Natural wine - argumental
“I dislike arguments of any kind. They are always vulgar, and often convincing.” (Oscar Wilde)
There are various classes of people who emerge from the wormy woodwork when the subject of natural wine is broached to venture their tuppence ha’penorth. Sometimes the debate is generous, healthy and provocative in the best sense, sometimes it is just a bunch of egos basting themselves in their own self-perceived cleverness. Those wranglers can be divided into the following categories:
Les Bigotes–The arrogance of those who take undue offence at something that threatens their cosy view of the world and whose faces and voices are frozen in perpetual contumely. This is called the principle of contempt prior to investigation. They write things like “the public is being hoodwinked” and use overwrought terms like “fascism” willy-nilly, as if natural wine were a political movement practising mind-control on unsuspecting old Bordeaux drinkers. Or something.
The Manicheans – who propose a duality of epicurean truth and believe that supporters of natural wine are profoundly in the darkness.
The Devil’s Advocates – like to construct theories or build reputations for the hell of it and then knock them down, creating zeroes to heroes then sending them back to zeroes. This doublethink allows them to switch horses in mid-stream and never take a position that they have to defend in earnest.
“The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.”
The Pseudo-scientists – who will use science as an alibi for making dangerously unscientific assertions. They believe that because something has not been proved, it must, ipso facto, be false. Pseudo-scientists create “straw man” arguments, misrepresenting the viewpoints or intentions of those they disagree with, thinking that a one-sided argument is, per se, a rational argument and, so doing, are inevitably hoist on their own petar’.
The Scientists – who reduce everything to a test-tube, a petrie dish and a justifying absolutism . There is more in heaven and earth…
The Recanters – former advocates of one position they repenteth profoundly and become archbishops of the opposite point of view. In the natural wine debate we have seen how some row back from the extreme edge, but also how conventional winemakers can move in the other direction.
Gentle snidies – who write a seemingly balanced article on a subject but leave you in no doubt (reading between the lines) that they harbour negative feelings towards natural wines.
The Wibbly-Wobblies – these are exanimate people whose opinions change according to whim and the breeze of critical opinion.
The Supporters – the majority who drink and enjoy natural wine, go to the festivals, bars and caves–a–vins, but are not blind to faulty examples and bad winemaking. Most of the people, however, on the other side of the debate still think they are mildly/very (delete as appropriate) unhinged.
The Smell-no-evils – a rare breed who, when they are tasting, implicitly believe that all is for the best in the best possible world and that no-sulphur wines are always wonderful in any circumstance.