 | ||
| Photograph by Edd Casey |
From Left to Right: Jessica-Hope Booth, Jack Cross, Ian Matthews, Hannah Nicholas, Jordan Simms, Kimberley Emby
An exploration into the theatrical potential of aspects of ‘coffee
culture’ and the coffee house as a liminal space.
And I quote, ‘A coffee-house exists to sell coffee, but the coffee-house cannot
simply be reduced to this retail function. In his Dictionary, Samuel Johnson
defined a coffee house as ‘A house of entertainment where coffee is sold, and
the guests are supplied with newspapers.’ More than a place that sells coffee,
Johnson suggests, a coffee house is also an idea, a way of life, a mode of
socialising, a philosophy,’[1]
end quote, Markman Ellis, 2004.
It becomes necessary to acknowledge
that this exploration is not just about the coffee, and it speaks about coffee
culture primarily in relation to the coffee house rather than for home consumption,
as an integral part of home consumption is the beverage itself.
By focusing on the coffee house,
liminality becomes particularly interesting to consider as it refers to the
idea of the ‘in-between’, something which is temporal, in this case the act of
having a coffee in a coffee house. The coffee house becomes this ‘third space’,
with major coffee franchises presenting it commonly as that in between the home
and work place.
However, this concept of ‘the third
space’ doesn’t acknowledge what it is
about if the exploration into coffee culture, specifically in relation to the
coffee house, is not just about the coffee.
In its inception, the coffee house
competed greatly with other popular social spaces, becoming considered a ‘non
alcoholic tavern’. And I quote ‘If a
library is designed to encourage privacy and to keep people out of each other’s
way, taverns are designed for just the opposite purpose,’[2]
end quote, Robert Sommer, 1969. These liminal spaces which are designed for
social interaction suggest that, returning to the coffee house, coffee culture
is about humanity, rather than the material substance. Considering this
importance of interaction, the realms of sociology and psychology become
interesting as a means of accessing the theatre within this culture, as, and I
quote, ‘there is more than a little theatricality in ordinary human conduct’[3]
end quote, McCall and Simmons, 1966.
Looking to psychology and sociology
as a means of understanding the theatre present in coffee house culture, it
becomes clear how specifically this space becomes of interest. The coffee house
becomes, to return to Johnson’s definition, a liminal everyday house of
entertainment or an everyday theatre, whose inhabitants become a collective of
audience and performers of coffee culture, and their interactions and ordinary
human conduct become the performance. Thus, essentially, the everyday space of
the coffee house provides a stage off of which people can, and I quote, ‘affirm identity, express values, or affirm
social ties.’[4] End
quote, Catherine M. Tucker, 2010.
It becomes clear that, when
considering liminality, one must be prepared to accept cohabiting polar
opposites. To define a coffee house as an everyday theatre places the word
everyday, and thus refers to notions of the expected reality, in connection
with the word theatre, which traditionally can be considered that which is not
real.
And I quote ‘When
referring to the phenomenon of everyday life, the great French sociologist and
philosopher Henri Lefebvre was fond of mentioning G. W. F. Hegel’s maxim ‘The
familiar is not necessarily the known’,[5]
end quote, Michael E. Gardiner, 2000.
The coffee house as a ‘familiar’
space has housed events which are ‘not necessarily the known,’ including
political debates, the use of prostitution to lure in customers, artistic or
scientific discovery and free social expression.
The existence of such events in the
coffee house once again reinforces this concept of liminality, this time in the
shifting between the ordinary and the extra-ordinary or unpredictable, which
acts as a further aspect of the coffee house which demonstrates a strong
theatrical potential.
Within theatre, the element of
surprise, or the unpredictability of the live art form, is what continues to
maintain the attention of audiences. Maybe it is also this which attracts
’audiences’ to coffee houses.
The reason for visiting a coffee
house is explored with the material substance of coffee acting as a secondary
reason, and we are reminded of the idea that it is a way of life and a mode of
socialising, with major reasons for this activity including that of social interaction
and individual enjoyment. However, one cannot forget the importance this
activity plays as a ritual, and the attention which is given to coffee’s
preparation and enjoyment. Baristas in coffee shops are often presented with
precise orders such as and I quote ‘a
decaf single grande extra vanilla two percent extra caramel 185-degree with
whipped cream caramel macchiato,’ end quote, Taylor Clark, 2008.
Specifically considering ritual, it
instinctively appears in the realm of the extra ordinary, whilst if we consider
ritual in relation to the act of having a coffee its everyday qualities become
more apparent and it takes on the appearance of routine. This concept makes
ritual part of the everyday, and thus familiar, again demonstrating this
liminal cohabitation of polar opposites. This connection further highlights how
theatre and the everyday are intrinsically connected, due to the role that
ritual often plays in the theatre of practitioners such as Grotowski and
Turner. One can question if human behaviour is also in this in-between space.
Is theatrical behaviour, or acting, and that of the everyday also
interconnected?
And I quote, ‘Acting, like all “simple” Anglo-Saxon words, is ambiguous – it can mean
doing things in everyday life, or performing on the stage or in a temple. It
can take place in ordinary time or in extraordinary time. It may be the essence
of sincerity or it may be the essence of pretence – when one “plays a part” in
order to conceal or dissimulate.’[6]
End quote, Victor Turner, 1982.
Thus, this in between nature of
coffee house culture becomes apparent, as it exists between home and work
place, everyday familiarity and the unknown and is a space where this in
between acting can naturally occur.
Lefebvre writes, and I quote ‘we are now entering the vast domain of the
illusory reverse image. What we find is a false world; firstly because it is
not a world, and because it presents itself as true, and because it mimics real
life closely in order to replace the real by its opposite. This is the ‘world’
of most films, most of the press, the theatre, the music hall: of a large
sector of leisure activities,’[7]
end quote, Henry Lefebvre, 1991.
Although it primarily appears as if
it is the everyday life, in this case the coffee house and coffee culture,
being explored through the illusory reverse image, in this case the theatre, it
becomes possible to consider the coffee house culture as both of these
concepts, or something which belongs in the liminal space between them.
The term illusory, from illusion,
is of particular interest in relation to both the psychology and sociology of
this culture and space. Considering human conduct and behaviour, this concept
of illusion in a psychological sense has connections to Jung’s theory of
personality and the collective subconscious, where archetypal figures exist for
us all to draw from as blueprints for behaviour. The word illusion is used here to explain the human tendency to
alter themselves in relation to their environment and situation, by, as Jung
suggests, drawing from these archetypal figures to adapt their character or
social mask. This results in the presentation of an illusory self or a character.
On the other hand the reference to
coffee culture as a means of affirming identity implies that it is possible for
a whole variety of differences to co-exist within it and it acts as space which
accepts individual expression. Thus,
psychologically speaking in terms of individual identity, the coffee house
becomes a space which allows for the expression of something in between this
illusory pretence and the essence of sincerity.
This liminal space between the
concepts of illusion and reality also exists in relation to the social aspects
of this culture. Sociologically considering human behaviour, the terms audience
and performer in relation to a coffee house provides a concrete connection
between this culture and the theatre. In the coffee house the common activity
aptly titled people watching is what makes behaviour of particular interest.
The actions and interactions draw
the attention of the audience to the performer acting them, as will a dynamic
entrance or exit. The baristas are also often referred to as showmen or
artists, ‘performing to their audience’ the art of making a coffee.
The word illusion in this sense
could refer to the audience often only catching glimpses of behaviour, moments
of interaction and fragments of conversation. Natural human intuitiveness thus
causes the consequential audience of the coffee house to engage their
imagination and create from these fragments an entire story in order to make
sense of their environment; essentially this can be considered an invention or
illusion.
Whilst this considers coffee
culture’s theatrical potential of individual, in terms of identity and
behaviour, the potential of coffee as a social lubricant, or a stimulant for
social interaction, is what provides a large aspect of its theatricality.
I quote ‘Interacting with other people is a sometimes perilous, often boring,
always effortful venture. Seldom thoroughly satisfying, such interaction
nevertheless remains the constant lot and recurring hope of individuals
everywhere,’[8]
end quote McCall and Simmons, 1966.
The coffee house can almost be
viewed as an excuse for interaction, a reason to realise this recurring hope
and spend time with another person. Although the interaction can vary greatly,
depending largely on the impulse behind visiting the coffee house, its
importance is what allows a parallel to be drawn with the theatre.
Affirming social ties, as a noted
factor of coffee house culture, becomes further interesting in relation to the
expression of individuality, when one considers the implications of co-existing
differences interacting with one another in a shared space. The concept of the
coffee house as this space to come together runs parallel to that of the
theatre, becoming almost an in between place which belongs to no individual and
thus is liminal in terms of who’s, for want of a better word, territory it
is.
And I quote, ‘Almost every commentator on the espresso bars noted the composition of
the customers, a mixture that seemed conspicuously new and different. They
observed how apparently prosperous working class men and women, often notably
young, mingled with the higher echelons of the middle classes: a provocatively
promiscuous mixture for the period. The espresso bars also catered to a strikingly
cosmopolitan crowd, composed of people of different races and cultures, again
mixing freely and in equality,’[9]
end quote, Markman Ellis, 2004.
Hypothetically, the coffee house
can further be considered liminal in its creation of a small world, where,
temporarily, all its inhabitants, are in some sense connected, belonging to the
same space, time and culture. It seems that the concept of individual identity
in a collective format is much more open than perhaps in other social spheres,
similar to the theatre.
Not only abundant in interaction
the coffee house becomes, and I quote, “the
ideal place for people who want to be alone but need company to do it,”[10]
end quote, Alfred Poger in Mark Pendergrast, 2010.
Thus we are reminded that coffee
culture and the coffee house are not just about the coffee, but, as with the
theatre, about the people.
Thank you.
Bibliography
Books
Allen, Stewart Lee.
The Devil’s Cup: Coffee, The Driving Force in History. Great Britain:
Canongate Books Ltd., 2000.
Bachelard, Gaston. The Poetics of Space: The Classic Look at
How we Experience Intimate Places. USA: Beacon Press, 1992.
Barba, Eugenio and Savarese, Nicola. A Dictionary of Theatre Anthropology: The Secret Art of the Performer.
London: Routledge, 1991.
Behar, Howard. It’s
Not About the Coffee: Lessons on Putting People First from a Life at Starbucks.
New York: Penguin, 2009.
Brown, C. H. Understanding
Society: An Introduction to Sociological Theory. London: John Murray Ltd,
1979.
Clark, Taylor. Starbucked.
Great Britain: Sceptre, 2008.
Climenhaga, Royd. Pina Bausch. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
Delgado,
Maria. Federico Garcia Lorca. London
and New York: Routledge, 2009.
Edwards,
Gwynne. Lorca: The Theatre Beneath the
Sand. Great Britain: Marion Boyars Publishers, 1980.
Ellis, Markman. The Coffee House: A Cultural History. Great Britain: Weidenfeld
& Nicolson, 2004.
Gardiner, Michael E.
Critiques of Everyday Life. London: Routledge, 2000.
Gómez-Peña,
Guillermo. Ethno-Techno. UK:
Routledge, 2005.
Hyde,
Maggie and McGuiness, Michael. Jung: A
Graphic Guide. UK: Icon Books Ltd, 2008.
Jung, C. G.
Four Archetypes. UK: Routledge, 2003.
Jung, C. G.
Psychological Types. London: Routledge,
1992.
Krech,
David, Crutchfield, Richard S. and Ballachey, Egerton L. Individual in Society. USA: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1962.
Lefebvre, Henri. Critique of Everyday Life Volume 1:
Introduction. London: Verso, 1991.
McCall, George J. and
Simmons, J. L. Identities and Interactions. New York:
The Free Press, 1966.
Pendergrast,
Mark. Uncommon Grounds: The History of
Coffee and How it Transformed the World. New York: Basic Books, 2010.
Rudlin, John. Commedia dell’ Arte an Actor’s Handbook.
London/ New York: Routledge, 1994.
Sommer, Robert.
Personal Space: The behavioural basis of design. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
1969.
Staniewski, Wlodzimierz.
Hidden Territories: The Theatre of Gardzienice. London: Routledge, 2004.
Tucker,
Catherine M. Coffee Culture: local
experiences, global connections. Oxon: Taylor & Francis, 2010.
Turner, Victor. From
Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: PAJ
Publications, 1982.
Wild,
Antony. Black Gold: A Dark History of
Coffee. London: Harper Perennial, 2005
[1]
Markman Ellis, The Coffee House: A
Cultural History: Preface, (Great
Britain, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2004) p. xi
[2]
Robert Sommer, Personal Space: The
behavioural basis of design (New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1969) p.1220
[3]
George J. McCall and J. L. Simmons, Identities
and Interactions (New York, The Free Press, 1966) p. 57
[4]
Catherine M. Tucker, Coffee Culture: local experiences, global
connections, (Oxon,
Taylor & Francis, 2010) p. 6 & 7
[5]
Michael E. Gardiner, Critiques of
Everyday Life, (London, Routledge, 2000) p. 1
[6]
Victor Turner, From Ritual to Theatre:
The Human Seriousness of Play, (New York, PAJ Publications, 1982) p. 102
[7]Henri
Lefebvre, Critique of Everyday Life
Volume 1: Introduction, (London, Verso, 1991) P. 84
[8]
George J. McCall and J. L. Simmons, Identities
and Interactions (New York, The Free Press, 1966) p. 1
[9]
Markman Ellis, The Coffee House: A
Cultural History: Preface, (Great
Britain, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2004) p. 233
[10]
Alfred Poger in Mark Pendergrast, Uncommon
Grounds: The History of Coffee and How it Transformed the World, (New York, Basic Books, 2010)
p. 342
