The Riddle of Amish Culture

by Donald B. Kraybill

  An issue like the appropriate use of telephones has sparked controversy for decades. Playing baseball on local league teams, an issue for several years, was finally forbidden by the bishops in 1995. Maintaining old fences and setting new ones is a delicate process, for as one leader said, “If we’re not tolerant, we’ll have more splits, but too much tolerance can wreck the whole thing too.”

  CULTURAL REGULATORS

  The mix of factors that determines the fate of a new cultural practice or product is always in flux. Decisions about symbolic boundaries emerge within a dynamic matrix of social forces. It is hopeless to search for a simple cultural formula to predict the destiny of a new practice. However, we can identify the regulators, the forces in the ever-changing cultural equation that may influence the outcome.

  What are the regulators that govern social change in Amish life? A single factor will rarely be adequate to explain a particular outcome. Decisions to move cultural fences arise from the convergence of many social forces. The following propositions identify the cultural regulators that often influence the decision-making process.

  1. Economic impact. Changes that produce economic benefits are more acceptable than those that do not. “Making a living” takes priority over pleasure, convenience, or leisure. Thus, a motor on a hay mower in the field is more acceptable than one on a lawn mower.

  2. Visibility. Invisible changes are more acceptable than visible ones. Using fiberglass in the construction of buggies is easier to introduce than changing the external color of the carriage itself. Permanent-press fabrics, in old styles and colors, are more acceptable than completely changing styles. Working as a cook in the back kitchen of a restaurant is more acceptable than working as a waitress in public areas.

  3. Relationship to Ordnung. Changes that overturn previous Ordnung rulings are more difficult than ones that are free from previous rules. Musical instruments, consistently forbidden by the Ordnung, are less likely than calculators to be accepted. Power weed trimmers are more accepted than power mowers, which were forbidden in the past.

  This booming machine shop grew beyond the appropriate limits of size and was sold to a non-Amish owner.

  4. Adaptability to Ordnung. Changes that are adaptable to previous Ordnung rulings are more acceptable than those that are not. New tools that can be converted to hydraulic power or new farm machinery that can be pulled by horses are more acceptable than television, which cannot be grafted to the Ordnung in any conceivable way.

  5. Ties to sacred symbols. Changes unrelated to key symbols of ethnic identity—horse, buggy, and dress—are more acceptable than ones that threaten sacred symbols. Using a modern forklift in a shop is more acceptable than using a tractor in the field, an obvious threat to horses. Jogging shoes and rollerblades are more acceptable than new hat styles because headgear for both men and women is a key identity symbol.

  6. Linkage to “worldly” symbols. Changes linked to worldly symbols are less acceptable than those without such ties. Computers, with monitors similar to television screens, are rejected, whereas gas-fired barbecue grills are acceptable because they have no tie to a worldly object.

  7. Sacred ritual. Changes unrelated to worship practices are more acceptable than those that threaten sacred ritual. Changing the Ordnung for nonfarm work is easier done than changing the ritual patterns of singing, baptism, and ordination. Old Order ritual changes very slowly.

  8. Limitations. Changes with specified limits are more acceptable than open-ended ones. Hiring vehicles primarily for business on weekdays is more acceptable than hiring them any time for any purpose.

  9. Interaction with outsiders. Changes that encourage regular interaction with outsiders are less acceptable than those that foster ethnic ties. Serving as a hostess in a public restaurant is less acceptable than working as a clerk in an Amish retail store. A business partnership involving outsiders is more questionable than one involving church members.

  10. External connections. Changes that open avenues of influence to modern life are less acceptable than those that do not. Membership in public organizations and the use of mass media are less acceptable than subscriptions to ethnic newspapers and participation in church activities.

  11. Family solidarity. Changes that threaten family integration are less acceptable than those that support the family unit. Forms of work and technology that fragment family life are less acceptable than changes that strengthen family interaction. Bicycles are less acceptable than tricycles. Working away from home is less esteemed than working at home.

  12. Ostentatious display. Decorative changes that attract attention are less acceptable than utilitarian ones. Landscaping a lawn is less acceptable than lovely kitchens. Fancy window drapes are less acceptable than modern bathtubs and commodes.

  13. Size. Changes that enlarge the scale of things are less acceptable than those that reinforce small social units. High-volume business enterprises are less acceptable than small family-run businesses. One-room schools are welcomed over multi-room buildings, and forty-cow herds over larger ones.

  14. Individualism. Changes that elevate and accentuate individuals are less acceptable than those that promote social equality. Higher education and public recognition are less acceptable than correspondence courses and informal affirmation of achievement.

  15. Social capital. Changes that threaten to deplete social capital are less likely to be accepted than those that produce it. Amish schooling is more highly endorsed than public education. Throwing horseshoes at family reunions is more esteemed than playing golf on a public course.

  None of these factors operate alone or in isolation. The question of playing golf involves not only family, leisure, and travel, but interaction with outsiders as well—an easy target for a taboo. The use of computers is contentious because it involves making a living, connecting to the outside world, and accessing communicative technology. Change becomes especially volatile in cases where both positive and negative forces intersect.

  THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF CHANGE

  Apart from the cultural values that regulate the acceptance of a new practice, there are many political considerations. In some cases, internal political factors may play as important a role as cultural ones.

  1. Status of innovators. The status of the innovators—the “fence jumpers”—within the Amish community plays a key role in determining the acceptability of a new practice. If insulated ice coolers in contemporary colors are used by respected church members at family picnics, they will likely spread rapidly throughout the community. However, when the innovators occupy marginal positions on the fringe of Amish society, new practices are more likely to fail or to spread very slowly.

  2. Leadership. The opinion and diplomatic style of the senior bishops regulate the acceptance of major changes that come to their attention. The influence of the ranking bishop and his senior colleagues is especially important. If elderly bishops have a strong aversion to a practice, its acceptance may need to await their death. Thus, the prevailing sentiment of the senior bishops is crucial in determining the reception of a new practice. The folklore surrounding the decision to accept weed trimmers shows the political influence of a senior bishop who apparently did not fully understand the issue under discussion at a Bishops’ Meeting. During lunch, when he realized that his colleagues had been discussing weed trimmers, he reportedly said, “Oh, weed pigs—well, I have one and I think it’s pretty nice.” After lunch the issue was dropped, and power weed trimmers were here to stay, despite the taboo on power lawn mowers.

  3. Rate of change. The Amish sometimes talk of how fast the wheel of change is spinning. “We are all moving,” said one member. “Some are just moving faster than others, but we’re really moving in Lancaster County.” The rate of change within the community may also determine the acceptability of a particular item. The divisions of both 1910 and 1966 came at times of rapid change, and some practices may have been rejected then to simply slow the rate of change. In the early 1960s the ordain
ed leaders placed taboos on six technological innovations after other ones, modern hay balers and gas appliances, had just been accepted. It was simply a case of how much change could be absorbed in a short period of time. Furthermore, restrictions on some of the six innovations were gradually relaxed over the years. Thus, the acceptability of a particular item may hinge on whether it comes during an era of rapid change, as well as on the number of other recently adopted practices.

  4. External pressure. Legal and political pressure from the larger society has an obvious impact on moving Amish fences. Highway codes were responsible for adding electric lights, signals, red flashers, and large fluorescent triangles to Amish buggies. Dairy inspectors pressed for indoor toilets for sanitary reasons in the 1950s. In another instance, pressure from public health officials encouraged massive vaccinations following the outbreak of polio among the Amish in 1979. Zoning ordinances in some townships have limited the size and location of Amish businesses. External constraints like these have produced some of the changes in Amish life.

  5. Cultural lag. Cultural lag occurs in a society when the pace of technology races ahead of traditional beliefs—for example, if the ability to clone humans outpaces ethical guidelines. Although within their society the Amish have tried to control technology, they deliberately want to lag behind the larger world. By imposing limits on some practices, they maintain symbolic separation between their subculture and modern life. While change is necessary and acceptable, unrestricted change would erode the symbolic boundaries and close the gap with the outside world.

  Thus, new practices are often accepted with limits to protect Amish identity and maintain symbolic separation. Permitting changes with restrictions signals that, true to their role, the Amish are still lagging behind modern society. A modern kitchen without a dishwasher, wallpaper without designs, a shop without a telephone, a silo without an unloader, and a hay baler without a bale thrower are all ways of maintaining symbolic separation while still permitting change. Although the Amish are pleased to lag behind modern life, they have avoided the cultural lag that often plagues societies when technology leaps ahead of human values. By holding a tight rein on technology, the Amish have kept it subservient to community goals and thus have minimized cultural lag within their society.

  AN INTERACTIVE MODEL OF SOCIAL CHANGE

  The emergence of business enterprises in Amish society illustrates the interactive process of social change as shown in Figure 12.1. Amish culture contained both resources and restraints for the development of entrepreneurial activity. The resources and restraints, interacting together, often in opposition to each other, produced the hundreds of microenterprises described in Chapter 10. Their development, in turn, has acted back upon the traditional culture to produce a variety of cultural revisions.

  The resources included both cultural and social capital—the values, norms, and customs, as well as the kinship networks across the settlement that were available to empower the work of prospective entrepreneurs.4 These resources provided various forms of capital for underwriting the new commercial ventures. Cultural resources for entrepreneurship in the Amish community included frugality, a vigorous work ethic, and managerial skills forged on the farm. The social capital came in the form of strong kinship networks, large and stable family units, and an ample supply of cheap labor. A longstanding emphasis on practical education—especially apprenticeship—also facilitated the development of microenterprises. All of these resources floating in the ethnic reservoir provided cultural and social capital for the formation of Amish businesses.

  FIGURE 12.1 An Interactive Model of Social Change

  However, not all the commodities in a cultural tradition are beneficial for entrepreneurial development. Indeed, many restraints in the Amish cultural warehouse impede entrepreneurial activity. These cultural restraints, stowed away in the heritage of the community, include historic values, norms, taboos, customs, and practices. The church’s longstanding prohibitions against litigation, politics, individualism, commercial insurance, higher education, and involvements with the outside world all hinder the development of business. Moreover, restrictions on technology—motor vehicles, telephones, computers, and electricity—also levy constraints on entrepreneurs. The esteemed virtues of Gelassenheit—modesty and humility—as well as age-old taboos on pride, restrain advertising and promotional efforts. Many of these cultural constraints on entrepreneurship are at odds with other resources in the Amish heritage that can empower business activity. Thus, the rise of microenterprises often involved delicate negotiations between the cultural resources and restraints of the ethnic community.5

  Consequently, the emergence of microenterprises has produced cultural revisions in the traditional patterns of Amish life. Business involvements are reshaping old cultural values and social arrangements, and these changes will inextricably alter the face of Amish society in the years to come. The shops and stores that were developed because of certain deeply held Amish beliefs are now acting back upon—indeed, revising—the cultural values that gave rise to them in the first place. Signs of modernity—growing individualism, control, efficiency, rationality, mobility, and occupational specialization—are clearly more and more in evidence. The rise of microenterprises is, in short, transforming the traditional culture of Amish society.

  POINTS OF TENSION

  Social change is rarely simple or comfortable for any group, and the Amish are no exception. The pace of change in Amish society is typically slow, but the Lancaster settlement, sitting on the edge of the eastern megalopolis, is especially vulnerable to change. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, a variety of stress points emerged as the community struggled with rapid growth and change in the midst of an urbanizing region.

  1. North vs. south. In the last decades of the twentieth century, tensions surfaced between the old historic center of the settlement and the newer, more conservative sector in southern Lancaster County. Some districts in the north had a more tolerant Ordnung, shaped by greater interaction with outsiders. The southern flank was more rural, plain, and traditional. All things considered, the more rural the setting, the plainer the church district. The north-south differences were driven not only by the external environment but by self-selection as well. Some families who wanted a plainer Ordnung moved south. The north-south tension, if not mediated carefully by the settlement-wide Bishops’ Meetings, has the potential to divide the settlement.

  2. Farm vs. business. A related but not identical point of tension surfaced in Ordnung differences for farm and shop. The rules for farming, developed over many decades, were more traditional and thus more difficult to change. Because business enterprises have developed so recently, they faced fewer constraints in the Ordnung. The rules for business had to be created from scratch, and some farmers complained that the Ordnung for shops was too liberal, too flexible. Why should shop owners have so much freedom when farmers had faithfully followed the traditional restrictions for years? In response, the business owners asked why they should be restrained by old-fashioned rules designed for a barnyard when they were involved in manufacturing. Said one young shop worker, “Farmers and shop owners bicker like Democrats and Republicans.” A young farm wife whose parents own a business said, “The farm and shop are two different worlds.” The tension between these two worlds stretches across the entire settlement and is accented by the north-south cleavage.

  Gazebos, storage sheds, and playhouses produced in Amish shops are shipped across the country. The growth of shops has accelerated social change in Amish life.

  3. Plain vs. fancy. The foray into business created a new social class of entrepreneurs. Their resources, expertise, and lifestyle often challenge the traditional, Plain patterns of the past. Upscale homes, finer furnishings, longer trips, and greater use of technology set the commercial class apart from their more rural compatriots. The emergence of a wealthier class challenges communal values and authority as well as many traditional practices. Will the fast and fancy el
ite be willing to bend to the common order and use their wealth to support community life, or will they disrupt the entire system? That touchy question stalks the community.

  The Amish have been a people of separation—embodied by dress, dialect, and social distance from the outside world. As we have seen, the social distance is shrinking in many ways. They are interacting more and more with outsiders on a daily basis. This growing contact dilutes the dialect, exposes them to technology, and erodes the traditional boundaries. Worried about these trends, some leaders argue for a Plainer, more separatist lifestyle.

  These points of tension are propelled by two factors: occupational change and geographic location. The entry into business and the fact the Lancaster Amish community is encircled by an urban culture that is encroaching upon them at every turn have heightened the points of stress. In other words, some of the tensions would fade if the Amish were farming in secluded rural areas. But the Lancaster Amish are not. And the big question is whether church elders can mediate the tensions and hold the settlement together.