The status symbol is not any over-the-top caloric, sweet drink, nor does it come from just any place. [A classic move in which the origin of something is supposed to be revelatory: not just any place, but...] Starbucks PSLs are products of coffee shop culture, with its gendered and racial codes [Everything has gendered and racial codes, right?]. European historians such as Ellis (2004) in Coffee House, find coffee shop culture’s roots in the British Empire of the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. [who cares? does his really relate to contemporary situations?] Deeply masculine spaces, [ok, so what? That is trying to identify them with something bad in a ritualized denunciation, but pointless in this context because the point is to scorn white girls who order Starbucks.] coffee shops witnessed political debates, rebellion planning, and religious foment. [and people hanging out not engaged in anything related to this.] Not until the 1950s’ reemergence of coffee houses as Italian espresso bars did they “represent a place where people of all kinds could socialise together: richer with poorer, migrants with metropoles, women with men, creating a space that seemed to [did it seem to reject those values or really reject them?] reject the values of official discourse on class, gender and race” (245). [Pretentious.] Concurrent with women’s entrance were milky, sweet drinks; Ellis called them together the “lactification of the coffee-house.” His odd phrase nonetheless makes visible underlying feminizing and whitening of drinks, spaces, and practices of coffee shops. [This border on misogyny; it is easy to make fun of white women, apparently since they drink lattes] Ellis concluded, “The sociability of the chain coffee bar has cut its links with the vengeful, transgressive crowd, on the verge of insurrection. It is not simply that the mob has been excluded by the anodyne luxury of the corporate coffee shop, but that these places cultivate a sociability designed to reform the mob into a more tranquil, even docile, crowd of consumers” (258).6 [pretentious. All this says is that a corporate Starbucks is not like some stereotype of a beatnik coffee shop.] Ellis’s prescience was demonstrated as 200 million lactified, docile consumers ordered their PSLs. [borderline racist misogyny: white girls are "lactified" {whatever that means} and "docile"]
One of the authors is
ELIZABETH S. D. ENGELHARDT is the John Shelton Reed Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies in the Department of American Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599–3520. Her interdisciplinary research interests include Southern cultures, gender, food studies in the humanities, feminist theories, Appalachian studies, public humanities, oral history practices, and the intersections of race, class, and gender in American literature and society.
7 comments:
I don't think it's fair to malign whole disciplines because of this. The same kind of thing, if you don't like this, goes on in every discipline. Repetitions of urban legends. Etc. Said's Orientalism is about the non-objectivity of scholarship. Etc. I don't like most of my colleagues' work, for reasons like those you give on this paper, but they're working in traditional disciplines, so what does that say about the viability of those disciplines, according to the intimation that this only happens in work on/by women, people of color, etc.?
I have to bite my tongue a lot in my own field, too. The epistemic crisis is not due to gender studies or to postmodernism or some caricature of it, but to something deeper.
The other thing is that I find I can be too quick to judgment. It's easy to make fun of narrow fields, esoteric things, work on what seems, to you, outlandish. My student says you have to consider that everything is important. I think I am going to ask Facebook whether pumpkins are white.
...so I left it up on FB all day. This article is more interesting than you might think.
Yes, I read people's comments on your post on FB. Though some reacted as I did that it was similar to the hoax articles.
Here's a really good piece that the article cites. Pumpkins are important. Also, I wish I'd saved it, some white people arranged to give birth in a pumpkin field. It appears that pumpkins really are white. Anyway, read this: https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/hecho-en-illinois/Content?oid=923678 [On reactions to FB: note that it is mostly the T voters who were freaked out by the article, and the POC who said wait, pumpkins do matter] ... anyway, read the Chicago Reader thing, it is important
I think that what I was responding to was not the obviously true idea that Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte is culturally coded as being for white girls, which I could have told you if you didn't already know, but the irrelevant scholarly machinery needed to establish that. Do we really have to go back to 17th century coffee shops to know that? The earnestness of this scholarly exposition is hilarious in proportion to the triviality of the point being made. We are promised a compelling narrative, that the pumpkin spice latte has some rich cultural history behind it, and really it doesn't.
And the condescension toward the consumers of that product is very striking. How do the authors know that these girls are "docile"? A point that actually needs to be argued is simply asserted, but an obvious thing requires that kind of exposition?
Post a Comment