Tony Judt illustrating the centrality of coffee as a metaphor (or maybe synecdoche) for civilisation. (thanks to Glenn Condell for the link)
I found Judt’s piece very informative, and not only so about the books in question. Thanks for the link.
In India, it is now “cool” to eat without a waiter’s many attentions. Because McD has arrived and local consumers visualize themselves as young Americans, eating and drinking the American way. (Only the upper middle class in India can afford McDonalds, it’s a status symbol for the middle class to be seen at a McD.) So self-service is now ‘civilized’in India, though at homes, “servants” still wash, clean and fetch water for the affluent. It is a marketing miracle.
Interesting, if only because the US is now seen in the world without any respect to our experiences in forging one larger unit from lots of smaller political units. Perhaps it’s because those seeking “unity” are more recent in memory or still upon the stage?
And what of the lessons America learned? I doubt that the EU will incite a war to make a land grab and double its size, but other parts of the American experience are quite relevant. The issue of many millions of Muslims feeling downtrodden? What if e.g., Germany, decides they want out, how do you make sure it doesn’t cause a “War of Northern Aggression”-style divide in the continent?
Not that I expect the EU to recapitulate US history, but rather it seems like we’ve already been through a lot that the EU may still encounter.
Civilised nations have now moved on to tea.
I assume they’re not eating burgers.
Michelet has a good bit on the centrality of coffee to the French C18th, and indeed one imagines that a Europe drinking alcohol all day got less done than it has later.
Ironic that Islam brought coffee to Europe along with proper maths, hospitals and culture during the so-called dark ages, and nowadays the further you are away from a source of real ristretto the less civilised society becomes (UK being the most Starbucks-friendly European state).
I make a point of carrying my own Dzezva (Turkish-coffee-pot) when travelling to the USA. You can’t be too careful, can you ;-)
Of course the Turks have now turned to tea.
Starbucks success in the UK can largely be attributed to not chucking you out when you’ve finished which is new in the UK but not in the rest of Europe.
At least where I live (Starbucks’ home town of Seattle) most people seem to go to starbucks not for coffee, but for the funky fruity/whipped cream/tea drinks and the pastries (which are really freightening).
For coffee, Seattlites visit local shops that roast their own coffee.
I just skip coffee all together myself.
Oddly enough, in the U.S. we have “globalization” too, but it is manifested as a Thai restaurant or a sushi bar on every other corner even in rural Northern California towns where Rodeo Week is the biggest annual event. I wonder how the Viennese feel about that sticky-sweet Thai iced coffee.
Very odd that Judt would use coffee of all things as an example of divergence.
Was I the only one who found this article really underwhelming?
There was some good stuff. It’s not an actively awful read. But Judt’s biases are obvious, some of his factoids are distinctly skiffy — he’s misleading about Swedish health care, and downright wrong on US vs. European foreign aid — and his conclusions are (IMO) questionable.
Frex: Judt seems to think that one of Europe’s biggest worries is the integration of its immigrant populations, especially Muslims. Cripes. How flavor-of-the-month is that? If by “Europe” you mean France and the Netherlands, you could make a case. But in Germany, Britain and Italy this issue barely makes the top five, and in the New Ten it’s not even on the radar.
Meanwhile, Judt completely ignores problems with European labor markets. (You don’t have to be a gibbering laissez faire winger to see that there are problems. Look how Germany’s Social Democrat/Green government has been grappling with this.) And he briefly and quickly glosses over Europe’s looming demographic crisis. I was really hoping for a thoughtful treatment of this topic… it’s, like, freaking impossible to find… but Judt pretty much blows past it. Etcetera, und so weiter.
— Even the coffee metaphor is dubious if you look at it hard. Making espresso “requires expensive equipment”… so? And I really have trouble seeing how this “suggest[s] indifference to the consumer and ignorance of the market.” Selling something at a whopping markup because you’ve managed to brand it as aesthetic rather than utilitarian suggests keen knowledge of the consumer and close attention to the market.
Is it just me?
Doug M.
Nearly the only problem I had with Judt’s article is the idea that coffee is more expensive in Europe. Last spring un café was basically €1 in Paris or Madrid. In sunny southern California (now 20-25°C, after being thoroughly drenched) a double espresso runs $1.50 to $2.00.
Starbucks uses Espresso machines and also has frapuccino makers.
Is the Starbucks Marmite breakfast bun really a global product?
Of course its wrong but the Judt metaphor is a neat summary of what a lot of people think.
Selling something at a whopping markup because you’ve managed to brand it as aesthetic rather than utilitarian suggests keen knowledge of the consumer and close attention to the market.
Doug, I read this part slightly differently. I think Judt would agree with you on this. When he wrote that the Italian espresso “suggest[s] indifference to the consumer and ignorance of the market,” I assumed that he was briefly slipping into the voice of American free-market orthodoxy for parodic purposes. If the tenets of that orthodoxy (at their most simplistic) are to be believed, Starbucks would presumably have bulldozed its way across the European continent by now, leaving thousands of shuttered cafes in its wake. And yet…it hasn’t worked out that way.
I had the privilege & pleasure of taking a 20th-century French history course under Prof. Judt back in the late 80s. I found him brilliant, so maybe I was predisposed to like the NYRB piece too…I thought it was excellent.
The United States is indeed mired in its own past. Instead of regarding our history as something to learn from, wefetishize it, so that the prospect of fundamental change amounts to a betrayal of the Founders. To make matters even more sclerotic, our sketchy tradition of public service buttresses the status quo with petits maîtres with no interest whatever in progress.
Consider, for example, our state lines, which have become profoundly irrational, bearing no relation to population or even to local interest.
Uncle Kvetch.
Starbucks hasn’t decimated a market anywhere; it created a market in the USA and thousands of competitors have sprung up in its shadow. And in fact Sbux is expanding very rapidly in Europe. Or do you — like Judt — have information to the contrary?
Doug M.
No it is not just you.
And in fact Sbux is expanding very rapidly in Europe. Or do you — like Judt — have information to the contrary?
No, I do not. It’s simply that when Judt wrote
“It is not just that Starbucks has encountered unexpected foreign resistance to double-decaf-mocha-skim-latte-with-cinnamon (except, revealingly, in the United Kingdom)”
I took his word for it. Do you think he made that up?
Uncle Kvetch.
You come right to the heart of the issue: on what basis did Judt write that sentence i.e. about Starbucks encountering resistance? (That would be a “material fact” in securities law and of great interest to investors.)
As I follow the “third place” beat in my own City Comforts blog I am intensely interested in Starbucks and other public gathering spots and the changes (if any) they indicate in American society.
So I wrote to Judt asking about the basis for such a pregnant statement. We have exchanged several emails. But I don’t feel right about quoting him at this point. I am hoping for clarification today.
David,
A little googling produced two articles from the Asian edition of Business Week that suggest that while Starbucks is, in fact, expanding rapidly worldwide, the results in terms of profitability (outside the US) have been less than impressive thus far:
http://www.businessweekasia.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2005/nf20050124_0920_db039.htm
http://www.businessweekasia.com/magazine/content/03_23/b3836056.htm
UK.
I don’t think those articles support Judt’s claim of “resistance” but merely outline the difficulties which Starbucks faces. And it is a question whether Judt used such sources as you offer. (But that’s good reasearching on your part; I also Googled but I didn’t hit anything even remotely on point.)
The larger issue is still the odd use of a cup of coffee as an example of divergence between the USA and Europe. As I write on my blog, I would think that the cup of coffee is, if anything, a tremendous example of cultural convergence….the spread of daytime (somehat) non-alcoholic “third places” throughout the USA as Europe (at least France and Italy) has had for generations.
Last spring un café was basically 1 in Paris or Madrid.
According to my recollections (from a couple of years ago) un café in Paris was more like 2-2.50 if you sit and order and I distinctly remember being annoyed when 2 cafe grandes set us back for something close to 10 euros. Dammit.
As I write on my blog, I would think that the cup of coffee is, if anything, a tremendous example of cultural convergence….the spread of daytime (somehat) non-alcoholic “third places” throughout the USA as Europe (at least France and Italy) has had for generations.
Very true. But I think one of Judt’s points is that, according to most American commentators, convergence was supposed to be more or less a one-way street: we innovate, they adopt. The adoption of coffeehouse culture in the US challenges that view right off the bat.
Moreover, while Americans might adopt the European notion of the cafe, they haven’t maintained it in anything like its European form. Instead, Starbucks represents an “Americanization” of that model (efficiency, economies of scale, “more is better,” etc.). If I read Judt correctly, according to a rather simplistic (but still very prevalent) model of “globalization,” we then export our “new & improved” version back to the Europeans, who recognize its superiority (economically speaking, anyway) and adopt it. But it’s turning out to be somewhat less straightforward than that…and that, I think, is the crux of the coffee metaphor.
“…convergence was supposed to be more or less a one-way street: we innovate, they adopt.”
That’s a new one on me; and probably the people in Detroit, too, who have gotten their hides spanked over the last 30 years by Japanese and European automakers. The only way that American automakers have survived is by very consciously trying to copy others’ methods i.e. a better automobile and one which looks like one from Japan or Europe.
It’s not about actually making automobiles or anything else, it’s all about marketing stuff.
It’s about convincing you that Nike shoes is what you need to wear - as opposed to sandals; who’s making the Nike shoes and how is not important at all. Anyone can make shoes.
By way of anecdote, uncle Kvetch: last year, Tony Judt visited my university, and participated in a discussion with Ania Loomba—distinguished literary scholar—, and the insufferable Mark Lilla, whose presentation was remarkably weak, and whose dismissive, idiotic attacks on Loomba are only memorable because of Judt’s and Loomba’s responses. Judt was extraordinarily good. Ever since, I’ve been a fan of Judt’s.
Uncle Kvetch: my favorite grad school seminar was with Paul Kennedy, of Rise and Decline of Great Powers fame. He was a wonderful teacher and a deeply, broadly erudite man, and I learned a tremendous amount from him.
That said, he’s occasionally written some utter tripe. This makes me sad, but I respect the man too much to shut down my critical faculties for his sake.
Also, as noted, there are some skiffy factoids in that article. I don’t say wrong (though there are a couple I’m really dubious about). I do say hand-picked to make a case, and in some instances deliberately misleading.
David: dead on. The idea that Americans innovate, Europeans adopt, is more a straw man than otherwise.
The whole coffee as metaphor thing is a trope that seems clever until you stop and think about it, at which point it falls apart. N.B., this is something that’s very common in the op-ed pages of the NY times — Friedman does it regularly, and so does Brooks — and now it seems to be spreading to the NYT RoB. Go figure.
Doug M.
On innovation, Nobels in absolute terms or per capita seem an obvious handle, at least the scientific ones. That does reflect who can afford the supercolliders, etc., but that is immaterial. My impression is that here, if not in business, Americans do innovate more than any other single country.
I respect the man too much to shut down my critical faculties for his sake.
Yeah, that must be it. I’m so blinded by Judtmania that I simply can’t see straight.
Thanks for the condescension, Doug. You might have actually identified and refuted some of those “skiffy factoids” you claim to find in the article, but where’s the fun in that?
Uncle Kvetch: Saying “I wouldn’t do this” != “I think you’re doing this”, and such was not my intent here.
Factoids: I specifically pointed to two dubious or misleading assertions — Swedish health care, and US vs. European foreign aid. The first one is misleading, because the numbers for Europe generally are higher than for Sweden; he’s picking one of the best countries out of 25, and using it to stand for the group. The second is misleading, and arguably wrong outright, because that one very much depends on how you define “aid”. Here he’s chosen the definition most favorable to Europe, and not told us that he’s doing so. Further, that he dings the US for questionable aid practices, while not mentioning analogous instances on the EU side. (They exist, and are significant.)
— For a discussion of just how good/bad the US really is on this issue, go over to Dan Drezner’s blog; he’s written several good, fact-crunchy posts about it.
Casual skimming of the article throws up plenty more. “Each year our atmosphere has to absorb twenty metric tons of carbon dioxide for every American man, woman, and child; but just nine tons for every European.” Yah, but if you adjust for per capita GDP, suddenly it’s more like fifteen tons per European. He uses the OECD definition of poverty to set up a comparison favorable to Italy; using the World Bank definition, we find that one in eight Italians, not one in fifteen, live in poverty. “Americans can hope for something between four and ten” days off per year… hah? I’d love to see a cite for that; holidays alone give five or six, and he’s obviously counting holidays plus paid vacation time too. (Swedes may have generous vacations, but they don’t have 30 national holidays per year.)
Oh, and productivity. Judt points out that “Productivity per hour of work in Italy, Austria, and Denmark is similar to that of the United States; but the US is now distinctly outperformed in this key measure by Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, …and France.”
True enough. But (with the notable exception of Ireland) that’s because all of those countries employ a much smaller proportion of their population than the US does. This has a nontrivial effect on productivity figures. The guy who’d be pushing a broom around the Wal-Mart at minimum wage in the US? He would, in France, be living quietly on the dole. Putting aside the interesting question of whether or not that’s a good thing, it means that simplistic comparisons of productivity statistics across countries are, well, skiffy.
(Just as straight comparisons of GDP are. There are reasons to think that, ceteris paribus, the US needs a per capita GDP 10%-20% higher than Europe’s in order to maintain the same standard of living. So I’m just as underwhelmed by the commenters who point out that US pcGDP is X% higher than Europe’s, hooray for us. But I’d expect better from someone of Judt’s stature.)
So. I gave two in my original comment, and there are three more. Plus David’s point about European “resistance” to Starbucks — a phenomenon which I have yet to observe here in Europe, I should add.
Even putting aside the skiffy bits, Judt jumps to a variety of conclusions that aren’t supported by the facts he cites. I already mentioned a couple in my first post (demographics not being a threat to the welfare state, Islam being Europe’s biggest problem); here, too, I can go on at more length if you really want me to.
In sum, no, I wasn’t mocking you, but I remain deeply unimpressed by this article.
Doug M.
Doug, I’ve followed nearly all the statistical issues you cite, and I’d say that, while Judt is obviously presenting them from a mildly triumphalist European viewpoint (which is, after all, the one he’s describing) he’s not obviously wrong on any of them.
To pick just one example, Drezner makes a case for the US as an OK global citizen, but only by going well beyond foreign aid. On any ordinary understanding of the term “foreign aid”, even allowing for things like remittances, Judt is right here - the US, publicly and privately, gives a lot less than ‘Old’ Europe, either per person or as a proportion of GDP.
Dear John,
Drezner makes a case for the US as an OK global citizen, but only by going well beyond foreign aid.
It’s not Drezner, it’s the Center for Global Development. (Of which, I grant, Drezner is a board member.) You can find their net rankings here. They use a broad definition of aid — some would say too broad — and rank the US near the top.
If you want to focus on strictly defined aid, okay… but even that’s more slippery than it sounds. To what extent should aid that’s “tied” (requiring it to be spent less efficiently) be discounted? Should aid to relatively wealthy countries (Colombia, Israel) count the same as aid to poor ones? How about European aid to EU candidate countries: does the same money stop being “aid” and become an internal EU transfer once the new candidate joins? Should it make a difference how efficiently the aid is allocated, i.e., big projects vs. little ones? Should it make a difference whether the recipient country has a track record of using aid well or not? What about remittances and private giving?
Here’s a paper that addresses some of these issues. It ends up ranking the US near the bottom, but only after a roller coaster ride that puts it high, then low, then high again, as different metrics are applied.
It’s not a simple issue.
Now I don’t expect a detailed discussion of this in a review that is, after all, about something else entirely. But where complexity exists, I’d like to see at least a nod to it. Judt’s consistent failure to do this — not just on aid, but on everything from productivity to demographics — makes his piece read as advocacy, not analysis.
Judt is obviously presenting them from a mildly triumphalist European viewpoint (which is, after all, the one he’s describing),/i>
Well, “the one he’s describing” is a red herring. Last time I looked, there was no requirement that a reviewer agree with the books he’s reviewing.
But otherwise: yes, exactly. I’m sick unto death of American triumphalism. This does not mean I want to rush out and embrace European triumphalism… especially when it’s as sloppy and poorly argued as it is here.
Doug M.
Uncle Kvetch: Saying “I wouldn’t do this” != “I think you’re doing this”, and such was not my intent here.
OK.
Factoids: I specifically pointed to two dubious or misleading assertions — Swedish health care, and US vs. European foreign aid. The first one is misleading, because the numbers for Europe generally are higher than for Sweden; he’s picking one of the best countries out of 25, and using it to stand for the group.
I don’t really find this “dubious.” I think the NYRB readership can be credited with enough intelligence to know that Sweden != Europe. In fact, I think this move is rather effective rhetorically, because Sweden typically functions as the archetype of European social democracy in American journalism.
“Each year our atmosphere has to absorb twenty metric tons of carbon dioxide for every American man, woman, and child; but just nine tons for every European.” Yah, but if you adjust for per capita GDP, suddenly it’s more like fifteen tons per European.
And why would you do this, unless your goal was to minimize the American role?
“Americans can hope for something between four and ten” days off per year… hah? I’d love to see a cite for that; holidays alone give five or six, and he’s obviously counting holidays plus paid vacation time too. (Swedes may have generous vacations, but they don’t have 30 national holidays per year.)
OK, I’ll grant that this is a case where he’s somewhat sloppy in his wording—it’s not clear whether he’s talking about vacation time, or national holidays, or what. But the facts are indisputable. I work in a small law firm in NYC and I have exactly 10 days of paid vacation per year, plus 9 official holidays, and that’s it. And this is entirely discretionary; the firm would be perfectly within its rights to reduce both numbers to 0. In France I’d have 5 (or is it 6 now?) weeks of paid vacation guaranteed by law, and, yes, more national holidays than in the US (exactly how many more I don’t know). Nothing about Judt’s use of “skiffy factoids” changes this.
True enough. But (with the notable exception of Ireland) that’s because all of those countries employ a much smaller proportion of their population than the US does. This has a nontrivial effect on productivity figures.
To which I can only respond, so what? Judt is writing against an endless stream of American punditry about those spoiled, pampered Europeans, and how their plush working arrangements are destroying the “work ethic.” In this context, I think it’s perfectly appropriate to point out that they actually produce more than the average American in a given hour of work.
So. I gave two in my original comment, and there are three more. Plus David’s point about European “resistance” to Starbucks — a phenomenon which I have yet to observe here in Europe, I should add.
Doug, I provided two links on the topic of Starbucks above, which I found after about 15 seconds of googling. If you don’t find those articles compelling, that’s fine, but I think they indicate that Judt wasn’t just making shit up.
I already mentioned a couple in my first post (demographics not being a threat to the welfare state, Islam being Europe’s biggest problem)
Both of which he addresses in his article; he simply doesn’t think they’re evidence of the unsustainability of the European model. You apparently disagree. I think you’re vastly overplaying the importance of these “factoids” to suggest that Judt is somehow playing fast & loose with the facts, and I think that’s unfair. It seems to me that you and he simply draw different conclusions.
The source of Judt’s assertion is still an open question as he offers no citation etc etc.
Judt’s use of the term “resistance” — freighted as it is with allusions to national resistance movements — made it appear to me as if one might see people picketing a Starbucks as if in some sort of nationlistic (or globalist) anti-Americam fervor. The BW articles merely describe the difficulties of establishing thousands of a new sort of store globally. It’s a massive task and of course there will be business mis-steps; that hardly makes for a telling political point.
Whatever the source of Judt’s statement — the OECD, Starbucks’ own reports or his own imagination — the odd thing, which undercuts his whole approach is his use of a cup of coffee, as a metonym for divergence.
And if the issue is simply “Which continent a nicer place?” then that one can be taken down to any pub, bar or coffee house for ample discussion. It’s the issue of divergence/convergence which seems to be the important one.
Just briefly…
And why would you do this, unless your goal was to minimize the American role?
Because otherwise it’s a meaningless comparison.
Mozambique and Congo produce less than one ton of C02 per person/year. Is this because they’re more environmentally sensitive than Americans or Europeans?
To which I can only respond, so what? Judt is writing against an endless stream of American punditry about those spoiled, pampered Europeans
Opposing badly reasoned and poorly supported argument is no excuse for engaging in badly reasoned and poorly supported argument (though the temptation is surely strong sometimes).
Doug, I provided two links on the topic of Starbucks above, which I found after about 15 seconds of googling. If you don’t find those articles compelling,
I don’t find them relevant, is what I don’t find. They’re about problems of global expansion. Not a word about specifically European “resistance”, whether cultural, commercial, or what have you.
[demographics and Islam]
Both of which he addresses in his article; he simply doesn’t think they’re evidence of the unsustainability of the European model.
Er, no. He mentions demographics in exactly one paragraph, and then dismisses it as “not a threat to the welfare state”. That’s not, IMHO, ‘addressing’ it.
It seems to me that you and he simply draw different conclusions.
Well, that touches a whole ‘nother issue. Even if you think that every single one of Judt’s facts is rock solid, his conclusions aren’t based on them.
Frex, this: “Europe’s true dilemmas lie elsewhere… antagonism and incomprehension between the indigenous local population and a fast-growing minority of Muslims… We are now seeing the emergence of a third generation: in large part unemployed, angry, alienated, and increasingly open to the communitarian appeal of radical Islam.”
Now that is a clear conclusion: Europe’s real dilemma is X. But what, for goodness’ sake, is it based on? Scan the paragraphs above it; where are the facts supporting it?
Or this: “Europeans no longer even think about interstate relations in martial terms. But pace American critics, this makes Europeans and their model more rather than less effective when it comes to addressing international crises.”
Again, that’s a conclusion. And again, it’s completely unsupported by anything but Judt’s say-so.
I should add here that I lived for some years in the former Yugoslavia. 150,000 Europeans died there and another ~1.2 million were forcibly relocated while the EU spent three years holding meetings and passing resolutions. So I’m a bit skeptical of a blanket claim that Europeans are good at solving crises.
For that matter, I have trouble thinking of three international crises that the EU has “addressed” with particular effectiveness in the last few years. The Iranian nuclear program, perhaps. (Judt is correct to say that the Europeans are ahead of the curve on that one.) But I can’t come up with three offhand. Maybe it’s just me.
The whole darn article is like that. Assertion, conclusion, assertion, conclusion — but there’s rarely any connection between this and that; the conclusions mostly float on air, unsupported by anything but wish-it-so.
A final thought on the coffee thing. When I lived in Serbia, I came to love Serbian coffee (which is Turkish coffee, but more so). Then when I visited Zagreb, I discovered that they had inherited the Austrian art of making pastries… except, again, more so. But you couldn’t get Serbian coffee there in Zagreb, nor Austrian pastries in Belgrade. So the ultimate cafe experience was tantalizingly just out of reach.
When I mentioned this to a Bosnian friend, he nodded sadly. “Sarajevo was the one place you could get both,” he said. “That’s why it had to be destroyed.”
Doug M.
David, Starbucks in Australia hasn’t faced anything that could be described as active resistance, but it hasn’t done well. The problem is, as I’ve argued previously, that obtrusive chain branding is very downmarket in Australia, which doesn’t fit with the kind of image Starbucks wants to promote.
As an aside, the other chains mentioned are rather different from Starbucks. GJs are far downmarket and operate mainly in food courts. Coffee Clubs are very low-key for a chain. If you saw one in isolation you could easily mistake it for an independent.
Because otherwise it’s a meaningless comparison.
I think it’s less meaningless than the one you suggest. Environmental laws affect the GDP, so why would you want to adjust air pollution for per capita GDP? For example, in Switzerland it’s against the law to air-condition open in-door space, like a shopping center. This means that fewer air-conditioners are produced, less electricity, less maintenance - IOW, less GDP for Switzerland. So, by adjusting for per capita GDP you’ll simply cancel out the cause by effect - that’s meaningless.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review