3 ms·

The article doesn’t seem to deliver on its headline. It seems plausible that urbanisation, economic growth and the emergence of a wealthy class with sufficient

by t_mann 7y ago

The article doesn’t seem to deliver on its headline. It seems plausible that urbanisation, economic growth and the emergence of a wealthy class with sufficient leisure time to hang out and discuss might also have had something to do with the spread of ideas about political freedoms. The article doesn’t touch on these at all, and doesn’t provide a compelling reason why the mentioned historic events wouldn’t have occurred without coffee. It seems more like a spurious correlation.

jeromebaek 7y ago
Every article on The Economist gives me this same reaction. Probably because they're a medium of neoliberalism, not legitimate journalism.
mortenjorck 7y ago
My reading of the article is that the missing piece from all that you mention was the right kind of “third place” for people to assemble outside their places of work, yet away from their homes. In other cultures, that might have been an ale house. But with the prohibition on alcohol in the region’s majority faith, it would appear there was nothing comparable until a beverage-based drug with socially acceptable effects gained a foothold and a market arose of social spaces serving it.
- kingofpandora 7y ago
  Why not the church or mosque (especially mosques with their open courtyards)? Or the every-present bathhouses which spread right through the Middle East, Anatloia and the Balkans? I agree with the comment above that the article fails to really establish whether the kahvehanes really were unique.
  - Amygaz 7y ago
    Your observations about ‘why not this!’ support OP: Religious place aren’t typically a place where people meet casually to scheme some new social structure that would weaken its clergy and royalty. Bathhouses aren’t exactly discrete or quiet. You can’t really have a conversation in there without anyone else listening. Plus there is function to it, it’s not just a casual place to meet and greet.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by t_mann 7y ago

jeromebaek 7y ago

Every article on The Economist gives me this same reaction. Probably because they're a medium of neoliberalism, not legitimate journalism.

mortenjorck 7y ago

My reading of the article is that the missing piece from all that you mention was the right kind of “third place” for people to assemble outside their places of work, yet away from their homes. In other cultures, that might have been an ale house. But with the prohibition on alcohol in the region’s majority faith, it would appear there was nothing comparable until a beverage-based drug with socially acceptable effects gained a foothold and a market arose of social spaces serving it.

kingofpandora 7y ago
Why not the church or mosque (especially mosques with their open courtyards)? Or the every-present bathhouses which spread right through the Middle East, Anatloia and the Balkans? I agree with the comment above that the article fails to really establish whether the kahvehanes really were unique.
- Amygaz 7y ago
  Your observations about ‘why not this!’ support OP: Religious place aren’t typically a place where people meet casually to scheme some new social structure that would weaken its clergy and royalty. Bathhouses aren’t exactly discrete or quiet. You can’t really have a conversation in there without anyone else listening. Plus there is function to it, it’s not just a casual place to meet and greet.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]