|
MARÍA
DEL CARMEN
carmen.salasdr18@estudiantes.ciad.mx SERGIO ALFONSO SANDOVAL GODOY
GUILLERMO
NUÑEZ NORIEGA
Recibido
|
Abstract: Wine
production is a cultural, creative, versatile activity, and at the same time,
it carries conservative and traditional ideas and classifications that, in
some cases, do not fit the dynamism and diversity of the global wine scenery.
To achieve a better understanding and with the hope to eventually overcome
this complex decalage, this article presents a theoretical discussion of
value creation in the context of emerging wine-growing areas. The need to
incorporate a socio-anthropological perspective to the study of value is
explained, and the limits posed by the reproduction of representation and
valorization models based on the classic discourse versions of terroir,
tradition, and identity are argued. Given the fact that the worlds of wine
(Old/New/Third), are being expanded and transformed, this paper shows that
the new wine geographies offer a valuable testing ground for a well-aimed
interpretation of the winemaking scenarios of the 21st century. Keywords:
New wine geographies, value, terroir, tradition, identity.
Viejas categorías y nuevas
geografías vitivinícolas. Discutiendo la creación del valor, la tradición y
la identidad Resumen[2]: La
producción de vino es una actividad cultural, creativa, versátil y, al mismo
tiempo, conlleva ideas y clasificaciones conservadoras y tradicionales que,
en algunos casos, no se ajustan al dinamismo y diversidad del panorama
vitivinícola global. Para lograr una mejor comprensión y con la esperanza de
superar este complejo decalage, este artículo presenta una discusión
teórica sobre la creación de valor en el contexto de áreas vitivinícolas
emergentes. Se explica la necesidad de incorporar una perspectiva socio-antropológica
al estudio del valor y se argumentan los límites que plantea la reproducción
de modelos de representación y valorización basados en versiones clásicas del
discurso del terroir, la tradición y la identidad. Dado que los mundos
del vino (Viejo / Nuevo / Tercer) se están expandiendo y transformando, este
trabajo muestra que las nuevas geografías de producción ofrecen un valioso
campo de investigación para la interpretación de los escenarios vitivinícolas
del siglo XXI. Palabras
clave:
Nuevas geografías
vitivinícolas, valor, terroir, tradición, identidad.
Cómo citar Salas, M.; Sandoval S. y Núñez, G. (2021). Old categories and new wine geographies. Discussing
the creation of value, tradition and identity. Culturales,
9, e609. https://doi.org/10.22234/recu.20210901.e609 |
Introduction. The context of the new wine geographies
Wine
landscapes tell us many stories (Ingold, 1993), some of which refer to the classic
producing regions and their representations of tradition, history, homogeneity,
and romanticism. At the same time, other new wine-growing landscapes account
for the evolution of a sector, its diversity and contradictions, the hegemony
of the western experience, and the changes in representation and valorization
that surround the production and consumption of wine.
This work deals
with these last aspects that have become relevant with the growing expansion of
the wine industry at a global level (Anderson & Nelgen, 2011; Anderson
& Pinilla, 2018; Banks & Overton, 2010; Banks, 2013; Banks, Klinsrisuk,
Dilokwanich & Stupples, 2013; Demossier, 2013, 2018, 2020; Inglis &
Almila, 2020; Overton, Murray &
Banks, 2012),
caused in part by the development of emerging wine regions, here referred to as
new wine geographies (Banks & Overton, 2010). These new places of
production, with apparently different development dynamics, posed further
questions for the socio-anthropological study of value creation in the wine
sector. The experience of two recently developed wine areas, such as Cananea,
Sonora (Mexico), and Sonoita-Elgin, Arizona (USA), located on the northern and
southern borders of both countries respectively, inspired the considerations
shown here[3].
At a
theoretical level, the work and discussion raised by the geographers Banks and
Overton (2010), who critically explore the notion of the Third World of wine, constructed
the concept of new winemaking geographies (the concept is also discussed in
Barker, 2004). They claim the idea that the diversity of the current global
wine panorama is much more intricate than the classifications with which we
often try to simplify it: “we
should reject the obvious solution posed by the most recent producers of adding
a Third World to our categorization. Instead, we see something much more
complex, dynamic and exciting: multiple worlds of wine […]” (Banks & Overton, 2010, p.
72)
As the authors
themselves argue, the notion of the Third World[4] of wine is problematic, not
only because it has been commonly used to refer to a group of “underdeveloped” or “poor”
production countries, “in
comparison to the West”
(Banks & Overton, 2010, p. 68); but because it is ultimately a vague and
broad classification, like those of “Old
World” and “New World” of wine[5].
The origin of
the Old and New World of wine differentiation and classification lies in the
expansion of the wine industry with globalization. In the wine industry until
the 20th century, “three-quarters of the volume of world wine production,
consumption and trade still involved Europe” (Anderson, Norman & Wittwer,
2003, p. 661). It is not until the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th
century (with the development of new technology and transport, the
liberalization of trade and increased migration from Europe to North and South
America) that production and consumption of wine started to be more intensely
globalized and de/relocalized (Anderson & Pinilla, 2018; Inglis &
Almila, 2020; Demossier, 2018, 2020).
As Barker
(2004) argued, the variation of the wine countries’ responses to this changing
global scenario explains the Old World – New World differences. This
differentiation was developed and often simplified in the idea that tradition
and terroir were challenged and threatened by the New World’s innovation,
technology, and mass production (Anderson & Pinilla, 2018;
Carter, 2018; Fourcade, 2012; Inglis & Almila, 2020; Paxson, 2016).
The
increasing diversification of the wine world demonstrates that these debates
have been partly overcome and complexified. The advancement of the global
diversification of wine production, the emergence or re-emergence of new wine
countries, the new consumers’ demand, and climate change shows that the wine
industry may be experiencing another turn.
To contribute to the understanding of the complexity of the global wine
scenario, instead of adding new categories to the classification Old World/ New
World, such as Ancient World (Inglis,
2020; Li et al. 2018), to indicate an older connection with wine
production than the Old World of wine; or Third World, to referred newer
connection with wine production than the New World; our study proposes to
analyze the emerging new wine geographies to characterize and discuss the
changes, the causes, and the challenges of the current expansion and
globalization of the wine industry.
Today within
each country, a wide variety of wine-growing regions can be found, whose
development takes place in very diverse socio-economic, political, historical,
and temporal conditions; and, therefore, difficult to be classified and
analyzed under the same category. Arizona in the United States of America and
Sonora in Mexico, the two locations where we based this study, are
representative examples; Arizona would be classified within the New World
however, its incorporation into the sector is very recent compared to other
states such as California.
On the other hand, following the classification explained by
Banks and Overton (2010), Sonora and Mexico, in general, could be placed
between the first and the fourth sub-category of the wider category of the
Third World of wine. In the first due to the economic level and for being a
former Spanish colony. In the fourth, because Mexico meets three of the
criteria proposed in this sub-category: 1. The wine industry is being developed
recently, although states like Coahuila have not stopped producing wine since
the 16th century (Corona, 2002, 2011); 2. Because certain producing regions are
within arid / desert and tropical zones, but with suitable microclimates; and,
finally, 3. For not having a consolidated history associated with the domestic
consumption of this drink. Additionally, the category of the Third World of
wine has been loosely used to refer to a group of countries, considered as
economic developing countries that have recently started to produce and consume
wine (Banks & Overton, 2010). Paradoxically, the wine industry in Mexico is
partly been driven by an economic elite, both in terms of investment for
production and consumption. For this reason, we conclude, with Banks and
Overton (2010), that the classification of the Third World of wine is full of
contradictions.
In this work,
countries such as China, India, Thailand, Brazil, Peru and Mexico, among
others, are considered as new wine geographies; but also new regions or
microregions that, although located in countries with consolidated wine
production, have recently been developed or re-emerge. These areas share a
secondary or peripheral place in the world of wine due to: their recent
incorporation into the wine sector; their small contribution to the global
market of this product; and the low representation and visibility that these
winescapes have at the national and international level.
Banks and
Overton (2010) invite to reconceptualized the world(s) of wine, and this essay
seeks to continue the line of research. With this goal, we retake the notion of
the New Wine Geographies (hereinafter NWG), and we incorporate, to the
globalization approach, a socio-anthropological dimension of value.
What we propose
is that we are confronted by a context (late twentieth century and early
twenty-first century) where new wine areas unrelated to the attributes of
tradition, history, and autochthony, commonly associated with the production of
wine and its valorization, come into sight. In these areas, the wine production
manifests itself as a mixture of global influences (Banks & Overton, 2010;
Banks et al. 2013; Barker, 2004; Demossier, 2013, 2018; Paxson, 2010;
Trubek & Bowen, 2008) that are articulated in a specific place and time.
This production
is a new activity in response to the opportunity of globalization, which
contrasts with food movements and strategies coming from Europe that focus on
the protection and recovery of knowledge and products from the threat
represented by globalization (Anderson & Pinilla, 2018; Paxson, 2016). The
NWG are, therefore, facing up a process of value creation that requires
different forms of reverse engineering terroir (Paxson, 2010) to those carried
out in Europe. That is, “thinking backward” (Paxson, 2010, p. 445) from the
European model, not in opposition but in a relationship with it from a
different logic and context.
The discourse
of terroir, tradition, and identity, as well as the system of geographical
indications, materializes in France at the beginning of the 20th century with a
protectionist and commercial logic (Bowen, 2010; Carter, 2018; Contreras &
Gracia, 2005; Demossier, 2018; Fourcade, 2012; Trubek & Bowen, 2008). More
recently, in 2015, the notion of climats de Bourgogne appears, again in
France, facing the crisis of a new phase of “fast capitalism and globalization” (Demossier, 2018, p. 29). In
this context, we consider that the following question is relevant: Why not
recognize that other ways of interpretation, representation and materialization
of the unique relationship between place and production may also arise within
the NWG? In these places, the strategies of value creation and the evolution of
cultural meanings associated with the representation of this agribusiness will
develop differently than previous models; since they respond (from various
contexts and from freedom constrained by the hierarchical structure in which
the world of wine is shaped) to different demands (sustainability, climate change,
new ways of production, new products, new wine styles) of the wine industry of
the 21st century.
Consequently,
these experiences demand to be interpreted not from the hegemonic ideas of the
developed west (Demossier, 2011; Herzfeld, 2004; Jung, 2014), neither from the
classification Ancient World /Old World / New World / Third world, but from
their own logic (of meaning, production, and consumption). In other words, a
transition is required from the traditional categories (from the ideals and
models built in the Old World, around the terroir, the tradition, identity, and
culture of wine) to the new geographies (adapted, reconfigured, or reinvented
in their own space and time).
Recent studies
such as Cappeliez (2017) discussing the cultural translation of the notion of
terroir in Canada; Jung (2014, 2016) regarding the transformation and
recognition of the wine production in Bulgaria; Covarruvias & Thach (2015),
De Jesús & Thomé (2019), De Jesús, Thomé, Espinoza & Vizcarra (2019)
and De Jesús, Thomé, Espinoza & Medina (2020) about the wine industry in
Mexico; Schmidt, Macchione
Saes & Fowler de Ávila Monteiro (2014) regarding the
introduction of geographical indications in a wine-growing area of Brazil;
Banks et al. (2013) with the case of wine in Thailand; or Hillel,
Belhassen & Shani (2013) analyzing how to make a gastronomic region
attractive in Israel; illustrate some of the challenges of production and value
creation in secondary places at the global market of wine.
To understand
the context of NWG, it was necessary to review as well different works
regarding the (re)localization of global experiences, from various concepts and
approaches, such as globalization/localization/glocalization (Appadurai, 1996;
Escobar, 2001; Friedman, 1994; Hinrichs, 2003; Roudometof, 2016); the global assemblages (Ong & Collier, 2005); the
reflexive imbrications (Demossier, 2018, 2020); the cross-cultural translation (Barham,
2003; Cappeliez, 2017; Demossier, 2013, 2018, 2020; Paxson, 2010); the making
of place (Demossier, 2018; Ferguson, 1998; Rainer, 2016); the embeddedness
(Bowen, 2010; Murdoch, Marsden & Banks, 2000; Winter, 2003); and the sense
(and taste) of place (Demossier, 2018; Massey, 1991; Paxson, 2010; Trubek
& Bowen, 2008);
among others.
From these
previous works, a shared idea is rescued: that the specificity of the place
still matters and continues to be a key in the process of differentiation and
value creation. Meaning that the incorporation of this type of activity does
not occur in the vacuum (Urry, 1995). They are not extrapolated in space
(Ingold, 1993), nor do they occur anonymously (García, 1999). Instead, they
take place within a territory with specific resources and with a community of
actors where different interests are operated, negotiated and materialized[6].
The problem
that we visualize for the NWG is the following: on the one hand, these spaces
lack of a long background and history regarding viticulture and wine production
(Alonso
& Northcote, 2009); they also arise in the
shadow of the long-consolidated wine regions and in the context of advanced
globalization. On the other hand, globalization facilitates innovation, but
also imitation, and this situation is tricky because the strategy of the wine
industry is based on differentiation. In this context, it seems to us that the
NWG confronts three fundamental problems: 1) How to differentiate and create
value from an activity that emerge or re-emerge? 2) Where to start? And
finally, 3) What are the challenges of such a context? In this article, we will
present a theoretically informed argumentation to these three initial
questions.
The NWG, as has
been argued, arises in response to the opportunity of globalization and not
against it. Hence, extrapolating the ideas of Friedman (1994) and Bourdieu
(1980/2007), the NWG are new configurations directed from the material logic of
globalization in which world cultural logic finds its variable expressions
(Friedman, 1994). If that is the case, we can deduce that one way to move
forward in the comprehension of the variability and differentiation of this
activity in each place is by complementing the previous theoretical review with
an analysis of value creation as a complex and sociocultural phenomenon (Appadurai,
1986; Graeber, 2001, 2005; Kopytoff, 1986; Miller, 2008; Robbins, 2015; Robbins
& Sommerschuh, 2016).
To illustrate
the discussion, this paper is organized as follows. The first section gives an
explanation and justification about the importance of taking into account the
socio-anthropological dimension of value. The second section examines and
questions the use of the classic discursive categories such as terroir and
tradition (common elements for the value justification), with the intention of
re-opening the debate on whether or not these categories should be dismissed,
reformulated, or replaced, according to the needs and particularities of each
case. The third section looks into the challenges that NWG are facing to find
their personality (ies) and to define their identity(ies), as one of the last
steps for consolidation of value.
I.
Action and interaction. A discussion of value in a socio-anthropological sense
Unquestionably, wine is a
commodity and a cultural product (Harvey, 2002; Black & Ulin, 2013;
Demossier, 2018; Ulin, 2002). This complex configuration allows wine to develop
in the market, not only as a non-standardized product (unique, cultural,
authentic) but also to communicate and represent the relationships between the
product and the place of production. In this sense, according to Bourdieu
(1980/2007), studying this type of commodity only from its objective truth,
without taking into account its non-material dimension, would annihilate its
specificity, which is where much of its value and profitability resides.
How to explain,
for instance, the auction of a bottle of wine at Sotheby’s for the value of 558
thousand dollars (Mc. Coy, 2018), or that the price of a bottle, as occurs in
countries like Mexico, can be up to four times greater than the established
minimum wage[7]. These prices’ irrationality and purchase exceed the
objective analysis (Appadurai, 1986; Bourdieu, 1980/2007, Kopytoff, 1986; Teil,
2012). Even from a more technical or oenological perspective, the value could
not be justified based on the result of the control and quality parameters
established in a laboratory before putting that bottle out on the market (pH,
total acidity, volatile acidity, alcohol, free SO2, total SO2, residual sugar,
among others). Blouin and Peynaud (2003/ 2006) support this last idea by
asserting in one of their enology guides, that as P. Poupon (sommelier of
Burgundy, 1974) wrote so beautifully: the analysis of wine does not reveal
better the secret of its charms, just as the study of tears does not inform
about the feelings or emotions that provoke them.
Consequently, it
would be a limitation to analyze the value of wine only from the material, the
instrumental and the functional position, without considering what this
industry and this product represent and means (a lifestyle, a region, a social
class, a status). Therefore, if as Harvey (1982) points out “the social aspect of use values
is what counts in the end”
(p. 338), we should draw attention to the analysis of value from the collective
actions that gives sense to its meanings (Appadurai, 1996; Graeber, 2001, 2005;
Kopytoff, 1986; Miller, 2008; Robbins, 2015; Robbins & Sommerschuh, 2016).
To address this perspective of value, Graeber (2001) says:
Value can best
be seen in this light as to how actions become meaningful to the actor by being
incorporated in some larger, social totality — even if, in many cases, the
totality in question exists primarily in the actor’s imagination. (p. xii)
From this
perspective, the way to “reconcile” the extraordinary and tangible
aspects (Harvey, 2002, p. 93) of wine seems to be more transparent. However,
questions such as the following will remain: How are the economic and symbolic
features articulated in the processes of reproduction, differentiation, and
power involved in the strategies of value creation in the wine industry[8]?
Part of the
answer lies first on the fact that under the formula good + quality = commodity
+ rhetoric = capital (Frigolé, 2014), symbolic resources are assumed to be part
of economic capital. The uniqueness or singularity as a quality of certain
commodities and its sociocultural valuation-classification, it is an attribute
that separates the object from the sphere of commercial homogeneity (Kopytoff,
1986). Regardless, “the only reliable public valuation” (Kopytoff, 1986, p. 88)
of this singularity comes from the commodity sphere, which, through a price,
ends up measuring the value (and the worth) of this quality.
The
convertibility phenomenon is reproduced and integrated into the capital
accumulation process, allowing that capital goes to capital (Bourdieu,
1980/2007; Lizardo, 2006); and, at the same time, giving meaning to the sources
of symbolic value. This idea is confirmed in the work of Beckert, Rössel &
Schenk (2014) when he reveals that “an
important strategy for wine producers is first to obtain symbolic capital in
the field of wine, which can later be transformed into economic gains through
higher prices for their products”
(p. 17).
That is how the
discourse of identity, terroir, and tradition, more or less evident among the
actors in each case, makes sense. This discursive relationship of the unique
link between product, nature, and human action/savoir-faire results in a kind of “fictitious
capital” (Harvey, 1982; Henderson,
1998) that guarantee the value-added and the economic profitability (Bourdieu,
1980/2007; Demossier, 2018; Harvey, 2002; Paxson, 2010; Skinner, 2020). As
Paxson (2010) exposes confirming the convertibility of capitals, “terroir adds value when it is
used as a bridge between forms of value that are otherwise difficult to
reconcile of” (Paxson,
2010, p. 454). In the same sense, Demossier (2018) points out: “The story of
terroir seemed to guarantee the taste of place and to justify the high price of
purchase for this closed gustatory experience” (p. 15)
Second,
understanding this articulation (of the economic and the symbolic in the
processes of reproduction and differentiation of value) implies recognizing the
autonomy of the symbolic forms that arise from adapting the strategy of value
creation in different places. This autonomy explains, in part at least, the
changes and the variability[9] to which the NWG are subject and reveals, as Paxson
(2016) illustrates, that cultural and symbolic meanings and markers are not
“static” qualities (p.35).
Third, the
articulation issued means also to understand that differentiation depends on
two primary components: the characteristics of the physical resources of the
soil, the raw materials, the physical conditions; as well as the relationship
of these resources with the socio-cultural, economic and political environment.
In other words, the differentiations involved processes of identification,
(de)(re)codification, appropriation, representation, and materialization that
will vary in each territory. That suggests the factors that condition the
activity are not merely geo-climatic but relational and contextual. Thereby, as
Graeber (2001) points out, what matters is not the value of the object but the
collective action and interaction, that is, its valorization. We are aware of the importance of this
interaction by looking at the experience of consolidated wine regions.
Charters and Spielmann (2014) explain the case of champagne and
conclude that collectivity, cooperation, shared mythology, and local engagement
are, among other factors, essential features for the success of a territorial
brand. However, we noticed reviewing the case of countries like Brazil (Schmidt
et
al. 2014), Thailand (Banks et al., 2013), or Mexico (Covarruvias & Thach, 2015; De Jesús et
al. 2019; De Jesús et al. 2020) that collective actions are difficult to
achieve in NWG. Some of the general reasons explained are related to the fact
that: some wine projects are driven by economic investors with external
interests; not all the regions have a supportive institutional structure to
protect and promote the industry; and in some cases, wine is still an exclusive
commodity, which poses a barrier to expand the product in a domestic level, and
to create links between the industry and the local communities.
Fourthly, as a
final point regarding the confrontation of powers that underlies the strategies
of value creation both, the ownership of physical resources and their meanings
(and appropriation) must be considered (Carter, 2018; Demossier, 2018;
Fourcade, 2012; Harvey, 2002; Overton & Banks, 2015). Thus, it is necessary
to be conscious of the interests and motivations (individual or collective)
that guide the actions of the multiple actors and, therefore, to identify when
negotiation or conflict leads to a reconfiguration of power relations (Gupta
& Ferguson, 1992). For this reason, when interpreting the meaning of the
actions, it is necessary to keep in mind the ownership of land, the business
model, the interaction between actors, and the benefit (and to whom) of the
actions carried out.
The work of De Jesús et al. (2020), helps us illustrate this last point[10].
The authors compare the development of wine tourism in two cases, the Penedès
Viticultural Appellation in Catalonia (Spain) and the Querétaro wine region in
México. The authors analyzed wine tourism as a global phenomenon involving
different territory appropriation processes led by different actors and
different logics for each specific territory. Comparing the two cases, the work
evidence that in Querétaro (Mexico) the development of wine tourism and the
mobilization of territorial resources associate with it has been carried out
with business logic. As a result, they observe a stereotyped and Eurocentric
eno-gastronomic model (De Jesús et al., 2020) detach from the local resources (such as
the connection with local and indigenous traditional gastronomy). Contrary, in
Penedès Viticultural Appellation in Catalonia (Spain), a territorial logic
drives the development of wine tourism. This logic has favored the dynamization
of territorial resources, the creation of a collective territorial brand and
the socio-economic empowerment of rural spaces and communities. Besides the
differences, the work critically points out the role of hegemonic wine
companies; the strong capitals of some of the actors and the capitalist and
profit logic behind the wine business; and the commodification and use of
biocultural heritage attached to this activity.
To sum up, in
this section, it has been argued the importance of the socio-anthropological
dimension to study the variability of value in products like wine. It has been
advocated the analysis of value through the actions that give meaning to
discourses and strategies associated with wine agribusiness. For the case of
the NWG, this makes us aware, as a first step, of the need to review the
different ways of understanding and reproducing notions such as terroir,
tradition and the culture associated with this production.
II
To have or not to have “wine
culture”.
The
role of terroir and tradition in the NWG
The global world of wine
diversifies, and we can observe changes in soil, climate, varieties,
techniques, and ideas that represent and go along with this activity. Consequently, we can find that
in some contexts, a cabernet sauvignon aged in French or American oak continues
to be a success; while in others, the style (or the form in Bourdieu’s terms)
is no longer what drives the production, but other issues related to the
environment, health, and social commitment. Biodynamic,
organic, fair trade, sulfite-free wines, “paleo-, keto-, and low-carb-friendly” (Monroe, 2019, para. 41) are some examples of an
endless list of options. This diversity shows that the consumer’s and
producer’s positioning of the current world of wine is changing.
Undoubtedly,
authenticity, specificity, and the discourse of terroir and tradition seem to
be still key for the process of valorization and reputation of a winemaking
region. However, neither the terroir nor the tradition are tangible, and
therefore not fully controllable or predictable. They cannot be controlled
because, as we explained previously, the subjective part of these constructions
(Teil, 2012) and the human actions involved with them are highly variable (Charters and Spielmann, 2014; Hira
and Swartz, 2014)
The Old World of
wine success is partly due to the making of terroir, and as different authors
explain, terroir is not something given by nature but a production (Carter,
2018; Demossier, 2018; Paxson, 2010, 2016). Further, “terroir is not a priori
quality to be discovered through selective recuperation of the past; rather, it
is something to do to make the future” (Paxson, 2010, p. 445). An example of
this is the following testimony: I don’t want to do the viticulture of my parents, I
am interested in that of my great-grandfather (Fernández, 2012, in Frigolé,
2014).
For the creation
of value in the emerging wine areas, without the help of this great-grandfather
figure, it is still essential to find and communicate the relationship between
the activity, the product, and the place of production. The lack of clarity
regarding this relationship is a problem and a limitation (Hillel et al.,
2013; Trubek & Bowen, 2008). Through the lens of the NWG, this problem
makes us wonder something that Harvey (2002) already pointed out: what would
happen if the NWG decide to abandon the discourse of terroir and tradition?
What categories do we “put in its place?” (p. 100) What do we have left?
Without a background, from where do they start? These questions remain in
discussion.
Paxson’s (2010,
2016) work for the case of USA and Cappeliez’s (2017) for Canada, shows that
the recalibration of the terroir -for each product, each space and each
specific time- entail a reconfiguration of the relationships between the
material and the discursive side of the three main components of terroir: the
natural world, the human technique and the historical tradition (Barham, 2003;
Cappeliez, 2017).
In the NWG, their
viticulture projects depart from the existence (or the search) of some areas
with suitable physical conditions to grow wine grapes (the natural world);
to start and develop this new wine production, they count on the
theoretical-technical knowledge that exists in the viticulture and winemaking
scientific field and that it is shared worldwide. In addition, it is pretty
common for producers in NWG to get trained in other countries or to hire
winemakers or external advisors from consolidated wine areas (the human
technique). However, the interrelation between nature, practice, and
culture (the historical tradition) remains pending. In other words, the
only of the three components of terroir that is missing in emerging wine
regions seems to be tradition, so, again, what do we put in its place?
In fact, in the
NWG, there is the freedom to leave tradition aside, re-invent it, re-create it,
or re-signify it, which means understanding what elements of terroir and
tradition are to remain (Cappeliez, 2017), change or disappear. Alonso and Northcote (2009) notes for the
case of Australia that within these elements, landscape and history continue to
be reproduced under the scheme of the Old-World heritage associated with wine.
That is, according to these authors: drawing on an image of an idyllic rural
life, trying to connect the history of the place with the present wine
activity; or, using the discourse about the influence of European immigrants to
legitimate the setting and background of the new wine region.
Part of the problem of these schemes’ reproduction is connected with
the idea that in the Old World of
wine (that often is the model of reference for other wine countries) tradition
has been interpreted in opposition to modernity (Giddens, 1991), highlighting
its connection with the past, reproduction over time, stability, and resistance
to innovation. Thus, the lack of alternatives to justify the quality of a wine
region and the hegemony of the model of the Old World has reinforced the
reproduction of discourses (about terroir and tradition), “standards of taste
as well as practical know-how” (Paxson, 2016, p. 37; also discussed in Jung,
2014).
However, the
cross-cultural translation (Cappeliez, 2017; Demossier, 2018; Paxson, 2010,
2016; Raftery, 2017) and adaptation of the reference models do not turn out the
same in each specific context. For instance, as Paxson (2016) illustrates
through the case of artisan cheesemaking, in the United States, progress and
innovation are “valued over patrimony” (p.32), continuity and tradition.
Contrary to the European models where the connection to the past is a source of
add–value to products like wine; in the United States, the innovation, the
newly, the diversity and the pioneering spirit are positive and highly valuable
qualities.
As different
authors have explained (Friedman, 1994; Hall, S., Held, D., Hubert, D., &
Thompson, K., 1996; Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983; Kirshemblatt – Gimblett, 1998),
it is difficult to defend the tradition from the position of invariability. On
the contrary, tradition also speaks about change, as it is shown in the notion
of terroir proposed by UNESCO (2005) “Terroirs are living and innovative spaces which cannot be
assimilated into a single tradition”
(as cited in Unwin, 2012, p. 39). That is to say, the role of traditions is to
help the reproduction of living cultural models. They are transmitted in
movement, through practice, in coherence with the actors who perform them
within their culture and territory, within “their habitus and habitat”
(Kirshenblatt - Gimblett, 2004, p. 53). That explained why the result of the
translation of the wine industry in different contexts gives information about
the sociocultural configuration, the producers’ organizations, the political
structures (Carter, 2018; Fourcade, 2012) and the “aesthetic standards”
(Paxson, 2016, p.34; also debated in Jung, 2014) of the territory where the
activity is developed.
To understand the
reproduction of reference models and discourses of terroir and tradition, two
factors come into play: time (temporality) and culture (their specific
understanding).
Firstly, a
critical factor here is time because neither tradition nor terroir can be
inscribed or extrapolated in a specific space. According to the dwelling
perspective (Ingold, 1993, 2000), what happens is a process of incorporation.
Knowledge production is developed hand in hand with practice, resulting from
the interaction with the activity (viticulture and wine production) over time.
In this regard, Cappeliez (2010) says:
[Ontario
wineries] have as much geology and climate history than you’ll have in Europe
[…] is to understand [this geology and climate history], and learn what you can
grow on that particular terroir, and this takes time. The geological history of
Niagara is arguably as old as that of France, but winemaking practices and the
ability to understand and work with the geological history of the Niagara place
are much newer. (p. 31)
As the previous
quote points out, and as Ingold (2000) explains with his concept of taskscape
and the dwelling perspective, time and history are part of experience and
practice; and “if knowledge
is shared it is because people work together, through their joint immersion in
the settings of activity, in the process of its formation” (p. 163). Thereby, using the
arguments of the same author, understanding, working and finding the
singularity of the wine activity in each territory requires a special kind of
time, a social time. That is, a time that comes from a natural movement of the
action in a particular space and has a specific rhythm that will depend on the
environment and the actors. This perspective of time explains, beyond the
discourse, expressions like -you have to listen to the terroir-, -you have to
let the terroir speak, to express itself-.
In today’s
society, globalization and the pressure of different economic or political
interests have overlooked the importance of social time. As can be observed in
emerging wine countries, the fast growth of production and consumption patterns
(Banks & Overton, 2010) have accelerated the industry’s development and its
value strategies. For some wine projects, this has led to the attempt to
reproduce models that are shared worldwide (Ingold, 2000; Jung, 2014; Paxson,
2010, 2016). However, trying to reproduce the tradition of the European model
where value resides in the continuity with the past, to the context of the NWG,
is a limitation.
Secondly, culture
is, along with time, the other central factor. As Ulin (2002) explains,
tradition is an outcome of work and practice; at the same time, work is not
merely instrumental but also cultural since, from it, we can create an
identity, a way of differentiation, and a source of value. Tradition,
therefore, is about work, practice, and culture, aspects that are all developed
together. Hence, we have to be careful when we look at the “absence of tradition or wine
culture” in newcomers to
the world of wine because, as some authors have pointed out, the concept of
culture itself has become a flexible notion and requires ethnographic
approaches aimed toward the understanding of territorial specificity. As stated
by Demossier (2018): “The
concept of culture, anthropologically speaking, has become a loose notion which
requires a more ethnographically rooted approach to identify changes in core
values, shifts in discourses and new positioning in the hegemonic national and
global tapestry of politics”
(p. 8).
These arguments
suggest that trying to reproduce in the praxis, the European model (varieties,
forms of representation, tastes, narratives) in the NWG, is as limited as
trying to interpret, in theory, from the prism of a single culture of wine,
unique and static, without taking into consideration the diversity of actions
and practices that give meaning to wine production and consumption in each
specific culture.
With this belief, we want to call attention to the fact that culture is
not something imposed, is not something “that people are supposed to
bring with them into their encounter with the world” (Ingold, 1993, p. 161).
Applying Ingold dwelling perspective, this paper defends that culture [of wine]
is a specific understanding that comes from the performance of wine activity in
a spatial, temporal, socio-cultural and economic-political condition. This
particular configuration is what gives meaning to the diversity of practices
that explain: the kind of varieties that are being planted in the area and why;
what is working or failing; which problem or success are experiencing; which
styles of wines are being produced and how. These kinds of actions are what
make the history and the character of NWG unique, different.
That being the
case, the complex world of wine should be discussed not from having or not the “culture of wine” but from the concept “cultures of wine”. Neither from having “one identity”, but from the idea of multiple
possible identities. The current wine scene invites us to re-think these
categories and enrich and diversify the debate on them.
III
Vin anomie. The personality (and identity) of the NWG
The notions and discourses of
terroir, tradition and identity are essential to explain the configuration and
justification of value creation strategy in the global wine industry. The
concept of identity remains to be analyzed, as one of the components involved
in the consolidation of value. As Graeber explained “most commodities as
critics of Marx so often point out end up marking different sorts of identity,
and this is the ultimate social ‘realization’ of their value […]” (Graeber,
2001, pp. 79-80).
From this work
perspective, the process of identity does not end with the creation and
materialization of a fixed identity, since it can be multiple and variable,
and, in any case, is just an option (Giménez, 1997; Gupta & Ferguson, 1992;
Massey, 1991) In fact, the notion’s subjectivity makes it hard and problematic
its use as an analytical category to study places, people, or objects (Avanza
& Laferté, 2005; Brubaker & Cooper, 2000). For the case of wine,
different authors have used other categories such as intellectual property or
the regional brand (Banks & Overton, 2010; Charters & Spielmann, 2014; Christensen,
Kenney &
Patton, 2015; Paxson, 2010).
The identity of
the territory (and its extension to represent the quality of the origin of
products) will result from the intersection of different types of relations
between capitals (natural, social, cultural and economic); from the interaction
of global and local forces (Demossier, 2018, 2020; Friedman, 1994); and, from
the different responses, actions, practices and discourses carried out by the
actors in a particular place (Escobar, 2001; Gupta & Ferguson, 1992; Paasi,
2002).
Creating an
identity (or identities) for a wine territory is often a desirable achievement,
mainly because the materialization of a unique character seems to remain
fundamental for the conventional discourse and profitability of the wine
business (in opposition to standardized or anonymous commodities). In the NWG,
the absence of rules marked by tradition or history gives greater freedom for
growing, producing, and consuming wine. At the same time, this situation makes
the challenge of identity more difficult.
These premises can be observed in viticulture and winemaking practices
of emerging region as demonstrated in the work of Covarruvias and Thach (2015) in Valle de
Guadalupe (Mexico). The authors show that recently developed wine regions
struggle to find their character: “The wines of Mexico also suffer an identity
crisis in the sense that there are no clear distinctive varieties or focus on
what they do well […] some of these problems are normal in an emerging wine
region” (Covarruvias & Thach, 2015, p. 114).
Here the notion
of “gastro anomie” (Fischler, 1979) as a reference
to the de-structuration of food practices caused by the loss of rules that
comes with the advancement of globalization and modernity, can be applied to
wine practices. Demossier (2005) used the notion of “vin-anomie”
to describe a type of contemporary wine consumer. Nevertheless, for this essay,
we interpret the concept of “vin-anomie” not to the consumer, but as a
type of modern production, which represents the de-structuration, the freedom
and, sometimes, the contradictions that arise from the globalization of wine
production (and its translation, reproduction, and adaptation).
Fischler (1979) claimed that part of the contradictions he observes in
food practices and representations are due to the imbalance between internal
(from the body/nature) and external signals (from the culture). In addition, as
argued by the author, globalization entails individuality, freedom, and the
decrease of rules. This scenario causes a “cultural noise”
(Fischler, 1979), often coming, using
Kopytoff (1986) arguments, from a shared public aesthetic established by the
cultural hegemony (an idea also argued in Bourdieu, 1979/1998; Demossier, 2018; Herzfeld, 2004; Jung, 2014; Kearney,
1995). As a consequence of this scenario, Fischler (1979) observed insecurity
and crisis manifest in food practices.
Concerning the
above argument for the case of wine practices (of production and consumption),
it is necessary to notice that the NWG appears within a world [of wine] already
defined (Friedman, 1994) thus, all the participants in the sector have
internalized global values, classifications, trends, discourses and meanings
(regarding which are the best varieties, which are the most expensive, which
are the regions with best reputation and status, among other ideas). That being
the case, it can be deduced that for emerging winemaking initiatives, even if
they are “new”, it is difficult “to start at the beginning” (Appadurai, 1996,
p. 64). Sometimes, in developing wine projects, these external signals, the
external and cultural “noise” prevails (discourses, meanings, reference
models), or have a significant place over the specific conditions of the
context, leading to contradictions, imbalances and insecurity.
That being said,
if one of the last steps in the process of valorization is the creation of
identity (and its global recognition), the first is the self-identification,
the being (Bourdieu,
1980/2007). That means to find the qualities that a wine territory has and then
to decide which of them we want to show and use. In the context of freedom, of
vin-anomie, that the NWG enjoy (or suffer), there are multiple options to
choose from a different form of us
(Prats, 1997, p. 35), but the choice will remain in the hands of the
actors with unequal interest, agency and power; and, all at once, by the system
of hegemonic values that prevail at that time (Demossier, 2018; Herzfeld, 2004; Jung, 2014; Paxson, 2010; Prats,
1997). In turn, the freedom of the NWG is conditioned and halfway between the “unpredictable novelty” and the “simple mechanical reproduction” (Harvey, 1990, p. 345).
Contrary to what
can be expected from this scenario, imitation still acts in favor of the
diversification of the wine industry, since as Appadurai (1996) points out, “problems of imitation and
cultural transfer […] can lead to violent and culturally peculiar acts of
innovations” (p. 60).
The previous statement
leads us to put together three ideas: The first, from a classic statement of
food anthropology studies, the evidence that the core elements of food
practices (here applied to viticulture and winemaking practices) are resistant
to change (Douglas & Nicod, 1974). The second, from the experience of the
recently developed wine region, which has demonstrated that in the Old World
(the core, the center) the production and consumption of wine shows a slower
growth than in emerging countries (Banks & Overton, 2010); and that in
emerging places not only imitation is observed, but also innovation and
creativity (Banks & Overton, 2010; Banks et al., 2013). The third,
from the theory of globalization and culture, that states that when the center
stops growing, the opportunity for the emergence of new identities appears
(Appadurai, 1986; Friedman, 1994; Herzfeld, 2004). Therefore, theory and
practice seem to point out the fact that in the future, changes and innovations
will come first from the NWG.
To conclude, it
should be clarified, however, that the intention of this work is not to
discredit the permanence of some models, strategies, and values around the wine
sector; nor to support that only changes deserve attention (Prats, 1997). What
this article is about, using Escobar’s (2001) words, is to seek “the possibility of linking
space, place and identity in ways that are not accounted for either in
conventional models of identity […], not in the newer ones” (p. 148).
IV
Thinking about the value in new winemaking scenarios of the XXI century. Final
considerations
This paper has debated different
socio-anthropological aspects of value creation in the wine industry and its
relationship with new geographies, terroir, tradition, and identity. As
Charters and Spielmann (2014) point out, “there is a little understanding of the nature of value” (p. 1466) regarding wine and
its place of production, and this study has aimed to contribute to this
attainment.
The agribusiness
of wine, in recent years, reveals a dynamic of contradictions, opportunities,
and changes, marked by a context in which everything around wine and food is the
result of loans, exchanges and adaptations (Medina, 2017). Within this
scenario, trying to reproduce the old categories in the new wine geographies is
a limitation for what constitutes the value and the worth (in all its senses)
of a product such as wine: its diversity. This makes us think, and extrapolate,
Friedman’s idea: the de-hegemonization of the world [of wine] dominated by the
West, will be at the same time its de-homogenization (Friedman, 1994).
It is
demonstrated that the globalization of wine agribusiness, despite favoring the
imitation of the models and categories of the Old and New World, does not cause
its homogenization (Banks & Overton, 2010; Banks, 2013; Banks et al.,
2013; Barker, 2004). To account for the existence and variability of responses
to the global hegemony of value, Herzfeld (2004) encourages conducting
ethnographic studies in secondary or marginalized settings. In the same
direction, Gupta and Ferguson (1992) emphasize the importance of explaining the
relationships of different cultures (subcultures) with the dominant culture. By
the same token, for the case of the wine industry, Demossier (2013, 2018)
proposes to analyze the counterstories. Following these works, the present
essay has addressed the creation of value in the NWG as secondary spaces,
seeking to discuss the changing world of wine and the ideological system on
which it is supported and reproduced.
Everything seems
to indicate that today, the emerging and developing wine regions provide a wide
field to study the challenges that this places face to position their products
in the global and domestic market; to promote the revitalization of rural
regions (their reterritorialization); to produce quality wines; to self-define
(collectively and individually) the character of each wine region; and, to
confront the idea of wealth and Occidentalism that surrounds this business. The
globalization of wine is in a new phase (Anderson & Nelgen 2011), the Old World / New World / Third
World classification is being destabilized; and the possibilities to validate
new logics (Rao, 2003) that affect the production, the valorization, the
consumption of wine, and the democratization of this product and its ideology,
are open.
As proposed by
different authors (Appadurai, 1986; Graeber, 2005) the introduction of new
values and the changes in the system responds to new demands that are, at the
same time, sights of creativity and/or crises (aesthetic, economic, cultural,
environmental). Maybe, the question here, as Collier and Ong (2005) suggest,
would be, are these crises, global challenges and changes new? “And how do they
inform a critical engagement with the present?” (p. 15). To properly approach
the complexity of these questions, and advance towards a comprehensive
interpretation of the different winemaking scenarios of the 21st century,
requires multi-site empirical works and inter-disciplinary research networks.
Bibliographic
references
Alonso, A. & Northcote, J. (2009). Wine, history,
landscape: origin branding in Western Australia. British Food Journal, 111(11),
1248-1259.
Anderson,
K., Norman, D., & Wittwer, G. (2003). Globalisation of the world’s wine
markets. The World Economy, 26(5), 659-687.
Anderson, K., & Nelgen, S. (2011). Wine’s
globalization: the next phase. In K. Anderson & S. Nelgen (Eds.) Global
Wine Markets, 1961 to 2009: A statistical compendium, pp. 27-32, Adelaide:
University of Adelaide Press.
Anderson, K., & Pinilla, V. (2018). Wine
globalization. A new comparative history. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Appadurai, A. (1986). Introduction: commodities and
the politics of value. In A. Appadurai (Ed.) The social life of things:
Commodities in cultural perspective, pp. 3-63, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Global ethnoscapes: Notes and
queries for a transnational anthropology. In D. Gaonkar & B. Lee (Eds.) Modernity
at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization, pp. 48-65, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Avanza, M., &
Laferté, G. (2005). Dépasser la « construction
des identités » ? Identification,
image sociale, appartenance. Geneses, 61(4), 134-152.
Barker,
J. (2004). Different worlds: law and the changing geographies of wine in
France and New Zealand (doctoral thesis). University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Banks, G., & Overton, J. (2010). Old world, new
world, third world? Reconceptualizing the worlds of wine. Journal of Wine
Research, 21(1), 57-75.
Banks, G. (2013). Between old worlds and the new?
Transcending place and space in the contemporary geography of wine.
Introduction. EchoGéo, 23, 1-5.
Banks, G., Klinsrisuk. R., Dilokwanich. S., &
Stupples., P. (2013). Wines without latitude: Global and local forces and the
geography of the Thai wine industry. EchoGéo, 23, 1-18.
Barham, E. (2003). Translating terroir: the global
challenge of French AOC labeling. Journal of Rural Studies, 19,
127-138.
Beckert, J., Rössel,
J., & Schenk, P. (2014). Wine
as a cultural product: Symbolic capital and price formation in the wine field.
In Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies. https://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp14-2.pdf
Black, R. & Ulin, R. (2013). Wine and culture:
Vineyard to glass. London: Bloomsbury.
Blouin,
J. & Peynaud, E. (2006). Enología práctica: Conocimiento y elaboración
del vino (E. Cotillas, Trans.). Madrid: Mundi Prensa. (Original work
published 2003).
Bourdieu, P. (1990). Sociología y Cultura (M.
Pou, Trans.). Mexico: Grijalbo. (Original work published 1984).
Bourdieu, P. (1998). La
distinción. Criterios y bases sociales del gusto (M. Ruiz de Elvira,
Trans.). Madrid: Taurus. (Original work
published 1979).
Bourdieu, P. (2007). El sentido práctico (A. Dilon, Trans.). Buenos
Aires: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. (Original work published
1980).
Bowen, S. (2010). Embedding local places in global
spaces: geographical indications as a territorial development strategy. Rural
Sociology, 75(2), 209-243.
Brubaker,
R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond “identity”. Theory
and Society, 29(1),
1-47.
Cappeliez, S. (2017). How well does terroir travel?
Illuminating cultural translation using a comparative wine case study. Poetics,
65, 24-36.
Carter,
E. (2018). For what it’s worth: The political construction of quality in French
and Italian wine markets. Socio-Economic Review, 16(3), 479-498.
Charters, S. & Spielmann, N. (2014).
Characteristics of strong territorial brands: the case of champagne. Journal
of Business Research, 67, 1461-1467.
Christensen, B., Martin, K., & Donald, P. (2015).
Regional identity can add value to agricultural products. California
Agriculture, 69(2), 85-91.
Contreras,
H. J., & Gracia, A. M. (2005). Alimentación y cultura: Perspectivas
antropológicas. Barcelona: Ariel.
Corona,
S. (2002). La vitivinicultura en el pueblo de Santa María de las Parras.
Producción de vinos, vinagres y aguardientes (Siglos XVII y XVIII) (doctoral thesis) Universidad
Iberoamericana, Mexico.
Corona,
S. (2011). Turismo del vino en la D.O “Valle de Parras” Coahuila, México. In X.
Medina, D. Serrano & J. Tresserras (Eds.) Turismo del vino. Análisis de
casos internacionales, pp. 159-171, Barcelona: Editorial UOC
Covarruvias,
J. & Thach, L. (2015). Wines
of Baja Mexico: A qualitative study examining viticulture, enology, and
marketing practices. Wine Economics and Policy, 4, 110-115.
De Jesús, D. & Thomé, H. (2019). Wine tourism and
wine routes in Mexico. State of knowledge and case studies. RIVAR, 6(17),
27-44.
De Jesús, D., Thomé,
H., Espinoza, A. & Vizcarra,
I. (2019). Trayectoria territorial de la región enológica de
Querétaro, México (1970-2017): Enoturismo y calidad territorial. Cuadernos
Geográficos 58(2), 240-261.
De
Jesús, D., Thomé, H., Espinoza, A. & Medina, X. (2020). Enoturismo y
promoción del territorio. Análisis comparativo entre el nuevo y el viejo mundo
del vino. Pasos, 18(3), 457-471.
Demossier, M. (2005). Consuming Wine in France: The
wandering drinker and the vin-anomie. In T. M. Wilson (Ed.), Drinking
Cultures: Alcohol and Identity, pp.129-154, New York: Berg.
Demossier, M. (2011). Beyond terroir: territorial
construction, hegemonic discourses, and French wine culture. Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute, 17(4), 685-705.
Demossier,
M. (2013). Following grands crus: Global markets, transnational histories and
wine. In R. Black. and R. C. Ulin (Eds.) Wine and
Culture: Vineyard to Glass, pp. 183-200, London:
Bloomsbury.
Demossier, M. (2018). Burgundy: The global story of
terroir. New York: Berghahn Books.
Demossier,
M. (2020). Reflexive imbrications: Burgundy and the globalization of terroir.
In D. Inglis, and A. Almila (Eds.) The Globlalization of Wine, pp. 47-65, London: Bloombury Academic.
Douglas, M. & Nicod, M. (1974). Taking the
biscuit: the structure of British meals. New society, 637,
744–747.
Escobar, A. (2001). Culture sits in places:
reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Political
Geography, 139-174.
Ferguson, P. (1998). A cultural field in the making:
Gastronomy in 19th-century France. The American Journal of
Sociology, 104(3), 597-641.
Fernández, J. (2012,) “El vino está de moda. Once
grandes del viñedo español hablan de estilo”. El País Semanal, no. 1881,
October, pp. 46-53.
Fischler, C. (1979). Gastro-nomie et gastro-anomie:
Sagesse du corps et crise bioculturelle de l’alimentation moderne. Communications, 31, 189-210.
Fourcade,
M. (2012). The vile and the noble: On the relation between natural and social
classifications in the French wine world. Sociological Quarterly, 53(4),
524-545.
Friedman, J. (1994). Identidad cultural y proceso
global (E. Sinnot, Trans.). Buenos Aires: Amorrortu (Simultaneously
published for Sage Publications).
Frigolé,
J. (2014). Retóricas de la autenticidad en el capitalismo avanzado. Énedosa:
Series Filosóficas, 33, 37-60.
García,
N. (1999). La globalización imaginada. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of modernity.
Cambridge: Polity Press
Giménez, G. (1997). Materiales para una
teoría de las identidades sociales. Frontera Norte, 9(18), 9-28.
Graeber, D. (2001). Anthropological theory of
value: The false coin of our own dreams. New York: Palgrave.
Graeber,
D. (2005). Value: anthropological theories of value. In J. Carrier (Ed.) The
Handbook of Economic Anthropology, pp.
439-455, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Gupta,
A. & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond “culture”: Space, identity, and the
politics of difference. Cultural Anthropolgy, 7(1), 6-23.
Hall, S., Held, D., Hubert, D. & Thompson, K.
(1996). Modernity: an introduction to modern societies. Malden:
Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (1982). The limits to capital.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity:
An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2002). The art of rent: Globalization,
monopoly and the commodification of culture. Socialist Register, 38,
93-110.
Henderson, G. (1998). Nature and fictitious capital:
The historical geography of an agrarian question. Antipode, 30(2),
73-118.
Herzfeld,
M. (2004). The body impolitic. Artisans
and artifice in the global hierarchy of value. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hillel, D., Belhassen, Y. & Shani, A. (2013). What
makes a gastronomic destination attractive? Evidence from the Israeli Negev. Tourism
Management, 36, 200-209.
Hinrichs, C. (2003). The practice and politics of food
system localization. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 33-45.
Hira, A & Swartz, T. (2014). What makes Napa Napa?
The roots of success in the wine industry. Wine Economics and Policy, 3,
37-53.
Hobsbawm E. & Ranger, T. (1983). The invention
of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inglis,
D. (2020). Wine globalization: Longer-term dynamics and contemporary patterns.
In A. Inglis, David & Almila (Eds.) The globlalization of wine, pp. 21-47, London: Bloombury Academic.
Inglis,
D. & Almila, A. (Eds.) (2020). The globalization of wine. London:
Bloombury Academic.
Ingold, T. (1993). The temporality of the landscape. World
Archaeology, 25(2), 152-174.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the
environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
Jung,
Y. (2014). Tasting and judging the unknown terroir of the Bulgarian wine: The
political economy of sensory experience. Food and Foodways, 22, 24-47.
Jung, Y. (2016). Re-creating economic and cultural
values in Bulgaria’s wine industry: From an economy of quantity to an economy
of quality? Economic Anthropology, 3, 280-292.
Kearney, M. (1995). The Anthropology of Globalization
and Transnationalism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 547-565.
Kirshemblatt-Gimblett, B. (1998). Destination
culture: tourism, museums and heritage. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2004). Intangible heritage
as metacultural production. Museum International, 56(1-2), 52-65.
Kopytoff, I. (1986). The
cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In A. Appadurai
(Ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective,
pp. 64-91, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, H., Wang, H., Li, H., Goodman, S., Van der Lee,
P., Xu, Z., Fortunato, A. & Yang, P. (2018). The worlds of wine: Old, new
and ancient. Wine Economics and Policy, 7(2), 178-182.
Lizardo, O. (2006). How cultural tastes shape personal
networks. American Sociological Review, 71, 778-807.
Massey,
D. (1991). A global sense of place. Marxism Today, 24–29. http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/91_06_24.pdf
McCoy, E. (2018, October 15). Why would anyone ever
pay $558,000 for a bottle of wine? Bloomberg.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-15/most-expensive-bottle-wine-1945-romanee-conti-burgundy-auction
Medina,
X. (2017). Reflexiones sobre el patrimonio y la alimentación desde las perspectivas
cultural y turística. Anales
de Antropología, 51,
106-113.
Miller,
D. (2008). The uses of value. Geoforum, 39, 1122-1132.
Monroe, R. (2019, November 18). How natural wine
became a symbol of virtuous consumption. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/25/how-natural-wine-became-a-symbol-of-virtuous-consumption
Murdoch, J., Marsden, T. & Banks, J. (2000).
Quality, nature, and embeddedness: Some theoretical considerations in the context
of the food sector. Economic Geography, 76(2), 107-125.
Ong,
A. & Collier, S. J. (2005). Global assemblages: Technology, politics,
and ethics as anthropological problems. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Overton, J., Murray, W. & Banks, G. (2012). The race
to the bottom of the glass? Wine, geography, and globalization. Globalizations,
9(2), 273-287.
Overton, J. & Banks, G. (2015). Conspicuous
production: Wine, capital and status. Capital & Class, 39(3),
473 -491.
Paasi,
A. (2002). Place and region: Regional worlds and words. Progress in Human
Geography, 26(6),
802-811.
Paxson, H. (2010). Locating value in artisan cheese:
Reverse engineering terroir for new-world landscapes. American
Anthropologist, 112(3), 444-457.
Paxson, H. (2016). Re – inventing a tradition of
invention: Entrepreneurialism as heritage American artisan cheesemaking. In R.
Brulotte & M. Di Giovine (Eds) Edible identities: Food as cultural
heritage. Burlington: Ashgate.
Prats,
L. (1997). Antropología y patrimonio. Barcelona: Ariel.
Raftery,
D. (2017). Producing value from
Australia’s vineyards: an ethnographic approach to “the quality turn” in the
Australia wine industry. Journal of Political Ecology, 24,
342-367.
Rainer, G. (2016). The making of the “world’s highest
wine region”: globalization and viticulture restructuring in Salta (Nw
Argentina). Erdkunde, 70(3) 255-269.
Rao, H. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville:
Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in french gastronomy. American
Journal of Sociology, 108(4), 795-843.
Robbins,
J. (2015). Ritual, value, and example: On the perfection of cultural
representations. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 21(S1),
18-29.
Robbins,
J., & Sommerschuh, J. (2016). Values. In F. Stein, S. Lazar, M.
Candea, H. Diemberger, J. Robbins, A. Sanchez & R. Stasch (Eds) The Cambridge Encyclopedia
of Anthropology. http://doi.org/10.29164/16values
Roudometof, V. (2016). Glocalization: a critical
introduction. European Journal of Social Theory, 19(3), 391-408.
Schmidt, C., Macchione, M. & Fowler de Ávila, G.
(2014). Value creation and value appropriation in networks: an empirical
analysis of the role of geographical indication in the wine industry in Vale
Dos Vinhedos, RS, Brazil. Organizações Rurais & Agroindustriais, 16(3),
343-362.
Skinner,
W. (2020). Wine, geology mapping and the value of place in McLaren Vale. Australian
Journal of Anthropology, 31(1), 85-100.
Teil,
G. (2012). No such thing as terroir? Objectivities and the regimes of existence
of objects. Science Technology and Human Values, 37(5), 478-505.
Trubek, A. & Bowen, S. (2008). Creating the taste
of place in the United States: can we learn from the French. GeoJournal,
73(1), 23-30.
Ulin, R. (2002). Work as cultural production: Labour
and self- identity among southwest French wine – growers. Royal
Anthropological Institute, 8, 691-712.
Unwin, T. (2012). Terroir: At the heart of geography.
In P. Dougherty (Ed.), The geography of wine: Regions, terroir and
techniques, pp. 37- 48, London: Springer.
Urry, J. (1995). Consuming places. New York:
Routledge.
Winter, M. (2003). Embeddedness, the food economy and
defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 19,
23-32.
María del Carmen Salas Quesada
Española. Licenciada en
ciencia y tecnología de la alimentación por la Universidad de Granada, España.
Tiene un máster en agroalimentación en la Universidad de Córdoba, España.
Aprovecha las prácticas de este máster para definir su perfil profesional y
trabajar como técnico de laboratorio y control de calidad en la industria del
vino. De esta forma comienza a formarse en el sector vitivinícola (entre
2010-2017), lo que la lleva a realizar trabajos en California, Nueva Zelanda y
Francia. En 2012 se inscribe en el máster de historia y cultura de la
alimentación en Tours, Francia, del cual sólo finaliza el primer ciclo (M1). En
2015 decide estudiar el máster en antropología y etnografía en la Universidad
de Barcelona. Desde enero de 2018 vive en Hermosillo, Sonora, México, donde realiza
el doctorado en desarrollo regional en el Centro de Investigación en
Alimentación y Desarrollo (CIAD), como estudiante a tiempo completo. Su línea
de investigación analiza, desde la socioantropología de la alimentación, la
relación entre las nuevas geografías vitivinícolas, la creación de valor y el
territorio.
Sergio
A. Sandoval Godoy
Mexicano.
Doctor y maestro en ciencias antropológicas por la Universidad Autónoma
Metropolitana (UAM-I); maestro en ciencias sociales y estudios regionales por
El Colegio de Sonora, y licenciado en economía por la Universidad de Sonora.
Miembro del SNI, nivel II. Investigador titular del área de Desarrollo Regional
en el Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo (CIAD), México.
Director de la revista Estudios Sociales, adscrita al padrón del
Conacyt. Entre sus líneas de investigación destacan el estudio de los modelos
de organización productiva de la industria manufacturera de exportación de
México, así como la seguridad y cultura alimentaria.
Guillermo Núñez Noriega
Mexicano. Doctor en antropología por la
Universidad de Arizona; maestro en humanidades por la Universidad Estatal de
Arizona, y licenciado en Sociología por la Universidad de Sonora. Actualmente
se desempeña como investigador del Centro de Investigaciones en Alimentación y
Desarrollo, A.C. Sus áreas de investigación e interés son los estudios de
género de los hombres y las masculinidades; estudios de la diversidad sexual;
pueblos indígenas, sexualidad y VIH; estudios del folclor; sociedad y cultura
en Sonora y en el norte de México.