Thesis - Title, Abstract, Table of Contents
THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN
MOTIVATING SUSTAINABILITY:
THE CASE OF THE OLD ORDER AMISH IN
by
Presented to the
Environmental Studies Program
and the Graduate School of the
University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts
December 1998
“The Role of Religion in Motivating Sustainability: The
Case of the Old Order Amish in Kishacoquillas Valley, Pa,” a thesis prepared by
David Patrick Hockman-Wert in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Arts degree in the Environmental Studies Program. This thesis has been approved and accepted
by:
________________________________________________________
Dr. Michael Hibbard, Chair of the
Examining Committee
__________________________________
Date
Committee in charge: Dr.
Michael Hibbard, Chair,
Dr. Irene Diamond
Dr.
Rob Ribe
Accepted by:
______________________________________
Dean
of the Graduate School
An Abstract of the Thesis of
David Patrick Hockman-Wert
for the degree of Master of Arts in the Environmental Studies Program
to be taken December 1998
Title: THE ROLE OF
RELIGION IN MOTIVATING SUSTAINABILITY: THE
CASE OF THE OLD ORDER AMISH IN
KISHACOQUILLAS VALLEY, PA
Approved: __________________________________________
Dr. Michael Hibbard
The
impacts of religion on environmental sustainability are inadequately studied at
present. This thesis is a case study of
an Amish settlement in central Pennsylvania, examining the importance of
religion in the development of environmental attitudes and behaviors. Farmers from two Amish and two non-Amish
groups were interviewed about their farming practices and environmental
attitudes. The most conservative Amish
sect was found to practice the most alternative type of agriculture. The two Amish groups showed the least
environmental concern, as measured by the overall New Environmental Paradigm
(NEP) scale. When dominion attitudes were
removed from consideration, however, the Amish showed equal or greater amounts
of environmental concern than the non-Amish.
The NEP scale appears unable to predict the Amish culture’s more
sustainable behaviors. Instead, Amish
religion can help explain their behaviors, which are more related to obedience
to God and community stability than to general environmental concern.
CURRICULUM VITA
NAME OF AUTHOR: David Patrick Hockman-Wert
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon
Eastern Mennonite University
DEGREES AWARDED:
Master of Arts in Environmental Studies, 1998, University
of Oregon
Bachelor of Arts in Biology, 1991, Eastern Mennonite
University
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Geography of Religion
Worldviews and Ecology
Ecological Anthropology
Eco-Theology
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Graduate
Teaching Fellow, Environmental Studies Program, University of
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The
author expresses appreciation to Dr. Diamond and Dr. Ribe for their helpful
comments and critiques of early drafts of the study. I am especially grateful to Dr. Hibbard for
his constant encouragement and gentle guidance throughout the preparation of
the thesis.
I also need to thank those who
provided assistance during my field research.
I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Stewart Bruce, Mifflin County
Mapping Specialist, for his willingness to share maps of the county with me at
a very reasonable cost. Lamonte Garber,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, provided me with vital contextual information
regarding Pennsylvania agricultural issues and Kish Creek stream quality. Lee and Adella Kanagy, my hosts in Kish
Valley, were extremely kind and hospitable.
My grandparents, Elam and Thelma Glick, kept me well fed and well informed
regarding Kish Valley people and happenings.
This
research was enabled by the financial and automotive support of my parents,
Robert and Esther Wert. Yet none of this
would have been possible without the love and support of my best friend and
wife, Cathy. During my all-too-frequent
moments of mental exhaustion, Cathy maintained a sense of sanity in our home.
Finally,
I sincerely thank the farmers of Kish Valley, especially the Amish, who allowed
me to learn more about the trials and triumphs of their vocation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Need for
Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Religion and the
Sustainability Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Amish as a Possible
Model of a Sustainable Culture . . . . . . . . . 9
Methodology . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Significance of This
Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Limitations of This
Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Organization of This
Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
II. LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Brief History of the Old
Order Amish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Modern Views of the
Amish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Ecologically-Relevant
Cultural Components of the Amish . . . . . . 26
Environmental
Critiques of the Amish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
The Amish as a
Sustainable Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Site Selection . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Sample Development . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Questionnaire
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Interview Process . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Social and Geographical
Issues Related to Sustainability . . . .
. . . . 66
Agricultural Practices .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Environmental Attitudes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Open-Ended Questions:
Stewardship and Lifestyle Decisions. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
V. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
APPENDIX
A. AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
B. NEW
ENVIRONMENTAL PARADIGM AND NEW
ECOLOGICAL PARADIGM SCALE QUESTIONNAIRES . .
. . . 133
C. NEW
ENVIRONMENTAL PARADIGM FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 135
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
LIST
OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Amounts of Land in Crops and Pasture for
Amish and
Non-Amish Kish Valley Farms in 1998 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2. Number of Animals on Amish and Non-Amish
Kish Valley Farms in 1998 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3. Fertilizer Applications Reported on Amish
and Non-Amish
Kish Valley Farms in 1998 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4. Weed Control Methods Associated with Corn
Production on Amish
and Non-Amish Kish Valley Farms in
1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5. Comparison of Overall Group Means on the
New Environmental Paradigm Scale . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6. Comparison of Group Means for New
Environmental Paradigm
and New Ecological Paradigm Scale
Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7. New Environmental Paradigm Subscale Scores by Group . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
8. Pearsonian Correlations between Responses
on the Three
New Environmental Paradigm
Subscales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 103
9. Frequency Distributions and Means of New
Environmental
Paradigm Scale Items by Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 135
10. Frequency Distributions and
Means of New Environmental
Paradigm Scale Items for English Sample (n=20)
and
Washington State Sample (n=806) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 137
11. Frequency Distributions and
Means of New Environmental
Paradigm and New Ecological Paradigm
Scale Items
by Group, Scored on a 5-Point Likert
Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
12. Frequency Distributions of New
Environmental Paradigm
Scale Items for English Sample (n=20)
and
Pennsylvania Statewide Sample
(n=3,541) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Kishacoquillas Creek, Mifflin County, Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2. Distribution of Amish and Non-Amish
Farms
in Kishacoquillas Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3. Mean Acres Farmed (Crops and
Pasture) by Amish and Non-Amish
Kish Valley Farmers in 1998 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4. Mean Quantity of Milk Produced
Daily on Amish and
Non-Amish Kish Valley Farms in 1998 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5. Primary Sources of Agricultural
Information for
Amish and Non-Amish Kish Valley Farmers . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6. Group Mean Scores by Item for the
New
Environmental Paradigm Scale . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
7. New Environmental Paradigm and
New Ecological Paradigm
Scale Items with Statistically
Significant Differences
as Measured by T-Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
8. A
Proposed Model of the Interactions between
Elements of Amish Religion that Lead
to
Environmental Sustainability . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Comments
Post a Comment