‘Chatting’ While Sipping Coffee: an Ethnographic
Exploration of Social Interaction in Specialty Coffee
Bars in Vancouver and Amsterdam
Wietze Gelmers (10006362)
Supervisor: prof. dr. J.C. Rath | June 19, 2015
Research Master Urban Studies, University of Amsterdam
Abstract
This article examines the particular nature of social interaction characteristic to contemporary specialty coffee bars. Whereas traditional coffeehouses were praised for their publicity, facilitating social interaction and communion, recent academic research has criticized chain-based specialty coffee bars such as Starbucks for the absence of social interaction. In light of societal changes, specialty coffee bars continue to mushroom across cities. In an increasing individualizing world and with a strong presence of mobile digital devices, how do people connect and interact in these places? Ethnographic research, consisting of observations and conversations conducted in chain-based and independent specialty coffee bars in Vancouver and Amsterdam, shows that both real-life and online social interaction is being performed. People alternately switch between real-life and virtual domains to maintain social networks and interact with others. Therefore, this article argues to reconsider social sphere in coffee bars, by incorporating online interaction and acknowledging the influence of virtual domains.
1 Strolling down Amsterdam, Istanbul, Vancouver or Kunming, there is a good chance that you will run into a specialty coffee bar. Here, a traditional ‘cup a Joe’ is simply a no-go. Rather, bearded or tattooed baristas will serve you a flat white or filter coffee from exotic Rwandese beans. Often in an industrial setting, with a race bike hanging on the wall and visible wiring running across the place, coffee connoisseurs enjoy a true piece of craft. An interesting social sphere prevails: against the backdrop of a noisy coffee machine and Scandinavian indie-pop, conversation and laughter are alternated by silence. Some patrons walk in to meet friends, while others are tucked away behind their MacBook or iPhone, gazing at co-present visitors and avoiding any form of sociability. This social sphere, prevailing in most specialty coffee bars, signals –and is illustrative for– a shift in behavior and social interaction in public.
Introduction
Coffee is hot again. But, not only literally: numerous world cities (Beaverstock et al., 1999) are experiencing the (re-)emergence of the coffeehouse. Specialty coffee bars open at every street corner, and serve as popular places to urbanites for various reasons. Traditionally, coffeehouses have been perceived as places that allowed for gathering and social interaction, and co-constructed community. In a fluid, individualizing urban society (Glackin, 2015) that is increasingly influenced by mobile digital devices (Humphreys, 2005) such as laptops and smartphones, it is of great interest to see how urbanites interact in public nowadays. A specific focus on specialty coffee bars—embodying popular public places—is of societal and academic relevance, as such a particular focus has not yet been applied in academic research. Why are these places so popular among urbanites? What distinct social interaction is found? Bearing in mind that an increasing number of mobile digital devices continuously modifies— perhaps enriches—networks and public sphere, exploring such questions through the lens of specialty coffee bars can lead to new insights into how people interact in public nowadays.
The emergence of specialty coffee bars is embedded in larger socio-economic transitions that have been occurring since the 1970s. The shift from a manufacturing-based economy to—as Scott (2008) would label—a cognitive-cultural economy, and an accompanied concentration of high-skilled professionals in cities (Florida, 2002) who hold a large amount of human- and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984), has led to the rise of distinct urban lifestyles. Most tend to have a rather individualistic outlook on the world (Bauman, 2013) and cherish aesthetics and creativity (Zukin, 2008), as well as entrepreneurial labor (Neff et al., 2005). Having flexible, unbounded jobs in creative- and knowledge-intensive sectors (Castells, 2000), these urbanites
2 create a privileged, wealthy cosmopolitan lifestyle (Roy, forthcoming): one characterized by an openness and a strong (residential) preference towards vibrant city life in ‘undiscovered’ urban areas. Their arrival in mostly older inner-city neighborhoods, and occurring processes of gentrification (Lees et al., 2013), are mutually reinforcing transitions. Despite not being uncontested (Atkinson, 2003: Newman & Wyly, 2006), gentrification often coincides with emphatic changes in the consumption landscape. As Zukin (1998: p.825) notes: “Attention to lifestyles has given rise to new, highly visible consumption spaces”. Thus, presence of a new urban middle-class reshapes cities, as distinct consumption spaces pop up in the streets, and vice versa (Hagemans et al., 2015). Various local, small retail shops and boutiques (Zukin et al., 2009) are considered to be suitable spaces that allow for the display of distinct lifestyles and subcultures (Thornton, 1996), distinguishing people from the crowd. In a similar fashion, specialty coffee bars can be seen as such spaces: coffee consumption can denote a particular lifestyle, and is in that respect in line with Veblen’s (1912) idea of conspicuous consumption.
This article is concerned with an examination of social interaction in specialty coffee bars, which are regarded as the modern equivalent of public places. The following section gives an overview of the debate on human behavior and interaction in public, from which the research originates and aims to contribute to. After elaborating on the selected specialty coffee bars and methods of data collection, findings on social interaction are presented. The discussion argues for a reconsideration of social interaction and social sphere in specialty coffee bars, stressing the acknowledgement and incorporation of online interaction and virtual domains.
Behavior and Social Interaction in Public
Uncountable cities across the world are in the midst of experiencing the rise of a third wave in coffee. As Thrish Rothgeb (2003) calls it: “…a reaction to those who want to automate and homogenize specialty coffee”. After a first wave in which coffee was ‘bad’ but became more popular at a larger scale, and a second wave that as a reaction introduced ‘good’ specialty coffee, this third wave is all about quality and product, not so much about the promotion and marketing of coffee. With this third wave in coffee, independent specialty coffee bars are popping up almost anywhere, primarily in gentrifying neighborhoods. These specialty coffee bars are popular public places, and have become vastly ingrained in large parts of urban life. However, in light of an increasing individualizing society (Glackin, 2015) and the growing influence of mobile digital devices (Humphreys, 2005), it may be that—based on traditional academic accounts—social interaction in these places is completely different than expected.
3 In its most general form, public space can be regarded as something that is open to public use. This includes streets, parks and plazas, but also semi-privatized spaces such as cafés and shops (Mitchell & Staeheli, 2009). Resulting from a growing number and variety in semi- and private-public spaces, Tonnelat (2010) has argued that nowadays one must view public space as spaces open to the public. Historically, sociologists have been keenly interested in the relation between public space and human behavior such as social interaction (Goffman, 1959, 1963, 1971: Habermas, 1989: Simmel, 1903: Simmel & Hughes, 1949). In The Metropolis
and Mental Life, Simmel (1903) discusses the position of the individual in urban societal life.
The metropolis is regarded as a place of constant movement, through unfamiliar and shifting settings and rationalization of relations. As such, this leads to an increased mobility of human individuals, consequentially manifesting an enlargement of interaction (Sullivan et al., 2015). Simmel (1903) was concerned that, in large metropolises with all their impersonal relations, people would not be able to deal with the anonymity if they secluded themselves from others. The individual’s psychological coping with its existence, through a particular behavior and social interaction expressed in public life, would lead to sociability: “…the art or play form of association, related to the content and purposes of association. While sociable interaction centers upon persons, it can only occur if the more serious purposes of the individual are kept out, so that it is an interaction not of complete but symbolic and equal personalities” (Simmel & Hughes, 1949: p.254). Constituted of free interaction and equivalence, sociability offers the only case in which talk is a legitimate end in itself and prevails in various public domains. It is thought of as creating an ideal sociological world, in which pleasure of an individual is always contingent upon joy of others (Simmel & Hughes, 1949). To Goffman (1959), greatly inspired by Simmel (1903), social life in public—comprised of various ways of behavior and social interaction—has to be seen as a form of theater. It is a role-play, in which people take on different roles to present themselves and interact with others. Urban domains, various public places in the city, are the stage (Goffman, 1959). However, a co-presence and behavior of individuals in public does not need to create sociability or interaction. As Goffman (1963) notes: people can use shields—a newspaper or, more recently: laptops—to avoid contact with others. Somewhat later, Goffman (1971) coined the term civil inattention to describe another form of behavior in public: it connotes an attitude by individuals that demonstrates a polite sense of awareness of the other its presence, while it also makes clear that there is no need for interaction. This blasé attitude (Simmel, 1903) protects one from unwanted, overwhelming external influences, hence making public life less intimate. Concluding, individual behavior creates a plethora of (non-)interactions, and shapes the social sphere in various public places.
4 Whereas both Simmel (1903, 1949) and Goffman (1959, 1963, 1971) developed theories on behavior and social interaction in public at large, others scholars steered this debate towards a specific place: coffeehouses (Habermas, 1989: Laurier & Philo, 2007: Oldenburg, 1999). To Habermas (1989) traditional British coffeehouses served as important places, offering ground in which society was being developed (Laurier & Philo, 2007). With a sphere of publicity and inclusiveness, traditional coffeehouses allowed for lively debate and conversations. It made 17th century British coffeehouses important places to society, for business and social affairs (Laurier & Philo, 2007: Oldenburg, 1999). In contrast, 19th century Viennese coffeehouses were very different. Being far less inclusive, they consisted of small private worlds, and symbolized wealth and status (Oldenburg, 1999). Despite clearly differing, both British and Viennese coffeehouses were considered to be important public places to society. They served as third places: “The generic designation for a great variety of public places that host regularly, voluntary, informal, and happy anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work” (Oldenburg, 1999: p.16). In their traditional sense, third places offer neutral ground, where no one is required to play host and all feel at home. Next to that, they are levelers: places open to all, decaying feudal structures. The prevailing mood is a playful one, consisting of sociability and conversation—which is considered to be the main activity in third places. It is especially because of this latter notion that Oldenburg (1999) has argued that traditional coffeehouses were able to serve a human need for communion.
More recently, academics have started to focus on a different type of coffee bar. With the rise of chain-based specialty coffee bars such as Starbucks, they have been subjected to a large body of research (Bookman, 2013a, 2013b, 2014: Gaudio, 2003: Simon, 2009). Simon (2009) mentions that Starbucks, that claims to be a third place, offers nothing more than a simulation of it. It has turned casual conversation into a commercial concept (Gaudio, 2003). As Rath & Gelmers (2014) note in their blog Coffee in the Cityi, you will rarely find unfamiliar people talking to each other at a Starbucks—something that is key to Oldenburg’s (1999) third place. Rather, patrons isolate themselves in small private bubbles, typing away on their laptop. At Starbucks, you will find an appearance of togetherness rather than actual togetherness: people prefer to be alone while being together (Simon, 2009). Bookman (2014) draws a similar conclusion: Starbucks offers an opportunity for people to be with others while remaining relatively anonymous. In such a predictable and safe environment, it is both convenient and accepted to be alone. This would not do justice to Oldenburg’s (1999) notion of a third place. Therefore, Simon (2009) uses the Andersonian idea of a cosmopolitan canopy in describing
5 Starbucks: “a neutral social setting, that no one owns but all are encouraged to share, situated under this kind of protective umbrella, representing a special type of urban space, a peculiar zone, that every visitor seems to recognize, appreciate, and enjoy” (Anderson, 2004: p.22). In this respect, Starbucks would not serve a human need for communion, as it does not stimulate social interaction. Rather, it offers an alternative sense of brand belonging, one that is being reinvigorated through means of consumption (Bookman, 2013a, 2013b: Simon, 2009).
Where traditional coffeehouses have been cheered for their public sphere, enabling sociability and conversation, Starbucks has been accused of offering nothing but a simulation of a third place. With an environment acceptant to individualism, Starbucks seems to be quite different from its historical counterparts. In light of the rapid emergence and growth of independent specialty coffee bars in cities nowadays, little to none is known about them. What occurs in these coffee bars? Are they places for urbanites to meet? While popping up like daisies, and seeming very popular among many urbanites, independent specialty coffee bars can serve as important places for public gathering. Although existing depictions such as markers of
gentrification (Bridge & Dowling, 2001) or domains of a new urban middle-class (Zukin,
2010) may be applicable, they leave notions of social interaction in these places undiscussed. It is this exact academic void, an apparent research gap with respect to behavior and social interaction in independent specialty coffee bars, that drives the research. What social sphere does prevail in here? What social interaction is performed? A clear focus is needed to address such issues. Are these independent specialty coffee bars indeed lacking social interaction, as people retreat in their private bubbles and perform a blasé attitude? Or do they act as third places, facilitating encounters between strangers and enabling sociability and conversation? Specifically, what distinct forms of social interaction can be found, bearing in mind an increasing societal individualization and the growing presence of mobile digital devices? Through extensive exploration of these questions, this article aims to offer a detailed account on social interaction and social sphere prevailing in specialty coffee bars, something that could be representative for (human behavior in) public at large. As such, it may contribute to existing debates, by focusing on a yet untreated public place—independent specialty coffee bars—and their according social sphere. Simultaneously, it may nuance earlier academic work, by attuning conditions (Abbott, 2004) of what comprises social interaction nowadays. It is both socially and academically relevant to examine social interaction in specialty coffee bars, as it can shed light on human behavior in public at large, and potentially provides useful insights on the value of physical places in increasing digitizing urban societies.
6 Vibrant Coffee Scenes: Vancouver and Amsterdam
These issues have been studied in two different cities, Vancouver (Canada) and Amsterdam (the Netherlands). Both cities underwent aforementioned socio-economic transitions and have experienced waves of gentrification (Smith, 2002). In Vancouver, a number of neighborhoods have been transformed into sites of commodification and investment, attracting a new urban middle-class (Ley, 2003). Cosmopolitan consumption spaces represent the preferences of particular groups of people (Ley & Dobson, 2008). In her study on the Downtown Eastside, both Canada’s poorest zip code and a rapidly gentrifying area, Burnett (2014) notes a growth in middle-class consumption spaces such as cafés, restaurants and coffee bars. In Amsterdam, similar trends occur. Boterman et al. (2010) have demonstrated a strong influx of middle-class families into the city. Consequentially, an increase in specific consumption- and leisure spaces—such as coffee bars—suitable to their distinct lifestyle and consumption preferences has taken place (Hagemans et al., 2015: Karsten, 2014: Karsten et al., 2015).
Besides their roughly similar socio-economic trajectories, both Vancouver and Amsterdam are considered to own a unique, vibrant coffee scene. Website Matador Networkii has ranked Vancouver, “the epicenter of Canadian coffee”, among the best cities for coffee lovers. Specialty coffee bars seem to be a more recent phenomenon in Amsterdam. In a personal interview with Alex Kitain, co-founder of The Coffeevineiii, he notes that: “…despite, or because of having one of the oldest coffee cultures in Europe, the Dutch were among the latest to embrace specialty coffee. Since 2012, there has been a real boom. Especially in Amsterdam, tons of specialty coffee bars popped up, bringing vastly improved coffee quality to local neighborhoods”. Research in two cities with a vibrant coffee scene—Vancouver’s being more mature and extensive—is useful, as it may reveal similarities or differences with respect to how specialty coffee scenes and –bars function, evolve, and are being experienced.
An extensive qualitative study has been conducted amongst a number of specialty coffee bars in the aforementioned cities. While selecting specialty coffee bars to include in the research, it was made sure that the selected coffee bars are located in neighborhoods (which have been) subjected to gentrification, as is stressed in literature (Bridge & Dowling, 2001: Zukin, 2010). By including various types of specialty coffee bars, marked by a variety in both business type (chain-based versus independent) and period of existence (< 2 years old versus > 3 years old), the research seems very appropriate for case-comparison (Gerring, 2006). Including various coffee bars may reveal similarities and/or differences in social interaction and social sphere,
7 and with that can contribute to the research its reliability (Chan, 2013). With these arguments in mind, three specialty coffee bars from both Vancouver and Amsterdam have been selected.
Table 1: Selected specialty coffee bars in Vancouver and Amsterdam
Vancouver Amsterdam
Matchstick Turk’s Starbucks White Label Coffee Bru Starbucks
Type Independent coffee bar Independent coffee bar Chain-based coffee bar Independent coffee bar Independent coffee bar Chain-based coffee bar Year 2013 (< 2 years) 1992 (> 3 years) 1991 (> 3 years) 2014 (< 2 years) 2012 (> 3 years) 2013 (< 2 years) Location Mount Pleasant Grandview-Woodland Mount Pleasant De Baarsjes Oosterpark- buurt Helmersbuurt
Matchstick Coffee Roasters and White label Coffee are new, independent specialty coffee bars, being open for less than two years. Both fit the idea of a ‘hipster’ place, offering a slick, industrial and vintage setting. They roast their beans in-house. In contrast, Turk’s and Coffee Bru are more established, neighborhood-like specialty coffee bars. They have been (slightly) longer in their neighborhoods, and offer a more homey setting that seems more accessible. As for chain-based specialty coffee bars, picking Starbucks was a rather obvious choice. Being present in both cities with a standardized interior and concept, it offers a similar setting that could allow for comparison by contrasting contexts. Case-selection did not occur randomly. Based on several lists of ‘best coffee places’ found on local blogs and websites, the specialty coffee bars were (partially) selected on the basis of their popularity. Such lists are in line with ideas of a subculture, and show a recognition of these places as being “tasteful, sophisticated, and hip” (Jensen, 2006: p.263). Nevertheless, it is in this very same process where a potential bias could rest: such lists are often compiled by young urbanites, and primarily reflect their preferences. As a result, one could find a homogeneous (and biased) crowd in these places.
Data Collection
Vastly ingrained in cities and consumption landscapes, specialty coffee bars can tell a lot about urbanism. It is important that an ordinary, almost mundane phenomenon like social interaction in these places is being researched. Contemporary urban values, -activities, and -networks, they all appear on the surface here. Furthermore, research can shed light on how people behave and interact in public nowadays. Conducting research on social interaction in specialty coffee bars calls for an approach that allows to spend sufficient time at these places,
8 and by doing so, provides a great opportunity to grasp their particularities and occurrences in-depth. Therefore, the research has followed an ethnographic approach. It deals with actual practices in real world situations and allows for constructing rich, detailed understandings of particular behavior. Ethnography, as Abbott (2004) comments, means living inside the social situation one is studying, and becoming to some extent a participant in it. On this basis, it can be argued that ethnographic research contributes to the formation of rich understandings on behavior and social interaction in specialty coffee bars. Issues of reliability and validity, often typical to ethnographic research (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982), have been attempted to tackle by including multiple cases and two different forms of data gathering. Data collection did partially consist of extensive observations in various specialty coffee bars. About 100 hours of participant observation has been conducted in Vancouver (Fall 2014) and Amsterdam (Spring 2015). Observations took place on different days of the week and at different times of the day, ensuring a varied and justifiable research pattern. In general, observations lasted between 90 and 180 minutes. Using an observational checklist, detailed attention was paid to the particularities of the coffee bars: by focusing on sphere and appearance, visitors, activities and social interaction, it allowed for a thick description of what these places entail (Emerson, 1981). What are people doing? Are they interacting with others, and in what way? Do people use their mobile digital devices, and does this influence real-life interaction? Observations also provided a good opportunity to take supporting notes and pictures. Ensuring an unbiased research, it has not been mentioned that research was being conducted. Permission to take pictures was asked beforehand, making sure that baristas and visitors would not feel uneasy.
Two forms of conversation have been used to complement participant observation, with both baristas and visitors at specialty coffee bars. A total of 16 semi-structured, interview-like conversations took place, with 4 baristas and 12 visitors. Two conversations lasted only 15 minutes, while others went on for more than 45 minutes. Some conversations were unplanned and took place on the spot; others were pre-arranged by e-mail and occurred at a later moment. Participants ranged in age from beginning-twenties to mid-fifties, with most holding an age between 25-40 years. A majority had an occupation in software and IT, or an art- or culture-related profession. Most of them lived in a gentrifying area proximate to the specialty coffee bar in which they had been observed at first. Based on these notions, it could be argued that most respondents are part of a new urban middle-class (Florida, 2002). During most conversations, predefined questions have been used. Next to general issues such as sphere, appearance, and activities, most questions were directed towards social interaction
9 that people (not) performed, and their underlying motivations for doing so. What forms of social interaction do people perform? Why are they (not) interested in other visitors? How do they use their laptop or smartphone for social interaction? During the conversations, notes were taken. Afterwards, they were summarized and thematically grouped as comments and quotes. Next to the 16 semi-structured conversations, numerous (approx. N>35) small talk with baristas and visitors took place while observing. Most small talk lasted only a few minutes and was mainly concerned with exchanging thoughts on casual topics, as well as more relevant issues such as activities and social interaction in coffee bars. Both types of conversation complemented observations, and as they aimed at motivations and experiences of baristas and patrons, they served as useful explanations for the initial observations.
Social Interaction in Specialty Coffee Bars
A manifest mushrooming of specialty coffee bars in numerous cities across the world shows their popularity among particular urbanites. In line with Susser (2002), who argues that urban centers and public space are critical expressions of social life and a city its vitality, specialty coffee bars seem to be important and popular places, vastly ingrained in urban life. But, what makes them such important and popular public places? To many visitors, the presence of others appears to be an incentive for visiting specialty coffee bars. Quoting William Whyte (1980: p.19): “What attracts most people […] is other people”. Patrons from all coffee bars emphasized that co-presence of others is important to them. It appeared that especially at independent specialty coffee bars, groups of like-minded people gathered as these places symbolize and fit their distinct lifestyle. Being with like-minded others strengthened a sense of belonging towards a particular collectivity, a so-called imagined community: a group where people do not know most other members, yet share a strong imagined sense of communion (Anderson, 2006: de Waal, 2014). One talks of an imagination where unknown people share feelings of belonging towards some, while excluding others. Symbolic locations, like coffee bars, can be of great importance when constructing belonging. This phenomenon has been acknowledged by patrons from all four independent specialty coffee bars. A visitor at Matchstick Coffee Roasters stressed a sense of belonging towards co-present others:
“Matchstick is one of my favorite coffee bars. It suits to who I am and what my interests are. I can tell that people here are my kind of people, and I feel connected to them […] It is nice to be with similar people. This place is definitely where I belong”.
10 In contrast, visitors at Starbucks barely stressed any belonging towards other people. Rather, they seem to feel connected to Starbucks’ brand community (Bookman, 2013a). Observations found a stronger (demographic) heterogeneity among Starbucks’ visitors and their lifestyle, which underpins this notion. Nevertheless, presence of others is not something that is only attributable to specialty coffee bars. People gather and meet at numerous other public places. Other factors are important, one of which is accessibility. As Oldenburg (1999) emphasized, traditional coffeehouses were inclusive places, open to all. Various patrons expressed similar feelings, arguing that specialty coffee bars are places without any social barriers, allowing them to do and to be whatever they like. Talking to various visitors, acceptability, safety, and stimulation were also mentioned as important aspects. However, it can be questioned whether specialty coffee bars are as inclusive as Oldenburg (1999) has noted. Observations showed that predominantly homogeneous groups of visitors were found, especially at Matchstick Coffee Roasters and White Label Coffee. These places look like the domains of a new urban middle-class (Zukin, 2010), and it is questionable whether they decay societal hierarchies. Either way, specialty coffee bars appear to foster a vibe that attracts particular urbanites, and offer fruitful ground for a plethora of activities. Next to more common occupations such as consumption and relaxation, specialty coffee bars are increasingly being used as workplaces, both for means of study and work (Martins, 2015). Observations and conversations found that during weekdays, most independent specialty coffee bars are continuously being occupied by laptop-carrying students and flex-workers.
“A little later in the morning, you will find the first students and flex-workers coming in. After lunch, it is mainly the students and flex-workers with their laptops that are sticking around […] We do have a large number of visitors that is mostly concerned with their laptop, and visit us for means of work and study”.
Laura (28), barista at Coffee Bru (Amsterdam)
At Starbucks however, laptops and work-related activities were observed to a lesser extent. An explanation could be that Starbucks does not offer an appealing setting, or that it attracts other visitors. Observations and conversations have stressed the importance and popularity of specialty coffee bars. Their accessibility and unique setting make them attractive to various patrons, while different forms of behavior and activities are being facilitated and accepted. Consequentially, this versatility in both groups of visitors and their activities can be thought of as having clear effects on social interaction that is performed in specialty coffee bars.
11 Casual conversation and sociability
Like traditional coffeehouses, specialty coffee bars facilitate daily encounters and gatherings. However, visiting these places to meet strangers and creating new social relations no longer seems to be a motivation to many. Rather, most patrons at specialty coffee bars have planned encounters with friends or colleagues. A meeting can be heterolocal (Zelinksy & Lee, 1998), whereby otherwise spatially dispersed people use coffee bars as central meeting places to maintain social ties; or—as visitors from Turk’s, White Label Coffee and Coffee Bru noted— with proximate neighbors or friends, whereby coffee bars serve as some sort of neighborhood café. Talking to Tim (23), a Coffee Bru regular, he acknowledged that he meets friends here often, even by chance. Nevertheless, most encounters at specialty coffee bars are planned, and between acquaintances. This in turn affects the social interaction that is being performed.
Figure 1: Social interaction in fixed groups at Coffee Bru (Photo: Wietze Gelmers, 2015)
It would be too simplistic to state that Starbucks, as well as other specialty coffee bars, offers only a simulation of a third place and lack social interaction (Simon, 2009). Observations did show that in all specialty coffee bars, sociability and lively conversation reigned on a regular basis. Different from traditional coffeehouses, however, is that most conversations took place in fixed groups of familiar acquaintances. Seldom did people pay attention to strangers while being at a coffee bar, which would denote a lack of interest in meeting co-present strangers. Interaction that did take place between strangers was not much more than forms of politeness. Mostly, interaction was limited to eye-contact or smiles between people. Some asked others about seats, a Wi-Fi password, or made a comment about for example clothing or a laptop.
Social interaction in fixed groups
12 “To be honest, I am not actively looking for social interaction with strangers, but I am open to it. It is nice when unknown people talk to you, but it is not something I am forcing. I am mostly busy with work anyways”.
Derek (27), visitor at Turk’s (Vancouver)
This quote by Derek (27), a coffee-lover from Vancouver, illustrates how some visitors alone in a specialty coffee bar—singles (Goffman, 1971)—think of co-present others. Various patrons, primarily at independent specialty coffee bars with a homogeneous group of like-minded patrons, stressed a willingness to meet and interact with strangers. However, it does not seem to be a priority, as other motivations brought them to a coffee bar in the first place. It would therefore be too easy to depict each quick glance and seemingly uninterested glance towards strangers as civil inattention or a blasé attitude (Goffman, 1971: Simmel, 1903). At Starbucks however, people seemed to be less interested in others. In various conversations with visitors, they mentioned that they used body language as a personal defense mechanism to make clear that they were not looking for any social interaction with strangers. Talking to Eva (28), a visitor at Starbucks in Amsterdam, she expressed this disinterest in other visitors: “I almost always go on my own to a coffee bar. I meet friends at others places, and I do not feel like interacting with strangers. When in a coffee bar, I am occupied with other stuff. I would never start a conversation with an unknown person”.
Eva (28), visitor at Starbucks (Amsterdam)
Besides conversations between visitors, social interaction also occurred between baristas and clientele. Not only ‘sales-driven’ conversations, but also in the form of small talk. Mainly at independent specialty coffee bars, baristas presented themselves as coffee house ‘men’ and fulfilled a role as connector (Simon, 2009). Baristas Laura (Coffee Bru), Elmer (White Label Coffee), Maddie (Turk’s), and Merry-Lou (Starbucks) all mentioned that their relations with customers are very important, and that as a barista they can co-construct the social sphere.
“I do see myself as some kind of connector. I like to talk to people that come in for a coffee. You get to know them, but they also get to know each other. It often occurs that people get involved in conversations with people they do not know. Sometimes I introduce them, but quite regularly they do it themselves”.
13 It seems that specialty coffee bars are still very social places, where sociability reigns through joyful conversations and social interaction between visitors. What appears to be different is that, unlike in traditional coffeehouses, social interaction mainly occurs in fixed groups of visitors. Rarely do strangers get involved in conversations, despite the fact that many patrons stressing a willingness to do so. Baristas do reach out to visitors and connect to them, but nevertheless does social interaction in specialty coffee bars appear to have become a largely private affair. Combined with a relatively homogeneous clientele, concerns with respect to these places their inclusiveness and according effects on societal structure could be raised.
Online social interaction
Visit a typical (independent) specialty coffee bar, and you can hardly escape all smartphones and laptops used by visitors. Mobile phones continue to increase in popularity (Humphreys, 2005), and both a widespread availability of Wi-Fi in public (Hampton & Gupta, 2008) and forms of flex-work (Castells, 2000) make visitors bring their laptop to coffee bars, gradually turning these places into offices (Martins, 2015). The presence and usage of mobile digital devices has a profound impact on social interaction in public.
“At the community table, visitors hide behind their laptop. Facebook-chats pop up, an e-mail is being sent. On almost each table lies a smartphone. A girl next to me is texting a friend, whereas another patron sits in the corner and is making a phone call. People are clearly interacting, though it remains quiet in the coffee bar”.
Observation (26 September, 2014) at Matchstick Coffee Roasters (Vancouver)
This observation is illustrative to a situation that seems to apply to most specialty coffee bars. Observations have shown that on a regular basis, specialty coffee bars are dominated by the usage of mobile digital devices like laptops and smartphones. Regardless of whether or not in company of others, people have their smartphone within reach. Despite being with friends at a specialty coffee bar, most are meanwhile concerned with other forms of social interaction, primarily using their smartphone. Quite often, real-life conversations and online interaction with distant others blended: either did someone shift its attention between its company and its phone alternately, or was online interaction being used in real-life conversations. Singles at specialty coffee bars appeared even busier with their phones. While waiting for a coffee-to-go most immediately grabbed their phone. But, also patrons that were ‘to stay’ seemed primarily occupied with sending text-messages, checking Facebook, or making phone calls. It appeared
14 as if online interaction in virtual domains with familiar, distant friends was or greater value than getting caught-up in a conversation with an unknown, co-present visitor. A remark made by Eva (28), frequent visitor of Starbucks, supports this notion:
“When I am at Starbucks, I constantly use WhatsApp, check Facebook and Instagram, or call friends. So, you could argue that I do interact with others. However, it is pretty strange that it is not with people present at Starbucks, but with friends who are not..”
Eva (28), visitor at Starbucks (Amsterdam)
Noticeable is that, while observing, there seemed to be some sort of natural selection between laptop-users and other visitors in terms of seating. In conversations with various baristas, this observation was confirmed by their experiences. Singles mainly sit apart from others, while laptop-users tended to cluster around large community tables. Here, they would find space seating, plugs, and others with similar activities. In general, two types of laptop-users in specialty coffee bars were observed: true mobiles, who were mainly concerned with work and blocked themselves from others (e.g. by wearing headphones), and placemakers, hanging out at coffee bars mainly for means of people watching and relaxation (Hampton & Gupta, 2008). While it appeared as if placemakers were more open to social interaction with strangers, most laptop-users were not very interactive in real-life: rather, most interaction occurred in virtual domains such as Facebook or WhatsApp, as people were heavily using their laptop or phone.
Figure 2: Laptop-users clustered around a community table (Photo: Wietze Gelmers, 2015)
Although aforementioned brief forms of real-life interaction between strangers in part still make up for the social sphere in specialty coffee bars, intimate, more extensive conversations
15 of singles seem to have shifted to virtual domains, using their laptop or smartphone to interact with distant friends. Rather than taking place in real-life, a considerable part of interaction in specialty coffee bars now occurs in virtual domains through laptops and smartphones. In this way, patrons can interact with distant acquaintances that are not present, and simultaneously screen themselves from co-present strangers. In addition, online interaction can be used as an alternation (or an enrichment) of real-life interaction, between fixed groups or strangers.
A contrast of contexts
Mentionable differences were found between the various (independent) specialty coffee bars. Starbucks appears to lose out in attracting new urban middle-class urbanites. As a result of this, observations found a significantly smaller number of laptops present, possibly indicating that Starbucks is being used less for means of work and study. However, this did not lead to a very distinct pattern of social interaction compared to independent specialty coffee bars. The absence of laptops did not increase social interaction or conversation between strangers at Starbucks. Rather, social interaction at Starbucks proved to be relatively similar compared to social interaction in independent specialty coffee bars: conversation mainly occurred between fixed groups of familiar faces, while individuals were mostly concerned with their personal activities. Most visitors did not seem to be interested in strangers, despite stating otherwise. Noticeable is that at both Turk’s and Coffee Bru, two independent specialty coffee bars with a longer period of existence, more random encounters between familiar, single patrons took place. These specialty coffee bars almost felt like neighborhood cafés, serving as gathering sites that facilitated random encounters and interaction between ‘neighbors’. People bumped into each other more often and subsequently even engaged in conversations with strangers. It was also found that in here, people mentioned feeling a stronger sense of belonging towards others: it is ‘their’ coffee bar, where they find their neighbors. Period of existence seems to play a role when it comes to social interaction and community in these independent specialty coffee bars. Alternatively, visitors at White Label Coffee and Matchstick Coffee Roasters felt mostly connected towards others based on their similar lifestyle, while patrons at Starbucks mainly felt a sense of belonging to a brand community (Bookman, 2013a, 2013b). Despite Vancouver’s coffee scene being more mature and extensive than Amsterdam’s coffee scene, no major differences between the cities were found in terms of social interaction in specialty coffee bars. This may suggest that this third wave in coffee creates a more or less similar coffee bar-culture in cities with rather comparable socio-economic contexts, and variation is primarily to be found—and can be addressed to aspects—within the walls of these places.
16 Discussion
Rooted in larger societal socio-economic changes, cities are experiencing a mushrooming of (independent) specialty coffee bars in their streetscape. Where traditional coffeehouses have been applauded for their inclusiveness and social sphere, contemporary specialty coffee bars are regularly dubbed as domains of a new urban middle-class, mainly attracting young urban professionals and symbolizing cosmopolitan lifestyles. Where coffeehouses traditionally used to stimulate sociability, conversation, and community, their modern equivalents are primarily being judged for an absence of social interaction, and offering nothing but a simulation of a third place. Against the backdrop of an increasing individualizing society, and the profound growth of mobile digital devices like smartphones and laptops, social interaction and social sphere in specialty coffee bars has been explored. Ethnographic research, through participant observation and conversations in various specialty coffee bars in Vancouver and Amsterdam, has been conducted to construct an understanding of how specialty coffee bars serve as public gathering sites, and how urbanites in turn behave and interact in these places.
This article has demonstrated that social sphere in specialty coffee bars is characterized by a complex duality of social interaction that occurs in both real-life and virtual domains. On the one hand, people perform real-life, face-to-face interaction like sociability and conversation. However, this increasingly occurs between fixed groups of familiar faces, thereby eroding the function of coffee bars as sites to meet strangers and creating new social ties. It would be too simplistic to argue that visitors hold a blasé attitude towards other patrons in specialty coffee bars, but despite expressing a willingness to do so, most rarely interact with visitors that they do not know. Occasional, casual small talk between single patrons aside, conversation in specialty coffee bars primarily takes place between fixed groups of acquaintances. In that respect, real-life interaction has primarily become a private affair. However, this is only half of the story. Increasingly, visitors of specialty coffee bars appear to be concerned with mobile digital devices such as laptops and smartphones. Not only are they being used for means of work and study, clearly they also play a role when it comes to social interaction. It enables people to interact with distant friends, using the virtual domains of Facebook, WhatsApp, or e-mail to reach out to—and maintain social ties with—their familiar acquaintances. As a consequence, visitors at specialty coffee bars are alternately conversing with co-present visitors in real-life, while simultaneously chatting with distant others, using a laptop or smartphone. This duality of social interaction that takes place in specialty coffee bars reflects a societal trend, which is acknowledged by Humphreys (2010: p.763): “The development and
17 proliferation of mobile social networks have the potential to transform ways that people come together and interact in public space. These services allow new kinds of information to flow into public spaces and as such can rearrange social and spatial practices”. Rather than having fully replaced traditional coffeehouse sociability, the presence of mobile digital devices has modified, perhaps even enriched social sphere in specialty coffee bars, creating a complex setting in which people alternately interact in real-life and virtual domains. The importance and influence of mobile phones in maintaining mundane social relations has been discussed extensively. Mobile phones make communities and social ties easily reachable and accessible (Hampton & Gupta, 2008). As Ling (2009: p.160) emphasizes: “The mobile phone is the tool of the intimate sphere […] In a situation where there otherwise might have been the opportunity for talking with a stranger, we can instead gossip, flirt, or joke with friends, intimates, or family members”. Whether it is through e-mail, WhatsApp, or Facebook, people at specialty coffee bars use mobile digital devices to interact with acquaintances, evoking the parochial domain and related interaction (de Waal, 2014). It is something people generally prioritize over exposing to—and interacting with—strangers in public. This appears to be the crux central to social interaction in specialty coffee bars nowadays: while patrons are willing to interact with strangers, it is simply something they do not prioritize. Rather, most people opt to interact online with friends who are not present, using their smartphone or laptop. As de Waal (2014) argues, this notion is in part the essence of modern urban life: at one moment we prefer interaction with co-present others, while the next moment we retreat ourselves out of active engagement with our surroundings. What is new, however, is that we do not withdraw from social interaction as such: rather, we continue to interact virtually.
It would be too simplistic and unjust to state that specialty coffee bars are characterized by an absence of social interaction, or that they do not fit the idea of a third place. Rather, it is the social sphere and the nature of interaction that has changed compared to older coffeehouses. Shifting back and forth between different groups of patrons, occurring in both real-life and virtual domains, social interaction in specialty coffee bars entails a duality that continuously modifies and reshapes the prevailing social sphere. Specialty coffee bars are still considered to be important public gathering sites, where people meet (unknown) others, and construct sociability through joy, conversation, and association. What is different is that this appears to have become a rather private affair of a more homogeneous group of urbanites. Next to that, a crucial difference is the performance of online interaction by visitors. This particular blurring of real-life and virtual domains in specialty coffee bars could signal a larger transformation of
18 urban societal parochalization (de Waal, 2014) and raises important questions. In turn, it has
become somewhat harder to pin down what social interaction exactly entails nowadays, and how social sphere in public places—like coffee bars—subsequently should be determined.
This article has advocated the incorporation of online interaction as an inevitable aspect when determining social interaction in specialty coffee bars. This particular form of interaction blends co-present and distant people in both public and parochial domains, modifying and potentially enriching the social interaction and social sphere that prevails in coffee bars. Online interaction has inevitably become an ingrained part of human behavior in public, and therefore deserves significant (academic) attention. However, one should be critical at the same time. Recognizing the popularity of online interaction in public does raise questions with respect to how people value both physical- and social nearness of others in relation to social interaction. Additionally, online interaction may have profound consequences for the construction of communities and forms of belonging around particular groups of people and/or physical places. This article has demonstrated that although specialty coffee bars act as sites with an important social function, the facilitated real-life and online interaction occurs primarily between homogeneous societal groups. Therefore, it may be needed to critically (re-)examine these places their inclusiveness, and with that the influence they (may) have on the construction of societal networks and -hierarchy. Such critical notions or questions could be both socially and academically relevant entries for additional research.
References
Abbott, A. (2004) Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. W.W. Norton & Company: New York.
Anderson, B. (2006) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. Verso Books: New York.
Anderson, E. (2004) The Cosmopolitan Canopy: Race and Civility in Everyday Life. The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 595(1), 14-31.
Atkinson, R. (2003) Domestication by Cappuccino or a Revenge on Urban Space? Control and Empowerment in the Management of Public Spaces. Urban Studies, 40(9), 1829-1843.
Bauman, Z. (2013) The Individualized Society. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
Beaverstock, J.V., Smith, R.G. & Taylor, J.P. (1999) A Roster of World Cities. Cities, 16(6), 445-458.
19 Bookman, S. (2013a) Branded Cosmopolitanisms: ‘Global’ Coffee Brands and the
Co-creation of ‘Cosmopolitan Cool’. Cultural Sociology, 7(1), 56-72.
Bookman, S. (2013b) Coffee Brands, Class and Culture in a Canadian City. European
Journal of Cultural Studies, 1-19.
Bookman, S. (2014) Brands and Urban Life: Specialty Coffee, Consumers, and the Co-creation of Urban Café Sociality. Space & Culture, 17(1), 85-99.
Boterman, W., Karsten, L. & Musterd, S. (2010) Gentrifiers Settling Down? Patterns and Trends of Residential Location of Middle-Class Families in Amsterdam. Housing
Studies, 25(5), 693-714.
Burnett, K. (2014) Commodifying Poverty: Gentrification and Consumption in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. Urban Geography, 35(2), 157-176.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Bridge, G. & Dowling, R. (2001) Microgeographies of Retailing and Gentrification.
Australian Geographer, 32(1), 93-107.
Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society,
and Culture, Volume 1. Wiley: Oxford.
Chan, J. (2013) Ethnography as Practice: Is Validity an Issue? Current Issues in Criminal
Justice, 25(1), 503-516.
Emerson, R.M. (1981) Observational Field Work. Annual Review of Sociology, 7, 351-378. Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class: And How it’s Transforming Work, Leisure,
Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books: New York.
Gaudio, R.P. (2003) Coffeetalk: Starbucks and the Commercialization of Casual Conversation. Language in Society, 32(5), 659-691.
Gerring, J. (2006) Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Glackin, S. (2015) Contemporary Urban Culture: How Community Structures Endure in an Individualized Society. Culture and Organization, 21(1), 23-41.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books, Doubleday: New York.
Goffman, E. (1963) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of
Gatherings. Free Press: New York.
Goffman, E. (1971) Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. Basic Books: New York.
20 Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: A Inquiry into a
Category of Bourgeois Society. Polity Press: Oxford.
Hagemans, I., Hendriks, A., Rath, J. & Zukin, S. (2015) From Greengrocers to Cafés.
Producing Diversity in Amsterdam. In: Chen, X., Kasinitz, P. & Zukin, S. (eds.) Local Streets: Everyday Diversity from New York to Shanghai. Routledge: New
York.
Hampton, K.N. & Gupta, N. (2008) Community and Social Interaction in the Wireless City: Wi-Fi Use in Public and Semi-Public Spaces. New Media & Society, 10(6), 831-850. Humphreys, L. (2005) Cellphones in Public: Social Interactions in a Wireless Era. New
Media & Society, 7(6), 810-833.
Humphreys, L. (2010) Mobile Social Networks and Urban Public Space. New Media &
Society, 12(5), 763-778.
Jensen, S.Q. (2006) Rethinking Subcultural Capital. Young, Nordic Journal of Youth
Research, 14(3), 257-276.
Karsten, L. (2014) From Yuppies to Yupps: Family Gentrifiers Consuming Spaces and Re-Inventing Cities. Tijdschrift voor Economische- en Sociale Geografie, 105(2), 175-188.
Karsten, L., Kamphuis. A & Remeijnse, C. (2015) ‘Time-Out’ With the Family: the Shaping of Family Leisure in the New Urban Consumption Spaces of Cafes, Bars, and Restaurants. Leisure Studies, 34(2), 161-188.
Laurier, E. & Philo, C. (2007) ‘A Parcel of Muddling Muckworms’: Revisiting Habermas and the English Coffee-Houses. Social & Cultural Geography, 8(2), 259-281. LeCompte, M.D. & Goetz, J.P. (1982) Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic
Research. Review of Education Research, 52(1), 31-60.
Lees, L., Slater, T. & Wyly, E.K. (2013) Gentrification. Routledge: New York.
Ley, D. (2003) Artists, Aestheticisation and the Field of Gentrification. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2527-2544.
Ley, D. & Dobson, C. (2008) Are There Limits to Gentrification? The Contexts of Impeded Gentrification in Vancouver. Urban Studies, 45(12), 2471-2498.
Ling, R. (2009) New Tech, New Ties. MIT Press: Cambridge.
Mitchell, D. & Staeheli, L.A. (2009) Public Space. International Encyclopedia of Human
Geography: Elsevier, 511-516.
Martins, J. (2015) The Extended Workplace in a Creative Cluster: Exploring Space(s) of Digital Work in Silicon Roundabout. Journal of Urban Design, 20(1), 125-145.
21 Neff, G., Wissinger, E. & Zukin, S. (2005) Entrepreneurial Labor among Cultural Producers:
‘Cool’ Jobs in ‘Hot’ Industries. Social Semiotics, 15(3), 307-334.
Newman, K. & Wyly, E.K. (2006) The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City. Urban Studies, 43(1), 23-57. Oldenburg, R. (1999) The Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair
Salons and Other Hangouts at the Heart of A Community. Perseus Book Group:
Philadelphia.
Rothgeb, T. (2003) Norway and Coffee. Newsletter of the Roasters Guild (Spring, 2003). Roy, R.J. (forthcoming) The Emergence of a Cosmopolitan Habitus: Cultural Diversity as Commodity in Everyday Consumption Landscapes. Submitted to Urban Studies, 1-34.
Scott, A. J. (2008) Social Economy of the Metropolis: Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism and the
Global Resurgence of Cities. Oxford University Press: New York.
Simmel, G. (1903) The Metropolis and Mental Life. In: Simmel, G. (1976) The Sociology of
Georg Simmel. Free Press: New York.
Simmel, G. & Hughes, E.C. (1949) The Sociology of Sociability. American Journal of
Sociology, 55(3), 254-261.
Simon, B. (2009) Everything but the Coffee: Learning about America from Starbucks. University of California Press: Los Angeles.
Smith, N. (2002) New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy.
Antipode, 34(3), 427-450.
Sullivan, D., Stewart, S.A. & Diefendorf, J. (2015) Simmel’s Time-Space Theory:
Implications for Experience of Modernization and Place. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 41, 45-57.
Susser, I. (2002) The Castells Reader on Cities and Social Theory. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford. Thornton, S. (1996) Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital. Wesleyan
University Press: Cambridge.
Tonnelat, S. (2010) The Sociology of Urban Public Spaces. In: Wang, H., Savy, M. & Zhai, G. (eds.) Territorial Evolution and Planning Solution: Experiences From China and
France. Atlanta Press: Paris.
Veblen, T. (1912) The Theory of the Leisure Class. The MacMillan Company: New York. Waal, M. de (2014) The City as Interface. How New Media Are Changing the City. Nai010
22 Whyte, W.H. (1980) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Conservation Foundation:
Washington D.C.
Zelinsky, W. & Lee, B.A. (1998) Heterolocalism: An Alternative Model of the Sociospatial Behavior of Immigrant Ethnic Communities. International Journal of Population
Geography, 4(4), 281-298.
Zukin, S. (1998) Urban Lifestyles: Diversity and Standardization in Spaces of Consumption.
Urban Studies, 35(5-6), 825-839.
Zukin, S. (2008) Consuming Authenticity: From Outposts of Difference to Means of Exclusion. Cultural Studies, 22(5), 724-748.
Zukin, S., Trujillo, V., Frase, P., Jackson, D., Recuber, T. & Walker, A. (2009) New Retail Capital and Neighborhood Change: Boutiques and Gentrification in New York City.
City & Community, 8(1), 47-64.
Zukin, S. (2010) Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford University Press: New York.
i Rath, J.C. & Gelmers, W. (2014) Coffee in the City [http://theprotocity.com/coffee-city/]
ii 11 of the Best Cities for Coffee Lovers [http://matadornetwork.com/life/11-worlds-best-cities-coffee-lovers/] iii The Coffeevine [http://thecoffeevine.com] [Interview: 11 February, 2015]
