MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1638218545

Understanding the Amish in Twentieth-First Century America

2008· review· en· W1638218545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Boyer

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œMennonite quarterly review · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernityCompromiseSociologyIdealizationThrivingPoliticsHarmony (color)NegotiationEnvironmental ethicsAestheticsHistoryGender studiesLawPolitical scienceSocial sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay examines Amish negotiations with modernity and society's view of the Amish. Far from categorically rejecting the modern order, the Amish successfully participate in the larger economy and evaluate new technologies on the basis of their impact on core Amish values. Historically, the Shakers and other religious groups similarly preserved distinct identity while thriving in the broader economy. As for outsiders' view of the Amish, since the 1950s the media have promulgated idealized images that reflect the larger society's concerns and anxieties. While Indians, African-Americans, and Quakers have been similarly romanticized in the past, these groups no longer play this role. Yet the Amish survive as an idealized model of simplicity, harmony and virtue. Such idealization risks distortion, over-simplification, and political exploitation, and can co-exist with local hostility and tensions. Yet it also plays useful cultural role as Americans grapple with issues of ethics, community and the impact of technology. A VIEW FROM THE INSIDE: AMISH NEGOTIATIONS WITH MODERNITY As many have observed, Amish responses to modernity have been highly complex, varying from era to era and affiliation to affiliation, and involving subtle processes of adaptation quite different from their popular image as Luddites stubbornly resisting all modern technology. From telephones to computers, the Amish, in Donald Kraybill's words, have negotiated a reasonable compromise with modernity ... that respects tradition ... protects ethnic identity, and permits just enough technology for economic growth ..., harness[ing] the power of progress in creative and positive ways for the welfare of the community. (1) The Amish have shown great capacity not only to survive but also to thrive within the larger economy, while preserving their way of life. When John Hostetler's landmark work Amish Society appeared in 1963, one reviewer wrote skeptically, the Amish people progress, they will cease to be Amish. If they do not, what will become of the children whom they refuse to educate beyond elementary grades? How long will they be happy living with two-centuries-old living standard? (2) More than forty years later, Amish society is hardly free from stress, but the predictions of its inevitable demise proved premature. From about 5,000 adult members in 1900, the Amish in 2000 had some 80,000 adult members in more than 1,500 districts (congregations) in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, twenty-three other states, and Ontario. (3) And the 1963 reviewer's stark polarity between either wholly embracing or wholly rejecting modernity obviously excluded the middle ground which the Amish actually occupy. While still in Europe, the Amish were known as progressive farmers, adopting new modes of crop cultivation and enhancing soil productivity. They brought these skills to America, and as farming partially gave way to shops and factories, the Amish evolved as well, as is evidenced by the many Amish businesses, from contracting and furniture-making to auction companies, machine shops, greenhouses, nurseries, and bakeries. In the 2004 update of their book Amish Enterprise, Donald Kraybill and Steven Nolt found some 1,600 Amish businesses in Lancaster County alone, and calculated that 20 percent of adult Amish in the county were business owners. (4) Lancaster County's Amish-related businesses are highly diverse. Wal-Mart sells An Amish Nativity, craft project by Jan Mast and Ruth Ann Gingrich issued by Good Books, publisher of Amish- and Mennonite-themed books based in Intercourse, Pennsylvania. (Mary and Joseph wear Amish garb, and Baby Jesus is swaddled in traditional Amish quilt.) Home Depot markets gazebos manufactured at Samuel Stoltzfus's Country Lane Woodworking, which is located in an Amish industrial park in New Holland. The harnesses and harness bells on the carriage horses in New York's Central Park and on the Clydesdale teams used to promote Budweiser beer come from Moses Smucker's harness shop in Churchtown. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œMennonite quarterly reviewSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207