The Public Sphere of Starbucks

In high school and sometimes in undergrad, I used to go to Starbucks and other coffee houses to hang out with my friends. We would meet and spend all evening hanging out and talking. We'd even meet other customers and talk with them; it wasn't just a cup of coffee, it was an event. I can't remember the last time I did that. These days, if I make time to even go inside a Starbucks, or any coffee establishment, it's to grab a quick cup and get on my way. I still see the people settled in for a long evening, but most are typing on their laptops or studying/in deep conversation with 1 or 2 other people. What happened? Is it just my habits that have changed, or is it society as a whole?

According to Sociologist and author, Bryant Simon, Starbucks culture has changed or at least capitalized on change in the American culture. He contends that Starbucks has contributed to the death of the traditional public sphere found in places like coffee shops, public libraries, town halls, and church meetings. These used to be places where people could go to enjoy public discourse and debate, to discuss the goings on in the world with whoever would listen. Simon notes that in many instances "public spaces have become less available — and less desirable — since municipal resources are focused elsewhere." But what about Starbucks? They still provide a public place where people come to hang out and talk, but things like small tables, to-go cups, and especially Wi-Fi make spontaneous interaction less likely to occur. People are more likely to work on their own or talk only with the people that they came with. But is this a symptom of Starbucks culture or something bigger? To answer this question, we must first look at the history of the public sphere.

According to The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia essay by Jurgen Habermas, the public sphere is "a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all citizens. A portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body (p. 73)." The public sphere is theoretically a place where any member of a society can come and have a voice in determining public opinion on a matter. This is more than just voting in an election or poll, this is public discourse, where real conversation and debate takes place.

Newspapers immediately began to effect the public sphere as soon as they came into being. They were a way to disseminate information and opinion without physically gathering the public body of people. But then, "in the transition from literary journalism of private individuals to the public services of the mass media, the public sphere was transformed by the influx of private interests, which received special prominence in the mass media (Habermas, 76)." According to Habermas, the commercialization of the media, especially electronic media, changed communication and the "pureness" of the public sphere. With the invention of things like Public Relations, the line between news and advertisement became blurred. "Discourse degenerated into publicity, and publicity used the increasing power of electronic media to alter perceptions and shape beliefs," adds Pieter Boeder. So, although in some ways the public sphere was growing, it was also distorting, and becoming a somewhat tainted place. However, what was happening in the media became a place to start conversations in more classic public arenas.

The real change happened with the introduction of the Internet. Suddenly, nearly instant communication across the world was possible, opening up the possibilities for a global public sphere. "Although news media increasingly transcend national borders," Boeder warns," this process does not automatically create a public sphere at a transnational or global level." Too many things, from political to language barriers stand in the way of a truly global public sphere. "Media globalization does not automatically entail the creation of a singular global public sphere, but rather a process of gradual blurring and differentiation of the public sphere to a multi-layered media structure, accompanied by an increase in interconnections (Boeder)."

One thing that we must keep in mind is that "the Internet is above all a decentralized communication system (Cyberdemocracy, Mark Poster, p.262)." As much as it brings the world together, it is not one big public forum where all users can meet and discuss public issues. Instead it is comprised of millions of individual sites and pages, where people with similar interests can (if they want to) discuss those interests. Even social networking sites that bring people together, like Facebook and Twitter, are only as public as the user makes them. One can not read and discuss every single tweet or status update or blog posting that occurs on the Internet. Not only are some set to "private," but it's just physically impossible. Instead, users have to select the posts that are interesting and relevant to them. Which begs the question, "If 'public' discourse exists as pixels and screens generated at remote locations by individuals one has never and probably will never meet, as it is in the case of the Internet with its 'virtual communities' and 'electronic cafes,' then how is it to be distinguished from 'private' letters, print face and so forth (Poster, p. 265)?" The line between public and private has now blurred, so that someone can be sitting in a public place with her laptop, having a discussion with friends all over the world, via the Internet.

With the prevalence of the Internet, "the alliance of the public sphere with a particular place or territory diminishes (Boeder)," in favor of virtual communities. So, just because public discourse is not happening as much between patrons of the same Starbucks, doesn't mean it's not happening on their laptops.