The Reverse Evolution Of The Coffeehouse

Ages and ages ago, in 1987, when Howard Schultz bought the Seattle Starbucks chain, he standardized and mainstreamed the sale of coffee so that the term "coffeehouse" began to be redefined.

Before that, in America, there were coffee shops such as the lonely diner you might spy while driving through the desert out on Route 66.  Coffee shops not only served plain old coffee but were notorious for their single mom waitresses and inexpensive bacon and egg breakfasts too.

In the 1960's after coffeehouses had immigrated from Italy, a coffeehouse became generally known as a countercultural espresso venue serving all kinds of artsy coffee drinks as well as other yummy homemade goodies.  They sometimes provided live entertainment, such as a jazz pianist, and utilized building structures that resembled a Victorian style house with wall-papered hallways and antique furniture.

In present day America, coffee shops and houses still exist but now a coffee shop also includes such forms as Dunkin' Doughnuts and Applebee's, while Starbucks is technically considered a coffeehouse.  The distinguished lines between the two are further obscured in the fact that many people intermix the ideas.  Somehow a coffeehouse is now widely known as, a coffee shop.

Some people, like me, make a ruckus about the whole ordeal by correcting people when the term isn't clear.  "At which 'coffee shop' did you want to meet me for a latte?"  Our problem is that there is no new term to call the inbetweener coffeehouse/shop since Starbucks and the likes have commercialized the "house" atmosphere.

Teenagers who are not yet teenagers but act like them are called tweens.  A country that is neither only republic nor exclusively democratic is known as a democratic republic.  But how does one associate a coffeehouse that isn't exactly that?

The current issue that many American citizens have with same-sex marriages is that there is a fundamental difference between a heterosexual marriage and a gay one.  They do not want the terms "marriage" and "family" to be redefined.  Thus many are seeking a compromise of a "civil union" law that would include all of the civil liberties of marriage.

In the world of Christianity, the Calvinist and Arminian theologies are similar to the coffeehouse dilemma only in that many believers can not fully identify themselves with either one.  Some people claim that the contradictory points of both systems are equally true:  The elect have a free will.  Others might preach that neither one has any truth, while still others are utterly and thoroughly confused.  In a case like this one, I find that my arguments can become stormy twisters only to end in statements such as, "Oh, we actually agree with each other.  We were fighting over semantical terms."

The same articulation could possibly pertain to the controversy of intelligent design versus evolution.  What should we title a person who believes in a literal 24-hour, 6 day creation of aged creatures and of an earth that had evolved over billions of years?  Or how does one describe a creationist who does not agree with creationism such as Robert T. Pennock?

I like knowing what you mean when you talk to me and I am thankful that there are standards of communication as well as a freedom to add new vocabulary.  It has been estimated that about 25,000 new words are combined with the English language every year.  Some scholars calculate that there are about five times as many English words today as in Shakespeare's time.  But, why are we now less precise?

Some thoughts concerning an answer to that question is for another blog, but at the moment I would really like to avoid unnecessary friction in communication, while remaining loyal to truth and my beliefs.  I would also be thrilled to see more attention given to the nomenclature of coffee.  Next time you order that grande triple decaf soy vanilla mocha, make sure your friend isn't waiting for you over at Johnny Rockets.