Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Coffeehouses and the shaping of Male Identity in Brian Cowan's The Social Life of Coffee


In The Social Life of Coffee, Brian Cowan highlighted an interesting cross between masculine identity and the English coffeehouse. He claims that in The Spectator and The Tatler, Richard Steele and Joseph Addison set forth ideals of a masculine coffeehouse. Men in 18th century London used coffeehouses to prove their masculinity; coffeehouses were also venues for which effeminate men were ridiculed for their primary interest in “self-display.” These “fops,” “beaus,” and “mollies” were not only criticized for their “self-display” and interest in feminine matters, but also because they did not contribute to the political, business, and cultural discourse of the coffeehouse. Joining in on this discourse was an expectation of coffeehouse “manners.” There was a fear that coffeehouses were becoming places that catered to “cheap gossip and egotistical self promotion” (Cowan 233).  It seems to me that coffeehouses dictated “proper” masculine discourse, and those who strayed from this discourse were not masculine enough, or were simply too female.
Effeminacy, newsmongering, obsessions with fashion, novelty, and self-display, were frowned upon. Coffeehouse patrons feared that there was a “misuse of the public sphere” (235).  Addison and Steele envisioned the public sphere as a “forum for urbane but not risqué conversation” (237).  They wanted to differentiate the “male” public sphere from the “female” private sphere. Thus, “male coffeehouse manners” became a popular concern of the day. In their periodicals, Addison and Steele were popular commentators on proper male behavior. How men behaved in coffeehouses was indicative of how masculine their identities were.
The idea that coffeehouses were so prominent in shaping male identity fascinates me. My research tends to focus on female identity as set forth by the pressures of society, and how conduct books, magazines, or novels of the time aimed to teach women how to behave. We can think of Steele and Addison’s periodicals as doing the same thing. Cowan says that even within “the Spectator’s accounts of female coffeehouse workers…the object of reform was not the women, but the men” (244). Addison and Steele used the coffeehouse as a venue for exploration of 18th century male ideals, and then commented on the behaviors of men within those coffeehouses. Their periodicals take the shape of male conduct manuals that differentiated proper from improper behavior, and set forth proper topics to be discussed in public spaces. Cowan comments that Addison and Steele’s periodicals created awareness to “masculine failings” (245).
But why was it so important to dictate proper behavior within a coffeehouse? If we think about coffee shops today, it would be difficult to answer this question. But in Addison and Steele’s contemporary society, the London coffeehouse represented the larger, British public sphere. Male identity was representative of a larger, British identity. 

4 comments:

  1. Great post, Nabilah. I too have read several 19th century texts and have done a great deal of research that revolved around male hegemony and the ideology that females needed behavioral reformation and societal restraints. I have always had the impression that women were always portrayed as the problem, and have had the false belief that liberty and equality were always increasing and progressing as time moved forward. Learning more about 18th century principles, it’s quite evident now that liberty did not always involve amelioration, but rather fluctuation. Women were not always condemned for working in public or criticized for their behavior. I enjoyed reading Addison and Steele because they strove to improve society as a whole, and they did not hesitate, as you stated, to comment on the behaviors of men in the coffeehouses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought your exploration of the propriety of the coffeehouse quite intriguing. Much of what we read either idealizes or demonizes the coffeehouse. I think it is important to view the coffeehouse as an integral part of the public sphere, and look at the interactions inside it as part of that sphere. This gives me a whole new perspective on the criticism of the effeminate male in the Tattler and Spectator. This may even help me as I am planning my final project around the rhetoric of those two periodicals.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is really interesting analysis! I just one question came up when I read your blog. What is the relationship between public space and the feminization of man? Does Addison worry about feminized man's appropriation of coffee house to propagate their effeminacy so that they lead corruption of public culture and public sphere?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I enjoyed your post Nabilah. Your post has helped me further understand male identity in the past week’s text. This was my first time reading any literature dealing with gender identity in the 18th century. While reading Addison and Steele I had to stop and look up words like “fop” and “dandy” because I wanted to make sure I understood the reading correctly. I had heard those terms before but obviously out of context. Anyway, like you, I have read more concerning female identity and domestic space and women’s role in society. This emphasis on male gender identity was quite different for me. I am interested in the effects of Addison and Steele’s periodicals on the effeminate male readers especially in regards to the public space “the coffeehouses.” After reading last week’s text my questions are from reading Addison and Steele, were these effeminate men then shunned upon and if so, did this cause tension within the coffeehouses?

    ReplyDelete