Tasting and Judging the Unknown Terroir of the Bulgarian Wine: The Political Economy of Sensory Experience

Abstract

Some Bulgarian winemakers insist that their unique terroir (taste of place) and native grapes can deliver a “distinctive” product in the global market. Such beliefs are the driving force for marginal producers to continue with their wine production in a fiercely competitive global wine market despite the lack of brand equity and cultural capital compared to the world's elite wines. How can the global consumer sense this unique “taste of place” which is itself an elusive culturally cultivated concept? What does gastronomic connoisseurship entail in a highly globalized world where knowledge of local products and taste are exchanged and experienced in a standardized way as a global foodway? Understanding these questions from the viewpoints of the Bulgarian wine sector, this article discusses the intersection of the sensory experience and the implicit global hierarchy of value that wine producers and consumers employ to objectify and communicate the subjective taste knowledge and identity of place.

Notes

Steven Spurrier, October 30, 2008.

This event was featured in the Hollywood film Bottle Shock (2008).

In the wine world, “Old World” wines refer to the wines from the European producers and the “New World” wines from countries such as the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, and Argentina (Banks and Overton).

In comparison, major wine producing countries’ export proportion is much lower (e.g., France [20%], Italy [25%], USA [9%], Australia [21%]) (Noev). This means that the Bulgarian wine sector has been relying heavily on global trade rather than domestic sales.

This should not be too surprising given the fact that in the discourse of terroir in France, the sensory experience of taste has only recently entered the discussion with the emergence of wine experts and guides in the literary field. It was not until 1990s when French wine growers started to evaluate wine through tasting (Demossier, “Beyond Terroir” 698).

I participated in the competition as a staff assistant to the organizers, helping out with the logistics of the event.

While Bulgarians consider wine as their cultural heritage, their wine drinking culture did not develop as in other major wine-producing countries. Partly due to the communist economic policies that did not offer diverse goods (including wine) in the domestic market, Bulgarians have not traditionally enjoyed a culture of wine connoisseurship. Wine aficionados in Bulgaria, therefore, are a new group of wine lovers who are cultivating a new wine-drinking culture in Bulgaria.

Teil argues that the discussion of “quality” within the discourse and practice of AOC is constantly being contested because of its ambiguous meaning. As Herzfeld demonstrates in discussing the global hierarchy of value, however, it is this vagueness that establishes an authority. While I recognize the contested nature of the terroir discourse, I suggest that it is still a hegemonic discourse that influences the ways in which premium quality wines are evaluated.

Demossier (“Beyond Terroir,” “Following Grand Crus”) suggests that there has been an increasing shift in the terroir discussion among the Burgundy Grand Crus producers from the soil or geological characteristics to the individual craftsmanship and labor of the winegrower as the primary factors for wine quality. While the geological argument still dominates the social construction of wine quality, Demossier argues that it is losing some of its ability to convince consumers about its unique effect on wine among these Burgundy producers (“Following Grand Crus” 271–272).

Wine & Spirits devoted the entire issue of Fall 2012 to terroir and was titled: “Uncommon Ground: Can you taste a place?” It surveyed over 400 wine experts on how they “tasted” the unique terroir of a wine that made them have an epiphany regarding the taste of place. The majority was featured in the magazine with short blurbs where they talked about sensing minerality as an important moment for their understanding of terroir.

All names in this article are pseudonyms except for Steven Spurrier, whose public identity is well known in the popular media and makes him easily identifiable. A similar interview to the one quoted here (taken by the author), conducted by a Bulgarian journalist, was also reported and broadcasted in the Bulgarian media during the Bulgarian wine competition.

According to Silverstein, “wine speak” is a discourse of connoisseurship that cultivates both the sensory experience of tasting wine and the sophisticated ability to describe the wine tasting experience.

Although in this article I use primarily the example of the wine competition with Steven Spurrier to illustrate my points on the sanctioned hegemonic wine knowledge, he is not the only global actor influencing the Bulgarian wine industry. A number of MWs (Masters of Wine) have been consistently sought after for their expert opinions on the state of Bulgarian wines and numerous global wine merchants specializing in niche markets visit Bulgaria in search of distinctive wines and provide commentaries to Bulgarian wine producers.

It is also worth noting that the Chilean wine industry cultivated a national wine identity through a grape variety Carmenere. Yet Sternsdorff Cisterna explains that it was the engagement with the terroir discourse that brought global distinction to some premium Chilean wines. While Carmenere represents a signature Chilean wine, it does not automatically imply a “fine wine.”