Trust solely within tight social networks like those found among the Amish can foster extreme insularity, however, and can discourage trust across cultural and social boundaries and between social groups. Encouraging everyone to be the same to create more widespread trust would be a dangerous path to follow. Both the community and individuality need to be considered; that is, there needs to be tolerance of diversity. Diverse communication devices appear to be one way to draw on the strengths of both community and individuality.
Within the Amish community, communication between diverse affiliations and churches has been strengthened by a variety of informal and semiformal structural arrangements that continuously bring diverse parties together. Included are everything from widely distributed public letters in the Budget and Die Botschaft to weddings and funerals, communal work projects, committees, auctions, and mission activities. These various forms of communication knit the community together despite its diversity. As we have seen, the Amish have also built ties across their boundaries with the English. Granted, U.S. society contains much greater diversity than is found within the Holmes County Settlement. But too often the structures of communication lie almost solely within rather than between groups. The Amish example poses the dilemma of how to create and maintain a cohesive society in the midst of diversity. One place to start in the broader society is to address the issue of how to build communication bridges across diverse groups as a means to break down unwarranted stereotypes and increase understanding. The Amish remind us that diversity does not need to result in social isolation for some groups, weak social networks, or a disintegration of trust.
At the same time, the Amish wrestle with many of the same dilemmas that the rest of society faces. For example, despite the generally close-knit nature of relationships within the Holmes County Settlement, which promotes identification with the Amish community, some trends appear to encourage individualistic tendencies. Among them are increased numbers of entrepreneurships, a greater probability of working away from home, increased discrepancies in wealth and education, and the continuing fission of Amish churches. There is an increasing tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces, and therefore between the impulses to put one member of the pairs community or the individual, values or interests, and security or freedom ahead of the other. These conflicts are not unlike those found in the larger society today. The Amish have proved to be adept at balancing these oppositions within their communities. Working through the community to reach goals that are individual in nature suggests that conflicts can be meaningfully resolved, benefiting both the community and the individual. In contrast, the English appear to have become more individualistic, pitting their own goals against those of others and emphasizing their own rights and individual careers over their obligations and responsibilities to others. Perhaps the modern English society that venerates the individual so highly needs to consider more carefully what can be learned from this more traditional society to maintain a sense of community and trust.
APPENDIX A
Methodology
We used a variety of specific research techniques and samples in seeking understanding of the local Amish community. Here we briefly describe our use of four primary methods: interviews, surveys, observation, and document analysis.
Interviews
During the seven-year period 2001–8, we interviewed almost two hundred individuals for various parts of our study. Interviews were held with representatives of all the major Amish affiliations and covered all the topics discussed in the book. Some of the participants served as key informants on several areas, while others were interviewed for their responses concerning single, narrow topics. Since, for given issues, we wanted both insider and outsider perspectives, we included Amish and non-Amish as well as male and female and professional and nonprofessional respondents. Within the Amish community, our reception and access varied somewhat by affiliation, as might have been expected, given the clear differences in openness to the outside world that exist between orders among the Amish. At one extreme were our attempts to talk with Swartzentruber representatives. We once received permission for an interview with a group of Swartzentruber church leaders, only to have it rescinded and then granted again. But even though the interview was granted, and ten leaders were present, almost all responses came from one Swartzentruber bishop, an obvious leader and spokesperson in his community. Access to the Andy Weaver churches was better but still difficult. Asked about the possibility of an interview with his family, one Andy Weaver man who had asked his family about the request said that his son had blurted out: “An interview? Who does he think I am, Omar Vizquel [a former Cleveland Indians shortshop]?” Over time, however, we were able to meet and talk with more than two dozen individuals from the Swartzentruber and Andy Weaver affiliations. By contrast, the Old Order participants were typically amenable to talking and sometimes to having their conversations tape-recorded. The New Order representatives were most accommodating of all; we even hired two of them as research assistants. And they had few qualms about being tape-recorded if we assured anonymity.
Virtually all of the interviews were conducted in the respondents’ homes or business offices, but in a few cases interviews were held in other locations where the participants felt comfortable, such as restaurants. We took care in how we dressed and presented ourselves and always gave respondents the option to not have the interviewed taped. In most cases, individuals expressed willingness to have their responses taped. All the interviews were conducted in English, since neither of the authors speaks Pennsylvania Dutch. While this lack of fluency limited our ability to understand conversations among the Amish themselves, we were able to discuss all topics in depth and in detail in English, because the Amish are functionally bilingual. Interviews generally lasted one to two hours, with a few going over two hours.
Interviews with Amish key informants were used throughout the study. Our sometimes multiple interviews with them usually covered a wide range of topics. We met with most of the central Amish spokespersons and powerbrokers in the Holmes County Settlement, including at least one member of nearly all the major Amish committees (education, safety, helping fund, steering committee, mental health, missions, hospital aid, and workers’ aid). Some informants were well-known as leaders in their fields, for example, business and organic farming. We also met with Amish who were board members of birthing centers and business associations, and bishops and ministers of their churches. Often, key informants were able to fill in gaps in our knowledge of local history or provide us with specific details of events or situations of interest. It was not unusual for these informants to ask to see our written drafts, and we were eager to oblige their requests because we wanted to present as complete and accurate a portrait of the Holmes County Settlement as possible. Copies of survey results, papers, full chapters, and excerpts were forwarded to them for their perusal. In several instances, these readers suggested changes in specific words to capture the right nuances and meanings, while in other cases, they pointed out factual errors or added interesting examples and insights.
In addition to the broad use of key informants, we interviewed samples of individuals for specific areas of our study. For the education chapter, we interviewed eight bishops and ministers, twelve parochial school teachers, six teachers and administrators in public schools that cater to the Amish, and the director of the local Adult Basic Literacy Education Program. Since we were interested in parental perspectives on the schools their children attended, we also interviewed parents in forty families, representing a range of occupations, church affiliations, and socioeconomic levels. The latter were procured using a snowball sample technique.
To increase our understanding of the perspectives of Amish women, we systematically canvassed thirty Amish women to solicit their descriptions of gender roles and the relationships that exist between their spouses and themselves, as well as their perception of the ideal marital relationship. To gain access to these women, we followed th
e advice of an Amish friend who suggested we first interview one or two wives of Amish men we knew. From these women we were able to obtain additional names of women who might be receptive to being interviewed. When asking for potential respondents, we stressed that we wanted to interview a broad range of persons who might have varying opinions, that is, that we sought a representative sample. To help ensure representativeness, we also had two non-Amish female counselors who work with the Amish and two Amish friends confirm that our sample mirrored the broader Amish population in the settlement. The final interview sample of 30 women included 16 Old Order, 11 New Order, 2 Andy Weaver, and 1 Swartzentruber, representing nineteen different church districts. All but one of these women were married. The married women differed in the number of children they had, ranging from 0 to 14. They ranged in age from 27 to 70, the average age being just under 46.
We also interviewed ten individuals who had left their Amish communities. As in other cases, the names were most often obtained by suggestions from others we had met at a Former Amish Reunion (FAR) or elsewhere. They included men and women ranging in age from the early 20s to the mid-60s, and from both Old Order and Swartzentruber communities. As in all the interviews, we explained who we were and what the purposes of our study were, and assured them that their responses would be kept confidential and anonymous. We also explained what would be done with the data we collected. These measures were especially important because of the potential personal repercussions to participants if their names were made public.
In addition to the Amish and formerly Amish persons we interviewed, we spoke with many English individuals who work with or have served the Amish in some way. Some of these were from the business community (e.g., partners with Amish, business owners, real estate agents, and tourist operators), while others represented local government in some capacity (e.g., chamber of commerce employees, law enforcement officials, and a director of job and family services) or worked in nongovernmental groups like the Christian Aid Ministries or Mennonite Central Committee. Agricultural extension agents and the director of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Sugarcreek Watershed Project were also interviewed. Additional participants included specialized professionals and educational administrators. For example, for our analysis of health care, we sought out medical professionals in the Holmes and Wayne County area who had regularly served all kinds of Amish in the settlement for a long time, often several decades. Included were physicians (both D.O.’s and M.D.’s), nurse practitioners, registered nurses, midwives with varying levels of professional training, chiropractors, psychologists, and counselors. Hospice workers and funeral directors were also interviewed. School principals and administrators of vocational training programs were included to provide information for the education chapter.
One of the valuable benefits of conducting in-depth interviews is the findings that come indirectly from the demeanor and manner of speech of participants, and the general context in which interviews occur. In our interviews, sometimes nearly as revealing as the content of the responses were the form and context in which answers were presented. For example, in our interviews on gender roles, New Order women were more talkative and articulate than women from more conservative churches, who sometimes had more difficulty with the English language and occasionally consulted their husbands about how to say something. Another form that was noted was the frequent use by many participants of the third person when speaking, rather than use of the first person, which would draw attention to themselves. For example, instead of saying “when I come home,” the respondent might say “when mother comes home,” referring to herself. The context of the interviews was often suggestive of the centrality of family in Amish life. While in many cases, children were present at the kitchen table when we were interviewing, they were always quiet and never seemed to annoy the mother. Occasionally, the husband was also present, but he never dominated or overrode responses by the wife. Without exception, their demeanor suggested a marriage founded on companionship and partnership. Finally, the quiet, slower-paced, relaxed atmosphere of the homes was palpable, conveying a family-centered, home-oriented ambience.
Surveys
Two basic surveys were used to collect data, one given to members of five Amish church districts and another sent to members of a group of individuals who had left the Amish. The first questionnaire was completed by a total of sixty-five Amish members of three Old Order and two New Order Amish churches. The questionnaires were sent to the bishop of each church, who then distributed them to church members. Each member who completed the survey placed it in a separate envelope that was then sealed and returned to the bishop. When all the questionnaires had been submitted, the bishop mailed them to us. A general set of the statistical results was sent to each church that had participated. A profile of the survey sample is provided in table A.1.
The questions in the survey were arranged into several subsets, including several on each of the following topics: leisure activities, media exposure, health care, technology, work-related issues, government, education, rumspringa, family, and Amish-English relationships. A set of demographic questions was also included. The data from the surveys were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software program.
Table A.1. Demographic profile of the church member sample
The second survey was sent to members of the Former Amish Reunion, a group formed by two persons in Shreve, Ohio, about ten years ago to provide support for individuals who had left their Amish communities. Currently, the mailing list includes more than two hundred individuals from several states and Amish orders who left the Amish either after formally joining the church or without joining. Questionnaires were sent to everyone on the FAR list. Since the final sample for our survey was derived from the master member list kept by the original organizers of FAR, it may not be fully representative of individuals who have left the Amish community. Rather, the list may overrepresent joiners of organizations, those who otherwise have weak social-support networks, or those who have continuing adjustment problems. This population may also be skewed toward persons with a “chip on their shoulder.” (This is the view of one former Amish woman who says she has never been invited to FAR and that the group is very negative toward the Amish.) The group may also overrepresent persons who left the Amish for religious reasons, because the FAR organizers are “born again Christians” and the reunions have sometimes affiliated themselves with evangelical churches and with Joe Keim’s Mission to Amish People. So while FAR served as an available means by which to reach a large number of formerly Amish people, the reader should keep in mind that its membership may not represent the entire spectrum of individuals who have left the Amish fold. See table A.2 for a demographic profile of the FAR sample.
Of the 200 questionnaires mailed to this group, approximately 25 percent (49) were completed and returned. A large number of unopened envelopes were returned to us because the persons were no longer at the addresses we used, for one reason or another. The small size of our sample does not allow us to answer certain questions, for example, whether Amish from particular affiliations are more likely than others to leave the community. In spite of the limitations of the sample, the survey provided many insights into the varied motivations and experiences of the ex-Amish.
The survey itself consisted of questions covering four main topics: (1) membership status when leaving the Amish community and reasons for leaving; (2) reactions of family and the Amish church to their leaving; (3) degree of adjustment to post-Amish life and reflections on Amish society; and (4) socio-demographic information on the respondents. As with the survey discussed earlier, data were analyzed using SPSS software.
Observation
Even before formally beginning our study of the Holmes County Settlement, we had occasion to observe Amish families and leaders in operation. In the mid-1990s, Chuck Hurst had served as a consultant for an engineering firm and conducted interviews with Amish leaders whose
farms and families could be affected by a highway bypass that was being designed by engineers. David McConnell had had many long conversations with fellow birders in the Amish community; he also has had an abiding interest in Amish schools. In addition, both of us helped Ervin Gingerich distribute forms used in the 1996 and 2005 editions of the Ohio Amish Directory to church representatives.
The number and variety of our observations increased as we became more fully involved in our research. We visited at least a dozen Amish parochial schools when they were in session and were able to see different classes and lessons in action. We experienced how male and female teachers and students interacted in this setting and were given time after class to talk with the teachers. We also visited several public elementary schools that cater to Amish students and spoke with their English principals. The school observations complemented the interviews and questionnaires we used, so that we could investigate “flows of practice” in diverse educational settings.1 We were able to look “from the families to the school” as well as to work “within the school and [look] from the school outward.”2
Table A.2. Demographic profile of the Former Amish Reunion sample
To gain a broader perspective on Amish lifestyles, we also attended church services and went to a wedding, a Christmas play, and a quilting bee. Attending the Haiti Benefit Auction, held yearly, allowed us to examine a wide selection of Amish products, ranging from furniture to buggies. We visited at least a dozen Amish-owned businesses, including those that deal in lumber, farm equipment, woodworking, quilts, furniture, greenhouses, and bulk foods.
An Amish Paradox Page 35
