One of the things I was trying to do with my Notes towards a Theory of Asymmetric Warfare posts was to broaden the notion of “conflict” to that of “competition”. I feel that this is important to do for a number of reasons including, but certainly not limited to, the fact that people tend to get mentally “stuck” in their perceptions, i.e. the “war is war” mentality. That, to my mind, is an extremely simplistic view that will causes its holders to get caught by surprise every time an opponent doesn’t “fight fair”. It is also a rejection of Clausewitz’s dictum that war is an extension (or sub-set) of politics, so what needs to be studied is politics.
But what is politics? There are too many definitions floating around for there to be any generally accepted ones, but all of them do tend to share certain core concepts. Politics is about “power” (again, poorly defined), about how societies organize themselves, about how resources are distributed, etc., etc. ad nauseum. The short definition that I tend to use is that “politics is the ecology of human interaction” - a fairly broad definition that goes well beyond formal political systems (in fact, it actually demands a distinction between formal and informal political organizations).
I wanted to consider a non-kinetic example of competition in a workspace as an illustration of how using a sparce Darwinian system can work, and what sorts of interaction effects show up. Indeed, if we conceive of these workspaces as component parts of social, inter-social and trans-social systems (i.e. within a society, between two societies and across many societies), we can get a pretty good handle on how these things work, although in this post I will only be considering a social workspace.
Beer - a Canadian example of a social workspace
Earlier, I had defined a workspace as “a perceived sub-set of the total perceived operational environment”. But let’s use an even simpler definition - a “named” part of “[cultural] reality”. I though I would choose an example that would resonate with almost all Canadians - Beer. Now, for us, “beer” is a very interesting and important workspace, one which has strong ties into some of the core Canadian cultural traits. It is also a very highly charged, and potent, symbol (at least at present) as can be seen in the following video.
Structurally, beer tends to be produced by major national breweries (Labatts and Molson are the best know, but there are others). In addition to the national breweries, there are regional breweries based in a single province or region, some of which have moved on to become “national” (e.g. Kokanee and Alexander Keith’s) and a whole host of micro-breweries and individual brew-pubs wo make their own beer (a decent list is availale for Canada at The Canadian Beer Index). Added in to this is the fact that Canadia citizens are legally allowed to brew their own beer, and you can see that there are quite a few sources.
In Canada, each province has the right to determine the sale conditions for beer (and wine and spirits), including distribution channels, hours of sale, establishment of drinking age, etc. Because of this variability, I am only going to look at how beer operates in one urban area - Ottawa-Gatineau (aka The National Capital Region) - for structural specifics, although I will toss in some observations from different areas.
Workspace segmentation
Generally referred to as “market segmentation”, the workspace is split between several “levels” - national, provincial (or regional), municipal - and “consumption markets” - home, events, cottage (in some areas), and drinking establishments. This creates the “multi-faceted” environment for natural selection to take place. Bounding the market segmentation are a series of other dimesnions that socialy constrain the actual workspace by establishing “conventions” (game rules) that impact competition significantly.
Who drinks beer?
In Ontario, drinking habits are influenced by a number of differen factors, one of which might be referred to as “class preferences”. In reality, the important part is not what one “should” drink as a member of a social class but, rather, what one should drink in order to be perceived as a member of a specific class by others. It is, to use Goffman’s term, a matter of The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
By the mid-1800’s in Ontario, there was a distinct “class war” operating between the Family Compact (the Colonial aristocracy in Ontario which dominated the legislative assembly) and United Empire Loyalists on one side, and republicans on the other (this tension had been at the root of the so-called “rebellion” of Upper Canada which, interestingly enough, started in a tavern). While the tensions were gradually resolved, one of the key pieces of legislation enacted in 1847 was the Lord’s Day Act which controlled public behaviour on Sundays (a variety of it was latter made a federal law).
The 1847 Ontario Act was, to a large degree, designed to stop the labouring classes from engaging in sports activity on Sundays, a practice that annoyed the Family Compact by being too loud and rambunctious for their tastes. Along with the habit of playing sports, many of the labouring classes also liked to drink beer on Sundays at these sporting events and, by association, “beer”came to be viewed as “lower class”, at least by the Family Compact (as a note, this is similar to the British views on Gin ntil the development of “Tonic Water”).
Of course, if you have ever experienced a summer in Ontario, you wil understand that beer is the drink of preference as a “refreshment” (remember that water, especially in urban areas before water filtration, can make you sick), so that even amongst the social elite of the Family Compact, beer was still consumed despite its “lower class” association. It was perfectly “acceptable” for a gentleman to have a few pints in a tavern (no ladies present), in an officers mess, or after any hard labour (unlike many “aristocracies”, the Family Compact were not at all averse to working and “getting their hands dirty” - it had no effect on their perceived class). Even women were allowed and, in some situations, encouraged to drink a lager, especialy if the alternative was water, during the annual exodus of the middle and upper classes from the ciies (i order to avoid polio).
By the 1960’s, most of the provisions of the Lord’s Day Act were, if not gone, then only being honoured in the breach. Drinking beer was an acceptable action by members of any class, athough not in every situation, and was strongly associated with a “relaxing” of social boundaries and conventions amongst family and friends. The practice of drinking beer at cottages was firmly established, and there was also a resurgent association with sporting events. Drinking beer in taverns and pubs was also socially acceptable regardless of class and, certainly by the 1970’s, was a firmly established form of social event (a Goffmanian Interaction Ritual
Beer - Canadian vs. “American”
Canada is one of the few cultures in the world to define itself negatively, as in “We are not American”. This has had a significant impact on how we view beer (as well as giving us the “I am Canadian” video at the start of this piece). Strangely enough, the crucial distinction seems to appear around the end of World War I when Canadian and American breweries started watering down their beer. The American breweries tended to take the alcohol volume down to 2-3%, while the Canadian breweries stayed in the 5-6% range. Over the years since then, this has led to many jokes about American beer (e.g. “Why is American beer like making love in a canoe?”) and has led to many Americans buying Canadian beer (as a note, both Canadian and American beer are “watered down” by German standards, a point most Canadians studiously ignore).
When you water down a beer, you actually make it lighter, which has had an interesting effect on the perceived status of different types of beers in Canada. In general, the lighter the beer, the lower the status of that beer unless it is either perceived as “acceptably foriegn” (e.g. Stella Artois, Dos Equis, etc.), “special” (e.g. Hefeweizen), or “just right” given the heat and humidiy (e.g. Lime and Lager; always acceptable at 30° C [86° F] or greater). The second thing that happens when you water down beer is to reduce the taste of the beer. The rough rule of thumb is that the darker the beer, the more “taste” it has. This has led to some jokes about Guiness as being both a meal and a drink; a point hammered home by the proliferation of Oatmeal Stouts.
Speciation
The taste and colour scales and the status rankings associated with them have, over the past 20 years, produced and exolosion in specialized beers (what evolutionary theorists call “speciation”). Increasingly, a third dimesion has been added; “scarcity” or “uniqueness” as a reference to the increasing number of micro-breweries and brew pubs, and competition is increasingly apperaing amongst the “new” versions (e.g. the “reds”, “wheat beers” and “honey-browns”). (Another fact that Canadians studiously avoid thinking about is that a similar speciation has taken place in the US).
An nteresting example of speciation and rapid mutation took place around the Honey Brown type of lager. Initially mass produced by Sleeman Breweries as a status oriented beer, it used a blend of “tradition”, “uniqueness” and “taste” as its selling points:
Brewed in the tradition of cottage breweries at the turn of the century. It is a refreshingly smooth, full-bodied lager.
5.2% alcohol by volume.
Tasting Notes: A refreshingly smooth, full-bodied lager, with a subtle touch of all natural honey which creates a slightly sweet finish.
If you look at it, you will also nte that the colour is darker than most lagers as well. Sleeman’s Honey Brown proved to be quite popular as both a “status drink” (it’s darker and tastier than the “regular” beers) and as a “hot weather” drink. Of course, such success did not go un-noticed, and there was a fairly rapid series of releases of “honey browns”. Of the all, the most popular, and from Sleeman’s point of view, most pernicious, was Lakeport Honey Lager.
In biology, there is a concept called the R-K strategy which refers to producing offspring. The two exremes are a high number of offspring with ittle parental investment (think fish…) or a low number of ofspring wth quite large parental investments (think humans…), and this concept can (and has) been applied to economics where it generally shows up in the form of price point decisions. Sleemans Honey Brown was a “high investment” strategy - high status, appeal to uniqueness, etc. - while Lakeport Honey Lager was a “low investment” strategy - a return of the $1 beer. This made it significantly less expensive that theSleeman’s variety, even though it was not considered anywhere near as “good”. Despite this, it is still perceived as “better” than “American” beer or “normal” Canadian beer (e.g. 50, Blue, Canadian, etc.).
Social compromises
The rapid speciation of beers in Canada, especialy when coupled with what might be called a rise in “pub culture” (i.e. pubs are almost community centres, at least in Ottawa), has led to an interesting tension. At present, the likelihood of a group of six people agreeing on what their favorite beer is when they gather in a pub is quite low. What has happened instead of an agreement is an agreement to compromise, which has given rise to the concept of the default group beer; frequently a brand that upwards of half the people in the group would not by for themselves, but will buy for group sharing.
Even 25 years ago, the defiulat group beer was mst often one of the “normal” Canadian beers, but this has changed. In Ottawa, at least as far as my own research and observations have ascertained, the new group default beers tend to be regional beers that are perceived as “generally acceptable, rather than national beers such as 50, Export, Blue, or Canadian. The two that appear to be the most popular default group beers are Moosehead and Keith’s. (I will admit, it’s limited research, but if any funding agency is interested, please feel free to contact me…)
The construction of a beer as a default group beer has some interesting implications. For one thing, it means that purchasing is skewed towards pubs and draft (which has some interesting implications for marketing that I won’t go into here). For another thing, the particular niche is somewhat tenuous and subject to random shifts in group fads making niche dominance hard to achieve and maintain. Personally, I believe this is a subject worthy of further investigation (and I have no lack of students who would be happy to volunteer for fieldwork…).
Some predictions
The workspace surrounding beer has come under increasing social pressure (e.g. anti-Drinking and Driving campaigns, etc.). While this pressure has certainly changed drinking patterns, it has not changed the social meaning of beer in Canada. In fact, the pressures to reduce drinking may have helped to reinforce beer’s prominence in this area, since you can drink more beer (by volume) than either wine or spirits.
The rapid speciation of beers in the past 25 years has also led to a more general discussion of the finer points of beer; basically, it has led to a spread of a new “beer culture” with fairly fine gradings of different types (Q: since when has beer had a bouquet? A: since the mass speciation occurred). This speciation has also led to an increased opportunity for micro-breweries to develop and for regional brands to go national, and this trend will probably continue.
The final prediction I will make is based on the current weather: it is 25° C (76° F), a long wekend and beautifully sunny here in Ottawa. I redict that, as a Canadian nationalist and defender of Canadian values, I will be having a pint (or two) with my wife in the next several hours.
10 users commented in " Competition in workspaces - a non-kinetic example "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThis is very interesting. Getting Goffman together with beer is inspired.
I think you’re right about default beers; I’ve been experimenting with exactly this in my captaining of a tennis team with a post-match beer tradition. There’s actually a process of wiggling toward consensus that’s quite contingent; one of our mates works for Anheiser-Busch, for example, so their products are high in the range of possibles out of solidarity.
And there’s very definitely a class dimension to ‘taste’, as Bourdieu has shown, so my willingness as a college professor to drink and enjoy Bud is in some sense understood to be declassifying and efforts are made to provide me with darker alternatives.
Btw, when I was in my teens in the late 70s we had various quite nice products of local breweries to choose from in eastern Pennsylvania, but the ’special occasion’ beers were Molsen’s Golden and, for the rebel cogniscenti, Moosehead; even though they were dramatically more expensive and, as far as we could tell, no tastier.
Just skimmed this but I’ll need to read it carefully and maybe use it in future reflections on craft beer culture in different parts of North America.
My personal perspective is that of an actual participant-observer in some homebrewing and beer geek circles in both Canada and the United States (Qc, IN, IL, NB, MA, TX). Sounds like very small a niche but “craft beer culture” does have wider-ranging connections. Many beer geeks are fighting older perceptions of beer. Often using wine as the contrast case.
(BTW… I’m a French-speaking ethnographer from Montreal but most of my observations have been made, informally, in English-speaking contexts.)
Goffman does seem to work well, in this context. So could Barthes (adapting and extending his wine and milk analysis).
An idea I like to bandy about is that beer geekery is very advantageous for socially mobile individuals because it shows many traits of sophistication (attention to detail, passion, creativity, etc.) without being perceived too sophisticated, snotty, or European. Unlike a wine snob, a beer geek can still be “a normal guy.” (Though Gary Vaynerchuk is helping people change the perception from “wine as a snob drink” to “wine as a social drink.”)
I do notice regional differences in terms of craft beer culture, but it’s still not entirely clear to me. Beer geeks tend not to emphasize the distinction between U.S. and Canada so much but they do emphasize the success of regional breweries and some people discuss differences in regional tastes. The history of alcohol in North America can help distinguish diverse tendencies on both sides of the border, but those tendencies tend not to be that “national” within craft beer culture.
BTW, I would take issue with this statement:
Isn’t negative definition a very common pattern? Fredrik Barth isn’t the only one to have observed boundaries and some go as far as to include negative definition as a core component of any process of identity negotiation. Granted, it’s not always based on differences in political entities. But the nationalist era did give us a lot of “Us/Them” of this type.
Also, many (Anglophone) Canadians are adamant in their use of the term “American” to refer to people of the Americas. Some friends from different parts of Canada have reacted very strongly to the use of “American” as a label for citizens of the United States. So, to many people who care deeply about their Canadianness, “We are not American” sounds like an awkward way to phrase their anti-U.S. stance (which is often left unquestioned). Sounds like nitpicking, especially since I didn’t read the whole blogpost. But the statement happened to catch my eye because Canadian anti-U.S. nationalism is very intriguing to a Québécois.
Hi Carl,
I’ve been fascinated for a while by what Canadian beers Americans view as “status” beers, mainly because I, met my wife as a result of her love of Molson Golden (she’s from Princeton and we met in the US).
Hi Alexandre,
I’ve never been involved in the craft beer culture myself, but from what you and a few friends who are peripherally involved have mentioned, I think your exactly right about the social mobility idea. I have studied Scotch and Rye cultures and the recent re-emergence of cocktails, and it appears to me at least that a similar pattern of craft/knowledge specialization comes out in them as well.
The “We are not American” meme is one of the trickier ones I’ve seen in Canadian culture. I believe that there is a similar one in Belgium (”We are not French”), but I only have that from a couple of friends who lived there.
Part of the problem is that Canad is not based on a single ethnic group even in our beginnings. I am about 90% certain that a lot of “national culture traits” (I know, it’s a lousy concept, but I think it is applicable here) stem from the fact the we, as a “nation” are not really a “people”. I also think that having the US next to us, and having had a history of them invading us, played a significant part in setting that meme up.
I’ll certainly grant you that there is a minority who use “American” as a reference to people who live in the Americas in much the same manner as a “German” is a “European”. Personally, the only ones I know who use it that way also have a very particular political stance (one I have little use for).
From what I can see, most of the anti-US stance in Anglophone Canada comes out of our evolving competitive set with the US from before its founding through to the present: the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Fenian raids, concerns about the Union invading us after they had eliminated the Confederacy, a shift to increased US economic dominance, etc.
My grandmother used a variant of the meme which, actually, probably captures the sentiment better - “We are americans who do not accept he suzerainty of the President of the US” (a take-off on the old saying about Anglicans and the Pope). That works for a 19th-early 20th century version, but isn’t really understood nowadays .
At the risk of going off-topic…
What’s funny, to me, is that it’s often easy to replace “Canada” with “Quebec” and “United States” with “Canada” in those discussions. The way many Québécois feel about Canada is pretty much the same way many Canadians feel about the United States. The broader story is also very similar.
In Quebec, the anti-US stance has a very different meaning than in other parts of Canada. Especially among Francophones but even among Anglophones. Sure, you can hear Quebec activists from diverse communities criticize U.S. imperialism in the wide world. Some Québécois intellectuals even adopt a dismissive attitude toward Anglo cultural trends (especially in creative arts), lumping together the United States and Anglo Canada. But you infrequently hear people complain about the very existence of the United States of the type of xenophobic comments I’ve heard in New Brunswick, Ontario, and through the Canadian diaspora.
Yet there is an anti-Canadian discourse in Quebec (even among several Anglophones). About as nasty as the anti-US discourse in the rest of Canada.
Many people lump together Quebec sovereignty with nationalism but they really are two very different social phenomena. Problem is, those two social phenomena are merged by eager politicians on any side of the issues. Yet, neither sovereignty nor nationalism correlate so well with anti-Canadian sentiment among Quebeckers. Some staunch federalists in Quebec (including Anglos) are actually very vocal against “Canadian culture” and many sovereignists and nationalists appreciate Canada as a lovely country that they occasionally visit.
What does this have to do with your original text? I don’t know, yet. I’ll find something. Notions of pride and “patriotism” may help.
BTW, yes, “national culture traits” fit really well, here.
Hi Alexandre,
Maybe a touch off topic, but definitely on point . I’ve had similar talks with Quebecois friends and seen some of the similarities when in Quebec. Maybe notions of constructing a public identity as part of a habitus?
Marc,
Some of your statements about beer itself are either imprecise or slightly inaccurate. Not a problem in a blogpost but if you want to publish on the topic, it might be a good idea to have the text checked for beer expertise. For instance, the issue of alcohol content is mostly a matter of perception: until recently, alcohol by weight (ABW) was used in the United States (not on labels, though), whereas alcohol by volume (ABV) is more common throughout the world. A typical pilsner-type lager in the U.S. or Canada is 5.0% ABV which, according to a ABV-ABW converter, is just below 4.0% ABW. The perception that U.S. beers were lighter than Canadian beers has remained but it wasn’t usually that accurate.
Also, alcohol content has varied quite a bit over the years for several reasons. The initial move toward lower alcohol beer was associated with a number of factors, including gender issues. There’s quite a bit of semi-academic research on the subject and fairly little peer-reviewed literature. The bottomline seems to be that alcohol content hasn’t followed a straightforward pattern based on a single factor.
The perception that darker beers are tastier is still very present in the general population. But the craft beer movement has done a lot to help change this perception. Here in Montreal, more and more people come to understand that there’s little correlation between flavour profile and beer colour. Also, porters and stouts are increasingly being recognized for their potential in crossing gender barriers (thanks to their associations with coffee and chocolate). As you probably know, Guinness Stout is one of the lowest-calorie beers available commercially.
About Sleeman (now a Sapporo property). It’s an interesting context for a Canadian case study, especially if you include its acquisitions over the years. One of its early acquisitions was Upper Canada, a respected brewery with a very distinctive yeast strain. After having issues with that yeast strain affecting some of its other beers, Sleeman allegedly destroyed the Upper Canada strain and even sold the yeast propagators. Upper Canada beers brewed by Sleeman now are very similar to other Sleeman beers. In other words, Sleeman contributed to the consolidation which is dominating the commercial beer world in many parts of North America and Europe (including Germany and Belgium, but excluding Scandinavia, Italy, and Mexico which are increasing their beer diversity).
When Sleeman bought Unibroue, a couple of years ago, the fear was that it would kill Unibroue’s line-up. While a few products have disappeared, Sleeman-owned Unibroue didn’t change so much in terms of product diversity. In fact, one might say that the biggest change had happened several years prior, when Unibroue changed many of its recipes and got rid of some of its brands. After the purchase, most people thought that Sleeman was buying an extensive distribution network. Their official stance was that their purchase of Unibroue was a way to protect some Canadian breweries from buyout by outside interests. So much for that.
Of course, the commercial beer landscape has changed radically in the past fifteen years or so. Labatt has been owned by Interbrew since 1995 (long before the renamed InBev was able to get a hold of Anheuser-Busch). Alexander Keith’s, Oland, Kokanee, and Lakeport are all owned by Labatt (so, they are all properties of InBev). Labatt also tried its hand at fake micro “Saint-Urbain” (a direct attack on McAuslan-RJ). Molson and Coors have merged to form Molson Coors and then built the MillerCoors entity with SABMiller. Molson owns O’Keefe, Rickard’s, Carling, Creemore Springs, etc. (Coors owns Blue Moon, Keystone, Zima, Caffrey, and Killian’s. Rickard’s White is probably the same beer as Blue Moon witbier.)
If I’m not mistaken, Moosehead may at this point be the largest brewery to be completely owned by Canadian interests. Its agreement with McAuslan-RJ is part of a “Canadian strategy” which may work better than the Sleeman one.
Oh, also… It might be interesting to talk about alcohol prohibitions in Canada and the United States. They certainly have had a lot of impact on the beer-related trade between the two countries. The successive prohibitions in Canada and then the United States (diverse periods from 1898 to 1933) had less impact on beer diversity than most people tend to think (brewery consolidations had been happening before the prohibitions). But that era of prohibitions certainly serves a purpose in the Canadian beer timeline.
Hi Alexandre,
I’ve never claimed to be an expert on beer - except, possibly, on the drinking end ;). Honestly, I was using the post as an exploration of a larger theoretical model and, while I am planning on publishing the model, I know that I don’t know beer well enough to use it in the article.
If I do decide to use it, however, I know exactly who to talk to :).
On a (vaguely) related note, do you ever get down to Ottawa?
Marc,
I do go to the capital region on occasion. My brother and two of my good friends live in the three major sectors of Gatineau and there are some things I like in Ottawa itself (Bridgehead’s Old Ottawa South location, which is quite different from most other locations). Last time I went, in late June, I wasn’t able to meet with any Member of Barleyment (an Ottawa-based brewclub with members in Atlantic Canada).
As for beer expertise, I didn’t really want to geek out on you. But I do think some of these issues are relevant. Both in terms of the timeline for Canadian beer competition, and the synchronic dimensions of cultural issues in beer and identity.
Hi Alexandre,
I suspect you’re right about the technical issues being relevant. Tell you what, next time you’re down here, why don’t we head out for either a pint or a coffee and chat about them (I’m near Ottawa South, so we could go to Bridgehead if you like)?
Leave A Reply