MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2778606229 · doi:10.1353/his.2017.0055

Horse-and-Buggy-Genius: Listening to Mennonites Contest the Modern World par Royden Loewen

2017· article· fr· W2778606229 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marlene Epp

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeniusCONTESTDramaHistoryActive listeningSociologyLiteratureArt historyArtPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Horse-and-Buggy-Genius: Listening to Mennonites Contest the Modern World par Royden Loewen Marlene Epp Loewen, Royden–Horse-and-Buggy-Genius: Listening to Mennonites Contest the Modern World. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2016. Pp. 243. If anyone who watched the CBC TV popular crime-drama Pure in winter 2017 came away with many questions, then this book is a must-read. Perhaps viewers with no questions, who took the show at face value, should read it too. Loewen's book focuses exactly on the two distinct branches of Mennonites that the drama conflates into one—the Old Order Mennonites of Swiss-Pennsylvania-German descent, and the Old Colony Mennonites of Dutch-Russian descent. Both of these historically ethnic branches display a continuum from "modern" to "anti-modern." Loewen uses the latter term to describe what might seem the most "conservative" of Mennonites, whom outsiders note for their agricultural work, use of horses and buggies, and plain dress; they also limit the use of electricity. Using interviews with 250 individuals in 35 communities, which Loewen and his research assistants conducted in Canada and Latin America, this study helps us understand why they live that way. Part one has two chapters on the Old Order in Ontario and in other regions of Canada, and part two has five chapters on the Old Colony in Mexico, Belize, Paraguay, and Bolivia, reflecting the disparity in numbers—8,000 and 100,000, respectively. The chapters explore transportation, agricultural methods, responses to technology, church practices, family life, migrations, social mores, and relations with host societies, governments, and other outsiders. A central question throughout relates to the question of "change." At one level, the fundamental goal of the horse-and-buggy peoples to resist change—particularly rapid technological shifts that cause acculturation among modern folk. But Loewen exactingly differentiates "lesser" changes—dress fabric, fuel source, house materials, buggy styles, tire type—which are permissible, from significant changes that might challenge "the close-knit, self-sufficient agrarian community" (p. 218) that lies at the heart of the groups' anti-modernity. In short, motorized vehicles are not a problem per se; rather, the resulting speed and distance compromise shared religious beliefs and kinship relationships. The interviews reveal that many customs exist because "it has always been that way." What outsiders often view as a "lifestyle" turns out to be much deeper than superficial choices based on trends, income, or peer pressure. Loewen uses the intriguing descriptor "genius" to characterize the vital links between "religious faithfulness" and lives "lived in the local and in simplicity" (p. 3). He proposes that suspicion of technological progress, urban living, distance from nature, and individualism may well provide a better way into the future than does modernization. The book notably brings together historic branches of Mennonites into one study revolving around their common anti-modernism. These streams share comparable views on scripture regarding their place (or non-place) in "the world." One might have wished for more discussion of the groups' differences, beyond a brief section in the Conclusion; for example, the impact of ongoing migration (Old Colony) versus a more stationary history (Old Order) on responses to the [End Page 469] external world. How important, or not, is the national and geographical context (Latin America versus Canada) within which each group lives? Scholars and the general public tend to either romanticize or vilify horse-and-buggy people. To his credit, Loewen appears to do neither, but rather allows conservative Mennonites to explain their traditions and choices in their own words—allowing the outsider a rare chance to thus "listen in" on these communities. Even so, at times the analysis stops short of dealing with apparent inconsistencies of thought and practice among these peculiar people. The study cites the advantages of large families to the family economy and community survival, but not the difficulties that numerous childbirths pose to women. As well, outsiders find it difficult to reconcile the co-existence of pacifist religious beliefs co-existing with domestic violence, sexual abuse, and corporal punishment; Loewen at least does point to the limitations of traditional teachings on forgiveness and patriarchal privilege. Throughout the volume, the horse-and-buggy people...

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207