ARE THE AMISH HAPPY?
What does all this mean for happiness? Which culture—modern or Amish—optimizes the conditions for human fulfillment and best satisfies the yearning for meaning, belonging, and identity? Two recent books have addressed a major riddle of modern life: Why are people so unhappy in an age of plenty?13 Why have consumerism, entertainment, and technology failed to make us happy? Happiness, of course, is relative. It hinges on cultural expectations, on social values, on the gap between expectations and achievements, and on comparisons with one’s social peers.
It would be wrong to assume that the Amish are unhappy because their personal freedom is constrained. Indeed, in an hour-long television special on happiness, ABC interviewed some Amish off camera who reported higher levels of satisfaction with their life than other respondents.14 What is most troubling, however, is that without all the conveniences of modern life, the Amish might be as happy, if not happier, than the rest of us. That is the fear that torments the modern soul.
One likely reason for their success is the ability of their society to fulfill the basic human needs of identity, belonging, and meaning. The Amish who test the boundaries of their culture may feel the tug of both worlds, but most members do not experience midlife or career crises so typical of modern life. Among Americans the toll of individualism is high, as evinced by the high number of therapists, stress management seminars, wellness centers, lawsuits, and the standard barometers of malaise: divorce, crime, drug abuse, fraud, suicide, and violence. Yet despite the psychic toll, Moderns cherish the exhilaration of individualism. Few would be willing to trade in its thrills for the tranquility, order, and meaning of Amish culture. The Amish provide a social model whereby individual needs are fulfilled, not through the delights of individualism, but in sacrifice and submission to a greater collective good. There are no promises of freewheeling self-fulfillment in Amish life, but the individual is cared for and cherished by a supportive social system—a humane and durable promise.
For “weaker” people, often discarded by the modern system, the Amish setting provides a caring environment where no one slips through the bureaucratic cracks. In the eyes of “stronger” people, the Amish system may feel oppressively tight compared to the pliable fabric of modern culture. Tilted toward the rugged individualist, modern culture easily tramples on the weak. By contrast, Amish culture, tilted toward the community, easily suffocates the strong.
The wisdom distilled in Amish culture suggests that some limits on individualism may, in the long run, serve the deeper needs of the individual better than an unbridled pursuit of self-gratification. In other words, the Amish contend that individuals may not always understand or pursue the things that lead to happiness. Indeed, happiness may be shaped as much by social structures as by individual choice.
OUR COMMON RIDDLE
Some riddles remain. How is it that those who have not been educated beyond the eighth grade have been able to devise such a humane social system? Without consultants or strategic planners, the Amish, in simple and down-to-earth ways, have crafted a social system that not only attracts the attention of tourists and scholars but also raises profound questions about the underpinnings of happiness, freedom, and meaning. Moreover, how is it that, despite the best efforts of the most learned planners and strategists, our modern world is strewn with fragmentation, alienation, and despair? Moderns plan incessantly yet often seem out of control. The Amish, who do little if any strategic planning, seem rather firmly in charge of things.
Side by side, Amish and modern culture tilt in opposite directions—one toward the community and the other toward the individual. Their comparison evokes a common riddle that engulfs the larger human community, both Amish and modern alike. Would it be possible to construct a social “home” where the need for individual expression and the need for community are suspended in a healthy and creative tension? Can we envision a culture where individuals discover their true selves only when they plant their roots in the communal soil of a larger body, where self-fulfillment is achieved in the context of a social mission that transcends selfish interests, where personal identity is firmly grounded in the identity of a larger body, and where the pursuit of profit and pleasure yields to the collective welfare—the common good?
Is it possible to pursue such lofty goals without stifling initiative, without suppressing creativity, and without restricting individual freedom? Can we only have meaningful community at the expense of individual freedom, and must such freedom result in a cancerous debilitation of community? Or is it possible to forge a culture—a social habitat—where the individual and the community are not pitted against each other as adversaries, but where they supplement, complement, and enrich each other? That is the common riddle that begs all of us—Amish and Moderns alike—for a solution.
Such a delicate mix would not only champion the charms of community but would also empower and enable individuals to achieve their highest creative aspirations. Such a “home” would welcome the gifts of mind and body and embrace them—not for selfish ends in themselves but for embellishment of the larger community, not for self-acclaim but for collective celebration, not for personal gain but for corporate enhancement. Can we find a middle ground, a social order that anchors the individual in a larger body and at the same time applauds choice and creative expression? The solution to our common riddle promises to arrest the cancerous growth of individualism as well as to relax the stifling restrictions of traditional life. Hidden within our common riddle is the hope of a new social order, a “home” that taps both the achievements of modernity and the wisdom of Amish life.
APPENDIX A
Research Procedures
The observations in this book describe the Old Order Amish settlement in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The details of social life vary in Amish settlements across the United States, making it unwise to apply the specifics of the Lancaster Amish to other communities. However, although the particulars of practice vary from settlement to settlement, the basic values, philosophy, and worldview of Amish culture described in this book are applicable to other Amish settlements as well.
Various data sources were used for this study: in-depth interviews, primary source documents, ethnographic observations, and three demographic profiles of the Lancaster settlement in 1986, 1993, and 2000. Face-to-face interviews with dozens of Amish were conducted in 1986, 1987, 1993, 1996, and 2000. The informants included males and females, farmers and business owners, mothers and fathers, married and single, teachers, and ordained leaders. Informants were selected to tap a representative cross section of the community. Many interviews involved two sessions; some involved as many as five. A significant portion of the book is based on the notes and transcripts of these interviews. Public officials and non-Amish professionals who relate to the Amish community as lawyers, physicians, accountants, bankers, and veterinarians were also widely consulted.
The Amish are hesitant to publicize minutes of meetings, organizational documents, and policy statements. In many cases generous informants shared copies of materials, personal letters, and other primary sources for which I am deeply grateful. Except for a few who granted permission, I have not revealed or identified informants in the text. Having lived in the Lancaster area all of my life, I have long been familiar with members of the Amish community and am fortunate to have many as friends and acquaintances. These experiences have provided opportunities to observe Amish society firsthand. Throughout the research efforts, the Amish have always been gracious and helpful neighbors who generously shared their time and thoughts with me.
SETTLEMENT PROFILE 1986
A stratified two-stage cluster sample was used to obtain demographic data on a sample of 382 people living in 168 Amish households in twenty districts in 1986. This study provided the primary database for the first edition of the book and is described more fully in that edition.
ENTERPRISE PROFILE 1993
In 1993 an Amish Enterprise Profile gathered data on
Amish enterprises and entrepreneurs in thirteen church districts. Information was gathered on 118 enterprises and in-depth interviews were conducted with thirty-five selected entrepreneurs. The fieldwork was coordinated and conducted by Steven M. Nolt. Some of the findings from the Enterprise Profile have informed the discussion of Amish businesses in Chapter 10. A fuller description of the methods can be found in Kraybill and Nolt (1995:261–64). The results of the study were published in a book (Kraybill and Nolt 1995).
SETTLEMENT PROFILE 2000
A study conducted in the spring of 2000 provides the primary database for the revised edition of this book. Profile 2000 gathered information on a total of 1,704 individuals living in ten church districts. The districts were purposely selected to represent the total population of 131 church districts as of December 1999. The sample reflected the geographic location, size, and age of the district. Children under 16 years of age were also enumerated. Demographic data were gathered on 888 individuals who were 16 years of age and older. Louise Stoltzfus coordinated all aspects of the fieldwork and recruited informants to assist in each district. The completion rate was 100 percent. Krista Malick keystroked the data and performed the data analysis.
APPENDIX B
Old Order Amish Lancaster County Settlement Population Estimates, 1880–2010
APPENDIX C
Estimated Amish Population (Old Order and New Order) by State and Province in North America
APPENDIX D
Settlements Originating from the Lancaster County Settlement, 1940–2000
APPENDIX E
Scripture Texts for Amish Church Services in the Lancaster Settlement
NOTES
1 | The Amish Story
1. For readable introductions to the origins of the Anabaptist movement, see Dyck (1993), Klaassen (2001), Loewen and Nolt (1996), Snyder (1995), and Weaver (1987). The Mennonite Encyclopedia (1956) covers a wide range of topics related to Anabaptist roots and Amish beginnings.
2. J. E. Kauffman (1975:42).
3. An overview of the suffering and persecution is provided by Dyck (1993:110–13; 1985) and Schowalter (1957). Vivid descriptions of the persecution printed at the end of the Ausbund (1984) have been translated from the German by J. E. Kauffman (1975). The classic account of Christian martyrdom and suffering from New Testament times through the Anabaptist persecution was compiled by Braght (1985) in 1660 in the Martyrs Mirror.
4. For a discussion of the historical setting and the significance of the Schleitheim Confession of Faith, more properly called the Brotherly Union of a Number of Children of God Concerning Seven Articles, see J. H. Yoder (1973:34–43).
5. Bender (1957:29–54).
6. For a record of his writings, see Menno Simons (1956).
7. The term Mennist was first given to Dutch Anabaptist followers of Menno Simons. Eventually the name Mennonite was assumed by other Anabaptist groups as well. However, it was not widely used by the Swiss Anabaptists at the time of the Amish division in 1693.
8. Seguy (1973:182).
9. Hüppi (2000) provides a detailed description of Ammann. Helpful discussions of the identity and background of Jakob Ammann can be found in Baecher (2000), Furner (2000), and Hüppi (2000). The evidence provided by these scholars suggests that Jakob Ammann, a tailor by trade, converted to Anabaptism in 1679. He was probably 49 years old in 1693.
10. Numerous letters exchanged in the controversy have been preserved. They have been translated by Roth (1993), who provides an excellent overview of the issues surrounding the division. Helpful discussions of the context of the Amish division can also be found in Gross (1994), Guth (1995), J. A. Hostetler (1993:25–50), Luthy (1971a), Meyers (1996), Nolt (1992), Roth (1994), and E. Yoder (1987:43–58).
11. Leroy Beachey, in an unpublished paper and in personal conversation, has suggested that Ulrich Miller, an Anabaptist evangelist in the Oberland (highlands) area of Switzerland near Thun, converted many people to Anabaptism, including Jakob Ammann. Thus, Miller, according to Beachey, should be seen as the founder of the Amish movement. Moreover, the primary tension in Switzerland, according to Beachey, was between new converts in the Oberland, where Miller and Ammann lived, and the more traditional Swiss Brethren who lived in the Emmental Valley under the leadership of Hans Reist.
12. Steven M. Nolt (1992) has written the best overall history of the Amish, including their European origins, North American migration, settlement patterns, and growth in the New World.
13. Nolt (1992:56).
14. J. F. Beiler (1983:17–18). For a discussion of Amish immigration and early settlements, see J. F. Beiler (1976a, 1983); Crowley (1978); G. L. Fisher (1987); J. A. Hostetler (1993:54–72); MacMaster (1985:69–87); Nolt (1992); G. M. Stoltzfus (1954); E. S. Yoder (1987:60–68); and P. Yoder (1987a:286–90). A series of articles about the early Pennsylvania settlements by Amish historian Joseph F. Beiler appeared in The Diary in 1972 and 1974. Amish genealogist Amos L. Fisher’s (1984) work also provides information on the early settlements.
15. The Dunkards, formally known as Brethren, originated in Germany in 1708. The nickname Dunkard, based on their mode of baptism by immersion, eventually gave way to German Baptist Brethren in 1871. In 1908 they became the Church of the Brethren.
16. Statistics on Lancaster County’s agricultural production are available from the Agricultural Committee of the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
17. The Holmes County, Ohio, settlement is somewhat larger than the Lancaster community, but it is divided into various Amish subgroups or affiliations that do not share a common religious discipline. For an excellent (but dated) ethnography of Amish life based on the larger settlements in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, see John A. Hostetler’s Amish Society (1993). See Kraybill (1994b) for a discussion of social change among four groups in the Holmes County settlement.
18. The age, size, and location of the Lancaster settlement have made it a target of numerous studies. For nineteenth-century descriptions of Amish life, see D. Beiler (1888), Gibbons (1869), Umble (1948), and P. Yoder (1979a). Twentieth-century analyses include Bachman (1961), Ericksen et al. (1979), Gallagher (1981), Getz (1946), portions of J. A. Hostetler (1993), Kollmorgen (1942, 1943), Loomis (1979), Loomis and Dyer (1976), and Smith (1961). Rice and Shenk (1947) and Rice and Steinmetz (1956) provide midcentury photographs and interpretations of the Lancaster settlement. The most recent scholarly study has been Tan’s (1998) dissertation, which focuses on social capital in Amish society.
19. The Hutterites emerged as a separate branch of Anabaptism in 1528. For a discussion of their origins, see J. A. Hostetler (1997) and Packull (1995). Today they live in communitarian groups in the western United States and in Canada. For a comparison of the Old Order Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, and Brethren, see Kraybill and Bowman (2001).
20. J. A. Hostetler (1993:91–93).
21. A settlement may have one or several affiliations, and each affiliation may have one or numerous congregations. In the Lancaster Amish settlement the Old Order Amish, New Order Amish, and Beachy Amish represent three different affiliations.
22. The Amish do not maintain population statistics; however, estimates of their population can be calculated by multiplying the known size of church districts in some settlements by the total number of districts as reported by Raber (2001). Procedures for estimating the population of the Lancaster settlement are described in Appendix B. See Appendix C for North America and Pennsylvania population estimates.
23. I am grateful to C. Nelson Hostetter and Stephen Scott for assistance in identifying the various groups in Lancaster County. The adult membership of the six largest Anabaptist affiliations in Lancaster County include: the Lancaster Mennonite Conference (11,842), the Old Order Amish (9,234), the Church of the Brethren (7,884), the Brethren in Christ (3,117), the Groffdale Old Order Mennonite Conference (2,800), and the Weaverland Old Order Mennonite Conference (2,630).
24. These answers are reported in Ericksen et al. (1979).
This comprehensive study of Amish fertility was conducted in the Lancaster Amish settlement. The authors report a completed family size of 6.8, which is quite similar to the 6.6 found in the Lancaster Settlement Profile 1986 and the 6.5 reported in the Lancaster Settlement Profile 2000, both of which are described in Appendix A.
25. The estimate of 90 percent is based on families in the ten-district sample of the Lancaster Settlement Profile 2000, described in Appendix A.
26. Although the Lancaster settlement and the total number of Amish throughout North America are growing, not all settlements prosper. For a discussion of Amish settlements that failed between 1840 and 1960, see Luthy (1986).
27. In the thirty-year period from 1970 to 1999, about 532 families migrated from the Lancaster settlement. Of these, 71 percent (N = 376) settled in other Pennsylvania counties, 12 percent (N = 62) went to Kentucky, 11 percent (N = 56) headed for Indiana, 5 percent (N = 25) settled in Wisconsin, and the remaining thirteen families were scattered in New York, Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, and West Virginia. These migration figures were tabulated from The Diary from 1970 to 2000. The totals for each year are shown in Figure 1.4.
The Riddle of Amish Culture Page 37