intoxicators, educators, and gatekeepers: the enactment of symbolic boundaries in napa valley...

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Intoxicators, educators, and gatekeepers: The enactmentof symbolic boundaries in Napa Valley wineries

Heather JamersonDepartment of Sociology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, United States

Available online 28 July 2009

Abstract

Critic-generated classification systems help structure the U.S. wine industry, as they provide consumers acoherent rating system that standardizes the complexities of wine products and wine appreciation. Tastingroom hosts in Napa Valley are thus key because they act as intermediaries who disseminate informationgenerated by critics to a range of consumers. This article compares the way in which hosts operate in threetypes of wineries. Hosts in ‘‘mass-commercial’’ wineries utilize classifications to maximize market share,hosts in ‘‘limited-commercial’’ wineries educate consumers about wine classifications and acceptable wineappreciation, and hosts in ‘‘exclusive/elite’’ wineries become gatekeepers of coveted wines that have gainednotoriety from critic-generated classifications.# 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Wines in the United States enjoy a range of classifications that create conceptual distinctionsof quality and value, as well as provide markers of status and prestige. One result of suchclassification is the creation of ‘‘symbolic boundaries’’ that divide the worthy and the unworthy,the ‘‘consecrated’’ and the mundane. While there exists a long history of symbolic classificationsaround wine, they have gained a formal character during recent decades as critics (e.g., RobertParker) or lifestyle magazines (e.g., Wine Spectator) have popularized the process ofconsecration—going so far as to mark ‘‘worthy’’ wines in terms of a numeric score. Therefore,reviews and ratings for wines and wineries (and often winemakers) offer a coherent andhierarchically organized classification scheme that confers value to some products over others.As in other fields of cultural production (e.g., the visual arts), producers in the wine world oftencompete for symbolic forms of capital, including the consecration and celebrity status bestowedby critics and magazines (Peterson and Anand, 2004). In these cases, symbolic accolades that

www.elsevier.com/locate/poetic

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Poetics 37 (2009) 383–398

E-mail address: [email protected].

0304-422X/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2009.06.001


classify particular wines above others may take precedence over market incentives because theyoffer prestige that extends beyond the crudity of price. However, in other cases, wine producersmay downplay symbolic concerns in order to grow and expand their consumer base (DiMaggio,1982; Weber, 1968). They may develop ‘‘cross-over’’ wines to entice larger audiences or theymay target subculture groups such as ‘‘foodies,’’ Harley Davidson riders, or movie enthusiasts soas to attract a varied consumer base. Because these incentives are market driven, the commercialclassifications generated by profit-seeking wineries can conflict with the aesthetic concerns ofcritics and others who are engaged in creating ‘‘artistic classification systems’’ (ACS) thatvalorize symbolic value or prestige.

In an increasingly market-oriented society like the U.S., DiMaggio (1987) contends that ACSare supplanted by these commercial classifications, thereby minimizing symbolic boundaries forcultural products (e.g., wine) and/or rituals of consumption that accompany such boundaries(e.g., how to drink wine). Thus, he offers four dimensions through which we can assess therigidity of ACS. Namely, in order for ACS to function as a foundation for social ordering,societies must have a high level of product differentiation, these products must be hierarchicallyorganized, this hierarchy must be commonly accepted as universal, and this hierarchical orderingmust be maintained through symbolic rituals, norms and sanctions. Applying ACS to the realm ofwine offers the opportunity to understand the extent to which widespread classifications in thisindustry function to reinforce symbolic boundaries within a thriving commercial field. Therefore,this project examines how Napa Valley wine tasting rooms are structured in relation to nationalmarkets (e.g., market orientation v. cultural preservation) and how symbolic boundaries aroundwine and its appreciation are enacted by tasting room host intermediaries who have face-to-facecontact with consumers. Before turning to these specific findings, I briefly consider the rolecritics or experts play in structuring ACS in for-profit realms (i.e., constructing a hierarchy) andhow these classification systems reach consumer groups (i.e., generating universality andreinforcing symbolic boundaries).

2. The role of critics and service workers

Recent scholarship has focused attention on the role of experts in the consecration of culturalproducts within the commercial realm (Baumann, 2001; Dowd, 2004). Previous studies point tothe predominance of ‘‘critics’’ among these experts within the realm of music (e.g., Schmutz,2005), film (e.g., Allen and Lincoln, 2004), and literature (e.g., van Rees, 1983). Likewise, evenin the marketplace for traditionally utilitarian rather than aesthetic products, critics have a uniqueimpact because they provide product reviews and endorsements that may influence both producerdecisions and consumer choices (Zuckerman, 1999).

For an ACS to be universal, it must be widely disseminated, actively acknowledged, and actedupon by actors within the fields of production and consumption (DiMaggio, 1987). Therefore,studies of cultural production emphasize the role of intermediaries, who are afforded theresponsibility of maintaining the symbolic value of the product as it makes its way to consumers(Ahlkvist and Faulkner, 2002; Fine, 1992). In addition to critics, service workers of various types(e.g., tasting hosts) can act as this type of intermediary because they are situated between widelyacknowledged classifications and consumers who must navigate a complex maze of informationregarding quality, value and status before making their product selection.

The extent to which service workers participate in the production of symbolic boundaries variesby organizational type. For instance, workers employed in organizations motivated by marketconcerns (e.g., focus on profits, organizational growth, or bureaucratic efficiency) are less capable

H. Jamerson / Poetics 37 (2009) 383–398384


of maintaining symbolic boundaries around cultural products than workers employed inorganizations that are more insulated from these pressures (Ahlkvist and Faulkner, 2002;DiMaggio, 1987). As a specific example, Fine (1992) discovers that market pressures and consumerdemands can confine the ability of chefs to create foods that they deem to be culinary works of art.Service workers in other fields may also differ in their ability to reinforce hierarchically orderedclassification systems, depending on whether the organization is oriented toward market success orculturally oriented validation. As discussed in detail below, this project offers some clarificationabout how service workers in differently oriented organizations (cultural vs. market driven) interactwith consumers about ACS and how these interactions lessen or reinforce symbolic boundaries.

3. U.S. wine industry

The U.S. wine industry provides an ideal case for this investigation due to the significance ofits economic impact and the structuring of the industry around ACS for products and modes ofappreciation. First, in 2005, wine, grapes and allied industries made an economic impact of over$162 billion to the U.S. economy (MKF Research, 2007). Wine has become the most popularalcoholic beverage among consumers in the U.S. and has gained ground among all generationalsegments, ethnic groups, regions, and for women and men (Wine Institute, 2007). The industryoffers a highly differentiated set of products to meet this consumer demand, ranging in price from$2.00 to over $1000 per bottle. Consumption sites are also segmented to accommodate elite aswell as mass consumers and must be staffed by a service sector of employees charged with thepromotion and sale of a product that has been previously unknown by the majority of consumers.

Second, the wine industry has been organized around the categories of mass wines versus elitewines, so that status is always present when making product distinctions. Following Prohibition,the few wineries still operating in the United States targeted low-income urban populations withpoor quality, mass-produced wines, while elite consumers looked to Europe for quality wines.During the 1960s and 1970s, however, some determined wine producers, such as RobertMondavi, sought to alter the public perception of U.S. wine by linking the beverage with culture,art and sophistication. As the industry gained momentum, producers pushed toward increasingdemand among mass consumers by raising the knowledge of the masses through publiclyaccessible standards of ‘‘quality,’’ expert rankings of products, and education programs intendedto turn neophytes into experts.

In many respects, the resurgence of the U.S. wine industry was predicated upon the existenceof a critic-generated classification system that helped new consumers navigate the complexitiesof products and ‘‘appreciate’’ wine. Numerous studies have highlighted the way in which wineclassifications have taken on hierarchical significance. For instance, Zhao (2005) argues that thecategories that define grape varietals, geographical regions (i.e., American Viticultural Areas orAVAs), and vintage years confer identities upon wines, thereby allowing consumers the ability torank products based on these distinctions. Likewise, Benjamin and Podolny (1999) emphasizethe fact that particular AVAs provide the basis for a durable and hierarchical status order withinthe U.S. wine industry and offer cues for consumers and other wineries. Other ‘‘signs’’ abouthierarchical classifications emerge from key actors, such as critics. These experts score winesbased on a standardized set of criteria that suggests the product’s quality. While there arenumerous critics within the industry, Benjamin and Podolny (1999) emphasize the convergentvalidity of experts who share an overarching classification system (most often on a 50–100 pointscale). Moreover, these critics have a significant effect on price (Hadj Ali et al., 2005), buyingpatterns (Rivlin, 2006), and status of wines and wineries (Benjamin and Podolny, 1999).

H. Jamerson / Poetics 37 (2009) 383–398 385


Robert Parker has emerged as the industry’s leading expert and has a significant influence onproduction and buying patterns in the United States (McCoy, 2005). Some wineries have adoptedwinemaking strategies that appeal to the palate of the influential critic, otherwise known as‘‘Parkerizing’’ their wines in order to ensure high ratings. A second influential source of winescores comes from the monthly lifestyle magazine, The Wine Spectator, which provides 50–100point ratings for thousands of wines per year. A panel of wine critics specializes in particularvarietals and wine regions then score the wines based on blind tastes. The power of the magazineto guide consumer choice has been documented by industry studies (Wine Opinions, 2007) andhas been substantiated in data collection for this project as well.

4. Data

I collected data for this paper between March 2006 and June 2008—which included 400+hours of participant observation in 50 wineries ranging from large generalists to mid-sizedspecialists to ‘‘micro-winery’’ specialists; 30 semi-structured interviews with tasting room hosts,consumers, and industry representatives in Napa; and over 50 informal conversations with peoplein the region. Interviews with tasting room hosts provide background information aboutprofessional training, their perceived role in the tasting room and the meanings that they attributeto ACS. My analysis of this data allowed for the identification of three distinctive types ofwineries: ‘‘mass-commercial,’’ ‘‘limited-commercial’’, and elite/exclusive. These types differ intheir target consumer groups, as well as, how they utilize critic ratings and enact symbolicboundaries.

5. Wineries in Napa Valley

Napa Valley has a unique place in the U.S. wine industry—where high culture and wineconverge into a visible high status lifestyle. Indeed, the area was envisioned this way by Napaproducers during the post-WWII decades as they opened their vineyards (and tasting rooms) tothe public in an attempt to link wines with visual and culinary arts, symphony orchestras, andother forms of European-inspired sophistication and style (Conaway, 1990; Lapsley, 1996).Today, while driving through the 35-mile valley, one is surrounded by multi-million dollarvineyard estates, luxury automobiles, restaurants that offer the finest in world cuisines, boutiqueshops with imported Italian linens, and corner stores with picnic items rarely found in even themost cosmopolitan areas. Tourists from all over the world frequent Napa Valley to tour thevineyards and to sample wines at the tasting rooms, making the area California’s second mostpopular tourist destination (approximately 4.7 million annual visitors) (Wine Institute, 2007).Tasting rooms in Napa tend to be located within the wineries that produce the wines and offer arange of experiences to guests. Some of these experiences are exclusively wine related and othersprovide ‘‘cross-over genres’’ such as amusement park rides, popular culture museums (e.g., filmor music), or connections with professional sports (e.g., automobile racing). Not surprisingly,then, wineries also vary in their orientation toward mass markets, representing a spectrum ofgeneralists and specialists, labeled mass-commercial, limited-commercial, and exclusive/elite.

5.1. Mass-commercial (generalists)

Mass-commercial organizations control approximately 85% of all the wine sold to nationaland international markets (Goodhue et al., 2008). In most cases, international corporations own



these wineries and include wine as part of their larger portfolio of consumer products. Thesegeneralists annually produce millions of cases of wine and often own multiple wineries or winebrands that sell wines at various price points to a wide range of consumers. In order to attract thebroadest consumer base, they offer wines at costs as low as $5.00 per bottle or over $150.00 perbottle; hence, they attract a wide range of new wine consumers and wine collectors. These firmsenjoy broad distribution networks and stock most grocery stores, chain restaurants, and large boxretailers across the U.S.

Tasting rooms for mass-commercial wineries are oriented toward multiple consumerpopulations, with one tasting area open for mass distributed wines and one designated for reservewines. These tasting areas are often located in different buildings and divided by dense vegetationor other physical boundaries. When this is not the case, there are distinctly separate tasting barswith different tasting room hosts and wine lists that reflect cost and quality. Access to both areasis open to the public without reservation or appointment; however, Reserve Tasting Rooms haveonly about a quarter of the guest traffic (Informal Conversations, 2006, 2007).

In the main tasting areas, guests are invited to taste approximately five wines (available in themass market) for $5–10 per tasting. Often these rooms feature sweeter wines (e.g., WhiteZinfandel) that are common preferences for new wine consumers. While tasting hosts tend to befriendly and personable, they offer very little information about the winemaking process or thewines themselves. Several of these hosts confided that they were ‘‘just learning about wine’’ (MCTRH Interviews, 2006).1 Many tasting room hosts are either part time or temporary workers whohave retired from their full time professions outside the wine industry. In-house trainingprograms orient these workers to the winery and the wines, however, the technical details aboutthe wines are found on written ‘‘cheat-sheets’’ kept behind the tasting bar. Therefore, whenconsumers ask questions such as, ‘‘what is the residual sugar in this wine?’’ tasting hosts refer tosheets to ensure accuracy in their responses. If information is not readily available on thesesheets, managers may be called to answer questions for consumers. Tasting hosts often makejokes (that are standardized from group to group) in order to elicit laughter from visitors and tocreate a very casual experience. While wines in these tasting rooms are served in glass stemware,visitors are not allowed to take their glasses outside to consume the wine and may be given plasticcups to take outside onto the adjacent patios.

Reserve Tasting Areas are often of a higher caliber of construction, including hardwood floors,crown moldings, crystal chandeliers, and antique furnishings. Many boast tasting bars that havebeen hand carved out of rich woods, giving the room a feeling of formality and prestige. Privatedoors off of these rooms may open onto patios where tables are arranged to overlook gardens andprovide a place to linger in private conversation between tastes. These rooms offer ‘‘estate’’ or‘‘reserve’’ wine flights (i.e., a series of several wines) at costs ranging from $15 to $25. Whilewhite wines are often included in these tasting flights, red wines garner a higher price and are thefocus of the tasting experience. Estate wines could cost as much as $150.00 per bottle if they havegained notoriety as ‘‘collectables’’ from industry critics.

The tasting room hosts here are more often full-time employees or part-time employees whohave been in the wine industry for many years. Therefore, they have more wine-relatedknowledge than hosts in the main tasting rooms, gaining their information from in-housetrainings and personal initiative. This allows them to offer more information about the wines ineach category, including where the grapes are grown, the ratings, and how the wines on the list


1 Interview data are referenced as follows—MC TRH: mass-commercial tasting room host, LC TRH: limited-

commercial tasting room host, and E TRH: elite/exclusive tasting room host.


compare with each other. While these interactions could be labeled informative, they lack thebroad educational content offered in the limited-commercial tasting rooms discussed below.

In both the Mass and Reserve Tasting Rooms, wineries in this category offer consumers arange of wine-related and non-wine-related consumer goods. In these adjacent gift shops, bottlesof wine on the back shelf may be completely eclipsed by the serving trays, dog collars, magnets,sweatshirts, baseball caps, floral arrangements, playing cards, golf bags, and other productsintended to catch the attention of entering consumers. Many of the products within these giftsshops are not related directly to wine products, yet they are arranged within the context of theoverall tourist experience of wine country.

5.2. Limited-commercial (specialists)

The first specialist organizations are medium sized wineries that produce between 10,000 and250,000 cases of wine annually. Consumers can locate these wines in retail markets that have winemanagers, affluent chain restaurants, locally owned restaurants in metropolitan areas, and specialtywine shops. At retail shops, wines in this category cost on average between $18 and $65 per bottle.Medium sized wineries have faced many challenges in recent years as the growing competitionfrom smaller firms redirects visitors away from these tasting rooms, and larger firms enjoyeconomies of scale and control over increasingly consolidated distribution networks (Goodhueet al., 2008). This leaves many organizations of this size struggling to maintain their share of themarket. Therefore, many mid-sized wineries have been absorbed by larger corporations, with onlysome of them maintaining operating control. These wineries work very hard to boost tourist trafficto their properties by linking the winery with other forms of popular culture, including films, music,automobile racing, elaborately landscaped grounds or amusement park-type rides. Rarely do thesewineries offer services such as guided ‘‘garden tours,’’ but they open the entirety of the grounds toguests who can walk paths that have well-marked placards to display the names of various plants,flowers and trees. Visitors can often buy glasses of wine at these wineries to take outside and enjoyas they sit on the patio or walk the grounds.

The wines within mid-sized wineries are often highly regarded by wine journals, touristmagazines, and industry critics. All of the tasting rooms in this category actively promote wineclub memberships, whereby the winery will ship wines to the consumer several times per year ata discount that average somewhere between 10% and 15% per bottle. Along with theseshipments, members are given educational information (e.g., recipes or serving suggestions) and‘‘insider information’’ about winery sponsored events and limited releases.

Tasting rooms in this category often have two different quality and price ranges for wineproducts, where the first will be $15–30 for a bottle of wine that has limited distribution innational markets. These wines are not impossible to find away from Napa, but they will beinconsistently stocked at large chain supermarkets and they may not be available in all regions ofthe country. Often these wines are given particular designations (e.g., ‘‘Gold Label’’) that have nonationally accepted significance. The second tier of wines is only available at the winery, localwine merchants in the Napa region, or occasionally through high-end wine shops in urban areasacross the US. In the tasting rooms, these wines are designated with a ‘‘Reserve’’ or ‘‘Limited’’distinction and range in price from around $40 to as much as $80 per bottle. These categories areidentified by labels such as ‘‘Our Award Winning Wines’’ and consumers can expect to payapproximately $12–20 for five tastes from this list.

While these two tiers are clearly designated on the tasting menu, tasting room hosts commonlydeviate from this list if consumers seem interested in learning new information about particular



wines or the winery. For instance, a consumer may pay for a less expensive tasting, but if a she/heasks questions such as ‘‘How would you pair this wine?’’ the tasting hosts might enthusiasticallyengage these conversations and pour additional wines from the Reserve list or open bottles totaste that were not included on any of the printed wine lists. Moreover, these tasting hosts oftenexercise their authority to waive tasting fees for wine purchases or in cases where they spent timesocializing and discussing wine. Therefore, unlike the scripted performances from the mass-commercial tasting room employees, hosts in this category blur the distinctions between first tierand second tier wines, exceed the number of pours that are listed on the menu, and waive feesassociated with tastings in exchange for wine-related conversations.

Typically, hosts in this category are very knowledgeable about wine and have spent yearslearning about various distinctions in grape varietals, growing regions, etc. While they may nothold formal credentials, hosts have an extraordinary amount of self-learning through books,classes, or other types of education open to the public. Even though some hosts are part-time ortemporary employees, they often describe wine as their ‘‘passion’’ and treat it as a serious hobbyin which they have invested a lot of time and money.

Commercial goods are quite extensive in these tasting rooms; however, closer inspectionreveals that the merchandise is of a much higher ‘‘boutique’’ quality than items in mass-commercial wineries. Rather than mass-produced products, they offer handmade art, local oliveoils and vinegars, autographed copies of Napa-inspired cookbooks and other items found at alocal boutique. Therefore, while commercial interests still guide the positioning of an extensiverange of consumer products, the higher quality and price seems to indicate that they cater torefined consumer tastes.

5.3. Elite/exclusive (specialists)

A second type of specialist organization falls into the category of ‘‘micro-wineries,’’ whichproduce less than 10,000 cases of wine per year. Wineries of this size are rapidly growing inprestigious areas such as Napa Valley, and may be known for wines that have gained a ‘‘cult’’following. Rather than being oriented toward mass-markets, firms in this category often protecttheir products from the masses through exclusive distribution networks that limit accessibility.Some vintages from these firms can be purchased from exclusive wine shops or top tier sommelierlists. Otherwise, sales are limited to on-site purchases at tasting rooms, wine clubs (which may havelong waiting lists), or direct contact with a vintner or winemaker. Retail prices for these wines canrange from $30 to over $500 per bottle, depending upon the estate, vintage, winemaker, or expertrating. Many tasting rooms for these wineries exist in the Napa region, although most require anappointment that may or may not be difficult to obtain. Of the tasting rooms that are more difficult toaccess, many do not appear on tourist maps of the Napa area and are protected from the generalpublic by automated gates that either have an intercom system or touch pad code for access.

In addition, these wines can be sampled at tasting rooms where several wineries arerepresented and where wines are rotated each week to give each winery equal representation(Franson, 2007). Wineries who participate in these shared tasting rooms often do not havefacilities to accommodate guests and can gain some retail exposure to the general populationthrough these tasting spaces. Wines offered here are almost always considered ‘‘cult’’ because oftheir limited production (and distribution), their celebrity winemakers and/or scores well above90 points from industry critics.

In both the private tasting rooms and the shared spaces, hosts introduce information aboutwine club memberships, which offer similar benefits to the limited-commercial organizations.



However, some of the limited-production wines are only available to wine club members,lowering the possibility that these wines will reach mass markets. Because these wine clubs maybe closed to new members, consumers may join long waiting lists in hopes that a positionbecomes available in the future.

The tasting rooms of these wineries exhibit the most variation among organizationalcategories. Some boast elegant tasting rooms similar to the Reserve areas of the mass-commercial category, some are at private residences that allow visitors to sip wine on their homepatio, and still others are conducted in wine storage facilities that resemble old barns. Tastingrooms in this category are the only firms to offer consumers ‘‘barrel tasting,’’ which offers achance to taste wines during the winemaking process. This offers a gauge of quality for upcomingreleases while also engaging consumers in the creative process of winemaking by allowingcomparisons across vintages, varietals, vineyards, and aging techniques.

These organizations share similarity with each other in the high caliber of their tasting roomhosts (who might be a sommelier, winemaker or the winery’s owner). Approximately half ofthese workers hold some type of formal credentials in the industry, ranging from sommeliercertifications to a degree in winemaking from an accredited university. Very rarely do theseestablishments offer any retail items beyond their wine selection, and when they do, golf shirts orwine openers are off to the side of the tasting area where they will not distract the consumers’focus on the wine-tasting experience.

The cost for tasting these wines varies significantly from one winery to the next, ranging fromfree to $100 per flight. While all of these wines enjoy similar status and quality, the wineries thathave international recognition or prestige among a wider wine audience tend to charge higherprices for wine flights. This first type of firm in this category could be compared to the mass-commercial organizations, which also garner higher prices for tastes of highly rated collectablewines. However, rather than maximizing profits as in the mass-commercial firms, here, the costseems intended to exclude consumers with lower economic capital who are assumed to have aless refined palate. These wineries are most often new to the Napa Valley, and may be owned bysomeone with an extensive wine cellar but very little technical experience in wine making.Therefore, she/he will contract the most renowned viniculturalists, enologists and consultants inorder to appeal to an expert’s palate and gain accolades of their wine as symbol of status orprestige.

The second type of elite winery regards wine as a form of ‘‘art’’ and may or may not submitwines to wine critics for ratings. This choice is not because the wines are of a lower quality, butbecause these wineries are more focused on internal forms of aesthetic validation. They appeal toconsumers interested in wine appreciation, rather than wine as a status symbol, and therefore tendto forfeit tasting fees in favor of a less ‘‘commercial’’ tasting experience.

6. The enactment of classifications in Napa wineries

6.1. Mass-commercial: intoxicators and the sale of status

Not surprisingly, wines found in the Main Tasting Rooms of mass-commercial wineries do notdisplay critic ratings because these are not the wines awarded accolades from industry experts(see Table 1). Instead, tasting rooms offer consumers a chance to enjoy wines that are of low tomedium quality and widely available in mass markets. Tasting hosts make the tasting experiencelight and enjoyable, often telling standardized jokes and teasing patrons about how manywineries they have already visited. In these conversations, wine is frequently discussed as



H.

Jamerson

/Poetics

37(2009)

383–398391

Table 1Classifications in Napa Tasting Rooms.

Mass-commercial Limited-commercial Elite/exclusive

Mass Reserve

Ratings None 90+ ‘‘Collectable’’ 40% > 90+ 90+

Display of rating None Highly visible Visible Not visible

Role of host Intoxicator Sales Educator GatekeeperCommunication: products Wine as intoxicant Wine as status symbol Wine as topic for learning Wine as ‘‘Art’’

Communication: appreciation Distance from

‘‘High Brow Snobs’’

Preference to

‘‘High-Class’’ guests

Explanatory None

Performance Mimic Exaggerated performance Explained performance Intuitive enactment

Universality of ACS Uphold through distance Uphold through repeated references Uphold through education Uphold through

performance and awareness


something that ‘‘tastes good’’ and that will ‘‘enliven any social gathering’’ (Field Notes, 2006,2007). Thus, the wine’s function is highlighted as a way to add intoxication to recreationalactivities that consumers already share with friends or family (e.g., at the lake or in the hot tub).For instance, one tasting room host routinely described a fruity wine as ‘‘something you can drinkall day to get a buzz, but it won’t make you feel bloated’’ (Field Notes, 2006). These remarkselicit humor from the consumers and add to the sociability and playfulness of the tastingexperience.

The consistent theme echoed within these tasting rooms is that people should drink what theylike ‘‘no matter what the experts think’’ (Field Notes, 2006, 2007). In fact, experts and ACS arepresented in an unfavorable light by hosts who tell consumers that they know more about thewines that they like than ‘‘some critic somewhere’’ (Field Notes, 2006). One host routinely tellshis guests, ‘‘Hell, we can be our own critics in here’’ (Ibid). These statements reinforce thesubjective aspect of wine appreciation, whereby industry classifications need not structureconsumer experiences or buying preferences. This strategy may relax hesitations from consumerswho might not purchase these wines given that have not gained critical acclaim. Indeed, theseconsumers tend to purchase wines based on how much they enjoy the taste, rather than externalforms of validation (Consumer Interviews, 2006, 2007).

Tasting hosts in these environments also distance themselves (and their consumers) fromlegitimated forms of ‘‘correct’’ wine tasting. For instance, one host mimicked ‘‘high brow winetasters’’ by swirling the wine in his wine glass, swishing it in his mouth, and then pretending tospit out the wine. Afterwards, he stated, ‘‘you don’t need to do all of that to enjoy wine’’ (FieldNotes, 2006). Presentations like this lower the barriers to wine as a cultural product by suggestingthat consumers can make up their own rules about how to consume wines and when to integrate itinto their lives.

The Reserve areas provide a distinctly different experience for consumers. As describedabove, not only are the physical surroundings more luxurious, but also, the featured wines enjoyhigh ratings by wine critics. In fact, these wines may be ranked in the Wine Spectator as some of‘‘The Most Collectable Wines,’’ or part of an elite list of the ‘‘10 Best Wines of the Year.’’ Visualdisplays of such accolades are very common in these tasting rooms. Not only do the tasting listsprovide scores and descriptive accolades from the industry’s top critics, but these markers arealso framed and hung in highly visible locations. While tasting hosts tend to be veryknowledgeable about wine, they share very little information with consumers about the actualprocess of wine making (e.g., effects of terroir) or the aesthetic qualities of wines (e.g., variationsin tannic structure), focusing instead on the historical authenticity of the winery (Beverland,2005) and expert evaluations of the wine’s quality (i.e., ACS). For instance, one tasting room hoststated, ‘‘This historic property has been making wine long before you were born. . . That’s whywe are one of the best wineries in the Valley. . .well, actually in the world. . . especially if youlisten to these guys [pointing to a critic’s review]—and they are the experts’’ (Field Notes, 2006).By appealing to the ‘‘experts’’ and a long history of wine making in the Napa Valley (even thoughNapa vintners only began shifting toward quality wine during the mid-20th Century), these hostseffectively elevate the wines as a symbol of status for the winery and consumers fortunate enoughto own these coveted wines. Moreover, the utilization of expert ratings for these wines stimulatesconsumer purchases (MC TRH Interviews, 2006, 2007) and meets the overall commercialobjectives for the winery.

Even though other tasting rooms on the same properties mimic legitimated rituals for wineappreciation, these Reserve Tasting Room hosts enact them in an exaggerated manner. Forinstance, before pouring a taste of wine from a newly opened bottle a host might carefully inspect



a piece of stemware, pour the wine into his glass, swirl vigorously, tilt the wine to view the colors,place his nose into the glass, taste the wine (including aerating the wine in his mouth) and thenspit the wine into a spittoon in front of the guest at the tasting bar. While there are functionalreasons for tasting the wine prior to serving it to guests, these actions are performed morediscreetly in mid-sized or elite tasting rooms.

Tasting hosts in these Reserve rooms tend to show preference toward men (who are theprimary purchaser of these wines) and guests wearing observable high-class markers, such asdesigner clothing or expensive jewelry. Women and patrons who exhibit lower class fashion ormannerisms may get less attention from tasting hosts, who fail to look these visitors in the eye oradequately answer questions that would advance their knowledge of the wines (Field Notes,2006, 2007, 2008). The effect of this differential treatment seems to accomplish two relatedoutcomes. First, as hosts cater to consumers with larger wine budgets they advance the overallcommercial goals of the winery. And, second, the consumers with fewer monetary resources arefunneled back toward the main tasting rooms (Field Notes, 2006, 2007). Therefore, while a rangeof consumers may frequent the same winery, these firms have successfully segregated tastingexperiences to create two different cultural contexts, whereby the first is oriented toward quantity‘‘without getting bloated,’’ and the second is oriented toward the success of wines within critic-generated classification schemes.

6.2. Limited-commercial: educators

Approximately 40% of the wines found in limited-commercial settings earn higher than 90-point ratings from lead critics and have positive reviews listed in food and wine lifestylemagazines. Visible signs of these accolades can be found throughout these tasting rooms, rangingfrom blue ribbons from regional wine shows to text following the tasting notes for a particularwine. In contrast to the above category, hosts rarely reference these external markers of success asa reason to buy the wine. Even though they ‘‘let the wines speak for themselves,’’ hosts tend to beincredibly knowledgeable about the existing classification schemes and rankings of wines in theNapa and surrounding wine growing regions. Moreover, they readily reference these ratingsystems when discussing wines on their particular tasting menus when comparing them to like-varietals at other wineries that harvest their grapes from a different climate or geographic region.These references seem to emerge from an educational rather than a sales-driven orientation, sincehosts use ratings as proxy for what a Cabernet Sauvignon ‘‘should’’ taste like in its truest form.

Hosts in these organizations explain that they keep up with the ratings and share them withcustomers ‘‘only because they should understand the way wines are evaluated and where ourwines fall in that system’’ (LC TRH Interview, 2006). Existing classification schemes are in placeto ‘‘help new wine drinkers. . .learn about the variations of wines and to learn that all wines arenot the same’’ (Ibid). Hosts in these tasting rooms help consumers learn how to assess a wine’scharacter, value and quality via institutionally generated categories because classificationschemes help consumers differentiate the range of wine products available in the marketplace.Consumers should be aware of what characteristics a Cabernet Sauvignon can exhibit underparticular growing conditions and wine making techniques. Therefore, hosts can readily point tocolor-coded maps that distinguish soil types in specific vineyards as an indication of whatcharacteristics the wines will exhibit.

Hosts in this category understand their role in the tasting room as an educator for consumerswho lack the skills necessary to accurately classify wines and detect distinctions within existingcategories. The creation of a learning environment can be witnessed by how tasting hosts



welcome visitors to the bar. For instance, hosts often greet consumers by asking visitors whattypes of wines they prefer in order to ‘‘get them started’’ with the tasting. Hence, even though aschedule of wines may be listed on a printed sheet, the tasting host may suggest that they beginwith ‘‘something that is not on the menu’’ or start in the middle of the list so as to focus attentionon wines that they might enjoy. In several interviews, hosts reported that this technique allowsthem to ‘‘get a feel of the customer’’ and to assess their level of knowledge (LC TRH Interviews,2006, 2006). Therefore, they can customize the tasting experience and provide the level ofinformation that will help consumers build their wine knowledge. For instance, after hosts haveexplained what visitors might expect from a particular varietal, she/he may facilitate a ‘‘game,’’in which guests attempt to guess the flavors present in each wine. Hosts are available to offerclues that will assist patrons make correct assessments and to coach tasters on what colors,aromas or flavors they should expect from particular varietals.

Routinely hosts explain wine-related performances to guests and receive exclamations such as‘‘wow’’ when the meanings behind such rituals are deciphered (Field Notes, 2007, 2008). Forexample, hosts may explain the significance of swirling wine in the glass by demonstrating thedifference in aromas and flavors before and after swirling the wine. Hosts may have educational‘‘props’’ behind the bar to aid in this learning, such as a recent invention that allows for wines tobe poured through a plastic aerator that mimics the decanting process. Or, they may provide foods(e.g., cheeses, chocolates) that will enhance the flavor of the wine as a demonstration insuccessful wine pairing. Typically these techniques are not standardized in training programs, butare initiated by tasting hosts themselves who want to share their ‘‘passion’’ for wine with willinglearners (Field Notes, 2006, 2007; LC TRH Interview, 2007).

Successful interactions of this sort require a willingness from consumers to expand theirunderstanding and appreciation for wine. When consumers are not open to broader wineappreciation, they are met with resistance, as hosts express both covert and overt signs ofdissatisfaction. For instance, a host may plainly tell patrons that the winery does not carry thekinds of wine (e.g., fruity, sweet) that they want, and then direct consumers to other wineries inthe region that offer those types of wines. When asked about this type of interaction, one hoststated, ‘‘I was not going to waste any more wine on this person. . .she just doesn’t have a palate toappreciate it. . .I just cannot. . .you know, in good conscience, pour her wines that she will notappreciate’’ (LC TRH Interview, 2006). If consumer needs do not cohere with the availablewines, then hosts either attempt to educate the consumer or direct them away from the winery.When consumers readily engage hosts as their teachers, they are rewarded with helpful tips on theregion (e.g., local restaurants, less publicized wine events, etc.), discounts on wines or waivedtasting fees. Consumers who adopt the universal standards of wine consumption are nurtured andfurthered on their educational journey, while visitors who are unwilling to adopt or participate inthese classification systems encounter reactions that place them outside the normative boundariesof that particular winery. Therefore, tasting rooms in this category could be characterized as aneducational context, in which consumers are socialized into a universally accepted culture ofwine consumption and appreciation.

In many ways, these tasting rooms are most overt in their adherence to expert generated ACS,which simultaneously reinforces symbolic boundaries for esteemed wines and ‘‘proper’’ ritualsof wine consumption. However, in this process hosts effectively unmask the unspoken norms andrituals of high cultured wine aficionados. Hosts in these settings are quite capable of providing athorough rationalization for categories that have been institutionalized by elite wineconnoisseurs. Not unlike educators in other high arts fields, these explanations take the formof ‘‘standardized taxonomies’’ that serve to ‘‘rationalize a sense of beauty’’ by training the palate



to know what to expect and how to classify wines in ways consistent with written tasting notes orcritical evaluations (Bourdieu, 1984: 67). While commercial interests are operational in thesesettings and can be witnessed in the boutique gift shops and the high quality of wine they sell,these wineries may sacrifice commercial objectives (e.g., sending potential buyers to otherwineries) in favor of preserving legitimated knowledge and rituals around wine classificationsand appreciation.

6.3. Elite/exclusive: gatekeepers

Wines crafted in this category could be labeled extraordinary using any range of evaluativestandards, including critic-generated classifications. These wines are made from the best grapesavailable in Napa Valley and are crafted by the most talented winemakers in the U.S. wineindustry. Not surprisingly, when these wineries submit their wines to critics, they commonlyreceive scores ranging from 92 to 100 points. In contrast to the mass-commercial wineries thatboast a few well-rated wines, these specialist firms produce all of their wines at this high level ofquality. When wines gain critic notoriety (e.g., earning 97+ points) they become instantcollectables for high status consumers and become the most coveted wines in Napa Valley.

Despite their accolades, visual cues of status are rarely found in tasting rooms of this caliber.Instead, a wine list will include the name of the winery, the varietal, vintage, AVA (often down tothe specific block within an AVA), a brief description of flavors one might detect and the name ofthe winemaker who made the wine. Moreover, these wines are not listed in vague terms (e.g.,‘‘Reserve’’) that might be observed in the previously discussed wineries.

Elite tasting room hosts are the most credentialed and knowledgeable about wine, viniculture,winemaking and food pairings, yet, they rarely offer this information to consumers without adirect question from a guest. Several hosts have explained this lack of information sharing as‘‘meeting customers where they are’’ (E TRH Interviews, 2008). So, in a similar way as the hostsfrom the above category, these workers ‘‘size up’’ their consumers and make determinationsabout how to interact with them during the wine tasting experience. However, unlike hosts in theprevious category who assess consumers based on their wine knowledge or their willingness tolearn, these hosts ‘‘size up’’ guests based on whether consumers are there to ‘‘buy a statussymbol’’ or to ‘‘appreciate a finely crafted wine.’’ In the first case, high status consumers come tothe winery in search of the ‘‘latest Mercedes emblem to go in their wine cellar’’ (E TRHInterviews, 2007, 2008). Not unlike the consumers who go to Reserve Tasting Rooms in mass-commercial wineries, these guests are interested in the final product, including the rating that thewine has received from renowned critics. While tasting room hosts in the mass-commercial sitesseem to cater to this population of consumers, hosts in the elite sites are less interested inconversing with these patrons. While hosts do not turn these guests away or steer them towardother wineries (i.e., mid-sized wineries), they do impose limits on consumers—such as howmany wines they can purchase. In these specialist organizations, money cannot not buyeverything and tasting room hosts act as gatekeepers who decide which consumers can purchasewines, how many bottles they can buy, and whether or not they will be included on mailing liststhat offer valuable insider knowledge.

The second type of consumer approaches wine as an art form rather than a ‘‘commodity’’ thatappreciates in value depending upon a critic’s rating. Consumers with this orientation match wellwith these tasting room hosts because they share common sensibilities and language about wineappreciation, as well as overlapping social networks (e.g., friends who are wine makers), hobbies(e.g., foods), and experiences (e.g., travel to European wine destinations). They also share a



similar bafflement about the power of industry critics to guide consumer choices and‘‘artificially’’ elevate prices. Tasting room hosts and these consumers routinely refer to the WineSpectator as the ‘‘Wine Speculator,’’ highlighting its connections with futures markets wherespeculators are looking to make money on short-term commodity investments (Field Notes,2007, 2008). Both hosts and consumers alike communicate frustration about ‘‘how a beautifulartistic expression, like wine, can be cheapened by people wanting to make a buck’’ (ConsumerInterview, 2007). Moreover, they readily discuss their disappointment with the homogenizationof wine by winemakers who standardize their wines to appeal to critics (i.e., Parkerize theirwines). Instead, wines should be appreciated for their diversity of character and flavors thatreflect the unique qualities of terroir and the talents of the artisan winemakers.

In this context, wines share similarities with other high art cultural products in that they areeponymous, or like ‘a Picasso.’ For instance, one might discuss an ‘‘Anna Barstow’’ rather than theparticular winery that owns the label. Similarly, hosts and consumers alike may discuss a winebased on whose grapes (and which blocks of land) were used in a particular vintage. By uniting anexperienced viniculturalist with a talented winemaker, the wine boasts a unique quality thatrepresents the style and complexity of these two artists. Tasting room hosts may even refer to thesewines as ‘‘unclassifiable’’ because they do not conform to the institutionalized categories ofvarietals such as Cabernet Sauvignon (Field Notes, 2007, 2008). Instead, there is a ‘‘beauty’’ in thewine that defies the rationalization of legitimated classification systems used by limited-commercial tasting room hosts. These wines require an internalization of wine ‘‘taste,’’ which is noteasily set to rules or categories that can be standardized (Bourdieu, 1984). Moreover, while thesetasting room hosts highlight the subjective experiences of each taster (where some may enjoy aparticular wine over another), they are qualitatively different from mass-commercial tasting roomsthat distance themselves from ACS that provide normative ordering for quality products (e.g., ‘‘youshould just drink what you like’’). In Bourdieu’s (1984) terms, the mass-commercial sites providevalidation for ‘‘bad tastes,’’ while the exclusive/elite sites provide opportunities to express aninternalized system of ‘‘taste’’ and appreciation for beauty that is intuitively understood.

While wines in this category do not necessarily conform to the ACS established by experts,ritual performances around wine are consistent with legitimated forms of appreciation. Forinstance, rituals around wine are enacted without discussion or exaggerated performances—butbecause they facilitate appreciation or ‘‘having good manners’’ (Field Notes, 2007, 2008). In thefirst case, functional rituals such as swirling wine in the appropriate stemware are performed toenhance the flavors found in the wine. Unlike the Reserve rooms in generalist organizations ortasting rooms in mid-sized specialist organizations, these acts are not exaggerated performancesor educational opportunities for consumers. Instead, they are part of the milieu of the tastingexperience, whereby participants might only notice them in their absence (Bourdieu, 1984).

In the second case, rituals that link wine tasting experiences with high culture or ‘‘manners’’are common during these tasting experiences. This may partly be due to the fact that thesetastings often occur in the home or personal space of the winery owner and/or winemaker.Therefore, these spaces (e.g., by swimming pools or on front porches) provide an intimateexperience for consumers who truly become ‘‘guests’’ of these wineries. Rather than commercialgrade stemware or napkins, these wineries provide the highest quality goods from inside theirown kitchens. This personalizes the tasting experience and elicits responses of gratitude fromvisitors who have been invited into the ‘‘home’’ of the winery. Hosts and consumers alike oftenuse first names to refer to winery owners, winemakers, and local chefs as if everyone is part of thesame family of wine lovers who share a common lifestyle and culture (see Weber, 1968). Unlikediscussion in the mid-sized wineries that rely upon standardized classifications across grape



varietals (i.e., this is what a Pinot Noir ‘‘should’’ taste like), these people know the categories wellenough to shun them for a seemingly subjective (yet coherently organized) expression of quality(Bourdieu, 1984).

7. Conclusion

In Napa Valley, all three winery types uniquely reinforce symbolic boundaries for expertgenerated classifications for products and rituals of wine consumption. And, even in theirdiversity, intermediary tasting hosts contribute to this boundary work by communicatinginformation and enacting performances that uphold the universality of this ACS. In mass-commercial sites, the hosts in Main and Reserve Tasting Rooms reference classifications as anopportunity to meet commercial objectives, with the former distancing themselves from theseclassifications by facilitating a ‘‘good time’’ for consumers unfamiliar with wine and the latterutilizing them to generate sales for status-conscious consumers. This process serves to maintainhierarchical distinctions between the ‘‘popular’’ wines for the masses and the legitimated ‘‘high’’wines deemed valuable by experts within the organizational field.

Limited-commercial wineries likewise concern themselves with commercial interests byusing creative strategies to draw consumers to their tasting rooms. However, if consumers do notadhere to the rules and norms of wine classifications, hosts may sacrifice commercial interests infavor of the preservation of ACS. Additionally, hosts readily acknowledge classifications and caneasily identify where their wines fall within that hierarchically organized system. In contrast tothe mass-commercial sites, tasting rooms are structured in such a way to introduce consumers tothe legitimate ways of assessing a wine’s quality and to perform rituals that will enhance itsappreciation (i.e., increase universality and symbolic potency of ACS). Hosts communicate thisinformation to consumers by offering them an educational experience that will de-mystify thedistinctions across wine categories. In many ways these hosts offer upwardly mobile consumersthe clues necessary to begin their own journey of wine appreciation and knowledge, and they doso by offering legitimacy to the universality of expert-generated classifications. When consumersare uninterested in these knowledge transfers, hosts politely suggest tasting rooms that offerwines more consistent with their ‘‘underdeveloped’’ palates, thereby reinforcing divisionsbetween low brow patrons with ‘‘bad tastes’’ and middle brow visitors who need rules to makeaccurate distinctions about the character or value of a wine.

Lastly, because of their limited production and exclusivity, symbolic boundaries are largelysolidified before consumers ever reach elite tasting room. For patrons who frequent these sites,however, there exists a noticeable division between consumers who are in search of a statussymbol and those who appreciate wine as an artistic expression. For the former, expert generatedclassifications – not interactions with tasting room hosts – guide buying decisions. In these cases,tasting room hosts are hesitant to engage these consumers about a wine’s projected value ordiscuss wine as a ‘‘commodity.’’ Instead, they turn their attention to consumers who ‘‘just get it,’’and with whom they can converse about food, travel, and wine as part of a particular lifestyle thatthey all share. In these interactions, ‘‘tastes’’ and wine appreciation are internalized apart fromhierarchically ordered classifications generated by industry ‘‘experts’’ and through the on-goingand repeated interaction of people who share a common lifestyle.

These findings highlight the ongoing saliency of symbolic boundaries within a thrivingcommercial field and my future research will address how these symbolic boundaries translateinto divisions that limit and influence interactions between differently situated consumer groups(i.e., social boundaries).



Acknowledgements

I thank the generous readers from the Classification in the Arts and Media Conference andother colleagues who provided constructive suggestions. I especially thank Tim Dowd foroffering invaluable feedback and encouragement. Lastly, I thank the National ScienceFoundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Emory University Graduate School forfunding this project.

References

Ahlkvist, J.A., Faulkner, R., 2002. Will this record work for us? Qualitative Sociology 25, 189–215.

Allen, M., Lincoln, A., 2004. Critical discourse and the cultural consecration of American films. Social Forces 82, 871–894.

Baumann, S., 2001. Intellectualization and art world development. American Sociological Review 66, 404–426.Benjamin, B., Podolny, J.M., 1999. Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Administrative

Science Quarterly 44, 563–589.

Beverland, M.B., 2005. Crafting brand authenticity. Journal of Management Studies 42, 1003–1029.

Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Conaway, J., 1990. Napa. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

DiMaggio, P., 1982. Cultural entrepreneurship in 19th century Boston. Media, Culture and Society 4, 33–50.

DiMaggio, P., 1987. Classification in art. American Sociological Review 52, 440–455.

Dowd, T.J., 2004. Production perspectives in the sociology of music. Poetics 32, 235–246.Fine, G., 1992. The culture of production. American Journal of Sociology 97, 1268–1291.

Franson, P., 2007. Collective tasting rooms multiply opportunities. Wines and Vines. August 21, http://www.winesandvines.

com/template.cfm?section=news&content=49932#.Goodhue, R., Green, R., Helen, D., Martin, P., 2008. California wine industry evolving to compete in the 21st century.

California Agriculture 62, 12–18.

Hadj Ali, H., Sebastien, L., Visser, M., 2005. The impact of gurus. In: RES Conference Paper, Nottingham.

Lapsley, J., 1996. Bottled Poetry. University of California Press, Berkeley.MKF Research, 2007. The Impact of Wine, Grape Production on the American Economy. The Wine Business Center, St.

Helena.

McCoy, E., 2005. The Emperor of Wine. Harper Collins Publishers, New York.

Peterson, R.A., Anand, N., 2004. The production of culture perspective. Annual Review of Sociology 30, 311–334.Rivlin, 2006. In vino veritas? New York Times, Sunday Business. Sunday, August 13, 3:1.

Schmutz, V., 2005. Retrospective cultural consecration in popular music. American Behavioral Scientist 48, 1510–1523.

van Rees, K., 1983. How a literary work becomes a masterpiece. Poetics 12, 397–417.

Weber, M., 1922/1968. Economy and Society. Bedminster, New York.Wine Institute, 2007. www.wineinstitute.org.

Wine Opinions, 2007. Influence of Robert Parker and The Wine Spectator tracking study. Napa.

Zhao, W., 2005. Understanding classifications. Poetics 33, 179–200.Zuckerman, E., 1999. The categorical imperative. American Journal of Sociology 104, 1398–1438.

Heather Jamerson is a graduate student in sociology at Emory University. Her dissertation focuses on the production and

consumption of wine as a status symbol in the United States. She relies on extensive fieldwork in Napa Valley to

understand how symbolic and social boundaries are created and maintained at sites of consumption, as well as theimplications of such boundaries for social mobility.


intoxicators, educators, and gatekeepers: the enactment of symbolic boundaries in napa valley...

Documents