Thesis - Chapter 1 - Introduction
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The
past few centuries have witnessed scientific truth superceding religious truth,
especially at the university. While some
scholars would say we have entered a world that calls both of these “truths”
into question (i.e. postmodernism), religion has not simply faded into
oblivion. It continues to be a vital
force for many human communities, influencing their worldviews, cultural
institutions and practices, and interactions with each other and with non-human
creatures. Broadly defined, religion is
that which provides people a sense of deep meaning, beyond mere rationality or
one’s atomized individual self.
From
the radical environmentalist journal, Wild Earth, to a growing number of
environmental studies scholars, members of the environmental community are
becoming more aware of religion’s implications for ecological behavior
(Kinsley, 1995, p. xvi). Lynn White,
Jr.’s famous paper criticizing “Judeo-Christianity” as the source of our modern
ecological crisis remains a major presence in discussions of religion and
ecology (White, 1967). Largely
responding to White’s accusations, many Christians and Jews have sought to
counter those claims, seeking examples of positive ecological beliefs and
behaviors within their traditions.
Neither of these traditions is unitary.
Christianity has been developing for 2,000 years and has many diverse
belief systems under its umbrella.
Judaism has remained more stable, but it, too, consists of a number of
groups with a variety of distinct beliefs.
The
goal of this paper is to discuss one Christian tradition: the Old Order
Amish. In particular, the paper will
focus on a 200-year-old Amish settlement in Mifflin County, Pa. The Amish people are often considered to be
quaint members of a pre-modern society that hasn’t caught up with the “real
world” yet. Their rural, agricultural
lifestyle in some ways resembles pre-World War II rural life in the United
States, but in other ways is very different.
The Amish people value their community and lifestyle, limit the
influence of modern technology, and live simply (even austerely). All of this is motivated by their
foundational religious beliefs.
The Amish way of life has recently been called a “tradition of rural sustainability” (Lapping, 1997). This paper will examine this claim more closely, presenting data on both the ecological behaviors and beliefs of the Amish (using the New Environmental Paradigm scale), and discussing how the Amish religion both supports and hinders its own social and ecological sustainability.
The Need for Sustainability
Sustainability
is one of the most popular and discussed concepts in the worldwide
environmental movement today. From the
arguments pitting sustainable growth (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987) versus sustainable development (Daly, 1996) to the differing
methods proposed to achieve sustainable development (increased human management
or increased human respect for the land and its creatures), it is apparent that
a precise definition of sustainability eludes consensus (Gale and Cordray,
1994). In a general sense,
sustainability implies continuation – of a biological community, of an
ecosystem, of present agricultural or forestry practices (Doob, 1995). Even though the concept is somewhat fuzzy,
the idea of sustainability has merit, particularly in light of the blatantly
unsustainable trends that threaten the livability of Earth both for humans and
other animals and plants. Global
warming, ozone depletion, soil erosion, deforestation, fisheries collapse, and
loss of biological and cultural diversity are some of the major warning
signs.
Few
agree completely on the source of these looming ecological crises, but two
commonly cited evils are overpopulation and overconsumption by humans (Ehrlich
and Ehrlich, 1990). Others blame
technology, claiming that as humans increase their use of technology, they grow
more insulated and isolated from the Earth; the resulting culture/nature split
exacerbates the growing ecological crisis (Zerzan and Carnes, 1988). If humans are separated physically and
mentally from the source of all life, then how will they know they are harming
nature, much less how to restore it?
Still others place the blame for the ecological crisis on the dominant
Judeo-Christian worldview, which holds that God, in the Genesis creation story,
gives humans dominion over all of nature (White, 1967).
Sustainability,
then, can be defined in relationship to these problems. A sustainable culture would be one that lives
in balance with the rest of nature, which does not disrupt the ecological
interactions of the ecosystem.[1] A sustainable culture would be aware of its
dependence on natural systems and treat its habitat with respect and
appreciation. A sustainable culture
would not use up the natural resources of an area and move on, but would live
in such a way that the lifestyle could be perpetuated indefinitely. Not only would it “do no harm,” but it would
repair and restore its surroundings as much as possible. The sum of these ideas is encompassed in Aldo
Leopold’s land ethic, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the
integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it
tends otherwise” (Leopold, 1974, p. 262).
A sustainable culture is a lasting culture.
As
the advent of a new millenium approaches, it is readily apparent that the
modern capitalistic, American culture and economy (which provides the model for
the global economy) is not sustainable.
The wealthy North (Europe, United States), consisting of about 20
percent of the global population, uses approximately 70 percent of the world’s
resources. Ecological footprints of the
wealthy nations are estimated to range from three to five hectares/person (Wackernagel
and Rees, 1995).[2] If the entire global population had a
footprint of this magnitude, it would exceed the productive land capacity of
the planet. It is also estimated that
humans, one species among millions, now consume and co-opt approximately 40
percent of the net primary productivity (usable energy from the sun,
transformed through photosynthesis) of terrestrial ecosystems (Vitousek et al.,
1986). Continuing these per capita rates
of consumption as the population increases would lead to a serious reduction in
net primary productivity for non-human animals.
Basically, the signs indicate that we are approaching the limits of the
Earth (as best we can identify them).
Whether we have actually exceeded the Earth’s carrying capacity is
unclear and extremely difficult to measure, but there are increasing concerns
that the accretion of localized habitat destruction and transformation will
eventually have a widespread impact. The
challenge for our generation is to discover or develop cultures, economies, and
specific communities that are sustainable.
Some
scholars, such as C.A. Bowers, Paul Shepard, and Stanley Diamond, point to
indigenous cultures of Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Australia as possible
models for sustainable communities (Bowers, 1995; Orr, 1992). Their low-tech, highly spiritual interactions
with their environments include complex rituals of respect for the Earth and
its vast community of life (Suzuki and Knudtson, 1992). Granted, all indigenous cultures are not
necessarily ecologically sustainable; this is a common “environmentalist myth”
(Milton, 1996), perpetuated by popular and provocative novels such as Daniel
Quinn’s Ishmael. However, it is
fairly clear that a number of indigenous cultures have lasted for thousands of
years without unduly damaging the habitats on which they depend. For some hunter-gatherer tribes, their
environmentally benign impact may be more a matter of small population sizes
and simple technology than of any conscious action on their part. Other cultures, however, such as the
Australian Aborigines and the Cree of Hudson Bay, have conscious rituals of
reciprocity, in which they are required to care for the land that first cares
for them (Kinsley, 1995).
Many
of these indigenous cultures have been decimated by the twin plagues of
colonialism and the technological society (i.e. neo-colonialism) (Shiva,
1993). Few people remain who know the
ancient ways, and fewer still practice them.
While the number of people in dominant cultures who respect indigenous
cultural practices appears to be growing, much of the dominant, post-colonial
North still sees these cultures as primitive, representing a stage of cultural
development that we passed long ago.
Thus they are believed to have nothing to teach us.
To
a certain extent, this critique is accurate.
In a world of nearly six billion people, population pressures make a
return to hunter-gatherer lifestyles a practical impossibility. We may be able to incorporate certain aspects
of indigenous cultures into our own, but to hope to do this rapidly on a large
scale is rather unrealistic. We will be
doing well to allow these cultures to persist.
In
contrast to the neo-indigenous approach to sustainability, proponents of an
opposing sentiment claim that population growth is good, and that increased
technology and economic growth will lead to more efficient uses of natural
resources. These “cornucopians,”
exemplified by the bane of environmentalists, economist Julian Simon, recognize
the need for sustainable growth, but don’t seem to see a need for diverse local
cultures that form self-reliant sustainable communities. To them, the global economy is an efficient
machine that, with minor adjustments here and there, will eventually lead to a
technologically induced sustainability.
A milder form of this technological optimism shows up in the work of Paul Hawken, businessman and author of The Ecology of Commerce. Hawken (1993) argues that businesses must accept the reality and significance of “natural capital,” incorporate “externalities” into the prices of goods, and convert manufacturing wastes into forms that can be assimilated more easily by ecosystems. These goals would indeed be a major overhaul of our present system; however, Hawken does seem to think that if these structural and technological changes are made, we can continue our present affluent lifestyles. Hawken’s solution does not require a return to indigenous, low-technology lifestyles, nor does it require a reduction of consumption or other types of individual limits.
Religion and the Sustainability Debate
Religion
is implicit in the discussion of indigenous cultures, since many Native
cultures see nature as animate, perform rituals to effect protection and
increase of plants and animals, and celebrate nature’s rhythms (Kinsley, 1995;
Suzuki and Knudtson, 1992). Indeed, religion is crucial to the sustainability
of indigenous cultures. “All traditional
societies that have succeeded in managing resources well, over time, have done
it in part through religious or ritual representation of resource management,”
states anthropologist E.N. Anderson (1996, p. 166). Sometimes these religious traits are missed
or ignored because they don’t look like our culture’s version of organized religion,
complete with holy books and an other-worldly focus. Instead, religion is deeply imbedded in a
holistic worldview that connects Native ecological knowledge with the ethical
codes and reverence that accompany it.
As
neo-pagan and Goddess religions revive in Western society, and as members of
the major religions begin to develop denominational and ecumenical
organizations concerned about “Creation Care,”[3] it becomes
increasingly evident that religion can play a role in supporting and motivating
ecological concern. What is less clear
is how much actual impact religion has on its members’ behavior, and whether
some religions are more effective in motivating sustainability than are others.
The
present environmental debate is centered largely in the laboratory, the
political arena, and the courtroom, with science, economic rationality, and
legality being the primary considerations.
Students learn how to identify and restore degraded ecosystems, how to
write better Environmental Impact Statements (or challenge those that are
written), and how to lobby Congress to enact better laws, but rarely do we in
the academy pay attention to religion as a force for change. “Ignorance of religion prevents environmental
studies from achieving its goals,” says Lawrence Sullivan, editor of Harvard
University’s Center for the Study of World Religions Publications, “for though
science and technology share many important features of human culture with
religion, they leave unexplored essential wellsprings of human motivation and
concern that shape the world as we know it” (Sullivan, 1997, p. xiii).
Religious communities have been at the forefront of many social movements in the United States, including abolition of slavery and civil rights. They are also likely to be a significant force in the environmental movement (Oelschlaeger, 1991). The academy ought to pay more attention to the emerging interaction between religion and environmentalism.
The Amish as a Possible Model of a Sustainable Culture
In
this light, we turn to the Amish, a small Christian sect that has European
roots but has remained separate from the dominant U.S. culture. The Amish community has been so effective in
this endeavor that one scholar has compared them to “tribal” groups such as the
Navajo, and found these two groups to have many similarities (Davis,
1996). Some scholars point to the Amish
as a possible model of sustainability for the modern world (Lapping, 1997;
Olshan, 1980), while others consider them to be resistant to and even afraid of
the modern world (Jager, 1983).
The
Amish are a rural, agricultural people who eschew modern technology. Numbering over 100,000 in the United States,
the Amish reject many new forms of technology for the sake of their
communities, not out of fear or disinterest.
Amish leaders strictly prohibit any outside influence or internal
change, technological or otherwise, which is believed to threaten the cohesion
of the community and the interdependent reliance each member has on the others.[4] The “Amish blueprint for expected behavior,”
an oral code of conduct called the Ordnung,
guides community life; breaking the Ordnung
(e.g. by using prohibited technology) results in serious sanctions (Kraybill,
1989, p. 95).
The
Amish are not typical environmentalists in that they do not actively promote
protection of the environment. In fact,
they endeavor to avoid what they call the “world” (modern, mainstream society)
and its influences as much as possible.
Yet,
being farmers, the Amish are connected to the land and its health. They believe that “soil, created by God in
the Garden of Eden, has spiritual significance, and humankind’s first duty is
to manage it as good stewards,” says Elizabeth Place, an attorney who has
worked with the Amish on land use and environmental issues (1993, p. 191). The Amish prefer to live in rural areas, both
because of the isolated, agricultural lifestyle such rurality allows them, and
because they tend to feel closer to God while in nature (Hostetler, 1993).
Critics
of modern culture and agriculture such as Wendell Berry (1981, 1983, 1986) and
Gene Logsdon (1988) laud the Amish as a model of health and sustainability in
an otherwise-imbalanced country. Plain,
a magazine produced by conservative Quakers from Ohio, promotes Amish-style
simple living as a crucial counter-force to a modern overconsumptive, wasteful,
and damaging lifestyle. For many people
in a stressed-out, high-tech world, the Amish are a beacon of serenity and an
indication that alternative modes of living are possible.
But
as Amish communities become overrun by tourists seeking vicarious tranquility,
one wonders if the Amish live up to their billing. Through no fault of their own (with rare
exceptions), they are gradually becoming the darlings of pop culture, but do they
deserve all the hype? Are the Amish
anachronistic 19th century anomalies or harbingers of an alternative direction
for American culture? Would the world
really be a better place if more people were Amish, or lived like them?
Some
challenges to the rosy picture of pristine Amish tranquility do exist. The Amish, while spiritually connected to the
land, have also been a rather mobile people (Schwieder and Schwieder,
1975). “The Amish experience is the
story of people on the move,” says Duane Kauffman, a Mennonite historian (1991,
p. 85). Scarcity of available land (due
to large families), church splits (which are rather common), and the pervasive
attitude of 19th century America to “go west” all contributed to a gradual
westward migration of Amish communities (Kauffman, 1991).
Recently,
both Amish population and, therefore, migration are on the rise. Since the average couple has seven children,
the Amish population doubles nearly every 20 years (Hostetler, 1993). All these people must live somewhere, and
existing settlements become crowded as more people try to farm the same amount
of land. Between 1972 and 1992, 144 new
settlements were founded, or 63 percent of the total existing Amish settlements
in 1992 (Luthy, 1994). The formation
rate of new settlements averaged about seven per year over this period, whereas
prior to 1972, the formation rate was closer to one or two new settlements per
year. The majority of Amish people still
live in the oldest settlements, however: 55 percent of all Amish church
districts are located in settlements that began before 1900 (Garrett,
1996). The Amish may be people on the
move, but they also stay put for a long time, if possible.
Not
only are the Amish more mobile than we might expect, given their horse and
buggy mode of transportation, but they sometimes have a peculiar way of showing
their respect for the land. Land use
conflicts in highly developed Lancaster County in southern Pennsylvania have
involved Amish farmers contributing to pollution of groundwater and rivers that
feed into Chesapeake Bay. Poor manure
handling processes allow runoff to contaminate streams with considerable
nutrient pollution. Rather than
welcoming government regulations designed to ensure care for the environment,
Amish farmers sometimes consider such regulations to be “worldly” interference
with their way of life and resist them (Place, 1993).
While
Amish communities offer modern Americans an alternative to what can be a
seductive and destructive technological system, the Amish are not like Hindus
who respect the spiritual lives of animals.
Amish farmers are nearly always involved in animal husbandry. Butchering animals to eat does not coincide
with the concept of ahimsa, or total non-violence to all creatures. The Amish strive to be stewards of God’s
world and, like many Christians, consider themselves to be “higher” than the
animals and plants.
Thus
the ecological impact of Amish communities is somewhat mixed. As mentioned above, most Amish would not
consider themselves environmentalists, at least not in the modern sense, for
example, of belonging to the Sierra Club.
They work the land, however, and have an affinity for that land. In some regions, Amish people have been
farming the same land for over 200 years.
They have persisted in farming even as many American family farmers have
gone bankrupt (Berry, 1981). For the
United States, they do seem to be a promising model of rural sustainability
(Lapping, 1997).
The questions remain. Do the Amish truly have a more ecologically and socially sustainable lifestyle than their American neighbors? If so, what factors lead Amish communities to be more sustainable? What role does the Ordnung (code of rules) play in influencing ecologically and socially sustainable behavior? How does Amish agriculture compare to alternative/sustainable agriculture? If Amish communities consume less resources (goods and services) than typical American communities and/or practice a more sustainable type of agriculture than non-Amish farmers, is that behavior a result of a conscious ecological worldview, a religious worldview, an artifact of limited technology, or something else? In other words, which cultural values best predict and influence Amish behavior?
Methodology
The Geographic and Social Setting: Kishacoquillas Valley, Mifflin County, Pa.
Kish
Valley features a unique religio-cultural landscape. An unusually high concentration of Amish and
Mennonites (another Christian denomination with historical and religious ties
to the Amish) live in Kish Valley. The
Mifflin County Mennonite Historical Society reports that nearly every farm
between the villages of Allensville and Belleville, seven miles apart, is being
farmed by an Amish or Mennonite family.
Four distinct Amish-related groups, distinguishable by their different modes of transportation, live in Kish Valley. Three Old Order groups drive buggies: the Renno Church Amish drive black buggies, the Byler Church Amish drive yellow buggies, and the Nebraska Church Amish drive white buggies. The Amish Mennonites (also known as the Beachey Amish) may own and use automobiles, but these vehicles must be painted black. These outward choices reflect different religious beliefs among the four groups. Each group has a somewhat different Ordnung (code of rules), which guides the behavior of its members, especially in regards to acceptable technologies and dress codes.
Research Methods
My research entailed observation of and interviews with Amish, Mennonite, and
non-Amish/Mennonite farmers in
Kish Valley about their agricultural practices (representing environmental
behaviors) and their general beliefs about human-nature relations (representing
environmental attitudes). I surveyed 15
to 20 members of two different Amish groups, the Renno Church and the Nebraska
Church, in order to examine what effects a different Ordnung has on environmental attitudes and behaviors. If the more typical Old Order Amish group
(Renno Church), with its non-modern, low-technology lifestyle, proves to
practice a more sustainable type of agriculture than their non-Amish neighbors,
does the higher level of isolation and technological rejection that exists
within the Nebraska Church (the most conservative Amish group in Kish Valley)
lead to an even more sustainable type of agriculture?
I
also surveyed an equivalent number of Mennonite farmers in order to study the
environmental attitudes and behaviors of a group that shares a common history
and similar theology with the Amish, but does not have a powerful social
mechanism that prescribes and enforces individual behavior. Finally, I surveyed non-Amish/Mennonite
farmers in the valley in order to provide a control group that shares the same
geography and local history, but does not share the same religion. (For the remainder of the paper,
non-Amish/Mennonite farmers will be referred to as the “English,” the Amish
term for English-speaking Americans, for the sake of brevity.)
For
the agricultural practices section of the interview, I borrowed a questionnaire
used in a study of modern Amish farming in New York (Blake et al., 1997). The study examined Amish and non-Amish
agriculture in northern New York to see how the groups’ farming practices
compared to an ideal type of ecological agriculture. The major topics covered in their survey are
listed below. See Appendix A for the
full questionnaire.
1. Amounts of
land farmed, land leased, and plans for expansion
2. Crop types and acreage over the
past three years
3. Animals on the farm over the past
two years
4. Products marketed and locations
of markets
5.
Methods of pest control during the last growing season, including insecticide
and herbicide
use (types, amounts, and frequency of applications)
6. Fertilizer use and amounts over
the past year
7. Crop rotation
8. Sources of agricultural
information. (Blake et al., 1997, p. 149)
After
administering the farming practices questionnaire, I asked the farmers to
respond to an environmental attitude survey, consisting of 17 statements about
the state of the environment and the relationship between humans and
nature. Responses were assessed using a
four point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree, Mildly Disagree, Mildly Agree, and
Strongly Agree). The statements come
from the New Environmental Paradigm and New Ecological Paradigm scales
developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) and Dunlap et al. (1992).
The
original New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale is the “most frequently used
measure of public environmental concern” over the past 20 years (Stern et al.,
1995, p. 724). The New Environmental
Paradigm is contrasted to society’s Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP), which
contends that growth and progress are good and inevitable, that private
property rights are supreme, and that humans are more important than other
creatures (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978).
The NEP scale is used to show whether and how much the public’s
sentiments about the environment are changing from the old DSP. The original
NEP scale was updated in 1992, but this research has yet to be published
(Dunlap et al., 1992).
Since
most of the studies examining the NEP have used the original scale, I decided
to use the original scale as a whole, to allow for better comparison with other
studies. Five additional statements from
the New Ecological Paradigm scale were also included in the survey. See Appendix B for the text of the two
scales.
After
administering the NEP to the samples of Amish and non-Amish farmers, I compiled
and analyzed the data using standard quantitative analysis methods, comparing
the different study groups to one another and to other NEP studies.
I hypothesize that the Amish use agricultural practices that are considered to be more sustainable than those of non-Amish farmers. I also hypothesize that the Amish will not score highly on the NEP scale, possibly owing to their religious beliefs, limited public education, and isolation from mainstream society. However, considering the research that has been done on environmental attitudes, a relationship should exist between a group’s environmental attitudes (score on the NEP) and its environmental behaviors (sustainability of agricultural practices). The results of both questionnaires are compared.
Significance of This Study
This
study adds significantly to the discussion of religion and ecology, examining
the interaction of religious beliefs with environmental attitudes and
behaviors. Findings could also add to
the overall discussion of how environmental attitudes lead to environmental
behaviors. If the first two hypotheses
stated above are supported by the study, it could raise interesting questions
as to whether the NEP is able to account for all the beliefs that may lead to
positive environmental behaviors.
Perhaps the Amish situation is unique; neither industrial (modern) nor
ecological (post-modern), the Amish worldview may not fit either the DSP or the
NEP. While it is beyond the scope of
this study to fully explore this topic, most research that examines
environmental behavior looks at recycling or other urban, contemporary forms of
environmentalism. The Amish example
likely would not fit well into these indicators of environmental behavior
either.
Also,
while the Amish have been studied rather extensively (especially by graduate
students like me), most of this research has been cultural description, rather
than analysis from an environmental perspective. The leading researchers of the Amish often make
various statements regarding the religio-ecological perceptions of the Amish,
including their closeness to nature and their belief that to reduce soil
fertility is a heinous sin (Hostetler, 1993; Schwieder and Schwieder,
1975). However, it is not clear whether
these comments are representative of the Amish community as a whole or only the
opinions of a few Amish people. This
study should help to systematically demonstrate the extent to which Amish
people hold an ecological worldview.
Much
of the support for the Amish as a model of rural sustainability is predicated
on anecdotal and descriptive evidence, primarily the work of three people:
Wendell Berry, Gene Logsdon, and David Kline, himself an Amish farmer (e.g.,
Lapping, 1997). Many of the researchers
that have actually performed analytical studies of Amish agriculture have only
observed a few farms (Jackson, 1988; Moore et al., in press; Stinner et al.,
1989). In contrast, Blake and her
colleagues at St. Lawrence University in New York conducted a study of almost
60 farms, and their findings clearly demonstrate that Amish farmers use
considerable amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Blake et al.,
1997). The present study will help to
show whether the Blake et al. findings are confined to that Amish settlement,
or whether they indicate a larger trend among the Amish to convert to more
modern agricultural techniques.
On
the other hand, critiques of the Amish by neighbors are also extremely
anecdotal. A study that attempts to more
thoroughly assess the Amish and their environmental attitudes and behaviors
could help to clear up the perceptual dissonance regarding these anecdotal
viewpoints.
From
a policy perspective, this research will help to explain whether religious
belief in general plays a role in the development and maintenance of
sustainable communities. Studies of
Amish agriculture often end by saying how difficult it would be to transfer
Amish practices to non-Amish communities (Grønvold, 1996). Amish life is too strict, too ascetic. No one will adopt these practices
voluntarily. In contrast, a few
optimistic people believe that the ecologically-positive aspects of the Amish
lifestyle can be adopted by others without having to accept the theology and
social organization behind it (Brende, 1996).
Both of these views seem too simple, and I explore this question in more
depth to determine what are the crucial aspects of Amish culture that maintain
their distinctiveness and apparent sustainability.
I have personal reasons for wanting to study this region and these people as well. My mother grew up in Kish Valley, and her ancestors lived there for at least two generations, making this area a culturally important landscape for me. As a Mennonite, I find myself challenged by the extreme piety the Amish express. On the one hand, I believe that one can be less visibly separated from the world but still maintain a religious distinctiveness that leads to different values and actions. On the other hand, however, the Amish serve as a reminder to me that one can survive without the modern luxuries I take for granted. They not only survive without luxuries, but their faithfulness might even depend on rejecting them. This study is important for me in terms of what the Amish are able to teach me about life in a modern world.
Limitations of This Study
The
present study focuses on only one Amish settlement. Therefore, the results are not necessarily
descriptive of other Amish communities, much less other religions. Similarities exist between the situation of
the present study groups and that of other ethnic communities in the United
States, including other Amish settlements, but generalizing beyond the present
study area must be done with great care.
Also, the present study focuses primarily on male farmers. It will not accurately assess the views of Amish women or non-farming Amish men. This is a significant limitation, especially considering that women generally score higher on measures of environmental concern (Stern et al., 1993). The decision to confine my study to men is based on the likelihood that Amish women would be averse to talking to an “English” male alone. A more thorough study of the environmental attitudes of different sectors of the Amish community awaits another researcher. As long as this gender bias is clear from the outset, the study should still be an interesting comparison of male farmers from different religious groups. Also, since the men are usually the primary decision-makers when it comes to farming practices (especially among the Amish), they have the most influence over the most significant ecological behaviors in the family. While household consumption is an important factor in Amish sustainability, farming involves the greater energy inputs and ecological impacts by far.
Organization of This Study
The
following chapter describes previous research on the history, worldview,
institutions, and farming practices of the Amish, exploring these components of
Amish culture with the goal of discerning why an increasing number of people
consider the Amish to exemplify sustainability.
Chapter III describes the methodology used in the present study, including
sampling techniques, a more detailed description of the four study groups and
the reasons for their inclusion, the questionnaires used in the interviews as
well as an explanation of their use, and a description of the interview
process. Chapter IV presents the results
of the present study, beginning with a discussion of the observations made
while living among the Amish of Kish Valley, including general impressions of
the Amish and the social and geographical context in which they live. Next, the survey data are presented and
compared among the different study groups, as well as to the results of other
studies using similar methods. Finally,
responses to open-ended questions are presented. Chapter V concludes by summarizing and
comparing the findings of both the agricultural practices and environmental
attitude questionnaires, and discussing the relationship of Amish religion to
sustainability.
[1] Disruption in this case means more than mere alteration. All humans alter their surroundings, but modern humans are doing so on a rapid and broad scale, in ways that limit the ability of the original ecosystems to adapt. In a sense, we have created fields and forests “in our image” that are fundamentally different in terms of processes and functions than the original ecosystems. This is what I’m calling “disruption.”
[2] Ecological footprints measure the
land area needed to provide food and fuel for a population at their present
standard of living, as well as the land area needed for waste
storage/assimilation for the same population (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996).
[3] These include Earth Ministry, the
Coalition on Environment and Jewish Life, the Evangelical Environmental
Network, Christians Caring for Creation, the Christian Environmental Council,
and the National Religious Partnership on the Environment, to name only a few.
[4] The Amish live in rural enclaves of
neighboring homesteads, not communally (i.e. in shared housing arrangements as
do their Anabaptist cousins, the Hutterites), but the cohesion of the church
community is nevertheless of utmost importance.
Comments
Post a Comment