Not to go on, but I missed Zak Avery's defense and explanation of CAMRA posted last Wednesday and I have to admit I find it a little (not a lot but a little) odd. Especially this bit:
I'm also amazed by so many bloggers' complete misunderstanding of what CAMRA is, and how it works. CAMRA is a consumer organisation, and is composed of members who guide the direction that CAMRA goes in. Even if you ignore the fact that CAMRA is de facto about promoting cask ale, everyone seems to have missed the point that CAMRA isn't a top-down organisation. Colin Valentine isn't some Dr. Evil at the head of an organisation, issuing edicts for his minions to follow, he's a mouthpiece for the organisation.
CAMRA is directed by its members, and the sort of people who turn out and vote for motions at CAMRA meetings are actually people like you and I - people who care passionately about something. Sure, the things we and they care about are worlds apart, but you know what? That's life. Not everyone will agree with everything you say. And saying 'CAMRA needs to change' is to fundamentally miss the point. CAMRA's never going to change unless its members want it to change, and if you want it to change, then join, be active, campaign, educate, but just don't expect to do that only by blogging. While electronic media may be a great force for communicating opinions, removing the publishing machine between the author and the reader, that doesn't mean that blogging is a silver bullet in educating people about beer. Preaching to the converted is easy.
The little oddness is not the point of view. Sitting over here in North America, as I have said, makes it a bit difficult to get the point of the issues in another country. So, it is very welcome to have Zak explain cogently the limited role CAMRA intends for itself. What I do not understand (and perhaps only fail to appreciate being an outsider) is that tone of perpetual revolution that underlies the explanation. I honestly do not believe cask is either inferior or superior so do not know why it deserves or even needs the single minded focus now. Also, I have never seen any organization so devoid of leadership as Zak suggests - though (more than admittedly) he is much much closer to the question.
In a way, the goals of the founders of CAMRA remind me of the lock the Founding Fathers (always in capitals) of the USA imposed rules upon the future. The membership of CAMRA today seems to be similarly bound by the mandate of the membership in the 1970s with the leadership, in turn, bound to maintain a certain purity of purpose. For a Canadian, it also reminds me of the perpetual debate around language laws in Quebec. This does not make for "Dr. Evil" but it does make for an extremely conservative outlook. Which may well be exactly what "the membership" (that fictional uni-mind) wants... as if a membership could actually want something.
Beyond that, is it ultimately good for understanding? Context. Comparison. Generosity of curiosity about all things. That's what I believe is best for any subject matter - including beer. By contrast, organizations like CAMRA and the US's Brewers Association have an expressly stated agenda (in the best sense of the word) in that they protect the selected turf. They create a definition around a thing - whether "real" ale or "small" brewer - and defend it, perhaps beyond necessity or even reason. It also requires creating "others" against which the beloved subject matter needs defending. So, questioning becomes inherently antagonism and, sadly, discourse is stifled. All in the cause of defending the definition.
You will see that I have categorized this under "Beer Industry Marketing" which you may find strange. Let me explain. I am coming to believe that any force that successfully seeks to shape a market like the beer trade has an affect in common with other such forces - regardless of whether the force is caused by a trade association, corporate advertising or consumer lobbying... or even the object of the lobbying or advertising. The most important affect is shaping the discourse. Which leads to issues of control, authority and establishing established truths. Questioning from outside the paradigm? Not appreciated. Which is what we have observed throughout the discussion which has arisen after Colin Valentine made his odd comments.
Which is what interests me so much about it. I also think that this phenomena is something inordinately strong in the beer market compared to others with which I have been involved as a professional purchaser of sorts. As I said, I don't really care about CAMRA, its mandate or its mode of governance any more than the Brewers Association and its structures. But I do find it very interesting that positions related to things beery advocated by such entities are so strongly held, simply focused and yet cause such outrage or even hurt when challenged. I have started to think of beer as a "pleasure trade" and wonder if that is behind all of this. I am not sure what this new definition means but, like "real ale" and "small brewers", I realize that clarity is beside the point of any good beery definition. Because, somehow, it may suit my purpose... whatever that is.
