"I think hating Starbucks is almost as cliche as loving it" Such was the comment received on this post, in which J-lo and I discussed Starbucks and its intent to destroy the world as we know it.

First of all, yeah, I agree. For those of you who watched the video included in that post, Bryant Simon, the Temple professor who is writing a book on Starbucks, talked about this. Essentially Starbucks has come to symbolize what a lot of people think is wrong with America. Back in the Mythical Old Days, people used to buy their cup of coffee from a local coffeeshop, a place where: a) they enjoyed good conversation and community; b) knew their money was going to support a local establishment; and c) the coffee actually tasted good, was not superloaded with caffeine, and did not eat a hole through their stomach lining.

We all know this transition away from the local and to the global has various causes. It has plenty of negatives, many of them very serious. It also has a wide array of benefits (you like having weird Brazilian fruits in your smoothies? me too). Of all of these various causes and effects, very few are directly related to the Starbucks brand itself.

You know, there's a new joke that is kicking around in my head that I think would apply here. It is this: Two Americans are walking around in Red Square, in Moscow. They see an enormous line of Muscovites, several hundred meters in length. One says to the other, "This is terrible, look at all of these people waiting in line, what is this for, just to see the embalmed Lenin? Surely communism is on the rise again and we are all doomed." The other, slightly more aware, says, "Friend, don't worry, communism is deader than ever. Capitalism is thriving. How do I know? They're actually all in line for their morning latte from Starbucks."

In that, you can see the generalization: the spread of Starbucks is instantly associated with the liberalization of markets and with old ways fading away, for good. So, in saying, "I hate Starbucks, I don't drink Starbucks, Starbucks is evil," we are actually saying, "I reject the future, with all of its robotic tastes and globalized identity."

I do not feel as strongly as some may on this issue. I do not drink Starbucks, except in situations in which there is no realistic alternative. But my principal objection to Starbucks is not, in fact, something very "macro" or global. Instead, it is as local as possible. Their coffee absolutely sucks.

Very few Starbucks fans that I know actually go in there and say, "One cuppa coffee please." Really what they are doing is going in and ordering desserts. Desserts that are socially acceptable to have at 8 am. As I suggested to my pro-Starbucks friend recently, his ordering habits are more akin to stopping by the ice cream shop for a sundae than they are sipping a nice homebrew joe on a Sunday morning. In fact, Prof. Simon makes the argument that Starbucks itself serves as a sort of reward ritual, whereby people get in rhythms of "treating themselves" on a daily basis.

So, going back to the comment that spurred this post: yes, love it or hate it, Starbucks has grown to exist not only on every block in your city, but also in the rich land of metaphor.

Labels: bad coffee, Starbucks

  ¶ 8:00 PM