Thesis - Chapter 5 - Discussion

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

            This chapter begins by summarizing and discussing the findings presented in Chapter IV.  The results of the questionnaires on agricultural practices and environmental attitudes are then compared.  The third section explains the importance of religion in supporting and motivating Amish agricultural sustainability.  The fourth section examines what the Amish example adds to the broader discussion of religion and sustainability.  The chapter concludes with sections on project limitations and suggestions for future study.

Summary of the Findings

Agricultural Practices

The hypothesis that Amish farming would be more like alternative/sustainable agriculture than would non-Amish farming was supported by the results.  Differences between the groups abound.  The Amish have smaller, more diverse farms than do the non-Amish, keeping them out of the specialization and monocultures characteristic of conventional agriculture.  They consult different sources of information (primarily their own experience or their fathers’) than do the non-Amish.  They use horses rather than tractors for fieldwork, milk cows by hand, and store milk in milk cans rather than bulk milk tanks; none of these practices are used by the non-Amish.  These practices reduce their dependence on expensive technology and machinery that can drive other farmers into debt.

Similarities exist as well.  Amish and non-Amish farmers alike use agricultural inputs, such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides.  These off-farm, petroleum-based inputs are used by both the non-Amish and the Rennos in similar frequencies and amounts, although fewer Nebraska farmers use insecticides or straight nitrogen fertilizers.  Unlike the findings of Blake et al. (1997) for New York Amish, in Kish Valley nearly all farmers market products, especially milk.  The Amish are more self-sufficient in terms of raising gardens and livestock for their own food needs, but they still rely on selling farm products to make a living and are thereby tied to non-Amish society.

Looking more specifically at each group, Nebraska Church farmers continue to be the most conservative Amish group in Big Valley in their use of modern technology, including machines and chemicals.  Nearly all Nebraska Church farmers use ice or spring water to cool their milk and do not use gas-powered pick-up hay balers in the field.[1]  They feature the smallest farms (tied with the Rennos), the highest amount of crop and animal diversity, the smallest amount of milk production, the least usage of chemical pesticides, and the most informational isolation from modern agribusiness.  Also, they still practice traditional crop rotations and use non-chemical methods of weed control.

Nebraska Church farming is the least modern of any group in the study, and in many aspects, the most similar to alternative/sustainable agriculture.  In comparison with Beus and Dunlap’s (1990) alternative agriculture paradigm, of the four sample groups, Nebraska farmers are the most independent from external sources of energy, inputs, and information and are the most diverse; they also strongly support most of the other elements of the paradigm (i.e. decentralization, community, restraint, quality family life, and spirituality).  Nebraska farmers don’t seem to support the “harmony with nature” element as strongly, however.  Support for the maintenance of healthy soil is balanced by their support of dominion attitudes as measured by the New Environmental Paradigm scale (see below).

In comparison with Gardner et al.’s (1995) “operational measures of agricultural sustainability,” Nebraska farmers as a group use the fewest synthetic chemical inputs and the most “positive practices” such as crop and livestock diversity, crop rotations, and non-chemical methods of weed control, i.e. cultivation (p. 58).  No group studied expressed a high degree of commitment to the concept of sustainable agriculture, although Nebraska farmers seemed to express a few more reservations than the other groups regarding chemical use.

            Renno Church farmers, in contrast, incorporate more conventional techniques into their farming and strive for higher farm productivity than do the Nebraska farmers.  They use diesel-powered milk coolers as well as tractors out of the field, unlike the Nebraska Church.  Renno farmers use pesticides as frequently as do English farmers (or more so) and they apply both pesticides and chemical fertilizers at rates equivalent to non-Amish farmers.

            Like the Nebraska farmers, the Rennos also support many elements of the alternative agriculture paradigm, yet as a group the Rennos use more synthetic chemical inputs and fewer “positive practices” than the Nebraska Church.  In addition, their stronger association with the local agricultural business, Union Mill Soil Service, demonstrates a lesser degree of commitment to sustainable agriculture and a turn toward conventional agriculture.

            English and Mennonite farmers are rather similar in most respects, indicating that perhaps Mennonites are as “English” as the English when it comes to agricultural practices.  In some ways, Mennonite farmers appear to be even more embedded in conventional agriculture than are English farmers.  Mennonite farms featured 13 percent less crop diversity than English farms.  A larger proportion of Mennonite farmers used herbicides and insecticides for weed and insect control on alfalfa.  Mennonite farmers produce nearly 50 percent more milk than the English farmers produce, even though Mennonite dairy herds are only 17 percent larger than English herds.

            Overall, if one would place the four Kish Valley groups on a spectrum from least to most alternative/sustainable agriculture, Mennonites would be at the least alternative end, followed closely by the English; the Rennos would be next, on the more alternative side near the center, and the Nebraska Church farmers would mark the most alternative end.

Environmental Attitudes

Environmental attitudes were assessed for the four samples of farmers.  The hypothesis that the Amish would score lower than the non-Amish on the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale was supported.  The group most representative of mainstream society, the English, scored the highest on the NEP scale.  The Mennonites, who as a group have more public education than the Amish but less than the English, had the second highest score.  The Amish had very similar scores to each other (only slightly lower than the Mennonites), although the Nebraska Church scored the lowest by a slim margin.  None of the differences in scores were significant at p<0.05, but the differences between the English and the Nebraska Church and between the English and the combined Amish sample were only barely insignificant (p<0.06).

This slight difference in overall mean scores between the English and the Amish was due in large part to the attitudes on one section of the NEP: the Man Over Nature subscale.  The Amish showed extremely strong support for the four statements of this subscale, which includes two statements that affirm the biblical concept of dominion.  In contrast, the English were slightly in opposition to the idea of Man Over Nature.  The NEP (following the tradition of Lynn White, Jr.) considers support for dominion to be an anti-environmental attitude. 

The Amish tended to support the Limits to Growth subscale more strongly than the non-Amish (especially the Mennonites), however, giving evidence of a pro-environmental attitude in this case.  The contradictory scores for the Amish on the two subscales demonstrate that an overall score may obscure underlying differences in attitudes.

Comparison of Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors across Groups

            An initial comparison of the environmental attitudes and behaviors (as measured by agricultural practices) of the four groups in this study presents us with an apparent conundrum.  The Nebraska Church farmers practice the most alternative/sustainable agriculture of the four groups, yet they have the weakest pro-environmental attitudes, as measured by the NEP.  In contrast, the English farmers generally practice conventional, rather than alternative/sustainable, agriculture, yet they have the strongest pro-environmental attitudes of the four study groups.  How can this apparent anomaly be explained?

            As noted above, the Amish do not have weaker pro-environmental attitudes on all NEP items.  If the Man Over Nature subscale were removed from consideration, both Amish groups would have equal or better scores than the non-Amish groups.  This action (removing the Man Over Nature subscale) may be legitimate, since researchers have not found a strong connection between these attitudes and environmental behavior. 

            According to findings from the statewide Pennsylvania NEP study by Scott and Willits (1994), attitudes expressed on the Man Over Nature subscale are much less relevant in explaining differences in environmental behavior than are the results of the other subscales.  To explain this, they opine, “[It] seems plausible that believing that humans have dominion over nature could lead to stewardship rather than exploitation, if ‘dominion’ implies that people have a moral and ethical responsibility to preserve and protect the natural world” (Scott and Willits, 1994, p. 257).  This sensibility fits with the caveat added by many Amish (and others) in this study that “rule” over nature must be carried out in a caretaking manner.

             With the measures of dominion removed, the Amish no longer appear to have weaker pro-environmental attitudes than their non-Amish farming neighbors.  However, they do not appear to have considerably stronger pro-environmental attitudes either.  Either the NEP is unable to measure the pro-environmental attitudes of the Amish, or some factor other than environmental attitudes is at work in leading to the positive environmental behaviors of the Amish.

            According to their NEP scores, the Amish do not demonstrate strong pro-environmental attitudes, nor do they show much evidence of an ecological worldview.  The results, however, raise important questions about the NEP’s ability to measure environmental attitudes across all cultures.  The problem appears to lie in the construction of the survey and its choice of statements used to assess environmental attitudes.  Statements that assume a certain style and content of education are unlikely to fully assess the environmental attitudes of a culture with an entirely different worldview.  Not only will the survey be likely to incorrectly assess environmental attitudes (by misinterpreting culturally-bound responses to the statements), but it may completely miss attitudes that liberal, educated researchers fail to associate with environmental concern as it exists in their culture.  For the Amish, statements that appeared to be biblical references were quickly recognized and affirmed accordingly.  They were not considered to be environmental attitude statements, but rather statements of religious belief.

            Assuming that the Amish may have more pro-environmental attitudes than the non-Amish and that, for the reasons stated above, the NEP is unable to measure these special Amish attitudes, the open-ended questions on stewardship are consulted to examine this possibility.

            Stewardship is definitely an important concept for the Amish; the earth is seen as a gift from God, and remaining in farming is the proper response to that gift.  It is significant to note, however, that the importance of stewardship is expressed with relatively equal strength across all study groups.  It is not only, or even best, articulated by the Amish. 

In this case, at least, the NEP does not account for some pro-environmental attitudes of the Amish, although these attitudes do not appear to be unique to the Amish.  Yet, as we have seen, agricultural practices differ substantially across the groups.  Even though expressed environmental attitudes, as measured by the NEP and more culturally appropriate questions, are roughly comparable, behaviors are not.  Another factor must be at work in causing these observed behavioral differences.

Sustainability and the Amish: The Importance of Religion

            The key factor supporting Amish agricultural sustainability is religion.  Farmers in all groups feel that religion plays a guiding role in their farming practices, although only the Amish acknowledge religion as a guiding force in their lifestyle decisions.

As discussed in Chapter II and supported by the findings of this study, ecologically speaking, the Amish appear to be more sustainable than their neighbors. Amish agriculture’s greater sustainability exists in large part because of the technology they use.  However, Amish sustainability is not merely an artifact of limited technology.  The Amish can and do incorporate modern technology into their farming practices, demonstrating the choice involved in limiting technology.

The limits placed on technology by the Amish are not based on an indigenous or postmodern ecological worldview that sees the natural world as a web of interconnections and is concerned with perpetuating these processes.  Neither are these limits based on knowledge about or awareness of specific contemporary environmental issues, since the limits were set up well before the environment become a major national policy issue.[2]  Besides, the Amish in Kish Valley are presently not particularly responsive to environmental problems, as evidenced by the lack of streambank fencing on most Amish farms and their somewhat skeptical, defensive response to the trouble in the Chesapeake Bay.[3]  The non-Amish sample had much more awareness and reported use of modern soil conservation practices than the Amish.  If not based on an ecological worldview or awareness of specific environmental problems, on what, then, are these technological limits based?

The limits in Amish culture are based on their religious worldview.  Religion is of utmost importance in the life of an Amish community.  And, conversely, the church community is vital to the redemptive process.  Without a strong community, individuals would have a much harder time resisting the “world’s” vices.  Moreover, salvation is a corporate matter for the Amish; a person receives salvation as a part of a community, not individually (Hostetler, 1993, p. 75).

Other Christians hold strong religious beliefs, yet the Amish put their beliefs into practice in a way that other denominations do not and cannot (and perhaps don’t want to) emulate.  Three elements of Amish culture play vital roles in determining how religion is practiced. 

Gelassenheit, or self-denial, leads to personal, internal acceptance of the Ordnung, the unwritten rules of Amish society.  The Ordnung operationalizes Amish beliefs, requiring Amish community members to practice what the bishops preach.  Unlike many churches, the Amish ensure that religious beliefs are followed in practice, on pain of social/psychological sanctions in the form of the Bann (excommunication) and Meidung (shunning).  Without these three crucial elements of Amish life, it seems likely that the Amish would be much farther down the path of social acculturation and modern agribusiness practices, much like their Mennonite neighbors. 

Aside from these sociocultural factors, however, one significant difference in religious beliefs may also help explain why Mennonites and Amish differ in practice.  Mennonites in Kish Valley who have been influenced by mainstream American evangelicals find themselves at odds with the Amish over the issue of “assurance of salvation.”  Many of these Mennonites believe the Bible teaches that those who accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior will be saved by grace.  This doesn’t mean that Christians can do anything and still be saved, but it does lessen the need for rigid purity.  The Amish, in contrast, believe that humans cannot know whether they are saved or not in this life; that is up to God.  Thus, they must constantly live pure, virtuous and obedient lives in community with others who are doing the same, or risk eternal punishment.  This lack of “assurance” may help to explain the Amish emphasis on maintaining group purity relative to the Mennonites.  However, it doesn’t explain why Catholics, who also believe salvation is related to one’s actions, do not live like the Amish.

Figure 8 presents a proposed model to help explain the role of religion in motivating sustainability for the Amish.  God, the Creator of the world, and Jesus, the incarnation of God in human form, are the foundation of Amish religion.  The Bible is given its authority by God, but it also reciprocally supports God’s authority by telling the story of God’s actions in history, including Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.  The Bible outlines the vital importance of the church community as the primary locus of action in this life, as well as the guidelines for following Jesus and living obedient lives.  Key biblical ideas for the Amish include separation from the world, which strengthens the community by lending religious support for maintaining clear boundaries, and stewardship.  As interpreted by the Amish, these ideas lead to a rural, farming way of life, which in turn supports the community by allowing the family to work together and by reducing urban influences.  The rural, farming lifestyle also supports environmental sustainability; the connection is considered indirect since not all rural, farming lifestyles are agriculturally sustainable.  Gelassenheit, which is indirectly influenced by biblical understandings of the proper Christian mentality, and the Ordnung both strengthen the community, as discussed above.  The Bann/Meidung enforces the Ordnung.

FIGURE 8.  A Proposed Model of the Interactions between Elements of Amish Religion that Lead to Environmental Sustainability

At least some of the environmentally relevant aspects of Amish life are not directly related to Amish religion, but are artifacts of the importance of community in Amish religion.  The rules of the Ordnung that have ecological significance, such as the bans on public electricity and ownership of cars and the restricted use of tractors, exist because of their protective effects on the community, not because of the environmental impacts of public electricity, cars, or tractors.  Even tractors, which are known by the Amish to cause soil compaction, are not restricted for this reason, but because their use might lead to automobile use and/or larger farms, either of which would create problems for the community.

Some environmentally relevant aspects of Amish life, such as simple living, stewardship, and separation from the world, are more directly related to religious beliefs.  However, even these environmentally positive features of Amish society are not based primarily on environmental concern, but are direct, biblical commandments.  Carrying these commandments out is a matter of obedience and faithfulness; the Amish are not consciously attempting to achieve the positive result of environmental sustainability.

Religion, Sustainability, and the Amish Example

            What does the Amish example contribute to the discussion of religion’s role in motivating (or hindering) sustainability?  First, it challenges the idea that all pro-environmental behavior can be predicted by present environmental attitude scales such as the New Environmental Paradigm.  This study’s findings concur with Kanagy and Willits (1993), who assert that “environmental concern and action can also arise out of ideas other than those contained in the NEP, and that at least some of these ideas are linked with religiosity (church attendance)” (p. 682).

            A number of social scientific studies on the connection between religion and environmental attitudes have found negative correlations between biblical literalism and environmental concern (Eckberg and Blocker, 1989; Greeley, 1993; Guth et al., 1995).  Some of these results may be somewhat spurious, however, since the researchers often did not properly control for other factors that may be influencing environmental concern, such as formal education (Woodrum and Hoban, 1994, p. 194).  The negative associations of religion and environmental concern are also challenged by the findings that religious participation is positively associated with environmental behavior (Eckberg and Blocker, 1996; Kanagy and Willits, 1993; Wolkomir et al., 1997).

            Dietz et al. (1998) found an interesting connection to environmental attitudes when comparing different views of the sacredness of nature (theocentrism, ecocentrism, and anthropocentrism).  “Individuals who believed nature is sacred because it is created by God were more likely to be willing to sacrifice” than either those who consider nature sacred in itself or those who consider nature important, but not spiritual or sacred (Dietz et al., 1998, p. 465).  The indicator “willing to sacrifice” included questions about how much people would be willing to pay in taxes, higher prices, or cuts in their standard of living “in order to protect the environment” (p. 466).  These findings appear to relate to this study, since the Amish share the theocentric view of nature that it is sacred because it is created by God, and they are also exemplars of reduced standards of living. Those in the Dietz et al. study who supported this perspective were also similar to the Amish in that they would have generally scored lower on environmental attitude scales.

            The Amish example challenges the mainstream environmentalist notion that the best or only path to sustainability lies down the liberal individualist road.  The Amish demonstrate that a culture can arrive at sustainability using religion as a vehicle.  In their cultural and religious particularity, the Amish represent a large portion of the world that doesn’t share the modern, secular, individualistic ethos of the United States and Europe.  The success of the Amish indicates that U.S. environmentalists should not necessarily encourage other cultures to follow the same modern, “postmaterialist”[4] path to environmental concern that the United States has followed.  Instead, cultures should be encouraged to examine and renew their own worldviews, especially the ecologically positive aspects.

Limitations of This Study

            Although the NEP scores appear to follow an expected trend from least to most education and connection to the “world,” we must be cautious in putting too much weight on the results.  Presenting a formal academic survey to Amish farmers often proved challenging, if not extremely troubling.  Nearly all Amish speak English, but their primary language is Pennsylvania Dutch, a German dialect.  Thus, I was often asked what a particular word in a statement meant.  This situation posed quite a dilemma for me in terms of potentially influencing their responses, since it was difficult to simply define a word without interpreting the question somewhat.  It also, of course, demonstrated the difficulty of achieving accurate results for the Amish, if they could not fully understand the words, much less the concepts, contained in the survey.  At times, Amish subjects asked me what I thought regarding a statement about which I was asking them.  I declined to answer, saying that I did not want to bias their response, but the sense among some Amish subjects that there was a “correct” answer or a particular response that I wanted them to give, was somewhat troubling.

            Besides the dilemma of potentially influencing Amish responses, I was also often left with the responsibility of interpreting the responses they did make.  Unused to the formal survey process, many Amish did not respond in the prescribed fashion (i.e. Mildly or Strongly Agree), instead opting for nodded assent or phrases such as “I would think so,” “pretty much,” or “I guess that’s about the way, isn’t it?”  In these cases, I sometimes repeated my request for one of the desired responses, but at other times I tried to interpret whether the response appeared to be mild or strong in relation to the subject’s other responses.  This is not a preferred method, but at times the cultural gaps seemed too broad to bridge and instead of pushing incessantly for a “proper” response, I opted for a lower-key approach.  This interpretive approach may have reduced the amount of extreme responses, since in most cases my interpretations were of mild agreement or disagreement.  However, it is unlikely that I assumed a completely opposite response, e.g. recording Mildly Disagree when the subject actually agreed with the statement.

            The option of “Undecided” was not included in the list of possible options, assuming that the Amish, typically reticent people, might overwhelmingly prefer that option if given it.  However, they still refused to either agree or disagree often enough to cause some difficulty in analyzing the results.  The non-Amish samples were also not given the option of an “undecided” response and, in keeping with their greater cultural understanding of this type of survey, only rarely refused to use the given responses.  Thus, we are left with the non-Amish responding to a four point Likert scale, while the Amish in effect responded to a five point Likert scale.  Either way the results are analyzed, there will be difficulties in comparing the results.

            In actuality, the most-favored response by the Amish groups was Mildly Agree.  In keeping with their reserved, humble nature, the Amish would be expected to respond in the least prideful or controversial manner.  While many Amish people hold strong opinions, they will not often share these opinions with outsiders, especially academic outsiders who are new to the area.  Thus, either strongly agreeing or disagreeing is less likely.  As one Renno Church man put it, “I disagree.  I won’t say strongly because I’m human and I may be wrong.”  Also, when some subjects were unsure of what exactly a statement was saying, they often chose Mildly Agree since they didn’t know enough to disagree with it.  “Sometimes I don’t quite understand the statements, so I just pick one,” admitted another Renno Church farmer.

            An understanding of the Pennsylvania Dutch language may have helped in the administration of this survey, but even so, some of the concepts may be too culturally bound to translate effectively.  While the difficulties discussed above do not undermine the study’s results, they do indicate the need for a good deal of caution in interpreting the results.  The problems experienced in this research call into question the assumption that such social surveys are valid across all cultures.

Suggestions for Future Studies

            An important matter presently affecting social and economic sustainability in Kish Valley involves the Nebraska Church Amish.  This group is in the midst of a major occupational shift from farming to lumber mills and pallet shops.  See Chapter III for more information.  Many people in Big Valley, both in and out of the Nebraska Church community, expressed concern to me about the potential impacts of this shift.  Will the Nebraska Church be able to maintain its traditional way of life in the wake of increased affluence from less work?  As they might say, only God knows the answer.  A study focusing on the tradeoffs between environmental and economic sustainability in Nebraska Church agriculture might be fruitful.

            Also, some researchers indicate that environmental attitudes can best predict environmental behaviors when they share a similar level of specificity (Beus and Dunlap, 1994).  Thus a study that directly compares agricultural practices with agricultural paradigms (using the “alternative-conventional agricultural paradigm scale”), rather than with general ecological beliefs, might uncover more nuances in the pro-environmental attitudes of the Amish.

            Finally, the case of the Amish Mennonites is worth studying, to examine the specific aspects of Old Order Amish beliefs and behaviors that lead to their agricultural sustainability.  Amish Mennonites in Kish Valley, although not directly studied, seemed to operate the largest and most conventional farms of any group in the valley, more so than the non-plain Mennonites included in the present study.  Yet Amish Mennonites are perhaps the most similar group to the Old Order Amish in many beliefs and behaviors, such as plain dress.

Conclusion

            The Amish in Kish Valley practiced agricultural sustainability at a greater level than non-Amish farmers.  Yet the Amish farmers did not appear to have more pro-environmental attitudes than the non-Amish farmers, according to the New Environmental Paradigm scale and open-ended questions about stewardship.  Amish religion, with its accompanying system of prescriptive behavior, was found to be the primary motivating factor leading to Amish agricultural sustainability.

            The Amish example presents a complex but powerful socio-religious system for maintaining group cohesion and encouraging behaviors that are in line with expressed beliefs.  This system cannot be transferred easily to people with modern sensibilities.  It may be the wrong goal, in any case.  According to Olshan (1994), the most important Amish trait for the rest of society is the ability to set their own limits.  For this process of setting limits to be successful, it requires a living, cohesive community where members are committed to the larger whole.  Setting limits as individuals is unlikely to be successful in the long-term.

            The Amish example features individuals who find satisfaction in the “success” of the group, and are embedded within a larger purpose.  The importance of a religious underpinning for the Amish church community may help to explain why some intentional communities with less transcendent aspirations did not last.  The Amish are attempting to humbly and faithfully live in obedience to God; they are not striving to find meaning, or save the world, or reconnect with the land as are idealistic back-to-the-landers.   Infecting modern society with Gelassenheit is a wild and unlikely hope, but perhaps a balance can be struck between the Amish way of emphasizing the primacy of the community and the American way of emphasizing the primacy of individualism.

Sustainability will require not only technical knowledge about how to live gently on the landscape, but also the means to carry out this knowledge.  For people to behave in ways that support sustainability, they need to be inspired, coerced, or cajoled.  The Amish example does some of this rather well, but is lacking modern ecological concern.  Thus, a worldview that supports a sense of ecological interconnections, combined with practical incentives and, if necessary, sanctions, may be the best hope we have.

---

[1] The exceptions to this are two districts of the Nebraska Church that allow bulk milk tanks and pick-up balers, as mentioned in Chapter III.

[2] Amish leaders in Lancaster County, Pa. prohibited the use of tractors in the field in 1923 (Kraybill, 1989, p. 172).  David Kline (1998), noted Amish farmer/nature writer from Ohio, considers this a “divinely-inspired” decision since they couldn’t have known at the time the incredible significance this decision would have over the long-term.

[3] A few Amish settlements in Ohio, Wisconsin, Missouri, and elsewhere in Pennsylvania do incorporate limitations on chemical use in their Ordnungs, thereby exhibiting a greater level of environmental concern than that shown by the Amish of Kish Valley.

[4] Postmaterialism posits that members of affluent, advanced industrial societies whose basic survival needs are well met tend to be more interested in “quality of life” issues.  Environmentalism is considered to be a “postmaterialist” value (Inglehart, 1990).