.” (Anonymous, 1674)
Likely symptomatic of the concerns of Charles II over the apparent conspiring and public dissent, which may undermine his leadership, of which can be demonstrated by Charles’ earlier ill-fated attempt to ban coffee-houses entirely. The political connotations are evidently present, but their origination and their intention are mostly unknown. It is most commonly interpreted as a satirical piece written at the behest of the King to curtail the burgeoning popularity of the Coffeehouses, as well as quash the political discourse wherein they convened. Nevertheless, the pamphlet demonstrates a very legitimate understanding of the role of women in society, home-makers, and prostitutes, who did not find coffee endowing to their men. Moreover, this petition not only shows a very obvious prejudice against women but also against femininity and particularly effeminate men. Not only does this contribute to an inherent discriminatory nature against women, but against what would be the male homosexual community, a prejudice which has continued to permeate even into modern society.
A Woman's Word
In the context of the multitude of petitions decrying coffee, despite the overwhelmingly male atmosphere of the London literary and political atmosphere, there were a few exceptions to this rule. One of the more notable, as well as one of the earliest examples of feminist literature, was that of An Essay in Defence of The Feminine Sex through which Judith Drake drew on the rationalist framework of John Locke and argued that the main reason for the engendered sense of inequality was due to culture and custom imposed by a cult of the ancients. As Drake states in regard to women’s inferiority, “The first of these Causes is that, which is most generally urg’d against us, whether it be in Raillery or Spight. I might easily cut this part of the Controversy short by an irrefragable Argument, which is, that the express intent, and reason for which Woman was created, was to be a Companion, and help meet to Man;” (Drake et al. 1696) She then puts forth the claim that this continued hegemony and oppression towards women, that being they are a mere accessory to man, has led to the notion that women are incapable of intellectual pursuits inasmuch as that educating them is futile, as it will not serve them any purpose outside of their natural position: the Home.

"The Exhibition Stare-
Case" (c.1800)
Even so, Drake argues it is unduly oppressive to deny women access to education, as she states, “whether our Education (as bad as it is) be not sufficient to make us a useful, nay a necessary part of society for the greatest part of Mankind. This cause is seldom indeed urg’d against us by the Men, though it is the only one that gives ’em any advantage over us in understanding. But it does not serve their Pride, there is no Honour to be gain’d by it: For a Man ought no more to value himself upon being Wiser than a Woman, if he owe his Advantage to a better Education, and greater means of information, then he ought to boast of his Courage, for beating a Man, when his Hands were bound.” (Drake et al. 1696) a means to explain female inferiority and then wittily debased these assumptions, and argued that many of the constructs which render the males in a superior intellectual position, such as that they are the ones who have been delegate the sole privilege of holding sedentary jobs, are mainly due the fact that men are the only individuals who receive an education. As she very adeptly frames it, it is not much different for a man to “boast of his Courage, for beating a Man, when his Hands were bound” (Drake et al. 1696). Concerning the Coffeehouse, Drake has less than kind words to say about the man who frequents the Coffee-house. Predominantly, she feels it indicates a narcissistic egotism of how one should rule the state (more than likely a sentiment of her Tory values) In a section on The Coffee-house Politician, Drake offers an undoubtedly critical perspective on this man:

“He lodges at home, but he lives at the Coffee-house. He converses more with News Papers, Gazettes and Votes, than with his Shop Books, and his constant Application to the Publick takes him off all Care for his Private Concern. He is always settling the Nation, yet cou’d never manage his own Family. He is a mighty Stickler at all Elections, and tho’ he has no Vote, thinks it impossible anything shou’d go right unless he be there to Bawl for it. His business is at Home, but his thoughts are in Flanders, and he is earnestly investing of Towns till the Sheriff’s Officers beleaguer his Doors” (Drake et al. 1696).
A Stalker in the Night
John Dunton, founder of the Athenian Society and the periodical The Athenian Mercury may disagree with Judith Drake on which party responsible for the ails of modern Society. Whereas Drake implores women to be educated such as that they can live a more meaningful future and participate in public Society, Dunton would likely implore women to quite simply go away, as most of them are prostitutes seeking to lure young men into their bed-chambers. Dunton also expresses an urgency to be weary of young women in the public atmosphere, mainly as it concerns a Coffeehouse, as Dunton urges:

"Touch for Touch"
(1811)
“It is also worth the consideration of the magistrates, whether a young woman, or sometimes two together should be suffered to set up such houses, seeing 'tis highly reasonable to suspect they design rather to expose themselves to a sale than their coffee . . . This city is not without instances of coffee women's having been debauched, even in some of the best frequented and most populous places of the city, under their husbands noses, which demonstrates the inconveniency of exposing women at publick bars in this loose (Dunton as cited in Cowan, 2001). Upon orating his apparent utter disgust with the sheer levels of the depravity of the whores masquerading as coffee women for whom “'tis highly reasonable to suspect they design rather to expose themselves to sale than their coffee” (Dunton as cited in Cowan, 2001). Dunton then later implores his readers, that women ought to be explicitly excluded from public life “certainly it must be allowed that being the weaker sex, they neither ought to expose themselves nor to be exposed in such numbers by others to those abominable temptations.” (Dunton as cited in Cowan, 2013).

"A Harlot's
Progress (#2)" (1732)
John Dunton’s criticisms of the utter corruption and debauched nature of women may be an additional testament as to why women were not included in the coffeehouses, particularly in terms of debate and political discourse. In this expression, seemingly all women are prostitutes and in order to prevent the further miring of the Reputation of the Coffeehouse and to ensure that these houses continue to provide the men of London the valuable service of sobriety and wit, that women must not be a part of it. Dunton implores the coffee houses to bar women from the coffeehouses entirely. Now whether Dunton’s invocations are implored, it is difficult to tell, nevertheless his criticism points out the presence of a hostility towards females in the coffee-house, even if his argument ultimately sounds so ridiculous to the point where he has to proclaim “this is not a satyre,” (Dunton as cited in Cowan, 2001), it certainly is not an inviting sentiment towards the integration of women into the coffeehouse culture.
Conclusion
The veracity of the “Habermasian” ideal of the public sphere and its first manifestation occurring in Early Modern London Coffeehouses, more specifically from 1670 – 1730, has been highly debated since the idea’s contention. Consistently, one of the hottest sources of this contention has been concerning women in the Coffeehouse, more specifically, are women excluded, and if so, does this violate Habermas’ definition of the public sphere? Though, no legitimate records are accounting of women participating in coffeehouse discourse, as is Mrs. Drake’s very blatant testament to the fact that women were hardly educated at all, and considering the prevalent view of women as whores in the era. The apparent disapproval of the Coffeehouses both by a group of “women” and Judith Drake, the latter of whom decries the coffee-houses for their senseless fear-mongering and futile and grandiose claims to power within affairs of state. They bide their time chasing around newspapers talking about how we must run the state when these men cannot even run a household.
If looking purely at Habermas’s testaments to what constitutes the public sphere, it appears ultimately that this age cannot truly be considered to be the public sphere given the fact that women appear ultimately to be excluded from this coffee-house discourse. And while they may have been inside of the coffee-house as a server or proprietor, this is not enough to demonstrate that they genuinely took part in what truly made this coffee-house an example of the public sphere: open discourse (Ellis, 2005). However, if we are to readjust these claims, such as that we adopt the more modern development that there may two separate spheres, a more recent theoretical element – the private sphere and the public sphere, the former the highly commanded position of a woman, and the coffee-house, whereby educated bourgeois can flex their wit. of which exist mutually exclusive to one another. Moreover, it appears that cultural hegemonic oppression as well as widely held and oppressive sentiment about women, it is unlikely that Habermas’ idealized standard can apply to this situation, as even as they had roles in the coffeehouse, server, proprietor etc. this does not grant them access to the most iconic coffeehouse commodity aside from coffee itself – the political discourse and information from which historians have christened this era the “Age of the Enlightenment” (Calhoun, 2012).
About the Author
Carly Baker is a full-time Freshman at St. Lawrence University, but is currently studying remotely in her hometown of Rochester, NY.
Carly is enrolled in London Coffeehouse Culture & Modernity, as a means to cultivate her Research, Formal Writing, and Oral Presentation Skills. This course examines the critical development of the London Coffeehouses and the instrumental role they had in the proliferation of Western Enlightenment values, and in the rise of Modernity.
Ms. Baker can often be found fetching copious amounts of Red-Bull from the Student Center. Likewise, she is routinely spotted drinking the caffeinated beverage while wondering around the lovely SLU campus with her dearest fellow Laurentians, of whom she currently misses substantially. She is also extremely fond of Coffee.
In her free-time, Carly is a film-snob and an art and architecture aficionado. She is considered "literate" in both French and English.
About the Author
Carly Baker is a full-time Freshman at St. Lawrence University, but is currently studying remotely in her hometown of Rochester, NY.
Carly is enrolled in London Coffeehouse Culture & Modernity, as a means to cultivate her Research, Formal Writing, and Oral Presentation Skills. This course examines the critical development of the London Coffeehouses and the instrumental role they had in the proliferation of Western Enlightenment values, and in the rise of Modernity.
Ms. Baker can often be found fetching copious amounts of Red-Bull from the Student Center. Likewise, she is routinely spotted drinking the caffeinated beverage while wondering around the lovely SLU campus with her dearest fellow Laurentians, of whom she currently misses substantially. She is also extremely fond of Coffee.
In her free-time, Carly is a film-snob and an art and architecture aficionado. She is considered "literate" in both French and English.
Bibliography
Calhoun, Bonnie (2012) "Shaping the Public Sphere: English Coffeehouses and French Salons and the Age of the Enlightenment," Colgate Academic Review: Vol. 3, Article 7.
Cowan, B. (2001). What Was Masculine About the Public Sphere? Gender and the Coffeehouse Milieu in post-Restoration England. History Workshop Journal, 51(1), 127–157. doi: 10.1093/hwj/2001.51.127
Cowan, B. (2004). The Rise of the Coffeehouse Reconsidered. The Historical Journal, 47(1), 21-46. Retrieved May 7, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/4091544
Drake, J., & Astell, M. (1696). An essay in defence of the female sex: In which are inserted the characters of a pedant, a squire, a beau, a vertuoso, a poetaster, a city-critick, &c: in a letter to a Lady.
Ellis, M. (2005). The coffee house: a cultural history. London: Phoenix.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text, (25/26), 56-80. doi:10.2307/466240
Habermas, Jürgen. (1980) “The Public Sphere.” In Communication and Class Struggle, edited by Armand Mattelart and Seth Sieglaub, 198-201. New York: International General,
Pincus, S. (1995). "Coffee Politicians Does Create": Coffeehouses and Restoration Political Culture. The Journal of Modern History,67(4), 807-834. Retrieved May 7, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/2124756