The Cultural Evaporation of Tea and the Rise of Coffee in Public Life In the US
Walk through New York, Jersey City, Chicago, Washington, Boston, or any major American city at 8am, 2pm, or 10pm, and the pattern is identical: a paper cup, a cardboard sleeve, a plastic lid. Tea has, for most public purposes, evaporated. In its place stands coffee: mocha, cappuccino, cold brew, oat flat white, consumed while walking, with a mobile phone in one hand, a bag on the back, and coffee in the other.
The streets are lined with huge, spacious coffee shops that function as offices, meeting rooms, and transit lounges. This is not merely a change in taste. It is a change in tempo, in political economy, and in civic ritual. To understand it, we must link three histories: the origin of coffee as a global stimulant, the American rejection of tea after the Boston Tea Party of 1773, and the corporate expansion of US coffee chains from the 1970s onwards. Together they explain why coffee, not tea, became the beverage of mobility and public life.
The Origin of Coffee: From Ethiopian Highlands to Global Commodity
Coffee originates in the highlands of Ethiopia, likely in the region of Kaffa, around the 9th century. Oral tradition tells of a goatherd named Kaldi who noticed his goats became more energetic after eating red berries. By the 15th century, coffee cultivation had moved to Yemen, where Sufi monasteries in the port of Mocha used a boiled infusion to stay awake for night prayers. From Yemen it spread through the Ottoman Empire to Cairo, Damascus and Istanbul.
In these cities, the Qahvehane, or coffee house, emerged as a central institution. It was a place for politics, poetry, chess and news. Unlike the tavern, it did not serve alcohol. It served a bitter, stimulating drink that encouraged talk rather than intoxication.
European traders brought coffee to Venice in the early 1600s. By 1650 London had its first coffee houses, soon nicknamed “penny universities” because for the price of a penny one could sit for hours, read pamphlets and join debate. Paris, Amsterdam and Vienna followed. Thus coffee entered the West not as a domestic drink, but as a public, civic stimulant tied to commerce and discourse. When coffee arrived in the American colonies, it already carried this DNA. It was the drink of merchants, printers and revolutionaries. Tea, by contrast, arrived as a taxable commodity of empire, shipped by the East India Company. That distinction would prove decisive.
The Boston Tea Party and the Politicisation of Beverage
On 16 December 1773, American freedom fighters in Boston boarded three ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbour. The protest was aimed at the Tea Act and the principle of “taxation without representation”. But its cultural consequence was larger: tea became associated with monarchy, mercantilism and British ritual. In the decades after independence, American leaders consciously promoted coffee. The Continental Congress served it. Revolutionary pamphlets were drafted in coffee houses in Philadelphia and New York. To drink coffee was to perform citizenship. To drink tea was, by implication, to perform loyalty to the old empire. The result was a durable binary. Coffee became public, masculine, Northern and associated with work. Tea became domestic, feminine, Southern and associated with leisure, eventually iced and sweetened in the South. The Boston Tea Party did not eliminate tea, but it marked it. That marking set up a 250-year asymmetry that still structures American beverage culture.
Why Tea “Evaporated” and Coffee Scaled: Time, Infrastructure and Branding
Three structural forces completed the shift in the 20th and 21st centuries. First, time and labour. Tea culture, whether British, Chinese or Indian, is durational. It requires a pot, a steep, a pause. Coffee, especially after the invention of the espresso machine, was engineered for speed: extraction in 25 seconds, served in a to-go cup. In an economy that monetises every minute, coffee aligns with acceleration. Tea does not. Second, infrastructure and the rise of national chains. Unlike tea, coffee developed a retail infrastructure built by a handful of US corporations:
1 Starbucks
Founded in Seattle in 1971 as a bean retailer, it was transformed by Howard Schultz after a 1983 trip to Milan. Schultz imported the Italian espresso bar and rebranded it as the “third place”, neither home nor work. By 2025, Starbucks operated over 16,000 stores in the US, with a menu of latte, cappuccino, mocha and cold brew that became a national vocabulary.
2 Dunkin’
Founded in Quincy, Massachusetts in 1950. With more than 9,000 US locations, it positioned coffee as fast, affordable and working-class: “America Runs on Dunkin’”. Its drive-thru model matched suburban commuting.
3. Peet’s, Caribou, Dutch Bros, and independents.
Peet’s Coffee, founded in Berkeley in 1966, trained early Starbucks buyers and popularised dark roast. Dutch Bros, founded in Oregon in 1992, scaled the drive-thru energy-drink model. Thousands of independents copied the Starbucks template: large seating, Wi-Fi, and a barista behind an espresso machine. This system created a uniform object, the 12oz to 20oz cup that could be consumed in any city, at any hour. Starbucks sold customisation and “third place”. Dunkin’ sold speed and routine. Tea had no equivalent national narrative for the street. It remained a grocery item, not a service.
The “huge spacious coffee shops everywhere” are the direct descendants of the 17th-century coffee house, but scaled for the platform economy. They provide three things.
(a) Real estate: A $6 cappuccino or mocha buys three hours of heat, light and Wi-Fi in a city where office rent is prohibitive. Students write essays, freelancers meet clients, remote workers take Zoom calls. The coffee shop has become a privatised public utility.
(b) Mobility: The design of the cup, lid and sleeve assumes movement. This produces the image you describe: person walking, mobile in one hand, backpack on, coffee in the other. This is the embodied posture of the 21st-century worker: multitasking, in transit, always on. Tea, which sloshes and cools, is poorly suited to this.
(c) Menu as cultural capital: To order a “venti oat milk flat white” is to display fluency in a global code. The Italianate taxonomy, espresso, macchiato, cappuccino, popularised by Starbucks after 1985, is legible from Boston to Bangalore. Tea menus remain regional: chai, Earl Grey, matcha and thus less universal in a cosmopolitan setting. Crucially, these chains also colonised space. A single block in Manhattan can contain three Starbucks and two Dunkin’. They standardise furniture, lighting, and music. This creates a familiar environment that reduces the friction of work. Tea rooms, by contrast, never scaled in this way. They remained boutique, slow, and locally specific.
(d) Class, Health and the Moral Economy of Coffee: There is also a class dimension. Coffee, especially black coffee or Americano, is coded as ascetic and productive. It signals: “I am working.” Expensive milk-based drinks like mocha and caramel macchiato signal creative-class status. Tea, particularly herbal or fruit tea, is coded as wellness, femininity, or convalescence. Health discourse reinforced this. From the 1990s onwards, coffee was marketed with studies on alertness, metabolism and antioxidants. Tea was marketed for calm and detox. In a culture that prizes output over rest, the stimulant won. The pandemic accelerated this further: takeaway coffee was deemed “essential” while tea rooms closed. Thus coffee became not only faster, but morally superior in the logic of neoliberal work: it keeps you going.
(e) Coffee as the Drink of Media, Mobility and Acceleration: The dominance of coffee also reflects a change in consciousness. Coffee is a stimulant that matches the logic of the smartphone: short bursts, constant refresh, no waiting. Tea asks you to pause. Coffee asks you to go. Sociologist Hartmut Rosa calls this “social acceleration”.⁸ Our institutions, technologies and bodies are all being sped up. Coffee is the pharmacological and cultural technology that makes that acceleration feel normal. The Boston Tea Party rejected a beverage of empire and slowness. We have, in effect, institutionalised that rejection. The drinks themselves reveal this. Few Americans drink coffee as 18th-century merchants did: black and bitter. They drink mocha, cappuccino, caramel macchiato, milk-heavy, sweetened, and designed for palatability and customisation. This is coffee as a platform, not as a tradition. Tea, by contrast, remains marked by its origins. “Assam”, “Sencha”, “Earl Grey” all recall a geography. “Grande” recalls only a size.
Conclusion: The Afterlife of 1773
The origin of coffee in Ethiopian monasteries and Yemeni ports gave it a history as a drink of wakefulness. The Boston Tea Party gave it an American political meaning as the drink of the republic. The rise of Starbucks, Dunkin’ and the franchise model gave it a national infrastructure of space and speed.
Tea has not disappeared. It has moved to the kettle, to bubble-tea shops, and to the home. But in public space, from morning through evening, coffee won because it matched the city we built: mobile, networked and productive.
To bring tea back to the street would require more than new cafés. It would require a rethinking of time, a willingness to steep, to sit, to not be in motion. Until then, the legacy of 1773 continues in every to-go cup: a nation that chose coffee, and with it, a particular way of living in public.
( Avtar Mota )













































