Comments on: The Coffeehouse Mob http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: August 21st Roundup at Milinda’s Questions http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-169281 August 21st Roundup at Milinda’s Questions Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:11:55 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-169281 [...] As always, some interesting stuff at Crooked Timber. Henry Farrell has a review of a book called The Social Life of Coffee: The Emergence of the British Coffeehouse. Between them, the book, the review and the ensuing discussion pretty conclusively tear apart the “blogosphere/18th century coffeehouse/public sphere” meme. And Chris Bertram provides a link to an online paper by Avi Pasternak entitled “Sanctioning Liberal Democracies.” One sometimes hears claims to the effect that, say, since Israel is a democracy while its Arab neighbors aren’t, other democracies such as the U.S. have a responsibility to defend and support the Israelis no matter what they do. Pasternak argues that, to the contrary, democracies should be held to a higher moral standard than nondemocratic regimes. [...] [...] As always, some interesting stuff at Crooked Timber. Henry Farrell has a review of a book called The Social Life of Coffee: The Emergence of the British Coffeehouse. Between them, the book, the review and the ensuing discussion pretty conclusively tear apart the “blogosphere/18th century coffeehouse/public sphere” meme. And Chris Bertram provides a link to an online paper by Avi Pasternak entitled “Sanctioning Liberal Democracies.” One sometimes hears claims to the effect that, say, since Israel is a democracy while its Arab neighbors aren’t, other democracies such as the U.S. have a responsibility to defend and support the Israelis no matter what they do. Pasternak argues that, to the contrary, democracies should be held to a higher moral standard than nondemocratic regimes. [...]

]]> By: Delia http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-169091 Delia Sun, 20 Aug 2006 00:52:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-169091 I don't see how the fact that people weren't very polite to each other inside the coffeehouses disproves their role in the rise of a public civil sphere. Habermas isn't using "civil" in the sense of polite, but in the sense of political. Politics is dirty business and the coffeehouses provided a location in which it could develop, as well as a stimulating and mildly addictive beverage that encouraged social interaction, both in its postive and negative forms. The big difference between the coffeehouse culture and the blogosphere is that the latter is a virtual community. It doesn't have the actual physical contact of individuals that English coffeehouse culture or French salon culture developed. And that makes a great deal of difference. I don’t see how the fact that people weren’t very polite to each other inside the coffeehouses disproves their role in the rise of a public civil sphere. Habermas isn’t using “civil” in the sense of polite, but in the sense of political. Politics is dirty business and the coffeehouses provided a location in which it could develop, as well as a stimulating and mildly addictive beverage that encouraged social interaction, both in its postive and negative forms.

The big difference between the coffeehouse culture and the blogosphere is that the latter is a virtual community. It doesn’t have the actual physical contact of individuals that English coffeehouse culture or French salon culture developed. And that makes a great deal of difference.

]]> By: MKM http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-169081 MKM Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:49:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-169081 Coffeehouses and politics do appear a confirmed pair. As do caffeine and writing/blogging.... oops, hang on, I just spilt a Red Bull on my keyboard. I can't quite decide if I find some of the other people who left comments pedantic or if I want to be their friend. Coffeehouses and politics do appear a confirmed pair. As do caffeine and writing/blogging…. oops, hang on, I just spilt a Red Bull on my keyboard.

I can’t quite decide if I find some of the other people who left comments pedantic or if I want to be their friend.

]]> By: serial catowner http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-169071 serial catowner Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:57:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-169071 Yes, I would guess that as the British displaced the Portugese and French in the tea-growing regions, a push to consume the more available product developed. Notwithstanding, a local coffeehouse in Seattle used to serve a tea that had the kick of methedrine. Wary customers learned to choose the more manageable coffee they served. Yes, I would guess that as the British displaced the Portugese and French in the tea-growing regions, a push to consume the more available product developed.

Notwithstanding, a local coffeehouse in Seattle used to serve a tea that had the kick of methedrine. Wary customers learned to choose the more manageable coffee they served.

]]> By: nick s http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-169049 nick s Sat, 19 Aug 2006 07:31:34 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-169049 <i>Given that tea is the drink of the Englishman, what is the story of the rise and fall of coffee in English culture?</i> Price and social setting, at least in the late 17th/early 18th c. Coffee appears to have delivered more bang for the bob, if you take the prices in the Gents. Mag. as representative. It was also considered a more 'masculine' drink than tea, which appears to have been associated with the ladies during the early 18th c. (As a very rough generalisation, you'd drink tea in your home in a more intimate social setting, and drink coffee in the coffeehouse.) And the expansion of the East India Company probably did most to cement the place of tea in British culture. Given that tea is the drink of the Englishman, what is the story of the rise and fall of coffee in English culture?

Price and social setting, at least in the late 17th/early 18th c. Coffee appears to have delivered more bang for the bob, if you take the prices in the Gents. Mag. as representative. It was also considered a more ‘masculine’ drink than tea, which appears to have been associated with the ladies during the early 18th c. (As a very rough generalisation, you’d drink tea in your home in a more intimate social setting, and drink coffee in the coffeehouse.)

And the expansion of the East India Company probably did most to cement the place of tea in British culture.

]]> By: Chris http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-168978 Chris Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:13:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-168978 I find the more interesting topic to be the role of the coffeehouse in, say, Sicily or Vienna - areas where there was even less of a tradition of 'toleration' than in England, and where loose chat could get you hanged rather than scalded or bashed (and even then, being hit with a cane isn't necessarily a rap on the knuckles; some while later Preston Brooks nearly killed Senator Sumner with "a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs" or a "a thick gutta-percha cane with a gold head", depending). I came across once and then mislaid a quote from Henry - or possibly John - Fielding that summed up the public/private sphere perfectly, about how the Englishman's inalienable right to say anything he wanted to on any topic that concerned his own legitimate interests should not be confused with the totally inadmissable claim to have any right to tell his sovereign what to do on any topic that didn't. Can anybody place it? I find the more interesting topic to be the role of the coffeehouse in, say, Sicily or Vienna – areas where there was even less of a tradition of ‘toleration’ than in England, and where loose chat could get you hanged rather than scalded or bashed (and even then, being hit with a cane isn’t necessarily a rap on the knuckles; some while later Preston Brooks nearly killed Senator Sumner with “a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs” or a “a thick gutta-percha cane with a gold head”, depending).
I came across once and then mislaid a quote from Henry – or possibly John – Fielding that summed up the public/private sphere perfectly, about how the Englishman’s inalienable right to say anything he wanted to on any topic that concerned his own legitimate interests should not be confused with the totally inadmissable claim to have any right to tell his sovereign what to do on any topic that didn’t. Can anybody place it?

]]> By: bi http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-168975 bi Fri, 18 Aug 2006 03:44:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-168975 Steve: Here's a clue: you know, there's someone around here who can't stop complaining about the use of foul language, and it's not any of us. And another clue: you know, by your own estimate the Right takes up "half the potential audience". And <i>you still complain about being oppressed? What?</i> greensmile: For some reason I just hate the word "blogosphere"... Steve: Here’s a clue: you know, there’s someone around here who can’t stop complaining about the use of foul language, and it’s not any of us. And another clue: you know, by your own estimate the Right takes up “half the potential audience”. And you still complain about being oppressed? What?

greensmile: For some reason I just hate the word “blogosphere”…

]]> By: Henry http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-168962 Henry Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:40:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-168962 dandy it is then ... dandy it is then …

]]> By: serial catowner http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-168958 serial catowner Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:56:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-168958 So Cowan sets up a straw man to demolish, suggesting mainly that he had accumulated a largely random set of anecdotes and could find no other thread on which to hang a narrative. Study questions- Given that tea is the drink of the Englishman, what is the story of the rise and fall of coffee in English culture? How did the coffeehouses resemble, and how did they differ from, the <i>salon</i> society of Paris in the Revolution and early Empire? It appears intuitively obvious that the introduction of a new stimulant drug, the development of joint-stock companies and underwriting, and the birth of Fleet Street are in some way connected. Discuss. So Cowan sets up a straw man to demolish, suggesting mainly that he had accumulated a largely random set of anecdotes and could find no other thread on which to hang a narrative.

Study questions-

Given that tea is the drink of the Englishman, what is the story of the rise and fall of coffee in English culture?

How did the coffeehouses resemble, and how did they differ from, the salon society of Paris in the Revolution and early Empire?

It appears intuitively obvious that the introduction of a new stimulant drug, the development of joint-stock companies and underwriting, and the birth of Fleet Street are in some way connected. Discuss.

]]> By: Walt http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-168952 Walt Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:37:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-168952 Steve: Posting on how you hate me and my kind is not synonymous with dissent. Steve: Posting on how you hate me and my kind is not synonymous with dissent.

]]> By: greensmile http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-168947 greensmile Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:49:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-168947 well how many public spheres could we have, anyway? Or is the blogosphere something other than the public sphere? some kind of distributed cocktail party perhaps? well how many public spheres could we have, anyway? Or is the blogosphere something other than the public sphere? some kind of distributed cocktail party perhaps?

]]> By: Steve http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-168946 Steve Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:49:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-168946 "they’re appealing to traditional rhetorical tropes aimed at marginalizing awkward customers who threaten to disrupt a cosy purported political unity." Ok, now I really don't get it. Are you all suggesting that you essentially are the ones being marginalized-you are disrupting the cosy purported political unity-you are proud of being the 'vulgar' outsiders, or 'mob' who are accused of this vulgarity, but in fact are upsetting a status quo with your willingness to buck the powers that be, willingness to use foul language when necessary? So why am I, the only dissenting voice in this conversation, the one that's facing being banned? I'll repeat; which of us is in a cozy situation that's being threatened? My original point was really just to illustrate how apparently subconscious (or conscious but irrelevant to the post) political slams sneak into posts where they aren't even necessary (why slam Bush when talking about 18th century coffee houses?). What could have been an interesting sociological discussion just becomes another partisan rant.in which you alienate half your potential audience. But my point after reading this comments section has certainly evolved. From the post, there's the comment on how 17th and 18th century establishment disliked coffehouse culture because it was upsetting the status quo ("coffeehouse discourse was best when it was politically tranquil...Addison and Steele deplored the intrusion of the “rabble of mankind, that crowd our streets, coffee-houses, feasts, and publick tables”). There's the comparison to modern political elites treat blogs similarly ("When Lee Siegel and Morton Kondracke complain about the “knockabout origins” of bloggers, or how they are a fundamental threat to “civilty in American politics,” they’re appealing to traditional rhetorical tropes aimed at marginalizing awkward customers who threaten to disrupt a cosy purported political unity."). And finally, in the comments section, we get: "...Can someone please delete Steve entirely,..." Its interesting; each culture (or sub-culture, or sub-sub-culture: after all, there's only about 15 people here) treats dissent in exactly the same way... Steve “they’re appealing to traditional rhetorical tropes aimed at marginalizing awkward customers who threaten to disrupt a cosy purported political unity.”

Ok, now I really don’t get it. Are you all suggesting that you essentially are the ones being marginalized-you are disrupting the cosy purported political unity-you are proud of being the ‘vulgar’ outsiders, or ‘mob’ who are accused of this vulgarity, but in fact are upsetting a status quo with your willingness to buck the powers that be, willingness to use foul language when necessary?

So why am I, the only dissenting voice in this conversation, the one that’s facing being banned? I’ll repeat; which of us is in a cozy situation that’s being threatened?

My original point was really just to illustrate how apparently subconscious (or conscious but irrelevant to the post) political slams sneak into posts where they aren’t even necessary (why slam Bush when talking about 18th century coffee houses?). What could have been an interesting sociological discussion just becomes another partisan rant.in which you alienate half your potential audience.

But my point after reading this comments section has certainly evolved. From the post, there’s the comment on how 17th and 18th century establishment disliked coffehouse culture because it was upsetting the status quo (“coffeehouse discourse was best when it was politically tranquil…Addison and Steele deplored the intrusion of the “rabble of mankind, that crowd our streets, coffee-houses, feasts, and publick tables”).

There’s the comparison to modern political elites treat blogs similarly (“When Lee Siegel and Morton Kondracke complain about the “knockabout origins” of bloggers, or how they are a fundamental threat to “civilty in American politics,” they’re appealing to traditional rhetorical tropes aimed at marginalizing awkward customers who threaten to disrupt a cosy purported political unity.”).

And finally, in the comments section, we get: “…Can someone please delete Steve entirely,…”

Its interesting; each culture (or sub-culture, or sub-sub-culture: after all, there’s only about 15 people here) treats dissent in exactly the same way…

Steve

]]> By: Julian Sanchez http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-168944 Julian Sanchez Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:33:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-168944 I think I prefer "dandy." I think I prefer “dandy.”

]]> By: des von bladet http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-168942 des von bladet Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:49:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-168942 Am I the only one who ewwwishly double-took at "tarring his whig ..."? (I am available for hitting on the head with a cane at very moderate rates, incidentally. Bring your own coffee.) Am I the only one who ewwwishly double-took at “tarring his whig …”?

(I am available for hitting on the head with a cane at very moderate rates, incidentally. Bring your own coffee.)

]]> By: sglover http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/comment-page-1/#comment-168938 sglover Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:16:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=5037#comment-168938 How did they keep the frappucino cold in the 17th Century? How did they keep the frappucino cold in the 17th Century?

]]>