PrintDiscuss
Culture » December 29, 2009

Our Coffee, Ourselves

The rise of Starbucks reveals how we really live, and it ain’t pretty.

By Richard Greenwald

Customers sit inside a Starbucks coffee shop in Chicago, Ill.(Photo by: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Tags   

When Bryant Simon’s book, Everything but the Coffee: Learning about America from Starbucks (University of California Press, 2009) arrived in my mail, I thought, great, just what we need: another book by an academic that attempts to understand the world through a simplistic lens, like salt, sushi or coffee. That this genre sells well probably motivated Simon’s publisher. But Simon’s book is better and more honest than most of the genre in recognizing the limitations of both author and subject. He peeks into the inner life of American culture, but thankfully refrains from offering a unified theory that explains all.

Part history, part ethnography, part marketing theory and part coffee memoir, Everything but the Coffee places Starbucks at the center of the hypocrisy of the American middle class. Simon has to stretch a great deal here, as he explores why, for a time, the American middle class saw Starbucks is central to its identity.

Simon shows us how we really live, and it ain’t pretty. There was a time, not so long ago, Simon reminds us, that many of us wondered why people would pay so much money for a cup of coffee—even as we were edging closer in line to place our own order. Starbucks, writes Simon, “had little to do with coffee, and everything to do with style, status, identity and aspiration. … Starbucks delivered more than a stiff shot of caffeine. It pinpointed, packaged, and made easily available, if only through smoke and mirrors, the things that the broad American middle class wanted and thought it needed to make its public and private lives better.” Starbucks fed our emotional needs for status. It became our little “self-gift,” an emotional pick-me-up. It allowed us to feel successful.

It also provided a safe, clean “third space” between home and work, those big chairs and couches becoming our new public sphere. It brought us exotic places and sounds, exposed us to an underground in the safety of a cushy seat: teaching us about places where our coffee came from, and new music and literary voices. It tried to be our cultural guide and helped us feel good about our environmental footprint through its green campaigns and aid to farmers, even if Starbucks did little and we did nothing but buy coffee. It did so consciously, purposefully manipulating our desires, hopes and aspirations, all the while making us feel good about ordering up a venti soy latte.

But, we also knew, on some level, that it was all a delusion we actively participated in. “Starbucks worked as a simulacrum,” Simon writes, “it stamped out the real essence of the original idea of the coffee house and, through proliferation and endless insistence, became itself the real thing for many bobo and creative types.” Even as we believed we were being individuals, demonstrating our sense of style, we were just following the javaman’s master plan. In seeing Starbucks as a third space, as a solution to the environment and globalization, we played into the illusion and lost ground on these fronts.

Simon joins a recent spate of books on the middle class whose authors seem unable to separate themselves from their subject and therefore are compelled to include themselves in the narrative. For instance, in Elsewhere, U.S.A., sociologist Dalton Conley explores the disruption of space in the modern American middle-class family, combining his research with autobiographical slices of his own family life. From Everything But the Coffee, we learn Simon’s coffee habits, haunts and unease with such.

Like much of this literature, there is a confessional quality. We know we should not feel good about our participation in this system, but it is just so much fun. It is as if we who study the topic are involved in a process of self-criticism. This trend makes these books readable, perhaps, but it often dilutes their analytical force. Yet we still know too little about the middle class; with a defined working-class studies and history literature, we know far more about those lower on America’s economic ladder. Is the middle class too big and mystical to fully know? Or is it that most of the authors who write about the middle class are middle-class themselves, and thus uncomfortable with the self-reflection so necessary for thorough criticism?

What Simon and others demonstrate is that we are a culture of hypocrites. We want our coffee and we want to feel good about it: we live in the moment. We know deep inside that buying Starbuck’s Pike Place does not make us a better person, but part of us feels better hearing that it is sustainable. To more completely understand the middle class would require that we pierce the veil of this hypocrisy. 

  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
  • Or win a subscription to In These Times by taking this short survey!
Richard Greenwald is a labor historian and social critic. He is currently a professor of history at Drew University. His essays have appeared in In These Times, The Progressive, The Wall Street Journal among others. He is currently writing a book on the rise of freelancing and is co-editing a book on the future of work for The New Press, which features essays from the county's leading labor scholars and public intellectuals.

More information about Richard Greenwald
Tags   
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    The sidebar urges us to be respectful in comments and I will try. But it is difficult as this article (insofar as it reflects the book; I can’t be sure how much the reviewer is agreeing or simply reporting) suffers from exactly the same thing it claims is at the heart of Starbucks success: “style, status, identity and aspiration.”

    Some people just can’t put Starbucks into perspective: it’s a decent place to get a cup of coffee, with comfortable seats, far-better-than-usual decor and wifi. If somehow you were expecting more and you are disappointed and therefore angry, you have only yourself to blame.

    Starbucks has made a significant contribution—added thousands of third places—and the article both acknowledges that as a positive and then tears it down with a lot of high-sounding pretentious language because it spread third places to locations that never had them, like shopping centers and strip malls, and because it isn’t the hippy-dippy coffee house with guys in black turtlenecks and berets they remember from the Doby Gillis show. Some people are just never satisfied and the author of this review (or book) seems to be one of them.

    This is a creepy article/book which attempts to tear down one of the few genuine successes of mass-market capitalism.

    Posted by David Sucher on Jan 1, 2010 at 1:05 AM

    “I thought, great, just what we need: another book by an academic that attempts to understand the world through a simplistic lens, like salt, sushi or coffee.”

    References, please?  Precisely which academics do you have in mind? The master of that genre, Mark Kurlansky, who has written the book about salt – and also about cod, oysters etc, etc – is a journalist. Jack Turner, who wrote the comparable book about ‘spice’, is a professional writer, not an academic. Sophie D. Coe, who wrote the book about chocolate, was the wife of an academic, Yale Prof Michael Coe; perhaps that’s close enough for you?

    Posted by Barbara Piper on Jan 1, 2010 at 9:08 AM

    I agree with the previous comments.  With “mass market capitalism” itself having destroyed the commons where people could gather and chat over a cup of whatever,  especially in cold weather, what do we have left in order to get out of one’s private space (house, apartment, live-in auto) to a place that’s heated or air-conditioned where one can sit and read? Not much - the library (can’t eat or drink there), prison (not good for the resume or appropriate human contact), another person’s place (another success of capitalism to engender fear in opening our houses to others and leading us to believe that “home” is only for “family” - nuclear that is).  The destruction of this last option works well also for preventing the kind of “around the kitchen table” social change activities of the past.  Welcome to the slavery we’ve been under for the past 50 plus years. BTW, I go to places like Starbucks with my own travel mug of tea made at home.

    Posted by Art Light on Jan 1, 2010 at 1:54 PM

    “Simon joins a recent spade of books on the middle class…”

    Please lean what words mean before you use them!

    Posted by cyberella2002 on Jan 1, 2010 at 7:31 PM

    So this Simon shows us how we really live? Really? Or perhaps he overthinks Starbucks just a little bit.

    Simon’s brand of facile, superficially clever analysis shouldn’t be taken all that seriously. This is social criticism as parlor game.

    Posted by Jon Mon on Jan 1, 2010 at 7:43 PM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 15 posts.

Appeared in the January 2010 Issue
Also by Richard Greenwald
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS