The Impact Of Coffee On The Ottoman Empire, London, Saint-Domingue, Jamaica

In this paper I will argue that the global trade of coffee had dramatically uneven social impacts on the Ottoman Empire, London, Saint-Domingue, and Jamaica. In the Ottoman Empire, it led to the rise of a subversive social space, the coffeehouse, which dramatically loosened social control and increased social mobility. In London, coffeehouses were also disruptive in increasing social mobility and academic discourse, but lacked much of the revolutionary and illicit elements of their Ottoman counterparts. On the other side of the world, in the Carribean coffee plantations of Saint-Domingue and Jaimaica, the global trade of coffee lead to an increase of social control and an entrenchment of social mobility.
To establish a historical context, the
first part of this essay will outline the evolution of the coffee trade, from its emergence as a commodity to its global dominance. Next, the role of coffee in the three regions will be explored in-depth. I will discuss the effect of the coffeehouse on the structure of Ottoman society, along with the revolutionary elements which the coffeehouse enabled and the attempts from the authorities to stifle them. In London, I will focus on the changing intellectual appetities of the English virtuoso and the effects of private clubs within coffeehouses, the free flow of ideas, and the key differences between London and Ottoman coffeehouses. I will examine the effects of the coffee trade on the gens de couleurs of SaintDomingue, in particular the systematization of racism. Finally, I will explain the effect of the trade on female workers in Jamaica, specifically the tight control of their sexuality. Four secondary sources support each region respectively.
The first coffeehouses appeared in the early 16th century, in Mecca and Cairo. However, the coffeehouse only became popular in the mid 16th century, when two were opened in Istanbul.
From that point on, coffeehouses quickly spread from Istanbul to neighbouring towns, eventually becoming ubiquitous across the Ottoman empire
. From the Ottoman empire, coffee spread to London. The first discussion of coffee in the English language occured in the year 1600, when
William Bidulph noted in a letter that the most common drink of the Turks was “Coffa, which is a blacke kinde of drinke, made of a kind of Pulse like Pease, called Coava, which being grownd in the Mill, and boiled in water, they drinke it as hot as they can suffer it.”2
50 years later, the first coffeehouse, called “the Angel”, was opened in Oxford.3Coffeehouses first catered to a select clientele of virtuoso,4English gentlemen who were “...seeking to associate themselves with an international world of elite cultural interests strongly rooted in the knowledge about classical antiquity and Italianate Renaissance learning.”5Ten years later, in the 1660's, these establishments became a place for like-minded scholars to meet.6After much controversy over the next 60 years, coffeehouses became more well established in London. Finally, by 1720, the concept of the coffeehouse had become solidified in British culture.7
In Saint-Domingue, coffee began to be harvested in 1760, one of the largest groups of harvesters being the gens de couleurs.
Between 1767 and 1789, the volume of coffee exports quadrupled, bringing wealth to the gens de couleurs, but paradoxically also reducing their social mobility.8
In neighboring Jamaica, after the abolition of the slave trade in 1807, female sexuality became increasingly tightly controlled in order to maximize the slave population—and in turn maximize the production of coffee.9
In the Ottoman Empire, coffeehouses served as social hubs, and powerful mechanisms for change. The activities and the interactions within them were novel, many topics of discussion within them were scandalous—sometimes treasonous, and the attempts to shut them down failed
(At the time, the Ottoman Empire was divided up into two classes, the “ruling” and the “ruled”. The “ruling” class wasn't taxed, as they worked for the state, and consisted of bureaucrats, administrators, professors, and members of the armed forces. The taxed “ruled” class consisted of merchants, artisans, and peasantry. Because social status wasn't determined by family lineage, it was possible for the lower class to enter the ruling class.10This is a crucial reason why I contend coffeehouses in London had a less disruptive impact on social structure.
Individuals interacted in coffeehouses through the review of poems and books, the playing of musical instruments, and various games like backgammon and chess. Illicit or immoral pleasures, like drugs, gambling, and sex with young boys, were also commonplace— much to the chagrin of the administration and religious leaders.11Before coffeehouses, poetry meetings were organized by aristocrats and non-aristocratic enthusiasts. The non-aristocrats had to meet in homes, and taverns, which limited their frequency: The former was expensive for the host, and the latter was inaccessible to Muslims, as wine is forbidden in the Koran.
Coffeehouses solved this problem, and brought the aristocrats and non-aristocrats together.
People of all backgrounds, occupations, and religions were welcome in coffeehouses: patrons included unemployed officers, judges, preachers, university students, professors, merchants, dissidents, members of the military, craftsmen, men of letters, and even the poor and unemployed. This constant interaction between the vastly diverse populace allowed occupants to redraw the lines between the upper and lower class.
Casual conversation was a favourite of many who frequented coffeehouses. Popular topics of discussion were news and rumours about the administration. Discussions of literature were also commonplace, and writers would frequently submit their works for critical review.This free flow of ideas between classes was important in increasing the fluidity of the
Ottoman class structure. Political skepticism was a favourite topic among the poor, and janissaries took this a step further. They not only criticized the state while in coffeehouses, but they actually planned riots from within them.
The elite of the Ottoman empire were aware of the revolutionary aspects of coffeehouses, and attempted to crack down accordingly. In 1578, the governor of Bursa issued one of many decrees to ban coffeehouses, citing them as “...the gathering places for the sinful” However, these bans did not accomplish their goal—in fact, they had to be repeatedly re-issued because of mass circumvention. Coffee consumers and coffeehouse owners both resisted these decrees, and kadis were unable to control them. This successful mass disobedience of authority demonstrates the disruptive effect coffeehouses had on established institutions in the Ottoman
Empire.
A passage from a 17th century poem illustrates the reason why coffeehouses acted as these social hubs: “The heart fancies neither coffee nor coffeehouse / The heart fancies companionship
[or conversation], / coffee is an excuse.”The coffee in Ottoman coffeehouses was of much less importance than the diversity of people within them, the free flow of ideas they enabled, and the disruptive effects they had.
In London, coffeehouses had a different impact. The private clubs that were formed were influential in politics, academia, and popular culture. Coffeehouses in London had a similar free flow of ideas as the Ottoman coffeehouse. They significantly changed the way the elite of
London interacted, but they lacked the ilicit gambling, drugs, and civil disobedience of their eastern counterparts. By the 1660's, most London coffeehouses were public, but private clubs would frequently meet at them. Some, like the Commonwealth Club, were devoted to political change.
They drafted petitions for constitutional reform which they presented to parliament. They were considered disloyal to the crown for this, and in December 1661, James Harrington, the founder of the club, was arrested. Others, like Peter Staehl's chemistry club, were devoted to scientific experimentation and learning, and received praise from John Wallis, Oxford's professor of
Geometry. The Rota Club was devoted to philosphical and political debate, and during its brief lifespan enjoyed widespread fame of being the most hip place for virtuoso to congregate. The reputation of the short-lived Rota Club persisted in popular culture for years after its dissolution.
The free flow of ideas is where the most connections can be drawn between coffeehouses in the Ottoman empire and London, as “Coffee-houses make all sorts of people sociable, the rich and the poor meet together, as do the learned and unlearned... ...for here an inquisitive man, that aims at good learning, may get more in an evening than he shall by books in a month.” The less well-off took part in this new coffeehouse society, increasing the diversity of ideas. The recognition of rank and precendence was ignored within coffeehouses—they distinguished themselves from “the excessive and stifling formalities of the past.” In fact, by 1700, direct visits to homes, traditional formalities of virtuosi in the past, were no longer the most important way status was determined—two new institutions were now more vital: the Royal Society, and the “informal collegiality which prevailed in the London coffeehouses.” Coffeehouses were more convenient and cheaper than formal visits, and most importantly threw aside conventions of formality.
In London, the traditional taverns, inns, and alehouses were associated with immoral behavior, “tainted by an unmistakable patina of low status”
,
, while coffeehouses were seen as places of civilized discourse. This is in stark contrast with the Ottoman coffeehouse, where planning riots, smoking marijuana, and sex with young boys was common.
In the Carribean coffee plantations of Jamaica and Saint-Domingue, the trade of coffee increased social control over specific members of the populace and had an adverse effect on social mobility. In Saint-Domingue, the largest group of coffee growers, the gens de couleur, were systematically discriminated against and controlled by the ruling class, while in Jamaica there was increased control over female slaves.
Gens de couleur were a class of “free” people in Saint-Domingue who were mixed-race between african and european. They had few rights and limited credit and capital, but were not enslaved.The global trade of coffee led to the systematic discrimination of this group. Coffee exports began their dramatic rise in the 1760s—gens de couleur were among the largest groups of coffee growers, and the bulk of that production came from the small scale plantations they controlled During the massive coffee boom of the 1760's, many gens de couleur, who were prospering economically, begin to show “...their wealth, their education, and even their color with what some Whites—who only had the purity of their blood—regarded as insolence.”This resulted in a massive pushback from the white government. In 1760 it became a requirement to state one's race in most parish records, in 1773 there were attempts to stop natural children (who were mixed-race) of white males from using their father's names, and in 1775 a new legal offense was passed, “disrespect” of authority, which was a major attack on civil rights of gens de couleur. 29 Hilliard d'Auberteuil, a spokesperson of the elite, outlined the intended goal of
the legislation: “In Saint-Domingue, interest and security require we crush the black race under so much contempt that whoever descends from it sould be covered with indelible scars until the sixth generation”.30This systematization of racism greatly reduced the social mobility of gens de couleur, as it rendered it impossible for these previously “free” individuals to advance higher in
status.
In the year 1807, Jamaican plantation owners were met with a dilemna: the British had outlawed the atlantic slave trade, which meant that they would not be able to import the slaves necessary in order to meet the rising world demand for coffee. Because of this, the procreation of slave women was tightly controlled, in order to maximize the slave population. Enslaved women were punished for abortions, and strongly encouraged to become pregnant. “Women under slavery were subject to extreme forms of sexual violence,” they were raped and controlled sexually. In vulgar terms. they were considered “breeding stock.” The global trade of coffee played an instrumental role in the subjugation of these women.
The global trade of coffee had very different impacts in each of the four regions outlined.
In the Ottoman Empire, coffeehouses were centers of social interaction, and bans were simply circumvented. In London, private clubs and coffeehouses challenged social norms and
changed the concept of elite status. In Saint-Domingue, racism was systematized in order to keep the gens de couleurs in check. Finally, in Jamaica, female sexuality was tightly controlled in order to breed more slaves and increase coffee production. The global trade of coffee was not without its
tradeoffs.