Consumptive Diversity: Or, why we should rebel. Loudly.
Hayley Richardson | Sat, Nov 10th, 2007 | Category: Commentary | Tags: hayley richardson, starbucks, bryant simon, west philly, green line cafe, manayunk, consumptive diversity, white privelege
That Starbucks has emerged as the 21st century simulacra of a public sphere is an exhaustively imagined subject. The same goes for their notorious ability to wreak havoc on local economies, and their contribution to the “generification” of landscapes nationwide.
Which is why Temple University history professor Bryant Simon decided to approach the coffee behemoth from a different angle when writing his just-published book, Learning from Starbucks; or, Making the World Safe for a Half-Caf, Extra-Foam, Extra-Hot Three-Pump Vanilla Latte. Simon spoke Friday at the University of Pennsylvania’s Urban Ethnography Workshop, where he revealed some of his findings from the several years he spent “hanging out” at Starbucks across the country.
The most immediately compelling of Simon’s inquiries was his exploration of the ways Starbucks creates a series of paradoxical moments for its customers; moments I would argue support both a wholehearted embrace and simultaneous rejection of white/class privilege.
Consider this; all aspects of the Starbucks experience act as a reassurance of belonging to the middle class. It’s everything McDonald’s is not, resplendent in handsome wood flooring, intimate lighting, and fancy nomenclature. And it’s ingeniously overpriced; by association with Starbucks, customers can display their lifestyle preferences, as well as demonstrate access to disposable income to throw away on coffee indulgences. Who knew a little green icon could say so much.
So if this is an exercise in white privilege, what then, of this aforementioned rejection?
Simon argued that Starbucks is a company committed to projecting an image of diversity. To illustrate, he reflected on his visit with the CEO, where he was transported from the downtown office to a Starbucks location in a largely African American neighborhood. Never mind that there had been a location on the first floor.
From the pictures of smiling Chiapan coffee farmers on the walls to the letter from Magic Johnson inside the Howard University Starbucks, the whole operation is designed to reassure consumers that the company is a rainbow operation. And it works the other way too, in a so-called “blink moment,” where customers see diversity upon entrance in the store and immediately feel good about themselves. As Simon sees it, this acts as a way for white consumers to assuage guilt, not over being overtly racist, but for doing so little in their own lives to further racial and economic equality. (Interesting to note that Seattle, where Starbucks is headquartered, was most recently in the news for striking down a law that would have promoted integration through school districting.)
This superficial commitment to diversity raises a number of provocative questions about urban living; I immediately revisited Michele’s recent post on the follies of whiteness in Bellevue, and my own on the subject of immigration. I’m a tad troubled by the way words like “vibrant” and healthy” are tossed around to describe diverse spaces, without being accompanied deep reflection on what that means in our highly stratified society. Do we want genuine diversity, or consumptive diversity mediated through the lens of middle class participation? And who will get to dictate the terms?
But perhaps this isn’t so nefarious; after all, I suppose the opposite would look something like Manayunk, a suburb of Philadelphia where people don’t even pretend to care about diversity. There, they can live in close proximity to urban amenities without dealing with the messiness that comes along with it. At least we’re...trying?
Needless to say, after the discussion’s denouement, I fled to West Philly’s Green Line Cafe, where I could rest assured that the patchwork quilt of people stemmed not from a marketing scheme, but from the fact that $1.50 is a damn cheap cup of coffee.
Brendan
Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 6:56pm
It’s very possible that I’m reading too far into this, but within the context of this article, it feels like the term “suburb” is hurled at Manayunk almost like a racial epithet. How is it that you can condemn Starbucks’ selective diversity in the same breath that you apply selective urbanism to a city neighborhood?
I find Starbucks’ misleading marketing campaign (re: their embrace of diversity) off-putting, but the wholesale reduction of cities to racial demographics is outright disturbing. Using “urban” as a slang term to refer to minority-majority areas cheapens diversity—and urban racial politics—more than any marketing campaign ever could.
-----
JonE
Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 2:35pm
Very interesting post. It seems to me that so-called consumptive diversity could be termed “hypocritical diversity”. The points that Starbucks has a “notorious ability to wreak havoc on local economies, and “contributed to the “generification” of landscapes nationwide” are paradoxical to the idea of the promotion of diversity. The effects speak louder than the marketing, in my opinion.
In my personal experience, I’ve never walked into a Starbucks and felt reassured of any sort of contribution to diversity. I HAVE felt that I paid too much for my cider.
Hayley Richardson
Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 3:18am
Brendan-
I relied on the term “suburb” when referring to Manayunk not to itimate at demographics, but because I thought it was literally outside the city limits, hence, suburb.
As it is technically a neighborhood in the far Northwest of Philadelphia, I hereby replace the term “suburb” with “enclave.”
I’m not sure which use of “urban” you found the most troubling, but considering that the post was about diversity in an urban context, I don’t know how I could speak of it without making an association between the two. Apologies to have offended, but I think the point still stands. When we say we want diversity, what do we mean by this, who gets to decide the terms, and who does it actually benefit?