Issuu

Brewing Meaning

STARBUCKS AS A SYMBOL OF MASS CULTURE

ACADEMIC ESSAY

JENÉ FOURIE

221040

28 MAY 2025

List of Figures

Figure 1 Example of how Starbucks designs its atmosphere around consumers’ subconscious desires. 9

INTRODUCTION

As a 21st-century phenomenon of mass culture, Starbucks offers more than just coffee. It offers an experience that has shaped our understanding of what coffee shops should be like (Thompson & Arsel, 2004, p. 639). By looking at neo-Marxist theorists like Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser and Stuart Hall, we can critically examine how Starbucks transformed into a global phenomenon of mass culture. Drawing on theoretical perspectives of ideology, hegemony and commodification, we can begin to unpack how deeply consumer life is intertwined with structures of power and meaning.

THE RISE OF STARBUCKS: FROM LOCAL BRAND TO GLOBAL GIANT

Founded in 1971, Starbucks began as a modest coffee-bean retailer before undergoing a significant transformation under the leadership of Howard Schultz (Starbucks, 2025). Inspired by the Italian coffeehouse tradition, Schultz sought to replicate that experience within an American context (Sam & Cai, 2015, p. 208). He introduced the idea of a ‘third place’ where people could gather, socialise, or work while enjoying good quality coffee (Schultz & Dori Jones Yang, 1999, p. 11). Through this vision, Starbucks redefined coffee from a utilitarian morning beverage into a lifestyle product, serving as a marker of taste, class, and cultural identity. This carefully curated experience is consistently replicated across Starbucks locations worldwide. From the music and atmosphere to the branding and drinks, the Starbucks environment is designed to be easily consumable and broadly appealing.

Adorno and Horkheimer argue that the standardised form is accepted with little resistance because it derives from the consumers’ underlying needs (Durham & Kellner, 2006, p.42). Starbucks caters to these needs on three primary fronts: they provide lone telecommuters with a functional workspace, alleviate social disconnection and offer a comfortable setting

for relaxation (Clark, 2007, p.100). In doing so, Starbucks not only fulfils consumer needs in a way that reinforces passive acceptance of standardisation but also illustrates the subtle mechanisms through which mass culture sustains itself.

Strinati (2004) defines mass culture as a commercially driven form of culture that is massproduced for widespread consumption by a mass market (p. 10). This concept can be applied to Starbucks, as the coffee experience it offers is replicated across thousands of locations globally, catering to approximately 40 million loyal customers each week (Clark, 2007, p. 100). Starbucks’ accessibility and global distribution align with mass culture, as the brand’s products are designed to be consumed on a large scale by a broad audience.

This widespread appeal exemplifies commodification, where goods, services, and experiences are transformed into marketable commodities, often stripped of their original context or intrinsic value (Radin & Sunder, 2004, pp. 7 - 8). Starbucks sells a concept of relaxation and a space to get away from it all (Schultz & Dori Jones Yang, 1999, p. 256), by implementing the “third place” philosophy (Project for Public Spaces, 2008). This philosophy, as described by sociologist Ray Oldenburg, identifies a comforting space between the first place (home) and the second place (work). By marketing themselves as a “third place”, Starbucks frames their café as a haven for relaxation, conversation and a space to enjoy a cosy, calming environment.

The artistry of making coffee and enjoying a local cold brew has been commercialised and commodified, leaving profit to be prioritised, whilst staging the ‘Starbucks Experience’ to be the primary value offered to consumers. In this way, Starbucks has commodified not only the coffee “experience” but also the act of coffee consumption itself (Clark, 2007, p. 100), by transforming a simple, everyday beverage into a branded lifestyle product. You’re not just paying for Starbucks coffee, you’re also paying for the Starbucks ‘experience’. By transforming real estate and social atmosphere into a part of the product, your cup of coffee is now a ticket into a temporary, branded sanctuary. This is a process tied deeply to Ideology. Ideology

refers to the systems of beliefs, values, and meanings that shape how individuals perceive and interpret the world, often in ways that reinforce existing power structures (Dijk, 2000, pp. 6 - 9). Starbucks serves as a prime example of how ideology operates subtly within consumer spaces. They invite consumers to feel empowered and unique while participating in a highly standardised and corporately controlled environment. Furthermore, the normalisation of purchasing comfort reflects an ideological shift where even relaxation and social interaction are mediated by consumption (Schmitt et al., 2021, p. 87).

This negatively affects individuals because they start to believe that freedom and creativity come from purchasing rather than actual autonomy and creative expression. Internally, this creates a fragmented self. You’re trained to seek comfort and identity in external, purchasable goods, which reinforces the ideology of consumer self-care. In turn, this causes individuals to “experience themselves through their needs only as eternal consumers” (Durham & Kellner, 2006, p.55).

This internalisation of consumer-driven identity is not accidental, but rather a result of ideological forces at work, something which Althusser’s concept of interpellation helps to explain. Interpellation refers to the process by which individuals are ‘hailed’ by ideology and thereby recognise themselves within certain social roles or identities (Durham & Kellner, 2006, p.86). At Starbucks, interpellation happens both literally and symbolically. When a barista asks for a customer’s name and calls it out when their order is ready, the individual is hailed directly and recognised as a consumer. This seemingly mundane interaction exemplifies how consumer identities are not only reinforced but actively constructed.

By embracing Starbucks, individuals often forfeit a genuine connection to local cultures and traditions, especially when it comes to coffee. Instead of engaging with authentic cultural practices, they participate in a globalised, homogenised version of coffee culture. In this exchange, they trade freedom for convenience and social acceptance. This cultural shift is

FIGURE

Example of how Starbucks designs its atmosphere around consumers’ subconscious desires.

Note: From Starbucks Mall of Africa, Johannesburg – South Africa, by retail design blog, 2016, (Retail Design Blog).

not merely personal but reflects a broader system of control and normalisation maintained through hegemonic power.

Hegemony, as defined by Antonio Gramsci, is the process by which dominant cultural values and ideas are maintained (Durham & Kellner, 2006, p.3). Hegemony operates through institutions like media, education, and consumer culture, shaping people’s perceptions of what is normal, desirable, or aspirational. Starbucks functions as a vehicle of hegemonic culture by embedding the values of comfort, mobility, and consumer self-care into its brand identity. This is reflected not only in its marketing but in the physical design of its stores (see Figure 1). Counters curve around merchandise displays, subtly guiding customer movement whilst showcasing products. Natural materials like warm wood and stone are favoured over plastics and harsh metals, creating an atmosphere of warmth and tranquillity. Even the small, round tables are intentionally designed to preserve the self-esteem of customers drinking alone, as circular tables have no ‘empty’ seats (Clark, 2007, p. 102). These design choices support and reproduce hegemonic ideals by presenting consumerism as comforting, inclusive, and self-affirming.

Starbucks is predominantly observed within Western consumer culture, with a strong emphasis on American culture. Its origins, brand identity, and consumer behaviour are deeply rooted in the values of capitalism, individualism, and globalisation. While it taps into traditional coffee practices, it reinterprets them through the lens of Western consumer culture. Meaning coffee is no longer just about the ritual of brewing and enjoying the drink, but also about branding, mass consumption, and personal identity.

Stuart Hall’s Encoding/Decoding Model is a framework used to understand how messages are encoded by creators (in this case, Starbucks) and then they are decoded by audiences in different ways. According to Hall’s theory, there are three types of decoding (During, 1999, p. 515). The first is the dominant position, which means the message was decoded as intended.

The second is called a negotiated position, which refers to when the audience accepts some parts of the message while questioning others. Finally, there is the oppositional position where the dominant message is completely rejected and reinterpreted in a way that conflicts with the intended meaning (During, 1999, pp. 515 - 517).

Using Hall’s model, we can apply these positions to Starbucks and its place within the larger Western consumer culture. Starbucks, as a global brand, plays a significant role in the dominant, commodified version of coffee culture. It has essentially encoded the coffee experience in a way that aligns with the dominant ideologies of capitalism, individualism, and materialism that shape Western consumer culture. Therefore, within the larger Western consumer culture, Starbucks holds a dominant position.

My reading of Starbucks aligns with the negotiated position. While I participate in consumer culture by purchasing Starbucks coffee and enjoying the atmosphere it provides, I remain critical of the brand’s commodification of comfort, identity, and tradition. I value the ability to unwind in a familiar, accessible space, yet I resist the notion that material goods are a source of genuine fulfilment or self-worth. I recognise that the personal identity Starbucks offers is largely constructed and marketed rather than authentic or inherently meaningful.

Ultimately, this reflection reveals the complexity of consumption in a capitalist society. It shows how individuals can navigate consumer culture both critically and complicity, embracing certain comforts while questioning the deeper ideological messages that lie beneath them.

CONCLUSION

In summary, Starbucks, as a global phenomenon of mass culture, illustrates how deeply consumer experiences are embedded within ideological and hegemonic frameworks. Through the lenses of neo-Marxist theorists, we can see how Starbucks commodifies not

just coffee but identity, comfort, and community itself. The brand offers a carefully curated sense of self-expression and belonging while subtly reinforcing structures of power and conformity. Coffee isn’t just caffeine; it’s a branded identity, status, and self-care. But this need is manufactured; your body might just want caffeine, but capitalism tells you to crave the Starbucks experience.

REFERENCES

Clark, T. (2007). Star B*#!Ked. Psychology Today, 40(5), 98–102.

Dijk, T. A. van. (2000). Ideology : a multidisciplinary approach. SAGE Publications.

Durham, M. G., & Kellner, D. M. (Eds.). (2006). Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks (Revised edition). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

During, S. (1999). The Cultural Studies Reader Second Edition. Routledge.

Radin, M. J., & Sunder, M. (2004, September 27). The Subject and Object of Commodification. Papers.ssrn.com. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=582641

Retail Design Blog (2016, May 11) Starbucks Mall of Africa, Johannesburg – South Africa [Photograph]. Retail Design Blog https://retaildesignblog.net/2016/05/11/starbucks-mall-ofafrica-johannesburg-south-africa/

Project for Public Spaces. (2008, December 31). Ray Oldenburg. Project for Public Spaces. https://www.pps.org/article/roldenburg

Sam, C.-Y., & Cai, Y.-Y. (2015). A study on the use of social media to understand consumer preference: The case of starbucks. 5(3), 207–214. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/311464861_A_study_on_the_use_of_social_media_to_understand_consumer_ preference_The_case_of_starbucks

Schmitt, B., Brakus, J. J., & Biraglia, A. (2021). Consumption Ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab044

Schultz, H., & Dori Jones Yang. (1999). Pour Your Heart Into It. Turtleback.

Starbucks. (2025). Our Company. Starbucks Coffee Company. https://www.starbucks.com/ about-us/

Strinati, D. (2004). An introduction to theories of popular culture. Routledge.

Thompson, Craig J., & Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 631–642. https://doi.org/10.1086/425098