Archive
Dragons Drinking Coffee; South Korean and Chinese Coffee Cultures
Today, coffee is one of the largest traded commodities in the world and an element of lifestyle, social cohesion and cultural identity. This Study compares South Korean and Chinese coffee market, identifying common points and differences in consumption patterns, tradition, production with the purpose to understand and predict the evolution of Chinese coffee market. The choice of South Korea come from the old tea-culture and the Confucian society it shares with China.
However, “the two countries are cousins, not siblings” (Doctoroff T., “What Chinese want”, 2012, Palgrave Macmillan, pag. 225). Despite the existence of common aspects, differences between the two countries show how Chinese coffee culture will have its own evolution. Chapter 1 presents a descriptive analysis of South Korean coffee culture, its historical background, followed by the study of the consumption patterns among young and old generations and some of the main coffeehouse chains in the market (Starbucks Coffee, Caffe Bene, Ediya Coffee). The Chapter ends with a description of Korean middle class as the driving social segment for coffee culture and the characteristics of the average Korean coffee consumer. Chapter 2 is about Chinese coffee market. After a historical background and a focus on the role that big foreign groups had in the economic development of production areas, the analysis focuses on Chinese middle class. Economic differences between first-tier and lower-tier cities force to a distinction in consumption patterns and consumers’ orientation.
Furthermore, China’s growing coffee production capability in the areas of Yunnan, Hainan and Fujian represents one of the main differences with South Korea. The third Chapter starts with a short description of the Italian espresso tradition and the way it affected the world’s different cultures. The Italian coffeehouse chain Caffè Pascucci is taken as a study case for its ability to conform Italian style to over 25 countries, among which South Korea and China. In conclusion, the purpose of this paper is to understand the economic role that China will have in the world’s coffee industry in the future. Moreover, it aims at showing the role Italian firms can have in this reality, working on comparative advantages such as high quality and tradition, and making the required adjustments, in order to take advantage of niche markets and of a more and more experienced consumers’ base.
Coffee Shops: Exploring Urban Sociability and Social Class in the Intersection of Public and Private Space
Rose Pozos-Brewer (2015)
Coffee has developed a certain image in the United States. We take “coffee breaks” at work, we “go grab a cup of coffee” with friends or for a first date, we are well acquainted with Starbucks, we incorporate coffee shops into popular media, as in the TV show, Friends, and line up to see a pop-up replica of Central Perk. Coffee itself is a very popular commodity, generating more trade than any other trade good except petroleum and is the most popular legal drug. Even those of us who do not drink coffee or do not actively participate in coffee culture are affected by it. Coffee culture in this thesis refers to specific habits and social interactions that revolve around coffee and coffee shops. Inviting someone out for coffee, getting coffee “to go” before work in the morning, spending free time and/or working in coffee shops, and joking about coffee addictions are all examples of coffee culture
“The worldwide coffee culture is almost a cult,”. “There are blogs and news groups on the subject, along with innumerable websites, and Starbucks outlets seem to populate every street corner, vying for space with other coffeehouses and chains.” Coffee shops indicates how a big portion of coffee culture comes from the coffee shop. Coffee shop chains grew more than 10% annually between 2000 and 2004, which was before the increase in independent coffee shops in the recent decade. The coffee shop has been hailed as a “third place,” or the place one frequents that is not work or home. It also has a rich history with roots in the early coffeehouses of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which have passed down the ideals of the coffee shop as a place for public discourse and the formation of a democratic public sphere. This study traces the development of the coffee shop from the first coffeehouses and how the coffee shop has become a center for urban sociability. In order to contextualize and unpack the social meaning and uses of a coffee shop, I use theories of public and private place, placemaking, and sociability, with an emphasis on third places and their role in the urban public sphere.
Coffee and the Ottoman Social Sphere
Marita Ervin (2014)
Sharing a cup of coffee has become nearly synonymous with the exchange of information. Coffee has the ability to act as a social unifier and a catalyst for intellectual interaction. Recent decades have experienced a dramatic increase in coffee culture which has resulted in a revival of the social café atmosphere. This revitalization has taken hold in numerous cultures that have transformed the beverage by adopting new processes of brewing and new tools for serving. Within this transformation coffee’s connection with the exchange of social conventions has remained a constant. The integration of social ease and scholarly thought began within the confines of coffeehouses in the Ottoman Empire.
A significant amount of historical research has been devoted to European coffeehouses which were adopted from the Ottomans. Within this research Ottoman coffeehouses and their development of safe, social spaces have been largely ignored. The complex cultural exchange between the Ottomans and the Europeans was complicated by European ignorance rooted in the Ottoman acquisition of Constantinople. In 1453, Turkish tribes under the rule of Mehmet II overthrew Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire, and subsequently occupied the city. The Turks renamed the port city Istanbul and designated it the new capital of the Ottoman Empire.
The Coffee Shop: A Universally Unique Experience
A Sociological, Philosophical and Political Exploration to Coffee Shops’ Acclaim in the Social World
May 11, 2020
What’s The Appeal?
Perched on the marble white counter was a slim glass of cold brew coffee. It glistened, dark and candied in the backwash of light that poured through the large storefront window. Thanking the barista, I swipe my coffee from the bar and head back to my spot.
My usual spot at Share Coffee in Amherst is at a high-top table embedded into the side of the wall. After plugging in my laptop, I pull out my notebook onto the soft walnut topped table — the exposed wood grain running its horizontal length. Purple tulips sit potted and centered in the middle of the table. Directly in front of me, sits an older woman in a blazer jotting down notes on a legal pad. We exchange glances with a soft smile. Next to her, a boy with floppy curled hair is leaned over a sketch pad. The keys of the computer programmer clack away next to me — wearing muffin-sized headphones over his short-buzzed hair — completely zeroed in on his code. I reach over to my glass and take a sip of my coffee — the bold and bitter sweetness tap my tongue and I’m locked in and ready to go. It’s as though I’ve “Pavlov-ed” myself into associating coffee with getting down to work.
It’s the habitual ritual I’ve culminated from frequent trips to coffee shops around campus. I’ve worked in the bright and cozy Share Roasters, painted in natural light and paled wood. I’ve sat under the Edison bulbs and between the exposed brick walls in Amherst Coffee. At the retro-steampunk Iconic Social Club that features a wired lighting fixture — a tree growing upside down from its roots. And buckled down in the earthy and collectivized antique gallery that is Haymarket Cafe.
Though stylistically different, they’re all brimming with the same bumblings and murmurs of customers. The same roar and squeal of the espresso machine — steaming lattes by the minute. The same slightly awkward first date that is quick to embed comments about the surroundings to fuel conversation. The same old friends catching up over a cup of coffee. The same older lady who reads a book curled up in a comfy chair with a cup of tea. The same study group of college students joking around, slightly distracted from their work. The same rattling beans going into the coffee grinder. The same slight ambient jazz or soft indie rock drizzled down from overhead speakers. The same flourishing communal atmosphere that’s marinated in the scent of fresh ground coffee.
Since discovering these coffee havens, I found that I am most productive in coffee shops than in any other work environment. Though work is not all I accomplish at coffee shops. I’ve been that awkward first date, the lady that cozies up with a book, caught up with many friends — new and old. I’ve lived out many different facets of my life in these spaces.
As a college student, I spend many hours of my life in coffee shops —so much so that I consider it part of my normal routine. Coffee is a huge part of American life, as 400 million cups of coffee are made in just a day in the US (Kitchen Daily). Large franchises like Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts turned coffee into a daily commodity. However, in the past twenty years, the coffee industry has pivoted — with a focus on craft and community, offering an experience instead of a product. Single independent roasters have refined their craft selling directly to small local neighborhood shops. The third wave of coffee has revolutionized the way America drinks coffee — through taste and specialty drinks, and by providing a space to carry out our daily and social lives. I began to ponder what made coffee shops something I wouldn’t be willing to compromise in my routine. What makes them so attractive to college students and young professionals, as well as the surrounding community? What makes the coffee shop a public space we are comfortable performing our lives in? What independent coffee shops have done to coffee has impacted consumers, culture, and community in many more ways than I ever imagined possible. Whether the shop is nestled in Amherst or New York City, we can learn a bit from the coffee industry, culture, sociology, and philosophy about what is so universally unique about coffee shops.
The Third Wave of Coffee: Specialty and Localization
Coffee over the years has been categorized into waves; movements that reflect the different trends and evolutions of the coffee industry. Right now, we are experiencing what is known as the Third Wave of Coffee. Coffeehouses have been around for centuries, but the rise of independent coffee shops came out of the second wave of coffee. A wave that prioritized the commodification of coffee via big franchises — companies like Starbucks who sought to popularize coffee as a branded and commercialized item. Starbucks currently has over 30,000 locations worldwide (Lock).
Third-wave coffee focuses on increasing the quality of coffee — prioritizing fair trade and sustainability (Guevara). Roasters and consumers became more ethically and environmentally conscious of the entire coffee supply chain. Now, coffee shop owners are more choosey in selecting their farms and beans. Some shop owners ensure standards are met by taking control over the entire supply chain — from the grower, importer, roaster to the barista (Guevara). Share Roasters sources its beans from ethical growers, then roasts directly at its headquarters in Hadley, which is then brewed at its two local cafe’s in Amherst and Northampton (Robertson). Third-wave coffee tends to favor lighter roasts that highlight flavors from the bean and experiments with different brewing methods to produce high-quality cups of coffee (Guevera). The high-quality beans and ethical production offer this coffee as a “specialty” product — which may explain why you get hit with a $6 bill for a latte at these third-wave shops. This is a considerably steep price, but coffee is more than a product, as Sarah Dooley at Slayer Espresso says, “Third wave is not a cup of coffee; it’s a mindset around loving the guest in all things” (Guevera). To offer a specialty product is one thing, but the same care that goes into coffee production is translated into the costumers. An authentic experience starts with the third-wave coffee’s emphasis on the customization of beverages — the customer controls every element of their drink; milk, sugar, shots, and all. They can get picky about what kind of roast and origin the coffee is sourced from. Customers have a podium to showcase in-depth knowledge about the refined craft of third-wave coffee (Rath and Gelmers 124). It also allows baristas to unleash their skills in latte art. Crafting these beverages are all apart of giving the customer a unique drink made especially for them.
It is also apparent that third-wave coffee is a reaction to the commercialization of coffee. As Robinson Meyer, writer for The Atlantic notes:
“Starbucks got people used to paying $4 for coffee, and then as people wanted a less corporate experience, the hipster cafes filled in. … I feel like most of the liberal-ish cultural trends of the 2000s pushed that way, right? Because of the perceived collusion of the Bush administration and Big Business, [and] because of post-industrial anxiety about the loss of local community, [and] because of the hate for corporate food systems and the fear of rising obesity levels.” (Mock).
Costumers are looking for authenticity with roots in their product. Pairing a specialty product with a localized shop provides a genuine and authentic experience. This not only makes the consumer feel good about what they are drinking but allows them to contribute to a small business that brings them closer to a community. Third-wave coffee shops pride themselves upon their independence from franchises by staying localized to a certain neighborhood or community. Some may even categorize themselves as “anti-Starbucks” (Pozos-Brewer 59). In fact, in June 2019 Starbucks in Downtown Amherst closed due to unknown reasons (Merzbach). Though it is likely that the popularity of independent shops in Downtown like Amherst Coffee, Share and The Black Sheep rivaled its place in Amherst — a community full of indie coffee shop’s main target market: college students, young professionals, and locals.
Though even though franchises and independent coffee shops operate on different scales and practices — they are similar at their core similar. Both are spaces for consumption: materially, and socially. As coffee shops serve as a community’s Third Place, the urban-sociological concept that gives cafes a unique edge and popularity in culture.
Third Places: Coffee and Community
In our lives, we perform our daily functions in different spaces. We have our home or apartment where we are out of the public eye; cooking, cleaning relaxing. This is what American sociologist Ray Oldenburg classifies as our first space. We also have our school and work where we spend our time in a public sphere, performing tasks and interacting with others for most of the day — classifying as second spaces. Though a third space, coined by Oldenburg is what is between home and work. These are defined by spaces that host “the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work” (Oldenburg 16). These spaces are open and exist without restrictions on who it serves. Thus, coffee shops have been roped into the idea of a third space. Starbucks, for years, has been advertising their shops as a third space, a “place for conversation and a sense of community” (Rath and Gelmers, 126). People often go to coffee shops to meet up with friends, dates, workgroups, or family members.
Our culture has adopted the phrase “let’s grab coffee” illustrating coffee as more than just a beverage, but a social affair. Using loose terminology like ‘grab’ is light and playful, which makes getting coffee with someone comfortable and low stakes. And thus, asking someone to grab coffee has become a common social practice for causal meetings. The appeal derives from three properties. First, coffee shops function almost like living rooms, the primary space in the home for socialization and relaxation (Pozos-Brewer, 72). As Oldenburg points out “The character of a third-place is determined most of all by its regular clientele and is marked by a playful mood, which contrasts with people’s more serious involvement in other spheres. Though a radically different kind of setting for a home, the third place is remarkably similar to a good home in the psychological comfort and support that it extends” (Oldenburg, 42). Coffee shops are typically well decorated and lit, providing a pleasant and comfortable atmosphere. They may be more enhanced than one’s living room, which is part of the appeal that makes this meeting place special. Secondly, if meeting someone for the first time, say a date or interviewer, it is less pressuring and intrusive to meet at a public space than in one’s private home. ‘Stranger danger’ becomes more obsolete because you are always in the public eye. Also, there’s no need to make your space impressive or appealing to a potential employer or date — the shop sets up the pleasant surroundings for you. Lastly, it is a low stakes commitment because it doesn’t require someone to stay for a fixed duration of time. It’s relatively inexpensive compared to a full serviced restaurant. It’s better to pay $4 bucks for a bad date that can end in less than half-hour than be stuck at the cost $15 or $20. A coffee shop’s environment can essentially fit any kind of meeting arrangement with its atmospheric properties.
Local coffee shops host events that invite the community to attend; open mics, readings, or live musicians to play in the corner of their shop. Writer Lauren Suval describes open mics at her local coffee shop as creating “unity and epitomized community; a shared ground to bond over song and performance and enthusiasm” (Suval). In this case, coffee shops encourage community and connections. Coffee shops are “a bridge to other connections, other friends and brand new, unexpected experiences that all leave an impact” (Suval). The appeal lies in a rather promised element of camaraderie.
Though coffee shops haven’t been limited to socialization and relaxation. With the development of technology like laptops and Wi-Fi, it is now possible for many people to take their work outside of the office space or home. University students are known to study in coffee shops, as coffee shops around campuses are generally very busy (Pozos-Brewer 70). I can’t remember the last time I was able to find a seat with ease in Share during finals week. For university students, the coffee shop offers an alternative to the campus library. As Grand Canyon University student, Lily Moe describes “coffee shops don’t have the same cold, uniformed atmosphere that industrial libraries have.” (Moe). What makes coffee shops appealing to college students and young professionals is ultimately the atmospheric aesthetics that the coffee shops constructs. They offer a change in scenery that can be beneficial to creativity and workflow — soft lighting, flowers and plants, ambient music, cute decor, and comfy couches. A welcomed change to the boxy and bleak settings of a traditional cramped office or university library. Coffee shops offer mobility; if you’re tired of working at a table in the shop, you can bounce to that comfy chair in the corner. This ensures that the workspace doesn’t become stale — and if you’re tired of the theme in one coffee shop, chances are you can drive to another one up the street for a change in mood (Faris, 22). Sometimes I’ll bounce from Share to Amherst Coffee if I need a change of pace. I’ll swap the bright and playful atmosphere in Share for the rustic and classy vibe in Amherst Coffee. Coffee shops offer a more conducive ambient environment for studying as Moe suggests “They aren’t rigidly quiet, yet they don’t overwhelm you with noise. They just hum a sweet comfort of people” (Moe). Coffee shops will often play music as atmospheric background noise — soft jazz or indie rock — nothing too abrasive to distract work or conversation. The atmospheric elements boost a coffee shop as a successful workspace. The blending of a homey pleasant atmosphere outside of the home and office can prompt creativity and productivity.
A Wrench to Third Place Theory
However, aside from the physical decor and intentional ambiance set up by the coffee shop, the sociability that coffee shops host help construct a conducive work environment. As Moe explains:
“On Sunday morning, my campus coffee shop has a sleepy, happy feeling, accompanied by scattered students, minding their own business, but minding that business together. A little family of people each doing their own thing, but doing it together”
There’s a bit of a strange phenomenon here that is quite contradictory to what Oldenburg suggests a third place should be. The idea of a third-place revolves around sociability — experiencing community through informal, voluntary conversation in a public sphere (Rath and Gelmers, 125). Yet, with coffee shops becoming extended offices — work starts to isolate people from one another in these public spaces. Suddenly many are buckled down, heads in their screens and books, with no attempt to interact with others. Sociologist Erving Goffman has coined this idea as civil inattention — the polite practice of existing quietly alongside others in a social space (Rath and Gelmers, 125). In coffee shops, it’s easy to witness this concept in action, as many enjoy their coffee side by side but act independently of each other. Theoretically, this rivals Oldenburg’s Third Place. Some coffee shops have implemented a laptop ban to prevent people from parking their devices for long periods, barring the overturn of customers. Though, for some shop owners, this expands beyond revenue. A British coffee shop owner explains her implementation of laptop bans are to “revive the art of hospitality.” She says that laptops make people lose touch with the environment around them (Herd). Though for some, it actually creates an enhanced sense of community. Writer Michael Faris argues that “I do not find myself isolated, alone, or lacking a sense of place in coffee shops; instead I feel camaraderie with fellow laptop workers and I delight in hearing others conversations and having the occasional interaction with someone else” (Faris, 23).
So, where does this put coffee shops as a third space? As Faris points out, doing away with coffee shops as a third space invalidates and ignores the complex changing nature of how people come together. As “coffee shops have a place in the public imagination as sites for face-to-face conversation, but the valorization of these sites as primarily about face-to-face conversations often ignores how literacy practices have always been central to coffee house culture.” (Faris, 24). This would insinuate that coffee shops are spaces that don’t honor the “complex relationships between people, technology, and environment.” (Faris, 24). Faris embraces technology as a part of the social lexicon we have in the modern era. To discredit technology as a social sphere would be exclusionary. Thus, we can twist Oldenburg’s idea of a third space around technology and it would not disrupt its concept of sociability in a public space. Rath and Gelmers suggest that we could rename coffee shops as a Fourth Space to incorporate technology and social media into its social sphere. They don’t deny technologies potential enhancement to sociability “To suggest that online interaction itself undermines the social atmosphere is an oversimplification: it would appear that it is more likely to result in modification and possibly even an enrichment of the social atmosphere” (128). They conclude that the terms “civil inattention” and “third place” are rigid constructs and no longer apply to our social reality — our definitions of the social atmosphere could use revision (Rath and Gelmers, 128). Regardless, coffee shops serve an important social function. Whether it be a third space, forth space, or somewhere in between.
Coffee Shops as an Aesthetic Experience
Coffee shops provide an experience, not just a product. Their appeal can be contextualized in the philosophical principles of everyday aesthetics and their “ordinary affects” (Nauyital). The conversation of aesthetics has often been reserved for art. However, everyday aesthetics extend that perspective to the aspects of everyday life; on-goings, the ordinary, commonalities, and routine. These are the small values we find in the simple and mundane that are relative to our happiness. It highlights some of the small preferences and choices we make within these everyday routines; why we wear certain clothes and decorate spaces in specific ways (Melchionne). These are important because of the ordinary affects they have on our lives, a term coined by anthropologist Kathleen Stewart. Ordinary affects register the potential everyday aesthetics have to connect people and create commonalities that shape a public feeling (Stewart). In a sense, a coffee shop is full of these habitual social and environmental exchanges that enrich our lives, and thus culminate as part of the aesthetic experience. Philosopher John Dewey argues that we give the same aesthetic value that we apply to art, to an experience — forging the idea of art as an experience. Like art, it is a combination of separate elements in unity that give an experience it’s aesthetic value. He bases this on the principle that “all human experience is ultimately social: that it involves contact and communication . . . It ought not to be necessary to say that experience does not occur in a vacuum. There are sources outside an individual that give rise to experience. It is constantly fed from these springs.” (Dewey, Experience and Education, 32). Humans are constantly experiencing interchanges with themselves and the environment around them — so, therefore, our experiences are not a result of one particular thing. It’s often the multitude of small aesthetics, emotional and practical elements that shape our experience. Coffee shops will take our basic everyday aesthetics and enhance their ordinary affects. For example, coffee shops use physical ambiance to create aesthetics. They particularly chose decor, furniture, lighting, and music — enhancing the physical environment plays an important role in providing costumers an experience, perhaps a different appearance or cleanliness customers don’t have in their homes (Nautiyal, 103).
Coffee shops also use the aesthetic quality of food and taste. They provide high-quality coffee served in cute and cleanly mugs — producing a more enhanced experience than having Keurig coffee in an old mug at home. Perhaps the most unique thing about coffee shops is the social element that is both directly and indirectly enriching. At coffee shops, we get the simple aesthetic of exchanging greetings and banter with a barista that plays a role in social fulfillment — and maybe we are meeting with friends, a date, or family further providing social interaction in the enhanced ambiance. And though partially physical, the ambiance of a coffee shop is provided by its patrons. Simply the chatter of those around us in the public sphere attest to the idea of living-in-process — and “capture[s] a constantly shifting and changing milieu of ideas, appearances and meaning” (Nautiyal, 104). Coffee shops are ripe with shifting movement and change. The talking and laughter of costumers, the roaring of the espresso machines, barista’s banter behind the bar, clinking of mugs, and shuffling of chairs. Because we are constantly interchanging with our environment this provides us with a refreshing and enhanced potential of new interactions and meaning. As “life is no uniform uninterrupted march of flow.” (Dewey, Art as Experience, 35). The simple reminder that life is ongoing around us is an aesthetically pleasant and enriching experience. It serves as small breaks in mundane and familiarity while being a small pleasure (Nautiyal, 105). It further highlights our own existence and gives us a sense of place in the social world. Coffee shops also play into the fulfilling emotional aesthetic customers feel when contributing to small business and an ethical business model. All of these everyday aspects of life that coffee shops curate create aesthetic value in the experience of going to a coffee shop.
Coffee Shops as a Participant in Gentrification
As I walked into Haymarket Cafe, one of Northampton’s well-loved coffee shops to get some work done, a woman was sitting next to the door stoop, wrapped shivering in thin flannel blankets, holding a paper cup with a few pennies and a cigarette. As I move through the doorway, I am suddenly surrounded by a rich aroma of ground coffee, soft jazz, and walls — dressed in original prints and paintings — of what could be mistaken for a small art gallery. There are a few Smith college girls buckled down over their laptops, an older couple having their morning brunch — in house-baked scones and an organized fruit platter. And a group of white women discussing their next block party. Although unintentionally it becomes apparent that there is some exclusivity when it comes to who sits inside the shop’s homey atmosphere and who is left shivering outside on the doorstep.
This comes at no surprise that quirky coffee shops often play a role in the gentrification of a community. A 2015 study by Zillow Real Estate Company executives has correlated coffee shops with rising home values by comparing Starbucks locations to homes in the area and finding a “4 percent greater appreciation than those further away” (Kilkenny). Another study in San Francisco concluded that between 2010 and 2015 the coffee shops mapped during the study predated a spike in housing prices (Kilkenny). Kilkenny points out though coffee has been an affordable commodity available to the masses, the coffee shop itself has appealed primarily to the elitist and leisure class. By making it a premium product.
There’s a bit of history that illustrates this class division implemented by coffee shops, starting with the Ottoman Empire where coffeehouses were built as a symbol of power — a form of grand and luxurious exposition in newly conquered cities (Kilkenny). In England, coffeehouses were popularized after the trade boom in the 17th century which resulted in a more disposable income for merchants and aristocrats. Many of London’s coffeehouses came with a penny surcharge to linger in the shop. Which was a lot for the times, as the average laborer only made about eightpence a day (Kilkenny). The English coffeehouses served as a political and intellectual debate stage where men would gather for long periods. The penny surcharge and the time spent sitting in conversation essentially made coffeehouses reserved to the upper class, and not the average laborer who didn’t have to time nor money to spend in these coffeehouses (Kilkenny). In 1950s and 60s America, the Italian espresso coffee bars drove the young leisure class into urbanized Italian immigrant communities, like Boston’s North End and New York’s Greenwich Village. Which soon turned into a hub for counterculture artists and musicians from all different backgrounds. These cosmopolitan spaces became identify forging for fashion, gender, politics, and entertained diverse art and performances (Spinks). The espresso bars catered to middle-class Americans who came to experience a culture very different from their own and attracted them to communities they weren’t ordinary inclined to hang out in. It is apparent that “the coffee shop has always been a mark of sophistication… and a barometer of gentrification” (Spinks). Coffee shops have proven to tailor to a specific targeted market that is reflective in its history.
Re-urbanization itself has been linked to the changing economy. Economic studies have shown that socialites are drawn to the city because it brings people closer to their white-collar jobs in corporate spaces and reduces the commute. And with access to cultural and service spaces like libraries and cafes (Mock). And thus, they gentrify the area with amenities that reflect their class standards. This is contingent on the fact that the American suburban lifestyle is not optimal for the lively cultural experience offered in the city. As Ben Alder, environmental journalist suggests “That’s fueled both the urban gentrification that brings cafes and the cafe’s themselves” (Mock).
Though it can be hard to pinpoint exactly where and when coffee shops are responsible for gentrification in urbanized areas or when they are simply a by-product. What is clear is that coffee shops can exist in urban communities and be economically successful (Pozos Brewer, 84). This indicates that these coffee shops have influence and implications on the neighborhood they reside in. Just as high crime rates, visual homelessness, and prostitution in a community associate it with lower standards of living, the existence and prosperity of an indie coffee shop in a certain communities come with predispositions that reflect higher living standards in conjunction with their clientele — white-collar affluents. What is particularly interesting about this phenomenon, is, not only does it mark a community with a predisposed social and economic label, but it perpetuates it. American’s are pretty good at creating spaces useful to themselves, as journalist Jane Jacobs says, “People with similar and supplemental interests do find each other fairly well” (Jacobs 119). As the more affluent class finds their affluent peers spending more time and money at coffee shops, they are drawn to similar areas, creating prospective residents (Pozos-Brewer 85). The perpetuation and placement of coffee shops amongst low income and ethnic communities ultimately increase the margins for inequality and often visual class distinction. Looking at Amherst and Northampton this becomes very clear. As each area is the home to powerhouse universities that draw interest from affluent students who can afford higher education — attracting even more elite personnel like professors, scholars, researchers, and young professionals. And, not to leave out families drawn to the area for its increased activity as a prospering and gentrified community.
Increasing its appeal to the affluent class, coffee shops symbolize the security and sophistication that the middle class finds optimal. There’s a set of cleanliness and conduct expectations the middle-class patrons desire that coffee shops implement. (Pozos-Brewer 85). Thus, a coffee shop serves as a familiar and secure space for the middle class. Though rather pompous, if a coffee shop moves into a gentrifying community and prospers, it attracts the affluent class to continually develop and implement desired standards for an area, further perpetuating that cycle.
The Big Juxtaposition
The coffee shop goes even further to specify its clientele. The high prices of coffee and food at these shops ultimately restrict who can purchase their products. Similar to Whole Foods’ absence from low-income areas, organic and sustainable food has implicitly and subsequently been reserved for the upper class (Pozos-Brewer, 83). This model implies that the people that cannot afford to shell out $6 for a latte and an extra $12 for an all-organic sandwich and a side salad — are inherently, not the targeted clientele for a third-wave coffee shop. This automatically associates specialty coffee’s production and taste with classism. Which brings me to the most contradictory construct of the third wave coffee shop industry. If third-wave coffee shops were founded upon more progressive and ethical principles than their franchised predecessors as a response to the wide commercialization of coffee — and are truly rooted in localization, dedication to the customers and community, and the prioritization of fairer trade and sustainability within their coffee production — why are third-wave coffee shops considered mastheads of gentrification and grounds for classist divisions that are perpetuated within their business models? In a sense, it seems a bit hypocritical for coffee shops to be priding themselves on more ethical and fairer principles if their shops are only catering to the privileged class and marginalizing the communities they’re rooted in. It raises the question of what exactly coffee shops owe to their community if they’re going to do business in certain developing areas. One way to help alleviate some of the classism would be to make their products more wallet-friendly. However, this could compromise the quality of the coffee and food that the shop offers. To buy fair-trade and organic coffee, there’s a fixed minimum of $1.70 per pound which is just barely enough for most coffee farmers to get buy (Oden). Often shops will shell out between $2-$6 dollars per pound just for the beans, tacking on about 50 cents for transport fees. It costs about $6 to roast a pound of coffee (Oden). Resident coffee educator Garrett Oden says that one bag of ethically sourced coffee will cost about $15–25 each (Oden). Shops still need to shell out a profit for barista salaries, equipment, shop upkeep, and other expenses. High pricing is almost a necessity to continue sponsoring an ethically sourced product. This is why indie coffee shops favor supply chain ownership to keep costs as low as possible for the owners. Another problem is that the independent coffee business model is stooled upon a premium experience — the dark reality of modern capitalism still categorizes ethical sourcing and fair trade as a premium. While high-quality coffee is a considerable aspect of the revenue, most people want the cultural third space experience at a premium and delivering upon that is a coffee shop’s main selling point. Essentially, if a coffee shop were to stop offering a premium experience — the existence of the shop might become obsolete. Shops could focus on hiring people in the area they are located in and offer them special benefits. Starbucks has a Starbucks College Achievement Program for its employees that offers them the opportunity to earn a bachelor’s degree through Arizona State University with full tuition coverage if they work full or part-time (Starbucks Education). While this may be hard to implement on a small business scale, indie coffee shop owners could come up with help benefits for their workers that put money and resources back into the community’s economy. While gentrification is a complex issue to be solved, and there’s no grounded evidence that coffee shops are the main cause of gentrification — I think it’s worth that independent coffee shops take a look at how their business is impacting the community around them. Often times, assumptions about needs for the community can be incorrectly made by those who have the privilege to aid gentrification’s ugly side. So, businesses should consider taking feedback from the community and work on specific needs, perhaps by collaborating on ways they can help better improve the health of the community. Classism and premiums may not dissolve, immediately, if ever, but an outreach to the based community is a start to the genuine dedication of service shops pride themselves on, and not just the community’s affluent class.
Conclusion
Coffee shops’ appeal derives from the Third Wave Coffee’s focus on specialty — offering high-quality coffee from ethical sources. Though it’s not just the product that’s specialized, as third-wave coffee prioritizes a localized premium experience with authentic roots. This is attractive to consumers who want to distance from mass commodification. Though coffee shops’ linkage to gentrification and status is apparent with shops establishing in urban areas, branding as a premium, and serving the affluent class as the target market. Though intentionally or unintentionally, the existence of coffee shops has indicated class division and gentrification in certain communities. This comes into direct conflict with the progressive business model and ethical message third-wave coffee shops project. Coffeeshops are appealing because they serve as a third space, providing community and sociability in a comfortable atmosphere — and serves as an optimal space for casual meetings and as a workspace. Though the use of technology inside coffee shops have brought the theory of coffee shops as a true third space into question. The coffee shop as an experience is appealing, nourishing our everyday aesthetics and enhancing their ordinary affects. Thus, defining coffee shops as a universally unique place in our social world — where coffee is simply more than just a drink.
Sources
Dewey, John. Art as Experience. Perigee Books, 1939.
Dewey, John. Experience and Education. The Macmillan Company, 1950.
Faris, Michael J. “Coffee Shop Writing in a Networked Age.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 66, no. 1, 2014, pp. 21–24. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43490893. Accessed 28 April 2020.
Guevara, Julio. “What Is ‘Third Wave Coffee’, & How Is It Different to Specialty?” Perfect Daily Grind, Perfect Daily Grind, 20 Apr. 2020, perfectdailygrind.com/2017/04/what-is-third-wave-coffee-how-is-it-different-to-specialty/.
Herd, Mike. “No Laptops Allowed — the Cafes Bringing Back the Art of Conviviality.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, February 12, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/12/no-laptops-allowed-the-cafes-bringing-back-the-art-of-conviviality.
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage, 1961
Kitchen Daily. “Find Out How Obsessed Americans Are WIth Drinking Coffee.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 27 Feb. 2015, www.huffpost.com/entry/americas-coffee-obsession_n_987885.
Kilkenny, Katie. “A Brief History of the Coffee Shop as a Symbol for Gentrification.” Pacific Standard, 25 July 2017, psmag.com/economics/history-of-coffee-shop-as-symbol-for- gentrification.
Lock, S. “Starbucks Stores in the World.” Statista, 19 Nov. 2019, www.statista.com/statistics/266465/number-of-starbucks-stores-worldwide/.
Merzbach, Scott. “Starbucks Aficionados Mobilize to Save Amherst Cafe.” Daily Hampshire Gazette, Concord Monitor, 10 Mar. 2019, www.gazettenet.com/Patrons-of-downtown-Amherst-coffee-shop-rally-to-save-it-24001183.
Melchionne, Kevin. “The Definition of Everyday Aesthetics.” Contemporary Aesthetics, Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 7 Jan. 2013, quod.lib.umich.edu/c/ca/7523862.0011.026/ — definition-of-everyday-aesthetics?rgn=main;view.
Mock, Brentin. “What Made Coffeehouse Culture Go Boom?” CityLab, 23 Jan. 2017, www.citylab.com/life/2017/01/the-cafe-tipping-point/513656/.
Moe, Lily J. “Coffee Shop Culture.” The Odyssey Online, The Odyssey Online, 15 Oct. 2019, www.theodysseyonline.com/coffee-shop-culture.
Nautiyal, Jaishikha . “Aesthetic and Affective Experiences in Coffee Shops: A Deweyan Engagement with Ordinary Affects in Ordinary Spaces.” Education and Culture, vol. 32, no. 2, 2016, pp. 99–118. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5703/educationculture.32.2.0099. Accessed 20 Apr. 2020.
Oden, Garrett. “How Much Should You Pay For Coffee Beans?” JavaPresse Coffee Company. Accessed May 4, 2020. https://www.javapresse.com/blogs/buying-coffee/how-much-pay-for-coffee-beans.
Oldenburg, Ray. The Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. Da Capo Press, 1989.
Pozos-Brewer, Rose. Coffee Shops: Exploring Urban Sociability and Social Class in the Intersection of Public Private Space. 2015. Swarthmore College. BA Thesis http://hdl.handle.net/10066/16539
Rath, Jan, and Wietze Gelmers. “Trendy Coffee Shops and Urban Sociability.” Urban Europe, edited by Virginie Mamadouh and Anne Van Wageningen, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2016, pp. 123–130. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvcszzrh.18. Accessed 20 Apr. 2020.
Robertson, Oona. “A Coffee Drinker’s Guide To Western Massachusetts.” Sprudge, 11 Apr. 2018, sprudge.com/western-massachusetts-coffee-guide-129810.html.
Spinks, Rosie. “The Caffeine Curse: Why Coffee Shops Have Always Signalled Urban Change.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 8, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/08/coffee-shops-gentrification-urban-change.
“Starbucks Education.” Starbucks Coffee Company. Accessed May 4, 2020. https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/education.
Stewart, Kathleen. “Ordinary Affects.” Duke University Press, www.dukeupress.edu/ordinary-affects.
Suval, Lauren. “Coffee Shop Culture: A Sense of Community.” World of Psychology, 8 July 2018, psychcentral.com/blog/coffee-shop-culture-a-sense-of-community/.
Source:
medium.com/@alliemckean/the-coffee-shop-a-universally-unique-experience-bc8237cdd5a3
Ottoman Tulips, Ottoman Coffee; Leisure and Lifestyle in the Eighteenth Century
Dana Sajdi. Ottoman Tulips, Ottoman Coffee: Leisure and Lifestyle in the Eighteenth Century. London: I.B.Tauris, 2008. 262 S. $89.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-84511-570-8.
Tulips and coffee, leisure and lifestyle in an Ottoman perspective. Title and subtitle of this collection of articles raise expectations which the volume itself can meet only partially. It contains six papers presented by a group of young scholars at a larger conference entitled “Rethinking culture in the Ottoman eighteenth century“ that took place in Princeton in 2005. The articles, however, are connected more by their revisionist stand than by exploring the potentials of a culturalist approach to Ottoman history. It is symptomatic that the editor chooses to address, “by way of introduction”, the paradigm of decline and its history in Ottoman studies rather than to outline the characteristics of what is called here “the new field of Ottoman cultural history” (p. 2).
In a detailed overview, Dana Sajdi revisits the discursive construction and deconstruction of the notion of decline in the historiography of the Ottoman empire which is still very much in evidence outside the narrow circles of specialists. For the latter, the usefulness of this exercise is probably limited, but one can hope that the former might take notice, more so now than in 1999 when Amy Singer stated “those who persist … do so out of sheer laziness” (p. 1).
Can Erimtan’s article opens the volume with an appeal to rethink the characterization of the so-called Tulip Age (1718–1730) as “a short-lived but highly productive era of Westernization during Damad Ibrahim Paşa’s tenure as … grand vizier” (pp. 42–43). Erimtan explores the contested perceptions of the Saadabad summer palace, situated outside the city walls of Istanbul, a building which has long vanished without leaving a trace. The void can be filled with descriptions from various perspectives. Erimtan posits that whereas former scholarship saw the construction as influenced by recent views of Versailles and Fontainebleau, “the Ottoman empire had at the time not necessarily been looking westward for inspiration” (p. 43), that, on the contrary, the palace is following models from Safavid Iran, Mughal India or other regions of the Islamic world. A meticulous investigation of the meta-narratives of writing Ottoman history leads to the not altogether surprising result that early 18th-century Istanbul presents a much more complex cultures-cape than the simplistic notion of Westernization implies. In replacing one exclusivist way of thinking by another, however, Erimtan exposes himself to the question of what we gain by describing modes and articulations of cultural life in the Ottoman capital in terms of an either/or of Western vs. Safavid/Islamic influences instead of a lieu of encounters of various kinds and directions.
This point is illustrated by the article of Orlin Sabev (Orhan Salih) in the same volume. It aims at challenging the common perception of the introduction of the printing press in 18th-century Istanbul as a failure (“They did not read what I printed,” Ibrahim Müteferrika utters as fictive last words in a recent play, p. 63). Sabev collects, from a variety of sources, among them the probate inventory of the printer, the numbers of books printed and books sold in order to prove the commercial success of the enterprise. By specialising on dictionaries and non-religious literature like history and geography, the printing press had catered primarily for those involved in government and thus on a utilitarian programme of publishing (p. 78). In selling seventy percent of its production in Müteferrika’s lifetime, it was more successful than some of its early-modern European counterparts. Sabev emphasises that the impact of the printing press was not a sudden revolution, but a long-term process of acculturation which holds true for the “Europe” of Gutenberg as well as the Istanbul of Müteferrika.
In his article, Babak Rahimi addresses imperial circumcision rituals as a way to understand the changing relationships between state and society. Building on the growing literature of Ottoman state organisation in the 18th century, he describes the importance of the rituals for the developing “theatre state” (Clifford Geertz) of the Ottomans. The focal point is the role of the “nahil”, a wooden pole filled with flowers, fruit or sweets given to the princes. Whereas it is easy to understand the public performance of such rituals and their symbolic use for the display of imperial power, it seems more difficult to link them directly and convincingly to socio-economic transformations as Brahimi suggests (p. 92) but does not prove.
The two remaining contributions are related more closely insofar as they both concern coffeehouses. In a short review of the existing literature, Ali Çaksu makes a case for a more thorough investigation of the role of Janissary coffeehouses in the urban fabric where, for instance in Istanbul, coffeehouses functioned as “headquarters of the Janissary political and criminal activities” (p. 120), centres of “Bektashism” (p. 125) as well as business ventures up to 1826.
Alan Mikhail promises a visit to Ottoman coffeehouses while exploring questions related to gender and urban space. The article starts with a critique of the gendered notions of public and private in Ottoman contexts, which reiterates arguments against a simple transfer of the Habermasian concepts into the Ottoman sphere. Passing fleetingly by Foucault’s notion of heterotopias, Mikhail concludes by summarising his theoretical stance in the following terms: “ …various ideas of space within the Ottoman world existed in concert with one another, and to suggest a rigid conceptualization of space within the Ottoman empire would in all likelihood prove ineffective in describing the vast multiplicity of spaces that made up the Ottoman world” (p. 134). He then explores in a rather uneven argument various aspects of the social uses of neighborhood coffeehouses, as extension of home for male customers, as places of gossip and political discussion, but also as gendered loci of poetical imaginings.
Referring to cases from Istanbul, Cairo, Aleppo, Damascus and Jerusalem, Mikhail’s article in particular, implicitly also the volume as a whole, raises the old question of what we mean by the label “Ottoman”. While I easily concede that “no single dichotomization of space could accurately reflect Ottoman urban realities” (p. 134), I wonder whether the use of “Ottoman” as a category of space, urban space and coffeehouses in particular, will contribute to a fruitful discussion along these lines, without a reference to more locally defined cultural contexts. Though being the capital, Istanbul does not represent the Ottoman empire as whole, not even in cultural terms. Generalizations of this type do not strike me as a promising way to contribute to the discussions and debates that are already well underway in the field of Ottoman cultural history.
All in all, this collective undertaking raises important questions for future discussions. In the articles, they sometimes seem to become of secondary importance behind the revisionist impetus to challenge previous scholarship. This makes the volume of limited interest to a general public beyond a rather circumscribed circle of specialists, though this is probably also the consequence of the rather excessive price of the well-produced book.
Mr. Rows Namoura Coffee 
From Crop to Cup; The Plight of Coffee
History of Coffee
We do not know exactly when or by whom coffee was discovered. However, one widely believed legend explains that coffee was first discovered by a young goatherder, Kaldi, in or around the ninth century in present day Ethiopia. He noticed that his goats liked to graze upon berries which produced interesting side effects, leaving the goats highly energetic and in a temporary altered state. After observing the changed behavior of the goats following consumption, Kaldi decided to eat some of the leaves first, followed by the berries, and then chewed the seeds inside. He felt stimulated and was pleased with the effects. After sharing this new magical berry with his village, word soon spread throughout the region.
The inventive Ethiopians soon began to create new ways to get their caffeine fix. They are said to have brewed the leaves and berries with boiled water as a weak tea, ground the beans and mixed them with animal fat for an energy filled snack, and also made wine from the fermented berries. It is believed that sometime in the sixteenth century someone roasted the coffee beans, ground them and made an infusion. At this time, coffee as we know it was born.
Ethiopians began trading coffee with Arabs in the sixteenth century and coffee began to spread east. It is told that the Arabs jealously guarded the coffee plant, and although they traded widely across the Islamic world, all exported beans were boiled to prevent any chance of transplantation. However, the Dutch managed to export the coffee bean to the area of Indonesia in the late 1600’s and this is believed to be the catalyst for the worldwide growth of coffee cultivation.
In the late seventeenth century, coffee made its way to the masses in Europe and the first coffee houses opened in Italy, Austria and England. The Dutch brought coffee to North America in the late 1600’s. The first coffeehouse in New York opened in 1696, and coffee houses in all major cities were prevalent soon after. By the eighteenth century, coffee cultivation had been introduced to Martinique by a naval officer of the French government, and by the end of the century, there were between eighteen and nineteen million coffee bushes in Central and South America and the region became an important coffee producer.
The initiation of coffee as the American national drink in the late eighteenth century set the stage for a series of developments in the United States coffee trade that took place over the following two centuries; principally the growth of a coffee trade infrastructure that served to smooth the flow of beans and dollars between producing and consuming nations. This infrastructure included the centralization of the coffee roasting industry, technological innovations which facilitated increased yields, increasingly efficient transport mechanisms, and geopolitical developments that favored the growth of relations between the United States and key producing countries. By the end of the nineteenth century, the United States was consuming more than half the world’s coffee.
Today, coffee is grown on five continents, is consumed worldwide, and remains one of the most important commodities traded on world markets. There are various Coffea species, but the two most common are Coffea Arabica (originally from highland Ethiopia) and Coffea Canephora, (originally from lowland West Africa) commonly known as Arabica and Robusta. Arabica is the most highly prized and valuable, and it accounts for three-fourths of world coffee production. Arabica coffee is grown at higher altitudes (usually over 900 feet above sea level, although this can vary with latitude) and it requires more intensive cultivation than Robusta. Arabica grows in the tropical and equatorial strips of America, Africa and Asia where it is always spring or mild summer. Robusta, as its name suggests, is more resistant to tropical heat and parasites and is grown at lower altitudes at a comparatively low cost. Robusta can prosper in harsh environments such as the equatorial rain forest, where Arabica would succumb to diseases like root nematodes and “coffee rust”. Unfortunately, Robusta’s greater resistance also increases its bitter and astringent flavor as well as its caffeine content.
Both types of coffee are incredibly labor intensive crops, although full sun Robusta can be a largely mechanized process versus that of rustic Arabica which is primarily harvested using manual labor. (www.coffeeresearch.org). Coffee provides a livelihood (of sorts) for over twenty-five million people around the world. In the following section, I discuss the important economic role that coffee has in El Salvador. For over two hundred years, coffee has provided the only source of income for many rural communities throughout the country.
Dana Lynn Foster (2011) From Crop to Cup; The Plight of Coffee