Drinking and (Re)making Place: Commercial Moonshine as Place Making in Eastern Tennessee by Helen M. Rosko
Drinking and (Re)making Place
Commercial Moonshine as Place-making in East Tennessee
HELEN M. ROSKO
Clark University
Moonshine has undergone a resurgence in recent years with the passage of the 2009 liquor laws in Tennessee, allowing for 41 counties to open and operate commercial moonshine distilleries. The rise of legal moonshine is connected to broader economic changes and has already had a significant impact on the cultural landscape and the selling and remaking of place, in both East Tennessee and Appalachia. Specifically, this paper asks: How is place being rep- resented, sold and (re)made through the prolifera- tion of moonshine in East Tennessee? I address this question through concepts of authenticity and place- making as understood in the food/drink and tour- ism literatures. Using broadly conceived qualitative methodologies the results are illustrated through a case study of three specific moonshine distilleries the region: Tennessee Hills Distillery (Jonesborough, TN), Sugarlands Distilling Company and Doc Col- lier Moonshine (Gatlinburg, TN). This research directly contributes to literatures in Appalachian studies, authenticity and place-making geographies.
Introduction
“There are too many people from this area playing into the hillbilly stuff, everyone around here portrays us as hillbillies and make it into their product. In all reality, I want to showcase what people have done to make a living and provide for their families for hundreds of years.” (Callahan 2015)
Recent changes to liquor laws (2009) in the State of Tennessee resulted in open- ing the alcohol market to the production of commercial moonshine (Repeal of Prohibition 2011). Whether you call it corn whiskey, corn liquor, mountain dew, or white lightning, the rise of commercial distilling as a result of these changes is undeniable, with around 22 distilleries in the State of Tennessee alone. Illustrated in the opening quote, Stephen Callahan saw an oppor- tunity to capitalize on the craft of making corn whiskey in East Tennessee. As owner and operator at Tennessee Hills Distillery in Jonesborough, TN, Callahan argues that his reasoning for wanting to open a distillery goes much deeper than cashing in on a new industry. In fact, he claims he has a calling “to build a foundation for something that is bigger than [himself]” (Callahan 2015). Born and raised in Jonesborough, Callahan explains it is a combination of his deep cultural heritage, knowledge of the craft and notoriety as one of the best illegal moon- shiners “in these parts” prior to the recent changes of liquor laws that sets him apart from his competitors (2015).
The story of Tennessee Hills and other distilleries in the region serve as a proxy for how we might understand the role of commercial moonshine in the (re)making of East Tennessee. Understanding commercial distilleries as place-makers in the region reveals the ways they promote their products around various narratives of East Tennessee. The application of various qualitative methodologies allows for clear cases to emerge surrounding moonshine’s role in shaping the economic and cultural landscape of the region (Baxter and Jack 2008; Hay 2010; Yin 2013). For example, economically the commodity has illustrated trends of adaptation in a historically depressed region, while culturally moon- shine has played a role in the production of the “hillbilly” stereotype and other aspects of Appalachian identity (Biggers 2007; Ezzell et al. 2010; Roberts 2010). Through a case study approach, this paper investigates the impacts of commercial moonshine to answer the central research question of: How is place being represented, sold and (re)made through the proliferation of commercial moonshine?
Moonshine is historically defined as illicitly-distilled corn liquor and finds its roots in the southern Appalachia region (Durand 1956; Engelhardt 2007; Peine and Schafft 2012; Dabney 2014). How- ever, the fact that moonshine is defined as illicitly-distilled calls into question the authenticity of now-legal moonshine products. The increasing competition surrounding the production of commercial moonshine has resulted in the desire for individual distilleries to package and promote their own version of an authentic moonshine product. These distilleries are not only responding to market pressures, but they are also trying to create a niche for their product in the mind of likely consumers. As Callahan previously notes, his own idea of authenticity is not only reflective of the greater heritage and history of the region, but it is indicative of the way distillers and consumers come to understand the region. Thus, by saying, “there are too many people from this area playing into the hillbilly stuff,” Callahan views his local competition as capitalizing on and perpetuating an inauthentic narrative of the region (2015). This has implications for the way we understand place-making because individual distilleries have their own perceptions and con- sequent constructions of authenticity.
As the results of this research demonstrate, notions of authenticity are at the fore- front of place-making in the production of commercial moonshine in East Tennessee. The following section situates concepts of place-making and authenticity relevant to commercial moonshine within larger bodies of food/drink and tourism literatures.
Placing moonshine: place-making and authenticity
Conceptions of place-making, synonymously called place-promotion, place- branding, or place-marketing, are often led by debates in economic, urban and tour- ism geographies (Ashworth and Voogd 1990; Hall 1997; Bradley et al. 2002; Kavaratzis 2005; Berglund and Olsson 2010; Hall and Page 2014). While these discussions largely revolve around the role of place-making and urban economic development, there have been recent contributions to ideas of place-making from the local food and craft beer literatures (Feagan 2007; Trubek 2008; Schnell & Reese 2014; Fletchall 2016; Mathews and Patton 2016; Gatrell et al. 2017). Due to the relatively limited scholarship on commercial moonshine, this research situates conceptions of place-making within local food and beer literatures, specifically en- gaging topics of: place-based naming, rootedness, and neo-localism.
Heavily discussed in the both the craft beer and local food industries, there has been a recent shift of consumerism in the United States away from mainstream, homogenized, global industries towards reconnecting with local places, communities and economies (Schnell and Reese 2003; Feagan 2007; Schnell and Reese 2014; Fletchall
2016; Mathews and Patton 2016; Gatrell et al. 2017). This movement has been broadly discussed in the literatures as neo-localism. Neo-localism refers to the conscious attempt of people to engage local commodities, experiences or traditions that connect them to a particular place (Shortridge 1996; Flack 1997; Eberts 2014; Schnell and Reese 2014; Fletchall 2016; Mathews and Patton 2016). The neo-local movement is not only limited to consumers, but also refers to neolocal marketing and strategy efforts on behalf of producers. For example, Eberts discusses the ways in which Canadian microbreweries use neo-local strategies including local place names, the proximate physical environment, and history to inform their promotional, branding and marketing efforts (2014). Similarly, Fletchall analyzes the craft brewing industry in Montana to demonstrate the ways breweries utilize place-based naming to engage a place identity and contribute to place-making processes in the state (2016). Just as craft breweries are employing values, such as “creativity, tradition and locale that serve to create niche, often community-based markets,” we see a similar trend happening in commercial moonshine (Gatrell et al. 2017, p 2). Finally, in the food industry, Feagan discusses the conscious construction of the ‘local’ through strategies, such as shortening food chains, highlighting terroir or labels of origin, and the role of community (2007).
Central to understanding the construction of neo-localism by various producers is the role of place-based naming and rootedness. The role of naming has been extensively discussed as a tool for place- making and creating neo-localism (Schnell and Reese 2003; Schnell and Reese 2014; Fletchall 2016; Mathews and Patton 2016; Gatrell et al. 2017). In this way, employing local place-based naming for breweries and their products is one way the literature has argued that microbreweries act as local place-makers. Mathews and Patton discuss different naming strategies for breweries in different regions of the United States (2016). For example, breweries in the South may attach regional verbiage such as “South,” “Appalachian,” or “Bayou” while breweries in the Northeast may be more inclined to denote verbiage of “Cape,” “Harbor,” or “Olde.” These regional verbiages are important for both place-making and differentiating from competition. Schnell and Reese discuss the idea of rootedness or sense of belonging, as important to representations of local history and heritage in the process of place-making for craft breweries (2014). Rootedness occurs in many ways such as: community engagement and support, education and story-telling or even the very building of some breweries. This paper examines the use of neo-local strategies employed by commercial moonshine distilleries as place-makers in East Tennessee to expand and contribute to discussions of neo-localism and place-making beyond local food and craft brewing.
Scholarship has similarly linked the role of authenticity and the production of authentic products to the success of place-making and neo-localism (Feagan 2007; Fletchall 2016; Gatrell et al. 2017). Authenticity in this regard is typically understood through a lens of tourism and the quest for authentic products and experiences. Within cultural and heritage tourism, authenticity is a heavily debated topic that emerges in a number of differ- ent ways. Dean MacCannell is often credited as one of the first scholars to engage discussions of authenticity in tourism to assert that the tourist “is motivated by its desire for authentic experiences” (1973, p 101). However, MacCannell does not define what is meant by authenticity, only that it is an integral component to the production and consumption of tourism.
Following MacCannell, other scholars have attempted to offer their own conceptions of authenticity (Pearce and Moscardo 1986; Cohen 1988; Bruner 1994; DeLyser 1999; Wang 1999; Hitchcock 2000). Two conventional meanings of authenticity in the literature provides an entry point for understanding various meanings of the term. These define authenticity as either objective or constructive. In objective authenticity, there is “an absolute and objective criterion used to measure authenticity,” and it usually refers to an original production (Wang 1999, p 351). Constructive authenticity treats the term as a social construct with an ontological assumption that authenticity is a result of our individual interpretations and constructions, it is therefore “pluralistic and plastic” (Wang 1999, p 354). In this way, authenticity is not an inherent part of an object, but rather the result of how individuals perceive and interpret objects, making their authenticity not only differentiated but often symbolic of their inner consciousness (Bruner 1994; Wang 1999 and DeLyser 1999).
An example of constructive authenticity comes from Bruner’s analysis of the New Salem Historic Site where Abraham Lincoln spent some time in Illinois. Investigating the site as an “authentic reproduction,” Bruner finds four meanings of authenticity: verisimilitude, genuineness, originality, and authority (1994). Verisimilitude conceptions of authenticity rely on a re- production to be mimetically credible of its historical original, such as commercial moonshine’s ability to look and smell like historically illicit moonshine. Genuineness refers to a reproductions ability to “not only [resemble] the original but is a complete and immaculate simulation” (Bruner 1994:399). In this way, commercial moon- shine’s genuine authenticity relies on its ability to not only look and smell like the historic original but also taste the same. Originality, as it infers, defines authenticity as an original product or place as opposed to a copy. However, Bruner notes, in this sense no reproduction could ever be authentic by definition (1994). By this definition of authenticity as originality, commercial moonshine will always be rendered inauthentic by its very nature of being legally produced and sold. In this respect, it becomes even more important for commercial distilleries to engage and construct other versions of authenticity. Finally, authenticity is understood in terms of what is “authorized, certified, or legally valid” (Bruner 1994, p 400). Authoritatively, commercial moonshine through its legal status, has the potential to be more authentic than persisting illegal moonshine still being manufactured in the region today.
Authenticity understood as a social construct is especially important for understanding how individual distilleries construct their own versions of authentic commercial moonshine products to en- gage in the (re)making of place in East Tennessee. Therefore, understanding authenticity in this way, this research employs a constructionist approach of au- thenticity to uncover the various versions of the concept being produced by the distilleries in this case study. It also important to note that this particular research is interested in constructed authenticity from the production of distilleries and not necessarily consumers, though the literature does acknowledge authenticity is co-constructed by both its producers and consumers (Hughes 1995; Wang 1999; DeLyser 1999; Gatrell et al. 2017). Individual perceptions emerge in different ways as distilleries contribute to the (re) making of East Tennessee through their promotional efforts. The stories of how each distillery started and found success mirror the transformation of moonshine from a once-illicit commodity to a now- legal one. This reality informs our under- standing of how commercial moonshine is contributing to the (re)making of East Tennessee. The results of this study rep- resent one of the first geographical analyses of the rapidly developing commercial moonshine industry.
Methods
Following suggestions by Winchester and Rofe (2010), this research utilized a multi-method qualitative approach to address gaps or weaknesses that may be present in one approach or another. This multi-method approach combines dis- course analysis, participant observation, semi-structured interviews and a comparative case study. The comparative case study provides the basis of this research, focusing on three specific distilleries, to unpack the research questions at hand. This approach allows for varying com- parisons, contrasts, and inferences to emerge surrounding moonshines role on a contemporary place of East Tennessee and greater Appalachia (Baxter 2010). The three distilleries chosen for the case study are: Sugarlands Distilling Company and Doc Collier Moonshine both in Gatlinburg, TN and Tennessee Hills Distillery in Jonesborough, TN.
The purpose for selecting these distilleries was to accommodate varying capacities, scale, production and distribution operations to provide a more holistic understanding of how commercial moonshine is being produced in the region. Utilizing various qualitative methods collectively, the following section first situates moonshine within a historical place of East Tennessee, before moving on to discuss the results of the research.
Situating a historical place of moonshine: East Tennessee
“Once two strangers climbed ol’ Rocky Top, Lookin’ for a moonshine still, Strangers ain’t come down from Rocky Top, Reckon they never will, Corn won’t grow at all on Rocky Top, Dirt’s too rocky by far, That’s why all the folks on Rocky Top, Get their corn from a jar.” (Boudleaux and Bryant 1967)
“Rocky Top,” the traditional fight song of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville reaches beyond the University to be em- bodied as a song of East Tennessee. When extended to East Tennessee, “Rocky Top” not only symbolizes the broader heritage of the region but becomes analogous with perceptions of the region itself (Bain-Selbo 2009). The above excerpt from “Rocky Top” illustrates the traditions of historical life in the region placing significance on the production of illegal moonshine. However, contemporary transformations of moonshine are a dramatic departure from the earlier days when it was an illegal product. Therefore, situating moon- shine within a historical place of East Tennessee is critical for teasing out the role of Contemporary commercial moonshine in (re)making a place of East Tennessee.
Historically, literatures of Appalachian studies indicate moonshine has played two distinct roles in East Tennessee: one embodied in nostalgia and tradition, the other centered on a “mountaineer” way of life, signified by adventure and defiance (Bridges and Wise 2009; Roberts 2010). Both perspectives revolve around an economic necessity for moonshiners to adapt to their poor agricultural and transport conditions, producing liquid corn, also known as moonshine (Hatch 2004; Peine and Schafft 2012). Once an economic necessity, moonshining became illegal during prohibition (1920–1933) and the act of making moonshine could only take place within the mountains to avoid law enforcement (Durand 1956; Stewart 2006). While literature does acknowledge small-scale moonshining done in bathtubs for house- hold consumption, large-scale moonshine production generally took place in the Southern Appalachians (Durand 1956; Peine and Schafft 2012). In this way, Rocky Top is not only symbolic of the historical transformations of moonshine but also its connection to a place of the mountains and to a place of East Tennessee.
Situating moonshine within a historical place rooted in the Appalachian Mountains, and more specifically East Ten nessee, informs how we have come to understand moonshine today. The following section of the paper distills the results of this case study centered in East Tennessee through three themes: representing, sell- ing and (re)making East Tennessee. The first theme, “Representing East Tennessee” uses data from the research to under- stand how distilleries are promoting their product to represent not only commercial moonshine but the broader region of East Tennessee. Engaging constructive authenticity and concepts of place-making, the results of this section demonstrate the ways in which distilleries engage local place-making strategies in the region.
Distilling the Results
Representing East Tennessee
Our contemporary understanding of moonshine is informed by how we under- stand moonshine in the past. For example, though moonshine production is now legal in the State of Tennessee, it is not produced or distributed in the same way it once was. Yet, notions of contemporary moonshine exist and evolve from previous knowledge of the illegal commodity. Therefore, though commercial moonshine is produced and consumed differently, it is symbolic of the historical understandings of moonshine’s past. As representations of East Tennessee are explored through the efforts of commercial distilleries we see a persistence of these representations deeply embedded in historical moonshine. This section explores the way distilleries tailor their own versions of authenticity to embody rootedness through notions of history, tradition, and identity claims as well as place-based naming to represent not just the product but the greater region.
All three distilleries acknowledge and promote the heritage and tradition of moonshine in their actual distilleries or through their marketing efforts (Callahan 2015; Keyes 2015; Vickers 2015). For each distillery, the concept of authenticity is crucial for representing their specific commercial moonshine products. Employing an approach of constructive authenticity, this research contributes to the idea that authenticity related to the production of moonshine is constructed by individual distilleries and catered to their own perceptions of its meaning. For each of these distilleries, manufacturing an authentic, contemporary place of moonshine is in- separable from its historical place in the region. For example, Sugarlands Distill- ing Company’s motto “Be Authentic” is emblazoned throughout their distillery from the front entrance, to their “back porch,” their t-shirts and moonshine jars (Figure 1). However, “[being] authentic” did not emerge naturally for Ned Vickers, CEO of the company, who unlike Stephen Callahan has little moonshine heritage. Vickers explains: “We spent probably 18 months inter- viewing old moonshiners and talking to people. What we wound up with is something that we feel is admittedly a commercial version, for commercial grade, but a very authentic moonshine recipe.” (2015)
For Vickers, the search for authenticity, involved lots of time researching his product in the informal economy, ensur- ing he was staying true to a traditional recipe of East Tennessee. As the above quote demonstrates, engaging both the historical and illegal place of moonshine, Sugarlands asserts their product not only represents their authenticity but is a recipe also representative of East Tennessee. This allows Sugarlands to defend the common question: can moonshine be authentic if it is sold in the legal marketplace? With a recipe true to the ongoing informal economy of moonshine in East Tennessee, Sugarlands asserts their moonshine is as authentic as any commercial moonshine in the region can be. Following Bruner (1994), Sugarlands constructs both a verisimilitude and genuine authenticity representative of the heritage and tradition of moonshine and East Tennessee.
Like Sugarlands, an authentic representation of moonshine for Tennessee Hills Distillery harkens back to a historical place of the commodity and further engages ideas of personal heritage and identity to the region of East Tennessee. Here, ideas of rootedness are important for representations of heritage and history. Similarly, scholarship discusses the importance of identity to the ways in which local industry represents and markets their products (Schnell and Reese 2014; Fletch- all 2016 and Gatrell et al. 2017). For Callahan, as owner of Tennessee Hills, his representation of an authentic moonshine and East Tennessee incorporates not only the region, but also a history of heritage, identity and tradition. Callahan chose the motto “Embracing Heritage” for this reason. This motto allows the distillery to direct their marketing attention towards the rich his- tory and heritage that surrounds the craft of making whiskey while at the same time representing a place of East Tennessee.
Rootedness for some craft breweries can embody the very building the brewery is in, preferring to locate in older, historic buildings rich with local history (Schnell and Reese 2014). Practicing this idea of rootedness, Callahan and his team of two, his wife and brother, have invested and renovated a 175-year-old historic salt house downtown in Jones- borough (Figure 2). Embodying the motto “Embracing Heritage,” Callahan has hand-designed and fabricated every single piece of distilling equipment and salvaged an old family barn for his tasting bar (2015). Therefore, while the re- gion of East Tennessee is paramount for Callahan, as indicated by his distillery name, his heritage and roots in the re- gion define his version of authenticity. He produces this authenticity in the form of his craftsmanship and attention to the art of making whiskey. In a similar practice of rootedness, Sugarlands has created a new distillery building on the parkway in Gatlinburg with the exterior and interior walls built from four salvaged East Tennessee barns and houses (Vickers 2015). Both Tennessee Hills and Sugarlands engage a rootedness in history and heritage for representing their products and region of East Tennessee.
Doc Collier, the only registered micro distillery in the area, announced during their opening ceremony on September 18, 2014 that they “hope to introduce the local business community to the art of distilling moonshine the way William ‘Doc’ Collier did more than 100 years ago” (Collier 2014). Without toting a slogan or motto, Doc Collier is focused on staying true to the tradition of moonshine. General Man- ager, Buddy Keyes explains:
“We see ourselves as the local, good ole boys. We don’t want reality TV, we just want to do what we do, have fun and help people understand what we are and what we do. The stigma of moon- shine is that you get it out of the mountains, we want to keep that.” (2015)
Keyes explains in the above quote that the glitz and glamour of commercial moonshine’s recent popularity is not an authentic representation for them; rather, they choose a version of authentic representation also rooted in personal heritage and identity to the region.
While rootedness in heritage, tradition and identity are critical for distilleries’ role in constructing authenticity and place-making, similarly noted in the literature, place-based naming also plays an important role in these constructions. In Fletchall’s analysis of brewery names in Montana, she finds that names are symbolic of the natural places known to represent the state (2016). It is clear through the naming of each distillery that place- based naming is a similarly used tool for distilleries to not only promote and differentiate their product but also represent a place of the region. East Tennessee commonly referred to as the “Tennessee Hills” by locals, serves as the source for the name of Callahan’s distillery. Originally slated to be named “Callahan Distilling Company,” Callahan decided that he wanted the name to encompass not just him and his family, but the heritage of his community, ancestors and the region (2015). Callahan remarks that in naming his distillery after the region of East Tennessee he becomes accountable to the standards of his region and “people will expect the best product coming from these hills” (2015). The name of Tennessee Hills also works to differentiate his company from others and represent his region as his products begin to enter national markets.
Similarly, Sugarlands Distilling Company acquires its name from the Sugar- lands part of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. In this way, Sugarlands promotes a specific place of the Sugar- lands and East Tennessee as represented places. Customers learn the narrative of Sugarlands, which is displayed on every jar the company produces:
“In the Great Smoky Mountains the Sugarlands was, ‘A country of ill fame, hidden deep in remote gorges, difficult of access, tenanted by a sparse population who preferred to be a law unto themselves. For many a year it had been known on our side as Blockaders’ Glory, which is the same as saying Moonshiners’ Paradise, and we all believed it to be fitly named.” (Kephart 1913)
Regardless of flavor or type of moonshine, each jar bears the same story of the Sugarlanders and their part in the history of moonshine. Understanding the importance of these rich narratives in the representation of a place in East Tennessee, distilleries rely on their own unique stories and histories to differentiate themselves from competition and construct their own individual authenticities.
Finally, the Collier family, after which the distillery is named, has been in East Tennessee for hundreds of years. William Collier received the nickname ‘Doc’ because his corn whisky was used as the medicine for people in the area (Stokes 2015). Before anesthetics and disinfect- ants were created, moonshine and other spirits were used as medicine to treat common illnesses such as colds, fevers or colic (Smiley 1999; Leggett 2012). Engaging a different type of naming to name their distillery after William ‘Doc’ Collier, the company is attempting to make an authentic moonshine product embedded in place and heritage, but with a different narrative than surrounding competitors.
Each distillery uses their own specific rootedness for representing versions of both an authentic moonshine as well as an authentic East Tennessee. Though these representations may vary according to each distillery, their use of rootedness and place-based naming is essential for representing a traditional place of moonshine in the region. While representing differ- ent authentic versions of East Tennessee through moonshine is at the heart of all distilleries in the case study, distilleries are equally as interested in selling and promoting the region through their moon- shine products.
Selling East Tennessee
As moonshine sales continue to increase, it is becoming increasingly important to sell a version of authentic moon- shine that will draw in new and repeat customers not just to their distillery, but also to the region. Therefore, distilleries are not only using their individual rooted- ness to represent an authentic East Tennessee, but they are also working to sell the region with each jar of moonshine sold from their distillery. There are several ways distilleries engage in selling East Tennessee, through their various products and pro- motions such as cultural branding, target marketing or distribution plans; however, this section focuses on two. First, distilleries actively engage in local community and businesses for collaboration in their production processes as a means of supporting and boosting the community and other industries in the region. Engaging local community and business allows distilleries to not only sell their own moonshine products but also showcase and sell other products and services of the region. Second, distilleries use the idea of historical moonshine and its attachment to place as a gateway for expanding overall spirit production and attention to the region as they sell their products for consumers. The ways distilleries sell their products attached to a region of East Tennessee is especially important as they expand distribution efforts to sell their products outside the region to national and international markets.
Connecting to a locale and engaging the community is discussed in the literatures as a critical component in the creation of neo-localism in both the craft beer and food industries. All three distilleries use local ingredients for their products and promote sustained partnership with local businesses and the community. It is in this connection to locality that authenticity remains a theme for these distilleries. Teasing out how their product is made and why it is made that way allows for us to understand how distilleries are acting as their own authentic place-makers through the selling of their moonshine products.
As each distillery perceives a narrative of authenticity differently, distilleries also engage the place of East Tennessee differently in their production process. For example, all the mash used for the “Corn Liquor” at Tennessee Hills comes from the corn on Callahan’s family farm, is ground in “an antique 1940s model stone mill” and then stored at Shell Mill, a local company in Jonesborough (Figure 3) (Callahan 2015; McCoy 2015). Callahan adds:
“That is pretty special; we gave [Mark Shell] a whole new business aspect. We are going to be using a lot of corn...It’s all going to be pretty personal and full circle. Everything is pretty much in Jonesborough and that’s how I like to keep it.” (2014)
Not only is Tennessee Hills using local ingredients, they are also expanding business opportunities for companies like Shell Mill in the Jonesborough area. Therefore, by selling their “Corn Liquor,” Tennessee Hills is not only just selling a bottle of moon- shine, but they are also selling a locale of the region through its ingredients and business partnerships. Similarly, Sugarlands also engages locally sourced ingredients by obtaining all the white corn used for their mash in East Tennessee. Thompson expands:
“From an ingredient perspective, we choose to use Tennessee White Corn, which is a little hard to get, it’s a little more expensive, but we believe it makes a smoother, more superior drink. And it is local...When it comes right down to it, that is a big difference, we grind all of the corn here on site. We do it all here.” (2015)
Not only is it important for Sugarlands to use high quality grain, as Thompson mentions above, it is crucial these ingre- dients and the subsequent processing remains local. In fact, each jar of moonshine the company produces is hand-labelled and bottled by many employees native to East Tennessee or Western North Carolina.
Lastly, Doc Collier Moonshine sells a place of East Tennessee by its very nature of being a micro distillery where you can only taste and purchase their products at their location. For the team at Doc Col- lier, their idea of locality and authenticity is having a local product that can only be bought at their distillery. In this way, Doc Collier supports local community and business in Gatlinburg by drawing in moonshine fans who may not otherwise be familiar with the region. This enables other aspects of the region to potentially be sold for likely consumers such as the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Dollywood or the Tennessee Smokies, a minor-league baseball team. Results of the research clearly demonstrate that as distilleries become place-makers through selling their products, connecting to a place of East Tennessee is crucial for their own constructed authenticities.
Centering on a narrative of locality is not enough for distilleries prolonged success in the quickly saturating moonshine market. Distilleries are moving beyond the confines of historical moonshine that was traditionally unflavored corn whiskey to flavored moonshine and other types of spirits that work to sell the region. For example, Doc Collier produces a unique product called “Blueberry Brandy” that attracts consumers to their distillery and Gatlinburg, general manager Buddy Keyes elaborates:
“If our research is correct, we are the only distillery in the world that makes a true moonshine blueberry brandy. People make blueberry brandy, but not moonshine ones...The mash comes from the fruit rather than the grain.
It is by far our most popular product.” (2015)
Doc Collier’s “Blueberry Brandy” capitalizes on the company’s micro distillery characteristics and is the only one of its kind. This niche product not only sells a different moonshine product, but one that is only accessible in Gatlinburg, thereby selling the region as well.
Similarly, Tennessee Hills is also producing unique products to sell the region. The distillery is producing locally-sourced sorghum rum named “Angry Pecker Rum” to differentiate themselves from other competitors in the market focusing solely on moonshine. The company also aspires to produce an apple brandy to showcase Appalachian heirloom apples called “Heir- loom Brandy.” By using local ingredients and other traditions of the region such as Appalachian apples, Tennessee Hills sells a different version of East Tennessee than other distilleries. Sugarlands Distilling Company produces, on average, 15 different types of moonshine flavors rang- ing from “Root Beer,” and “Peanut Butter and Jelly” to more traditional flavors of moonshine such as their best-selling flavor “Appalachian Apple Pie” (Sugarlands 2016). Even more, Sugarlands is following suite with Tennessee Hills and Doc Collier and engaging whiskey production to sell broader narratives of East Tennessee (Sugarlands 2016). “The Whiskey Project” features both an “Experimental Small Batch” that will include input from customers and fans as well as a traditional Sugarlands Tennessee Whiskey (Sugarlands 2016). All three distilleries demonstrate their capacity to see beyond the scope of moonshine for further engagement in overall spirit production. As distilleries engage various distribution efforts, engaging local business and locality allows for distilleries to remain authentic place-makers as they sell their products and the region.
(Re)making East Tennessee
As shown in previous sections, a clear connection remains, the location and place of East Tennessee is crucial for varying versions of authentic commercial moonshine. This final section focuses on the ways in which distilleries in the region are working to (re)make narratives of both the moonshine commodity and the place of East Tennessee. This (re)making hap- pens in various ways and includes many of the same ideas that distilleries use to represent the region as well as sell the region. For example, while rootedness in heritage, tradition and identity are em- bodied in moonshine to represent the region these same notions also work to (re) make it. Likewise, just as working with local businesses and expanding moon- shine and spirit production helps to sell the region, so too does it work to (re)make the region. While this is important for understanding distilleries overall role in the image of commercial moonshine and the region, this final results section focuses on the ways in which distilleries (re)make the region towards a narrative aligned with their specifically catered understandings of authenticity. As these results show, this (re)making centers on challenging negative narratives of both moonshine and the region through the notion of educating their customers towards more positive narratives of adaptation, resourcefulness and heritage.
Negative perceptions and stereotypes of moonshine are prevalent in the region including hillbillies, backwards and uneducated among others (Otto 2002; Harkins 2003; Roberts 2010). Distilleries see their production of authenticity directly connected to reclaiming positive narratives of both moonshine, East Tennessee and greater Appalachia. In this way, a sense of place is achieved for these distilleries through the notion of educating their customers. The role of education and storytelling are crucial to the idea of rootedness as discussed in the craft beer industry (Feagan 2007, Schnell and Reese 2014, Fletchall 2016, Gatrell et al. 2017). Educating customers about the rich history of moonshining in this region as resourceful and economically adaptive is critical to
(re)making a place of moonshine for distilleries. Keyes notes that the number one priority of staff at Doc Collier is to talk with every customer that comes through the door about the history of the Collier fam- ily and explain the process behind each of their products (2015). Keyes explains:
“We try to educate every person who comes in here about moonshine... Because the stereotype is that we’re a bunch of hillbillies that don’t have any teeth and all we do is make moon- shine. Moonshine is actually a science and there is a lot more to it. We like to educate on every product and how we do it. That is what makes us a lot different.” (2015)
The connection of hillbilly and moon- shine promotes a problematic narrative for moonshine and the region at Doc Col- lier. Doc Collier, like the other distilleries’ in this case study, is working hard to produce their individual version of authentic moonshine. In order to end with a smooth spirit, skill and knowledge are required in the production of commercial moonshine. Keyes and Doc Collier are instilling science and craft in their product, a far cry from the unsophisticated hillbilly stereotype of moonshine. Josh Stokes, assistant manager for Doc Collier, adds to this discussion:
“I am going to go back to – we educate everyone on the product... A lot of folks come in here thinking that moon- shine is made [from] a hillbilly, but we work to change that understanding and I can see it click and the transformation happen as we are talking.” (2015)
For Doc Collier moonshine, promoting the hillbilly stereotype that has historically surrounded moonshine produces an inauthentic narrative. These distilleries feel passionate about promoting East Tennessee through a moonshine narrative that harkens to a more positive stereotype of adaptation, resourcefulness and tradition. Sugarlands follows suite with its customers, but highlights a narrative of the history of the Sugarlands and promotes tourism opportunities in the park. When Thompson was asked how he feels about these negative stereotypes he responded:
“That is actually one of the first things I got pretty passionate about when
I first came on to the project, was to really change the stereotype, because I am an East Tennessean... I often think about this way in which... popular society places labels as what is normal and what is backwoods or back hills... So I feel the Sugarlands story is more about [resourcefulness and history] and less about the hillbilly, outlaw illegality side of history, certainly that is a part of moonshine history, but before that it was really distilling these spirits.” (2015)
In the above quote, Thompson is drawing on his own personal connection as an East Tennessean to make a case as to why the Sugarlands story and product connects to his understandings of an authentic historical place of moonshine.
However, not all distilleries in the area are following suit, and prefer to draw on the historical narrative of the hillbilly and outlaw behavior, like Ole Smoky Tennessee Moonshine also in Gatlinburg. For example, Ole Smoky has introduced their new spokesperson for the company, Gatlin T. Wolf III as part of their new “C’mon Live A Little” campaign (Ole Smoky 2015). As the company’s website details,
“Gatlin T. Wolf III embodies everything Ole Smoky stands for: living in the now, taking chances, and instigating mischievous behavior” (2015). These sentiments of mischievous behavior while aligned with one history of moonshine, are exactly what the distilleries in this case study are working to counter. Despite being the most distributed moonshine in the country, Ole Smoky is hoping to reach even more of a mass market, moving away from its local roots (and consumers) to capture the millennial market outside the region (Schultz 2015). In this way, Ole Smoky embodies a form of mainstreamed, homogenized moonshine that is exactly opposite of local place-making and neolocal goals. Even more, the campaign is being produced by non-local companies, Standard Time out of Los Angeles and Vayner Media out of New York City. As these results have detailed, engaging local business and community is essential for the distilleries in this case study to achieve their versions of authentic place-making and successfully contribute to neo-localism.
Tennessee Hills, like Sugarlands and Doc Collier, notes that Ole Smokys campaign of the hillbilly/outlaw and engaging nonlocal business, while valid works to negatively promote the region and perpetuate embedded ideas of what a place of East Tennessee is (Callahan 2015). Callahan explains:
“I used to make moonshine, now I make whiskey. It’s the same recipe, the only difference is the tax stamp, but
I don’t want to play into the hillbilly gimmick to sell my liquor. I want people to buy it because it’s a sophisticated whiskey they enjoy drinking.” (Callahan 2014)
For Callahan, moonshining heritage runs deep in his family and that serves as the foundation of his distillery and the heart of “embracing heritage.” Tennessee Hills produces their authenticity by continuing a tradition that has found its roots and success in the hills of Tennessee. It is this narrative that allows all three distilleries to find their individual niche in (re) making their authentic place of commercial moonshine. Regardless of how distilleries are working to change or perpetuate stereotypes of the region, all three distilleries in this case study go to great lengths to participate in that debate. Through (re) making an experience and a narrative of moonshine that is better aligned with each distillery’s own construction of authenticity, distilleries are simultaneously (re)making a narrative of East Tennessee as a strong, resourceful and resilient region. Therefore, whether it is represent- ing, selling or (re)making East Tennessee, distilleries focus on their own constructed and symbolic authenticities to become place-makers in the region.
Conclusion
Demonstrated in this article, the commercial moonshine industry serves as a guide for how we understand place- making and authenticity. Understand- ing authenticity in a constructionist approach allows for multiple authenticities to emerge as distilleries become place- makers in East Tennessee. Through the examination of these multiple authenticities, there are several points of overlap and departure of commercial moonshine to and from the local food/drink and tourism literatures. As found in the literatures, distilleries promote neo-local ideas of rootedness and place-based naming to represent both their product and the region. However, microbreweries most often use the specific localities and his- tories of a place often unrelated to the perceptions or productions of beer when engaging place-based naming (Schnell and Reese 2003, 2014; Fletchall 2016). On the other hand, distilleries in this case study draw on the regions rich heritage and tradition of historical moonshine to move beyond specific locality when en- gaging place-based naming. For example, distillery name Doc Collier Moonshine draws not on location but rather a rich heritage of the Collier family and their relation to moonshine. Similarly, though the Sugarlands is a location in the Great Smokey Mountains National Park, it is also a place historically embedded in the production of illicit moonshine. There- fore, the history and heritage of moon- shine to East Tennessee is paramount for these distilleries ability to participate in their versions of authentic place-making as they seek to represent the region through their products.
The literature also discusses the role of community engagement and local support as neo-local strategies in the local food/ drink and tourism industries (Feagan 2007; Schnell and Reese 2014; Fletchall 2016; Gatrell et al. 2016). Community- supported or shared agriculture (CSA), by very nature of its naming offers a formal way to bring consumers in closer contact to producers of food, promoting ideals of neo-localism. In this respect, CSAs represent the close connection between the community and the success of local business. Like CSAs, the distilleries of this case study engage the local community and business to construct their own authentic moonshine products and experiences to ensure success. Commercial moonshine becomes a gateway for showcasing other craft in the region, and engaging local community and business to sell not only a local moonshine product, but also a region of East Tennessee.
Finally, the literature discusses in depth myriad conceptions of authenticity, most notably drawing distinctions between constructive and objective authenticity. Investigating the ways in which distilleries in this study construct their own symbolic authenticities, this research contributes to on-going conceptions of constructive authenticity. However, different from other studies, this research provides an entry point for examining the transformation of various authenticities. For example, moonshine shifted from a product and industry that at one point commanded originality and therefore objective authenticity through its illegality. Moonshine is now the result of constructed authenticity due to its recent shift to legality. This is particularly important for other cases interested in transformations of authenticity such as; historical/heritage sites, museum exhibits, or other types of replica’s. These specifically catered constructions of authenticity remain at the forefront of distillery efforts as they work to represent, sell and (re)make a region of East Tennessee.
While this has utility for the way in which geographers understand place and space in East Tennessee, the example of moonshine provides broader application and significance outside of the region in two distinct ways. First, East Tennessee is not the only region to experience economic depression and an influx of emerging industry. For example, parts of the Rust Belt region are being revitalized by attracting industry with its cheap and vacant properties reminiscent of its earlier success in manufacturing. Second, the region is not alone in capitalizing on the success of the rising moonshine industry. Moonshine distilleries are now found all over the United States (California, Colorado, New York, etc.) and other spirit producers are cashing in on moonshine to produce and sell their own moonshine products (Jack Daniels, Firefly, Maker’s Mark, etc.).
Therefore, due to the lack of attention to the transformative and consequential proliferation of moonshine, this research is vital in exploring how place is produced through the commodity. This research has further potential for expansion beyond its current focus on the role of distilleries production of moonshine to include other perspectives. Addressing the consumer and/or tourist role in place-making and authenticity within the commercial moonshine industry is needed for expanding understandings of the industry more broadly. With the rise of overall craft spirit distilling (gin, whiskey, rum, vodka etc.), more research is needed for expanding discussions of neo-localism and place-making beyond local food and craft brewing to include all craft spirit production, not just moonshine. Finally, a comparison of commercial moonshine to other niche industries such as beer, wine, whiskey and marijuana may also be useful for drawing future connections beyond both the industry and region. How- ever, currently a void exists in literatures of tourism local food/drink scholarship concerning debates of commercial moon- shine. With no current discussion on the role and impacts of the industry on social processes, this research directly contributes to this filling this void.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my mentors in the Department of Geography at the University of Tennessee: Dr. Joshua Inwood, Dr. Derek Alderman and Dr. Ronald Kalafsky for all their guidance and support throughout my research and time at the University. I am further grateful for the financial support provided to me by the McCroskey Memorial Fund that enabled part of this research. I would also like to thank all my research participants at all three distilleries, particularly: Ned Vickers, Brent Thompson, Buddy Keyes, Josh Stokes, Stephen Callahan and Jessica Callahan. Finally, I would like to thank all the colleagues, friends and family who read drafts of the article and provided me support in the writing process, specifically: Jack and Beth Rosko, Cole Davis, Dylan Harris and Matt Clemente.
references
Ashworth, G.J. and Voogd, H., 1990. Selling the City: Marketing Approaches in Public Sector Urban Planning. Belhaven Press.
Bain-Selbo, E. 2009. From lost cause to third- and-long: College football and the civil religion of the South. Journal of Southern Religion 11: 1908–1918.
Baxter, P. and Jack, S. 2008. Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4): 544–559.
Berglund, E. & Olsson, K. 2010. Rethinking place marketing – a literature review. In 50th European Regional Science Association Congress: 19–23.
Bradley, A., Hall, T. and Harrison, M. 2002. Selling cities: promoting new images for meetings tourism. Cities, 19(1): 61–70.
Bridges, A., & Wise, K. 2009. Corn from a
Jar: Moonshine Production in the Great Smoky Mountains. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from Great Smoky Mountains Colloquy.
http://www.lib.utk.edu/smokies...;
colloquy.10.1.pdf
Callahan, S. 2015, March 13. Owner/CEO.
(H. Rosko, Interviewer)
Dabney, J.E. 2014. Mountain Spirits: A
Chronicle of Corn Whiskey and the Southern Appalachian Moonshine Tradition. The History Press.
Durand, L. 1956. “Mountain Moonshining” in East Tennessee. Geographical Review, 46(2): 168–181.
Eberts, D., 2014. Neolocalism and the branding and marketing of place by Canadian microbreweries. In The Geography of Beer, edited by Patterson M. and Hoalst-Pullen, N. pages 189–199. Netherlands: Springer.
Engelhardt, E. 2007. Writing that old moonshine lit: Gender, power, and nation in unexpected places. Journal of Appalachian Studies 13(1/2): 49–74.
Ezzell, T., Lambert, D., & Ogle, E. (2010). Strategies for Economic Improvement in Appalachia’s Distressed Counties: An analysis of ten distressed and formerly distressed Appalachian communities. Knoxville: University of Tennessee.
Feagan, R., 2007. The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems. Progress in human geography 31(1): 23–42.
Fletchall, A.M., 2016. Place-making through beer-drinking: A case studies of Montana's craft breweries. Geographical Review, 106(4): 539–566.
Gatrell, J., Reid, N. and Steiger, T.L.,
2017. Branding spaces: Place, region, sustainability and the American craft beer industry. Applied Geography: In press.
Hall, C.M. and Page, S.J. 2014. The Geography of Tourism and Recreation: Environment, Place and Space. Routledge.
Hatch, E. 2004. The Margins of Civilization: Progressives and Moonshiners in the Late
19th-Century Mountain South. Appalachian
Journal, 32(1): 68–99. Hitchcock, M. and Teague, K. eds.,
2000. Souvenirs: The Material Culture of
Tourism. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Keyes, B. 2015, March 3. General Manager.
(H. Rosko, Interviewer)
Kavaratzis, M., 2005. Place branding: A review
of trends and conceptual models. The
Marketing Review, 5(4): 329–342. Leggett, J. 2012. White Lightning, Hidden
Stills & Souped Up Fords. Whisky Magazine
107: 12.
MacCannell, D., 1976. The Tourist: A New
Theory of the Leisure Class. Univ of
California Press.
Mathews, A.J. and Patton, M.T., 2016.
Exploring place marketing by American microbreweries: neolocal expressions of ethnicity and race. Journal of Cultural Geography 33(3): 275–309.
McCoy, M. 2014, January 21. Distillery Coming to Jonesborough? Retrieved May 21, 2015, from Herald & Tribune: http:// www.heraldandtribune.com/Detai.... php?Cat=LOCALNEWS&ID=61281
McCoy, M. 2015, January 4. The Words
of a Journalist. Retrieved January
21, 2015, from Stephen Callahan “Embracing Heritage”: https:// meghan80.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/ distillery-coming-to-jonesborough/
OLE SMOKY® TENNESSEE MOONSHINE ANNOUNCES PHASE TWO OF ALL-NEW 360 MARKETING CAMPAIGN. (2015, August 2). Retrieved May 25, 2017, from http://olesmoky.com/news/ole-s... tennessee-moonshine-announces-phase- two-of-all-new-360-marketing-campaign
Otto, J.S. 1986. “Hillbilly Culture”:
The Appalachian Mountain Folk in History and Popular Culture. Southern Quarterly 24(3): 25.
Moonshine as Place-making in East Tennessee 369
370
rosko
Pearce, P.L. and Moscardo, G.M., 1986. The concept of authenticity in tourist experiences. Journal of Sociology, 22(1): 121–132.
Peine, E.K. and Schafft, K.A. 2012. Moonshine, mountaineers, and modernity: Distilling cultural history in the southern Appalachian mountains. Journal of Appalachian Studies 18(1/2): 93–112.
Roberts, M.A., 2010. The performing hillbilly: rRedeeming acts of a regional Stereotype. Appalachian Journal, 38(1): 7890.
Repeal of Prohibition. 2011. Retrieved October 16, 2014, from Tennessee State Library and Archives: http://www.tn.gov/tsla/ exhibits/prohibition/repeal.htm
Schnell, S.M. and Reese, J.F., 2003. Microbreweries as tools of local identity. Journal of Cultural Geography 21(1): 45–69.
Schnell, S.M. and Reese, J.F., 2014. Microbreweries, place, and identity in the United States. In The Geography of Beer, edited by Patterson M.and Hoalst-Pullen N, pages 167–187. Netherlands: Springer.
Schultz., E. (2015, July 20). Ole Smoky Moonshine Sheds Its Hillbilly Roots. Retrieved May 25, 2017, from http:// adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/ ole-smoky-moonshine-sheds-hillbilly- roots/299533/
Shortridge, J.R., 1996. Keeping tabs on Kansas: reflections on regionally based field study. Journal of Cultural Geography 16(1): 5–16.
Smiley, I. 1999. Making Pure Corn Whiskey– A Professional Guide for Amateur and Micro-Distillers. Canada. Retrieved
June 9, 2015, from http://www.curezone .org/upload/Members/ChazTheMeatHe/ Books/Survival/6_21_10/Alcohol/ Making_Pure_Corn_Whiskey_A_ Professional_Guide_for_Amateur_ Distillers.pdf
Sugarlands Distilling Company. (2016). STAY TUNED FOR MORE WHISKEY COMING SOON! Retrieved May 25, 2017, from http://www.sugarlandsdistillin... whiskey-project/small-batch-whiskey/
Trubek, A.B., 2008. The Taste of Place: A Cultural Journey into Terroir (Vol. 20). Univ of California Press.
Vickers, N. 2015, March 3. CEO. (H. Rosko, Interviewer)
Wang, N., 1999. Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of tourism research, 26(2): 349–370.
Williams, M. 2014, September 04. Doc Collier to hold grand opening. Retrieved February 24, 2016, from http://tnsjournal.com/local/ doc-collier-hold-grand-opening/.
helen rosko ([email protected]) is
a Ph.D. student in the Graduate School of Geography at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, 01602. Her research interests include development geographies, livelihoods and place-making, with a special interest in West Africa and Appalachia.
Southeastern Geographer
Vol. 57, No. 4 (Winter 2017), pp. 351-370 (20 pages)
Published By: University of North Carolina Press
