My previous article, “Since When Did Sake Become a Culture of ‘Only Praising’?”, generated a response that far exceeded my expectations. The stone I cast regarding the merits and demerits of the “supportive culture” within the sake industry, as well as the structure that makes criticism difficult to establish, has sparked diverse discussions across social media and among industry stakeholders.
The numerous opinions shared with me were all highly thought-provoking. However, a certain tone that appeared in a fair number of them caught my attention. It was a form of rejection along the lines of: “Amateurs shouldn’t talk about sake as if they know everything,” “You should understand the actual brewing site and the hardships involved before offering criticism,” or “Leave the shoemaking to the shoemaker.”
Here, a simple question arises: Does a person who spends their own money and enjoys sake as an individual consumer not have the qualification to evaluate and articulate its flavor and value?
In fields such as watches, cameras, home appliances, and automobiles, it is taken for granted that general consumers freely review functionality, design, and cost-performance, occasionally offering harsh criticisms. Furthermore, even in the world of art, where a high level of expertise is presumably required, the candid impressions and critiques shared by general viewers are never rejected; instead, they are respected as something that enriches the culture.
Why is it that only in the world of sake, an invisible barrier like “the qualification to speak” is so strongly felt? Furthermore, as overseas markets mature even further and an era arrives where international critics evaluate sake based on their own independent standards, how will our domestic values begin to transform?
1. What Is the “Qualification to Speak” About Sake?
To begin with, what exactly constitutes having the “qualification to speak about sake”? To unravel the true nature of this ambiguous qualification, we need to break it down into several distinct elements.
The “Privilege” of Deep Knowledge and Industry Experience
Generally, those who are easily perceived as having the “qualification” are experts with an overwhelming amount of knowledge or industry insiders who know the reality of sake brewing. There is a common tendency to assume that a statement’s legitimacy is guaranteed by a comprehensive understanding of details such as the characteristics of the sake rice used, the types of yeast, and brewing data—such as the sake meter value (SMV), acidity, and amino acid levels—along with a deep familiarity with every nuance of the production process.
It is true that specialized knowledge serves as a powerful tool for deeply understanding a subject. However, if the logic that “one must not evaluate a liquid without knowing how it was made” holds true, then we would be completely unable to express any opinions about modern smartphones or automobiles, which are packed with complex technology.
The Presence of Interest and the Consumer’s Perspective
Another perspective is the “conflict of interest.” Industry insiders—such as brewers, liquor store owners, and restaurant operators—are deeply embedded within networks of business and personal relationships. Consequently, as pointed out in the previous article, they are in a position where conducting purely objective criticism is structurally difficult.
On the other hand, outsiders (general consumers) who purchase products out of their own pockets are completely free from the industry’s conflicts of interest. While their perspective is inherently subjective, they are the only ones capable of evaluating whether a product is worth its price or simply delicious, entirely free from personal gain or loss. In current sake culture, however, a “deep understanding of the industry’s context” tends to be weighed more heavily than this “free perspective of the consumer.”
2. Why Does the “Amateurs Shouldn’t Speak” Attitude Exist in the Sake World?
Why, then, is there such a strong psychological resistance to “amateurs speaking out” in the world of sake? Behind this lies the unique communal culture that sake has shaped over its history.
A Communal Culture Intimately Connected to the Producers
The sake industry has long cherished a culture of “face-to-face relationships,” where breweries, liquor stores, restaurants, and a highly responsive core group of fans are closely intertwined. This deeply human personal network has served as an infrastructure for directly conveying the passion and stories of the producers, acting as a major driving force that supports the sake market.
However, looking at the flip side, this close-knit relationship also becomes a breeding ground for an “insider logic.” The stronger the network, the more the people within it excessively share in the “hardships of the brewer,” making it increasingly difficult to maintain an objective perspective.
Respect for Artisan Culture and the Nature of Sake as a “Cultural Asset”
Japan has a deeply rooted culture that sacralizes traditional craftsmanship and pays it profound respect. Sake is also a field with a very strong tendency to be discussed not merely as a “product that is an alcoholic beverage,” but as a “cultural asset” that inherits history and tradition.
Because of this, a structure exists where negative evaluations or criticisms of a product do not stop at a simple analysis of the liquid; instead, they are easily perceived as an “insult to the character and efforts of the artisan” who is risking everything to protect tradition. As a result, a defensive instinct of “those who do not understand the hardships of brewing should not speak carelessly” easily takes hold across the entire community.
3. The Difference Between Sake and Home Appliances or Cameras
Here, let us clarify the unique nature of sake further by comparing it with other consumer goods. For instance, in the world of home appliances and cameras, even if general consumers harshly point out flaws or shortcomings in a new product, it almost never leads to a denial of the developer’s personal character.
Substituting the “Subject” of Evaluation
In reviews of cameras and smartphones, the subject of evaluation remains, first and foremost, the “industrial product” itself. Consumers evaluate the “functionality” and “convenience” that the product delivers relative to the price they paid. Emotional biases, such as “the developers worked overnight to create this, so let’s overlook the poor image quality,” do not come into play.
In the case of sake, however, a phenomenon frequently occurs where the subject of evaluation is subtly shifted from the “liquid (product)” to the “producer (person).”
In the world of sake, “emotional value”—such as the story behind the label or the character of the brewery owner—accounts for a large percentage of the product’s overall value. Consequently, dissatisfaction with the liquid itself is easily misperceived as a direct rejection of that narrative.
4. A Comparison with Art
Against the opinion that “sake requires specialized knowledge, making it difficult for amateurs to talk about,” another domain I would like to bring in for comparison is the field of “art.”
Contemporary art, classical music, and traditional theater are fields that require historical context, highly specialized knowledge, or specific grammars of appreciation to an even greater extent than sake. However, when a general viewer visiting a museum remarks, “I like the colors of this painting, but the composition feels restless,” or “I don’t really understand what it is trying to express,” it is rare for them to be fiercely condemned by those around them with comments like, “Study art history before you speak.”
In the art world, “academic criticism” by experts and “intuitive reception” by general viewers coexist, with each holding its own distinct value. Just because someone lacks specialized knowledge does not mean their personal sensitivity or the impression they received is dismissed or invalidated.
In contrast, why is it that in the world of sake, a barrier to entry such as “understand the production method first” tends to be imposed on general drinkers? It can be said that this occurs because the criteria for criticism become conflated within the dual nature of sake—being both a “cultural art to be appreciated” and a “luxury product to be consumed.”
5. Would a Chinese Critic Be Accepted?
This domestic debate over “qualifications” is about to face a major turning point as the globalization of sake accelerates. Currently, export values and international attention toward sake continue to rise, and it is considered a certainty that a massive, independent evaluation market will be formed overseas in the near future.
The Rise of the “External Eye” Devoid of Context
What would happen if a Chinese critic with overwhelming influence among China’s wealthy, a prominent American wine journalist, or a top French sommelier began evaluating sake without taking any account of the “insider circumstances” of the Japanese sake brewing industry?
They stand outside of Japan’s traditional human networks. Emotional bonus factors that carry weight within Japan—such as “that brewery owner is a wonderful person” or “they are struggling to protect tradition”—will not apply at all to their sensory evaluations or market value assessments.
The Future Demonstrated by the History of the Wine Market
This closely resembles the tectonic shift that once occurred in the wine world, brought about by the “Judgment of Paris (1976)” and Robert Parker’s 100-point scoring system. Until then, the world of wine had been rated within a closed web of human relationships competing over French tradition, authority, and precision. However, it was restructured by the cold, objective scoring of the “external eye”—the Americans—and as a result, the market expanded explosively.
When the era arrives where overseas critics evaluate sake purely based on criteria such as “its perfection as a liquid” or “its pairing with global gastronomy,” there is a danger that exclusive arguments like “only Japanese can understand it” or “those outside the industry have no right to speak” will be dismissed by the global market as nothing more than “self-absorbed, insider bickering.”
6. Whom is the Culture of Sake Truly For?
We stand now at a major crossroads.
Will we choose to protect sake as a “culture of community”—one bound by tight ties between producers and drinkers, as its history has proven until now? Or will we allow it to shed its old skin and transform into a “culture open to the world,” where people across the globe can freely criticize, evaluate, and rate it according to their own diverse values?
If we choose the former path, the barrier to entry of “amateurs should not speak” will serve as an effective shield to protect the inner order and context. However, this is also an introverted choice that rejects the influx of new consumers and allows the culture to slowly diminish.
If we choose the latter path, we must accept the candid voices of general consumers—who might say, “I don’t know much about it, but the taste doesn’t justify this price”—as well as relentless evaluations from overseas, treating them as invaluable assets for updating the culture.
Who Decides Who Is Qualified to Speak on Sake?
Should it be defined by a specific authority or the depth of one’s knowledge, or has it been entrusted from the very beginning into the hands of every single person who pays for that glass and engages with it in earnest?
What kind of future do you desire for sake?