One more cup of coffee for the road

Recently some stray anecdote (here) about one of my students lamenting the absence of Starbucks in Italy has been posted on various (often unrelated) sites, leaping through cyberspace like an overcaffeinated meme, sending my ‘hits’ though the (albeit bungalow level) roof. This has completely scrambled the site profile, creating a sudden illusion of immense popularity, and brought me to the verge of removing said anecdote. It is perhaps a little sad that this random piece of chit-chat has become the most read (?) item on my web log. One can only hope these thousands of casual drop-ins managed to comb through the stuff on Guy Debord which preceded the story and are now taking to the streets mouthing Situationist slogans. Anyway, perhaps more sadly predictable is the lengthy discussion of this bit of gossip on Crooked Timbre, which immediately turned into a debate as to the pros and cons of Starbucks, with one contributor vigorously pleading the giant corporation’s case, arguing that the whole issue was inextricably bound up with perceptions of America. At this point I was compelled to intervene:

May I remind you also that the original post did not constitute an attack on Starbucks, making the direction taken by the subsequent discussion somewhat revealing. The eagerness to ‘defend’ what in any case was not been attacked would seem to smack of paranoia.

In fact, it wasn’t simply ‘paranoia’ that curved the discussion in this direction, it was a pre-existing set of preconceptions and conflations, the most obvious being the buttoning of the signifier ‘Starbucks’ to ‘America’ as signified. I quote: “Starbucks’ fame is inseparably intertwined with its Americanness and people’s impression of what an American brand will offer them.” that someone should feel she has something invested, personally, in defending a mutinational corporations is......... well, just file under ‘Example of successful ideological interpellation.' Thank you for your time.