Third Place Discourse 1

Running Head: Third Place Discourse

Third Place Discourse

Alicia Carr

Senior, Communication Studies

Kansas State University

 Third Place Discourse 2

Abstract

This study looked at the form discourse takes in an environment of

commonplace rhetoric. Public discourse has transformed over recent years and we

are now finding that the public sphere involves coffee shops. Coffee shops allow a

chance to meet with friends and talk about issues that matter to individuals,

whether the issues are personal or involve the community. These third place

environments provide a location away from home and work for people to come

together with whomever they choose, whenever they choose. Using Hicks and

Langsdorfs Regulating Disagreement, Constituting Participants: A Critique of

Proceduralist Theories of Democracy, a narrated conversation by participants will

be analyzed using their four criteria to discover whether an everyday coffee shop

location, such as Starbucks, is producing discourse.

 Third Place Discourse 3

Introduction

A man name named Patrick was interviewed about his frequent visits to

coffee shops. The interviewer asked, Do you make coffee at home? Patrick replied

No. Never. Isnt that odd? I dont even own a coffee machine. Because, I mean, thats

the whole thing. I drink coffee because I want to be out among people. Like my mom

bought me an espresso machine 3, 4, 5 years ago. I dont even remember. I gave it

away the day she left [after a visit]. I dont drink coffee. I meet people. Thats the

whole f*ckin point. The draw for me is the people there; contact with other people,

(Thompson and Arsel 635).

According to a Starbucks 2008 Fact Sheet, there are over 7,000 company-

operated stores in the U.S. and an additional 4,000 licensed stores (such as those

found in grocery stores). California has the most at just over 2,000 stores. According

to Starbucks website, Kansas has 62 stores, including licensed stores. That may or

may not surprise you, but statistically, for the population of Kansas, there are 0.164

Starbucks per 10,000 people (StateMaster.com). For a moderately populated state,

Kansas has a fair amount of Starbucks. This is only considering the Starbucks in

Kansas not any other chains or local coffee shops.

Through research and collecting information from Starbucks customers, I

took a close look at what it is that people are talking about when they go to

Starbucks. What type of discourse is happening? Is it unique to the types of

discourse we find elsewhere?

During my experience working at Starbucks for the past year and a half, I have

gained particular interest in what draws so many people to the company. Many of
 Third Place Discourse 4

the regulars come by at least once a day. Most of them come inside and have a seat

for hours, either working online or meeting up with acquaintances.

I have often asked myself what it is that brings them to Starbucks. Why do

they not meet at home? Is the three to five dollars they spend on coffee giving extra

meaning to their life? It was not until recently that I began to understand the impact

of third place environments, and coffee shops in particular.

Third place environments have gained much recognition over the years for

their great success and large followings.1 For many people, third places such as

coffee shops have been seen as a place to simply get a cup of coffee. Now many

people view them as a place to get free Internet and to work away from work.

The environment of Starbucks is part of what makes Starbucks an ideal place

for their customers to get away from work and home. From the smell of the fresh

ground coffee, to the varietal soundtrack, Starbucks evokes a distinctive ambiance.

Starbucks coffee shops are also able to provide the rhetorical resources for creating

coherency in the context of the seeming cultural chaos that is constitutive of post

modernity (Dickinson 10). One possible result of the environment of Starbucks on

patrons is that it brings one out of everyday chaos and provides opportunities for

discourse which will be discussed further in the implications.

One author, when talking about Starbucks, said:

1
For example, - Store numbers rose faster from 1999, up from 2498 to 12,440 by the end
of 2006's fiscal year. (Speedy Starbucks has grown too fast. September 3, 2007.
http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2007/09/speedy-starbuck.html)
 Third Place Discourse 5

I wanted to be in a third place. A place where I could hang out, be part of the

stream of life (and this is very important for those of us who work at home),

read without falling asleep. Long ago, say 15 years back, our third place

choices were pretty slim. There was the library, where you couldnt talk, or

the diner, where you couldnt really read (and had to tip) Then along came

Starbucks and suddenly we had the kind of public life we had not

experienced since the death of Main Street. People lingered, mingled. They

lingled. (Skenazy 11)

Skenazy is just one example of individuals looking for a place to work and meet up

with people and to be around something out of the ordinary.

The purpose of this research is simple. Coffee shops have taken off across our

country. They are popular places for people of all ages to visit, meeting others, or

work. Something is attracting people everywhere to be part of the craze. What do

people talk about when they enter a coffee shop? Within Greg Dickinsons Joes

Rhetoric: Finding Authenticity at Starbucks lies the reasoning and purpose for this

research. Dickinson states, Rhetorical critics and theorists determined to get after

the consequential materiality of rhetoric can turn to the places of the practices of

the everyday. We can turn, in short, to Starbucks, (Dickinson 6).Dickinson explains

why Starbucks is the ideal third place to stay:

It serves as a good place to further explore the materiality and everydayness

of rhetoric precisely because it has become so intertwined in the everyday

lives of so many people. Starbucks is by far the largest chain of coffee shops

in the world. More than that, it has become a cultural institution that filters
 Third Place Discourse 6

through a range of other popular discourses including journalism, film,

television, and novels. What is crucial about Starbucks, though, is the ways it

is at once a globalized consumer institution and a local place in which the

mundane daily activities of sipping coffee, writing in journals, and conversing

with friends are practiced. (Dickinson 6-7)

Dickinson perfectly describes why Starbucks makes an ideal case study for this

research. Dickinson states that Starbucks is able to filter different types of

discourses. Research Question: How is discourse regulated at Starbucks?

Literature Review

Many different concepts and terms have been created to examine the public

sphere, the third place, and what these spaces provide. This literature review will

look at the public sphere and third place environment which are critically

important concepts to understand when looking at the discourse of coffee shops.

Habermas defines the public sphere as a sphere between the realm of civil society

and the state (Prince 145). The third place, coined by Oldenburg, describe places

that individuals go for the sense of a home away from home where people can

come to communicate outside of work and home life. The literature review will also

examine briefly several case studies of coffee shops that have had great success

regulating discourse to promote democracy.

Jurgen Habermas has been a very influential leader, examining the public

sphere. He coined the term public sphere in 1962 in his work: The Structural

Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society.

Since then his work has lead many others to seriously consider what it is that is
 Third Place Discourse 7

happening in places such as coffee shops. Most of the research found relating to

third place environments involves Habermas term.

The Public Sphere

Habermas discusses how the public sphere is a distinct and unique place

from the home, work, church, and government. The public sphere is a place where

people often come together to talk about daily life.

Habermas term has become quite influential since the publishing of his book

and a great deal of research has taken place over this concept. It is enthralling to see

how many people have come to view these spaces as their home, as somewhere to

see others from their community, and to disccuss life topics that matter to their

neighborhood. One major benefit of the public sphere is that access is guaranteed

to all citizens (Durham and Kellner 102). The public sphere allows for anyone to

participate.

The public sphere can be defined as a sphere between the realm of civil

society and the state (Habermas, 1989, xi). Habermas emphasizes the importance

of voluntary associations on the basis that they are the core institutions of a civil

society and, being egalitarian with an open form of organization, have essential

feature(s) of the kind of communication that can institutionalize problem-solving

discourses on matters of general interest inside the framework of organized public

spheres (Prince 145).

Many theorists over the years have debated

the relative merits and historical accuracy of Jurgen Habermas

conceptualization of the bourgeois public sphere and his account of its

 Third Place Discourse 8

subsequent transformation. At the heart of these debates have been

questions of democracy that is, what constitutes a democratic and properly

functioning public sphere. (Prince 145)

The Third Place

Ray Oldenburg, a sociologist, has also done research in looking at the concept

of the communities comprising a public sphere. He looks at many types of places

that people come together to discuss their life happenings. Oldenburg discusses the

community building that takes place here. He calls the first place ones home and

family life and the second place ones work life. Oldenburg uses the term the third

place to describe places that individuals go to for the sense of home away from

home, a place where people can come to communicate outside of work and home

life. For the remainder of this paper, these places throughout the community will be

referred to as the third place.

Oldenburg claims in his book, The Great Good Place, that community building

cannot happen at home or at work. Community members need a place they can

come together to discuss community life. A third place allows people to discuss

without interruption as if they were meeting at their own home.

According to Oldenburg there are eight characteristics of a third place:

neutral ground, a leveler, conversation is the main activity here, assessable and

accommodating, has the regulars, maintains a low profile, has a playful mood, and

home away from home. All of these characteristics allow for a place where people

can come to communicate their thoughts and opinions openly.

 Third Place Discourse 9

Additionally, third places must exist outside the home and beyond the work

(of) lots of modern economic production. They are places where people gather

primarily to enjoy each others company (Oldenburg and Brissett 269). Oldenburg

and Brissett also state that the third place provides opportunities for important

experiences and relationships in a sane society, and are uniquely qualified to sustain

a sense of well-being among its members (Oldenburg and Brissett 269).

Numerous benefits accompany third place environments. Two of the major

benefits of third places are diversity and novelty. Oldenburg and Brissett found that

following the Industrial Age, people were exclusively spending time with family.

They found that the suburbanizing of America produced a dependable, secure

social existence in which the American family could exercise its options in a

predictable, and monotonous, fashion (Oldenburg and Brissett 274). People in

general were growing further apart, rather than keeping in touch especially with

those of opposing viewpoints.

Coffee Shops Promoting Discourse

One coffee shop near an army base forty miles south of Seattle, COFFEE

STRONG, is a veteran owned and operated coffee house that supports war

resistance. Although it maintains the appearance of your average coffee house,

there is information for soldiers on how to get out of the war. COFFEE STRONG

provides a space off-base for soldiers to question their service, talk about the war,

and explore the possibilities of GI resistance (Lazare 2009). This is a great example

of discourse happening in an everyday location.

 Third Place Discourse 10

Another case study found a coffee shop promoting discourse just down the

road in Lawrence, KS. A study on Henrys Coffee House found that there are several

types of communities that gather there frequently. These groups range in size and

can be either formal or informal. Author Kerns found that while the community at

Henrys serves as a forum for (a) limited amount of political activity, it does appear

as though conversations aid in establishing the members opinions and influencing

their political persuasion (Kerns 2005). Even those not participating in the

conversation are influenced through hearing the opinion of those around them.

While these are simply two examples there are many situations wherein people are

coming together to discuss is Starbucks one of them?

In looking at Starbucks, and third place environments in general, one can find

that the enviornment does in fact regulate the discourse in this space. As Dickinson

previously explained, Starbucks has become "a cultural institution that filters

through a range of other popular discourses including journalism, film, television,

and novels" (Dickinson 6-7). There is a way in which Starbucks is forming "talkers."

Research Question: How is discourse regulated at Starbucks?

The importance of this question, in light of the rapid growth of coffee shops

in general, and Starbucks in particular, is not difficult to see. A movement of citizens

engaged in rational discourse has deep implications for the integrity of small scale

democracy. But is Starbucks really a location that promotes such discourse? The

importance of this question arises because of the enormous following of Starbucks.

If Starbucks is succeeding in regulating discourse in a way promoting open, public,

 Third Place Discourse 11

and rational discussion, then it very well may be helping bridge the gap that our

cultural trend toward confinement in homogenous communities has caused.

If Starbucks is succeeding as a third place then it should be succeeding, at

least in part, at promoting democracy; given the brand's growth, this has

implications for the future of democracy. Implications of Starbucks pervasive

presence are important regardless. If Starbucks, despite of their rapid growth and

appeal, is nevertheless failing to be a third place, this has important implications for

the very future of the notion. In other words, the ideal of these spaces may be, for

whatever reason, not applicable to the cultural climate of the 21st century

Americanat least with the massive scope of Starbucks.

This question is important to ask because of the serious impact the coffee

shops are having on our community, based on shear ubiquity. If coffee shops

continue to be successful, third places may very well be where democracy on a small

scale begins and takes form. It is necessary to understand the potential coffee shops

have to help promote positive discourse and engaged citizens.

Method

A proceduralist model of deliberation was conducted in order to understand

the types of discourse taking place at a potential third place environment day-to-

day. A proceduralist model is one that is thought to be different than a debate

and/or dialogue because of procedures that set up a deliberative environment.

Starbucks is one possible third place that may be creating a type of talker.

To learn more about what kind of discourse is happening at Starbucks, and

whether there are trends in what people are discussing, the proceduralist model, by
 Third Place Discourse 12

Darrin Hicks and LenoreLangsdorf, allowed a closer look at conversations. This

approach best answers the research question through an inside look at actual

conversations happening at Starbucks. An interview or a survey would give factual

and brief information. An analysis of a conversation, however, gives researchers a

look at a text that can be analyzed for many different criteria such as those listed

below. According to Hicks and Langsdorf, a proceduralist model:

presupposes a dialectical theory of argumentation and views deliberation

as a method for regulating disagreement and resolving differences of opinion

through critical discussion, understood as a method that shifts political

power from interest groups and ethical commitments to an institutional

framework constituted by a set of rules for managing difference. (140)

Simply put, Hicks and Langsdorf argue that a proceduralist model is used in order to

regulate disagreement. It assumes that through critical discussion following the

rules and procedures of rational discourse a democratic body will arrive at a

rational and ethically justifiable decision.

Hicks and Langsdorfs method from Regulating Disagreement, Constituting

Participants: A Critique of Proceduralist Theories of Democracy was used in

looking at the public sphere and democracy. According to Hicks and Langsdorf:

Proceduralist theories work from the presupposition that disagreement is an

enduring feature of democratic society, and hence, an interminable element of its

political institution (141).

Proceduralist theories do not advocate avoiding or quarantining

disagreement, but rather, managing or regulating it in ways that make it amenable

 Third Place Discourse 13

to the democratic resolution of disputes (Hicks and Langsdorf 142). Proceduralist

theories imply that disagreement is necessary and important in a healthy

democratic society. This project aims to reveal just how much of this is occurring at

third places today.

Hicks and Langsdorfs theory has four parts through which one can evaluate

criteria. In looking at Hicks and Langsdorfs theory "criteria" is used to mean the

systematic and objective parts by which the theory was developed. The four criteria

are identity, locution, substance, and forum (Hicks and Langsdorf 144). All four

criteria are important and relevant in the research. The forum is simply where the

discourse took place. For each participant it is true that it took place at the same

potential third place environment Starbucks. However, other aspects may

drastically vary.

All of these conversations are in a way defined by their forum, in that it is the

same for each. The forum for the individuals regulated discourse because it was in a

public location with other people nearby so that the way of discussing needed to be

appropriate for the quiet, peaceful setting that is Starbucks. It would be

inappropriate for someone to yell or make a scene in a setting such as this. Thus,

communication was regulated through people wanting to act in a manner

considered socially acceptable for the setting they were in.

For the purposes of this research, identity primarily focuses on who is

participating in the discourse. Identity also implies that each participant had an

equal opportunity to participate and that they were able to openly discuss.
 Third Place Discourse 14

Participants were asked to describe the type of people that participated and

engaged in their conversation.

Identity was found to regulate talk due, often, to either the relationship they

had with the individual or the personality type of that person. For example, one

participant talked on a surface level to another by simply discussing school and

work while another had a deep conversation about religion and struggles they are

facing. These individuals do not always discuss these exact topics in public spheres,

but it is probable that due to the people they were with and their life circumstances

that day, these were the types of things discussed.

Locution pertains to how the participants deliberated. Locution considers

whether the conversation was formal or informal, the tone, and the type of

storytelling or discussion that took place. It even includes the type of greeting that

began the conversation. The locution regulates talk by simply tracking whether the

discussion is either formal or informal. People discuss different topics and take a

certain tone depending on the formality of a conversation.

Lastly, substance looks at what types of topics were discussed in this public

sphere. In determining whether or not the topics are unique from those of homes

and work places, I am interested in finding the topics that individuals bring up while

sipping coffee at their local coffee shop. Substance of discourse will likely vary for

each participant, although it will be interesting to see if the conversations have a

common theme. What is the content that comprises the conversations? Substance

and forum are hand-in-hand in that being in a public space regulates the
 Third Place Discourse 15

conversations, as people do not discuss certain personal things they do not want to

be overheard.

For the purposes of this research, I will be looking at all of these aspects to

determine the range or type of discussion that took place. In analyzing the

conversations from participants, the identity of individuals was noted to find out if

there are similarities within the types of people making Starbucks their third place.

With locution, using communication keys, notes were taken of the tone, nonverbal

cues (if noted by participant), greeting, and additional information from their

dialogue in order to discover what it feels like for each individual to go to

Starbucks and dialogue. For substance, basic content was analyzed to investigate

whether there were key themes or whether people were discussing personal,

unique matters at these third places. Most importantly, I determined whether or not

Starbucks is a deliberative space.

Procedure

There was variety in the type of people who participated in the research.

Participants varied from young college students to lawyers to independent business

owners meeting together weekly to discuss politics and other topics. The variety of

participants was helpful in ensuring a good test group which consisted of ten

individuals.

The question for the participating individuals was developed with the

purpose of getting textual evidence of an actual experience that participants had at

Starbucks. The answer needed to involve the four criteria listed above and therefore

the question had to subtly make a plug that the subjects answer in such a way. For
 Third Place Discourse 16

example, it probed individuals to reply giving information about the people they

were with, how and what they discussed, if it was formal or informal, and arrived at

the basic type of discourse they participated in.

The following is the actual question participants were given:

The purpose of this research is to look deeper at what kinds of

conversations happen at coffee shops. Please recreate a typical conversation

you personally would have with one or more persons(s) at the coffee shop in

the form of a narrative. If you remember a conversation well enough, please

describe that one specific conversation. Otherwise, please simply be as

specific as possible with what topics(s) you were discussing. Please also

describe the person(s) you were in conversation with, the type of

conversation (for example: storytelling, politics, and/or community building)

and whether or not the conversation was formal or informal.

It would be helpful to the research if you could describe the content

and tone of the conversation. In other words, what does it feel like for you to

talk at a coffee shop?

Please write as many details about that one conversation as you can

within one page.

Ten participants shared details of a particular Starbucks experience. About

half of the participants were people I have never held a conversation with and the

other half were regulars that I often talk to while I am at Starbucks. Several

discussed general topics of a weekly meeting. Some discussed a conversation with a

close friend that recently occurred at Starbucks. Out of the ten participants over half
 Third Place Discourse 17

hit Starbucks at least once a week. Others reserved Starbucks trips for more special

occasions to meet with friends they do not see as often.

The analysis portion of the procedure included gathering all of the narratives

and closely reading the discussions to decipher the identity, locution, substance, and

forum. Locating the criteria was difficult at times as there were not always clear

details, which made the analysis difficult.

After identifying these criteria, I coded them and then analyzed the

components of the criteria to pull them all together: The topics participants

discussed, where they were, who they were with, and how they discussed. It was

then determined how the conversation they engaged in was regulated by the

criteria. For example, looking at whether or not the conversation was argumentative

or relaxed was considered when defining the forum.

Analysis of Results

In order to better understand how the discourse is regulated by the four

Hicks and Langsdorf criteria forum, locution, substance, and identity the

conversations were picked apart and the following was found.

The analysis revealed several interesting findings. First, the most common

substance/content generated through conversations were topics of everyday life.

Specifically, many people discussed their schoolwork, dating relationships, and

religion. Some people found comfort in Starbucks visits because it gave them a brief

escape from everyday life.

One particular instance of a participant going to Starbucks for an escape was

a young man in his twenties. He explained that to him, "coffee shops always give me
 Third Place Discourse 18

a place to step away from it all, be myself and know I can escape from most anything

to an extent. My conversations relate to positive life experiences and that is why I

share them in that environment." The young man is a frequent coffee shop visitor

similar to many others and is just looking for a place to unwind and step back from

life.

Several individuals expressed how they went to Starbucks to meet with close

friends to catch up on life which usually meant telling stories about their latest

happenings. Often, people found themselves either asking for or giving advice to

others about current issues in their life.

One specific participant discussed her frequent visits to Starbucks with her

aunt during the time her aunts husband was deployed to Iraq. She found that often

the conversations were sad, but the environment allowed for them to discuss how

the war was affecting them and family members. She said that Starbucks allowed

an environment where you could sit and talk for hours without feeling guilty or

being bothered by wait staff. I think that she, among others, found comfort in the

relaxing and home-like environment. For this individual, the forum was relaxed

and it offered comfort in a difficult time.

A group of four middle-aged men met every week to discuss politics. The

identity of these men molded their weekly conversations because they were all

members of the same political party; each is a successful business man with a

flexible schedule that allows him to meet up every week during the business day.

They are all interested in similar topics.

 Third Place Discourse 19

Their discussion is more formal in that they usually have a familiar agenda

from which their discussion is bred. The locution of their conversation would often

change in that they could joke about politics, give each other a hard time, argue, and

still leave feeling the same about everyone. The men said that Starbucks gives them

somewhere to discuss politics. It helps them to stay in touch and to vent about

current issues at hand. In this example, Hicks and Langsdorfs four criteria regulates

their conversation because their identities are all very similar: the subject is one of

interest for all of them. While they do not always see eye-to-eye, they always discuss

the same basic political topics in the same manner. Starbucks provides a place for

these men of similar identities and interests to meet up once a week and they

choose Starbucks because of the environment.

A couple of other participants have routine meetings at Starbucks where they

meet with friends. Many of them discuss events of life, but all of the groups that

meet routinely do discuss political issues and lately these issues have been about

health care and the economy. They joke around, but do have times of disagreement,

which leads to very serious discussion similar to the group of men previously

mentioned.

These individuals go to Starbucks to discuss these issues because they do not

feel comfortable doing so at work or home. It gives them a middle ground by which

they can meet with friends casually. The fact that Starbucks feels like a home-away-

from-home allows people to be themselves while in a public space where strangers

surround them.
 Third Place Discourse 20

Others locution was more organic in that they had gone to the coffee shop

alone, but met with and talked to people while they were there. Many people find

that they meet new people while at coffee shops and have unexpected

conversations. Others, however, go with an agenda to discuss particular topics.

There are vast differences in the locution of conversations at Starbucks.

The environment certainly regulates the locution of dialogue at Starbucks.

The volume of music playing, the number of customers at Starbucks, and the table

customers sit at or chairs they choose to sit in can regulate conversation. Spatial

differences and volume greatly influence how a conversation will play out. If people

sit across a table from one another they are much more likely to have a formal

conversation than those sitting next to one another on the couch.

As far as substance, one interesting observation is that every single

participant was found to discuss the future in one way or another. Those that

discussed political issues discussed the future of our country if certain policies are

passed. Those that discussed every day life discussed what they want to do with

their life. This sample included topics such as what kind of job they want, the person

that want to spend their life with, or what their life will be like when a particular

issue either changes or is resolved.

Overall, I found that indeed, based on the locution, substance, forum, and

identity of the participants of the research, Starbucks has the ability to generate

certain types of talkers. People often come to catch up with others, but even so

they are discussing issues that matter to them. People at Starbucks are often

developing public opinions of current issues and events. While not every single
 Third Place Discourse 21

person at Starbucks may be doing this each time they visit, as many people do just

come for coffee, you can usually find someone in Starbucks discussing social life and

the world around them. Starbucks is also able to create an environment that

generates relatively calm interactions from individuals, which is likely due to the

fact that people around you can hear your conversation making it relatively public.

Implications

While Habermas has had a major influence on the understanding of the

public sphere, his ideas of deliberation are idealistic. Critics argue: Habmerass

work is based upon outdated ideals of public discourse that valorize face-to-face

dialogue over mediated deliberation (Hass 179). Habermas works have critiqued

capitalism and he thinks that these public spheres can suppress dialogue rather

than support it. Habermas does not see the great potential that third place

environments offer for a democracy.

Hicks and Langsdorfs proceduralist model is more fitting to analyze than the

work of Habermas because their criteria allow a look at how the space regulates the

conversation. Habermas believed that public spheres could not work in a capitalist

society. Hicks and Langsdorf, however, believe that the public sphere will be able to

successfully transform conversations to be more democratic, through an explict

focus on how identity, locution, forum, and substance shape a citizenry.

These findings are important to communication research because

understanding the types of discourse happening in communities is important

culturally. It is valuable to know that there are people discussing the wellbeing of

your society while sipping coffee. There is a phenomenon happening with coffee
 Third Place Discourse 22

shops today. From an academic communication point of view it is valuable to

understand what about these environments is bringing people in so often.

Discourse is regulated through the environment at Starbucks. People want to

remain calm through what could be heated conversations because of the

atmosphere they are in. The locution at Starbucks is appropriate for that setting.

Patrons of Starbucks regard the coffee shop as a place to work and meet up with

friends, so their tone and style will be appropriate for a pubic setting.

The identity of people may be influenced by the people they meet with at

Starbucks. While there is diversity in the type of people that go to Starbucks, each

person may be molded in their thinking through the people they interact with there.

Due to the findings that many people going to Starbucks for advice, political

discussions, and talks about the future, it is certainly possible that Starbucks is

facilitating the molding of similar people, creating a place for regulars to have

recurring meetings with friends to discuss the aforementioned issues. The

substance of the various conversations of the Starbucks patron participants seem to

appear relatively similar. It could be inferred from these findings that when

identities and locution are similar, the types of issues discussed will most likely also

be similar.

Are coffee shops a generational trend or will this third place stick and

become the primary forum for people to come together to talk in the future? It will

be interesting to see if Starbucks is able to maintain its massive influence

throughout upcoming years or if local coffee shops will be able to stand their ground
 Third Place Discourse 23

against such a major corporation. Will coffee shops in general maintain significant

community influence?

Citizens are changing in public spheres through engagement. Coffee shops

provide people the benefit of engaging and sharing their opinions, rather than

sitting at home and being told what they should believe from the news. They offer

opportunity to dialogue with people that come from a different backgrounds and

experiences. It was previously mentioned that a major benefit of third places is the

diversity that they present, which may be unlike many other everyday places. In

Manhattan, Kansas alone, the diversity of the local Manhattan Starbucks patrons

consists of students, professors, and military personnelnot to mention the local

community.

Third place environments have great potential. These environments allow

people to come be active citizens participating in discourse through discussing the

topics that matter to them. Coffee shops provide a place for democracy to take form.

Citizens can come to a coffee shop to meet with friends and to share their opinion

without being told they are wrong in front of a large crowd. When meeting with

friends, people feel safe and vulnerable to be open about any topicwhether

personal or public.

As academics in the Communication Studies department, there are many

skills we ought to expect our students to gain before leaving to enter the real

world. Communication means more than either delivering or analyzing a good

speech. With third places becoming a large part of our communities, students in
 Third Place Discourse 24

Communication Studies should be able to leave and understand how to be a citizen

and that means understanding how to dialogue with others.

In my personal experience, there were only a few classes that really gave me

any guidance in how to deliberate and/or facilitate a discussion. Garnering the

ability to engage in discourse at a third place is a valuable tool; I am fortunate to

have some training in the area. However, I know many individuals in the

Communication Studies department at Kansas State University did not have the

opportunity to take a course where third place discussion facilitation was taught. I

recommend that all communication studies departments offer these coursesand

offer them every semester. In this way, communication studies students will have

opportunities to gain useful tools for fitting in with the world around them.

Conclusion

Starbucks is the biggest coffee chain in the world and while at the end of the

day, Starbucks main goal is to sell coffee and make a profit. However, their success

lies in the environment they create for their customers. It is unique: they welcome

people to sit, chat, and to stay a while. Starbucks creates an environment that allows

people to feel at ease and at home. Starbucks is able to produce a space unlike many

others because one is not pressured to spend money in order to work or stay and

talk for hours.

In reading the narratives from participants, I saw that people have seemingly

grown quite fond of the atmosphere that coffee shops, and Starbucks in particular,

create. Many people have important conversations there, whether it is reconnecting

 Third Place Discourse 25

with old friends or discussing the future. People feel they can be honest as a result

of the environment.

Third place environments can give us something to look forward to during a

mundane workday. Coffee shops have become part of everyday life for many people

and US Americans can see a coffee shop just about anywhere they go. The

environment of Starbucks, whether through design or pure chance (though it seems

to be design), is able to facilitate the discourse that emerges from their customers.

These third places have great potential to promote democracy and form engaged

citizens.
 Third Place Discourse 26

References

Aguayo, A. J., & Steffensmeier, T. R. (2008). Readings on Argumentation. Pages 310-

327. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc.

Dickinson, G. (2002). Joes Rhetoric: Finding Authenticity at Starbucks. RSQ:

Rhetoric Society Quarterly. Volume 32. Issue 4. Pages 5-27.

Durham, M.G. and Kellner, D. (2001). Media and Cultural Studies. The Public Sphere:
An Encyclopedia Article by Jurgen Habermas. Pages 102-107. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iEcLXi0NsFUC&oi=fnd&pg=P
A102&dq=how+habermas+defines+public+sphere&ots=iTA4oVaimD&sig=K
kh5D7phTWedlM7xahNgzMSvuM4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Fitzgerald, S. (2006). Jurgen Habermas: Democracy and the Public Sphere. Media
International Australia Incorporating Culture & Policy. Issue 120. Pages 201-
202.

Garnham, N. (2004). Habermas and the Public Sphere. Edited by Crossley, N and
Roberts, M.

Gaudio, R. P. (2003). Coffeetalk: Starbucks and the Commercialization of Casual

Conversation. Language in Society. Volume 32. Pages 659-691.

Hass, T. (2004). The Public Sphere as a Sphere of Politics: Rethinking

Habermass Theory of the Public Sphere. Journal of Communication. Volume
54. Issue 1. Pages 178-184.

Hauser, G. A. (1994). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An

Inquirty into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Philosophy & Rhetoric. Issue 1.
Pages 70-76.

Hicks, D. and Langsdorf, L. (1999). Regulating Disagreement, Constituting

Participants: A Critique of Proceduralist Theories of Democracy.
Argumentation. Volume 13. Number 2. Pages 139-160.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x431356l54090861/fulltext.pdf

Horovitz, B. (2006). Starbucks Aims Beyond Lattes to Extend Brand. USA TODAY.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2006-05-18-starbucks-
usat_x.htm

Kern, J. Elements of Community at Henrys Coffee House in Lawrence, Kansas.

November 25, 2005.
 Third Place Discourse 27

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/12154/elements_of_community_
at_henrys_coffee.html?cat=12

Kleinman, S. S. (2006). Caf Culture in France and the United States: A Comparative
Ethnographic Study of the Use of Mobile Information and Communication
Technology. Atlantic Journal of Communication. Volume 14. Issue 4. Pages
191-210.

Knutson, M. (2009). Does Your Community Need a Coffee Shop and Other Third
Places? http://reimaginerural.com/coffee-shops-as-third-places/

Lazare, S. How One Coffee Shop in Washington State is Providing a Haven for War
Resisters. March 5, 2009.
http://www.alternet.org/world/130262/how_one_coffee_shop_in_washingt
on_state_is_providing_a_haven_for_war_resisters/

Lifestyle Statistics. Starbucks Stores (per capita) (most recent) by state.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_sta_sto_percap-lifestyle-starbucks-
stores-per-capita

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place. New York: Marlowe & Company.

Oldenburg, R. and Brissett, Dennis. The Third Place. Qualitative Sociology.

Prince, J. (2004). Keeping the Conversation Going: Voluntary Association in the

Public Sphere(s). Media International Australia Incorporating Culture &
Policy. Issue 111. Pages 145-157.

Ruzich, C. M. (2008). For the Love of Joe: The Language of Starbucks. The Journal of
Popular Culture. Issue 3. Pages 428-442.

Starbucks Company 2008 Factsheet.

http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/Company_Factsheet.PDF

Starbucks Locations in Kansas.

http://www.starbucks.com/retail/locator/ViewAll.aspx?a=1&CountryID=24
4&StateID=91&FC=RETAIL&City=

Starbucks Newsroom.
http://news.starbucks.com/about+starbucks/starbucks+coffee+us/

Skenazy, L. (2007). Starbucks is Still the Third Place to be Even if its let itself go.
Advertising Age. Volume 78. Issue 12. Page 11.

Thompson, C. J. and Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers

 Third Place Discourse 28

(Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization. Journal of Consumer Research.

Volume 31. Issue 3. Pages 631-642.