INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Artwr MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

SOCIAL CHANGE AND RATIONAL CHOICE: A CONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATION OF THE AMISH

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

William E. Carson, M. A.

*****

The Ohio State University 1998

Dissertation Committee; ved by Professor Joseph F. Donnermeyer, Adviser

Professor George M. Kreps u Adviser Professor Donald W. Thomas 'Agricultural Economics an&/ Rural Sociology Professor David O Hansen UMI Number: 9900808

UMI Microform 9900808 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT

The changing profiles and pulses of contemporary society serve as metaphors for development and social change. From a sociological perspective this study focuses in on the substantive assessment of the Amish interpretation of well-being as expressed by the occupational identity of Amish male household heads.

The Amish are a unique American sub-culture which today adheres to Anabaptist origins that emerged during the Reformation Period, champions the proposition that church decision-making should be based on Bible study, and prescribes salvation by refinement through faith.

Data for this study was obtained from Amish church directories published in the recent 8 years from 10 different states. It included 56 Amish settlements, representing

25% of all Amish communities and approximately 50% of all Amish males.

Job identity for each male household head was extracted from the membership lists o f 468 Amish church districts. Drawing from the Human Ecology paradigm, the conceptual framework of the POET model serves as the foundation for developing systematic quantitative analysis.

It is hypothesized that the environment surrounding Amish settlements broadens occupational opportunities and sustenance alternatives with the Amish subculture, also. that the economic structure of the Amish is directly related to the economic dimensions of host communities.

Through the use of multivariate statistical analysis an attempt is made to interpret, better understand, and project how the Amish are reacting and adapting to their environment in their interest of guaranteeing cultural sustenance. Three job identity indexes were created and served as dependent variables. Meaningful relationships between variables were identified by measuring correlations on a selected list of geographic, population, social, employment, and agricultural characteristics of the communities in which each settlement is situated. By using multiple regression analysis, an evaluation is made of the relative effect of characteristics of the surrounding community on the occupational distribution of Amish males.

The findings generally support the hypotheses and help to illuminate the role that rational choice plays in the decision-making process of a subculture deeply rooted in tradition and fundamental religious teachings. It is concluded that the Amish are in general a quite successful and thriving subculture with a strong desire and creative capacity to modify and amend their “cultural fences”

III To

My family, near and distant

IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The journey has reached one more landmark and there is an endless array of individuals and institutions which have contributed to the realization of this dissertation.

To each and all who have shared a moment or word of encouragement and stimulus.

Thank You.

My greatest gratitude, indeed, I extend to my adviser for this study. Dr. Joseph F.

Donnermeyer. Dr. Donnermeyer is a distinctive source of encouragement and motivation, exacting challenge as well as reinforcement within the same academic process. His sensitivity about and insights into the Amish culture contributed significantly to the successful completion of this study. It was his interest in sharing an extra yard of scholarly measure as a mentor that made the school of difference for this researcher.

To Dr. David O. Hansen I extend a most sincere thanks for his advice and support, which were so vital to the maintenance of continued interest and sustenance throughout this academic program.

To all of those with whom I have had the pleasure to share time and space while working in the Office of International Programs in Agriculture as a Graduate

Administrative Assistant, 1 am deeply appreciative of all spontaneous effort and assistance.

From my professional habitat in Brazil, 1 wish to thank colleagues from the School of Economies at the Federal University of Santa Maria for their sharing of desires, their expressions of a “developing society’s” ambitions, and their deliverance of encouragement.

To Dr. Carlos Eugenio Daudt and Dr. Odilon Marcuzzo do Canto goes my greatest appreciation for the successful completion of this work as their effusion of academic lust, and their quest for and endeavor towards academic excellence and social participation in higher education is exemplar.

I extend my most heartfelt thanks to those closest, wife Claudia, sons Hugo and

Nelson, and daughter Lia for their monumental patience and understanding.

VI VITA

May 9, 1944...... Bom - Delaware, Ohio

1970 ...... B Sc Business Administration, Franklin University

1972 ...... M.A. Political Science, Ball State University

1972 - 1973 ...... Executive Director, Brazilian-American Bi-National Center, Santa Maria-RGS, Brazil

1972 - 1973 ...... Lecturer, School of Administration Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM) Santa Maria-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

1975 - 1976 ...... Research Scholar, The London School of Economics

1976 - present ...... Associate Professor, School of Economics UFSM

1984 - 1989 ...... Director, Office of Research, UFSM

1989 - present ...... Member, Board of Directors Fundacao Regional de Economia Santa Maria-RGS, Brazil

1990 - 1994/97-98...... Graduate Administrative Associate, International Programs in Agriculture The Ohio State University

1995 - 1997...... Associate Director, International Programs, UFSM & Delegate, Associacao do Gfupo Montevideo(The Montevideo Consortium - MERCOSUL)

vii PUBLICATIONS

1. Carson, William E O Conceito e Future Papel da Neutralidade Sueca'V Revisia do Institute de Esiudos Socials, Politicos Economicos da. PUC-RS juT)ho 1973 3-32

2 Carson, William E ‘"Estacionamemo em Santa Maria: Planqamento e Perspectivas” Revista do Centro de Ciencias Juridical, Economicas e Administrativas da LTSM, dezembro 1977 2(4): 377-392

3 Carson. William E et al "‘Fatores que .Afetam a Renda da Atividade Agro- Pecuaria nos Colegios Agricolas do Rio Grande do SuP' Revista dcj Centro de Ciencias Sociais e Hiimanas da LTSM 1978 314): 357-373

4 Carson, William E "‘Volume de Trafego na Taixa de Camobi' .Analise. Perspectiva e Prospectiva" Revisia do Centro de Tecnologia daCYS^A junho 1979 511): 5-24.

FIELDS OF STL DY

Major Field Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology

Studies in: Rural Sociology

International Development

Natural Resource Policy

Sociological Theory

Research Methodolotr.

\mi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Abstract ...... ii

Dedication ...... iv

Acknowledgments ...... v

Vita...... vii

List of Tables ...... xii

Chapters;

I. Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Societies Lnder Pressure ...... 2 1 2 Relevant Sociology Foundations ...... 4 1.3 Problem Statement ...... 6 1 4 Focus of Study ...... 8 1 5 Significance of Study ...... 10

2 A Brief History of the .Amish ...... 12

2 1 Amish Origins ...... 12 2 2 Amish to the New World ...... 17 2 2 1 Early New World Settings ...... 19 2 2 2 Change vs Tradition ...... 22 2 2 3 "Old Order Amish” ...... 23 2 2 4 ".Amish .Mennonites” ...... 26 2.3 The-Meaning of .Amish ...... 27 2.3.1 Early Identity ...... 27 2 3 2 Mennonite Roots ...... 28 2.3 3 The Contemporary .Amish Scene 31 2.4 Ethnic Survival ...... 34

3 Change and Continuity in Economic Life of .Amish Society Theory and Hypotheses ...... 40 ix 3.1 Social Change: A Brief Review of Classic Theory ...... 42 3 .2 Tradition, Resistance to Change and Cultural Survival ...... 51 3.3 The Significance of Rational Choice Theory ...... 55 3.3.1 Collective Action ...... 57 3 .3 .2 Social Interaction ...... 60 3 .4 The Framework for Human Ecology...... 65 3.4.1 Neo-Ecology ...... 68 3 .5 The POET Model ...... 70 3 .6 The Study Framework ...... 72 3.7 Purpose of Study ...... 74 3.8 Hypotheses ...... 75

4. Methodological Framework ...... 78

4.1 Area o f Study ...... 78 4 2 Description of Directories ...... 79 4.3 Operationalization of Variables ...... 82 4.3 .1 Dependent Variables ...... 82 4.3.1.1 Diversity Index ...... 82 4.3 1.2 Farm/Non-Farm R atio ...... 83 4.3.1.3 Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio ...... 83 4.3.2 Independent Variables ...... 83 4.3 .2.1 Geographic Characteristics of the Area ...... 84 4.3 .2.2 Population Characteristics of the Area ...... 85 4.3 .2 .3 Labor Force Characteristics of the Area ...... 86 4.3 .2 .4 Social Characteristics of the Area ...... 87 4.3 .2 .5 .Agricultural Characteristics o f the Area ...... 89 4.3 2.6 Characteristics of the Amish Settlement ...... 90 4.4 Descriptive Statistics ...... 90 4.5 Inferential Statistics ...... 91

5. Findings and Analysis ...... 93 5 .1 Dependent Variables ...... 99 5.1.1 The Measure of Occupation Diversity ...... 99 5.1.2 The Farm/Non-Farm Ratio (F/NFRAT) ...... 105 5 1.3 The Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio (C/NCR-AT) ...... 109 5.2 Independent Variables ...... 114 5.2 1 Geographic Location ...... 114 5.2.2 Population Characteristics ...... 116 5.2.3 Labor Force Characteristics ...... 124 5.2.4 Social Characteristics ...... 132 5.2.5 .Agricultural Characteristics ...... 138 5 2.6 Amish Settlement Characteristics ...... 147 5.3 Bivariate Analysis ...... 152 X 5.3.1 Associations Between the Dependent Variables ...... 155 5.3 .2 Independent Variables Correlations with Dependent Variables ...... 157 5.4 Regression Analysis ...... 166 5 .5 Assessment of the Regression Models ...... 169

6, Summary and Concluding Remarks ...... 174 6.1 Synopsis of Dissertation ...... 174 6.2 Implications and Generalizations ...... 184 6 .3 Significance of the Study ...... 188 6.4 Limitations and Recommended Research ...... 190 6.5 Concluding Remarks ...... 192

Bibliography...... 193

APPENDICES...... 205 APPENDIX A; AMISH SETTLEMENT LOCATION MAP...... 206 APPENDIX B; LIST OF AMISH DIRECTORIES...... 209 APPENDIX C: AMISH SETTLEMENT FOUNDATIONS...... 211 APPENDIX D; FARM OCCUPATION STATUS...... 214 APPENDIX E. CARPENTER OCCUPATION STATUS...... 217 APPENDIX F: DIVERSITY INDEX...... 220 APPENDIX G; EXAMPLES OF DIRECTORY LISTINGS...... 222 G 1 HOLMES/WAYNE COUNTY SETTLEMENT...... 223 G.2 GEAUGA SETTLEM ENT...... 228 G.3 ELKHART LAGRANGE SETTLEMENT...... 235 G.4 PRAIRIE HOME SETTLEMENT...... 240

XI LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4.1 Pioneer Amish Settlements by State and Date of Foundation in the United States ...... 80 5.1 Age of Amish Settlements in the United States ...... 94 5.2 Amish Settlement Location in Relation to Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA)...... 95 5 .3 Settlement Representation of Church Districts and Families by State ...... 97 5.4 Ten Principal Amish Occupations ...... 101 5.5 Other Registered Amish Occupations ...... 103 5.6 Occupational Diversity Index of Amish Settlements ...... 104 5 .7 Farm Occupation Status of Amish Males by State...... 106 5.8 Farm/Non-Farm Ratio by State ...... 108 5.9 Farm/Non-Farm Ratio (FNFRAT) by Settlement ...... 110 5 .10 Carpenter Occupation Status of Amish Males by State ...... 111 5.11 Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio by State ...... 113 5.12 Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio (CNCRAT) by Settlement ...... 115 5.13 Population Comparisons by State and Settlement - 1992 ...... 117 5.14 Population of Settlement County ...... 119 5.15 Population Density: Persons per Square Mile by Settlement County ...... 120 5 .16 Movers: Percent Change of Residence 1980-1990 by Settlement County ...... 122 5.17 Percentage Working Outside County ...... 123 5.18 Settlement County Civilian Labor Force by State ...... 125 5.19 Civilian Labor Force by Settlement County - 1991 ...... 126 5 .20 Percent of Labor Force Employed in Agriculture by Settlement County ...... 127 5 .21 Percent of Employment Type by State...... 129 5.22 Percent Employed in Manufacturing by Settlement County ...... 130 5.23 Unemployment Rate by Settlement County ...... 131 5 .24 Percent of Female in Labor Force by Settlement County ...... 133 5 .25 Average per Capita Income of Settlement County ...... 134 5.26 Median Family Income by Settlement County ...... 135 5 .27 Percent of Families with Income Below Poverty Level by Settlement County. . . 136 5.28 Total Housing Units by Settlement County ...... 137 5.29 Percent Housing Units in Structures > 5 by Settlement County ...... 139 5 .30 Percent of Housing Units Mobile Homes/Trailers by Settlement County ...... 140 5 .31 Median Home Value by Settlement County ...... 141 5 .32 Total Number of Farms by Settlement County ...... 142 xii 5.33 Percent of Farms Less Than 50 Acres in Size by Settlement County ...... 144 5 .34 Percentage Farm Population as Part of Total Population ...... 145 5.35 Total Farm Earnings by Settlement County ...... 146 5.36 Average Farm Earnings by Settlement County ...... 148 5.37 Farm Earnings as Percent of Total Earnings by Settlement County ...... 149 5.38 Number of Church Districts Per Settlement ...... 150 5.39 Amish Families per Church District ...... 151 5.40 Age of Amish Settlement as of Directory Publication Date ...... 153 5.41 Number of Amish Families Per Settlement ...... 154 5.42 Bivariate Correlations for Characteristics of Dependent Variables ...... 156 5.43 Bivariate Correlations for Characteristics of the Amish Settlement and Dependent Variables ...... 158 5.44 Bivariate Correlations for Geographic Characteristics of the Area and Dependent Variables ...... 160 5.45 Bivariate Correlations for Population Characteristics of the Area and Dependent Variables ...... 162 5 .46 Bivariate Correlations for Labor Force Characteristics of the Area and Dependent Variables ...... 163 5 .47 Bivariate Analysis for Social Characteristics of the Area and Dependent Variables ...... 165 5 .48 Bivariate Correlations for Agricultural Characteristics of the Area and Dependent Variables ...... 167 5.49 Amish Settlement Correlations for Selected Characteristics and Dependent Variables ...... 168 5.50 Regression Coefficients for the Farm/Non-Farm Ratio ...... 171 5.51 Regression Coefficients for the Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio ...... 172 5.52 Regression Coefficients for the Diversity Index ...... 173

xiu CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

As the world heads into the third millennium, contemporary societies find themselves perplexed by quickly emerging and changing paradigms. These paradigms cut deep into social fabric and social identity, and question the need for interpreting new realities in the Global system o f ‘post-modern’ times.

Today we find ourselves living in a world composed of 192 nation-states, the larger part of which have formed during the 20th century. Concurrent with this global scene of emerging nation-states, we experience the crumbling of established social identities, the rebirth of latent social identities, the widespread adjustment of changing social identities, as well as the intriguing survival of intact social identities.

In the shadow of modem history’s global trade networks, with their encompassing political and economic overtones, the world has witnessed the mushrooming of social networks which have resulted in many newly emerging social identities and a growing interdependence between individuals, communities and nation-states. These identities and interdependencies continue to form and reshape societies, which, according to Rossides

(1990.21), are “distinct groupings of a population living in a given territory according to a

1 comprehensive culture and reproductive in membership”. Although the exact number of

societies that have inhabited this world may not be precisely known, some estimates

suggest that this number is somewhere near 5,000. However, fresh assessments have

concluded that less than half of these societies have been studied and documented until

recent days (Marsh, 1967). Within the field of sociology there have been numerous

classifications o f‘society’ (Rossides, 1990), and in this sociological study about a society called the “Amish”, a rural-based subculture with distinctive religious orientations, I will be taking a look at some of the more relevant descriptions of societies as found in the sociological literature.

1.1 Societies Under Pressure

The changing profiles and pulses of the all-encompassing Global system serve as metaphors for development and social change that touch all comers of this world and all facets of human existence The sometimes seemingly exhausted development paradigm is a relatively modem concept coined and cultivated primarily to describe post WW II times.

Development, as a social-economic-political construct, found its interpretation being carried out primarily at the nation-state level with a focus on global economic growth sustained by international oriented structures exemplified by such organizations as

USAJD, FORD, ROCKEFELLER and the International Agricultural Research Centers.

‘Modemization’ was championed as the universal ideal, and the development paradigm has come to abound in both economic and sociological literature over the recent half century and as this project unfolds. The development paradigm, however loosely it may be conceived, is today under

siege. What seems to remain of this endeavor is the all-encompassing ‘sustainable development’ paradigm which, in essence, implies “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Rich on Brundtland Report cited by McMichael:218), and represented by the widely-encompassing Non-Govemmental Organizations (NGO) grass-root movements.

Perhaps most characteristic of the contemporary world of globalization is the sense of uncertainty which has lead to an escalating tension between global (universal) and local

(particular) understanding. Various groups have emerged in this globalization process representing diverging concerns and interests in an era of unexpected renewal of ethnic loyalties, increased contingency, greater risk, broadening threat to identity and a continuous redrawing of boundaries (Axford, 1995). Whereas modem identity has reflected hybrid features, Axford affirms that what may be termed post-modern reveals individual reflexivity, which implies loss of meaning, loss of cultural identity and the eventual destruction of traditional lifestyles.

Without a doubt, one basic question that confronts all rational as well as political interpretation is that of what circumstances constitute well-being, in other words, a good quality of life. Widely acknowledged is that the definition of well-being for one individual or group may contrast or be in conflict with the person or group whose well-being is being evaluated.

In recent literature, three theories have been presented as being of significant value in interpreting the state of well-being or quality of life (Nussbaum and Sen, 1993). The first is desire theory which is concerned with measuring the degree to which preferences

are fulfilled. The second is hedonistic theory, which interprets well-being by specifying

how the quality of experience is to be judged, and, of course, is open to moral argument.

The third is rational choice theory, which involves the assessment of substantive goods,

rather than the satisfaction of desires, where examples range from the avoidance of harm

and pain to the maintenance of faith and a strong work ethic. It is this theory which guides my perspective of the Amish and of their changing identity as they respond to the challenges confronting them in this and the next century.

1.2 Relevant Sociology Foundations

Sociology is the study of people in group relationships (Rogers, Burdge,

Korsching and Donnermeyer, 1988), a science that has emerged over the recent 150 years based upon the values, norms and practices found especially in modem western society.

Indeed, mainstream sociology has been seen to champion the idea that western progress was leading the world towards a convergence of western ideals, where growth in knowledge, economic well-being and rational thought and organization could lead to a

‘true enlightenment’.

The work that 1 undertake in this study is one of social-cultural relationships and impact. From a sociological perspective, culture may be seen as a shared way of living and thinking. Culture identifies the material products of society as well as the symbols, language, beliefs, values, and norms it shares. And in the sociological study of a culture it is important to recognize that the varied features satisfy distinct sociological needs.

4 Culture is the sum total of what human beings learn in common with other

members of the same cultural group to which they belong. The set of cultural

characteristics and behavior of a given society can be interpreted as being predictable, and,

any change that might occur would have the effect of upsetting this stability It seems

quite clear that each society wishes to see its own culture maintained, and, at issue is how

does a society go about preserving its own way of life

Economic activities, social customs and religious beliefs are all intimately-

interrelated. The values that a society possesses are based upon the beliefs of central

importance to which moral or sentimental worth is attached and which, varies from one

culture to another.

Culture tends to be conservative in an attempt at preserving itself, yet at the same

time change is often continuous In the mobile w orld of today, change seems inherent

given competition among cultures According to .Arensbert and Niehoff ( 1964:57), there

are two forces in culture which feed this competition: conservatism, which attempts to

perpetuate culture and preserve traditional customs: and, continuity, which prompts

competition that leads to change in order to ensure survival.

Understanding the contemporary world with the impressive array of diverse

societies today poses heretofore unprecedented challenge for policy formulators and

decision-makers, be they of political, economic, intellectual or social interest For

example, Rossides (1990:2), in his compendium on comparative societies, echoes the questioning of whether economic and technological growth is automatically in the best interest of quality of life It is Bliss ( 1993:429) who suggests that lifestyle breakdown occurs when a consumption set is no longer attainable. The breakdown, uprooting, and

flight of a cultural group is often of multiple and ambiguous reasons However, Bliss

suggests that two basic factors leading to this phenomenon can usually be identified;

avoidance of maltreatment and economic necessity In the search for cultural continuance,

or perhaps better identified as cultural survival, at issue is the concern for improved

economic well-being. Historically, one important source of cultural identity and economic

well-being for .Amish males has been the occupation of farming. However, this is

changing. .My goal in this dissertation is to examine factors that may be associated with

this change

1.3 Problem Statement

The contemporary world is buttressed upon two basic social-economic-political

factors: development and social change In taking western civilization as the model upon

which the contemporary world is developing, change has become the prevailing mode of

life, indeed, an obsession of the new globalization paradigm In this scenario, the principal

stimulators of modem w estern social change are construed as being technologv and

science

Social change, according to Everett Rogers (1962 4) is "the continuous process over a period o f time in w hich differences in human relationships take place'' In the forming of modem society, Barrie .Axford (1995 162) posits that traditional cultures are destroyed and replaced with cultures built on reflexivity For many, social change may be interpreted as the significant alteration of social

structure and cultural patterns over time in the composition or balance of the parts. Social

structure, according to Wilber Moore (1963:36), is the pattern of social action and

interaction manifested in such structures embedded in norms, values, cultural productivity

and symbols.

History has found that disruptive activity to society is that which is seen as being

abnormal. Indeed, history portrays examples of stability and continuity as exemplified in

the Chinese and Roman empires. Orderliness and routinization of social organization and

habitat appears to engender repetition which in turn perpetuates stability and makes life

simple when it comes to judgment and prediction. William Ogbum ( 1966:176) suggests

that the most commonly recognized psychological trait that resists change is habit.

Religion, for example, is said to serve diverse purposes in life, including: to

promote social solidarity, give life meaning, stabilize society, help people adjust to change and provide moral sustenance in an impersonal, market-driven society. Religion is seen as a cultural phenomenon that can energize human behavior and affect the existence and survival of different cultures. Religion is at the organizational core of .4mish society and economy.

One central issue of our time is social change, and another is cultural survival.

Sociology from its very outset is a discipline that has been concerned with the evolution of history and its meaning. With history in its making, there are many questions that need to be addressed. What is changing in life‘s At what rate is change taking place'’ What is the magnitude of change? How does one cope with change? How does one guarantee

survival?

The focus of this study is the Amish subculture, a people with distinctive beliefs,

values, and behaviors who have a long history of dealing with economic and cultural

pressures from the broader, ‘outside’ world with which their values are not compatible.

According to Donald Kraybill (1994:8) the Amish are a special example of how a

subculture in modem society maintains its separateness and offers interesting examples of

social control and personality socialization. The Amish personality is purposefully shaped

through the transmission of their cultural identity and meaning as found in church

scriptures, the family and their parochial schools. In contrast to today’s profile of the

modem family, the nexus of Amish daily life remains the family where there continues to

be a strong sense of belonging (Donnermeyer, 1997). It is the family that is responsible

for educating the Amish child, and , as expressed by Hostetler (1993:171), true education

by Amish standards is “the cultivation of humility, simple living and submission to the will

o f God” .

Church records and Amish Directories show that new Amish settlements have increased dramatically in recent years (Donnermeyer, 1997). To date, the Amish community has proven adept at resolving the issue of community self-realization, as each community strives to achieve self-realization with its own contract, known as the

Ordming.

Orcbnmg is often described by church leaders as a “discipline” or “cultural fence”.

It is the oral rules of an Amish church district that both prescribe and proscribe norms of

8 specific behavior. The baptized members of a church district review their district’s

ordnung twice each, prior to their bi-annual Sunday communion service. The

congregation, by consensus, re-affirms or changes the ordmtng. In either case, the

ordming serves as a guide for living according to Amish religious precepts. The ordming

specifies the width of the brim on a man’s hat, acceptable colors of a woman’s dress, when

it is appropriate to use a telephone, and dozens of other norms that reflect deeper religious

values. The ordming also indicates whether or not certain occupations would be

appropriate for the breadwinner of the Amish household. The cultural fence of this part of

the ordming is changing rapidly.

Church districts themselves are small, typically consisting o f 20-35 families. Quite

literally, the ordming is a blueprint of behavior for a small scale community. If self-

realization cannot be maintained within its own environment, the Amish have been

notorious for moving on to another locale in order to establish new communities and

guarantee survival (Donnermeyer, 1997).

Argument may be made that one important aspect of the survival of community is

maintenance of its economic base (Warren, 1977). In addressing economic survival, the

Amish have found alternative occupational opportunities that can fit within the cultural

“fences” of the ordming. The adaptation of micro-enterprise activity is perhaps the most

recent Amish manifestation of compromise with the outside, mainstream society that has

moved this cultural fence (Kraybill and Nolt, 1995).

Culture, which is man’s unique way of adapting to environment, provides alternative solutions to problems of survival. Social group solidarity in harmony with the

9 environment is a significant factor in the survival of society. The focus of this study will

address the occupational structure of the Amish community and its interrelationship with

its surrounding social and economic structure. Utilizing rational choice theory and a

human ecological format dealing with social change, such factors as economic activity,

distance, family organization, religious organization, size, density and other demographic

characteristics of the host community and their relationship to the distributions of

occupations of Amish males will be examined.

1.4 Significance of Study

In the contemporary world of disappearing distinctive social character and community oriented lifestyle, there has been an enthusiastic expression in western society, especially American, of identity with cultural roots and the nostalgic past. Today, anything that represents the rural, idyllic venue, such as food, clothing, home fixtures and the place of residence, are of special attraction. There is historic value in contributing sound, sociological knowledge about a subculture which only several decades ago was perceived by social scientists and journalists alike as being an obscure relic of the past, whereas today, is viewed as an ‘island of sanity’ in a society engrossed in consumerism and technology run rampant.

Following 300 years of resistance to change, the Amish today are recognized, perhaps stereotyped, as a healthy, thriving, sectarian, high-texture subculture maintaining purity and unity (Hostetler, 1993). By studying the Amish, who have harnessed resistance to change, in order to both maintain tradition and compromise with modernity, this work

10 intends to add knowledge to the impact of change upon cultural survival. As well, I herein

seek to contribute to the understanding of the relationships that exist between human

ecological factors and human survival of other subcultures throughout the world.

Foremost in significance is the contribution of insight from this study about what the future may hold for the Amish from a sociological perspective. And, in concern over the current stagnant field of sociology, this study could contribute, perhaps a spark, to a

‘desperate’ optimism in reconstructing some sociological theory of social action, based upon a new sociological approach to rationality (Goldthorpe, 1997).

II CHAPTER 2

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE AMISH

The story of the Amish is an especially intriguing saga of religious origin and fervor. With the Renaissance period in full bloom at the turn of the 16th century, religious discontentment with the practices and teachings of the Roman Catholic church spawned the Protestant Reformation. Such church leaders as Martin Luther in Germany and Ulrich Swingli in Switzerland led efforts in the early 1500s that championed church decision-making based solely on Bible study and preached salvation by grace through faith.

2.1 Amish Origins

Within the Reformation there were those who felt that the movement was proceeding to slowly and that cooperation with government leaders was an undue impediment (Nolt, 1992). For example, young dissidents of Zurich were ordered by city officials to disband from their private meetings of Bible study and discussion, where they argued that Bible teaching, not political expediency, should guide the church of

Reformation. Such widespread rituals as infant-baptism and the performing of Mass

12 lacked biblical foundation. As dissenters, this group sought a more radical commitment to the teachings of Christ.

It was in January 1525 that the young mavericks of Zurich broke with the state church on which occasion they re-baptized themselves, in a home, arguing that only persons who were old enough to understand the implications of Christian faith should receive baptism. As could be expected, local officials reacted harshly as they sensed the threat o f a diminishment of civil authority over religious affairs.

As the Anabaptists splintered from emerging Protestantism, a new sect was in formation based upon mutual accountability which could only be accomplished by living apart from the mainstream, ‘worldly society’ (Clausen. 1972). Many within the

Anabaptist movement stressed the desire and need to emulate Christ’s teachings, based upon New Testament scriptures, in their daily lives. With such firm and overt convictions the Anabaptists found themselves succumbing to overt hostility and persecution as the church joined the state to annul their upstart movement that threatened established social and political structures and order. The harsh stories of this period of persecution, torture and attempted annihilation was recorded in iht Martyrs Mirror, a book of traditional

Anabaptist beliefs and absorbing martyr stories highly valued and preserved to this day in the Amish home.

As Anabaptist ideas circulated in northern Europe, it was Menno Simons who broke with the Roman Catholic Church in the 1530s and emerged in the Netherlands as an articulate Anabaptist leader. Menno Simons, once a Catholic priest, had become acquainted with the new Swiss Brethren Anabaptist congregations which had located in

13 the Alcace regioa. around Strasbourg. Menno Simons’ writing and charismatic leadership won widespread recognition and garnered a significant following, soon to become known as Mennonites.

It was in the late 1550s that a split occurred in the Dutch Mennonites’ ranks, consequent of the recently initiated annual Strasbourg Anabaptist Conferences, when

Leenaert Bouwens re-established a strict interpretation of the ‘ban’, or isolating of evil persons from the congregation. In the spring of 1557 Menno Simons and Leenaert

Bouwens had called a special meeting on shunning between Dutch and Swiss Anabaptists.

Although few Swiss Anabaptists (also known as the Swiss Brethren) attended the meeting, the attempt at stricter shunning was seen as being unsuccessful, in part due to

Menno Simons’ initial weak support of the idea. However, in 1559 Menno Simons, along with other Dutch bishops, pronounced the ‘ban’ on Swiss Brethren Anabaptists as the

Swiss expressed a more lenient view on shunning.

At this very moment in history, transformations were taking place within the Swiss

Brethren community. Interest was keen on .Anabaptist ideas and many Swiss Brethren fled into the Strasbourg area interested in the new ideas of the Dutch Mennonites By 1575

Menno Simons' Foundation Rook, a treatise on shunning, had been translated into

German and appended. The German version has been argued (Gross, 1997) as being the source which precipitated the great Swiss Brethren schism which took place a centurv later, in 1693.

In 1632 the Dordrecht Confession was proclaimed, which became a Dutch

Mennonite confession supporting the idea of shunning. By 1664, a number of .Alsatian

14 Swiss Brethren had translated and printed the Dordrecht Confession, which in addition to

shunning, adhered to foot-washing (originally a Dutch practice) and a hierarchical approach to leadership and authority (for example, the Dordrecht Confession introduced the word bishop into Anabaptist doctrine). In the Alcace region, the adoption of the

Dordrecht Confession was reflected in a clash of cultures, where the issue of the nature of the church and the nature of leadership and authority seemed irreconcilable. According to

Swiss Brethren tradition, Anabaptist church leadership was interpreted as being subordinate to the congregation. On the other hand, Menno Simons spoke of a more rigid church authority, a view on the nature of leadership expressed in his writings.

Towards the latter part of the 17th century the Swiss bom Jakob Ammann, a reform-minded Mennonite elder then living in the Alsace region, attempted to introduce a hierarchical top-down authority approach and more rigorous shunning practices to the

Swiss Brethren. By the 1690s Ammann felt that church discipline and spiritual life had weakened among his fellow Swiss Brethren and was affecting original Anabaptist fervor.

For example Ammann argued that wrong-doing church members should be more strictly disciplined and social avoidance or shunning, which was earlier part of the Dutch

Anabaptist practice, should be restored to a more rigid discipline. Ammann s position was that the church needed equally important physical and social boundaries. In northern

Europe, emphasis was on inner piety over outward appearance; lifestyle patterns and physical appearance were not so important as long as the heart was right (Nolt, 1992).

Ammann felt that separation from the world was not simply a matter of inner feeling or being a persecuted minority group. Church renewal came by commitment and strict

15 discipline, and discipline was symbolozed by adherence to church codes on dress and

behavior

As to shunning, different interpretations of social avoidance generated an

irreconcilable split between Ammann and the more traditional Swiss Brethren leaders, the

latter who felt that more harm than good came from shunning practice As a result, two

separate/distinct groups over a short span of time surfaced, with the .-Mpine Swiss

Brethren adhering to the Mennonite group, and the .Alsatian Swiss Brethren following

Jakob .Ammann, and adopting the name .Amish Other Jakob .Ammann doctrines included

communion twice a year, instead of once, rejection of rapprochement for the 'true-

hearted' (those who remained in the state church yet sympathized with .Anabaptist tenets

of faith), and, extremely simple dress codes

.Although the original .Amish impulse was precipitated by Jakob .Ammann in the

1690s. Gross ( 1997 8) suggests that the root of contemporary .Amish doctrine w as set

into its classical form by Lli .Ammann in the early 18th century, w ho attemptetd to

moderate some of Jakob .Ammann's more extreme view s, especially that on shunning Old

Order .Amish minister Eli Gingerich's interpretation (circa 1986) of Gross w as that the

true Armsh idea unfolded from Lli Ammann s 2 epistles of 1698 and 1720. differing drastically from Jakob .Ammann in spirit and markedly in structure and substance, almost to the extent of reaccepting a traditional Swiss Brethren approach to congregational life and with many elements of the Swiss tradition remaining intact within the Amish movement. Emphasis here was on a feasible two-way relationship between the congregation and the leadership where church authority and decision-making resides

16 within the congregation, including every church member In essence, the true Amish idea

rejected the hierarchical, authoritarian element within Menno Simons' view of the church

and returned to traditional Swiss Brethren patterns .Also reflecting upon Jakob

.Ammann's position of the true-hearted, the revised .Amish view came to recognize that

only God alone could make judgments on association with those who were not

.Anabaptist

2.2 .Amish to the New World

From their beginnings the .Amish established themselves in the .Alsace-Lorraine

(France) and Palatinate (Germany ) regions of the south Rhine in Europe Having been

expelled from Switzerland for religious practices in the early 18th centurv and due to both

economic and political hardship, there was significant emigration out of the south Rhine

region in which the Amish became participants

The Netherlands offered the Swiss Mennonites and Amish safe passage to their

country in the early 1700s Once in the Netherlands, the .Amish established several

congregations and practiced farming alongside and with the help of the Dutch .Mennonites

Upon their arrival in the Netherlands, the .Amish. with their conserv ative style of dress

characterizing them as being peculiar, found themselves as being viewed as a less refined

sect than the Dutch Mennonites (Hostetler. 1993 )

In the European arena, the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century shed new light on state-citizenrv relations, as citizenship became universal for all people living within French boundaries No longer was citizenship to be determined by ancestry or state church membership. Under Robispiere, military service exemption was granted to Peace

Church members, which was a privilege soon to be reversed when the demand for a large

military was required by Napoleon, and could only be achieved by universal conscription

and equal treatment for all full citizens.

Until the early 1800s, the so-called Peace Churches tolerated and suffered

persecution and harassment throughout Europe, however, an occasional aristocrat was

found who would offer safe haven for the Amish in exchange for their dedicated

agricultural and manual skills. In the early 1800s, some small European Amish communities lost their religious identity and found themselves merging with larger

Mennonite churches. Already there was the recognition that the more successful Amish communities of this period were those recognized for their work in agriculture

Fundamental to Amish pursuit was religious tranquility and, like European neighbors, the Amish were attracted by the lure of opportunity in the New World. It was at this time in history that William Penn, a Quaker, established a colony of religious toleration in the New World, and Pennsylvania became the refuge for persecuted

European religious minorities

It is possible that a few Amish families may have arrived in the New World at the beginning of the 18th century, however, the first noticeable .Amish communities began to form only at the end of the 1730s. Having arrived in Philadelphia along with many boatloads of German immigrants, these first .Amish settled into southeastern Pennsylvania in what are known today as Berks and Lancaster counties. The first known Amish settlers established communities in the Northkill Creek and Irish Creek areas of Berks County A

18 second settlement was set up in Lancaster County and known as the Conestoga

settlement.

The Amish seemed to have arrived in the New World with reliable financial

resources (MacMaster, 1985), especially in comparison to the other religious minorities,

which has been suggested was due to a close-knit group structure as well as a strong

commitment to mutual aid (Nolt, 1993; MacMaster, 1985). The Amish were well

organized and geared to invest in land in the New World.

It is estimated that approximately 500 Amish arrived in the New World during the

18th century, and, by the beginning of the 1800s there were about 1,000 Amish living in

America (Hostetler, 1993).

By the 1820s European military activity had ceased and European emigration to

the New World accelerated again. The Amish were attracted to America by the promise

of land, economic opportunity, and religious freedom. During the 19th century some

Amish communities in Europe lost such large followings that they simply disintegrated. It

is estimated that about 3,000 Amish adults emigrated from Europe between 1817-1860

and that fewer than 2,000 Amish church members remained in Europe by the end of the

19th century (Gerlach, 1990; Hostetler, 1993; Yoder, 1991).

2.2.1 Early New World Settings

The earliest Amish settlements in Berks and Lancaster Counties of Pennsylvania found the Amish and the Mennonites living side-by-side. However, they did not mix in

19 general and the Amish found themselves moving to other frontier regions where they could purchase less expensive land.

In 1767 the Amish moved further west to Somerset County, Pennsylvania, two years before this frontier region had officially opened to settlement, and arrived in Chester

County, near Philadelphia, in 1768. The Chester County Amish community was considered a more liberal group; their members seeking public office and marrying outside the church eventually contributed to its demise. By 1791, Amish had arrived in Mifflin

County, in central Pennsylvania in search of economic survival and the means to live their version o f a faithful and decent way o f life.

Beginning in the mid-18th century and throughout the 19th century the Amish lost members to other evangelical denominations. The revivalist churches may be considered accountable for some of the westward movement of the Amish (Hostetler, 1993).

Although the Amish church was centered around community, where church members were deemed accountable to each other, the Amish church services seemed callous when compared to the more ‘compassionate’ feel of the evangelical groups.

Also, a concern over Amish unity during this period of the American Revolution was their spirited appeal for peaceful neutrality. This was seen as a difficult task especially during this period when demands were exerted from both the Tories and the Patriots. .As did other Peace Churches of this time, the Amish suffered during and after the American

Revolution, resulting in imprisonment, harassment and defecting sons. The question which so often the Amish struggled with was ‘how American was the Amish church'!’’

(Nolt, 1992).

20 Church identity crisis and economic survival troubled the original Amish

settlements in America. According to Nolt (1992:74), probably less than forty percent of

the Amish’s first generation in America carried on the Amish tradition. To maintain

spiritual and economic survival, the Amish continuously sought new, fertile terrain and

thus found themselves in the westward movement.

By the eariy 1800s, new Amish arrivals were settling into the virgin lands of Ohio,

Indiana, Illinois,Iowa and Ontario. In addition to the eastern ports, the Amish were now

arriving through New Orleans and penetrating the new frontiers. During this period, the

establishing of Amish roots was quite diverse; some Amish families moved quite

frequently and singularly whereas other families moved in congregational units. Those who migrated were usually the younger families with small children, some in search of adventure, some to escape church conflict, whereas the most common reason was the search for new and cheaper farmland. The 19th century Amish immigrants were seen as being more progressive than their 18th century predecessors, bringing with them new ideas and more worldly tastes and desires. According to Lancaster County Bishop David

Beiler, these new Amish immigrants were corrupting the Amish church of 19th century

America (Nolt, 1992).

With the increasing number of arrivals to America in the 19th century, the change- minded Amish became more involved in the secular oriented, evolving American society.

Increased contact with the outside world confused and blurred the line that had been drawn between the Amish church and the ‘worldly society’ Separatism or integration was the issue that faced the Amish of the mid-19th century in America.

21 2.2.2 Change vs. Tradition

Incomparable disagreement, dissension and schism among the Amish marked the

third quarter of the 19th century in American. At issue in the mid-19th century among the

Amish was ‘the purpose of church order’. The decisions and divisions of that day echo in

contemporary Amish life (Nolt, 1992).

Heightened levels of controversy intensified over the push for change versus the pull of tradition. The dispute was between two factions; those that wished to participate in and become accepted by society at large and those who wished to remain true to Amish values. The boundaries of church and cultural fences were being tested.

The change-minded Amish aspired to make the church more relevant and appealing through the use of selective change, whereas the conservative Amish pleaded for commitment to being different from the world in faith and life. The conservative

Amish felt that any slight change could lead to outright participation in the ‘worldly society’, the selective change would lead to related, unpredictable, unforeseen, and undesirable consequences.

In the 1850s, conservative Amish leaders had proposed a national forum to address problems affecting Amish communities and attempts to establish unity among the churches and differing rates of change. Past experiences of regional meetings in Europe and

America had strengthened .Amish church life and commitment, however, such an encompassing meeting in America had never been held.

The first of a series of annual meetings was called for by progressive-minded bishops in 1862 and held in Holmes County, Ohio These mid-19th century annual

'> •? meetings pointed up the differences which separated the various church members. The national forum was under the control of the change-minded Amish and the conservatives, with only one-third representation of the participants, were ignored and eventually withdrew from the activities of the Amish majority (Nolt, 1992). It was at this time that the two major paths o f the Amish faith in North America emerged The informally managed church-life of the tradition-minded become known as the ‘Old Order Amish’ and the change-minded progressives were identified as the ‘Amish Mennonites’ (Nolt, 1992 ,

Yoder, 1991).

2.2.3 “Old Order Amish”

Following the annual meetings of the 1860s and 70s the Amish church lay shattered and confused. Some communities quickly identified with one or the other movement while in other parts of the country the Amish split was a slower procedure By

1877 the majority of Lancaster County Amish had opted for the conservative group whereas in communities further west, such as in central Illinois, the change-minded attitude prevailed where the Amish Mennonites were adapting, in a limited fashion and disciplined manner, to values and methods from the outside world.

The Old Order Amish continued to maintain distinctive lifestyle and faith as they sought spiritual renewal through group commitment and discipleship guided by a common ordmmg (i.e., rules of the church). Increased tolerance coupled with diminished autonomy in church discipline guided the Amish Mennonites closer to relations with the Mennonites. By 1900 there were only approximately 5,000 tradition-minded Amish in North

America. Contradictory as it may appear, the Amish church has grown in the 20th century by dividing into several factions, each of which sought church renewal through different means

In 1910 one-fifth of the Old Order Amish in Lancaster County withdrew to form the Peachy Church as these Amish grew increasingly discontent over shunning practices of the Old Order. The Peachy Church group also approved of in-home telephones and electricity. In this aftermath and in rebuttal of the changes already ocurring in the early

1900s, several ultraconservative groups formed, the Iowa Buchanan County group, the

Swartzentruber Amish of Holmes and Wayne Counties Ohio, and the Old Nebraska of

Mifflin County Pennsylvania, all demonstrating the capacity to survive without taking on outside world technology and cultural values (Kraybill, 1989). Today the

Schwartzentruber Amish of Holmes and Wayne Counties (and several other counties) is known for the degree of their refusal to adopt technologies long accepted by other Amsih groups.

As ‘outside world’ legal sanctions changed (military conscription/compulsory school attendance) and as loyalties dealing with ordnung were forever being tested within the Old Order, a new, progressive group emerged in Somerset County, Pennsylvania in

1927 called the “Beachy Amish” Once again at issue was the adherance to strict shunning as the Beachy group departed from significant traditional Amish understandings. The

Beachy .Amish, which absorbed the Peachy Church, soon accepted electric installations, automobile ownership and Sunday Schools They seemed to fill a gap whose role was

24 originally performed by the now extinct Amish Mennonites. In Lancaster County, the

Beachy Amish became known as the Weavertown Amish and in Nappannee, Indiana the

Beachy of Indiana adopted the name Burkholder Amish.

In the late 1950s, a conservative group called the Andy Weaver Amish were

formed in the Holmes County settlement, later to be joined by a similar doctrine seeking group from LaGrange County, Indiana. The Andy Weaver Amish wished to preserve

strict shunning and to reject any change in the use of household or farm technology. At issue was church renewal inspired by increased church discipline.

From the other end of the spectrum (Kraybill, 1989; Nolt, 1992), the New Order

Amish was formed in 1966 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania where they accepted public utility usage, in-home telephones, modem farm machinery and tractor farming. This New

Order group sought to balance the Old Order lifestyle with new spiritual insights and in unison agreed on maintaining high moral standards, especially related to courtship and tobacco usage.

In reflecting upon European origins of the Amish, their steady flow to the New

World over time simply depleted the membership and leadership in the Old World. Today there are no Amish found in Europe, as the last Amish in Europe merged with the

Mennonites in 1937. As to Old Order Amish penetration outside North America, failures to sustain settlements have been also reported (Luthy, 1991 )

25 2.2.4 “Amish Mennonites"

The progressive Amish Mennonites represented the majority of Amish as the

Amish schism widened in the latter half of the 19th century. As the 20th century

approached, the Amish Mennonites were found adopting change and innovation at unprecedented rates. The Amish Mennonites adopted significant traits of the Mennonite church such as the model of regional church conference structure and authority, as well as giving support to higher-education institution building. At the turn of the century, Amish

Mennonites numbered more than 7,000 members. Both conservatives and progressives had split from the original Mennonite church, and, as both the middle-of-the-road ‘Old

Mennonites’ and the ‘Amish Mennonites’ were primarily of Swiss and southern German origin, a seemingly natural merger took place between the regional conferences of each church during the early years of the 20th century. Indeed, the significantly expanded Old

Mennonites generated human and material resources that made feasible significant social and cultural inroads.

Those Amish Mennonites who sought change at a slower pace blended into becoming the Conservative Amish Mennonites in 1910 and together with some progressive Old Order Amish joined in forming the Conservative Amish Mennonite

Conference. By 1954 the word .Amish was dropped from this church conference and in

1971 the re-organized ‘old’ Mennonites, became known as the Mennonite Church, at which time they absorbed the Conservative Mennonite Conference. In merging with the

Mennonites, the Amish Mennonites, some more abruptly than others, have abandoned their historic heritage (N olt, 1992).

2 6 2.3 The Meaning of Amish

Amish is the name, in recognition of Jakob Ammann, applied to one of the

spiritual heirs of the Protestant Reformation’s Anabaptist Movement. This movement

began among Swiss young men and women who felt that church reform of the time was

losing momentum and that the separation of church and state needed to be complete since only the word of God could be responsible for the formation of church and no human government should stand in the way

2.3.1 Early Identity

Strict and moral interpretations of the Anabaptists were taken directly from the

New Testament, a book that had been widely circulating among the educated youth of the time which was facilitated by printed matter produced by the recently invented German press. The Reformation Movement was seen as bending to local political realities, and the

Anabaptists viewed the emerging Protestant church as not meeting the higher ethical standards as portrayed in Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, this latter most principal to

•Amish religious belief.

The young dissenters concluded that the recovery of the New Testament church could only take place through radical reform, clearly distinct from that of Rome or

German adaptations, which meant that the church had to be completely clear of state control. According to these radical reformers the church meant a community of voluntary commitment to Christ and to each other. The sign of church membership and commitment, baptism, could only be received by conscientious adults. Living in grace

27 with God and with other people of the same beliefs was the road to salvation, which included Christ’s teachings of peaceful nonviolence and nonresistance to worldly enemies

(Nolt, 1992).

Swiss Protestant Reformers demanded a unified church and state and implored that radical, voluntary,’ffee’ church beliefs were intolerable as they challenged the unity of church and state. The young radicals felt that having been baptized as infants was meaningless so they met in dissent to baptise each other as conscious adult members of

Christ’s followers. This second baptism thus generated the identity o f‘Anabaptist’, derived from the Latin, anabaptismus

By rejecting state authority in religious matters and refusing military service, the

Anabaptists threatened established political stability and became a stalked and persecuted people. Unity of belief and practice was crucial to Anabaptist identity. The Anabaptist

Swiss Brethren established several foundational points of Anabaptist church life and practice based upon adult baptism and wholely nonviolent church discipline. To establish the church that they desired the Anabaptists had to set definite boundaries The New

Testament was clear in that Christians should avoid ‘the world’, it was unclear just how this avoidance should be carried out.

2.3.2 Mennoaite Roots

The Amish are a branch of the Mennonite .Anabaptists, whose founder was Menno

Simons. The Mennonite sect appeared following the violent failure of an Anabaptist surge in Munster in 1534 when truly non-violent .Anabaptist sympathizers felt that it was

2 8 necessary for Christians to avoid, or shun, those sinful and unrepentent fellow Anabaptists

who had participated in the takeover of the town of Munster in the western part of

Germany. Menno Simons emphasized the rejection of sin in the church. Vital to firming

up Anabaptist doctrine it was believed necessary to avoid the excommunicated in all social

and personal relationships (Nolt, 1992 ; Oyer, 1994).

As time passed, the act of shunning stifled Anabaptist church unity, until 1693

when Jakob Ammann questioned the laxity of Mennonite church discipline and shunning

practices. Ammann’s reforms stressed strict social avoidance of the excommunicated and insisted upon original Anabaptist reform alternatives which centered on being apart from

‘the world’ or mainstream culture. Ammann stressed humility, simplicity and a strict doctrinal and participative approach to Christian identity. Amman was especially successful in attracting those Anabaptists who sought strong group identity. The Amish could never be identified as primitive nor peasant as they have always been integral to the dominant economic system. Spawning from the Reformation, the Amish may be identified as a liberating and self-determining movement.

According to Orlando Gingerich (1972), the two principal reasons for the origin of the Amish sect are: religious persecution and economic survival. The Martyrs Mirror is a

17th century book explaining traditional Mennonite beliefs of shunning, separation, faithfulness and non-resistance, and portrays Anabaptist suffering of early Anabaptist persecutions. As for economic survival, the Anabaptists from their early beginnings demonstrated their capacity to transform war damaged European countryside into productive farmland.

29 The Amish are a churchy a spiritual union, and an adaptive community practicing the simplest of austere living (Hostetler, 1993). Until recent years, the Amish were inaccurately viewed in America as being an obscure sect living by ridiculous customs.

Post-WWII Amish farming practices were considered outdated and unscientific. The

Amish may be considered a sacred society with an integrative social system which maintains organic solidarity and primary (face-to-face) relationships. Hostetler ( 1993;5) suggests that the Amish are a little commonwealth (unified to the degree of having a true consciousness of unity within a larger national domain) which claims to be ruled by the law of love and redemption, with a sense of distinction from others.

By applying the concept of separation to their church, they have developed their unique doctrine of nonconformity. With such a distinctive expression the Amish have ascribed ethical values to materialistic symbols and actions of the mainstream world.

Worldly symbols of status continue to be looked down upon and serve as issues over church discipline.

Amish church life is living every day according to their values and beliefs. The

Amish church setting has little church hierarchy with the typical church district, composed of 20-35 families, having a bishop (the Full Servant selected from ordained ministers), one or two ministers (the Servant of the Book) and a deacon (the Servant of the Poor) (Kreps et. al., 1997). The selection of Amish church leaders is a delicate process with all leaders selected from within the church district

The rules of social order {ordmmg) that govern everyday life are mostly oral which requires face-to-face personal relationships. These regulations represent the

30 consensus of the church leaders and the endorsement of the church members. Ordmmg

clarifies to the church members what is to be considered worldly and sinful, as the Amish

see that the body of Christ must be of one mind. Living according to the ordmmg implies

peace among members and peace with God. Implicit in keeping with the ordmmg confers

a member’s love of the church and a confession of Amish faith.

A theme steeped in Amish tradition is that the way one lives (i.e. behavior) is more

important than communicating it in words. The Amish have little interest in

communicating their message to others as this would require greater literacy, eduation and

sophistication which, as Hostetler (1993:8) argues, would initial the beginning of the end.

The Amish consider themselves to be a Christian body suspended in a tension-field

between obedience and disobedience to an all-powerful creator, with the New Testament

serving as guidance for church doctrine (Hostetler, 1993). The Amish seemingly well

represent the traditional view of the folk society where custom is valued more than critical

knowledge, where shared practical knowledge is more important than science, where

associations are personal and emotional, and where change is an uncomfortable idea

(Redfield, 1947).

2.3.3 The Contemporary Amish Scene

Amish practices continue to include adult baptism, non-resistance, refusal to bear arms and refusal to take oaths. The Amish community is marked by a shared system of meaning and a strong sense of togetherness. It is the church district that is responsible for the disciplining of its own church members and the size of a church district is normally

31 regulated by the number of people who can be accomodated for the preaching service in

one farm dwelling. The church district is considered the home church for all the members

who live within its borders and who observe communion together.

Community may be viewed as a functionally related mixture of people who live

together in agiven geographic setting at a particular moment in time, are arranged in a

social pattern, demonstrate common learning, and exhibit an awareness of their uniqueness

and detached identity as a group”. The physical location of the Amish community is the

Amish settlement. The Amish settlement is is a cluster o f Amish families living near each

other in search of church gathering and identity, in search of school support and for the

sake of mutual aid.

The Amish community, however, is much more than a physical setting. As

suggested by Kreps et. al. (1997,62), there are five important roles of community that

serve the Amish; the maintenance o f a self-sufficient economy; socialization; social

control; social participation; and, mutual support. A self-sufficient economy for the Amish

means producing and consuming as much as possible within one’s own communitiy. It is

estimated that only about one in three Amish breadwinners are farmers today (Kreps et.al.,

1997), At the same time the Amish continue to make special attempts to preserve and put

into practice their religious foundations of working on or near to the land

In the Amish community, the woman contributes significantly to the economic well-being of both family and community. Although submissive to male authority, the

Amish woman derives esteem and importance within the boundaries of the culture.

32 Amish social control comes from within and from every church member as

standards of behavior and important values are enforced from within the community.

Constant reminders of what it means to be Amish are found in the nature of relationship and distinctive dress.

Amish socialization is concerned with raising children and reinforcing among adults the values they learned early in life. The one-room parochial school, which guarantees the personal nature that Amish values are learned and reinforced, is today’s symbol of true Amish socialization. Social participation is built into Amish community life and cemented in the rotating bi-monthly church services followed by extended visiting and the sharing of food. Amish youth opportunities to mix are highlighted by the “Sunday

Sings” in the afternoon.

The home is central to Amish life as reflected in such important activities as marriage, funeral services and retirement all of which take place in the home. The cornerstone of the Amish community and existence is the family, where the extended family and the elderly are looked upon as important sources of advice and knowledge.

Large families, six to eight children, continue to be the norm.

In keeping with tradition of the Amish farm family of times past, children are considered to be a blessing within the Amish community as they continue to be a vital and integral part of Amish life. As Krep et. al. suggests (1997:77), that perhaps of most concern to the contemporary Amish family is the Munch-paiT threat, a phenomenon which affects more and more Amish household heads when they take on away-from-home jobs that restrict the more traditional, flexible time schedule so well practiced by the Amish.

33 In a most recent work, Donnermeyer (1997:8-10) sums up the contemporary meaning of the Amish in identifying five core Amish features: a subculture with distinctive beliefs, values and behaviors from those of the greater culture; ordmmg, substantially an oral tradition used for transmitting religious values and lifestyles, which is considered essential for maintaining the ‘fences’ that distinguish the Amish from the ‘English’; meidung, which applies only to baptized Amish and implies the shunning of former members who have been excommunicated from their church; gelassenheit, which means surrending to a higher authority and serves as a guideline for proper behavior within

Amish society; and, the selective utilization of technology which is tolerated as long as it does not infringe upon Amish doctrine and deeply ingrained Anabaptist values.

2.4 Ethnic Survival

Growth in Amish membership has been impressive over the recent decades, having more than doubled from 85,000 members in 1979 to 160,000 members by the late 1990s.

By 1992 there were 215 Amish settlements scattered throughout 22 states and Ontario, compared to only 19 settlements in 1900 Of these settlements, 136 (63%) were founded since 1970. Between 1974 and 1991, the number of Amish church districts had grown more than 100% (Krebs, 1997 , Nolt, 1992 , Hostetler, 1993).

As recently as 40 years ago, the Amish were identified as a dying breed in their repetitive renouncing of modem conveniences and the American dream of technological, social and economic progress. Today their social charter, which esteems thrift and hard work, can be seen as an island of coherence in a majoritiy culture possessed with

34 unrestrained obsession towards economic gain and technology without limits. The

isolation that still characterizes the Amish is maintained by norms, codes and symbols

which distinguish them, the redemptive community, from worldly thinking. Bryan Wilson

in Hostetler (1993 .7) suggests that the Amish may be classified as introvertionist, rather than conversionist or reformist. However, Amish silence, which is so present to the outside observer , should not be misinterpreted as it is not uniquely a sign of Amish introspection since the Amish find silence to be an act difficult to argue or refute and is used for numerous social reasons (Hostetler, 1993).

According to Hostetler (1987:282), there are four factors important in explaining

Amish survival: maintenance of an explicit redemptive community; restraint in the uses of technology; strong familial bonds associated with manual labor and practical training; and, effective uses of silence. The Amish ideal is to mirror the community without a bad mark where disunity nor blemish is tolerable. The Amish are exemplar in technique for the transmission of their values, and it is within the Amish family, their church and their home, that Hostetler suggests that social scientists gain greatly in understanding how to cope with social change and social trends.

In recent times various social and economic indicators have set out a warning signal to public decision-makers as to the success of modem society. Rising concerns have intensified over job stress, income distribution, child neglect, and education achievement, just to name a few. In citing Peter Berger, Hostetler ( 1987:290), affirms that modernity is marked by rootlessness, and, today there is a widespread longing for the restoration of community of which the home is a principal foundation block. For the

35 Amish the proposition offered by modernity is not a matter of either/or, for the Amish

have recognized that survival is contingent upon the negotiating of modernity within

Amish boundaries. Within and outside the community, the Amish seem to have found a

certain degree of success in negotiating with modernity.

Amish survival will require an ever acute negotiation with economic change, especially change related to agricultural production, as the outside world continues to require varying degrees of economic diversity and transformation in Amish economic lifestyles, as has been the case over recent decades.

For the Amish, agriculture continues to be a symbol of separation from a world that has industrialized and urbanized. Even modem agricultural practices are highly mechanized, representing an industrialized, corporate version of farming that reduces the need for labor. In the rural setting, and represented by accompanying lifestyle, austerity and frugality continue to be more commonly practiced where there is, for example, lower per capita expenses on basic necessities as well as lesser money spent on such frivolities as entertainment. Although Amish boundary maintenance continues to restrict certain overt technological practices, many Amish who remain on the farm today use commercial fertilizer, improved seed and breeds, veterinary services and stationary motor power.

Sociologists working with the Amish in recent years (Kraybill and Olshan, 1994;

Kreps et. al., 1997) see that the trend of reduced Amish reliance on agriculture can be interpreted as a serious threat to the core of Amish values and culture. Studies have shown that the number of Amish men working in non-farm occupations has grown dramatically in the recent three decades. Employment patterns reflect ,A.mish negotiation

36 skills of guaranteeing economic survival within the cultural fences dictated by their faith.

Amish professions have become diversified with workers moving into such areas as

factory work and mobile construction crews

According to Kanagy and Kraybill (1995:264), the Amish find themselves in social

transition, and, as they make the ‘shift from plows to profits’ there is an acompanying

transformation in world views This different modem world is characterized by

‘rationality, individuation, efficiency, control, planning and specialization’, traits different

from their heritage, and traits with which the Amish must negotiate. Specialization and

negotiation are increasingly becoming part of the contemporary .Amish lifestyle as a

process that may eventually undermine a fundamental tenet of .Amish culture, which is the

tradition o f family and community responsability (Blair and Hurst, 1997).

As multi-disciplinaiy studies have shown (Berger, 1991 ), subcultures have the

capacity to mobilize resources to develop ethnic enterprises. Indeed, ethnic culture can both empower as well as retard entrepreneurship It has been suggested that ‘social capital’ factors empower commercial ventures among the .Amish. Such factors for the

Amish include: values, norms, customs, skills, kinship, vigorous work ethic, managerial skills from the farm, frugality, strong kinship network, large and stable family units, religious asceticism that rejects consumerism and an emphasis on practical education, especially apprenticeship

However, Amish culture has features that constrain enterpreneurship These include historic values, norms, taboos (against higher education, pride), customs (i e , restrictions on technology) and practices (such as, virtues of humility and modesty)

37 These traditional cultural restraints limit individualism, litigation, economies of scale, and

social interaction which are such integral parts of the modem world (Kraybill and Nolt,

1995).

Amish micro-enterprises can be seen as being negotiated outcomes’ produced by the countervailing forces of ethnic facilitation (the mobilization of cultural resources to form micro-enterprises) and ethnic resistance (the limitation on entrepreneurship and the delimitation which dictates it direction) (Kraybill and Nolt, 1995)

It is quite clear, especially in the larger settlements, that many modem Amish today have chosen not to follow the strategy of church history and tradition, which was to uproot the family and move in search of cheaper land Instead, many Amish men in recent generations have chosen to remain in established communities and have taken on alternative jobs and created new ways for making a living and supporting their families

Perhaps one of the most significant of these economic activities is the establishment of small 'cottage industries' which are based at the .Amish home, often housed in a separate building. The .Amish 'cottage industrv is a family-centered enterprise which serves both .Amish and non-.Amish clientele. .Another home-based activity especially suited to the Amish w oman is that o f furnishing material for a finished product or making home craft for a local shop, an activitv' called putting out'

.Amish entrepreneurs have ventured into numerous manufacturing activities including small equipment, buggy-making, leather products, saw-mills and furniture.

.Amish skills have also been attracted to a wide variety of service-type enterprises such as greenhouses, printing, grocery and dry goods. As is interpreted by a variety of social

38 scientists studying the Amish (Luthy, 1986; Hostetler, 1987; Kraybill, 1989; Kreps, 1987),

it is recognized that the work environment has the capacity to profoundly shape people

and suggest that the safest choice for the Amish would be the home-based ‘cottage

industry’ type of economic activity.

It is also significant to note that the expanding tourist trade has had a significant

impact on the Amish community as well. Whereas some Amish have moved away due to

the English intrusion, others have benefitted from new economic opportunities, especially

Amish women.

The impact of tourism continues to challenge the Amish life, especially the

cherished private life. Some sociologists see tourism as a stimulating factor of Amish life,

which galvanizes the cultural gap and consequently strengthens Amish identity (Kreps

et.al., 1997; Kraybill and Nolt, 1995). At the same time the tourist trade has, perhaps,

generated a greater popular interest in the Amish which in turn creates increased public

sympathy and empathy.

Continuous change manifested in the Amish society in the latter half of this century can perhaps best be summed up in three observable trends (Donnermeyer, 1997): the growth in Amish numbers in terms of church membership as well as church districts resultant of continued large family size and steady pace of church adherence; a growing diversification of Amish denominations, all of whom remain loyal to fundamental Amish traits; and, a shift to non-farm employment due to population pressures within the Amish community and to rising prices for farmland around them.

39 CHAPTER 3

CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN ECONOMIC LIFE OF AMISH SOCIETY: THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

The contemporary world is buttressed upon two basic social-political pillars: development and social change. Jonathon Friedman (in Axford, 1995) for example argues that current global processes, which are present in all comers of social, economic and political life, affect the reproduction of community activity and local identities and that the disorder which seems to be nourished through global processes produces disorder in localities and among local people. With the construction of stable markets and stable political entities by modem states, there appears to be renewed sociological interest in organized social change (McMichael, 1996).

To enable one to understand the foundations of social change it is necessary to recognize that Sociology from its outset is a discipline that has been concemed with the evolution of history and its meaning. In this discipline continuous attempts have been made to explain how society has evolved and at times has attempted to predict future social pattems.

In contemporary society, change has become the prevailing mode of life. Change is a multifaceted phenomena that has become an obsession of westem civilization and has

40 been addressed by the various sectors of the social sciences as change can be political,

economic, cultural, social or technological in nature.

One of the central issues o f our time is change. What is it that is changing in life,

the individual, the group, the institution, the organization? At what rate is change taking

place? What is the magnitude of change? How does one cope with change?

According to Everett Rogers (1960:4) social change is “the continuous process

over a period of time in which differences in human relationships take place”. For many

social change is the significant alteration of social structure and cultural pattems over time

where there is an alteration in the composition or balance of its parts.

Social structure according to Moore (1968:366) is the pattern of social action and interaction manifested in such structures embedded in norms, values and cultural products and symbols. Social structure implies a determined network of social relationships in which interaction between persons or groups has become routine and repetitive (Harper :

1998). According to Vago (1995:8), the most important structural changes are those that have consequences for the functioning of the system, for attaining its goals efficiently or for fulfilling more efficiently the conditions that must be met if the system is to survive.

The maintenance of structure means harmonious relationships between groups, social continuity or the nurturing of tradition, and the existence of those institutions necessary for survival (Radcliffe-Brown, 1956).

41 3.1 Social Change: A Brief Review of Classic Theories

As long as there has been an interest in order within society and a societal concern

over the future image of society, there has been interpretation of social change (Zollschan

and Hirsch, 1976). According to Vago (1989:40), there exists four fragmented and

conflicting theories of social change: evolutionary theory, structural-functional theory,

conflict theory and social psychological theory. Early Sociology focused inquiry on

analysis of change, comparative method, and study of whole societies, which culminated in

the evolutionary studies that dominated sociology in the late 19th century. In social

evolutionary theory sociologists traced parallels to Darwin’s theory of natural, biological

selection. Such an interpretation envisioned social development occurring through various

fixed stages, from savagery to civilization, where each stage was reached based upon a set

of natural laws that preceded each evolving stage. Evolution was espoused as representing

progress where each progressive stage implied a higher level than the previous.

Nineteenth century social evolutionists included Comte, Morgan, Spencer and

Sumner. Comte and Ward for example suggested that society could be reconstructed

through the use of scientific method in their interpretation of the level of human

intelligence that had been reached at that stage in history. Sumner and Spencer, on the other hand, argued that only through competition could progress be achieved. Based upon evolutionary theory, Sumner justified social class because it placed the most capable units or groups at the top of the social order.

Evolutionary theory may be considered to be linear in direction. Although Max

Weber’s approach to social change could be considered two-pronged, in one

42 interpretation Weber saw social change as being of linear origin where culture evolved based upon “a process of constantly increasing rationalization, of growing inner consistency and coherence” (Etzioni-Halevy and Etzioni, 1973). Another sociologist of linear approach is Ferdinand Tonnies who described how small and simple social structures grow and become large and complex ones. Tonnies’ irreversible, cumulative trend was found in the concept of gemeinschaft, representing the primitive, traditional, closely knit social unit whose destiny was to be tom, uprooted and replaced by gesellschafl, representing large, urbanized, industrial society with impersonal and instrumental relations. In this evolutionary interpretation, modem society is seen to have brought new freedoms, knowledge and material affluence as well as alienation, atomization and impersonality. The social construct known as modemization involves what may be called a ‘detraditionalization’ of cultures and replacement of natural order with subjective ordering of natural contingency (Lash, 1993). It was Giddens who brought forth the idea of reflexivity (self-monitoring) which is the quality of the human- being that subjects social practices to constant examination and reformation in the light of incoming information about these practices, thus forming evolving, altering characteristics.

What distinguishes traditional from modem culture is the extent and intensity of reflexive practices.

In more recent interpretations of social evolutionary thought (Lenski et.al., 1995) there is reaffirmation that continuity, innovation and extinction are all basic aspects of the evolutionary process represented by cumulative change involving the gradual addition of new elements to an already established footing. Under this view, evolutionists would

43 classify the Amish as a subculture of folk society identity and origin (Redfield, 1947). The

oral tradition embodied in the ordming^ the reliance on horsepower, a predominance of

primary group relationships, and other pre-industrial cultural artifacts mark the Amish as a

folk society surviving in post-modern times.

A second theory on social change is structural-functional theory, or simply

functionalism. According to structural-functional theory, structure is relatively stable and

portrays patterned relationships of social units. Such structures of society as family,

government, economic system, religion and education involve relative enduring pattems.

Emile Durkheim has been considered as being the first advocate of functionalist

explanation in Sociology, and other prominent early names include Weber, and

Malinowski, to be followed in this century by Parsons and Merton. Functionalism

considers the consequences of any given social activity that makes for the adaptation/adjustment of a given structure or its parts. Functionalism is borrowed from the biological sciences and addresses the dynamic process within the structure. In fact, functionalism during the 2nd half of the 19th century became almost synonymous with sociological theory.

Analysis in structural-functional theory focuses on the interrelationships among institutions in society, where each structure and each part within the larger structure is conceived to have a function in assisting society to operate and preserve itself intact. In this framework there have been identified manifest functions and latent functions. A manifest function is a well understood function that has been built into a social system by design. The latent function on the other hand is unintentional and often goes

44 unrecognized as its consequences are unanticipated in light of the fact that the function

was established to accomplish other objectives. Important, indeed, is that the function of a

recurrent activity (crime, church service, funeral) is the part that it plays in the social life as

a whole, and, consequently the contribution it makes to the maintenance of continuity of the structure (Vago, 1989).

Functional theory may be considered an equilibrium theory dealing with a system of interrelated parts, one that seeks to uncover the general conditions for the maintenance of a social system in stable equilibrium. According to Talcott Parsons (1954), a system is in equilibrium or stable, when the relation between its structure and the processes which goes on within it and between its environment are such as to maintain those properties and relations unchanged. Parsons’ idea of differentiation took into consideration the reformation of social structure where new units are formed in society and related to each other, which requires reintegration.

Functionalism is in principal a static interpretation which specifies the prerequisites o f a system. Remove these prerequisites and the system falls apart: failure implies disintegration, which is one form of change (Etzioni-Halevy and Etzioni, 1973). In such a system, dysfunctional elements cause stresses and strains in a social structure, which eventually leads to institutional breakdown and to basic social change.

A functionalist’s interpretation of the Amish would emphasize the culture’s ability to maintain a rural/agrarian, religiously based pattern of social life. Functionalists would point to the ability of the Amish to self-select new technologies and ideas as a key to their cultural equilibrium. The symbolic importance of plain clothes, the Pennsylvania Dutch

45 dialect, and a series of way of maintaining separation from the “English” world surrounding them (e.g. no public utility hook ups, no participation in social security, and parochial schools) are examples of effective boundary maintenance that strengthens the equilibrium of Amish society.

Conflict theory, the third theory, is founded upon the interpretation that social behavior is best understood in terms of tension and conflict between groups and individuals, where survival is a continuous struggle over the control of valued and scarce resources. Conflict theory arose as a realistic protest against many superficialities in early organismic theories. Instead of society being an organism, social reality is seen as a set of conflicts involving individuals and groups competing for scarce values.

Historically rooted in Marx, conflict theorists intensified the positivism of early sociology. According to Marx, the forces of production are central to shaping society and social change, and argued that capitalistic competition was a means of exploiting the worker. Marxian theory has been seen as important and intuitive in attempting to explain the technological and economic forces that generate tensions and change in capitalist societies. In the interpretation of conflict theory, change is found to be the essential element of social life, and through structural differentiation, social change occurs (Marx,

Dahrendorff Coser). Modem sociological interpretations have grouped conflict theory into four basic types (Vago, 1996): substantive conflict, over highly valued and scarce resources; cultural conflict, relating to lifestyle and values; symbolic conflict, such as that involving alliance to a nation; and, ideological, which includes sexism and racism.

46 One of the more stimulating, exacting debates in Rural Sociology in recent times

was the discussion between Patrick Mooney and Susan Mann concerning theoretical

interpretation of capitalist agricultural development in modem American society, and

revolved around the digression between Weber and Marx on class distinctions, which

could be found in rural lifestyles (Mann and Dickinson, 1987; Mooney, 1987).

The hallmark of American agricultural growth was found by Mooney to be the family farm, which through the adaptation of new technologies, enhanced productivity was gained by self-exploitation. Mooney’s thesis (1983:581) was based on the premise that subjective conditions impact the forms in which agricultural production is carried out.

Mooney draws from a substantive rationalities construct (Chaianov, 1966), which includes such values as work gratification that posits a differentiation in the rural sector is based primarily on life cycles (demographic characteristics) and internal and subjective characteristics of farm households.

The critical Marxist interpretation, here, is that external economic conditions and institutional and structural parameters, over which individual households exercise little influence, are of greatest significance. Indeed, it is a debate over micro versus macro interpretations of development and social change. Mooney (1987) saw the Mann-

Dickinson ( 1987) interpretation as being an overly deterministic, one-dimensional approach which could lead to irrationality, as may be found in the purely ‘economic man’ view of capitalism, i e. the hidden hand rationality of the balance sheet. As well, Mooney felt that Mann-Dickinson exaggerated the concern over the non-identity of labor time and production in small-farmer agricultural production.

47 \\Tiereas Mooney emphasizes subjective motivations, Mann-Dickinson argue that adverse conditions outside the rural sector are more significant factors in identifying rural lifestyles, and they forewarn against the priority Mooney gives to subjective motivation, which permits the separation of means from ends in the farmer decision-making process

In agreement they are. however, when Mann-Dickinson (1987 ) and Mooney (1987 ) acknowledge that a structural analysis seems more powerful than an idealist one

In attempting to explain the capitalist agricultural economy. Marx emphasized property ownership and wage labor as the basis of class in his historical-comparati\ e approach for the analysis of social life. Mooney ( 1983 567) argues that capitalist production can strip surplus \ alue in the form of rent from tenants or in the form of interest from indebted farmers Mann-Dickinson. on the other hand, see that the impure forms of capitalist agricultutral production are shared by petty bourgeois and wage-labor forms, as is the case of part-time farmers, which can lead to social friction in the rural sector Indeed, the .■Xmish have identified with non-farm wage labor more and more in recent years, w hich increasingly will challenge the role of agriculture for survival among the .Ornish (.Mann-Dickinson. 1987)

From a conflict point of \iew . the .Amish are an example of the successful sursival of a subculture from the pow erful forces of assimilation of post-modern capitalist economies The .Amish acceptance of private property and profits creates an inner tension with their emphasis on religious values and a rural agrarian lifestyle These contradictory imperatives wrought through partial accommodation to the "English” world will stimulate further comopromise that es entually could well destroy traditional cultural pattems

4 8 Social-psychological theory is the fourth general theory of social change with

Weber, Hagen, Berger, and McClelland being the primary proponents. Basic to this

concept is that the workings of psychological factors are primarily responsible for

development and social change. This insight centers on the distinctive personality traits of individuals and the psychological ingredients that stimulate people to change and encounter new challenges, recognizing that the differences between modem and traditional societies vary based upon different types of personality. Weber for example stressed that charismatic upheaval brought about change, a cyclical approach where an old structure is replaced by a new structure. Although Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit o f

Capitalism demonstrates the importance of the spiritual sphere of personality in determining the economic structure of society, his sources of change are neither exclusively economic nor exclusively cultural. Weber found rationalism to be a peculiar characteristic of westem, capitalistic society, where first and foremost is the consideration of economic conditions. Peter Berger ( 1974) goes one step further in his interpretation of modernity which he posits is the perception of choice, implying that members of a modem society take control over themselves and over the world in which they live

Within the realm of social-psychological theory, economic rationalism is said to be partly dependent on rational techniques and rational law but at the same time it is determined by the ability and disposition of social actors to adopt certain types of practical rational conduct, which Weber found embedded in the Protestant ethic. Here recognition is made of the significance of religious forces and ethical ideas of duty based upon religion. Religion may be seen as the “culture of community” as religion has the tendency

49 to minimize conflict, in that it grounds solidarity and identity Religion is seen as one of

the most important influences of conduct, and, if rational economic types are confronted

by spiritual obstacles, then the development of rational economic conduct, as

interpreted by Etzioni-Halevy and Etzioni ( 1973 :42), has met serious inner resistance In

synthesis, Arensberg and Niehoff f 1964:117) reflect the ongoing debate and renewed

interest in the sociological controversy about religion by positing that “religious beliefs

constitute both a force for conservatism and a force that can be used as a sanction for

change”.

Whereas Hagen, like Weber, posits that social change based upon differences in

characteristics of personality, McClelland focuses on economic development and that

social change is conditional upon the need for achievement motivation For example, the individualist theory on social change (Coleman, 1973 ) suggests that it is the striving for achievement that creates human capital which can in turn lead to social change From this individualist perspective, social change takes place only when social constraints are released and individuals seek to gain personal achievement or take advantage of an opportunity

A social psychological approach to interpreting .Amish society would emphasize the effectiveness with which the .Amish pass on their cultural traits from one generation to the next. Parochial schools, strong restrictions on the use of the telephone, television, radio and other telecommunications technology , and the small, sectarian basis of their church districts, are seen as mechanisms that develop a unique configuration of personality traits reflective of cultural values The rational choice to be baptized .Amish marks this

50 culture as highly modem, and not merely a remnant of a folk society from pre-industrial days.

3.2 Tradition, Resistance to Change and Cultural Survival

In traditional societies, social interactions are more likely to be face-to-face than mediated by formal institutions and abstract systems. The past is honored and symbols of the past are venerated because they carry and exemplify the experience of generations. In traditional societies the present is given meaning through reference to the past and reflexivity is narrowed to reinterpreting and clarifying tradition. Traditional cultures routinely ‘keep in touch’ with what they do, but in relation to an order that is extant and either God-given or entirely natural.

In modem times, traditional cultures, according to Axford (1995; 162) are destroyed and replaced with cultures built on reflexivity. Here, traditional cultures are still viewed with a certain amount of nostalgia as the residues of authentic communities or as the home of atavistic and savage identities.

Axford ( 1995:11 ), citing Giddens, suggests that modernity does not imply settled relationships and unfolding progress, rather, and more so, a constant state of insecurity with which actors are continually required to come to terms. In these ‘new times' more complex social and cultural divisions are formed, based upon the shifting wants and aspirations of groups that form around any number of themes, issues, and desires.

Identities in modem society are constructed from popular culture and the new lifestyles are nurtured by the mass media and marketing. These social changes can be seen

51 as being liberating in nature and enabling social agents to realize their capabilities. As

modem identities expose ambivalence, modem society struggles to grasp for more secure

social meaning and identity. Real meaning, identity and culture seem to be found today

only in local bastians of authentic, enduring community. Being caught between cultures

and implicated in others, one of modem man’s major concems is being identified as

unauthentic.

One may ask what, then, is it that generates resistance to change? Where

equilibrium and securitty are at stake, all forces that contribute to stability, whether they

be personality or social systems , may be seen as forces that obstruct or resist change.

Whenever there are social tendencies to preserve, there are then innate pressures to seek

and permit the continuation and duration of character, institution, and culture.

When cultural norms are clear and reinforced, it is much more conducive for the

members of a culture to work and live in harmony. Indeed, history portrays examples of

stability and continuity as exemplified in the Chinese and Roman empires. In such cases,

basic institutional pattems and collective identity were seen as paramount to societal

stability and continuance. However, throughout such extended periods, adaptation,

innovation and social change were all taking place (Eisenstadt, 1973).

Certainly, as found in history, activity that is disruptive to society is that which is

seen as being abnormal. Therefore, whenever one deviates noticeably from the group’s norms there will be a rather immediate attempt at correcting the person’s behavior or the purposive distancing from the group of the individual will lead to exclusion.

52 The greatest resistance to change concems issues dealing with what is held to be

sacred (lannaccone, 1994). Change that affects religious rituals is more likely to be

resisted as religious based cultures hold onto rituals and tradition with more enthusiasm.

If technology or education appear to impinge on religious beliefs, practices or norms, then

these worldly social constructs will be strongly countered.

In order to understand cultural survival, psychological need as well as cultural

form and historical proceedings need to be taken into account. As William Ogbum

(1966:176) points out, perhaps the most commonly recognized psychological trait that

resists change is habit. Habit is of either psychological or physiological origin and is

simply the repetitive action of doing something again and again in the very same way.

Where one finds reverence for the past there may be found cultural inertia, what modem

ethnologists interpret as the apparent slowness of change.

Where there is a longstanding tradition of cultural orderliness and routine that

engenders repetition, then it is the culture that is perpetuating stability and fortifying

habits. In addition to fortifying habit, it is socially enforced conformity to group standards

that creates resistance to change (Ogbum, 1966 ). Indeed, one is hesitant to deviate from

a code of behavior and is quite sensitive to the pressure to conform to group established

rules and practices, which implies a psychological basis of collective behavior.

Individual desires which tend to be immediate and egoistic in nature are restricted by group pressure to maintain identity and unity which are interpreted as being paramount elements which generate the greatest utility (usefulness, wantedness) in the guaranteeing

53 of survival. It seems quite clear that orderliness of social organization and habitat help make life simple when it comes to judgment and prediction.

In taking a special look at the rural setting of the Amish, the changes that have taken place in agricultural structure over the years have interested both scientists and policymakers. At the same time there has been an increasing interest in small scale farmers who continue to survive. Whereas the traditional agriculturists may find little interest in the small farm, recent escalating interests in natural resource and environmental concems have kept interests fermenting over the sociological concern about lifestyle, a question unanswered and unresolved.

There are social scientists who find the concept o f folk society (Redfield, 1947) helpful in understanding the practices characterized in Amish society. Marc Olshan (1981) argues that such an interpretation does not encourage an understanding of the Amish, but rather, “accepts and reflects an uncritical acceptance of a reified conceptual schema”.

According to Olshan, the Redfield folk society ideal type, lacking in pensive and reflective thought, does not fit the Amish and goes on to interject that the Amish, quite consciously, are aware of their traditional social institutions and apparel which may be representative of a folk society. Indeed, Amish transformations are consciously justified and accepted with the resolve to strengthen their lifestyles, including values, attitudes, tastes and preferences so often reflected in their “non-consuming” (Ketchum, 1979) sub-culture, that have typified the Amish for many years.

54 3.3 The Significance of Rational Choice Theory

Conscious actions in a society involves rationality as a precept. The Amish, for example, are considered by some social scientists as being ‘‘the most consciously engineered subculture today in existence” (Donnermeyer, 1997).

The concept of rationality has a strong appeal in contemporary westem thinking, and its roots may be found in early philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle.

Rationality was addressed in the medieval period by St. Thomas Aquinas and followed by

Descartes as precursors of the modem age, when a new methodological conduct of life was expected of government officials and entrepreneurs as well as organizational measures related to formal law.

Occidental rationalism grew out o f the process of disenchantment in the history of religion, from the religious rationalization that preceded the Enlightenment Period, when the courage to make use of one’s own reasons was played out in the confrontation against the traditional powers of church and state. The concept of rationalism displayed a utopian interest and according to Smelser (1992:383) contributed significantly to the confrontation of the irrational constraints associated with the traditional dominance of monarchy, aristocracy and church. The more significant foundations of rational choice theory are found in the 18th and 19th century rational pursuit of self-interest in utilitarianism and in the individualistic moral political rationality of the Enlightenment as expressed by Locke and Rousseau (Smelser, 1992).

Central to classical westem economic theory, as expressed by Adam Smith, David

Ricardo and Menger (1883), are premises based upon individual psychology and its

55 implications involving human behavior in the market economy Economics grew as a

discipline and to a great extent followed Smith’s interpretation of economic activity which

resulted from the wide spectrum of opportunities, choices and decisions available to

individuals (Wallace and Wolf, 1991) Within this framework utilitarian economics was

established with both a positive and normative character, where economic individuals are

motivated to maximize their material well-being, known as ‘utility’, and, in this economic

tradition, rationality has been viewed as an intervening constant, not a psychological

process (Smelser, 1992).

Rational choice theory may be considered a theory of human action, where rational

decisions are made based upon beliefs or goals. The central premise of the rational choice

paradigm is that ‘behavior is goal-directed and calculating’, and this has especially been

played out in the economic arena.

Economists have tended to include in their account of rationality at least one

substantive assumption, that being egoistical, with the primary concern being to maximize

the personal interests of individuals. Purely economic rational choice may be modeled

through concepts of costs and reward.

Contemporary rational choice theory departs from methodological individualism

where individual actions are stimulated by wants, goals and values that are sought by

individuals who chose a given course of action based upon the likely outcome of possible alternative actions. Rational action is often assumed to be self-interested action since rational individuals chose the alternative that seems to yield the greatest satisfaction

56 Indeed, economic rational choice theory has in large part dealt with production,

distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Many contemporary rational choice

theorists argue that economic rational choice theory, which deals with monetary exchange,

can be extrapolated to social interaction and social rational choice. However, Nobel

economist Frederich Hayek’s model of rational action argues that the rational actions of

many individuals intertwine to form complex structures which exhibit organization built

upon regularities in the action that generate these structures and not the result of

conscious individual design. At issue here is the significance of the unintended

consequences of rational action.

Hayek (1967) argues that rational individuals are followers of learned rules which

evolve through practical experience that lead individuals to choose ways that bring them the greatest returns. Individuals acquire the skills to act according to rules, and it is through rationally-oriented rule-following that social structures spontaneously emerge.

Hayek argues that a structure that produces what appears to be the best possible results for individuals does not necessarily produce the greatest possible collective welfare. As

Scott points out (1995. 95), Hayek’s work provides the basis for integrating diverse thoughts of rational choice theory.

3.3.1 Collective Action

Rational choice theory has gained status within the social sciences in recent years.

Rational choice theory is of particular interest among economists and political scientists in their dealings with policy topics of public choice, crime control and demographic planning,

57 and, rational choice studies have truly taken on an inter-disciplinary approach. Collective

action theory in particular is an area of applied rational theory widely used by economists

in analyzing problems dealing public goods, and as well is seen to provide the basis for the

explanation of a wide variety of social behaviors, from collective strikes to price fixing.

Based upon the utility theory of economic activity, it is possible to compare values

of heterogenous goods and to choose between alternative goods The role of rational choice theory is to formalize the capacity of choosing and encompasses basic logical

premises including that the agent of rational action always seeks greatest utility which can be measured on a continuous scale In the rational choice interpretation of utility, interpersonal comparisons are not required. Instead, when analyzing goals, one attempts to describe the agent’s preference ranking, using an ordinal framework, which does not interpret intensity.

Game theory on the other hand implies a strategic rationality of decision-making and is especially attractive to both economists and business management scholars Game theory is concemed with sets of choices and alternatives and with identifying repetitive dilemmas and assimilating a variety of behavior strategies. In game theory one finds both optimal and stable solutions for a number of alternative choices

The theory of utility is in effect in game theory and it is assumed that decisions are based upon rational self-interest. The benefit to one individual is based upon the choice made by the other participating players, where each decision-maker takes into consideration the rational calculations of the other players. Optimal choices are based

58 upon the assumption that all game participants are making equally rational decisions from the knowledge available to them.

Best known of all good game theory is ‘the prisoners’ dilemma’, a paradox of collective rationality involving a non-zero-sum game of two alternatives, either cooperate or defect. This notion of game theory is widely recognized as an acceptable approach to rational choice circumstances, especially when dealing with power showdowns found in political and economic arenas. Where there is concern over normative motivation towards fairness and if trust can be demonstrated in cooperative efforts, then conditional cooperation may be seen as a rational strategy (Axelrod, 1984; Taylor, 1987).

The technical accomplishments of collective action theory have been widely questioned, however, sociologists find interest in game theory as past events seem to become clearer and future outcomes seem to be more predictable. For example, Mancur

Olson ( 1965 ) questions whether a group will act in collectivity in their pursuit of common interests. Olson argues that as long as there are individuals motivated by self interest, a collective goal will be obtained only if there exists some type of outside coercion of persuasion that will stimulate group members to act in the interest of their common good

(1965 :44). If Olson is correct, that individual decisions are based upon private interests, then collective action theory loses its relevance, and would seem to confirm that rational individuals have not the will of collective action to obtain collective benefits.

59 3.3.2 Social Interaction

During the early years, sociology showed little interest in human exchange

activities From the studies of Bronislaw Malinowski (1926) and Georg Simmel (1950),

exchange has evolved to justify the role that human exchange plays in generating social

cohesion

Rational choice theories have generally sought to explain what individuals will do

with given norms and institutions, however, in their analysis, institutions have often been

treated as a constant In social exchange theory, it is the existence of repetitive

generalized norms that governs social exchange Within the early social exchange

framework. Malinowsky insisted upon the oinding norm of reciprocity', w hich implies a

socially enforced commitment to exchange It may be said that from its very beginning

exchange theory found behaxiorist psychology to be very fundamental for its evolution

There have been studies on rational choice where social institutions were treated as

variables displaying causal impact in the identification of preference functions and behavior

(Leinhardt. 1980. Plott. 1982) .\t the same time, the generalization of the ideas of

rationality and estimation have also been applied to non-economic domains (Kenneth

.Arrow. 1951. Gary Becker. 1965)

Whereas Talcott Parsons rejected psychological explanation and has championed a holistic approach based upon deterministic social facts. George Homans argued (1974) that one must first look at individual, self-interested action if one is to understand social institutions and social practices Since western economic theorv had been constructed upon the basis o f individual behavior. Homans reasoned that social structures need to be

60 conceived in terms of behavioral psychology and that sociology would evolve by

constructing theory with the same rationale. At the same time, Homans recognized that

social theory could not merely emulate economic theory as many economic postulates were unacceptable in sociology

According to Homans (1974), psychological axioms are the essential building blocks of all social sciences, and, social exchange takes place only when both parties involved are reaping benefits. Those who participate in social exchange commit themselves to the assessment of costs and benefits, and these assessments are not simply economic in nature, as social benefits may accrue concurrently, alongside economic sacrifice. In essence, social approval cannot be measured in economic terms, however, according to rational choice theorists such as Homans, this issue is a technical problem that can be mediated through theoretical models of comparisons involving ‘preference ordering'

According to Homans, the psychological basis of rational action is based upon behavior which is shaped by rewards and punishments When an indi\idua.l is confronted with a similar circumstance then similar behavior can be expected Drawing upon B F

Skinner's behavior school of experimental psychology. Homans w as interested in constructing an adequate theory of human behavior based upon the responses that arise from observable stimuli. Social behavior is seen to reflect the issue of mutual reinforcement where self-interest exchange seeks rewards and avoids punishment In society, groups members offer social approval to each other as they attempt to react in ways that their associates approve and correspond so as to attain acceptance and acclaim

61 Social approval, as money in economic exchange, serves as the genral means of

exchange in social interaction, and the ability to strengthen human behavior is found in the effectiveness of punishment or reward. In Homans’ interpretation of small group behavior, he found that different cultures reflect different values and that the measuring of rewards and punishments were culturally bounded. The value of a reward is the utility that it expresses for an individual person. When nothing else is at stake, social approval is the product o f exchange (Homans, 1974).

Homans’ version of social exchange deals with small, informal groups and interpersonal relationships, and by holding human values as a constant Homans, according to Wallace and Wolf (1995:202), has been quite successful in producing satisfactory deductive explanation of human behavior in small group circumstances.

Critics of social exchange argue that independent measures of subjective value is needed, that Homans’ empirically verifiable ‘value proposition’ was incomplete and needed more precise measuring of social values and preferences (Emerson, 1987).

Whereas Homans argues that human psychology is responsible for explaining human norms, James Coleman sees group norms emerging naturally in the course of rational interaction as it is in the best interest of group formation and survival. According to Coleman, if value is placed on the future relationship between agents then more time will be spent together, consequently generating more interdependence of agents and an incentive to cooperate.

Of critical concern in rational choice theory today is the argument put forward by

Scott (1995:86) that it is necessary to go beyond the aspect o f the individual behavior

6 2 framework and search for the understanding of how groups and societies are formed and

how norms are established from their very outset. What is clear is that there are

sociological variants of rational choice theory that deserve attention in the interest of

creating social stability and cooperation. For example, the activity o f‘tit for tat’ is seen as

a useful strategy if there is interest in maintaining continuing relationships (Wallace and

W olf 1995).

Indeed, individual rationality has received recent increased criticism from

sociologists, characterizing individual rationality as being ‘insensitive to features of human

action and deliberation’. Sen ( 1987) for example argues for a more structured concept of

practical reason which should take into consideration the ‘commitments’ of agents, which

would include moral, political and welfare concerns.

Thomas Nagel (1970) takes practical rationality a step further by insisting that

practical rationality is more comprehensive than economic rationality. According to

Nagel, rationality requires altruism which implies the recognition of the interests of others, and a willingness considers the interests of others. If collective interests, for example, are truly concerned with such altruistic considerations as fairness, reciprocity and justice, then rational action will be different than that as presented in traditional, collective, rational choice theory. One may consider that in addition to psychology or agency, rational actions are contingent to the social environment of the actors, and, that there are substantive differences in each group’s environment where choice is made.

Social science analysis deals with culturally specific norms, values and meanings, which is what can be applied to a universal mode as is done in rational choice theory.

63 Questioned and criticized is the fact that statistical interpretations of empirical evidence

does not address the state of societal events based upon facts representing an agent’s state

of mind. In the more complex real-world situations, decision-making is often fulfilled

through the activity of what is known as ‘satisficing’. ‘Satisficing’ involves the

establishing of minimal parameters that must be met, then choosing the first alternative

that complies with previously established parameters. This process results in a

satisfactory, less costly, less time consuming, less optimal decision which is quite clearly

not in conformity with ‘rationality’. What leads to greatest satisfaction still remains

unexplained, that is, when it comes to motivation which derives from either self-interest or

altruism.

Rational choice theory recognizes that decisions are made by purposive actors

within a framework of interdependent opportunities and specific preferences. By using

simplifying assumptions and by identifying agents’ background beliefs and goals, rational

choice theorists attempt to explain human behavior and provide the foundation for

explaining a variety of social events in different social settings.

It seems apparent that contemporary social rational choice theory has departed

from methodological individualism and the mathematical sophistications as found in Blau

(1964), Coleman (1973) and Cook (1987). Those who continue to be critical of rational

choice theory and argue that abstract descriptions of human behavior have little explanatory value are the interpretative social scientists who seek more in-depth descriptions of human action.

64 As Goldthorpe ( 1997) points, out there has been, in recent years, a notable

increase in the quantity and quality of survey-based sociology of comparative character.

Now that structural functionalism has subsided, Goldthorpe (1997:409) suggests that

rational action theory can be seen as a promising basis to start to reconstruct a theory of

action of some kind. There are new approaches to rationality, new conceptions that

confer greater realism and imply subjective rather than objective rationality as seen from the position of the actor.

As Goldthorpe notes, in Sociology there is no pretense of strong theory in dealing with rational action theory, which is contrary to the approach found in Economics.

However, in addition to the ethnocentric criticism of rational choice theory, the tension between analytic simplicity and realism has not dissipated.

3.4 The Framework for Human Ecology

Human Ecology is an heir of “The Chicago School” of sociological thinking, as expressed in Durkheim, Marx, Spencer, Darwin, Bagehot, Malthus and Montesquieu.

Human Ecology is a naturalistic theme which addresses the complexities of human life that arise from the exigencies of obtaining and maintaining a livelihood from available resources (Hawley, 1944)

The ‘Chicago School’ of sociology dominated the maturing American social sciences during the inter-war period of the first half of the twentieth century, based upon a distinctive body of theory, including Human Ecology, and a set of problems, which found much focus in urban studies,

65 The founding mentor of Human Ecology was Robert E, Park, closely accompanied

by his two proteges; Roderick D. McKenzie and Ernest W. Burgess. Both proteges of

Park had studied at the University of Chicago, then taught at The Ohio State University,

before going on to their respective, more permanent, professional careers: Mckenzie of the

University of Washington, then later University of Michigan, and Burgess returning to the

University of Chicago.

Human Ecology as a discipline finds its roots in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and his original interest in understanding the mutual interdependence of species and their struggle for existence. Park posited that all living organisms, plants and animals, are bound together in a vast system of interlinked and interdependent lives, known as a ‘web of life’, which may be referred to as a system of organization. The early emphasis of

Human Ecology as found in Park (1929), Burgess (1925) and McKenzie (1934) emphasized the description of natural areas of urban communities, and the spatial distribution of social institutions and activities.

The human ecological conceptual framework was built upon a distinction between

‘community’ and ‘society’ (AJlihan, 1964), with community being regarded as the subject matter o f‘human ecology’ and society becoming the interest o f‘social psychology'.

However, for McKenzie there was no room for distinction between community and society in his format and identity of ecological factors. According to AJlihan’s (1964:

243) interpretation, McKenzie viewed Human Ecology as ‘the study of the spatial and temporal relations of human beings as affected by the selective, distributive and accommodative forces of the environment’, where community was seen as being an

6 6 organism merging with environment into one. In the early interpretations of Human

Ecology, society was superimposed upon community with the basic process being

competition, and process necessarily taking on a greater importance than structure

(AJlihan; 1964).

The community in human ecology was viewed as being symbiotic in nature,

interrelated in the most complex manner and competing for the preservation of balance,

which leads to cooperation and eventual survival (Park). Whereas human ecology for

Burgess focused in on the process of competition and the consequent distribution and

segregation of community by residence and occupation, both McKenzie and Park looked

more closely at regional aspects, such as dealing with trade areas In this latter

interpretation, various factors, including transportation, communications, telephones and

newspapers were found to have brought about greater mobility, concentration and

differentiation in communities.

Park seems to interpret human ecology as being neither economics nor geography.

He finds that human ecology, focusing upon social order that is based upon competition

(the biotic level) rather than consensus (the cultural level), is identical, in principle, with

plant and animal ecology. However, whereas plant and animal communities are

biologically determined, human society, with a communal structure, is reinforced by

custom and takes on an institution character. In human society, custom and culture limit

competition and it is the cultural superstructure that imposes itself as an instrument of direction and control upon the biotic substructure (Park, 1929).

67 Park posited that only the sub-social level of organization could be investigated in

ecological analysis and it is this biotic level of organization that represents reality, as

designated by the term community.

3.4.1 Neo-Ecology

At mid-century, following WWII, Human Ecology took on a marked shift with

Amos Hawley leading the way and identifying Human Ecology as being “the study of the

form and the development of the community in human populations” (1950, 68). Human

Ecology at this moment seemed to show more interest in studying the human

interdependencies that develop in the action and reaction of a population in its habitat by

analyzing the process and organization of relations involved in adjustment to environment

and attempting to describe the development process as well as the form of man’s

adjustment to his habitat. The survival of community was interpreted as being contingent

upon relationships of interactive organisms pertaining to social, not biological, process

(Hawley, 1944)

The principal unit of organization was designated as being the community,

essentially the economy with interest directed to the form or patterns of human sustenance

relations, the process of development of such patterns, and the factors that affect their development (Hawley, 1950). General concern is found to be with individuals and groups seeking position in a developing system of relationships, whereas central sociological concern addresses the development and organization of community According to

Hawley (1950, 73) the activities and relationships involving sustenance are inextricably

68 blended with sentiments, value systems and other ideational constructs, and, that quest for

relationships of humans to live together in their habitat is what yields a description of

community structure where balance, that is, the relationship of population to its habitat, is

the most important issue confronting mankind.

According to Hawley, the community was represented by two types of groups: the

corporate group, with an elaborate division of labor and responsible for the productive and

exchange functions of community life; and the categoric group, characterized by

homogeneity of membership and given the task of identifying and preserving that which is

necessary for group survival.

In a later, more grounded, interpretation Hawley (1968:33 1-34) suggested five

principles of ecological organization: interdependence, the key function, differentiation,

dominance and isomorphism. Here, Hawley’s perception of ecological change, as expressed by Micklin and Choldin (1984:65), emphasizes the significance of external conditions, where adaptation would take place as collective accomplishment based upon human population organization, which is so vital to group survival Categoric groupings are represented in such description as occupation, sex, and social class, whereas corporate grouping is found in family, association and territorial form (1950:211 ).

Before the reinterpreted and refocused concept espoused by Hawley (1944; 1950), known as neo-ecology (Theodorsen, 1961), human ecology was losing its edge. Hawley's approach focused on the simultaneous and complementary symbiotic- commensalistic relationships that constituted the basis for community cohesion and group survival (1950:209).

69 Human Ecology studies have been seen to contribute to understanding patterns of

social evolution and explaining contemporary social trends. As closer examination is

made of societies in process of achieving adaptation to its environment and subsequent

survival, it is felt that human ecology can contribute to a better understanding of

how modem societies have formed and where they may be going, as expressed in Duncan

and Schnore’s belief that a human ecological approach has considerable potential for

prediction (1959; 145). In synthesis. Human Ecology is seen as being an alternative, anti­

reductionist paradigm within sociology. Hawley’s conception of a new ecology, which

reduced the emphasis on spatial relations and removed the distinction between the social

and sub-social, included the sociocultural and projected the field as a framework to treat

the substantial content o f collective human life (Murdock and Sutton, 1974).

3.5 The POET Model

Subsequent to Hawley, Human Ecology attracted alternative approaches of study,

most significant being the conceptual, ’‘ecological complex’, framework formulated by

Otis D. Duncan and Leo F Schnore, becoming widely known as the POET Model

(Duncan and Schnore, 1959). The so-called “ecological complex' consists of four

interdependent categories of variables: Population, Organization, Environment and

Technology The unit of analysis is a human population viewed in the context of the entire ecosystem (Duncan, 1959: Duncan, 1964).

According to Duncan and Schnore, Human Ecology treats population as a system and is concerned with the functions of social organization. Population is the element

70 through which various modes of aggregation adapt to a set of environmental factors,

where empirical measurements are made at the group level and not upon individual

organisms.

In the neo-ecology approach, it is organization that is of principal focus. In the

POET Model, ‘Organization’ is assumed to be a property of the population that has

evolved and is sustained in the process of adaptation of the population to its environment

(1959:136). It has been argued that the most important consideration for survival is man’s

collective organization in the exploitation of available resources, otherwise known as

‘sustenance survival’ (Bibbs and Martin, 1959). Here, the prime interest is in understanding and explaining the particular characteristics o f‘sustenance organization’, where the recommended unit of analysis is a collective organization, not simply a community. Changes in independent variables lead to changes in sustenance organization, and survival is maintained when there is adaptation to changes in sustenance organization.

An innovative vision of neo-ecology is that human populations are often the most

Important and unique aspect of an environment (Lampard, 1955). The ‘Environment’ offers resources that can be exploited for purposes of survival: however, the environment also poses restrictive conditions that must be adjusted to. Technology encompasses all techniques and practices which man utilizes to increase his capacity to adapt to the environment and includes the whole cultural heritage as well as material apparatus.

In the POET Model any of the four categories can serve as either the dependent or independent variables, although, in most of these ecological studies the organizational structure has been considered to be the dependent variable. In the POET Model, as in all

71 areas of Sociology, overlapping and interdependent units of analysis are analytically

manipulated and, when ordered, an understanding and interpretation of the organization of

an ecological complex of activities is obtained

In the tradition of the POET Model, a Rural Sociological attempt w as made at

interpreting how ecological variables affect the prevalence of part-time farming during a

period of transition in American agriculture (.Albrecht and Murdock, 1984) In their

ecological model, .Albrecht and Murdock (1984:393) proposed that the organizational

niche garnered by part-time farming was due to a complex of environmental,

technological, sustenance and other variables. Both farm and nonfarm variables were

found to be relevant in helping to explain the practice of part-time farming and that such

an understanding is multifaceted and multidimensional.

3.6 The Study Framework

As widely recognized, recent interest in social change, in particular in Rural

Sociology since the early 1980's, has focused on rapid growth, population shifts and rural

'boomtown' development

With the rate of social, and related, changes that have been recently imposed upon contemporary societies, indeed, those who are concerned about cultural identity and survival must be able to recognize relationships and distinguish the numerous adaptations and alternatives that may be pursued by groups and subcultures

As expressed in the significant recent increase in the .Anish population, the demographic structure of the .Amish population is undergoing important change

72 Likewise, the diversity of technological capacities are notably impacting the Amish

sustenance base. However, perhaps the greatest influence upon today’s Amish, especially

regarding adaptations and social change, is the both physical and social environment in

which they choose to live.

In accordance with the rational choice approach, higher levels of technological adaptation are positively related to survival. Indeed, small-scale enterprise and alternative job selection has served as a form of adaptation for the Amish (Kraybill and Nolt, 1995).

As proposed and interpreted in this study, the survival o f the Amish is dependent upon the Amish population’s capacity to adjust and adapt to their environment, to technology that surrounds them, and to the diversity of their sustenance bases, that is, how they make a livelihood. Human survival may be analyzed by interpreting the ways people act collectively in their interest toward achieving a more effective purpose in their environment.

The methodological approach here focuses on identifying empirical relationships which may lead to logically interrelated affirmations about .Amish sustenance and survival

The original interpretation of the POET model, an open systems model, is one which does not, in principle, incorporate ideas and ideology, it is an essentially materialistic' concept which posits in reciprocal relationships, where boundaries are alterable It is worthy to recognize the conceptual influence of the POET Model, however, my interest here is to examine ecological relationships from a sociological point of view Instead of looking at the .Amish social system as a set of independent and differentiated units, the

73 methodological approach I have taken recognizes the increasing web of interdependencies

found in contemporary Amish society.

3.7 Purpose of Study

In the social sciences it is widely recognized that different forms o f behavior are

based upon different cultural environments and that the various subcultures produce

divergent views and perceptions about life (Rossides, 1990). It has been argued from an

ecological perspective that human populations survive based upon their collective

organization (Gibbs and Martin, 1959.30), as seen through the intricate interrelationships

that sustain a society.

A sustenance organizational model approach seeks to identify the patterning of

social relationships that are manifested in sustenance activities (Poston et. al., 1984) By classifying sustenance functions, 1 propose to identify the degree of sustenance differentiation, which serves as a significant indicator for interpreting societal organization and eventual survival.

The general objectives of this study are: to contribute to a better understanding of significant factors that affect patterns of change within the Amish sub-culture. By identifying significant ecological factors this study purports to interpret what sustenance roles the Amish will perform, and it attempts to project alternative scenarios for Amish survival into the 21 st century.

The more specific objectives of this study include: to generate a comparative description of contemporary Amish communities including such factors as community,

74 location, growth dynamics and sustenance diversity; to evaluate the existence of

relationships betweeen social, environment, and technological/economic factors that affect

patterns of change within Amish communities; and, to evaluate the primacy of the various

types of effects that may hinder or promote Amish survival. This is accomplished by

examining the structure of the occupational identity of the Amish adult male as the

principal breadwinner within various Amish communities, and how variations in these

structures between communities are related to their external environment.

3.8 Hypotheses

As has been expressed by Wallace and Wolf (1991:229), intentional communities

survive to the degree that they use exactly the compliance mechanisms that succeed

elsewhere. In such communities an individual is expected to enforce obligations, generate

dependence , monitor members’ actions, attend regular-ritualized meetings, impose high

costs on leaving, and make rewards collective. The over-arching hypotheses presented

here pertain to the broader interpretation of an intentional community based on the POET

model and the concepts of rationality and reflectivity as described in the human ecology

and rational choice theories. It should be emphasized that this study is largely exploratory

in nature. The POET model and rational choice theory are used as heuristics for the development of two general hypotheses about variations in the sustenance organization, as

represented by the occupational structure of Amish males, from one settlement to another.

75 L The social structure of the area surrounding an Amish settlement

influences occupational opportunities and sustenance alternatives within the Amish

subculture.

At the same time, in contemporary society, social and economic well-being and sustenance maintenance are derived within a system of ever-changing and increasingly complex occupational opportunities and selection processes. Within the paradigm of human ecology, interest in this study is to interpret and better understand how the Amish adjust to the surrounding social and cultural environment.

The POET model suggests that occupational opportunities are more diverse when located in areas with greater urbanization. Amish settlements in areas that are more rural and agricultural will exhibit a more narrow range of occupations that reflect their traditional farm-dominated history of sustenance.

II. Economic structure of the Amish is related to the economic structure of the community.

As the economic restructuring of the “outside world” creates change, the Amish latently chart a fresh focus in the interest of their economic existence. In looking at the economic composition of the Amish, their occupational choice may be seen as the girder of the Amish sub-culture. Changing economic structure embraces creativity and diversity, and it is herein posited that Amish economic structure and sustenance maintenance is directly related to the “outside” economic structure of community.

If the surrounding environment and the economic structure of the community do not impact upon the Amish sub-culture, there will be found no diversity in Amish

76 occupations. However, both the POET model and rational choice theory suggest otherwise. Occupations of Amish males will vary from setlement to settlement based on economic features of the host area. The Amish have several centuries of experience in surviving various challenges presented to them by the societies surrounding them.

Although the Amish will resist some influences that threaten the core of their religious beliefs and practices, they more likely will attempt various forms of accommodation.

These should be reflected in co-variation o f sustenance activities of Amish males with economic characteristics of areas where Amish settlements are located.

77 CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

The scholarly interpretation of the Amish subculture is often found in two distinct points of view within the social sciences. Whereas some social scientiests interpret the

.\mish as in a struggle against the modern world, others believe the Amish to be rational individuals who adjust their lifestyles in the interest of guaranteeing their subcultural identity and survival. In other words, the .-\mish are modem It is the juxtaposition of these two view s that forms the research question tor this dissertation, the adoption of the

POET model framework, and the selection of specific variables In this chapter, the methodology of the study is reviewed This includes a descnption of how the data w as collected, the operationalization of dependent and independent v ariables, and data analysis

4.1 Area of Study

The .Amish are a unique subculture scattered throughout North .America w ith more than 200 permanent settlements existing in Canada and the United States Since arriving in North .America, the .Amish have established hundreds of communities in 34 different

78 States. Some however have failed. Today there are 220 communities in 21 states

(Garrett. 1996). About 75 percent of these are less than 25 years old.

This study is about human relationships and their impact on social change within the subculture of the Amish. Analyzed here is the pattern of social action and interaction as interpreted through the alteration of the structure of Amish occupations based on the economic and social structure of the area surrounding them. In other words, this is a study of how the Amish maintain and change their economic base.

For this study, Amish Directories served as the principal source for Amish data and were obtained from settlements in 10 different states(see Table 4.1 ). The units of analysis are the settlement itself, and county in which the settlement is located. All variables are aggregated measures.

4.2 Description of Directories

The Amish directories are important and reliable sources of information for Amish family registration. Names (alphabetically by male head of household) are organized by church district and include family address, occupation of household head, and dates of birth, marriage and death. Some directories also include migration data and membership status (i.e baptism status of children) Examples of information from several directories is found in Appendix G It should be noted that until a widowed Amish woman remarries, her name and all family information is still listed under her deceased husband’s name.

These cases were not included in this study.

79 Active Extinct

Pennsylvania* 1760 Louisiana 1850 Ohio* 1808 West Virginia 1850 New York 1831 Oregon 1879 Illinois* 1831 Nebraska 1880 Maryland 1833 North Dakota 1894 Indiana* 1839 Mississippi 1896 Iowa* 1840 Alabama 1906 Missouri* 1855 Arizona 1908 Kansas* 1869 Colorado 1909 Tennessee 1890 Georgia 1912 Minnesota 1891 California 1913 Virginia 1892 New Mexico 1921 Oklahoma* 1893 Arkansas 1927 Michigan* 1895 Montana 1903 Texas 1909 Wisconsin 1909 Delaware* 1915 North Carolina 1918 Florida 1927 Kentucky 1958 source; Garrett : 1996 * states from which Amish directories were obtained for this study

Table 4.1: Pioneer Amish Settlements by State and Date of Foundation in the United States

80 The directories also present a geographical orientation of each church district that

identifies the location of each family, as well as additional important landmarks such as

the local school, cemetery, milk stations, watersheds and low water crossings. As

expressed in the words of the editor of one Amish directory, the book “serves as a

reference of information and interest”; for example, such general knowledge as church

district leadership (bishop, minister, deacon), membership status, brief histories of

settlement origin and evolution, and other “Amish happenings” are expected content.

Amish directories have been published now for more than fifty years in some communities,

and are up-dated at relatively frequent intervals. The data for the directories is obtained

directly from each church district by trained “Amish census-takers”. The training is

informal, but does include a standard reporting form shared between the communities.

Data for this study were obtained from church directories, all published during the

1990's, for 56 Amish settlements ranging in size from one church district to 156 church

districts, and representing 25% of the total number of North American Amish settlements.

This study involves 468 church districts, or 47% of total Amish church districts located

in the US and Canada, according to Garrett (1996). Of special significance here is the fact that three of the four largest Amish settlements in existence today, Holmes-Wayne counties of Ohio, Elkhart-La Grange counties of Indiana, and Geauga County, Ohio are included.

81 4.3 Operationalization of Variables

The dependent and independent variables identified for this study have emerged

from theoretical and empirical literature discussed above. The unit for all measurement is

the Amish settlement, 56 in total, and the county in which each stttlement is located.

4.3.1 Dependent Variables

There are 3 dependent variables used in this study: (1) the Diversity Index; (2) the

Farm/Non-Farm Ratio; and (3) the Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio. All 3 variables were

generated from the Amish data on occupational status obtained for this study.

4.3.1.1 Diversity Index

Diversity in sustenance maintenance is one approach to survival. Diversity here is

operationalized by measuring the composition of occupations in the Amish community.

Borrowing from Greenberg’s (1956) measure of linguistic diversity, the basic formula used in this study is. Diversity = I - ^ ( P; ’ ), where Diversity is equal to 1 minus the sum of P squared, where P is the percentage of those in the population that can be grouped into a particular category. A total of 44 occupational categories were identified from the 56 Amish directories for measuring the Diversity Index. The occupational category of “other” was found to be small and insignificant (5 .2%), and was eliminated for purposes of calculating the diversity score. The larger the diversity of occupations listed for Amish men in the directories, the higher will be the diversity score.

82 4.3.1.2 Farm/Non-Farm Ratio - The Farm/Non-Farm Ratio (FNFRAT) identifies the

relationship between Amish men in farming and those who have selected other

occupational activities. Farming is the traditional occupation of the Amish and the

FNFRAT indicator measures the degree to which farming remains dominant. The

breakdown is dichotomous and calculation is made by simply dividing the total number of

men involved in farming by the total of all remaining Amish men, where total farming

consists of four agricultural groups: active farmer, retired farmer, men listed with dual occupations of which one is farming, and farm worker. The higher the score for

FNFRAT, the greater is the concentration of farm occupation in any given settlement.

4.3.1.3 Carpenter/Non-Carpen ter Ratio

Carpentry was the second most important occupational choice for Amish men in the 56 directories. The Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio (CNCRAT) uses the FNFRAT template, only substituting Carpenter for Farmer, where total number of carpenters incorporates the 3 sub-groupings of carpenters identified for this study. These groups were furniture maker/woodworker, construction crew, and a carpenter (specific activity not specified). The higher the CNCRAT , the greater is the number of carpenters in an

Amish settlement.

4.3.2 Independent Variables

The independent variables selected for this study are arranged into 6 general groups: (1) geographical characteristics of the area; (2) population characteristics of the

83 area; (3) labor force characteristics of the area; (4) social characteristics of the area; (5)

agricultural characteristics of the area; and (6) characteristics of the Amish settlement.

4.3.2.1 Geographic Characteristics of the Area

It is quite clear that the Amish church district is of utmost importance as it is the

basic, self-governing, social unit of the Amish community (Hostetler, 1993). To situate

the Amish church district for this study, each Amish settlement was identified within a

geographical setting, the unit being the county of settlement location. Four geographic

characteristics were measured: ( 1 ) single vs. multi-county settlements, (2) proximity to a

metropolitan area, (3) land area; and, (4) location of the settlement east or west of the

Mississippi River.

Fifty two o f the Amish settlements were identified as lying within a single county

area. Two settlements, Ashland and Nappannee, are known to have small, though

insignificant, overlap into adjoining counties. Four Amish settlements were identified as

being multi-county communities. The values regarding spatial-related data for the multi­

county settlements were figures calculated by averaging the multi-county aggregates.

Urban proximity was also interpreted based upon settlement location relative to a

US Census Bureau Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Urban proximity was divided

into 3 categories: located within an MSA county, located adjacent to an MSA county, and

not contiguous to an MSA county. The County and City Data Rook: 1994 served as the basic source for spatially defined county data which operationalized the independent variables. Land area consisted of the square miles of the county in which the Amish

84 settlement was located. Location of the Amish settlement east or west of the Mississippi

River was simply a matter of locating each settlement on a map of the US.

4.3 2.2 Population Characteristics of the Area

Demographic growth and transition are of prime social and economic concern

within the human ecological paradigm. For any given culture, population growth and

shifts in the composition of population influence the human and resource development of

a community. Data for this grouping are measured at the county level and its

operationalization is found in the following variables, total population; population density;

population change; household type and size; and mobility.

The total population count was obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census and

was based upon a complete, 100% count of the population in 1990 that was updated for

1992 based on Census Bureau estimates. Population density is the average number of

inhabitants per square mile of land area, which was derived by dividing the total number of

residents by the number of square miles in a given geographic area. Total population

change is the net change represented by the decrease or increase between years shown in

the total county population in 1980 and 1992. In addition, percent population change for

the same period was also calculated.

Mobility here is looked at from 2 approaches. Firstly, mobility was measured as

the percent of the county population that changed residence between 1985-1990, based on

Census Bureau estimates.. A second dimension of mobility is commuting. Commuting

85 was measured as the percent of the civilian labor force working outside the county in

which they live.

4.3.2.3 Labor Force Characteristics of the Area

Labor force characteristics represent employment activities and opportunities.

Labor force characteristics of this study were operationalized by the total civilian labor force, percent female, percent unemployed, and percent of workers by industrial sector, and earnings by industry group.

The civilian labor force is identified as all civilians 16 years of age and above. The unemployment rate for each county is a percent of unemployed to the total civilian labor force. Also included is the percentage of the total labor force that is female. The female participation and the percent unemployed are based upon sampling measures applied to the labor force in a Current Population Survey, which includes US stationed members of the armed forces. Female participation in the labor force is represented as a percent of total civilian females 16 years and older.

The data on employment by selected industry refers to the kind of business or industry activity a person is engaged in for employment puposes, as classified from the

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) published by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB). This includes the percent of the total labor force in: (1) agriculture; (2) manufacturing; (3) wholesale/retail trade; (4) finance, insurance, and real estate; (5) health services; and (6) public administration, which is employment in govemment. The percent of the civilian labor force in each of these 6 categories was collected.

8 6 A second way to examine labor force characteristics is by source of earnings of the

civilian labor force. There are three major areas for earnings, including. (1 ) total goods

related industries, which includes earnings from mining, construction, and manufacturing;

(2) total service related industries, which includes earnings from agricultrual, forestry,

fisheries, transportation and communications services, plus public utilities, wholesale and

retail trade, finance, insurance, and realestate, and govemment; and (3) earnings from

farms, excluding agricultural related services. The percent of earnings in each of these

three categories was collected.

4.3.2.4 Social Characteristics of the Area

Social characteristics reflect foundations of community structure. Variables that are operationalized for this characteristic include; population diversity; household characteristics; crime rate; personal and family income, poverty rate; educational characteristics; and characteristics of housing units.

Diversity was measured as the percent of the population that was white based on

1990 Census data. Household characteristics of the county include the following: ( 1 ) percent of households headed by a female; (2) average number of persons per household; and (3) percent of single person households.

The crime rate is the number of Federal Bureau of Investigation “Index Crimes” per 100,000 population in 1991. The FBI includes seven major crime types to build its index. These are: (1) murder; (2) rape; (3) aggravated assault (with injuries to the victim that require medical attention; (4) roberry or theft by the use of force; (5) burglary, which

87 is attempted or completed uniawfiil entry into a home, garage, or other building on the

premises of the victim to complete a theft or commit some other felony crime; (6) larceny,

which is the unlawful taking of property from the possession o f another, excluding motor vehicle theft; and (7) motor vehicle theft, which is the theft or attempted theft of a car, truck, construction and farm equipment, and other motor vehicles.

Per capita income is the total personal income of persons residing in an area divided by the resident population of the area. This data was obtained from persons 15 years of age and over through the US Census Bureau sample survey for the 1990 Census of Population and Housing, and includes those persons without incomes. Median family income was obtained by dividing income distribution of families into 2 equal parts.

The poverty level is identified as those with income below poverty threshold levels, as determined by the Bureau of the Census. The Census poverty designation is based upon family size and cost of living figures for various areas of the US. Two poverty measures are used in this dissertation; percent of families below the poverty line, and the percent of female headed households below the poverty line.

Educational characteristics included two measures. First, the percent of the population 25 years and older who graduated from high school was included. Second, the percent of the same population who have a 4 year college degree was included.

Housing unit and size are indicators of housing stock. Three measures were used:

( 1 ) “five or more units” measures the percent units in structures that are considered apartments because they contain 5 or more housing units; mobile homes are units that are used for residential purposes and have no additional permanent or stationary rooms, that is

8 8 technically, these units can be moved; and (3) median value of owner occupied dwellings

in 1990.

4.3.2.S Agricultural Characteristics of the Area

Agricultural characteristics of an area would appear to be of prime significance for

almost any study of the Amish. Variables which operationalize this set of independent

variables include: number o f farms; farm size; farm population; total value of farm

products sold; and gross farm earnings. All of these measures came from the Bureau of

the Census.

Number of farms was based on the current definition by the US Bureau of the

Census, with farm referring to a place where $ 1,000 or more of agricultural products

were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, in a given year. In this study,

farm size was measured by percent of small farm holdings (<50 acres) and percent of large

farm holdings (>500 acres), data which was readily available in the County and city Data

Book: 1994. It should be noted that the typical size of the Amish farm today is between

80 and 150 acres.

Farm population refers to all persons in households living in occupied farm

residences. In addition, the percent of the farm population to the total population was

included.

The value of agricultural products sold includes the gross market value of all products sold before taxes and production expenses. Farm earnings, however, is based

89 upon the computation of realized net income on the farm plus incomes of both the farm

worker and landholder.

4.3.2 6 Characteristics of the Amish Settlement

Characteristics of Amish settlements was also used in this study and

operationalized through the following variables; number of church districts; number of

families; number o f families per church district; and age o f settlement.

The number of church districts is the number obtained for any given Amish

settlement as published in the appropriate Amish directory. Number of families was

measured by counting up the number of households listed in a directory for each

settlement. The number of families per church district is the total number of families

divided by the number of church districts per settlement as registered in the directories.

Age of settlement is based upon the difference in number of years between year of

founding and year the directory was published.

4.4 Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics generated in this study are essential to a better

understanding of Amish settlements and are essential in order to establish an in-depth

profile. The use of measures of central tendency and variance along with CROSSTAB statistics as presented by the SPSS 8.0 version for Windows served as the basic tool for descriptive purposes.

9 0 4.5 Inferential Statistics

In an attempt to understand the social changes which are taking place within

Amish communities and to project a sustainable future for the Amish, an interpretation is

made using the POET model as a reference. With the use of simple bivariate correlation

analysis, an evaluation is made of the possible existence of relationships between social

and economic characteristics of host areas with measures of the occupational structure of

Amish settlements.

Correlations are established, where meaningful associations can be interpreted,

between selected variables representing the ‘ecological complex’ in the measuring the

magnitude of the effect one variable has upon another. Due to small sample size,

significance levels included p < .10. As well, significance levels at p < .05 and p < .01 are

also indicated.

An evaluation is made of the relative effect of characteristics of the area on

occupational distribution using multiple regression analysis. One drawback to this

approach is a small N, which creates less stability in beta coefficients and other statistical

measures derived from multiple regression analyses. One solution is the adjusted R*. The

formula can be expressed as: = R* - [P( I - R')] / N - P - 1. Both the unadjusted and

adjusted R- are reported.

A second problem is that because this study is exploratory, it included a large

number of social and economic characteristics. Issues o f collinearity are addressed through a “trimming” process in order to develop best fit models for each of the three dependent variables. The first step was to eliminate variables whose bivariate correlation

91 coefficients with the dependent variables were not significant. Second, the bivariate

correlations among the independent variables were examined. Those over .70 indicated

that one of the two independent variables should be removed. Tolerance and variance in

proportion (VIF) tests which are part of the collinearity diagnostics of the SPSS linear regression program, were checked. An independent variable with a tolerance score below

. 1 and a VIF score exceeding 10 were removed. Third, a condition index is also calculated by the collinearity diagnostics of SPSS. The condition index is much like factor analysis. A high score (usual cut-off is a score exceeding 30) indicates that there is an underlying dimension or structure to the independent variables. Proportions scores indicate if one or more independent variables has a significant share of its variance accounted for by other independent variables. These were then removed. Eventually, a best fit model was achieved with as few independent variables as possible.

92 CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

Amish settlements are contiguous geographic areas made up of one or more church districts. Table 5.1 shows a frequency breakdown of the 200 plus known Amish settlements (Garrett, 1996) according to founding date, as well as the 56 settlements from which data was obtained for this study. It is quite clear that this study represents well the distribution of Amish settlements in existence in the United States from a chronological perspective. From the study sample of 56 settlements, 30 (or more than 53%) have been established since the beginning of 1975, one-third of which are west of the Mississippi river.

Upon arrival in America, the Amish established their first settlements in the state of Pennsylvania, and, by 1808, their frontier had stretched to Ohio. The movement of new

Amish settlements in recent decades is westward, northward and southward from the traditional, middle-east sector of the United States. For example, as shown by Kreps and

Donnermeyer( 1997), 13 out of 23 settlements in Michigan have been establish since 1970,

11 of 16 in Missouri, 21 o f 27 in Wisconsin, 11 o f 13 in Kentucky and all 14 in New York.

9 3 Period of Founding Total Known Settlements Study Set Settlements No. % No. %

1700s 3 1.38 - -

1800s 14 6.42 8 14.29

1900-1949 15 6.88 6 10.70

1950-1964 20 9.17 4 7.14

1965-1974 41 18.81 8 14.29

1975-1984 58 26.61 15 26.79

1985-1995 67 30.73 15 26.79

218 100.00 56 100.00

Table 5.1 Age of Amish Settlements in the United States

9 4 State Not Adjacent to MSA Adjacent to MSA Within MSA

Delaware Dover/Hartley Illinois Ava Arthur Macomb Pleasant Hills Indiana Milroy Elkhart/La Grange Kokomo Nappanee

Iowa Milton Buchanan/Hazelton - Riceville/Mclntire Kalona

Kansas Garnett Hutchinson - Yoder/Haven Michigan Evart Blanchard Charlotte Hale Bronson Ovid Ludington Camden Mio Cass City Centreville Clare Fremont Gladwin Greenville Mariette Quincy Rosebush Missouri Canton Bowling Green Seymour Dixon Carrollton Jamesport Clark Kahoka Humansville Milan Prairie Verona Windsor Ohio Ashland Carrollton HolmesAV ayne Geauga Jeromesville Wheat Ridge

Oklahoma Clarita/Colgate Chouteau -

Pennsylvania Spartansburg -

Table. 5.2 Amish Settlement Location in Relation to Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA)

9 5 In addition, new communities in the historically settled states of Indiana, Ohio, and

Pennsylvania have been continuously founded over the past 25 years.

Amish settlements have felt the pressure o f urban expansion and the encroachment of development upon their rural landscapes. It can be seen quite clearly in

Table 5.2 that proximity to large urban centers is a part of contemporary Amish life.

According to the Bureau of the Census demographic classification, 9 of the 56 settlements herein studied are located within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). An additional 32 Amish settlements are located in counties which are adjacent to MSAs, which leaves only slightly more than 25% of the Amish setlements in this study that are located in non-metropolitan counties. As regards physical location in the United States,

4 of the 10 states represented in this study are found west of the Mississippi River, and account for 74 of the church districts ( 15 .86%) in this study.

Also worth observing from a spatial perspective, most Amish settlements are located within a single county boundary. However, 4 of the settlements in this study are multi-county communities. Consequently, for statistical purposes, county data representing such settlements reflect averages of all the participant counties.

The image of the typical Amish settlement brings to mind that of a relatively large geographical space and population. Of the 467 church districts identified in this study,

343, or almost three-fourths (73 .45%) of all church districts, are concentrated in the 5 largest settlements; Holmes-Wayne (156); Elkhart-La Grange (85); Geauga (55);

Nappanee (26); and, Arthur (21). In looking at the 56 Amish settlements which make up this study, 26 are one-church district settlements, and 20 of which have been founded

96 State Settlements Church Districts Families Families/District

Delaware 1 8 268 33.5

Illinois 4 24 705 29.4

Indiana 4 116 3,441 29.7

Iowa 4 18 427 23.7

Kansas 3 7 157 22.4

Michigan 18 29 643 22.2

Missouri 13 31 679 21.9

Ohio 6 220 5,305 24.1

Oklahoma 2 6 108 18.0

Pennsylvania 1 8 193 24.1

Totals 56 467 11,926 25.5

Table 5 .3 Settlement Representation of Church Districts and Families by State

9 7 since 1980. In this study, 71% of the settlements have 3 or fewer church districts, and, of

the 34 new settlements established since 1970, none exceed a three-church district size.

Settlement density can be measured by the number of families per district and

ranges from 8 families per district to settlements with 36.5 families per church district.

With a total o f 11,926 families represented in this study, as seen in Table 5.3, the average

church district size is made up of 22.54 families per church district.

In three of the Amish directories, Arthur, Elkhart-LaGrange and Holmes-Wayne, it

was possible to distinguish Amish identity by church member and non-member groupings.

In the Arthur, Illinois settlement, slightly more than half (51.80%) were identified as

church members, which may be interpreted as those adults who have reached late teens

and early twenties, and have committed through baptism to the Amish way of life. The

remainder are children who have not yet reached the age of baptism. In the Arthur

settlement, the average family size was 4 43 persons per family, based on 6,944 persons in

664 families.

The two largest settlements in this study were the Holmes-Wayne and Elkhart-

LaGrange communities of Ohio and Indiana respectively. The Holmes-Wayne settlement registered 20,107 persons in 5,305 families for an average of 5.86 persons per family. Of the total number of persons, 9,513 were identified as members, or 47.31% of the total. In the Elkhart-LaGrange settlement, less than half (46.70%) were identified as being church members. With 2,584 families, the average family size was found to be 4.95 persons.

In taking a closer look at Amish settlement size and using the Garrett ( 1996) data, it is worth noting that among all Amish settlements established prior to 1965, 46.2% have

9 8 three or fewer church districts. Since 1965, 166 new Amish settlements have been

established, 149 (89.75%) of which possess 3 or fewer church districts. Interesting,

indeed, is that approximately three-fourths ( 166/218) of the Amish settlements in existence

today were founded since 1965. During this same period, one-church district settlements,

alone, account for almost 60% of all Amish settlements. Based upon recent estimates

(Garrett: 1995), there are approximately 4.5 Amish church districts per settlement in

North America today.

5.1 Dependent Variables

There are three dependent variables identified for this study: Occupation Diversity,

Farm/Non Farm Ratio, and Carpenter/Non Carpenter Ratio. Interpretation and analysis

follow for each variable.

5.1.1 The Measure of Occupation Diversity

The deeply rooted farming tradition of the Amish is lastly being redefined by the

Amish society itself. The Amish community has witnessed significant transitions in its reinterpretation of traditional occupation status, especially in recent decades. This appears especially intriguing as Kraybill and Nolt (1995) affirm, “it comes so suddenly after 300 years of plowing the soil”(5).

In this study, diversity is measured based upon the Amish male, who is the traditional head of household and considered the “breadwinner” of his family (Kreps et. al,

1994). In addition, in the Amish directories for various settlements, information of all

9 9 family members in a church district is organized alphabetically by male head of household,

and occupations for females are only listed if they are not married and live alone. It seems

quite clear that there is no single occupation, unique field of work, or cultural imperative

that limits occupational choice for the contemporary Amish man. For example, even in

farming, they identify their occupation in a wide array of specialties such as calf farmer,

duck farmer, dairy farmer, chicken or poultry farmer, hog farmer, beef farmer, etc Men

list themselves as welders, accountants, heavy equipment operators, shop owners and an

endless array of other jobs. In one directory, an Amish man listed himself as a “Maytag

Repairman”.

As found in the Amish directories, each Amish male adult expresses his own

personal identity when citing his occupation, which numbers in the hundreds. For example

in the Elkhart-LaGrange settlement directory, where there were 2,265 occupational

listings, there were 211 different occupations cited, and many Amish men hold two or dual

occupations. Men who carried out farming on a part-time basis numbered 279, or 12.32%

o f adult Amish males. An additional 73 men in this settlement cited 2 occupations, but

none of these 73 dealt with farming. Although the Elkhart-LaGrange settlement may be

the only settlement with a significant number of males holding 2 occupations, holding down 2 jobs is becoming more widespread through most Amish settlements.

In this study, the 10 most cited occupations are found in Table 5.4. The dominant

3 occupations account for 75.09% of Amish household heads, and the 10 most cited occupations account for 89.55% of Amish males in the labor force. Exactly one-half (28) of the 56 Amish settlements included in this study found 50% or more of Amish males

1 0 0 Occupation Number

Farmer 4,187

Carpenter 2,157

Factory-Worker 2,254

Sawmill-Worker 676

Machine Shop-Worker 216

Lumber-Worker 180

Pallet-Maker 161

Mason 150

Buggy Shop 138

Mechanic/Engine Shop 134

Table 5 .4 Ten Principal Amish Occupations

1 0 1 concentrated in a single occupation, which was farming. The majority (15) of these were

located west of the Mississippi River, were smaller in size, and had been founded since

1975. In two of these settlements, Blanchard and Kahoka, 100% of the adult males were

farmers. In the 2 other examples, Ovid had slightly more than 50% employed as

carpenters and Spartansburg had 60% working for sawmills. The remaining occupational

categories along with their numbers are presented in Table 5.5.

For calculating the Diversity Index used in this study, a total of 44 occupational

categories were identified totaling 10,884 occupations. Various types of farming,

carpentry work and other specific citations were combined. There were 566 men whose

occupation was missing or the listing contained incomplete information. This represents

4.9% o f all live men in the 56 directories and were not included in the calculation of the

dependent variable. In using the diversity index, the higher the score, the greater is the

diversity of occupations within a given Amish settlement.

Table 5 .6 presents an ordered listing of settlements by degree of diversity. The

two settlements with the greatest diversity in occupational status were neighboring

settlements from Ohio; the Holmes-Wayne County settlement and the Geauga County

settlement. These two settlements are two of the oldest, and rank one and four,

respectively, in Amish settlement size in North America.

The age of settlement in relation to the level of diversity is clearly distributed. It is

noted that settlements with larger diversity scores were the older settlements, whereas, lesser diversity was found primarily in the newer settlements. Interesting, however, is the

102 Occupation Number Occupation Number

Harness Shop 108 Lawnscaper 7

Brick/Kiln 65 Accountant 5

Blacksmith 63 Concrete Worker 5

Feedmill 62 Accountant 5

Heavy Equipment 62 Book Store 4

Painter 34 Therapist 4

Leather Shop 32 Bike Shop 3

Cheese Worker 30 Horse Dealer 3

Butcher 22 Tool/Die Maker 3

Canvas/Tarp Shop 21 Electrician 2

Teacher 15 Applebutter/jam Mak. 1

Upholsterer 15 Glass Maker 1

Quilt/Rug 13 Gravestone Maker 1

Baker 12 Horse Trainer 1

Store clerk 12 Jeweler 1

Auctioneer 9 Print Shop 1

Bulk Food Store 8 Security Guard 1

Table 5.5 Other Registered Amish Occupations

1 0 3 Settlement Diversity Settlement Diversity

Top Quartile Third Quartile HolmesAVayne( 1808)0H .8113587 Macomb(1993 )IL .4567233 Geauga(1886) OH .7986390 Ovid(?mid-90s)MI .4489348 Wheat Ridge( 1976) .7456000 Carrollton( 1990)MO .4463918 Dover/Hartley( 1915) .7221778 Hutchinson( 1983 )KS .4304912 Mio(1970)MI .7197966 Milan(1990)MO .4081512 Arthur(1865)IL .7147743 Kokomo(1848)IN .3968224 Greenville( 1973 )MI .7126384 Ava(1991)IL .3968150 Canton(1985)MO .6893435 Windsor! 1995)MO .3866659 Clare(1981)MI .6874361 Spartansburg! 1966)P A .3854142 Evart( 1989)MI .6805781 Milton! 1969)IA .3776000 Ludington( 1981 )MI .6716257 Bronson! 1971)MI .3750000 Jamesport( 1953 )MO .6702180 Gladwin! 1979)MI .3567765 Milroy( 1969)IN .6608786 Quincy! 1977)MI .3042848 Verona(1990) .6576135 Buchanan/Haz.! 1914)1 A .2764354

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile Elkhart/Lagr.( 1841 )IN .6575725 Kalona! 1846)IA .2452466 Pleasant Hills(1992)IL .6542670 Pairie! 1980)MO .2265626 Centreville( 1910)MI .6251374 Seymour! 1968)MO .2049344 Nappanee( 1839)IN .6005101 Humansville! 1987)MO .1799362 Rosebush( 1981 )MI .5802078 Clark! 1954)MO .1669749 Charlotte( 1977)MI .5723831 Hale!1978)MI .1652744 Chouteau( 1910)OK .5437153 Dixon! 1974)MO .1419728 Ashland(1954)OH .5426680 Jeromesville! 1987)OH .1327899 Gamett(1903)KS .5410970 Camden! 1956)MI .1171876 Bowling Green(1948)MO .5107057 Cass City!?mid-90s)MI .1108734 Carrollton( 1981 )0H .5037772 Riceville/Mcl! 1975)1A .0625136 Fremont(1990)MI .4921876 Mariette! 1987)MI .0498894 Yoder/Haven( 1883 )KS .4921224 Blanchard! 1983 )MI .0000000 Clarita/Colgate( 1978)OK .4850000 Kahoka! 1985)MO .0000000

Table 5 .6 Occupational Diversity Index of Amish Settlements

104 fact that the settlements established in the recent 25 years are quite well represented at all

levels o f diversity.

5.1.2 The Farm/Non-Fann Ratio (FNFRAT)

Farming has been for more than two centuries the mainstay of Amish tradition and sustenance. Farming once dominated occupational choice, reflecting what many scholars believe to be a strong religious imperative for agriculture (Flostetler, 1993; Kraybill,

1989).

Data related to farmer occupation status obtained for this study permitted the breakdown of farming activities into four categories: active farmer, retired farmer, farm laborer and dual farmer. As the Amish citation of dual occupations is becoming increasingly practiced, dual-farmer in this study is considered to be any adult Amish male who identified the occupation of farmer as one of his occupations. The occupation of farmer may be cited either in the first position or the second place when the Amish male identifies his occupation. These four categories grouped together make up the total number of farmers for any given area. All adult Amish males with a listed occupation who are not included in the total farmer category are considered to be non-farmers.

In Table 5.7, the farm occupation status of Amish males is presented by state.

There are 4,187 total farmers identified in this study, or 36.87% of the total adult Amish male population. The three states with the largest percentage of total adult Amish males identified as farmers are: Iowa, with 83.60%; Missouri, 72.03%; and Oklahoma, 63.00%.

105 Active Retired Farm Dual Tot. Tot. State Farmer Farmer Laborer Farm Farm Occ. (% TF) (% TF) (%TOcc)

Delaware 46(18.62) 18 1 3(1.21) 68(27.53) 247

Illinois 158(24.38) 34 2 43(6.63) 237(36.57 648

Indiana 614(20.64) 136 2 324(10.84) 1,076(36.17) 2,975

Iowa 24264.02) 39 1 34(8.99) 316(83 60) 378

Kansas 56(39.72) 12 2 23(16.31) 93(65.96) 141

Missouri 270(32.41) 24 4 150(24.12) 448(72.03) 622

Michigan 248(41.26) 15 2 101(16.81) 366(60.90) 601

Ohio 1,249(22.48) 200 5 56(1.01) 1,510(27.17) 5,557

Oklahoma 47(47.00) 2 - 14(14.00) 63(63.00) 100

Pennsylvania 8(4.42) -- 2(2.00) 10(5.52) 181

2,938 480 19 750 4,187 11,450 (70.17) (11.46) (0.45) (17.91) (36.57)

Table 5 .7 Farm Occupation Status of Amish Males by State

106 There were found to be 2,938 active farmers (25.66%) who identified themselves as individuals devoted full-time to farming. Iowa is the state with the largest percentage of active farmers, with 64.02%. Interesting is the fact that rarely did an adult Amish male identify find himself as a farm laborer, with only 19 citations found in all 56 settlements.

The dual-farmer occupation status, however, was widely cited. Whereas

Delaware, Pennsylvania and Ohio have the largest number of Amish males with dual­ occupation status, Missouri has the largest percentage (24.12%), followed by Michigan and Kansas (each over 16%).

The Farm/Non-Farm Ratio (FNFRAT) was designed for this study to better interpret the significance of farming. This is calculated by dividing the total number of farmers from the four farm categories by the total number of non-farmers in each settlement. As portrayed in this index, in settlements where farmers are the majority of the community, the FNRAT is 1.000 or greater. The higher the scale, the more farmers there are in comparison to non-farmers.

The Farm/Non-Farm Ratio is summarized by state in Table 5.8. The FNFRAT for the overall study area was found to be 576. This means that there were 57.6 Amish males who were farmer for every 100 Amish males who are making a living from non-farm jobs.

There are 4 states with averages below .576 and 5 states with higher ratios. It is quite clear that farming continues to play a dominant role in many Amish communities, especially in Iowa, as well as Missouri and Kansas, all of which are located west of the

Mississippi River.

1 0 7 Tot. Tot. Tot. F/NF State Farm Occup. N.F. RATIO

Delaware 68 247 179 0.379

Illinois 237 648 411 0.576

Indiana 1,076 2,975 1,899 0.566

Iowa 316 378 62 5.096

Kansas 93 141 48 1.937

Missouri 448 622 174 2.494

Michigan 366 601 235 1.557

Ohio 1,510 5,557 4,047 0.373

Oklahoma 63 100 37 1.702

Pennsylvania 10 181 171 0.058

4,187(36.6%) 11,450(100.0%) 7,263 (63.4%) 0.576

Table 5.8. Farm/Non-Farm Ratio by State

108 In taking a closer look at the Amish settlements as presented in Table 5.9, there

were 40 out of the 56 settlements where total farmers represented 50% or more of the

occupations of adult Amish males in their respective settlements. There are 20 settlements

with a rating of 3.000 or higher on the FNFRAT, which means that 75% of the Amish

males in their settlement were farmers. The states of Michigan, Missouri, Iowa account

for all but one of these settlements. Whereas the highest nine settlements on the FNFRAT

have all been founded within the recent 25 years, there were only three settlements less than 25 years old that were in the lower quartile of 14 settlements. It is the older and larger settlements that weigh heavily at the lower end of the FNFRAT.

5.1.3 The Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio (CNCRAT)

It appears that many Amish males have found carpentry to be a valuable alternative occupation. Carpenters work with their hands, and the activities associated with being a carpenter, including working with power tools, have not caused undue concern among church leaders. In this study, the carpentry profession was grouped into three categories; furniture carpenter, construction carpenter, and general/unspecified carpenter. These three groups, added together, form the total number of Amish males that cited carpenter as their occupation.

Table 5.10 presents the carpenter occupational status of Amish males by state. As can be seen in Table 5.10, 2,157 Amish males identified themselves as carpenters, or

18.84% of the total occupations cited. The largest contingent of Amish carpenters was

109 Settlement Ratio Settlement Ratio

Top Quartile Third Quartile Blanchard( I983)MI E Ashland(1954)OH 1.796 Kahoka(I985)MO E Macomb( 1993 )IL 1.714 Marlette{ 1987)MI 38.000 Chouteau(1910)OK 1.666 Cass City(1994)MI 16.000 Fremont( 1990)MI 1.571 Camden( 1956)MI 15.000 Garaett(1903)KS 1.357 Riceville/Mcln.( 1975)1A 15.000 Charlotte( 1977)MI 1.285 Jeromesville( 1987)OH 13.000 Pleasant Hills(1992)IL 1.250 Dixon( 1974)MO 12.000 Rosebush( 1981 )MI 1.250 HaIe(1978)MI 10.000 CaiTollton( 1981 )0H 1.181 Humansville{ 1987)MO 10.000 Canton(1985)MO 1.000 Clark(1954)MO 7.923 Clare(1981)MI 1.000 Seymour( 1968)MO 6.100 Jamesport( 1953)MO 1.000 Kalona( 1846)IA 5.166 Greenville( 1973 )MI 0.842 Buchanan/Haz.( 1914)IA 4.920 Ludington( 1981 )MI 0.800

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile Quincy(I977)MI 4.846 Centreville( 1910)MI 0.754 Prairie(1980)MO 4.666 Elkhart/La Grange( 1841 )IN 0.659 Gladwin( 1979)MI 3.818 Milroy(1969)IN 0.577 Milton(1969)IA 3.545 Arthur( 1865)IL 0.534 Windsor( 1975)MO 3.500 Evart(1989)M3 0.500 Bronson(1971) 3.000 Mio(1970)MI 0.441 Avafl991)IL 2.666 HolmesAVayne( 1808)OH 0.405 Carrollton( 1990)MO 2.666 Dover/Fîartley( 1915 )DE 0.379 Kokomo( 1848)IN 2.666 Verona( 1990)MO 0.294 Milan(1990)MO 2.500 Nappanee( 1839)IN 0.247 Y oder/Haven( 1883 )KS 2.208 Wheat Ridge(1976)OH 0.238 Hutchinson( 1983 )KS 2.100 Geauga( 1886)OH 0.218 Bowling Green(1948)MO 2,000 Ovid(1993)MI 0.142 Clarita/Colgate( 1978)OK 1.857 SpartansburgC 1966)PA 0.058

Table 5.9 Farm/Non-Farm Ratio (FNFRAT) by Settlement

110 Fum. Const. Gen. Tot.. Tot. State Carp.(%TC) Carp.(%TC) Carp.(%TC) Carp (%TOcc) Occ,

Delaware 25(24.27) - 78(75.73) 103(41 70) 247

Illinois 181(81.17) 12(5.38) 30(13.45) 223(34,41) 648

Indiana 147(48.67) 35(11.59) 120(39.74) 302(10.15) 2,975

Iowa 12(42.86) - 16(57.14) 28(7.41) 378

Kansas 3(13.64) 6(27.27) 13(59.09) 22(15.60) 141

Missouri 16(19.75) 3(3.71) 62(76.54) 81(13.02) 622

Michigan 25(37.31) 4(5.97) 38(56.72) 67(11.15) 601

Ohio 551(42.48) 125(9.64) 621(47.88) 1,297(23.34) 5,557

Oklahoma 6(31.58) - 1368.42) 19(19.00) 100

Pennsylvania 6(40.00) - 9(60.00) 15(8.29) 181

972 185 1,000 2,157(18.84) 11,450

Table 5.10 Cairpenter Occupation Status of Amish Maies by State

II located in the state of Ohio, with 60.13% of all Amish who identified themselves as

carpenters.

Of the total number of carpenters, furniture carpenters represented the largest

group (45.1%). Concentration of this category was found in the state of Illinois where

81.17% of Amish carpenters identified themselves as furniture carpenters.

The construction carpenter is found to be a relatively small representation of all

Amish carpenters. This may be because many construction carpenters are mobile work

groups, reflecting a work style not compatible with Amish cultural values. Male

breadwinners are away from home and family overnight, a situation to which the Amish

are adverse. For example, a large church building was constructed for a church north of

Columbus, Ohio (on state route 315) by an Amish owned bam building company from

Holmes County. The owner and his Amish workers hired an “English” neighbor to drive

them back and forth every day rather than stay in hotels overnight. The total round trip

commuting distance is nearly 200 miles (and about four hours)

Only 8.58% of Amish carpenters identified themselves in the construction carpenter category, with Kansas, Indiana, and Ohio showing stronger representation here.

The general carpenter group represents Amish males who cited carpenter without noting a specific type of carpentry work. This group formed slightly over 50% of all Amish carpenters.

Table 5.11 summarizes the Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio (CNCRAT) by State.

The CNCRAT is obtained by dividing the total number of carpenters by the total number of non-carpenters. The CNCRAT for this study area is 0.233, with four states ranking

112 Tot.. Tot. Tot. C/NC State Carp, Occup, N.C. RATIO

Delaware 103 247 144 0.715

Illinois 223 648 425 0.525

Indiana 302 2,975 2,673 0.113

Iowa 28 378 350 0.080

Kansas 22 141 119 0.185

Missouri 81 622 541 0.150

Michigan 67 601 534 0.125

Ohio 1,297 5,557 4,260 0.304

Oklahoma 19 100 81 0.235

Pennsylvania 15 181 166 0.090

2,157 11,450 9,275 0.233

Table 5.11 Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio by State

113 above this average. This index indicates that the carpenter occupation in the Amish

community is not as prevalent as that of farmer. Findings here show that there is no state

where carpentry dominates the occupational status of the Amish community, however, the

states of Delaware and Illinois do show a significant representation of carpenters.

The Carpenter/Non-Carpenter ratio is presented for each settlement in Table 5.12.

The higher the scale, the higher is the number of carpenters in relation to total number of

other occupations in any given settlement. Only two settlements have a CNCRAT rating

of 1.000 or more; Ovid in Michigan and Verona in Missouri. It was difficult to identify

any noteworthy pattern or tendency of this occupation with location or age of an Amish

settlement.

5.2 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

The independent variables used in this study are taken from the County and City

Data Book 1994 (CCDB), a statistical abstract supplement put together by the US

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.

5.2.1 Geographic Location

Amish settlements for this study are scattered in 10 contiguous states running through the mid-section of the United States from Delaware on the east coast, to Kansas and Oklahoma on the central plains.

The geographic coordinates range from: latitude 34.5, at Chouteau, Oklahoma to

44.6, in Mio, Michigan, and, longitude 75.6, at Dover-Delaware to 98.0 in Hutchinson,

1 1 4 Settlement Ratio Settlement Ratio

Top Quartile Third Quartile Ovid(l993)MI 1.667 Seymour( 1968)MO 0.127 Verona(1990)MO 1.000 Fremont( 1990)MI 0.125 Milroy(1969)IN 0.775 Pleasant Hills(1992)IL 0.125 Dover/Hartley( 1915 )DE 0.715 Y oder/Haven( 1883 )KS 0.116 Arthur( 1865)EL 0.550 Milton(1969)IA 0.111 Rosebush( 1981 )MI 0.500 Hale(1978)MI 1.000 Carrollton( 1981 )OH 0.500 Elkhart/La Grange( 1841 )IN 0.095 Clarita/Colgate( 1978)OK 0.429 Quincy(1977)MI 0.086 Ludington( 1981 )MI 0.421 Spartansburg( 1966)P A 0.090 Milan(1990)MO 0.400 Jeromesville( 1987)OH 0.077 Charlotte( 1977)MI 0.391 Dixon(1974)MO 0.083 Ava(1991)IL 0.375 Clare(1981)MI 0.067 Geauga(1886)OH 0.370 Evart(1989)MI 0.071 Bronson(1971)MI 0.333 Greenville! 1973 )MI 0.061

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile Gamett(1903)KS 0.320 Wheat Ridge(1976)OH 0.061 Jamesport( 1953 )M 0 0.304 Windsor! 1975)MO 0.059 HolmesAVayne( 1808)OH 0.288 Centreville! 1910)MI 0.049 Mio(1970)MI 0.256 Kalona! 1846)1A 0.042 AshIand(1954)OH 0.248 Mariette! 1987)MI 0.026 Hutchinson(1983)KS 0.240 Clark! 1954)MO 0.009 Canton(1985)MO 0.238 Blanchard! 1983 )MI 0.000 Chouteau(I910)OK 0.194 Camden! 1956)MI 0.000 Macomb(1993)IL 0.188 Carrollton! 1990)MO 0.000 Bowling Green(1948)MO 0.174 Cass City! 1994)MI 0.000 Kokomo(1848)IN 0.158 Humansville! 1987)MO 0.000 Buchanan/Haz. ( 1914)1 A 0.130 Kahoka(1985)MO 0.000 Nappanee(1839)IN 0.129 Paririe!1980)MO 0.000 Gladwin(1979)MI 0.128 Riceville/Mclntire! 1975)1A 0.000

Table 5.12 Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio (CNCRAT) by Settlement

115 Kansas. This geographic setting may be described as “middle-USA”, proximate to the

Lynd’s (1956) Middletown: A Study in American Culture, a 20th century sociological

interpretation of middle America.

This agglomeration of ten states, based upon US Bureau of Census data, accounts for 25 .14% of the total US population, 22.33% of the civilian labor force, 24.64% of US personal income, 31.91% of manufacturing earnings, 23 .98% of farm earnings, 33 .26% of the total number of US farms, and 37.86% of the total US farm population. Population density in the six states east of the Mississippi river averages 213 persons per square mile, well above the US average of 72 persons per square mile. Population density in the four states west of the Mississippi River was 10.5.

5.2.2 Population Characteristics

Out of a total population of 64,126,819 found in the ten states of this study, the total population of the counties where Amish settlements are located was 2,720,494, or only 4.24% of the ten state total population. Table 5 .13 shows that the Amish settlements in the states of Delaware, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio are located in environments where there is a significant concentration of the population in metropolitan areas.

The largest settlements by population in this study are multi-county settlements which, consequently, encompass larger populations. The Geauga settlement involves five counties, Ashtabula, Geauga, Stark, Trumbull and Tuscawaras, and is located within the

Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area of Cleveland, Ohio. The Holmes-Wayne

116 State Tot. Pop.(A) Settlement Co. Pop.(B) %(B/A) #counties

Delaware 690,884 116,062 16.80 1

Illinois 11,612,906 201,759 1.74 6

Indiana 5,658,323 448,338 7.92 5

Iowa 2,802,944 59,494 2.12 4

Kansas 2,515,320 69,957 2.78 2

Michigan 9,433,665 684,551 7,26 16

Missouri 5,190,719 238,433 4,59 12

Ohio 10,021,419 775,122 7.03 11

Oklahoma 3,205,234 40,034 1.25 2

Pennsylvania 11,995,405 86,744 0.72 1

64,126,819 2,720,494 4.24 60

Table 5.13 Population Comparisons by State and Settlement - 1992

1 1 7 settlement is adjacent to the Akron-Canton metropolitan area (which is just south of the

Cleveland metropolitan area) and includes 5 counties: Holmes and Wayne, plus the northern edge of Coshocton county, the southwest comer of Stark County, and the western edge of Tuscarawas County. The Elkhart-LaGrange County settlement is situated in the 2 counties in Indiana that describe the counties’ names. They are located on the east side of the South Bend-Mishawaka, Indiana metropolitan area. The Arthur settlement is the other multi-county settlement, and is located in 3 Illinois counties: Coles, Douglas and Moultrie. It is south of the Champaign-Urbana, Illinois metropolitan area.

In Table 5.14 is a listing of all settlements with the corresponding population in the county(ies) where the settlement is located. In the first quartile, all settlement county population totals are above 59,000 inhabitants. At the other extreme, all settlement counties in the lowest quartile have total populations of less than 20,000 persons. Only two of the largest 25 counties that are home to Amish settlements are located west of the

Mississippi River. Also, all of the ten largest counties by population are the hosts to settlements that are at least 30 years of age

Population density by settlement county is presented in Table 5.15. The largest

Amish settlements are located in multi-county Amish communities, and population density is high in these locations also. The highest overall population density where Amish settlements are found is in northeastern Indiana, not adjacent to yet not distant from several important metropolitan areas of the east-central United States. Nappanee is located in the county of highest density with 344 persons per square mile. Less than 70 miles distant is the Kokomo settlement, with a density of 282 persons per square mile.

1 1 8 Pop. Settlement(date) State Pop. Settlement(date) State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 413,970 Geauga(l886) OH 30,607 Verona(1990) MO 258,910 Holmes-Wayne( 1808)OH 30,211 Hale((1978) MI 228,287 Elkhart-LaGrange( 1841 )IN 27,204 Carrolton(1981) OH 159,317 Nappanee(1839) IN 26,420 Ludington( 1981 ) MI 116,062 Dover( 1915) DE 26,405 Wheat Ridge(1976) OH 95,253 Charlotte( 1977) MI 26,384 Clare(1981) MI 88,610 Arthur(1865) IL 24,415 Seymour(1968) MO 86,744 Spartansburg( 1966) PA 23,851 Clark(1954) MO 82,478 Kokomo(1848) IN 23.007 Gladwin(1979) MI 62,146 Hutchinson(1983) KS 22,528 Human sville( 1987) MO 62,146 Y oder-Haven( 1883 )KS 20,940 Buchanan(1914) lA 60,962 Ava(1991) IL 20638 Evart(1989) MI 59,397 Ovid(1993) MI 20,215 Windsor(1975) MO 59,388 Centreville(1910) MI 20,056 Kalona( 1846) lA

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 56,212 Blanchard(1983) MI 18,256 MiIroy(1969) IN 56,212 Rosebush( 1981) MI 17,356 Pleasant Hills(1992)IL 56,130 Cass City(1994) MI 15,924 Bowling Green(1948)MO 55,445 Greenville(1973) MI 14,966 Prairie Home( 1980)MO 48,633 Ashland(1954) OH 10,783 Riceville(1975) lA 48,633 Jeromesville( 1987) OH 10,588 Carrollton(1990) MO 44,407 Camden(1956) MI 10,166 Canton(1985) MO 43,693 Dixon(1974) MO 8,222 Mio(1970) MI 41,871 Bronson(1971) MI 7,811 Gamett(1903) KS 41,871 Quincy(1977) MI 7,738 Jamesport(1953) MO 40,810 Marlette(1987) MI 7,715 Milton(1969) lA 40,756 Fremont( 1990) MI 7,522 Kahoka(1985) MO 34,841 Macomb(1993) IL 6,220 Milan(1990) MO 34,317 Chouteau(1910) OK 5,717 Clarita-Colgate( 1978 )OK

Table 5.14 Population of Settlement County

1 1 9 Dens. Settlement State Dens. Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 344 Nappanee IN 50 Verona MO 282 Kokomo IN 50 Yoder-Haven KS 240 Geauga OH 49 Clark MO 196 Dover DE 48 Fremont MI 181 Elkhart-La Grange IN 47 Clare MI 165 Charlotte MI 45 Gladwin MI 123 Holmes-Wayne OH 45 Milroy IN 118 Centreville MI 45 Wheat Ridge OH 115 Ashland OH 42 Mariette MI 115 Jeromesville OH 41 Seymour MO 104 Ava IL 37 Buchanan lA 104 Ovid MI 36 Evart MI 98 Blanchard MI 35 Humansville MO 98 Rosebush MI 35 Kalona lA

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 86 Spart ansburg PA 29 Windsor MO 83 Bronson MI 26 Prairie Home MO 83 Quincy MI 24 Bowling Green MO 80 Dixon MO 23 Riceville lA 78 Greenville MI 23 Pleasant Hills IL 74 Camden MI 21 Canton MO 70 Arthur IL 16 Milton lA 69 Carrollton OH 15 Carrollton MO 69 Cass City MI 15 Kahoka MO 59 Macomb IL 15 Mio MI 55 Hale MI 14 Jamesport MO 53 Ludington MI 13 Garnett KS 52 Chouteau OK 11 Clarita-Colgate OK 50 Hutchinson KS 10 Milan MO

Table 5.15 Population Density: Persons Per Square Mile By Settlement County

1 2 0 The county with the lowest population density, ten persons per square mile, is the setting for the Milan settlement in Sullivan County, Missouri. Considering all Amish settlements,

35 (62.5%) are in environments below the average US population density.

Population change is a population characteristic which reflects the economic stability and vitality of a community The percentage of persons who changed residence between 1980 and 1990 is found in Table 5 .16. During this period, 46.7% of Americans changed residence, or were otherwise identified as movers. In the central-west and central-east regions, this percentage was slightly lower.

The percentage of movers in the study area ranges from a high of 69 7% in Pulaski

County Missouri, where the Dixon settlement is located, to a low of 33.5% in Anderson

County Kansas, home of the Garnett Settlement. Missouri had highest out-of-state mover rates, with Dixon showing a rate 5 times the settlement counties’ average for across stateline moves. On the other hand, the Cass City settlement in the thumb of east central

Michigan saw only a 3% mover rate in Tuscola county

•Aiother indicator of a population’s mobility, as shown in Table 5 17, is the journey to work, which can be measured as the percentage who work outside of the county of residence There are significant differences in the percentage of those who work outside their county of residence. Tuscola County, Michigan, home of the Cass City settlement, has the highest commuting rate: seventy percent of its workforce is employed outside the county. At the other extreme, the work environment in Iosco County (the

Hale Settlement) finds only 6 .8% of workers commuting outside their county of residence.

In the United States, 23 .9% of workers travel outside their county of residence to work.

1 2 1 Change(%) Settlement State Change(%) Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 69.7 Dixon Mo 41.8 Ashland OH 56.9 Ava IL 41.8 Jeromesville OH 55.9 Blanchard MI 41.7 Fremont MI 55.9 Rosebush MI 41.5 Windsor MO 54.1 Hale MI 41.3 Bowling GreenMO 52.9 Macomb IL 40.8 Centreville MI 48.2 Humansville MO 40.7 Gladwin MI 47.6 Seymour MO 40.7 Ludington MI 46.7 Nappanee IN 39.8 Evart MI 46.2 Dover DE 39.3 Clarita-ColgateOK 45.8 Mio MI 38.9 Kahoka MO 45.6 Arthur IL 38.2 Spartansburg PA 45.5 Hutchinson KS 37.6 Milroy IN- 45.5 Yoder-Haven KS 37.4 Holmes-WayneOH

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 45.1 Verona MO 37.4 Ovid MI 45.0 Clare MI 37.3 Milton MO 45.0 Clark MO 36.8 Mariette MI 44.9 Charlotte MI 36.6 Pleasant Hills IL 44.9 Elkhart-La GrIN 36.0 Geauga OH 43.3 Greenville MI 35.8 Kalona lA 43.1 Kokomo IN 35.5 Carrollton MO 42.2 Canton MO 35.0 Jamesport MO 42.2 Chouteau OK 34.5 Cass City MI 42.2 Prairie Home MO 34.0 Carrollton OH 42.1 Bronson MI 33.9 Buchanan lA 42.1 Quincy MI 33.9 Riceville lA 41.9 Camden MI 33.7 Milan MO 41.9 Wheat Ridge OH 33.5 Garnett KS

Table 5 .16 Movers; Percent Change of Residence 1980-1990 By Settlement County

1 2 2 % Settlement State % Settlement State

upper Quartile Third Quartile 70.0 Cass City MI 27.8 Garnett KS 57.6 Charlotte MI 27.3 Kahoka MO 53.7 Carrollton OH 26.7 Pleasant Hills IL 49.6 Seymour MO 25.8 Centreville MI 46.7 Camden MI 25.8 Chouteau OK 52.0 Fremont MI 25.3 Ashland OH 40.9 Kahoka MO 25.3 Jeromesville OH 40.3 Verona MO 22.1 Arthur IL 39.7 Milroy IN 21.3 Holmes-Wayne OH 39.2 Jamesport MO 21.3 Riceville lA 38.7 Wheat Ridge OH 20.6 Spartansburg PA 38.5 Gladwin MI 20.4 Bowling Green MO 37.6 Canton MO 20.2 Blanchard MI 36.5 Milton lA 20.2 Rosebush MI

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 34.2 Geauga OH 19.5 Windsor MO 34.0 Evart MI 17.6 Dover DE 33.7 Buchanan lA 17.5 Clark MO 32.9 Prairie Home MO 16.8 Elkhart-La Grange IN 32.0 Greenville MI 14.6 Milan MO 31.8 Clarita-Colgate OK 14.2 Ava IL 30.5 Humansville MO 11.4 Ludington MI 30.2 Kalona lA 10.0 Kokomo IN 29.3 Clare MI 9.0 Dixon MO 29.2 Bronson MI 8.9 Nappanee IN 29.2 Quincy MI 8.0 Hutchinson KS 29.1 Camden MI 8.0 Yoder-Haven KS 28.7 Mio MI 7.4 Macomb IL 28.9 Carrollton MO 6.8 Hale MI

Table 5.17 Percentage Working Outside County

1 2 3 5.2.3 Labor Force Characteristics

The civilian labor force reflects the number of persons with expectations of

obtaining economic opportunities. For the host counties in this study, Ohio has the

largest number in the civilian labor force with 360,317 (27.32%), followed by 322,104

(24.43%) in Michigan, and Indiana with 258,151 (19.58%) persons, as can be seen in

Table 5.18.

As shown in Table 5.19, the civilian labor force for this study area in 1991 ranged from 2,375 persons for the Clarita-Colgate settlement community in Coal county,

Oklahoma to 88,234 persons for the Nappanee settlement in the Elkhart County area,

Indiana for those single county Amish settlements. The Geauga County, Ohio settlement had the largest civilian labor force available, numbering 18,272. The upper quartile for this characteristic represented 64.51% of the labor force whereas only 5 .45% of the civilian labor force was found in the bottom quartile.

The two most significant employment sectors for this study of the Amish are agriculture and manufacturing. According to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, at the national level, 2.7% of the US Labor force is employed in agriculture. Table 5 .20 presents an ordering of the percent of labor force employed in agriculture by settlement county.

Only 7 settlements are located in counties that have a smaller percent of employment in agriculture than the national average. In 26 of the 56 settlements, agricultural employment is at least double the national average. The two highest ranking settlements are Milan,

Missouri and Riceville, Iowa, and are located in counties where 18.5% and 17.8% of total

124 State Labor Force # % # of counties

Delaware 54,221 4.11 1

Illinois 96,299 7.30 6

Indiana 258,151 19.58 4

Iowa 28,863 2.19 4

Kansas 34,981 2.65 2

Michigan 322,104 24.43 16

Missouri 104,951 7.96 13

Ohio 360,317 27.32 11

Oklahoma 17,800 1.35 2

Pennsylvania 34,981 3.11 1

Total 1,318,723 100.00 60

Table 5.18 Settlement County Civilian Labor Force by State

1 2 5 Labor # Settlement State Labor # Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 187,272 Geauga OH 13,187 Dixon MO 128,687 Holmes-Wayne OH 12,075 Ludington MI 123,296 Elkhart-LaGrange IN 11,995 Carrollton OH 88,234 Nappanee IN 11,622 Humansville MO 54,221 Dover DE 11,266 Hale MI 53,016 Charlotte MI 10,849 Clark MO 43,752 Arthur IL 10,464 Clare MI 41,036 Spartansburg PA 10,438 Seymour MO 38,680 Kokomo IN 10,106 Buchanan lA 31,122 Hutchinson KS 9,629 Kalona lA 31,122 Yoder-Haven KS 9,623 Evart MI 30,839 Ovid MI 9,104 Gladwin MI 30,526 Blanchard MI 8,694 Wheat Ridge OH 30,526 Rosebush MI 8,656 Windsor MO

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 28,374 Ava IL 7,941 Milroy IN 26,337 Centreville MI 7,915 Pleasant Hills IL 24,705 Greenville MI 7,842 Bowling Green MO 24,594 Cass City MI 7,239 Prairie Home MO 23,669 Ashland OH 5,650 Riceville lA 23,669 Jeromesville OH 5,008 Canton MO 19,846 Camden MI 4,874 Mio MI 19,251 Mariette MI 4.330 Carrollton MO 18,883 Fremont MI 3,987 Kahoka MO 16,701 Bronson MI 3,920 Jamesport MO 16,701 Quincy MI 3,859 Garnett KS 16,258 Macomb IL 3,478 Milton lA 15,425 Chouteau OK 3,447 Milan MO 14,426 Verona MO 2,375 Clarita-Colgate OK

Table 5.19 Civilian Labor Force by Settlement County - 1991

1 2 6 Percent Settlement State Percent Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 18.5 Milan(1990) MO 5.2 Carrollton! 1981 ) OH 17.8 Riceville(1975) lA 5.2 Chouteau! 1910) OK 17.3 Gamett(1903) KS 5.2 Mio! 1970) MI 16.9 Pleasant Hills( 1992)IL 5.0 Ludington! 1981) MI 16.7 Carrollton(1990) MO 4.9 Bronson! 1971) MI 16.5 Milton(1969) IA 4.9 Cass City! 1994) MI 16.4 Jamesport(1953) MO 4.9 Hutchinson! 1983) KS 15.4 Kahoka(1985) MO 4.9 Macomb! 1993) IL 15.3 Bowling Green(1948)MO 4.9 Quincy! 1977) MI 14.5 Buchanan(1914) IA 4.9 Yoder-Haven! 1883 )KS 14.0 Clarita-Colgate( 1978)0K 4.8 Clark! 1954) MO 12.7 Milroy(1969) IN 4.7 Arthur! 1865) IL 12.4 Kalona(1846) lA 4.4 Spartansburg! 1966)PA 11.5 Marlette(1987) MI 3.8 Centreville! 1910) MI

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 11.4 Humansville( 1987)MO 3.8 Gladwin! 1979) MI 11.2 Prairie Home(1980)MO 3.8 Ovid! 1993) MI 10.8 Canton(1985) MO 3.6 Elkhart-LaGr.! 1841 )IN 9.2 Verona(1990) MO 3.4 Ava! 1991) IL 8.9 Windsor! 1975) MO 3.4 Blanchard! 1983) MI 8.8 Seymour! 1968) MO 3.4 Rosebush! 1981) MI 7.4 Wheat Ridge! 19976)OH 3.0 Dover! 1915) DE 6.5 Fremont! 1990) MI 2.6 Clare! 1981) MI 5.9 Ashland! 1954) OH 2.4 Geauga! 1886) OH 5.9 Jeromesville! 1987)OH 2.4 Hale! 1978) MI 5.7 Holmes-Wayne! 1808)OH 2.3 Dixon! 1974) MO 5.4 Greenville! 1953) MI 2.2 Nappanee! 1839) IN 5.3 Camden! 1956) MI 2.1 Charlotte 1977) MI 5.2 Evart! 1989) MI 1.6 Kokomo! 1848) IN

Table 5.20 Percent of Labor Force Employed in Agriculture By Settlement County

1 2 7 employment is found in the agricultural sector. Both of these settlements have been

founded in the recent 25 years.

Based upon employment figures presented in Table 5.21, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri

and Oklahoma are identified as “significant agricultural states”. Those settlements in other

states that are located in a county that has an agriculture employment rate above that

state’s average is, for purposes here, a settlement that is considered to be located in a

“significant agricultural county”. It should be noted that all settlements founded in the

recent 25 years are located in agricultural oriented communities, that is, in either an

“significant agricultural state” or/and “significant agricultural county”.

In the United States, manufacturing represents 17.7% of the civilian force, second

only to wholesale and retail trade (21.2%). Within this study area, there are 3 states

where manufacturing employment surpasses wholesale/retail employment; Indiana,

Michigan and Ohio. Eight of the ten states have manufacturing employment percentages

above the national figure of 17.7%. Table 5.22 shows the ordering of percent employed in

manufacturing by settlement county. More than 40% of employment is in the

manufacturing sector in the Indiana settlements of Elkhart-LaGrange and Nappanee. At

the other end of the scale, the settlements in Dixon, Missouri and Ava, Illinois were

situated in communities where less than 10% of the labor force is involved in

manufacturing.

Forty-six settlements were found to be located in counties with unemployment rates above the US average. It is observed in Table 5 .23 that 13 of the 18 settlements in

Michigan are within the list of 17 communities where unemployment is highest.

128 state agriculture(%) manufacturing(% ) wholesale/retail(%) female(%)

Delaware 2.1 18.8 19.7 61.0

Illinois 2.0 19.5 21.4 57.7

Indiana 2.6 25.2 21.4 57.3

Iowa 4.2 18.2 22.1 57.8

Kansas 5.2 16.8 20.8 57.9

Michigan 1.7 24.6 22.0 55.7

Missouri 3.4 18.6 21.7 56.4

Ohio 1.9 23.1 22.1 54.7

Oklahoma 3.7 14.2 21.5 53.4

Pennsylvania 1.8 20.0 21.5 52.8

U.S. average 2.7 17.7 21.2 56.7

Table 5.21 Percent o f Employment Type by State

1 2 9 Percent Settlement State Percent Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 43.0 Elkhart-LaGrange IN 21.9 Wheat Ridge OH 42.1 Napanee IN 20.9 Riceville lA 39.7 Centreville MI 20.6 Charlotte MI 36.3 Camden MI 20.6 Milan MO 35.4 Kokomo IN 20.5 Ovid MI 33.9 Greenville MI 19.2 Hutchinson KS 33.4 Ashland OH 19.2 Yoder-Haven KS 33.4 Jeromesville OH 18.9 Canton MO 33.2 Carrollton OH 18.6 Bowling Green MO 30.2 Bronson MI 18.0 Prairie Home MO 30.2 Quincy MI 17.8 Buchanan lA 30.1 Fremont MI 17.8 Clare MI 30.0 Geauga OH 17.8 Clark MO 29.6 Holmes-Wayne OH 16.7 Dover DE

Second Quartile Bottom Quatile 28.4 Cass City MI 16.4 Kalona lA 28.4 Verona MO 16.2 Windsor MO 28.0 Kahoka MO 16.0 Clarita-Colgate OK 27.8 Mariette MI 15.6 Hale MI 27.7 Evart MI 14.8 Jamesport MO 27.4 Spartansburg PA 14.7 Pleasant Hills IL 25.4 Milroy IN 14.3 Garnett KS 2 4 9 Seymour MO 14.1 Macomb IL 24.5 Chouteau OK 13.6 Carrollton MO 24.4 Gladwin MI 13.2 Humansville MO 23.8 Mio MI 11.2 Blanchard MI 22.4 Milton lA 11.2 Rosebush MI 22.2 Ludington MI 9.9 Dixon MO 22.0 Arthur IL 7.4 Ava IL

Table 5 .22 Percent Employed in Manufacturing by Settlement County

1 3 0 % Settlement State % Settlement State

upper Quartile Third Quartile 14.1 Wheat Ridge OH 7.4 Jamesport MO 13.0 Clarita-Colgate OK 7.4 Milroy IN 13.0 Greenville MI 7.2 Canton MO 13.0 Mariette MI 7.2 Kahoka MO 12.7 Cass City MI 7.1 Charlotte MI 11.9 Evart MI 7.0 Ava IL 11.8 Fremont MI 7.0 Milton lA 11.5 Centreville MI 6.8 Ashland OH 11.5 Clare MI 6 8 Elkhart-LaGrange IN 11.2 Gladwin MI 6.8 Jeromesville OH 10.8 Ludington MI 6.7 Mio MI 10.5 Camden MI 6.6 Dixon MO 10.4 Hale MI 6.5 Garnett KS 9.6 Chouteau OK 6.5 Holmes-Wayne OH

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 9.5 Carrollton MO 6.5 Verona MO 9.3 Bronson MI 6.4 Blanchard MI 9.3 Quincy MI 6.4 Nappanee IN 9.0 Seymour MO 6.4 Rosebush IN 9.0 Spartansburg PA 5.9 .Arthur IL 8.5 Pleasant Hills IL 5.9 Buchanan lA 8.5 Windsor MO 5.8 Macomb IL 8.4 Kokomo IN 5.7 Humansville MO 8.1 Clark MO 5.1 Hutchinson KS 8.1 0\nd Ml 5.1 Yoder-Haven KS 7.7 Geauga OH 5.0 Prairie Home MO 7.6 Dover DE 4.1 Kalona lA 7.5 Carrollton OH 3.9 Riceville lA 7.4 Bowling Green MO 3.6 Milan MO

Table 5.23 Unemployment Rate by Settlement County

131 The participation of females in the labor force, that is the percentage of females 16

years of age and older who are employed is 56.7% in the United States. As Table 5 .24

shows, all Amish settlement counties have lower percentages of female participation in the

labor force than is found at the national level. Only the Dixon, Missouri settlement is

located in a community where over 50% of females are actively envolved in the civilian

labor force.

5.2.4 Social Characteristics

Income is the first of the social characteristics identified here. Data for this study

found the average per capita income in the US to be $14,420 and a median family income

of $35,225. Table 5.25 shows that of the 56 Amish settlements in this study, only 2 were

located in communities with per capita incomes above the US average, those being the

settlements of Charlotte, Michigan and Kokomo, Indiana. In looking at median family

income, as seen in Table 5.26, 3 settlements in Indiana, Kokomo, Nappanee and Elkhart-

Lagrange, were found to be located in counties with family incomes above their state

average, as well as the Charlotte and Ovid settlements in Michigan.

In the United States, 10% of families live below the poverty level, based on 1992

data. In Table 5 .27, an indication of the poverty level is presented for the Amish

settlements in the study. It was found that 21 (37.5%) of the settlements were located in

counties that are better off than the average US poverty level.

Housing characteristics are also interpreted as being good indicators of social well­ being. As seen in Table 5 .28, the only community with a markedly large number of

132 % Settlement State % Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 53.2 Dixon MO 44.5 Seymour MO 49.3 Hale MI 44.3 Verona MO 48.7 Blanchard MI 44.2 Camden MI 48.7 Rosebush MI 44.2 Geauga OH 47.7 Dover DE 44.2 Milan MO 47.2 Macomb IL 44.2 Milroy IN 46.7 Canton MO 44.1 Cass City MI 46.5 Arthur lA 44.1 Humansville MO 46.3 Bronson MI 44.0 Bowling Green MO 46.3 Quincy MI 44.0 Carrollton MO 46.2 Charlotte MI 44.0 Riceville lA 46,2 Clark MO 43.8 Fremont MI 46.0 Kalona lA 43.7 Pleasant Hills IL 45.9 Kokomo IN 43.7 Windsor MO

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 45.5 Prairie Home MO 43.6 Clarita-Colgate OK 45.4 Hutchinson KS 43.6 Mio MI 45.4 Yoder-Haven KS 43.6 Mariette MI 45.3 Nappanee IN 43.6 Spartansburg PA 45.1 Ashland OH 43.3 Greenville MI 45.1 Jeromesville OH 43.1 Buchanan lA 45.0 Ava IL 43.0 Holmes-Wayne OH 45.9 Elkhart-LaGrange IN 42.9 Kahoka MO 44.9 Centreville MI 42.8 Jamesport MO 44.9 Evart MI 42.3 Gladwin MI 44.9 Ludington MI 42.2 Chouteau OK 44.6 Clare MI 41.9 Milton lA 44.5 Gamett KS 41.5 Carrollton OH 44.5 Ovid MI 41.1 Wheat Ridge OH

Table 5.24 Percent of Female in Labor Force by Settlement County

133 Income($) Settlement State Income Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 14,896 Charlotte MI 10,200 Pleasant Hills IL 14,346 Kokomo IN 10,290 Gamett KS 14,153 Ovid MI 10,102 Carrollton MO 13,825 Nappanee IN 10,089 Macomb IL 12,974 Elkhart-La Gr IN 10,081 Greenville MI 12,888 Geauga OH 10,049 Chouteau KS 12,726 Dover DE 10,006 Prairie Home MO 12,074 Hutchinson KS 10,003 Ava IL 12,074 Yoder-Haven KS 9,961 Blanchard MI 12,039 Centreville MI 9,961 Rosebush MI 11,623 Ashland OH 9,887 Bowling GreenMO 11,623 Jeromesville OH 9,835 Windsor MO 11,543 Cass City MI 9,672 Verona MO 11,434 Arthur IL 9,556 Hale Ml

Second Quatile Bottom Quatile 11,387 Kalona lA 9,482 Gladwin MI 11,263 Holmes-WayneOH 9,348 Milton lA 11,198 Camden MI 9,298 Canton MO 11,035 Riceville lA 9,258 Evart Ml 11,033 Bronson MI 9,193 Pleasant Hills IL 11,033 Quincy Ml 9,159 Dixon MO 10,925 Buchanan lA 9,152 Clare MI 10,869 Milroy IN 9,116 Seymour MO 10,855 Clark MO 9,008 Jamesport MO 10,848 Ludington Ml 8,873 Humansville MO 10,833 Spartansburg PA 8,849 Kahoka MO 10,693 Carrollton OH 8,719 Mio Ml 10,330 Mariette MI 8,407 Wheat Ridge OH 10,307 Fremont Ml 7,695 Clarita-ColgateKS

Table 5.25 Average Per Capita Income of Settlement County

1 3 4 Income($) Settlement State Income($) Settlement State

First Quartile Third Quartile 40,690 Charlotte MI 27,307 Ava IL 40,234 Ovid MI 27,040 Greenville MI 36,902 Kokomo IN 26,984 Mariette MI 35,152 Nappanee IN 26,627 Clark MO 34,299 Elkhart-LaGrange IN 26,601 Fremont MI 34,286 Geauga OH 26,271 Ludington MI 33,594 Dover DE 25,914 Garnett KS 32,307 Arthur IL 25,738 Bowling Green MO 32,134 Centreville MI 25,451 Canton MO 31,781 Cass City MI 25,068 Verona MO 31,764 Ashland OH 24,983 Chouteau OK 31,764 Jeromesville OH 24,859 Pleasant Hills IL 30,423 Holmes-Wayne OH 24,716 Evart MI 30,295 Kalona lA 24,345 Carrollton MO

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 30,120 Camden MI 24,312 Seymour MO 29,549 Hutchinson KS 23,448 Kahoka MO 29,549 Yoder-Haven KS 2 3 J6 4 Hale MI 29,499 Macomb IL 23,312 Dixon MO 29,395 Milroy IN 22,986 Windsor MO 29,389 Bronson MI 22,742 Humansville MO 29,389 Quincy MI 22,652 Jamesport MO 29,341 Carrollton OH 22,574 Milton lA 29,341 Riceville lA 22,564 Gladwin MI 28,753 Blanchard MI 21,226 Wheat Ridge OH 28,753 Rosebush MI 21,044 Mio MI 28,336 Kahoka MO 20,674 Clare MI 28,050 Buchanan lA 19,139 Milan MO 27,828 Spartansburg PA 18,793 Clarita-Colgate OK

Table 5.26 Median Family Income by Settlement County

135 % Settlement State % Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 25.0 Wheat Ridge OH 11.5 Quincy MI 23.3 Clarita-Colgate OK 11.0 Mariette Ml 19.0 Clare MI 10.8 Carrollton MO 17.6 Milan MO 10.8 Cass City MI 17.4 Jamesport MO 10.8 Hale MI 17.2 Gladwin MI 10.8 Macomb IL 16.4 Kahoka MO 10.6 Ludington MI 15.8 Ava IL 9.6 Prairie Home MO 15.3 Chouteau OK 9.5 Camden MI 15.2 Humansville MO 9.5 Kokomo IN 14.9 Evart MO 9.4 Carrollton OH 14.8 Seymour MO 9.4 Holmes-Wayne OH 14.3 Canton MO 9.3 Geauga OH 14.3 Pleasant Hills IL 9.0 Centreville MI

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 14.2 Blanchard MI 8.9 Garnett KS 14.2 Bowling Green MO 8.7 Dover DE 14.2 Rosebush MI 8.4 Arthur IL 13.4 Windsor MO 8.4 Milroy IN 13.3 Mio MI 8.2 Ashland OH 12.9 Fremont Ml 8.2 Jeromesville OH 12.7 Clark MO 8.0 Riceville lA 12.6 Buchanan lA 7.9 Hutchinson KS 12.6 Greenville Ml 7.9 Yoder-Haven KS 12.3 Verona MO 6.3 Kalona lA 11.8 Dixon MO 5.7 Elkhart-LaGrange IN 11.7 Milton lA 5.3 Nappannee IN 11.7 Spartansburg PA 5.3 Charlotte MI 11.5 Bronson MI 4.3 Ovid M l

Table 5.27 Percent of Families With Income Below Poverty Level by Settlement County

136 # units Settlement State # units Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 159,669 Geauga OH 14,119 Ludington MI 95,989 Holmes-WayneOH 13,838 Dixon MO 87,916 Elkhart-LaGr. IN 13,257 Macomb IL 60,182 Nappanee IN 12,788 Verona MO 42,106 Dover DE 11,536 Carrollton OH 40,462 Spartansburg PA 11,444 Evart MI 35,517 Charlotte MI 10,237 Wheat Ridge OH 33,820 Kokomo IN 10,131 Clark MO 33,320 Arthur IL 9,317 Windsor MO 26,607 Hutchinson KS 9,067 Seymour MO 26,607 Yoder-Haven KS 8,979 Humansville MO 25,529 Ava IL 8,272 Buchanan lA 24,242 Centreville MI 8,112 Mio MI 22,817 Greenville MI 8,057 Pleasant Hills IL

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 21,231 Cass City MI 7,866 Kalona lA 20,959 Ovid MI 7,128 Bowling GreenMO 19,950 Blanchard MI 7,014 Milroy IN 19,950 Rosebush MI 6,002 Prairie Home MO 19,517 Hale MI 5,001 Carrollton MO 19,465 Mariette MI 4.514 Riceville lA 19,135 Clare MI 4,244 Canton MO 18,547 Camden MI 3,613 Jamesport MO 18,449 Bronson MI 1,529 Milton lA 18,449 Quincy MI 3,514 Garnett KS 18,139 Ashland OH U 9 8 Kahoka MO 18,139 Jeromesville OH 3,093 Milan MO 15,470 Chouteau OK 3,725 Clarita-ColgateOK 14,885 Gladwin MI 2,005 Fremont MI

Table 5.28 Total Housing Units by Settlement County

1 3 7 housing units in this study area, with over 100,000 housing units, is the Geauga County,

Ohio settlement, a multi-county settlement located within the consolidated metropolitan area of Cleveland.

In this study, high density housing is reflected in the percentage of housing constructions with 5 or more units. In the United States, 17 .7% of housing units are found in structures with 5 or more units. As found in Table 5 .29, there is not a single

Amish settlement located in a county with a higher density than the national figure. This reflects the more rural nature of host counties for Amish settlements.

Another social indicator for housing used here is the mobile home/trailer unit, which is not often used for housing by the Amish. In the US, 7.2% of American families live in this type of housing. As shown in Table 5 30, 47 settlements (83 .93%) are located in counties where more than 7 .2% of families live in mobile home housing.

The value of housing units is an indicator of social well-being. As seen in Table

5 .31, the median home value of housing units varies significantly in the communities where

Amish settlements are located, from S80,800 in the state of Delaware to 516,100 in

Missouri. Only one Amish settlement, Dover, is located in a county where the median home value is above the US median home value.

5.2.5 Agricultural Characteristics

Agriculture, in essence, is the foundation and heart of Amish culture and social existence. Table 5 .32 presents the total number of farms that exist in each settlement county. Data show that the four largest Amish settlements, Holmes-Wayne, Elkhart-

138 Settlement State # Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 17.0 Ava EL 3.9 Mariette MI 14.7 Charlotte MI 3.8 Milroy IN 14.4 Blanchard MI 3.5 Humansville MO 14.4 Rosebush MI 3.3 Windsor MO 12.4 Macomb IL 3.2 Evart MI 10.3 Nappanee IN 3.1 Carrollton MO 10.2 Dover DE 2.9 Cass City MI 10.0 Kokomo IN 2.9 Clark MO 8.4 Arthur IL 2.8 Canton MO 8.3 Elkhart-LaGrange IN 2.7 Garnett KS 7.7 Geauga OH 2.6 Gladwin MI 6.8 Centreville MI 2.6 Prairie Home MO 6.0 Hutchinson KS 2.6 Wheat Ridge OH 6.0 Yoder-Haven KS 2.4 Clare MI

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 5.7 Ashland OH 2.3 Carrollton OH 5.7 Jeromesville OH 2.3 Mio MI 5.3 Camden MI 2.3 Verona MO 5.1 Kalona lA 2.2 Buchanan lA 4.8 Spartansburg PA 2.2 Chouteau OK 4.6 Bronson MI 2.1 Riceville lA 4.6 Quincy MI 2.1 Seymour MO 4.6 Holmes-Wayne OH 2.0 Fremont MI 4.5 Ludington MI 2.0 Jamesport MO 4.5 Ovid MI 1.7 Pleasant Hills IL 4.1 Greenville MI 1.6 Milan MO 4.1 Dixon MO 0.9 Clarita-Colgate OK 4.0 Hale MI 0.8 Kahoka MO 3.9 Bowling Green MO 0.7 Milton lA

Table 5.29 Percent Housing Units in Structures >5 by Settlement County

139 % Settlement State % Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 24.7 Evart MI 11.7 Colgat e-Clarita OK

24.6 Wheat Ridge OH 11.6 Jamesport MO 24.4 Fremont MI 11.5 Holmes-Wayne OH 21.1 Dover DE 11.3 Milton lA 20.9 Gladwin Ml 111 Centreville MI 20.6 Chouteau OK 11.1 Verona MO 20.4 Dixon MO 10.7 Pleasant Hills IL 19.9 Mio MI 10.4 Milan MO 18.2 Ava IL 10.4 Garnett KS 17.5 Humansville MO 10.3 Elkhart-LaGrange IN 17.0 Carrollton OH 9 9 Ovid MI 17.0 Clare MI 8.6 Macomb IL 17.0 Kahoka MO 8.5 Prairie Home MO 16.4 Bronson MI 8.3 Carrollton MO

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 16.4 Greenville MI 8.1 Ashland OH 16.4 Quincy MI 8.1 Hale MI 15.9 Spartansburg PA 8.1 Jeromesville OH 15.4 Seymour MO 8.0 Arthur IL 14.9 Blanchard Ml 7.9 Nappanee IN 14.9 Rosebush MI 7.1 Kalona lA 14.5 Canton MO 6.6 Buchanan lA 14.0 Bowling Green MO 6.3 Geauga OH 13.9 Camden MI 6.0 Charlotte Ml 13.8 Mariette MI 5.9 Hutchinson KS 13.5 Cass City MI 5.9 Milroy IN 12.5 Ludington MI 5.9 Yoder-Haven KS 11.8 Clark MO 5.5 Kokomo IN 11.7 Windsor MO 3.7 Riceville LA

Table 5.30 Percent of Housing Units Mobile Homes/Trailers by Settlement County

140 Value($) Settlement State Value($) Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 80,800 Dover DE 41,200 Milroy IN 68,200 Charlotte MI 41,200 Seymour MO 68,000 Ovid MI 40,800 Bronson MI 62,890 Geauga OH 40,800 Quincy MI 62,300 Nappanee IN 40,100 Hutchinson KS 58,969 Elkhart-LaGrange IN 40,100 Yoder-Haven KS 54,791 Holmes-Wayne OH 39,600 Humansville MO 53,600 Ashland OH 39,600 Prairie Home MO 53,600 Jeromesville OH 39,600 Wheat Ridge OH 53,200 Blanchard MI 37,900 Verona MO 53,200 Rosebush MI 37,500 Evart MI 51,700 Kokomo IN 37,400 Mio MI 51,400 Dixon MO 36,800 Clare MI 47,400 Hale MI 36,500 Windsor MO

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 47,100 Ava IL 36,300 Buchanan lA 46,600 Carrollton OH 36,000 Macomb IL 46,000 Cass City MI 34,700 Riceville lA 44,800 Centreville MI 33,200 Clark MO 44,300 Fremont MI 32,600 Bowling Green MO 43,913 Arthur IL 28,500 Pleasant Hills IL 43,300 Ludington MI 28,000 Canton MO 43,200 Spartansburg PA 27,200 Garnett KS 43,000 Kalona lA 26,900 Carrollton MO 42,700 Gladwin MI 26,300 Kahoka MO 42,600 Greenville MI 25,100 Clarita-Colgate OK 42,400 Mariette MI 24,600 Jamesport MO 42,400 Chouteau OK 21,300 Milton lA 41,400 Camden MI 16,100 Milan MO

Table 5 .31 Median Home Value by Settlement County

1 4 1 # Settlement State # Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 5,158 Holmes-Wayne OH 1,005 Windsor MO 4,050 Elkhart-LaGrange IN 980 Greenville MI 2,841 Geauga OH 939 Riceville lA 2,201 Arthur IL 929 Prairie Home MO 1,757 Verona MO 912 Blanchard MI 1,646 Seymour MO 912 Rosebush MI 1,613 Humansville MO 901 Jamesport MO 1,559 Mariette MI 880 Centreville MI 1,557 Hutchinson KS 857 Dover DE 1,557 Yoder-Haven KS 834 Milroy IN 1,556 Nappanee IN 828 Milan MO 1,412 Wheat Ridge OH 791 Clark MO 1,333 Ovid MI 783 Milton lA 1,332 Buchanan lA 727 Garnett KS

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 1,281 Spartansburg PA 721 Canton MO 1,258 Chouteau OK 720 Ava IL 1,219 Charlotte MI 703 Carrollton OH 1,207 Cass City MI 702 Kahoka MO 1,193 Pleasant Hills IL 687 Fremont MI 1,158 Kalona lA 677 Kokomo IN 1,142 Camden MI 580 Clarita-Colgate OK 1,078 Ashland OH 528 Dixon MO 1,078 Jeromesville OH 503 Evart MI 1,037 Bowling Green MO 426 Ludington MI 1,034 Bronson MI 411 Gladwin MI 1,034 Quincy MI 298 Clare MI 1,018 Macomb IL 215 Hale MI 1,013 Carrollton MO 84 Mio MI

Table 5.32 Total Number of Farms by Settlement County

142 LaGrange, Geauga and Arthur, also repeat in identical order for having the largest

number of farms. Following these multi-county settlements are three settlements in

Missouri: Verona, Seymour and Humansville. Indeed, there is a wide range in the number

of farms in the single settlement counties, from 1,757 farms in the Verona settlement

county to only 84 farms in the Mio, Michigan settlement county.

As Amish farmers continue to use horse power, there are clear limits as to farm

size. A surrogate measure here is farm size less than 50 acres. In the United States,

28 .5% of farms fall into this category used to measure the number of small farms in the

host counties.. As shown in Table 5.33, only six Amish settlements were located in

counties that have a larger percentage of small farms than is found at the national level.

All Amish settlements where there is a high incidence of small farms are at least 80 years

old, and located east of the Mississippi River.

Out of the total US population, only 1.6% live on a farm. In this study area, as

shown in Table 5.34, all settlements but one. Hale, Michigan were located in counties that

have a larger farm population percentage than the national average. All 4 settlements in

Iowa are strongly identified with agriculture, and fall within the upper quartile of this characteristic. The Riceville settlement, for example, is located in a community where the farm population is 23 .8% of the total population.

The productive results of the agricultural sector can be measured in terms of farm earnings and farm products sold. In Table 5.35 total farm earnings are presented for the host county (ies) of each settlement. It is natural that the two settlements with largest farm earnings were the multi-county settlements, Holmes-Wayne and Elkhart-LaGrange.

1 4 3 Percent Settlement State Percent Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 42.4 Nappanee IN 20.0 Clare MI 37.8 Dover DE 20.5 Kalona lA 35.4 Elkhart-La Grange IN 20.2 Clark MO 33.7 Kokomo IN 20.2 Macomb IL 30.7 Geauga OH 19.9 Riceville lA 30.0 Charlotte MI 19.4 Hutchinson KS 28.2 Ludington MI 19.4 Yoder-Haven KS 27.9 Seymour MO 19.2 Milroy IN 27.6 Verona MO 19.1 Buchanan lA 27.5 Wheat Ridge OH 18.8 Bowling GreenMO 26.8 Fremont MI 18.7 Gladwin MI 26.1 Bronson MI 18.7 Windsor MO 26.1 Quincy MI 18.5 Mariette MI 25.8 Camden Ml 18.2 Pleasant Hills IL

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 25.3 Ovid MI 17.9 Mio MI 24.9 Holmes-Wayne OH 17.3 Spartansburg PA 24.6 Chouteau OK 16.7 Hale MI 24.4 Ashland OH 16.2 Canton MO 24.4 Centreville MI 16.1 Dixon MO 24.4 Jeromesville OH 15.9 Prairie Home MO 24.3 Arthur IL 15.5 Jamesport MO 22.9 Cass City MI 14.7 Carrollton MO 22.8 Humansville MO 14.7 Evart MI 22.0 Greenville MI 14.6 Geauga OH 21.3 Ava IL 13.7 Milton lA 21.2 Blanchard MI 12.6 Clarita-ColgateOK 21.2 Rosebush MI 12.4 Kahoka MO 21.1 Carrollton OH 10.7 Milan MO

Table 5 .33 Percent of Farms Less Than 50 Acres in Size by Settlement County

144 Percent Settlement State Percent Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 23.8 Riceville lA 6.4 Quincy MI 22.3 Jamesport MO 6.2 Holmes-Wayne OH 22.1 Milton lA 5.9 Arthur IL 21.2 Kahoka MO 5.8 Chouteau OK 20.4 Garnett KS 5.5 Carrollton MO 19.4 Milan MO 5.5 Macomb IL 17.5 Buchanan lA 4.7 Clark MO 16.5 Carrollton MO 4.5 Evart MI 16.1 Clarita-Colgate OK 4.3 Centreville MI 15.5 Pleasant Hills IL 3.9 Charlotte MI 15.4 Milroy IN 3.7 Nappanee IN 14.8 Kalona lA 3.6 Hutchinson KS 13.7 Bowling Green MO 3.6 Yoder-Haven KS 12.6 Humansville MO 3.5 Spartansburg PA

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 11.8 Seymour MO 3.2 Gladwin MI 11.6 Prairie Home MO 3.2 Greenville MI 11.1 Canton MO 3.1 Blanchard MI 10.4 Verona MO 3.1 Fremont MI 10.4 Wheat Ridge OH 3.1 Rosebush MI 9.0 Windsor MO 2.9 Ludington MI 8.1 Ovid MI 2.8 Ava IL 7.9 Mariette MI 2.6 Kokomo IN 7.7 Camden MI 2.4 Mio MI 7.1 Cass City MI 2.3 Dover DE 6.9 Ashland OH 2.0 Clare MI 6.9 Jeromesville OH 1.7 Dixon MO 6.6 Elkhart-Lagramge IN 1.6 Geauga OH 6.4 Bronson MI 1.1 Hale MI

Table 5 .34 Percentage Farm Population as Part of Total Population

1 4 5 Eamings($) Settlement State Eamings($) Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 78,832 Holmes-WayneOH 11.564 Seymour MO 59,641 Elkhart-LaGr. IN 11,449 Bronson MI 53,935 Dover DE 11,449 Quincy MI 51,377 Kalona lA 11,245 Wheat Ridge OH 50,439 Arthur IL 11,196 Ashland OH 41,500 Buchanan lA 11,196 Jeromesville OH 40,157 Riceville lA 10,008 Blanchard MI 37,910 Hutchinson KS 10,008 Rosebush MI 37,910 Yoder-Haven KS 9,762 Prairie Home MO 35,214 Greenville MI 9,229 Ludington MI 32,799 Mariette MI 8,464 Carrollton MO 32,419 Cass City MI 8,248 Jamesport MO 28,462 Pleasant Hills IL 8,116 Clark MO 26,390 Ovid MI 7,732 Evart MI

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 25,478 Camden MI 7,634 Chouteau OK 22,485 Spartansburg PA 7,188 Carrollton OH 21,578 Geauga OH 7,002 Kahoka MO 18,791 Nappanee IN 6,767 Milan MO 18,698 Kokomo IN 6,534 Charlotte MI 17,918 Ava IL 5,943 Canton MO 16,943 Macomb IL 5,184 W indsor MO 16,663 Centreville MI 4.997 Garnett KS 15,356 Milroy IN 4,658 Clarita-C olgateOK 14,991 Milton lA 3,924 Dixon MO 14,007 Humansville MO 3,095 Clare MI 12,731 Fremont MI 2,456 Gladwin MI 12,296 Bowling GreenMO 2,378 Hale MI 12,108 Verona MO 953 Mio MI

Table 5.35 Total Farm Earnings by Settlement County

146 The average farm earnings by settlement county are presented in Table 5.36. In this

ranking of settlements based upon farm earnings, there was found a wide geographical

distribution. This reflects market location and product demar.d of agricultural products,

neither of which are addressed in this study.

Farm earnings as a percentage of total earnings by settlement county is presented

in Table 5.37. It is quite clear that the Amish settlements in Iowa reflect the dominance of agriculture found in this state. The four settlements in Iowa lead this list; Riceville,

34.1%; Milton, 28.4%; Kalona, 26.6%; and Buchanan 25.7%.

5.2.6 Amish Settlement Characteristics

In the 56 settlements analyzed in this study there was a total of 467 church districts. As shown in Table 5.38, the largest number are associated with the multi-county settlements. The five largest settlements account for 73 .45% of the church districts in this study, and 26 out of 56 settlements (46.43%) were one-church district settlements.

As seen in Table 5 .39, the number of families per church district varies significantly. In the one-church district settlements, the Mariette, Michigan settlement has

40 families whereas Ovid, which is less than three years old (and also in Michigan), has only eight families. In the settlements with at least six church districts, the highest average church district size was 33 (Dover, Delaware) and the lowest average was found for the

Clark, Missouri settlement with 20.

147 Eamings($) Settlement State Eamings($) Settlement State

Upper Quarter Third Quarter 62,934 Dover DE 11,072 Bronson MI 44,367 Kalona lA 11,072 Quincy MI 42,765 Riceville lA 11,060 Hale MI 35,932 Greenville MI 10,973 Blanchard MI 31,156 Buchanan lA 10,973 Rosebush MI 27,618 Kokomo IN 10,508 Prairie Home MO 26,859 Cass City MI 10,385 Ashland OH 24,886 Ava IL 10,385 Clare MI 24,348 Hutchinson KS 10,385 Jeromesville OH 24,348 Yoder-Haven KS 10,260 Clark MO 23,857 Pleasant Hills IL 10,224 Carrollton OH 22,916 Arthur IL 9,974 Kahoka MO 22,309 Camden MI 9,154 Jamesport MO 21,664 Ludington MI 8,683 Humansville MO

Second Quarter Bottom Quarter 21,038 Mariette MI 8,355 Carrollton MO 19,797 Ovid MI 8,242 Canton MO 18,901 Centreville MI 8,172 Milan MO 18,531 Fremont MI 3,031 C larita-C olgateOK 18,507 Milton lA 7,963 Wheat Ridge OH 18,412 Milroy IN 7,695 Geauga OH 17,552 Spartansburg PA 7,431 Dixon MO 16,643 Macomb IL 7,025 Seymour MO 15,371 Evart MI 6,891 Verona MO 15,283 Holmes-WayneOH 6,873 Garnett KS 14,726 Elkhart-LaGr. IN 6,068 Chouteau OK 12,076 Nappanee IN 5,975 Gladwin Ml 11,857 Bowling GreenMO 5,360 Charlotte MI 11,345 Mio MI 5,158 Windsor MO

Table 5.36 Average Farm Eamings by Settlement County

148 % Farm % Farm Eamings Settlement State Eamings Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 34.1 Riceville lA 5.4 Macomb IL 28.4 Milton lA 5.4 Yoder-Haven KS 26.6 Kalona lA 4.8 Carrollton OH 25.7 Buchanan lA 4.4 Dover DE 22.2 Pleasant Hills IL 4.1 Ludington MI 20.7 Jamesport MO 3.6 Bronson MI 20.5 Kahoka MO 3.6 Quincy MI 17.6 Clarita-ColgateOK 3.5 Milan MO 15.4 Milan MO 3.5 Windsor MO 13.2 Carrollton MO 3.2 Holmes-W ayneOH 12.1 Milroy IN 3.1 Choteau OK 11.2 Gamett KS 2.9 Ava IL 11.1 Mariette MI 2.8 Centreville MI 10.6 Humansville MO 2.8 Spartansburg PA

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 10.1 Bowling GreenMO 2.7 Gladwin MI 10.0 Canton MO 2.7 Mio MI 9.9 Cass City MI 2.5 Ashland OH 9.7 Seymour MO 2.5 Jeromesville OH 9.5 Prairie Home MO 2.3 Clare MI 8.9 Ovid MI 1.9 Blanchard MI 8.5 Greenville MI 1.9 Rosebush MI 7.8 Wheat Ridge OH 1.8 Elkhart-LaGr. IN 7.0 Verona MO 1.3 Kokomo IN 6.7 Camden MI 1.1 Charlotte MI 5.7 Arthur IL 1.0 Dixon MO 5.5 Fremont MI 0.9 Hale MI 5.4 Evart MI 0.7 Nappanee IN 5.4 Hutchinson KS 0.5 Geauga OH

Table 5 .37 Farm Eamings as Percent of Total Eamings by Settlement County

149 # Settlement State # Settlement State

156 Holmes-Wayne OH 2 Wheat Ridge OH 85 Elkhart-LaGrange IN 2 Windsor MO 55 Geauga OH 1 Ava IL 26 Nappanee IN 1 Blanchard MI 21 Arthur IL 1 Bronson MI 8 Dover-Hartley DE 1 Camden MI 8 Spartansburg PA 1 Canton MO 7 Kalona lA I Carrollton MO 6 Buchanan lA 1 Carrollton OH 6 Clark MO 1 Cass City MI 6 Jamesport MO 1 Clarita-Colgage OK 6 Seymour MO 1 Dixon MO 5 Ashland OH 1 Evart MI 5 Chouteau OK 1 Greenville MI 4 Centreville MI 1 Hale MI 4 Yoder-Haven KS 1 Humansville MO 3 Bowling Green MO 1 Hutchinson KS 3 Clare MI 1 Jeromesville OH 3 Gladwin MI 1 Kahoka MO 3 Milroy IN 1 Ludington MI 3 Milton lA 1 Macomb IL 2 Charlotte MI 1 Mariette MI 2 Fremont MI 1 Milan MO 2 Gamett KS 1 Ovid MI 2 Kokomo IN 1 Pleasant Hills IL 2 Mio MI 1 Prairie Home MO 2 Quincy MI 1 Rosebush MI 2 Riceville lA 1 Verona MO

Table 5 .38 Number of Church Districts per Settlement

1 5 0 # Settlement State Settlement State

40 Mariette MI 21 Clarita-Colgate OK 39 Hutchinson KS 20 Bronson MI 36 Centreville MI 20 Cass City MI 36 Quincy MI 20 Clark MO 33 Dover DE 20 Macomb IL 31 Arthur IL 19 Gamett KS 30 Elkhart-LaGrange IN 19 Kahoka MO 30 Geauga OH 19 Yoder-Haven KS 29 Canton MO 18 Gladwin MI 28 Nappanee IN 18 Milton lA 27 Ashland OH 18 Prairie Home MO 27 Buchanan lA 18 Riceville lA 27 Greenville MI 18 Windsor MO 27 Ludington MI 17 Chouteau OK 26 Jamesport MO 16 Charlotte MI 26 Mio MI 16 Dixon MO 26 Milroy IN 16 Evart MI 26 Wheat Ridge OH 16 Jeromesville OH 24 Carrollton OH 15 Milan MI 24 Kalona lA 14 Fremont MI 24 Kokomo IN 12 Carrollton MO 24 Seymour MO 12 Humansville MO 24 Spartansburg PA 11 Ava IL 22 Bowling Green MO 11 Hale MI 22 Camden MI 11 Rosebush MI 22 Holmes-Wayne OH 10 Blanchard MI 22 Verona MO 10 Pleasant Hills IL 21 Clare MI 8 Ovid MI

Table 5.39 Amish Families Per Church District

1 5 1 Amish settlement age is presented in Table 5.40. The newer settlements are emerging in various states, however, the trend is a general westerly direction from the original settlement enclaves.

In Table 5.41 the number o f Amish families per settlement is presented in a rank order from largest to smallest. This ordering of settlements varies only slightly from the order of settlements by number of church districts, which reflects differences in family size that exists between settlements.

5.3 Bivariate Analysis

To interpret the impact that the surrounding environment or host community has on occupational opportunities, and the economic structure and well-being of the Amish, bivariate correlation analysis was used. Meaningful associations are identified at the .10,

.05 and ,01 levels of significance. As mentioned in Chapter 4, significance level was extended to include correlation coefficients with a probability of < 1 0 and > .05 because o f the small sample size.

Reviewing Table 5 .9, 10 out of the 56 settlements have a Farm/Non-Farm Ratio of

10 or larger. This means that there are least 10 farmers for every non-farmer. All of these settlements are small and new (except for Camden, Michigan) and have the lowest occupational diversity scores (Table 5.6). They also have very low Carpenter/Non-

Carpenter Ratios (Table 5.12), although some showed up in the 3rd, not bottom, quartile on CNCRAT. The bivariate correlations shown in parentheses are calculated with an

152 Age Settlement State Age Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Q uartile 187 Holmes-Wayne OH 18 Clarita-Colgate OK 154 Elkhart-Lagrange IN 18 Wheat Ridge OH 154 Nappanee IN 18 Quincy MI 146 Kalona lA 17 Hale MI 145 Kokomo IN 17 Riceville lA 130 Arthur EL 16 Gladwin MI 113 Yoder-Haven KS 16 Prairie Home MO 107 Geauga OH 14 Clare MI 93 Gamett KS 14 Ludington MI 86 Chouteau OK 14 Rosebush MI 85 Centreville MI 13 Carrollton OH 80 Dover DE 13 Hutchinson KS 78 Buchanan lA 12 Blanchard MI 48 Bowling Green MO 11 Canton MO

Second Quartile Bottom Quartile 43 Jamesport MO 11 Kahoka MO 42 Clark MO 9 Humansville MO 40 Ashland OH 8 Mariette MI 39 Camden MI 7 Jeromesville OH 28 Seymour MO 6 Carrollton MO 28 Spartansburg PA 6 Milan MO 25 Mio MI 6 Evart MI 24 Milroy IN 6 Verona MO 24 Bronson MI 5 Fremont Ml 23 Milton lA 4 Ava IL 22 Greenville MI 3 Pleasant Hills IL 22 Dixon MO 2 Macomb IL 21 Windsor MO 2 Ovid MI 18 Charlotte MI 1 Cass City MI

Table 5 .40 Age of Amish Settlement as of Directory Publication Date

53 Families Settlement State Families Settlement State

Upper Quartile Third Quartile 3,432 Holmes-Wayne OH 36 Riceville lA 2,584 Elkhart-La Grange IN 36 Windsor MO 1,648 Geauga OH 33 Charlotte MI 729 Nappanee IN 29 Fremont MI 664 Arthur IL 29 Canton MO 268 Dover DE 27 Ludington MI 193 Spartansburg PA 27 Greenville MI 173 Kalona lA 24 Carrollton OH 163 Buchanan lA 22 Camden MI 160 Jamesport MO 22 Verona MO 149 Seymour MO 21 Clarita-Colgate OK 132 Ashland OH 20 Bronson MI 126 Centreville MI 20 Cass City MI 125 Clark MO 20 Macomb IL

SecondQuartile Bottom Quartile 87 Chouteau OK 19 Kahoka MO 79 Milroy IN 18 Pairie Home MO 79 Yoder-Haven KS 16 Dixon MO 73 Quincy MI 16 Evart MI 66 Bowling Green MO 16 Jeromesville OH 64 Clare MI 15 Milan MO 55 Milton lA 12 Carollton MO 54 Gladwin MI 12 Humansville MO 53 Wheat Ridge OH 11 Ava IL 52 Mio MI 11 Hale MI 49 Kokomo IN 11 Rosebush MI 40 Mariette MI 10 Pleasant Hills IL 39 Gamett KS 10 Blanchard MI 39 Hutchinson KS 8 Ovid MI

Table 5.41 Number of Amish Families Per Settlement

1 5 4 n=46, which reflects taking out the 10 Amish settlements with a predominant agricultural

economic base that have little room for economic diversity.

5.3.1 Associations Between the Dependent Variables

In Table 5.42 it can be seen that the 3 dependent variables [Diversity Index

(DIVDEX), Farm/Non-Farm Ratio (FNFRAT), and Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio

(CNCRAT) ] are all significantly correlated. The strongest relationship is an inverse

relationship between the DIVDEX and the FNFRAT. This means that with increasing

diversity of occupation among Amish males, the ratio of Amish farmers to non-farmers

decreased.

There is also found a significant inverse relationship between farmer and carpenter

occupational ratios. Already in this study, carpentry has been identified as the second

most important Amish occupation, and here it is found that the CNCRAT is significantly

associated to the FNFRAT. The negative correlation coefficient means that as the share of

Amish men who are carpenters increases, the share of men who are farmers decreases, hence, it appears that one important pattern in the transition out of agriculture for the

Amish is to switch over to carpentry work.

A positive significant relationship exists between the DIVDEX and the CNCRAT.

This indicates occupational diversity increases, the carpentry profession with the Amish does also.

155 F/NF Ratio C/NC Ratio Diversity Index

F/NFarm Ratio 1.000

C/NCarpenter Ratio -.299** ( .335)** 1.000

Diversity Index -.632*** (-.652)*** .390*** (-.294)** 1.000

* p< .10; ** p < .05; *** p < ,01 Full Sample (n=56); Without Settlements with F/NF Ratio > 10 (n=46)

Table 5 .42 Bivariate Correlations for Characteristics of Dependent Variables

156 5.3.2 Independent Variable Correlations with Dependent Variables

The strengths and direction of relationships of the independent variables on the

dependent variables is presented in six groupings: characteristics of the Amish settlement,

geographic characteristics, population characteristics, labor force characteristics, social

characteristics, and agricultural characteristics. Once again, it should be noted that in the

parentheses are those correlation coefficients representing the “reduced set” (n = 46).

Amish Settlement - Dependent Variable Relationships

All four variables in this grouping are found to have significant correlations with

the DIVDEX, with the number of families in the settlement showing the strongest

association. By eliminating the “group of 10" there is found to be a general strengthening

of relationships, as can be seen in Table 5 .43. For example, the correlation between the

number of families in the settlement and the DIVDEX increased from .360 to .362 at the

.01 significance level, when the reduced set was used. The correlation between number of

church districts in the settlement and the DIVDEX also increased slightly from .342 to

.344. Still more noticeable was the increase in correlation between the average number of

families per church district and DIVDEX, which jumped from .240 to 364.

There was found a significant inverse relationship between average number of

families per church district and the FNFRAT when the “reduced set” was applied. What is shown here is that, when not considering the “group of 10", there is a smaller proportion of farmers in a settlement when the average church district size increases.

1 5 7 F/NF Ratio C/NC Ratio Diversity Index

Ave. # Families Per Church District .123 (-.254)* -.071 (-.051) .240* (.364)***

Age of Settlement -.207 (-.178) -.042 (-.076) .308** (.275)**

# Church Districts in Settlement -.153 (-.189) .018 ( .000) .342*** (.344)**

# of Families in Settlement - 161 (-.205) .020 ( .001) .360*** (.362)***

# p < . 10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01 Full Sample (n=56); Without Settlements with F/NF Ratio > 10 (n=46)

Table 5 .43 Bivariate Correlations for Characteristics of the Amish Settlement and Dependent Variables

158 Also, there was shown a relationship between the age of settlement and the

DIVDEX at the .05 significance level. When the reduced set was applied the correlation

coefficient decreased from .308 to .275. As the size of the settlement and age of

settlement increased, so did the diversity of occupations for Amish

Geographic - Dependent Variable Relationships

As could be expected, the geographic size of the settlement had a significant

relationship with all dependent variables. As seen in Table 5 .44, the total land area and the

multi-county settlement variables show the largest overall correlations with the DIVDEX

It is interesting that proximity to a metropolitan area was not correlated with diversity, but

was associated with a higher carpenter/non-carpenter ratio. This probably indicates that

Amish men were more likely to be in carpentry jobs when the Amish settlement was closer

to a metropolitan area. This indicates that demand for Amish made wood products and construction quality exists among an urban population.

By using the reduced set of settlements, whether the Amish settlement is located east or west of the Mississippi River, was found to be significantly correlated with the diversity index. Even after eliminating the 10 settlements with the largest farmer to non­ farmer ratio, it was found that settlements lying west of the Mississippi River were more likely to have agriculturally dominated Amish communities than those east of the

Mississippi. The multi-county settlements were positively correlated to those with larger carpenter/non-carpenter ratio and diversity scores, but inversely correlated with FNFRAT

159 F/NF Ratio C/NC Ratio Diversity Index

East/West Location - 043 ( 308)** -.148 (-174) -.274** (- 355)***

Total Land Area - 038 (- 240)* -.003 ( 002) .301** ( .357)***

Proximity to Metropolitan Area - 067 (-113) 225*( .222) 111 ( 096)

Multi-county Settlement 186 ( .237)* - 059 (-.039) - 374***(- .373)***

* p< 10: **p< OS:***p< 01 Full Sample (n=56); Without Settlements with F/NT Ratio > 10 (n=46)

Table 5 .44 Bivariate Correlations for Geographic Characteristics of the .Area and Dependent Variables

160 This suggests that the more agriculturally dominated Amish settlements seek out smaller spatial communities.

Population - Dependent Variable Relationships

There were four out of six independent variables found to have significant correlations with the three dependent variables as seen in Table 5 .45, There was a significant relationship between those working outside the county and the CNCRAT.

When the host community had a larger share of the workforce commuting to work outside of the county, the CNCRAT increased.

It can also be observed that total population of the settlement area was significantly associated with the DIVDEX, and there was a smaller (but inverse) relationship of population total with the ENTRAT The percent of movers, which symbolizes migration tendencies of persons in a community, shows a significant association with the ENTRAT, as well as with the DIVDEX. When bivariate analysis was applied to the reduced set of settlements, there was a significant relationship between the host communities with higher rates of mobility and the settlements with a ENER.AT This indicates that many .Amish settlements are in areas that are growing.

Labor - Dependent Variable Relationships

The significant correlations of the Labor Eorce and the dependent variables are presented in Table 5.46. Once again it is the DIVDEX that shows the highest bivariate correlation coefficients. It is quite natural that the strongest relationship in this grouping is

161 F/NF Ratio C/NC Ratio Diversity Index

Population Total ( 1992) - 153 (- 231)* 104 ( 094) 352*** ( 363)***

Pop. Net Change (1980-1992) ^ -127 (-121) 047 ( 028) 241* ( 224)

Pop Net Change (1980-1992) % -.029 ( .097) 049 ( 025) 162 ( 122)

Persons per Square Mile -145 (-144) 128 ( 112) 214 ( 194)

Total Movers % - 015 ( 359)*** -.059 (-116) - 131 (-275)**

Working Outside of County -044(- 181) 365***( 399)*** 044 ( 082)

*p< 10: **p<.05;***p< 01 Full Sample (n=56). Without Settlements v,ith F/'NT Ratio > 10 (n=46)

Table 5 45 Bivariate Correlations for Population Characteristics of the .Area and Dependent Variables

162 F/NF Ratio C/NC Ratio Diversity Index

Civilian Labor Force (1991) -.167 (-255)* 110 ( .098) 357***(-.367)***

Unemployment Rate % ( 1991 ) .177 (-.154) -150 (-.122) 103 ( 241)*

Female Labor Force % 067 ( 349)** 024 ( .000) - 185 (-266)*

Labor % in Agriculture .113 (.003) -1 0 0 (-080) - 151 (-.105)

Labor % in Manufacturing .033 (- 214) - 066 (-.029) 149 ( 259)*

Labor % in Whole./Ret.Trade •-.133 ( .053) -001 (-.051) 054 (-.051)

Labor % in Pub Admin. ■Oil ( .228) 310**( 286)** -017 (-099)

Labor % in Health Services 137 ( 226) -1 0 8 (-092) -221* (- 207)

Labor % in F I.R.E, .064 ( .022) 328**( 316) 014 (- 035)

Earn. % in Good Related 008 (-.204) -1 0 9 (-090) 164 (- 242)

Earn. % in Services Related - 030 ( 327)** 092 ( 057) -200 (-319)**

Earn. % in Farm Related 160 (- 004) - 088 (-034) -242* (- 148)

* p < 10; **p< 05; ***p< 01 Full Sample (n=56); Without Settlements with F/NF Ratio > 10 (n=46)

Table 5 46 Bivariate Correlations for Labor Force Characteristics of Area and Dependent Variables

1 6 3 in the civilian labor force with the DIVDEX. This means that the diversity of the

occupational structure of Amish males increased with the size of the civilian labor force in

the host community. Other labor characteristics that show significant relationships when

using the reduced set of settlements include coefficients between: percent of female labor

force working and the FNFRAT, the percent of earnings in the services related sector with

both DIVDEX and FNFRAT. The percentages of public employees and finance sector

labor are also correlated with the CNCRAT. One may conclude that Amish carpenters are

more in demand with solidly based economic host communities, such as those

communities where public employee and finance sector labor are larger.

Social - Dependent Variable Relationships

The social characteristics make up the largest grouping of independent variables

for analysis. There was a significant association of relationships between social

characteristics and the dependent variable CNCRAT, but not with the other two

dependent variables. Table 5.47 shows statistically significant correlations with per capita

income, median family income, percent of female headed households below poverty level,

percent of the population with high school diplomas, and median values of housing units.

Both the per capita income and median family income of host communities show positive correlations with the CNCRAT, as does the median value of the housing unit.

For each of these social characteristics, the relationship increased in the CNCRAT when the reduced set was used. Implied here is that the carpentry profession is becoming more dominant in environments where there are strong, relevant economic indicators. Indeed,

164 F/NF Ratio C/NC Ratio Diversity Index

% Population White .059 (-.126) -.085 (-053) -Oil ( .069)

% Female House Head -.091 (-.136) -.037 (-064) .173 ( 150)

Persons per Household .110 (-.036) .122 (.162) -.012 ( .054)

One Person Household -.105 (-.002) -.140 (-.178) -.009 (■-.069)

Violent Crime Rate (1991) -.188 (-.093) .099 (.071) 130( 072)

Per Capita Income -.057 (-.171) .275**( 300)** I18( .165)

Median Family Income -.041 (-.186) 320**( 356)*** .073 ( .133)

% Fam. w/Income < Poverty Level -.094 (-.018) -.218 (-258) .032 (- .033)

% Female Househ. < Poverty Level -.004 ( .055) -305**(-.325)** -.081 (- .116)

Educ. % w/Ffigh School Degree .054 ( .050) 225* ( 249)* -.156 (- .140)

Educ. % w/Bachelors Degree or > -.131 (-.027) .165 ( 143) -.063 (- .136)

Househ. in structures w/ >= 5 units -.153 (-.164) .123 (.103) .082 ( .038)

Mobile Home/Trailer % of Total -.059 (-.060) -112 (-.139) .078 ( .043)

Median Value Household Unit - 036 (- 044) 326*' "( .329)** 136 ( .136)

♦p<10; **p< .05; ***p< 01 Full Sample (n=56); Without Settlements with F/NF Ratio > 10 (n=46)

Table 5 .47 Bivariate Analysis for Social Characteristics of the Area and Dependent Variables

165 high income levels and high average home values are important considerations for

attracting the carpentry trade. In the broader society, level of education was also an

economic indicator of a community. The high school diploma in this instance represents a

host community with a solid income base, which provides more economic opportunities

for the Amish. Within this same social-economic rationale, there was found a significant

negative relationship between host communities with female headed households below the

poverty level and the CNCRAT.

Agricultural - Dependent Variable Relationships

As seen in Table 5.48, the agricultural characteristics associated with an Amish

community used in this study show significant relationships only with the DIVDEX Both

the total number of farms and the total farm population were found to have significant

associations with DIVDEX. There were no agricultural characteristics of the settlement

area that showed significant correlations with the Farm/Non-Farm Ratio.

5.4 Regression Analysis

The relative effects of the characteristics of the Amish settlement and the three dependent variables were examined by the use of regression analysis. All significant bivariate relationships from the previous section are in summary form in Table 5.49.

There were a total of 38 significant associations found when using the 3 levels of significance for confirming strength of association.

1 6 6 F/NF Ratio C/NC Ratio Diversity Index

Number of Farms (1987) .034 (-.161) .072 ( .077) .257* (.298)**

% of Farms with < 50 Acres .112 (-.150) .190 ( .195) .274** ( .300)**

% of Farms with > 500 Acres .010 (-.057) -118(- .118) .118 (-.122)

Total Farm Population .054 (-.190) .097 ( 111) .252* ( .306)**

Farm Population, as % of Total Pop. .064 (-.003) -.034 (-.003) -.189 (-.144)

Total Value of Products Sold .047 (-.200) .062 ( . 099) .182 ( .288)**

Ave. Per Farm/Value of Products Sold .136 (-.189) .047 ( .130) -.046 (.121)

Total Farm Earnings .089 (-.199) .063 ( . 121) .133 ( .277)**

* p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01 Full Sample (n=56); Without Settlements with F/NF Ratio > 10 (n=46)

Table 5 48 Bivariate Correlations for Agricultural Characteristics of the Area and Dependent Variables

167 Less Settlements with Correlates (n=56) F/NFRAT > 15 (n-46) Coef. Depend. Independ. Block Sig. Coef. Sig. - .374 Divdex - Multi-County I *** -.373 *** .365 Divdex - Work Outside County II *** .399 *** .360 Divdex - # families in settlement VI *** .362 *** .357 Divdex - Tot. Civilian Labor Force III *** -.367 *** .352 Divdex - Tot. Pop. II *** .363 *** .342 Divdex - # of churches in settlement VI *** .344 ** .328 C/NC - % F.I.R.E. in Labor Force III ** .326 C/NC - Median Value Household Unit II ** .329 ** .320 C/NC - Median Family Income II ** .356 * * * .310 C/NC - % Public Admin. In Labor Force III ** .286 ** .308 Divdex - Age o f Settlement VI ** .275 ** - .305 C/NC - % Female w/income < Poverty Level IV ** -.325 ** .301 Divdex - Total Land Area I ** .357 *** .275 C/NC - Per Capita Income IV ** .300 ** .274 Divdex - % farms <50 acres V ** 300 ** - .274 Divdex - East/West I ** -.355 *** .257 Divdex - # of Farms V * .298 ** .252 Divdex - Total Farm Pop. V * .306 ** - .242 Divdex - Earnings % in farm related III * .241 Divdex - number net change in pop II * .240 Divdex - ave # of families/church district VI * .364 .225 C/NC - Metro Proximity 1 * .225 C/NC - Education % with HS diploma IV * .249 * - .221 Divdex - Labor % in Health Services III * F/NF Ratio - Total % movers II .359 *** F/NF Ratio - Female Labor Force % III .349 ** F/NF Ratio - Earnings % in Services Related III .327 ** Divdex - Earnings % Service Related III -.319 ** F/NF Ratio - East/West I .308 ** Divdex - Total Value of Farm Products Sold V 288 Divdex - Total % movers II -.275 ** Divdex - Female Labor Force % III -.266 * Divdex - Labor % in Manufacturing III .259 * F/NF - Civilian Labor Force III -.255 * F/NF Ratio - ave # families/church district VI -.254 * Divdex - Unemployment Rate % III .241 * F/NF Ratio - Total Land Area I -.240 * F/NF Ratio - Multi-County I .237 * * p < . 10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01 Roman numerals represent ‘characteristic’ groupings Table 5.49 Amish Settlement Bivariate Correlations for Selected Characteristics and Dependent Variables 168 One of the primary concerns in interpreting regression variâtes for inclusion in the

model is that of collinearity between the independent variables. As Hair et. al. (1995) warn, “this is a data problem, not a problem of model specification”. Special caution was taken to assure the explanatory character of regression analysis by eliminating shared variance among the independent variables. A systematic process of selection was used to eliminate redundant independent variables. First, the inspection of bivariate coefficients were observed in the correlation matrix. If two of the independent variables showed an association above 0.70, one of the variables was eliminated. The variable eliminated was the one with the weaker association with the dependent variable. However this decision was not finalized until the next two steps were completed.

The second step was to look at the tolerance value and variance inflation factor

(VIF) statistics. Based upon commonly used cutoff thresholds (Hair et al. , 127), if tolerance values were found to be below 0.1 and VIF above 10, then highly correlated predictor variables were omitted.

The third step was to observe the condition index. To eliminate underlying dimensions or structures to the independent variables, any factor with a score exceeding 30 was removed. Altogether, this process lowered the number of variables entered to 3 for FNFRAT, 5 for CNCRAT, and 7 for the Diversity Index.

5.5 Assessment of the Regression Models

Of the three dependent variables, the Farmer/Non-Farmer Ratio, with three independent predictors being regressed, was the model that demonstrated the highest

1 6 9 coefficient of determination as found in the Adjusted R". As shown in Table 5 .50, 29.9% of variance was being explained in this model. The standardized beta coefficient of .521 for the east/west of the Mississippi River location was the largest. This indicates that proportions of males in farming is especially sensitive to location. The east/west location of an Amish settlement is found to be a good indicator for the FNFRAT where being located west of the Mississippi River was associated with larger percentages of farmers per settlement. Land size of the host community also appeared as a significant predictor variable. The smaller was the surrounding host community the larger was the ratio of farmers to non-farmers.

As shown in Table 5.51, the standardized beta coefficients in the Carpenter/Non-

Carpenter model found that the median home value and the percent working outside of county were the two strongest predictor variables. In this model there was 28 .8% of the variance explained.

Table 5.52 presents data for the regression model regarding the DIVDEX. In spite of the number of statistically significant correlations found in the bivariate analysis, the seven predictor variables explain only a small proportion of the variance for the Diversity

Index (20%).

170 Standardized Significance Variable Beta Coefficient Level

Ave. # Families Per Church District - .023 .855

East/West o f Mississippi River .521 .000

Land Area (1990) - .232 .071 R= 588, R- = 346, Adj.R’ = .299

Variables eliminated; Multi-County Settlement, Total Population (1992), % Total Movers, % Female Labor Force, Total Civilian Labor Force (1991), % Total Earnings Service Related

Table 5.50 Regression Coefficients for the Farm/Non-Farm Ratio

171 Standardized Significance Variable Beta Coefficient Level

Metro/Non-Metro Status - .300 162

% Working Outside County .391 .008

% Employed Public Admin. .118 .458

% Employed F I R E. .124 .417

Median Value Home Own. Occ. .492 .022 R = .606 R- = .367 Adj.R- = .288

Variables eliminated; Per Capita Income, Median Family Income, Families With Income Below Poverty Level, Education % With High School or Higher

Table 5.51 Regression Coefficients for the Carpenter/Non-Carpenter Ratio

172 Standardized Significance Variable Beta Coefficient Level

Ave. # Families Per Church District .128 378

Age of Settlement - 080 691

# of Families Per Settlement 282 293

East/West of-Mississippi River - .277 104

Population Total (1992) 122 626

Population Net Change ( 1980-1990) - .010 951

% Unemployment Rate 166 281 R= 565, R-:= 320, Adj.R-=194

Variables eliminated; Number o f Church Districts in Settlement. Land .-\rea, Multi-Count}' Settlement, Percent Total Movers, Total Civilian Labor Force ( 1991 ), Percent Female Labor Force Employed, Percent Total Earnings Service Related

Table 5 52 Regression Coefficients for the Diversity Index

173 CÏL\PTER 6

SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

6.1 Synopsis of Dissertation

With the backdrop of changing social scenarios in the global system of post­ modern times, this study set out to take a look at social change and social identit>' among

Amish , a unique sub-culture found in contemporary .American society In this study an analytical sociological approach was taken utilizing the POET model and rational choice theory

Whereas most previous studies on the Amish have been more generic in scope or limited to qualitative data, this study took an innovative approach by aggregating occupational data for a significant representation of Amish communities in North .America

Data used in this study comprised one-fourth of known .Amish settlements. 47“^ o of all church districts, and approximately 50° o of the estimated .Amish population today living in

North .America

In this moment in history when distinctive social character and community oriented lifestvie are waning, this study addressed an existing general interest, not uniquely but especially .American, in the cultural expression of identity based upon cultural

174 roots and nostalgia for the past There has been recognized, herein, a certain urgency of

interest and need for dealing with newly emerging social identities, new social networks

and the growing interdependence between persons and communities which find

themselves in confrontation with the array of constructs related to social, economic and political tradition

The Amish have been epitomized as a people representing many of the traditional

American characteristics worth preserving, such as strong familial ties, a strong work ethic, economic frugality, political independence, cultural simplicity and social adhesion

Each of these remain the social desires and ambitions of much of the middle-.American way o f life.

The sustenance organization of the Amish exists within a w orld of changing occupational opportunities and selection procedure This dissertation was based upon two hypotheses: that the social structure of the area surrounding an Amish settlement (i e , the host community) influences occupational opportunities of male breadwinners within the

Amish subculture, and, that the economic structure of the .Amish is related to the economic structure of the host community

This study is considered to be original in its character as no other known study has gathered as complete a set of data on .Amish as assembled herein For this study, data w as obtained from 14 church directories in 10 states From each of the 467 church districts represented in this study, data on the occupational status of each Amish male household head was tabulated and assembled for statistical interpretation.

175 In order to measure and interpret occupational selection of Amish males in various

settlements, and the relationship of these choices to the surrounding environment, variables that represented human ecological characteristics of the host community of an

Amish settlement were identified. The data was obtained at the county level for each setttlement host community from the County and City Data Book. 1994.

Research of Amish occupational structure has been limited in the past to qualitative and case study research, or to assessments of single settlements, especially the larger ones. This study was designed as an exploratory study with the precept of identifying significant characteristics found within the surrounding environment of an

Amish community which impact upon Amish male occupational selection.

To better grasp a deeper interest in and understanding of the Amish, a brief history of the Amish was presented that traced through time Amish origin and identity. Found in this section was the confirmation that the Amish society today strongly reflects a subculture that emerged during the Protestant Revolution, and ever since has been molded by a sometimes “radical” commitment to the spiritual life of religious teachings and church discipline. Especially apparent in this historical review was that the conflicting paradigms of change vs. tradition was not original to this post-modern, era, but rather has been dealt with by the Amish along the trail of their evolving subculture. It is clearly concluded that neither schism nor faction have daunted Amish integrity.

Confirmed in this study of occupational identity of the Amish was that the sociological study of a culture reflects the varied features of how a culture satisfies distinct sociological needs (i.e. language, beliefs, values, shared norms). This study also

176 reconfirmed that the Amish subculture’s conservative nature, integrated through

economic, social and religious values and beliefs, is also enveloped in the inevitable

confrontation with continuous change and strain in its quest to survive. The source of this

change can be both internal to the Amish community or external, coming from the greater

society of which the Amish are a part, and represented most directly by social and

economic characteristics of the host community. This study found that both internal and

external sources are powerful agents influencing the occupational structure of Amish

males.

What this study has shown is that Amish numbers are growing: from population

estimates in 1900 of approximately 5,000 members, in 1950 33,000 members, in 1979

85,000 members, to somewhere near 160,00 members at the end of the 20th century.

While total Amish numbers are growing, so is the number of Amish communities, as they

seek out new places to live. There are more than 200 settlements scattered throughout

North America today, compared to only 19 settlements in 1900. Approximately two-

thirds have been established since 1970. In less than 25 years, the number of church

districts has more than doubled.

If diminishing social and physical boundaries are recognized as contributors to increases in social change and strain, it is recognized in this study that Amish settlements are being encroached upon by the phenomenon of urban expansion, which affects the location, lifestyle and consequential occupational choice of Amish males. Part of this urban expansion is the growth of tourism in Amish areas. This study found that more than

70% of Amish settlements are located within or adjacent to ‘Metropolitan Statistical

177 Areas’, as defined by the US Bureau of the Census. In this study almost ail settlements

existing today in truly rural settings, 14 of 56, have been established in the recent 30

years. However, of the two-thirds of the settlements established in the recent 30 years,

more than 60%, 23 of 37, have been established within or adjacent to metropolitan areas.

These findings here lend support for both hypotheses presented in this study. The Amish

settlements that are farmer dominated today are the new, smaller and more westward

located settlements. These are also less likely to be near metropolitan areas.

It was found in this study that Amish males are turning more and more to non-farm jobs. In contrast to 20 years ago, farming today is not the principal source of income for

Amish males as principal breadwinners for their families. Also, a growing number of

Amish men cite two occupations, sometimes also found in the broader American society.

The great majority include farming as one of the two occupations held. Most likely this

reflects their clinging to the Amish principles and convictions of the simple life associated with the soil.

In looking at relationships with the farm/non-farm ratio, there was found significant correlations with factors from geographic, population, social, labor, and settlement characteristics. Special significant associations were found between the ratio of farmers to non-farmers in a settlement and the size of the church district. As church districts became larger, the proportion of farmers in the church district decreased. This is not necessarily a finding that scale or size reduces farming. It is probably more a reflection of the fact that larger church districts were found in older settlements with

178 bigger populations. These settlements in turn have a larger share of Amish men working

in non-farm jobs because of land prices and a demand for land that far outstrips supply.

The Amish farmer continues to seek out small, direct, personal social relationships.

And to fulfill this desire, the Amish farm family is settling in areas, in large part, west o f

the Mississippi River as expressed by the significant association found in this study

between location and the farm/non-farm ratio. A geographic characteristic which ties in

closely here is the significant relationship found between the total land area of a host

community and the farm/non-farm ratio. This relationship was inverse, indicating farm

family settlements prefer spatially smaller host communities.

The farm/non-farm ratio was also found to be associated with certain labor force

characteristics. The farmer dominated Amish settlements do not favor host communities

with large civilian labor forces, but do find attractive communities where worker earnings

are related to the service sector and, interestingly, where a greater proportion of females

are employed.

An interesting finding was that the Amish who pursue farmer dominated

settlements are moving to counties that do not compete with large scale agricultural production. There was found no significant association between the farm/non-farm ratio and agricultural characteristics of the host community. These host communities in general were found to have lower than average county level social and economic indicators, that is, they were in more rural settings.

Whereas farming is still the primary occupation in two-thirds o f Amish settlements, less than 37% of Amish males were identified with farming (based on the results of the 56

179 settlements in this study) and only one-fourth of Amish males may be considered active

farmers. With the farmer occupation in retreat among Amish male household heads, the

carpentry profession is taking on greater importance as the “number two” occupation.

Several correlations between the carpenter/non-carpenter ratio with geographic,

social, and labor characteristics were statistically significant. Strongest associations were

shown with characteristics related to income levels and proximity to metropolitan areas. It

has been found in this study that where there were host communities with greater income

levels and nearness to metropolitan areas, there existed Amish settlements with higher

carpenter/non-carpenter ratios. The conclusion made here is that Amish settlements

with a higher portion of carpenters are identifying within their host communities a solid

economic niche that provides a labor market demand for their professional specialties,

especially in terms of home construction, cabinetry, and furniture-making.

There was also found a small but significant relationship between the

carpenter/non-carpenter ratio and percent of persons in the host community with a high

school education in the host community. Although the Amish do not go beyond the eighth

grade level for their formal education, there was found a positive association with the

percent “English” who have a high school education. Couple this with the fact that the

carpenter/non-carpenter ratio increases with median value of housing, and there is a clear

relationship between consumer tastes and Amish wood craftsmanship. The statistically

significant associations found between the social characteristics and the carpenter/non- carpenter ratio leads to the conclusion that the Amish are indeed cognizant of, interpret

180 well, and exploit effectively selected social and economic related values found in the

“English’ world.

The greatest number of significant correlation coefficients was found with the

diversity index and included all of the groupings of independent variables for this statistical

analysis. There was a total of 22 significant correlations out of 38 possible found between

the independent variables and the diversity index. The strongest relationships found were

multi-county status of an Amish settlement with the diversity index, followed by percent of

the civilian labor force working outside the county. Other characteristics that correlated

well with the diversity index included; number of families in the settlement, total civilian

labor force, total population, and number of churches in the settlement. AJl of these

characteristics are to some degree related to host community size or settlement size.

Those larger settlements with multi-county formations were significantly associated with the greater occupational diversity. These settlements were among the older settlements, which supports the significant correlation also found between age of settlement and the diversity index. The larger and older settlements have been found to be quite capable of generating their own occupation diversity within the Amish community.

Where there was a larger total population and a larger total civilian labor force, there was found a significant relationship with increased occupational diversity among the

Amish. Host communities with a growing population also showed significant relationships with the diversity index.

1 8 1 Several of the agricultural characteristics showed significant associations with the

diversity index. In host communities with large farm populations with a large number of

small acreage farms, significant associations were found with increased occupational

diversity in Amish settlements. However, where there was found more money in farming,

as expressed by the host community in terms of total earnings being derived from farming,

there was found a significant inverse correlation. This suggests that where host

communities have a larger share of their overall earnings coming from farm activities,

there is less diversity found in Amish occupational selection in the settlement. This is

probably more a reflection of diminished opportunities for Amish men to provide goods

and services to a population that is less urban than one of increased agricultural opportunities given that the FNFRAT was not related to agricultural characteristics of the host community.

As to geographic location, those Amish settlements situated east of the Mississippi

River hold greater occupational diversity. In relation to the labor market, there was found an inverse relationship between service related labor and earnings with a high diversity of

Amish occupations. When the percent of workers in the health services decreased, the

Amish occupational diversity index increased. Similarly, when the percent of earnings derived from service related activities decreased, the diversity of Amish occupations increased. On the other hand, where there was a larger participation of manufacturing workers in the host community, there was found a positive association with occupational diversity in the Amish settlement. The conclusion arrived at here is that the Amish are relating to greater occupational opportunities where there are large blue collar, working

182 class, host communities. This is probably because many factories will relocate to Amish

areas in order to take advantage of the labor force. Both the Amish and Mennonites have

reputations as likely being reliable and hard-working, and highly unlikely to join a union.

By using multiple regression analysis the relative effect o f characteristics of the area were measured and evaluated for the three dependent variables; farm/non-farm ratio, carpenter/non-carpenter ratio, and diversity index. Special caution was taken to assure the explanatory character of regression analysis by eliminating shared variance among the independent variables. By using the standardized beta coefficient, a common unit of measurement was guaranteed. Examination of bivariate correlations among the independent variables and collinearity diagnostics of the SPSS program helped trim the number of factors included in the regression analysis. This was especially important given the small sample size (56 or 46) of settlements for which occupations of male heads of households could be obtained.

The regression coefficients for the farm/non-farm ratio found the east/west of the

Mississippi River location as being the most important determinant factor with the highest beta coefficient, followed by the size of the host community. Median value of homes and working outside of the county were the most important predictors of the carpenter/non- carpenter ratio. For the diversity index, location east/west of the Mississippi River was the most important factor predicting its variance.

The model for the farmer/non-farmer ratio showed the largest amount of explained variance (30%), followed by carpenter/non-carpenter ratio (27%) and the diversity index

183 ( 19%). The regression coefficients found in this study lend support to the findings shown

in the bivariate analysis, and to the guiding hypotheses of this dissertation.

6.2 Implications and Generalizations

This study has shed light on recent trends and paths which the Amish have

confronted and shows how they are resolving problems in their own, unique way as they

continue to maintain a viable subculture. From this study it is quite e\adent that the Amish

act on their own in an obviously self-conscious manner by identifying alternative

occupational choices and forming new communities in order to maintain cultural identity

within their continuously evolving cultural “fences”.

Several major ideas appear from this study. First is that of economic survival. In

the contemporary world, economic well-being is a basic and necessary force for cultural

survival. The role of agriculture has changed and the structure of agricultural production has revolutionized the rural .American landscape. The .Amish, in reflecting their cultural tradition, have struggled in relation to modem agricultural practices. In the competitive market economy, the cost of farm land has become an economic challenge to .Amish farming practices. The Amish are finding that economic survival requires diversity in occupational choice.

A second major concept that appears is the westward movement of the .Amish which has intensified in the recent quarter of a century. This may reflect Amish tradition, but should not be interpreted simply as a repetition of Amish history. The westward movement (northward and southward as well) is a demonstration of self-consciously

184 engineered Amish cultural boundary maintenance (Donnermeyer, 1997). In these new

landscapes host communities are smaller and the cost of farmland is more affordable.

Smaller communities are less susceptible to outside influences and are less competitive with the host community. Small host communities are especially significant to the Amish as these environments create the best community framework many Amish feel is necessary to provide context between their religious orientations and the “Bigger Society”. It is recognized that Amish are not retreating from the C .Jand they already own^ but, the existing rapid population growth rate of the Amish in many settlements is making it economically impossible to purchase farmland at a similar rate. Indeed, this westward movement is seen as one of the principal safety valves for Amish survival. This is one alternative approach to maintaining community by doing best what Amish tradition implies, which is expressed by Donnermeyer et. al. (In Press:44) when “the Amish combine being neighbors in a spiritual community with being neighbors in a spatial community”.

An additional major concept to present is that another safety valve for Amish survival is the shift to non-agricultural occupations and enterprises. Proximity to large population centers has generated new occupational opportunities, foremost and most apparent is carpentry. Carpentry appears as a compatible manual form of labor for the

Amish male as in this profession the Amish male is able to express his cultural identity.

It is also worth noting that Amish wood products are in high demand by those “English” who prize traditional and country style design.

185 Another is tourism. The tourism business is not often Amish owned, however, it

does provide new occupational opportunities. The resultant increased interface with the

outside world makes it more difficult to remain aloof when and where previous cultural

boundaries were more easily maintained. (Kraybill, 1994)

Some innovative Amish have become entrepreneurs in businesses that cater to

outside markets. Successful Amish businesses may generate lucrative profits, but they

may become to big. One successful Amish entrepreneur makes horse-drawn equipment

which is shipped throughout the country and abroad. I was part of a field trip of Ohio

State University students to this enterprise during the Spring, 1998. When one student

asked if he wanted to expand his 18 person business, he replied that he “would prefer to

see that work go to other people in his community who might want to start their own

business”. This quote illustrates how the Amish merge private enterprise success with

traditional values of maintaining face-to-face communication by avoiding larger scale

economic arrangements.. A practical consequence of an unwillingness to expand is that it

provides start-up business opportunities for other Amishmen.

Occupational diversification of the Amish varies greatly from one community to

another. The surrounding environment is critical to occupational choice of the Amish and

proximity to urban centers is an important factor as well. The largest Amish communities

show the greatest degree of diversity which, once an economic catalyst (usually from the

outside) has stimulated initial economic expansion in the community, eventually appears to become internally self-generating within the Amish settlement.

1 8 6 An attempt at putting diversity into perspective may be viewed from an historical

perspective that represents an idealized sequel of four stages. First is the birth or

establishment of an Amish settlement. Initially a settlement is small in both population

numbers and degree of occupational diversity. Second, there is population growth, with

new demands for more land or perhaps for alternative economic opportunities. A third

stage occurs with succeeding generational growth where in order to survive, alternative

occupational choices become obligatory with some Amish entrepreneurs creating start-up businesses. As a settlement grows older, a final stage occurs in which farm-oriented occupations are maintained as a small percent of total occupations which results in out­ migration from larger settlements to new, smaller, Amish-fnendly host communities.

There is need for a sufficient number of Amish members in a settlement to give context for their existence and assure they will not be assimilated by the surrounding community. In fact, a book produced by an Amishman has documented over 100 cases of failed settlements. They were almost all small and did not generate enough cultural mass

(i.e., a fully functioning church district with church leaders) to maintain themselves (Luthy,

1986).

Another implication of significance derived from this study is that of Amish schisms, which have been a part of Amish history and reflect internal debates about Amish identity. One possible scenario of future Amish schisms may quite possibly be over what occupations serve true Amish identity. In this study, there was found very few farm laborers. The traditional Amish farm owner, as so often is the case in the ownership of many traditional businesses, has larger families. Non-farmers have smaller families.

187 Occupational change can affect decisions regarding family size, which may lead to disagreements in Amish norms, for example, regarding family planning and birth control

(Wasao and Donnermeyer, 1996).

6.3 Significance of the Study

The objective of this study was to examine how the Amish subculture reacts to social change as measured by the occupational status of the Amish male in relation to the social and economic structure of the host community that surrounds an Amish settlement.

Humans can be seen as creative animals, as reflected by their capacity to generate unique ways of adapting to the environment in which they live.

This study has taken the position that the maintenance of survival in the contemporary world is in large part based upon the occupational status of individuals who compose the social group to which they belong. From such a position, this study has found significant insights into the occupational structure of the Amish and its interrelationship with the social and economic structure of the host community. Findings from this study have in part supported the postulate that social structure of the surrounding environment of an .Amish settlement influences occupational choice of Amish males. For example social-economic indicators, such as the contemporary money-related indicator ‘ median home value’, and geographic characteristics were found to be of special significance for occupational identity.

This study purports to serve as a modest model for those interested in studying how human ecological characteristics may be analyzed in the pursuit of identifying what

188 factors are most important in guaranteeing the survival of a society. It is felt that this

framework can be used across cultural boundaries in a globally interactive setting of

ongoing social change, that is, the post-modern world of today

Uncertainty is an ever-present mark of the contemporary globalizing world. From identities that contemplated hybrid qualities, individualist directed society today suggests the loss of cultural identity and the eventual ruin of traditional lifestyles. O f major concern is the velocity of change. Social change and cultural survival are complex paradigms in this age of instant communication and valued information.

There is little question that contemporary decision makers are perplexed by the mosaic of cultural identities. Mainstream sociology must recognize that values, norms and cultural practices have not converged on any single ideal; this study of the Amish, indeed, transmits this message.

This study also intends to serve Amish leaders in their dealing with their social group solidarity and harmony as new directions of social change will, indeed, affect decisions to be made at all levels within the Amish community. Amish history, in specific, will play its course based upon the necessary knowledge and human resource capacity to adopt to social change, as this sub-culture certainly anticipates many furrows to plow, many seeds to sow and many harvests to reap as the Amish socially engineer the survival of their society.

As bishops and church members debate Amish issues, the results will be shared and change will continue. The role of Sociology is fundamental to such concerns as Sociology undertakes the study of people in group relationships. Throughout its history Sociology

189 has examined social change and surviving societies, from Darwin and other social

evolutionists of the 19th century through Parson’s moving equilibrium theory and Marx’s

conflict theory. More recently, rural sociologists Mooney, Mann and Dickinson have

debated the viability of these paradigms for explaining the position o f family-based farms

in capitalist economies.

6.4 Limitations and Recommended Research

Information for the independent variables in this study were gathered at the county

level. For the four larger multi-county settlements, the data was aggregated and multi­ county averages were used for each settlement. However, the remaining 52 cases used

single county measures of host community characteristics. Further studies on the occupational structure of the Amish would perhaps be better served by using larger catchment areas (i.e. regional aggregates) to bring about more inclusive insights on each settlement. Perhaps a multi-level analysis, utilizing aggregated single county and multi­ county measures of social and economic structure would prove useful. Statistically, procedures such as hierarchical linear modeling can account and distinguish between single and multi-county measures in the same catchment area.

This study was original in that data was obtained from a total of 56 Amish settlements, a significant number in comparison to any known study carried out to date on the Amish. With access to more Amish Directories, an even larger number of Amish settlements could be included in a follow-up study. With greater representation, a more complete interpretation of the Amish would be assured. However, it is understood that

1 9 0 not all Amish settlements maintain current Directories of their community, and some do

not include the occupational identity of Amish males, which would be necessary for any

comparative study.

Although data for Amish directories are gathered at the church district level, there

is conem about the consistency of Amish directory data reporting between church districts

and between settlements. This is probably a minor issue because fairly standard forms for

reporting the information are shared between various settlements

There is little doubt that further studies on social change will challenge social

science, and related research, in the near future. Interdisciplinary interest in this

paradigm could be pursued and approached jointly with academic interests attracting the

disciplines of Public Administration, Political Science, Geography, Regional Science and

Business.

As regards the Amish, it is expected that further research will follow with larger data sets and more settlements included. Similar data is needed from past decades to carry out a time-series analysis in order to grasp a better historical understanding of social change among the Amish subculture and to formulate a more refined vision of the future for the Amish,

6.5 Concluding Remarks

Based on results in this study, it is concluded that the social and economic structure of the host communities affects Amish occupational identities and their economic survival. The history o f Amish survival will continue to demonstrate change as

191 new factions emerge, which may perhaps be related in the future to debates about appropriate occupations for Amish males.

Data for this study and other research are always shared by the Amish with the adviser and a committee member (Dr. George Kreps) as they engage in their own on­ going research of the Amish.. This study could only have been completed based upon somebody borrowing from the Amish, in this case their own directories. In return, I wish to share with them a part of the knowledge and understanding gained here so that I can contribute to their on-going debate about what it means to be Amish, past, present and future.

However, it is quite clear from this study that the Amish desire and capacity to adjust to social change should guarantee their survival, based upon religious as well as basic, rational orientations.

192 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albrecht, Don E. and Murdock, Steve H. 1984. “Toward a Human Ecological Perspective on Part-Time Farming.” R u ra l Sociology 4(3): 389-411.

Allihan, Milla Aissa. 1964. Social Ecology: A Critical Analysis. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc.

Anderson, Ralph E. and Irl E. Carter. 1974. Hiimcai Behavior in the Social Environment: A Social Systems Approach. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.

Arensberg, Conrad M. and Arthur H. Niehoff. 1964. Introducing Social Change. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.

Arrow, Kenneth J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.

Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

Axford, Barrie. 1995. The Global System: Economics, Politics and Culture. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Baillie, John. 1951. Ihe B elief in Progress. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Becker, Gary. 1962. “Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory.” .Journal o f Political Econom y 70:1-13.

Becker, Gary. 1976. The Economic Approach to Economic Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Beggs, John J.; Hurlbert, Jeanne S. and Valerie A. Haines. 1996. “Community Attachment in a Rural Setting: A Refinement and Empirical Test of the Systemic Mode.” Rural Sociology 6 1(3):407-426.

Berger, Brigitte (ed.). 1991. The Culture o f Entrepreneurship. San Francisco: ICS Press.

1 9 3 Berger, Peter L. 1977. Facing Up to Modernity: Excursions in Society, Politics, and R eligion. New York: Basic Books.

Berger, Peter L. 1974. Pyramids o f Sacrifice. New York. Basic Books, Inc.

Blair, Robert B. And Charles E. Hurst. 1997. “Amish Health Care.” The Journal of Multicultural Nursing and Health 3(2): 38-43.

Blanc, Michael. 1994. “Introduction: Family Farming in a Changing World.” Sociologia R uralis. 34(4): 279-292.

Blau, Peter M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley.

Bliss, Christopher. 1993. “Life-Style and the Standard of Living.” In Nussbaum, Martha C. and Amartya Sen, The Quality o f Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Boudon, Raymond (translated by J C Whitehouse). Theories of Social Change: A Critical Appraisal. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre and James S. Coleman (eds). 1991. Social Theory for a Changing Society. Boulder: Westview Press.

Brown, David L.; Fuguitt, Glenn V.; Heaton, Tim B. and Saba Waseem. 1997. “Continuities in Size of Place Preferences in the United States, 1972-1992". R u ra l Sociology. 62(4):408-428.

Burgess, Ernest W. 1925. “The Growth of the City.” In Park, R.E., Burgess, E. W. and R. D. McKenzie, The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bums, Elizabeth. 1996. Cultural Identity and Ethnic Boundary Maintenance: The Old Order Amish. Kent. Kent State University/Dept, of Anthropology.

Carlstein, Tommy. 1982. Time Resources, Society and Ecology: On the Capacity fo r Human Interaction in Space and Time. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Chaianov, A.V. 1966. The Theory o f Peasant Economy. Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin.

Chirot, Daniel. 1994. How Societies Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Clasen, Claus-Peter. 1972. Anabaptism: A Social History 1525-1619. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Coleman, James S. 1973. The Mathematics o f Collective Action. Chicago: Aldine.

194 Coleman, James S. and Thomas J. Fararo. 1992. Rational Choice Theory, Advocacy and Critique. Newbury Park. Sage Publications.

Commission on Global Governance. 1995. Our Global Neighborhood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cook, Karen (ed.). 1987. Social Exchange Theory. Newbury Park, Calif : Sage.

Coser, Lewis A. 1974. “Social Conflict and the Theory of Social Change.” In Philip Brickman (ed ). Social Conflict: Readings in Rule Structures cuvi Conflict Relationships. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Dahrendorf, Ral/f. “Market and Plan.” In Etzioni, Amatai and Eva Etzioni-Halevy (eds ). Social Change: Sources, Patterns, and Consequences. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

Donnermeyer, Joseph P. 1997. “ Amish Society: An Overview.” The Journal o f Midticidtural Nursing and Health 3(2): 6-12.

Driedger, Leo. 1995. “Alert Opening and Closing: Mermonite Rural-Urban Changes.” Rural Sociology 60(2):323-332.

Duhl, Leonard J. 1990. The Social Entrepreneurship o f Change. New York: Pace University Press.

Duncan, Otis Dudley (ed.). 1964. William E. Ogburn: On Culture and Social Change. Chicago; Phenix Books/University of Chicago Press.

Duncan, Otis Dudley. 1959. “Human Ecology and Population Studies.” In Hauser, Philip M. and Otis Dudley Duncan. Ihe Sttidy o f Foptdation. New York: Free Press.

Duncan, Otis D. and Leo F. Schnore. 1959. “Cultural, Behavioral and Ecological Perspectives in the Study of Social Organization.” American Journal o f Sociology 65 (September): 132-146.

Eisenstadt, S.N. 1973. Tradition, Change, and Modernity^ New York: Wiley.

Elster, Jon. 1989. Studies in Rationality aiui Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elster, Jon. 1989. Nuts and Bolts fo r the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

195 Elster, Jon and Aanund Hylland (eds.). 1986. Foundations o f Social Choice Theory. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

Emerson, R. M. 1987. “Toward a Theory of Value in Social Exchange.” In Karen S. Cook (ed ). Social Exchange Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ericksen, Eugene P.; Ericksen, Julia A. and John A. Hostetler. 1980. “The Cultivation of the Soil as a Moral Directive: Population Growth, Family Ties, and the Maintenance of Community Among the Old Order Amish”. Rural Sociology 45( 1 ) 49-68.

Etzioni-Halevy, Eva and Etzioni, Amitai (eds). 1973. Social Change: Sources, Patterns and Consequences. New York: Basic Books.

Fay, Brian. 1996. Contemporary Philosophy o f Social Science: A multicultural A pproach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Fay, Brian. 1987. Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its Limits. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Ferguson, Susan (ed.). 1996. Mapping the Social Ixindscape: Readings in Sociology. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Form, William. 1979. “Comparative Industrial Sociology and the Convergence Hypothesis.” Anmtal Review o f Sociology. Vol. 5.

Fomas, Johan. 1995. Cultural Theory andIxxte Modernity. London: Sage Publications.

Friesen, Bruce K. 1996. Perceptions o f the Amish Way. Dubuque, I A. Kendall/Hunt.

Gallie, Duncan; Marsh, Catherine and Carolyn Vogler. 1994. Social Change and the Experience of Unemployment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Garrett, Ottie. 1996. The Guidebook ot Amish Communities and Business Directory. Kalona, I A: Hitching Post Enterprizes, Inc.

Gerlach, Horst. 1990. “Amish Congregations in Germany and Adjacent Territories in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.” Pennsylvania Mennonite Heritage 13 (April): 2-8.

Gibbs, J. P. and W. T. Martin. 1959. “Toward a Theoretical System o f Human Ecology.” Pacific Sociological Review 2 (Spring): 29-36.

196 Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences o f Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Gingerich, Orlando. 1972. The Amish o f Canada. Waterloo, Ont.: Conrad Press.

Goldthorpe, John H. 1997. ‘The Integration of Sociological Research and Theory.” Rationality and Society 9(4): 405-426.

Greenberg, J H. 1956. ‘The Measurement of Linguistic Diversity.” Ixinguage 32:2 123-163.

Greider, Thomas and Lorraine Garkovich. 1994. “Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the Environment.” Rural Sociology 59(1): 1-24.

Greksa, Lawrence P. And Jill E. Korbin. 1997. “Influence of Changing Occupational Patterns on the Use of Commercial Health Insurance by the Old Order Amish.” Ihe Journal o f Multicultural Nursing and Health. 3(2): 13-18.

Gross, Leonard. 1997. Background Dynamics o f the Amish Movement. http://www.goshen.edu: Goshen College Publications.

Hair, Joseph F., Jr. et. al. 1995 (4th edition). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Harper, Charles L. 1993. Exploring Social Change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Harris, Rosalind P., Bridger, Jeffrey C. and Carolyn E. Sachs. 1995. “Empowering Rural Sociology: Exploring and Linking Alternative Paradigms in Theory and Methodology.” Rural Sociology 60 (4): 585-606.

Hawley, A. H. 1944. “Ecology and Human Ecology.” Social Forces 22. 398-405.

Hawley, A. H. 1950. Human Ecology: A Iheory o f Community Structure. New York: Ronald Press.

Hawley, A. H. 1968. “Human Ecology.” In D. L. SiWs {ed.)., International Encyclopedia o f the Social Sciences Vol. 4. New York: Crowell, Collier and MacMillan.

Hayek, F. 1967. Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1 9 7 Heath, Anthony F. 1976. Rational Choice and Social Exchange: A Critique o f Exchange Theory. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

Hobhouse, Leonard T. 1911. Social Evolution and Political Theory. New York; Colombia University Press.

Homans, George. 1974. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Hostetler, John . \9%1>. A m ish L ife . Scottdale, PA.: Herald Press. 1991.

Hostetler, John A. 1987. “A New Look at the Old Order.” The Rural Sociologist,1(A). 278-92.

Hostetler, John A. 1993 (4th edition). Amish Society. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Huntington, Gertrude Enders. 1957. Dove at the Window: A Study o f an Old Order Amish Community in Ohio. New Haven, Connecticut; Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. lannaccone, Lawrence. 1994. “Why Strict Churches are Strong.” American Jourtml o f Sociology 99(5); 1180-1211.

Kanagy, Conrad L.; Firebaugh, Glenn and Hart M. Nelsen. 1994. ‘The Narrowing Regional Gap in Church Attendance in the United States. ” Rîtral Sociology 59(3): 515-524.

Kanagy, Conrad L. And Donald B. Kraybill. 1996. “The Rise of Entrepreneurship in Two Old Order Amish Communities.” The Mennonite Ouarterly Review. 70(3) 263-279.

Katona, George. 1963. Psychological Analysis o f Economic Behavior. New York; McGraw Hill.

Ketchum, Richard M. 1979. “Letter from the Country.” Country Journal (July); 18-19.

Kirdar, Uner. 1992. Changes in the Human Dimension o f Development, Ethics and Values. New York; UN publications.

Kline, David. 1990. Great Possessions: An Amish Farmer's Journal. New York; North Point Press.

1 9 8 Kraybill, Donald B. 1989. The Riddle o f Amish Culture. Baltimore; The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kraybill, Donald B. (Ed.). 1993. The Amish and the State. Baltimore: John Hopkins Universitiy Press.

Kraybill, Donald B. 1994. “Introduction; The Struggle to be Separate” in Kraybill, Donald B. and Marc A. Olshan (eds.) The Amish Struggle with Modernity. Hanover, NH; University Press of New England.

Kraybill, Donald B. And Nolt, Steven M. 1995. Amish Enterprise: From Plows to P rofits. Baltimore. John Hopkins University Press.

Kraybill, Donald B. And Marc A. Olshan (eds ). 1994. The Amish Struggle with M odernity. Hanover, New Hampshire; University Press of New England.

Kreps, George M.; Donnermeyer, Joseph F. And Marty W. Kreps. 1994. “The Changing Occupational Structure of Amish Males” Rural Sociology. 59(4); 708-719.

Kreps, George M.; Donnermeyer, Joseph F. and Kreps, Marty W. 1997. A Q uiet Moment in Time^ Sugarcreek, Ohio; Carlisle Press.

Lampard, E. E. 1955. ‘The History of Cities in the Economicaly Advanced Areas.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 3(January); 81-136.

LaPiere, Richard T. 1965. Social Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lash, Scott. 1993. “Reflexive Modernization; The Aesthetic Dimension.” Theory. Culture and Society 10(1); 1-25.

Lechner, Frank J. 1997. “The ‘New Paradigm’ in the Sociology of Religion; A Comment on Warner.” American Journal o f Sociology^ 103( 1 ) July, 182-91.

Leinhardt, Samuel, (ed.). 1977. Social Networks: A Developing Paradigm. New York; Academic Press.

Lemer, Daniel. 1963. The Passing o f Traditional Society. Glencoe, 111 ; The Free Press.

Luthy, David. 1986. The Amish in America: Settlements that Failed 1840-1960. Aylmer, Ontario; Pathway Publishers.

Lyman, Stanford M. 1994. Social Movements: Critiques, Concepts, Case-Studies. New York; New York University Press.

199 Lynd, Robert S. and Helen M. Lynd. 1956. Middletcn^n: A Study in Americart Culture. New York; Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.

MacMaster, Richard K. 1985. Land, Piety, Peoplehood: The Establishment o f Mennonite Communities in America, 1682-1790. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1926. Crime and Custom in Savage Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Mann, Susan A. and James M Dickinson. 1987. “One Furrow Forward, Two Furrows Back: A Marx-Weber Synthesis for Rural Sociology'’.” Rural Sociology 52 (2): 264-285.

Mann, Susan A. and James M. Dickinson. 1987. ’’Collectivizing Our Thoughts: A Reply to Patrick Mooney.” Rural Sociology 52 (2): 296-303.

Marsh, Robert M. 1967. Comparative Sociology. New York: Haracourt, Brace and World.

Martineau, Wiliam H. and Rhonda Sayres MacQueen. 1977. “Occupational Differentiation Among the Older Order Amish.” Rural Sociology 42(3):383-97

Marx, Karl and Freidrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Appleton, 1955.

McKenzie, R. D. 1934. “The Field and Problems of Demography, Human Geography, and Human Ecology.” In L. L. Bernard, The Fields and Methods of Sociology New York: Ray Long and Richard R. Smith, Inc.

McMichael, Philip. 1996. Development and Social Change: A Global Persepctive^ Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Melling, Joseph and Barry, Jonathan (eds ). 1992. Culture in History: Production, Consumption and Values in Historic Perspective. Exeter: University of Exeter.

Meyer, John W.; Boli-Bennett, John, and Chase-Dunn, Christopher. “Convergence and Divergence in Development”. Animal Review o f Sociology. Vol. I. 1975.

Micklin, Michael and Harvey M. Choldin (eds). 1984. Sociological Human Ecology: Contemporary Issues and Applications. Boulder: Westview Press.

200 Mooney, Patrick H. 1982. “Labor Time, Production Time and Capitalist Development in Agriculture: A Reconsideration of the Mann-Dickinson Thesis.” Sociologia R uralis 27(3/4), 279-292.

Mooney, Patrick H. 1983. ‘Toward a Class Analysis of Midwestern Agriculture.” Rural Sociology. 48 (4): 563-584.

Mooney, Patrick H. 1987. “Desperately Seeking: One-dimensional Mann and Dickinson.” Rural Sociology 52 (2): 286-295.

Moore, Wilbert E. 1963. Social Change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc

Moser, Paul K. 1990. Rationality in Action: Contemporary Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Murdock, Steve and Willis A Sutton, Jr. 1974. “The New Ecology and Community Theory: Similarities, Differences and Convergences.” Rural Sociology. 39(3) 319-333.

Nagel, Thomas. 1986. The V’iew from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford Univresity Press.

Naylor, Larry L. 1996. Culture and Change: An Introduction. Westport, Conn: Bergin and Garvey.

Nisbet, Robert A. 1969. Social Change and History. New York: Oxford.

Nolt, Steven M. 1992. A History o f the Amish. Intercourse, Pa.: Good Books.

Nussbaum, Martha C. and Amartya Sen (eds.) 1993. The Quality o f Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ogburn, William Fielding. 1966. Social Change: With Respect to Cultural atid Original Nature. New York: Dell Publishing Co.

Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic o f Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Havard University Press.

Olshan, Marc A. 1981. “Modernity, the Folk Society, and the Old Order Amish: an Alternative Interpretation”. Rjiral Sociology 46(2) 297-309.

Oyer, V. Gordon (ed ). 1994. Proceedings o f the Conference “Tradition and Tra/isition: An Amish-Mennonite Heritage o f Obedience, 1693-1993. ” Metamora, 111.: Illinois Mennonite Historical and Genealogical Society.

201 Park, Robert E 1929. “Sociology.” In Gee, Wilson (ed.). Research in the Social Sciences. New York; MacMillan.

Parsons, TaJcott. 1954. Essays in Sociological Theory. New York: The Free Press.

Plott, Charles R. 1982. “Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economics.” Journal o f Economic Literature 20(4): 1485-1527.

Poston, Jr, Dudley L., W. Parker Frisbie, and Michael Micklin. 1984. “Sociological Human Ecology: Theoretical and Conceptual Perspectives.” In Micklin, Michael and Harvey M. Choldin (eds.). Sociological Human Ecology: Contemporary Issues and Applications. Boulder: Westview Press.

RadclifFe-Brown, A. R. 1956. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. New York: Free Press.

Redfield, Robert. 1947. “The Folk Society.” American Journal o f Sociology. 52(January):293-308.

Redfield, Robert. 1953. The Primitive World and Its Transformations. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Redfield, Robert. 1963. The Little community and Peasant Society and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rich, Bruce. 1994. Mortgaging the Earth. The World Bank, Environmental Impoverishment and the Crisis of Development. Boston. Beacon Press.

Robertson, Roland. 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London. Sage Publications.

Rogers, Everett M. 1962. Difffiision o f Innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rogers, Everett M.; Burdge, Rabel J., Korsching, Peter F.; Donnermeyer, Joseph F. 1988. Social Change in Rural Societies: An Introduction to Rural Sociology. Englewood Clififs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rossides, Daniel W. 1990. Comparative Societies: Social Types and Their Interrelations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rule, James B. Theory and Progress in Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

202 Schneider, Louis and Bonjean, Charles M. (Eds.). 1973. The Idea o f Culture in the Social Sciences. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

Sen, A. K. et. al. 1987. The Standard o f Living. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Scott, John. 1995. Sociological Theory: Contemporary Debates. London: Edward Elgar.

Simmel, Georg (Translated by Kurt H. Wolff) 1950 The Sociology o f Georg Simmel. . Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Smelser, Neil J. 1992. “The Rational Choice Perspective: A Theoretical Assessment.” Rationality and Society 4(4): 381-410.

Smucker, Donovan E. 1991. The Sociology of Mennonites, Hutterites and Amish: A Bibliography with Annotations. Vol.II 1977-1990. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Stark, Rodney. 1996. A Theory o f Religion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Steward, Julian. 1955. Theory o f Cultural Change: The Methodology o f Multilinear E volution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Sztompka, Piotr. 1994. The Sociology o f Social Change. Oxford, UK: Blackwell,

Taylor, Michael. 1987. The Possibility o f Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Theordorson, George A. 1961. Studies in Human Ecology. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.

Tofffer, Alvin. 1970. Future Shock. New York: Random House.

Umble, Diane Zimmerman. 1996. Holding the Line. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1994. County and City Data Book, 1994. Washington, D C : US Government Printing Office.

Vago, Steven. 1989 2nd edition. Social Change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

203 Wallace, Ruth A. and Alison Wolf. 1991. Contemporary Sociological Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.

Warner, Stephen R. 1993. “W ork in Progress Toward a New Pradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States.” American Jourtml of Sociology. 98(5): 1044-93.

Warner, Stephen R. 1997. “A Paradigm is not a Theory; Reply to Lechner.” A m erican Jourtml o f Sociology 103 ( 1 ); 192-97.

W arren, Roland. 1977. Social Change and Human Purpose: Toward Understatiditig atid A ctioti. Chicago; Rand McNally.

Wasao, Samson W. and Joseph F. Donnermeyer. 1996. “An Analysis of Factors Related to Parity among the Amish in Northeast Ohio.” Population Studies 50: 235-246.

Wasilchick, John V. 1991 Amish Life: A Portrait o f Plain Livitig. New York; Crescent Books.

Westby, David L. 1991. Ihe Growth o f Sociological Theory: Human Nature, Knowledge attd Social Chatige. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.

Y Oder, Paton. 1991. Tradition and Trattsitioti: Amish MetinotUies and Older Order Amish, 1800-1900. Scottdale, PA; Herald Press.

Young, Lawrence A. (Ed.). 1997. Ratiotml Choice Theory and Religion: Summary and AssessmetU. New York. Routledge.

Yutzy, Daniel. 1961. The Chattgitig Amish: Ati ItUergetteraiiotml Study. Columbus, Ohio;Unpublished master’s thesis, Ohio State University.

Zablocki, Benjamin D and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. 1976. “The Differentiation of Life- Styles.” Anttual Review o f Sociology Vol.2; 269-298.

Zekeri, Andrew A; Wilkinson, Kenneth P. and Craig R. Humphrey. 1994. “Past Activeness, Solidarity, and Local Development Efforts.” Rural Sociology 59(2); 216-235.

Zollschan, George K. and Walter Hirsch (eds ). 1976. Social Change: Exploratiotis, Diagttoses and Conjectures. New York; John Wiley.

2 0 4 APPENDICES

205 APPENDIX A

AMISH SETTLEMENT LOCATION MAP

2 0 6 Ash Settlements Appendix A -.MepotAmtsi

ni

cc ee

§ MAP LEGEND FOR AMISH SETTLEMENT LOCATION

East of Mississippi River West of Mississippi River

a Dover/Hartley 1 Buchanan/Hazelton Pennsylvania 2 Kalona b Spartansburg 3 Milton Ohio 4 Riceville/Mclntire c Ashland Kansas d Carrollton 5 Garnett e Geauga 6 Hutchinson f Holmes/Wayne 7 Yoder/Haven g Jeromesville Missouri h Wheat Ridge 8 Bowling Green Michigan 9 Canton i Blanchard 10 Carrollton j Bronson 11 Clark k Camden 12 Dixon 1 Cass City 13 Humansville m Centreville 14 Jamesport n Charlotte 15 Kahoka 0 Clare 16 Milan P Evart 17 Prairie Home q Fremnot 18 Seymour r Gladwin 19 Verona s Greenville 20 Windsor t Hale Oklahoma u Ludington 21 Chouteau V Mariette 22 Clarita/Colgate w Mio X Ovid y Quincy z Rosebush Indiana aa Elkhart/ LaGrange bb Nappanee cc Kokomo dd Milroy Illinois ee Arthur flf Ava

g g Macomb hh Pleasant Hills 208 APPENDIX B

LIST OF AMISH DIRECTORIES

209 AMISH DIRECTORIES

Delaware Hershberger, Neil N. 1995 (3rd edition). Delaware Amish Directory. Collegeville, Pennsylvania; Ursinus College. niinois Schlabach, LaVem and Dorothy. 1995 (2nd edition). Illinois Directory of Amish Communities. Rockford, 111: Lundquist Graphics Inc. Indiana Burkholder, Owen E. Et. Al. 1993. Nappanee Amish Directory, including the Kokomo and Milroy Communities. Nappanee, Indiana: Burkholder. Miller, Jerry E. 1995. Indiana Amish Directory: Elkhart. LaOrange and Noble Counties. Middlebury, Indiana: Miller. Iowa Miller, D. 1992. Iowa Amish Directory. Millersburg, Ohio: Abana Book Services. Kansas/Oklahoma Miller, DeVon. 1996. Kansas-Oklahoma Amish Directory. Millersburg, Ohio: Albana Book Services. Michigan Miller, D. 1992. Michigan Amish Directory. Millersburg, Ohio: Abana Book Services. Missouri Miller, Devon. 1996. Missouri Amish Directory. Millersburg, Ohio: Abana Book Services. Ohio Bums, Elizabeth and Yoder, Rosa H. 1994. Directory of Ashland and Richland County Amish Settlement. Ashland, Ohio: Yoder. Wengerd, Marvin. 1996. Ohio Amish Directory: Holmes County and Vicinity Walnut Creek, Ohio: Carlisle Printing. Kaufman, Kenneth V. 1994. Wheat Ridge Directory: Directory of the Amish in Adams County. Ohio. Peebles, Ohio. Kaufman. Miller, Peter E. 1993. Ohio Amish Directory: Geauga County and Vicinity. Walnut Creek, Ohio: Carlisle Printing Pennsylvania Schrock, Lawrence and Barbara Schrock. 1994. Pennsylvania Amish Directory of the Spartansburg Settlement. Union City, Pennsylvania: Budget Wise Printing.

210 APPENDIX C

AMISH SETTLEMENT FOUNDATIONS

211 AMISH SETTLEMENT FOUNDATIONS

AMISH FAMILIES CHURCH AVE. PER FOUNDING AGE IN STATE DISTRICTS NUMBER DISTRICT DATE YEARS

Delaware Dover/Hartley 8 268 33 1915 82 Illinois Arthur 21 664 31 1865 132 Ava I 11 11 1991 6 Pleasant Hills 1 10 10 1992 5 Macomb 1 20 20 1993 4 1 Nappanee 26 729 28 1839 158 Kokomo 2 49 24 1848 149 Milroy 3 79 26 1969 28 Elkhart/Lagrange 85 2,584 30 1841 156 Iowa Buchanan/Hazelton 6 163 27 1914 83 Kalona 7 173 24 1846 51 Milton 3 55 18 1969 28 Riceville/Mclntire 2 36 18 1975 22 Kansas Garnett 2 39 19 1903 94 Yoder/Haven 4 79 19 1883 114 Hutchinson 1 39 39 1983 14 ri Bowling Green 3 66 22 1948 49 Canton 1 29 29 1985 12 Carrollton 1 12 12 1990 7 Clark 125 20 1954 43 Dixon 1 16 16 1974 23 Humansville 1 12 12 1987 10 Jamesport 160 26 1953 44 Kahoka 1 19 19 1985 12 Milan 1 15 15 1990 7 Pairie 1 18 18 1980 17 Seymour 6 149 24 1968 29 Verona 1 22 22 1990 7 Windsor 2 36 18 1975 22

212 cont. AMISH FAMILIES CHURCH AVE. PER FOUNDING AGE IN DISTRICTS NUMBER DISTRICT _D A IE YEARS Michigan Blanchard 1 10 10 1983 14 Bronson 1 20 20 1971 26 Camden 1 22 22 1956 41 Centreville 4 126 36 1910 87 Charlotte 2 33 16 1977 20 Clare 3 64 21 1981 16 Evart 1 16 16 1989 8 Fremont 2 29 14 1990 7 Gladwin 3 54 18 1979 18 Greenville 1 27 27 1973 24 Hale 1 11 11 1978 19 Ludington 1 27 27 1981 16 Mariette 1 40 40 1987 10 Mio 2 52 26 1970 27 Quincy 2 73 36 1977 20 Rosebush 1 11 11 1981 16 Ovid 1 8 8 1993 4 Cass City 1 20 20 1994 3 Ohio Ashland 5 132 27 1954 43 Jeromesvilie 1 16 16 1987 10 Carrollton 1 24 24 1981 16 Geauga 55 1,648 30 1886 111 Wheat Ridge 2 53 26 1976 21 Holmes/Wayne 156 3,432 22 1808 189 Oklahoma Chouteau 5 87 17 1910 87 Clarita/Colgate 1 21 21 1978 19 Pennsylvania Spartansburg 8 193 24 1966 31

TOTAL 467 11,926 AVERAGE 25.54

213 APPENDIX D

FARM OCCUPATION STATUS

2 1 4 FARM OCCUPATION STATUS OF AMISH MALES

STATE Active Retired Farm Dual Tot. Tot. F/NF Farmer Farmer Laborer Farm Farm N.F.RATIO Delaware 46 18 1 3 68 179 0,379 Do ver/Hartiey( 1915) 46 18 1 3 68 179 0.379

Illinois 158 M 2 43 237 411 0.576 Arthur(1865) 150 34 2 26 212 397 0.534

Ava(1991) 4 -- 4 8 3 2.666

Pleasant Hills 3 - - 2 5 4 1.250

Macomb(1993) 1 - - 11 12 7 1.714

Indiana 614 136 2 324 1,076 1.899 0.566

Nappanee(1839) 66 15 - 37 118 477 0.247

Kokomo(1848) 22 7 - 3 32 12 2.666 Milroy(1969) 17 2 2 5 26 45 0.577

Elkhart/Lagra.(1841) 509 112 - 279 900 1,365 0.659

Iowa 242 39 1 M 316 62 5.096 Buchanan/Haz.(1914) 89 12 - 22 123 25 4.920

Kalona( 1846) 97 22 - 5 124 24 5.166 Milton( 1969) 30 3 1 5 39 11 3.545

Riceville/Mcln.(1975) 26 2 - 2 30 2 15.000

Kansas 56 12 2 23 93 48 1.937

Gamett(1903) 15 1 - 3 19 14 1.357 Yoder/Haven( 1883 ) 27 8 2 16 53 24 2.208

Hutchinson(1983) 14 3 - 4 21 10 2.100

Missouri 270 24 4 ISO 448 174 2,494

Bowling Green(1948) 26 2 - 8 36 18 2.000 Canton(1985) 9 -- 4 13 13 1.000

Carrollton( 1990) 5 -- 3 8 3 2.666

Clark(1954) 89 5 - 9 103 13 7.923

Dixon(1974) 9 - - 3 12 1 12.000

Humansville{ 1987) 5 - - 5 10 1 10.000 Jamesport(1953) 38 14 3 20 75 75 1.000 Kahoka(1985) 13 1 - 3 17 0 E

Milan(1990) 3 1 - 1 5 2 2.500

Pairie(1980) 12 -- 2 14 3 4.666 Seymour(1968) 43 -- 79 122 20 6.100 Verona(1990) -- 1 4 5 17 0.294 Windsor(1975) 18 1 - 9 28 8 3.500 2 1 5 cont. A.F R.F. F.L. D,F, Tot.F. N.F. FNFRAl Michigan 248 15 2 101 366 235 1,557

Blanchard(1983) 7 1 - 1 9 0 E

Bronson(I971) 7 -- 5 12 4 3.000

Camden(1956) 13 -- 2 15 1 15.000

Centreville(I9I0) 23 5 - 18 46 61 0.754

CharIotte( 1977) 13 -- 5 18 14 1.285 Clare(I981) 22 1 1 8 32 32 1.000

Evart(1989) 5 - - - 5 10 0.500

Fremont(1990) 10 - - 1 11 7 1.571 GIadwin(1979) 33 4 - 5 42 11 3.818 Greenville(1973) 13 1 1 1 16 19 0.842

Hale(1978) 7 - - 3 10 1 10.000

Ludington(1981) 10 -- 2 12 15 0.800

Marlette(1987) 26 3 - 9 38 1 38.000 Mio(I970) 10 -- 5 15 34 0.441

Quincy(1977) 29 - - 34 63 13 4.846 Rosebush(1981) 4 -- 1 5 4 1.250

Ovid(1993) 1 --- 1 7 0.142

Cass City(1994) 15 -- 1 16 1 16.000

O-hiQ 1,249 200 5 56 1,510 4,047 0,373 Ashiand( 1954) 70 15 2 10 97 54 1.796

Jeromesville( 1987) 12 1 -- 13 1 13.000 Carrollton(1981) 5 2 1 5 13 11 1.181 Geauga(1886) 193 26 - 39 258 1,181 0.218 Wheat Ridge(1976) 7 1 - 2 10 42 0.238

HolmesAVayne(1808) 962 155 2 - 1,119 2,758 0.405

Oklahoma 47 2 14 63 37 1.702 Chouteau(I910) 37 2 - 11 50 30 1.666

Clarita/Colgate(I978) 10 - - 3 13 7 1.857

Pennsvlvania 8 2 10 171 0.058

Spartansburg(1966) 8 - - 2 10 171 0.058

2,938 480 19 750 4,187 7,263 0.576 (25.66%) (4.19%) (0.16%) (6.55%) (36.57)

216 APPENDIX E

CARPENTER OCCUPATION STATUS

2 1 7 CARPENTER OCCUPATION STATUS OF AMISH MALES

STATE Carp. Carp. Carp. Carp. Tot. Tot. C/NC Fum. Const , NoCo , TOT. Occup. N.C, RATIO Delaware 25 2 78 103 147 144 J 1 Dover/Hartley( 1915) 25 - 78 103 247 144 .72

Illinois 181 11 30 223 648 425 J 2 Arthur(1865) 177 12 27 216 609 393 .55

Ava(1991) 2 - 1 3 11 8 .38

Pleasant Hills 1 -- 1 9 8 .13

Macomb(1993) 1 - 2 3 19 16 .19

Indiana 147 35 n o 3Û2 2,975 2,673 d l Nappanee(1839) 31 11 26 68 595 527 .13

Kokomo(1848) 2 - 4 6 44 38 .16 Milroy( 1969) 6 7 18 31 71 40 .78 Elkhart/Lagra.( 1841) 108 17 72 197 2,265 2,068 .10

Iowa 11 _ 16 18 378 350 J 3 Buchanan/Haz. (1914) 8 - 9 17 148 131 .13

Kalona( 1846) 1 - 5 6 148 142 .04

Milton( 1969) 3 - 2 5 50 45 .11

Riceville/Mcln.( 1975) -- -- 32 32 .00

K ansas 3 6 13 11 141 119 J 8 Gamett(1903) - 2 6 8 33 25 .32 Y oder/Haven( 1883) 2 2 4 8 77 69 .12 Hutchinson(1983) 1 2 3 6 31 25 .24

M issouri 16 3 61 81 622 541 J 5

Bowling Green(1948) 7 - 1 8 54 46 .17 Canton(1985) 4 - 1 5 26 21 .24 Carrollton(1990) ---- 11 11 .00

Clark(1954) 1 - - 1 116 115 .01

Dixon(1974) - - 1 1 13 12 .08 Humansville( 1987) ---- 11 11 .00 Jamespcrt(1953) 3 2 30 35 150 115 .30

Kahoka(1985) -- -- 17 17 .00

Milan( 1990) - - 2 2 7 5 .40 Pairie(1980) ---- 17 17 .00

Seymour(1968) - - 16 16 142 126 .13 Verona(1990) 1 - 10 11 22 11 1.00

Windsor(1975) - 1 1 2 36 34 .06 2 1 8 cont. C.F. C.C. N.Co. TotC. Tot.Occ. N.C. CNCRAT Michigan 25 4 38 67 601 534 d l Blanch ard(1983) - -- - 9 9 .00 Bronson(1971) 1 - 3 4 16 12 .33

Camden(1956) - -- - 16 16 .00 Centreville(1910) 2 - 3 5 107 102 .05 Charlotte(1977) 1 1 7 9 32 23 .39 Clare(1981) 1 - 3 4 64 60 07 Evart( 1989) 1 -- 1 15 14 .07 Fremont(1990) 2 -- 2 18 16 .13 Gladwin( 1979) 3 1 2 6 53 47 .13 Greenville(1973) 1 - 1 2 35 33 .06 Hale(1978) - 1 - 1 11 10 .10 Ludington(1981) 2 1 5 8 27 19 .42 Marlette(1987) -- 1 1 39 38 .03 Mio(1970) 4 - 6 10 49 39 .26 Quincy(1977) - - 6 6 76 70 .09 Rosebush(1981) 2 - 1 3 9 6 .50 Ovid(1993) 5 - - 5 8 3 1.67 Cass City(1994) - - - - 17 17 .00

Ohio 551 JL25 m 1,297 5,557 4,260 d o Ashland( 1954) 11 - 19 30 151 121 .25 Jeromesville( 1987) 1 -- 1 14 13 .08 Carrollton(1981) - 1 7 8 24 16 .50 Geauga( 1886) 46 26 317 389 1,439 1,050 .37 Wheat Ridge(1976) -- 3 3 52 49 .06 HolmesAVayne( 1808) 493 98 275 866 3,877 3,011 .29

Oklahoma 6 - 13 19 100 81 d l Chouteau(1910) 3 - 10 13 80 67 .19 Clarita/Colgate( 1978) 3 - 3 6 20 14 .43

Pennsylvania 6 _ 9 15 181 166 Spartansburg( 1966) 6 - 9 15 181 166 .09

972 185 1,000 2,157 11,450

2 1 9 APPENDIX F

DIVERSITY INDEX

220 DIVERSITY INDEX BY SETTLEMENT

STATE DIVDEX STATE DIVDEX Delaware Missouri Dover/Hartley(1915) .7221778 Bowling Green(1948) .5107057 Illinois Canton(1985) .6893435 Arthur(1865) .7147743 Carrollton(1990) .4463918 Ava(1991) .3968150 Clark(I954) .1669749 Pleasant Hills .6542670 Dixon(1974) .1419728 Macomb(1993) .4567233 Humansville(1987) .1799362 Indiana Jamespcrt(1953) .6702180 Nappanee(I839) .6005101 Kahoka(1985) .0000000 Kokomo(1848) .3968224 Milan(I990) .4081512 Milroy(1969) .6608786 Prairie Home( 1980) .2265626 Indiana Seymour(l968) .2049344 Elkhart/Lagrange(l841) .6575725 Verona(1990) .6576135 Iowa Windsor(1975) .3866659 Buchanan/Hazel.(1914) .2764354 Ohio Kalona(1846) .2452466 Ashland(1954) .5426680 Milton(1969) .3776000 Carrollton(1981) .5037772 Riceville/Mclntire(1975) .0625136 Geauga(1886) .7986390 Kansas Holmes/Wayne( 1808) .8113587 Gamett(1903) .5410970 Jeromesville( 1987) . 1327899 Yoder/Haven(1883) .4921224 Wheat Ridge( 1976) .7456000 Hutchinson(1983) .4304912 Oklahoma Michigan Chouteau(1910) .5437153 Blanchard(1983) .0000000 Clarita/Colgate(1978) .4850000 Bronson(1971) .3750000 Pennsylvania Camden(1956) .1171876 SpartansburgC 1996) .3854142 Centreviile(1910) .6251374 Charlotte(1977) .5723831 Clare(1981) .6874361 Evart(1989) .6805781 Fremont(1990) .4921876 Gladwin(1979) .3567765 Greenville(1973) .7126384 Hale(1978) .1652744 Ludington0981) .6716257 Marlette(1987) .0498894 Mio(1970) .7197966 Quincy(1977) .3042848 Rosebush(1981) .5802078 Ovid(1993) .4489348 Cass City( 1994) .1108734 221 APPENDIX G

EXAMPLES OF DIRECTORY LISTINGS

222 G .l

HOLMESAVAYNE COUNTY SETTLEMENT

#42 DOUGHTY SOUTHEAST

2 2 3 #42 Henry H. Beadxy Annex 14. Riba.ioim.Ji: i. B eiia Daniel K. 7. 15. SheUaIvin.J& 2. HeisfaliggaHiM. 8. 16. YodaAWinL 2A. HeisfabergaJoisJay 9. 10. 17. YodttDiYidR. 3. MasL Jonas J. 18. Y o d a D on A. (Minister) 4. Mast. Levi H. (Deacon) 11. 19. YodaLenA. 5. Mast.VenionJ. 11 20. YodaRonmni. 6. MiUenAdenJ. 13.

m

Data borrowed from the Ohio Amish Directory: Holmes County and Vicinity, 1996.

2 2 4 BKIfiKR» DAN IEL K . Retned famwi MAST, LEVI H. (Deacon) Famung 3546 TR125 Millenbaig 3445 TR 124 hfiHershmg soo of David B. and Rebecca S. (King) Beiler son of Henry A. and Annie L (Miller) Mast b.Ang.7.1924m .Apn9.1959 to b. June 2 9 .1952m.Apn5.1979 to GERTRUDE R. YODER b. Nov. 14.1935 SUSAN D. MILLER b. May 24.1957 dan. of Roman L and Maiy M. (Sommers) Yoder daiL of David D. and Mary M. (Weaver) Miller Qüdrerc M na buMqr6.l98IB &BIM. HmUjugo Omd kJdrl5.19»A ” -*TniT1ITillfnHin AflcB k A # . 13.1911A Rmby kAme 19.1963 B s . O w l R. KBa* JMcpe kJaa.J6.19DA 3133 TR 374 kO ottgiy Robot k J M i0 .t9 D A B«Br biOee.3.19640 m.\émm0.lOkt.tS50 k A k 6 .1 9 T A HoftadcRd Apple C M kMH2S.I9l9A Leea kOK . 30.19660 966SC X 9ST idB aM R d WBlis kOec.l7.1991A kJnl7.1994A Ehk k& pLil 1969 B aLaoyCMUer 7330TXS7I HafaMndk bLOcL26.I77IB m A hekLR akr MAST, VERNON J. Carpenter 3147 TR 177 Onid kJuB*23.1976A 5621 G t 68 MiHetshnrg soQ of Jacob M. and Emma R. (Yoder) Mast b. Sepc 16.1960 m. Man 17.1983 to HERSHBERGER, ELI M. P«unm, ANNIE R. MILLER b. June 9.1963 3348 TR125 MiHerdang dan. of Robert L. and Lydiann £ . (Raber) Miller son of Melvm £ . andLovina J. CHoyer) Henbbeiger (Tiiltl m i b. Aug. 28.1959 m. Mqr 12.1981 to MadmRay kMaeZL 19«4A MARIETTA BEILER b. May 6.1961 Rbodt kJ4avkl9D A Mkhaat kJio ea.l9 H A dan. of Daniei K. and CeniB R. (Yoder) Beiler LedoAoo k Jm o J6 .l9 « A Enbo kJioc 13.199HA Rrt kJH.i6.I90A AH kSapL29.l99IA mw, kAec.t3.19HA Ra, kJac9.l9r7A kJuml6.1992A MILLER, ADEN J. Catpenter 5210 TR 123 Mniershctg HERSHBERGER, JOAS JAY Welding son of Jœ H. and Edna M. (Mast) MHIer 3619 TR 124 MOlenbatg b. Sept. 24.1967 m. Sept. 6.1990 to son of Dantd L. and Amne L. (Ttoyer) Hershberger LAURA R. MILLER b. F * . 5.1971 b.Nov. 19.1973 m. May 2.1995 to dan. of Roman E. and Bena A. (Yoder) Miller ROSANNA W. MILLER b. Dec. 31.1973 ehildri-q dm. of Wayne M. and Susan C (Sdilaharh) Miller I1I.1993A

MILLER, ELI N. (Minister) Farming MAST, JONAS J. Builder 3308 TR 124 Millersburg 3450 TR 124 Mmersfanrg soo of Neai E. and Verra A. (Mas) Miller son of Jacob M. and Emma R. (Yoder) Mas b. May 3.1946 m. Man 16.1967 to b.Apc.L 1931 m.Apn 1.1971 to ANNIE E. RABER b. Nov. 23.1947 irrrtF. n . YODER b. Jan. 13.1948 dan. of Eli M. and Sarah A. (Royer) Raber dm. ofNoah N. and Susm M. (Yoder) Yoder Childrerc Childrea; kOa.lA196»A Smm kJuly 27.19738 Hfiehyi. Eib LixaeMae k Not. 21.1970 B m. Samuel D. Yoder 3331CRI9Maieabms 34eTR134MUknbm« kJWy3l.l973B OL Mary A. Yoder %yoe kJaAl5.1973B ULNaomr MHIer 42(7 TR 336 M îB o ln f 3779TR 124 MUletabeea M«y kDec.ll.l973A Nocnun k Sep. 16.1976 A k W a e tl 1978 A Freda kAuf. 13.19I0A M n m kScpL23.l979A kJuty2Z.1984A kOee.27.l9ll A Baey kbtac.21.19(4A kM eeU .19D A

2 2 5 MILLER, HARVEY J. Logging Children: 3748 TR 124 Mfllenbmg b. Nov. 24.1973 B m. E n a J. Baridulder 7111 TR 663 Onadce son of Jocey M. ind Emma J. (Miller) Miller h.Oec.31.1773B m. Joaa Jay Hestaborr b. Feb. 2 0 .1968 m. May 3.1994 lo 3619 TR 124 Mtilenbias ANNA MAE RABER b. Sep. 24.1969 airman b.ABf. 11.1973 4.AHS.1I.I973 dau. of Mote E. and Amanda M. (Tioyer) Raber Rob tiL Dec. s. 1976 A Bartan b.SepL6.197SA b.Ar&27.1992A MILLER, JOE H. Semac Industries h r. 5208 TR 123 MiHenbmg RABER, ANDY J. Semac son of Henry Y. and Anna J. (Tioyer) Miller 5434 TR 123 Mmersbarg b.OcL9.1929m.Nov.ia 1949 to son of John. Jt: and lizzie Atm (Raber) Raber EDNA M. MASTb. Dec. 24.1928 b. Sept. 11,1970 m. May 7.1991 to dan. of Mate J. and Sarah N. (Miller) Mast FANNIE A. RABER b. Dec. 25.1970 dllMrw dan. of Albert A.. Jc and Sarah J. (Trtryer) Raber M e m kMec31.1930D & Venmct E m e 734 R>. niilrireir icnnlle Bd rcw Sofnm k Saca bLApe3.1993A Aaea kMaylS.1931 4. May 2 1 .19S1 EH k Jan. 21.1933 B «.BanyMaaTmyar 130S FleMaK VUiay Rd SW RABER, JOHN, JR. Buggy shop Levi kJulytl933B & Manila A n MBer 5432 TR 123 Mülersharg «uatmSagHnan son of John C and Famne J. (Mast) Raber d a n kM aylA 1937 B & EQ J. HadkBC|B 33340170 Sofasma b. May 23.1951 m. Oct. 23.1969 to Joe.Jc k J m l l . 19S9B OL Uoaa E. BaaeUy; U39 LIZZIE ANN RABER b. Oct 15.1950 Caneriid Endaiickatag daiL of V. N. and Lizzie V. (Eifo) Raber kO al4.1961 Earn 4.00.16.1961 O iilrirB r Marie k July 22.1963 B &AadyA.Mmer 1333 SR 643 Satarenak Aady bkScfLll. 1970 B n . F a n * A. Raber Aden kSep.2A1967B ia.LaaaR.MiOer 3434TR 123 Miiknbiai 3310 TR 123 MUioifaBI k Dec. 10.1974A k J n a Z l. 1976 A band b. Mac. 2a 1979 A Maqr k M a tl. 1911A MILLER, JOSEY M. (Minister) b.Jna23.19SSA FatmeD'genetal repair kOct9.19B9A 3750 TR 124 Millersburg b.Aas.3.1991 A son of Monrtx J. S. and Anna D. (Miller) Miller k M a e l. 1993 A b. Mar: I Z 1945 m. Oct. 7.1965 to EMMA J. MILLER b. Jan. 6.1945 SHETLER, IVAN, JR. Keiffi Lumber dan. of John C and Anna J. (Yoder) Miller 5559 TR 127 MOlersfaQrg Children: son of Ivan E. and Susan L. (Yoder) Shetler IMrvey b Fek 20.196t B & A n a Mae Raber 3741 TR 124 MiUcntaq b. Nov. la 1964 m. Oct 3.1985 to biMy 19.1973 B OL Wayne E. Mill* MARTHA YODER b. Apr. IZ 1966 3779 TR 124 Millenbatf dan. of Levi A. and Mary E. (Raber) Yoder h. Mae 10.1973 A fTiildrwr MiblnJay kA af. 13.1986 A U M m aFif b.Sc9L4.1987A MILLER, WAYNE E. Holmes Siding 3779 TR 124 Millersburg son of Eli N. and Annie E. (Raber) Miller YODER, ALVIN L Retired farmer b. JaiL 15.1973 m. June 10,1993 to 5530 TR 127 Millersburg NAOMI J. MILLER b. July 19.1973 son of Isaac D. and Sarah (Troyer) Yoder dan. of Josey M. and Emma J. (Miller) Miller b. May 13.1901 m. Nov. 21.1929 to KATIE A. MILLER b. Nov. 17.1911 d.Jan. 14.1994 dan. of Andy J. and Martha (Troyer) Miller MILLER, WAYNE M. Fannerdogger 3619 TR 124 Millersburg kJaa.9.1931C & N n y M. CoMeoB sonofMomoeJ. S. and Annie D. (Miller) MHIer RllAablaad b.SepL 17.1948 m. Sept. 3a 1971 to b.3«9L22.1933B CL 3aaal_ Yoder SUSAN SCHLABACH b. Sept. 25.1951 k O o . 19.1933 B J. Miller dan. of Calvin J. and Nettie L. (Miller) Schlabach k Ju iy l. 1933B o. WbyneJ. Drarliy M ikabaa

2 2 6 Bana bu Oct. 29.1937 B m. Romtn E. Miller Farming Sn|iii lu t YODER, LEVI A. Isaac Andiew b.M ac9.1939 B m. Ellen Weaver 5526 TR 127 Millersbmg MUIeabof son of Alvin I. and Katie A (Miller) Yoder Levi b. May 24. 1943 B B. Mary Raber b. May 24.1943 m. Mac 19.1964 to MUIenbms Faonm b. Nov. 20.1944 8 o.Oemm A. Miller MARY RABER b. May 11.1940 MUkntasf dau. of Eli M. and Sacah A (Troyer) Raber Aaea b. Mac. 16.1954 A Children: Nancy b. Mac. 21.1956 d. Feb. 24.1958 Miriam bL Mas. 22.1965 B OLEBA Yotkr 4484TR 371 Minenbm, Martha b.Ap:lll966B asJimiarSherier YODEIRt DAVID R. Consmictiao 5539TR 127 Millentaoti Marion b. SepL 22.1968 0 oLLannPana 5075 TH123 MillasboiK UBksabnn son of Roman J. and Baibaia M. (Miller) Yoder Marsm bL SepL 111969 B osEiminaTnyer b. Mac. 2 6 .1967 m. OcL 13.1994 to 7141 SR 241 MBlerrimri LAURA N. aW PP b. Oct 30.1974 Mahlcn b.ApslS.1974A dau. of Nelson P. and Mary R. (Mast) Chupp YODER, ROMAN J. Yoder Lumber YODER, DEAN A. (Minister) Faimenmacfaine shop 5075 TR 123 Millersburg 3516 TR 124 MHleisbuig sonof John E. and Arma D. (Miller) Yoder son of Abe G. and Lovina A. (Burkholder) Yoder h. Feb. 2 8 .1943 m. Jan. 14.1965 to b. SepL 17.1949 m. Jan. 28.1971 to BARBARA M. MILLER b. Mac 13.1944 ELtZABETH M. MILLER b. June 4.1951 dm. of Mike S. and Susan D. (Yoder) Miller dau. of Momoe J. S. and Aimie D. (Miller) Miller Children: Childtem Anna b.Ocs21.1965 D m. Larry lay Weaver.220Ean AdmaSt ApBM Millenbarf b. May 2S. 1972 B OL Elmer J.Yodtr David bL Mas 26.1967 B a. Lasva N. Cbnpp 33336 TR 231 Baltic 5075 TR 123 MUkaabm, Maion b.Ape2&I973A Henry bLSepsl 1969 D 138 Scab WbahBftanSt Maie bL Seta. 3.1974 A ApMBMiUembm, b. Fcbi23.1976A Mary bLOeLll.l97DD m Noah R. Schbl** Manta b.FebL 28.1977 A <737 SR 557 Milleratami bLMae3.1978A Albert b.May3.1972A bLAwx.27.1980 d.Au|. 12.1981 Daniel bLAat.23.1973 d.3uly4.1993 b.Jaoa

227 G.2

GEAUGA SETTLEMENT

PARKMAN NORTH DISTRICT

228 P a .7 T L 5 . Clta.rv^inv

%

&

€> . m

/i/oL$A Ro<^

Data borrowed from the Ohio Amish Directory: Geauga County and Vicinity, 1993

2 2 9 PARKMAN NORTH DISTRICT No. 3 Bishop - Jonas S. Yoder

21. Marvin J. Schmucker 2. Joe E. Byier 22. John J. Shrock 3. Crist D. Fisher 23. Noah J. Shrock 4. Mrs. Allen J. Hershberger 24. Roman R. Troyer. Jr. 5. Allen J. Hershberger 25. Crist J. Weaver 6. Dan J. Hershberger 26. Joe A. Weaver 7. Finannel J. Hershberger 26B. Lizzie Arm Farmwald 8. Mrs. Jake L. Hershberger 27. Atlee L. Wengerd 9. Jonathan J. Hershberger 28. Crist J. Yoder 10. Levi J. Hershberger 29. Joe J. Yoder 11. Nancy and Esther Hershberger 30. Joe S. Yoder (Deacon) 12. Neal C Hershberger (Minister) 31. Jonas S. Yoder (Bishop) 13. Robert E. Hershberger 32. Mary Yoder 14. Vernon L. Hershberger 33. Owen J. Yoder 15. Allen R. Miller 34. Mrs. Stephen J. Yoder 16. Crist E. Miller 35. Melvin L. Yoder 17. JoeJJdnier 36. Albert L. Miller 18. Neil E. Miller (Minister) 37. Lester L. Hershberger 19. Noah J. Miller 38. Jonas J. Schmucker 20. Owen O. Miller S Gear View School

Mrs. John Hershberger and Roman R. Troyer, Jr. are both moving out of this church. Mrs. John Hershberger is moving over on Rt. 88 on the west side of Noah Yutzy's right beside them.

A means children are living at home with their parents. B means they are married and Amish and live in this community. C means they are married and Amish and live in another community. Address follows. D means they are no longer Amish. Address follows. E means they are single, but do not live at home. Address follows.

2 3 0 BYLER, JOE E. Pallet sfaop/Canner HERSHBERGER. EMANUEL J. Pallet shop 1T304 Tavern RiL Middlcficld. OH 44062 17061 Tavern RtL MiddleGeld. OH 44062 Son of Eli S. and Katie (Wengenl) Byler Son of Joni J. and Mattie (Schmucker) Hershberger b. SepL 6.1942 m. SepL 30.1992 to b. SepL 6.1936 m. Mar. 28.1927 to UZZEEANN YODER b. SepL 7 .19S9 dau. of S A R A E. TROYER b. May 22.1937 dau. of JoiinE.andMa^ Ann J. (Byler) Yoder Eli E. and Mary A. (Fannwald) Troyer Joe was manied the f its im eA ng. 18,1966 to Childien: NANCY MILLER b. May 13.194Sd.OcL 4.1991 dau. of htfmnt gge k Duc. 29.1937 SttUhniB Alvin A. and Lizzie Ann N. (Henfaberger) Miller bfentssB k Apr. 17.1939 Stfllhom Childzen of Joe and Nancy Byler bfameoo k May 22. I960 SdHhom Heesuaiiy hLAag.23.1970B a . Shacn Cbblauz Bauy kOcL2Z1961B m. Joe J. Yoder Minan h. FA. 2L 1977 A EtnaauelJr. kSepL Ik 1963 B UL Martha Miller Robert k OcL 23.1971B m. Sylvia MiHm I !HB1S D. Ourpwwfr 17031 Tavern Road. MiddleGeld. OH 44062 Son of Daniel H. and Maik (Scfanmcker) Fuller b. Jan. 22.1969 m. SepL 7.1989 to HERSHBERGER. ESTHER CORA MAE HERSHBERGER b. Feb. 24.1967 dau. of 17396 Tavern Rd, MiddleGeld. OH 44062 Allen J. and Nancy W. (Detweder) Hosfafaerger b. Jan. 12.1926 füncy kOae.3ai989A A m Man* b. Dae. 9.1991A HERSHBERGER. JAKE L. HERSHBERGER, ALLEN J. 16910 Tavern Rd, MiddleGeld. OH 44062 12249 Patch Rd.. bOddlefield. OH 44062 Son ofLcviM . and Fannie S. (Mast) Hershberger Son of Joni J. and Mattie (Schnmdcer) Henfaberger b. Fds. 17.1919 d. Apr. 16.1991 m. Nov. 4.1941 to b.SepL 16.1946 m. SepL 21,1966 to ELLA J. MILLER b. Mat 1 .1919 dan. of NANCY W. DETWEHJER b. Jan. 6.1946 dau. of Josiah J. and Mary C (Byler) Miller Wmiam £ . and EOea (Henhhergei) Detwetkr Deacon - May 7.1960 niflrifwr Children: CscaMa* bLFA.24.1967B 8L Oins O. Fnhar WnUam kMay7.1944 SUHbon: BaAamEHm biMay 24.196IB & Maim M. Yoder rîTTM kNov.2L1943A Catfaenae bLMay29.1969B a John Henry MUkr Infantson k Aiq.23.1947 Sdllhnm Darnel buJuisiQ, 1970B aLShsley M.bfiller Mauie kAug.1.1949B m. Neil E Miller Marne kNov.4.1971B a&lvaMaeMa# Daradiy kFeb. L 1973 A Wnma kSapLjOl 1974 A HERSHBERGER. JONATHAN J. Pallet shop HERSHBERGER. ALLEN L. 17061 Tavern Road. MiddleGeld. OH 44062 17126 Tavern RtL. MidtUefield. OH 44062 Son o f Jonathan and Catherine (Berlicoutt) Hershberger Son of Levi M. and Famne S. (Mas) Heishberger k D ec. 14.1902 m. May 16.1972 to buJan. 13 .1923 d. FA. 14.1983 m. Jan. 17.1946 to T T MlTJJ^h law tO, 1916 datL Of MARY RABER b. Jan. 2 L 1930 d. Nov. 3.1987 dau. of Josiah J. and Mary C. (Byler) Miller Benjamin and Irene (Byler) Raber Children: Jonathan was married the Gtst time Dee. 8.1927 to ESaManr b. July 6.1947 B m. Albert P. Mffler MATTIE SCHMUCKER b. July 3.1907 d. Mar. 13.1971 RAeocaAim b.Mqr 13.1932B m. Sou O. Yoder dau. o f Jonas J. and Mary Arm (Miller) ScfanuKker MmHeanr h.Oo.18.194* A Children of Jcnathan and M nie Hetshbergec Raymond kNov.2L1928B m. Mary Ann Miller HERSHBERGER, DAN J. Caipemer Owen kD*e.k 1929B m.Maty Bytar 17120 Tavern Road Mery Arm k July 19.1931C a Reuben D. Bytar Son of Joni J. and Mattie J. (Schmnckei) HetshbeiuB R. 1 Bos 299. Daynm. PA 16222 b. July 19.1949 m. htay 23.1974 to Noah k Apr. 12.1933 B a.VUaW*arar LINDA N. DETWEILER b. Apr. 20.1923 dau. of lonai k Sqa. 13.1934D m.Manha MHIer Noah N. and Mattie J. (Shetler) Detweiler 11810 Madiien Rd. HamtaMig. OH 44046 Oiildmo: Emmmtel k Sqn. 6.1936 B ouSnaTtiiyw Mena k Aug. 10.1974 A John kMir.31.19380 uLSaahBjder Batty Ann kOcLj. 197SA 3312 Sl Rl 22N £. StananeL OH 4370 Syint kFA.2.1977A Sylvia kJau.lkl940B uL Daniel J.MHtar Oody k Mar. 19.197: A Polly k July 23.1941C BLAadyABytar t w - k May Ik 1979 A Boa 233 Hon* Rd. Adnnc. PA 16111 Manfaa kMar.4.1981A Amenda kOcL9.1942B tmEtawr V.MHIcr Devid kSqK.2S.19nA Martha kMey6.1944B m. Ervin E Make Jr. Mary Lon kJum*23.19MA AUen k Sep. 16.1946 B m. Nancy Detweiler Ida Mae k Sqa. 10.19MA Daniel kJuly 19.1949B m. Linda Detweitar Daniel kJan.:. 19WA Children of Jonathan and Mary Hershberger: Neonu k Aug. 4,1990 A Melvin k FA. 9.1974 A 2 3 1 HERSHBERGER, LESTER L. Cupeoier HERSHBERGER VERNON L. Claipemer/fanner 17570 Tavern R(L Middlefield. OH 44062 17710 Tavem Rd, Middlefield. OH 44062 Son of Levi J. and Salona (Byler) Hetsfaberger Son o f Levi J. and Saloma J. (Byler) Heishberger b. Apr. 24.1968 m. F ». 21.1991 to b. Mar. 20.1967 ol June 16.19M to MARTHA O. MILLER b. Sept. 24.1968 dau. of SUSAN J. MILLER b. hùr. 13.1969 datL of Qaa J. and Manba (bClIer) Miller Josiah J. and Anna Abry (Miller) Miller Kobeit h.P*.lL 1992A Cbildien: Laura b. July 29.1990 A HERSHBERGER, LEVI J. Claipenter 17747 Taveni Rd, ftfiddlefîeld. OH 44062 MILLER ALBERT L. Mason Soo of John H. and Sadie M. (Heisiibeiger) Heisfaberger 17747 Ibvem Rd, Middlefield. CH 44062 b. Nov. 9.1943 m. Oct. 24.1963 to Son of Levi E. and Sakana J. (Byler) Miller SALOMA j. BYLER b. Ang. 14.1942 datL of John S. and Elizabeth (NQller) Byler h. Mar. 18.1969 m. Ang 31.1989\d ''' Cbildien: LINDA L. HERSHBERGER b. Apr. 24.1968 dan. of Levi J. and Salon» J. (Byler) Heuliberger RKhd h.Oa.2L1964B OLRobenCHenhbeiger Vernon h.Mar.20.1967B m.SniaaJ.Miner Oûldten: iWwi« k Afr. 24.1968 B rn.AlbenL.Mnkr Berne Suc b. Ang. 15.1990 A {^wi b.A^.24.1968B i&MenhmD.Milkr Rhoda bLOcLlZ1991A AdsMene b.feu. 19.1972 B m. Nekcm L Mükr VW* k SepL 2L 1975 A MILLER ALLENR Caipenier Venu h.Sep.2H975 A 16805 Tavem Rd, Bunon. OH 44021 lUlodaMae b.A^,Z1977A Son of Raymond BL and Ada N.(Heg hberger) Miller Levilr. h. A^. 24.1979 A Pnilohn b.July2S.1981 A b. May 27.1959 m. Miy 28.1981 to Aaon b. Ju^ 18.1985 SlQIbom ELIZABETH J. MELER b. Mar. 25.1959 dan. of Jœ J. and Lizrie (Miller) Miller HERSHBERGER NANCY 17396 Tavern Rd, Middlefield. OH 44062 MILLER CRISTR Plomber b. Ang. 11.1954 17263 Tavem Rd. Son of Eli R and Amanda P. (Miller) Miller HERSHBERGER NEALC Retiied b.Paj. 10.1919 m.Dœ. 31.1942 to 17670 Tavem Rd, Middlefield. OH 44062 MARY B. BORKHOLDER b. Dec. 3.1918 dan. of Son of Cria L and Lizzie (Mia) Hershberger Mbse R and Manie M. (Henhberger) Borlcholder b. Apr. 10.1920 m. OcL 16.1941 to Children: Martha b. Nev. 23.1943 C m.Aib» Wengerd le a k MILLER b. Nov. 22.1920 dan. of MiddlcfichLOH Mose Vincent and Susan B. (fîney) Miller M iniaer-1968 Infant son b. Nov. 2Z 1956 IMTlbnm rhndien: Eüzibeth b. July 30.1942 C m. Une N. Bolder MILLER JOE J. Retiied Shemun.NY 16826 Tavem Rd, Bunon. OH 44021 Esther b. Dec. 25.1943 B m. Jœ A. Wesver Son of Jœ J. W. and Saloma (Detweüer) Miller Owen b.Aug.4.1945 C m.AdeFitmweid b.Nov. 18.1919 m. Ota. 14.1941 to Jeepcr.NY d-No*.8.1991 U2Z3E MILLER b. July I Z 1920 dan. of Marie b.Nov.9.1940B bl Oave J. Yoder Eli N. and Susie (Yoder) Miller Alben b. July 1.1948 B a . Edna Mae Byler Children: Wallace b. Dec. IZ 1949 B OL Barbara Kunz Robert bLAng.6.1942B ■.NidaMay MiBer Ehnma buAfr. 7.1951B oL/afanAKaiK Maty EUen b.Nov. 20,1944 B ol JoaS. Yoiler Edna b. July 11. 1952 A Albert b. Aug. 10.1947 C ea. Sylvia Heobberger A n b.M^Z3.19S4B a . ABen W. Byler Mk.MI Andy b.OcL 17.1956B m.CindyTn>yer Jba bl Dec. 20.1949 C m. EEzahethDctwmler Mary Ann b. Sepc 15.1959 A CechnaaanLPA Kathryn b. Doe. 19.1961 B OL Roman Ttoyer. Jr. SuaanAim b.Fdx 17.1952B ia.OiitH.Kfiller NancyMac kOcLlZ 1953 B m. Aady J. Yoder HERSHBERGER ROBERT R Fallet shop bfant ton b. Aug. 4.1956 SdHborn 17041 Tavem Rd,NQddlefield. OH 44062 EEzaheth b. Mar. 25.1959 B t&AHanR. Miller Son ofEmaimel and San (Troyer) Hershberger b. OcL 25.1971 OL Apr. 5,1990 to MILLER NEILR Farmer SYLVIA J. MILLER b. Apr. 10.1971 dan. of 16910 Tavem Rd, Middlefidd. OH 44062 John E. and MatyAnn (Sdunucker) Miller Son of Eli R and Anna N. (Henhberger) Miller Children; b.OcL 1.1951 m.OcL 28.1971 lo Karen Sub b. June 24.1989 A MATTIE J. HERSHBERGER b. Ang 1.1949 dau. of Leoma b. Dec. 29.1990A JakcL. and Ella J. (Miller) Hershberger lohnMark b.F ân .3.1992 A Minister-O cl2Z 1977

2 3 2 Philrirmr Children: Noah b. Feb. 23.1973 A Famne b. Feb. 9.1956 B in. Jonaa E. MHIer En» b.Mir.l.l97SA Burton. OH Jacob b. Dee. 19.1976 A Ada b. May 24.1957 B m. Levi Byler Anna b. Fa. 3.1979 A Middlefield. OH Efi b. Aug. 14.1980 A EQen b .0 c t9 .1958 B m. Abner.Miller Ida biArr. 19.1982A Burton. OH Con b. June 23.1984 A Owen b. Oct 22.1959 B m. Amanda Miller Abner b. Fa. 23.1987 A Miriam b.Nov.30,1960 B m. Sam Miller BnmntOH Rmtw b. Jan. 15.1962 B m. Roman M3Hg b. Jan. 4.1963 B nt Steven Yoder MILLER. NOAH J. Martha Carpenter Noah b.Mar.7.1964B ' m. Edam M. Byler 17085 Tavern Rd, Middlefield. OH 44062 Edna b. Dee. 2L 1963 B m. Raymond R. Miller Son of Joe J. C and Saia N. (Bender) KMer Ida b.Fd».20.1967B m. Raymond E. Yoder b.Ahy30.1955 m. Jane 1.1978 to John b. May 26.1969 B m. Kathryn Miller MARTHA DETWEILER b. Mar. 15.1958 dan. of Norma b.Nov.l9.1970A ^IfiHiam E and EOea (Henfaberger) Detweiler Marvin b. Ang. 8.1972 A Children: Riuh bLDacLl6.1973 A Lama bL May 23.1979 A Raymond bL May 4.1976 A Nbahfr. b.June29.1980A Bauy b. Ang. 16.1980 A Noxman b. Aug. 9.1981A Carol b. Dec. 14.1983 A SHROCK, NOAH J. Farmer Daniel b. Feb. 27.1986 A 16927 Tavem Rd, Middlefield. OH 44062 Robert b.May9.1988A Son of John and Emma (Wengenl) Shrock David b. July 28.1990 A b. Mar. 7.1964 tn. May 14.1987 to EDNA M. BYLER b. May 14.1962 dan. of Mose D. and Nancy (Mnier) Byler MILLER. OWEN JR. Factory Childien: Owen b. May 10.1988 A 17417 Tavem Rd, Middlefidd. OH 44062 t^imr b. June 25.1989 A Son of Owen N. and Ada M. (Miller) Miller Barbara b.Ja»L30.1991 A h.M ay4,1966 m. Jane 18.1985 to BARBARA J. YODER b. Ang. 21.1964 dan. of TROYER. ROMAN JR. Carpenter Jonas S. and Manfaa E (Slabangfa) Yoder 17560 Tavem Rd. #3. Middlefidd. OH 44062 Childien: Son of Roman A. and Magddena (Miller) Troyer Ouster b.May20.1986A b. Jan. 14.1959 m. OcL 15.1981 to Martha b.Jine2S.1987A KATHRYN ANN HERSHBERGER b. Dec. 19.1961 dan. of Norman b. Sept 17.1988 A Neai C and Leah (Mnier) Hershberger Marvm b.Ocx.3.1990A Children: Linda Marie b. Nov. 6.1982 A Steven Ray b. Ang. 13.1984 A SCHMUCKER. JONAS J. Carpenter Aaron Lee b. Sept 30.1986 A 17670 Tavem Rd, Middlefield. OH 44062 Manhew Ji b.Deat21.1988A Son of Joseph J. and Agnes (Bender) Schmucker Rachel Lynn b. Jan. 15.1992 A b. Dec. 8.1971 m. Oct. 29.1992 to WEAVER. CRIST J. Carpenter BARBARA E TROYER b. Fid». 8.1973 dan. of 17041-A Tavem Rd, Middlefidd. OH 44062 Rotnan J. and Esther (Yoder) Troyer Son of Joe A and Esther N. (Hershberger) Weaver b. July 26.1967 m. May 7.1992 to ELMINA J. SHROCK b. OcL 4.1966 dau. of SCHMUCKER. MARVIN J. Carpenter Jonas J. and ElminaN. (Hershberger) Shrock 16776-A^avem Rd, Bonon. OH 44021 Son ofJonasE and Esther (Yoder) Schmucker WEAVER. JOE A- Farmer b. May 2 1 .1966m. May 16.1991 to 17480 Tavern Rd, Middlefidd. OH 44062 JOANNE BYLER b. A^. 8.1971 dau. of Son of Ammon J. and Mary (Wengerd) Weaver Mdvin B. and Laura Mae (Detweiler) Byler b. May 1 .1939 m. Mar.5.1964 to ESTHER N. HERSHBERGER b. Dec. 25.1943 dau. of Neal C. and Leah (Miller) Hershberger Children: SHROCK. JOHN J. Sarah b. Jan. 28.1965 B nLBen]aniiaE.Slaiibaagh 16927 Tavem Road. Middlefield. OH 44062 Mary b. May 24.1966 B m. Marvin J. Slanbaugh Son of John H. and Fannie B. (Yoder) Shrock Clin b. July 26.1967 B m. Ehnina J. Shrock b. Apt. 21.1929 m. Dec. 30.1954 to Leah b.Mar. 1.1970A EMMA N. WENGERD b. Dec. 23.1933 dau. of Katie b.Nov. 1.1972 A Noah M. and Emma M. (Miller) Wengerd Neai b. Mar. 14.1974 A

2 3 3 w e n g e r d »a t l e e L. Fumei/carpentcr Childien: 17219 Tavem RiL MiddleGeld. OH 44062 Owen kSepL 8.1961 a m. Elva M. Yoder Son of Levi L C and MatneM. (Yoder) Weageid Fannie Mae b. Aug. 13.1962 B m. David A. Scbnmdcer b. July 20.1945 m. Nov. 5.1964 to Barbara b.Ang.2L 1964 B ffl. Owen O. Miller. Jr. MARTHA C MILLER b. Nov. 23,1943 dau. of Allen b. Ang. 3.1965 B UL Saloma L Miller OistE. and Mary B. (Miller) Miller Qist b.June2S. 1969B nt Bma M. Detweiler Children: Noonan b.Ang.22.1971A b. July 27.1974 A MsySue h.Nov.3.1965B m. Joiy A. Miller Jonas Jr. b.Sepcl9.1977A OdJt h.Nov.8.1966B aLEmmmCMm* David Lovins ^Nov. 13.1967 B oL John J, Byler Abner b.Nov.l3.1978A Marvm ^Mar. 27.1969 B o . Mane O. Miller YODER. MARY Kadxryn la. Apr. 28.1970 B ql 1 errrr A. ScfamucicEr SMie b.Fdk L 1973 A 16910 Tavem Rd- Middlefield. OH 44062 Sylvia h. Jaa.2.1976 A Dau.ofTobiazandLucy Atm Yoder. Heymorai h» Jun® 12,1980 A b. Oct 4.1931 Chüdtea: Sarah Jane b. June 28 d. Nov. 22.1988 YODER. CRIST J. Carpenter 17431 Tavem Rd. YODER, MELVIN L. Humer Son of Jonas S. and Martha (Slabagfa) Yoder 16695 Tavem RtL. Burton. OH 44021 b. June 2 5 .1969 m. May 30.1991 to Son of Levi L. and Kane (Mnier) Yoder ERMAM.DETWEHERb.Jan.12.1970 dau. of b. May 4.1954 n t O c tia 1974 to Melvin A. and Susanna B. (Raber) Detweüer MALINDA M. YODER b. May 22.1952 dan. of Childien: Albert M. P. and Gertie (Miller) Yoder Marlin h. i=efa. 24.1992 A Children: Bcajamm k Sepc 20i 1973 A YODER. JOE J. JR. ■Sln«n b. Nov. 23.1976 A 17071 Tavem Rd.. Middlefield. OH 44062 Albert b.May 7.1978 A Son ofJœJay and Elinbetfa D. (Hostetler) Yoder Reuben b. Oct 13.1979 A b. May 3.1959 ra. July 12.1979 to Katherine b. Mar. 3a 1981 A Ida b. Apr. 16.1983 A BETTY E HERSHBERGER b. Oct 22.1961 dau. of Savannah b. May 24.1983 A Emanuel J. and Sara &(TkyeOHcedtbergcr t ^ « b. Oct 13.1986 A Children: Marian b. Apr. 2,1989 A Aden Ray b. Ang. 14.1979 A Dorothy b. Jarc 23.1991A h. Jan. 7.1981 A SanAnn h.Feh.lOL 1982A YODER. O W ^ J. Humeobarperuer Ehresu h. May 24.1983 A 17347 Tavem RtL Middlefidd. OH 44062 Margaret b. Dec. IZ 1987 A Son of Jonas S. and Martha (Slabaugh) Yoder loe Alan b.May4.1990 A b. Sept 8.1961 m. Oct 22.1981 to Nathaniay b. Jime 18.1992 A ELVA M. YODER b. Sept 4.1962 dan. of Melvin M. and Htnnie (Hershberger) Yoder YODER. JOE S. Fanner Children: 16818 Tavem RtL. Button. OH 44021 Norma b. Aug. 22,1982 A Soo of Stephen J. and Fannie (Hershberger) Yoder S levai b. Mar. 7.1983 A b. June 5.1946 m. July 21.1966 to Ruth b.1%.18.1987A MARY ELLEN MILLER b. Nov. 2 a 1944 dau. of Laura b. Dec. 4.1988 A Joe J. and Lizzie (MUler) Miller Paul b. Nov. 23.1990 A Deacon-Oct 6.1991 Children: YODER. STEPHEN J. Luanda b. Aug. 19.1967 B m. Dan D. Miller 17347 Tavem RtL Middlefidd. OH 44062 Joseph b. JaxL 23.1971 B OL BenyJ. Detweiler Son of Joe J. and Manie (Yoder) Yoder Nancy b. Oct 9.1972 A b. Mar. 23.1912 d. Mar. 29.1977 m. Sept 23.1937 lo Rotinna b. Dec. 19.1974 A FANNIE HERSHBERGER b. Mar. 2,1916 dan. of Samaei b. Sept. 4.1976 A Neü Land Lizzie Atm (Fisher) Hershberger Alben b. July 3.1978 A Miiüster - May 13.1945. Bishop -1971 Wtllsd b.Jan.l8.1981A Childtem Jonas b. Aug. 9.1939 B ac Martha Slafaangh YODER. JONAS S. Carpenter Levi b. June 3.1941 B m. Esther D. Detweiler 17352 Tavem RtL. Middlefield. OH 44062 EE b. June 3.1941 B a . Katie Marie Miller b. Apr. 5.1944 B m .lm s a. SehimieJrw Son of Stephen J. and Fannie N. (Hershberger) Yoder Ealba b. Aug. 9.1939 m. Dec. 1 .1960 to Joe b. June 5.1946 B m. Mary Ellen Miller Ada b-Apr.lZ 1949 B nc WnUam J. Byier MARTHA E. SLABAUGH b. May IZ 1941 dau. of Mauie b. Feb. 21.1951B m. Chat C. Slabaugh. Jr. Enos C. and Sarah C. (Miller) Slabaugfa Daniel b. F<*. 28.1953 d. Apr. 9.1953 Minister - May. 1970. Bishop - Oct. 1978 Crist b. July 23.1955 B m. AdaJ.MiHm

2 3 4 G.3

ELKHART-LAGRANGE SETTLEMENT

EDEN DISTRICT

235 29. EDEN District OBi H. LAMBRICHT

I. Beachey, Devon L. 19. Lehman. Daniel F. 2. Beacbey. John Allen 20. Wilbur 0 . 3. Beactiey. Lewis A. 2L Mast. Calvin fl. 4. Bontracer. Ernest G. 22. Mast. Mrs. Harry S. Bontraxer. Irvin C. 23. Mast. Jay H, 6. Frey. Daniel M. 24. Miller, Clara Mae 4 PoUyanna 7. Fry, Jerry Veyne 25: Miller, Freeman S> 8. Fry, mayne P. 26. railer, Maynard 0 . Min. 9. Fry, Vllbur L. 27. Miller, Marvin P. 10. Qidc. Mrs. John 28. NOller. Vernon F. 11. Helffluth. Dermis J. 29. MOler. Wllbor 0 . 12. Kelffluth. John A. 30. Raber, Melvin J. 13. Helffluth. raio V. 31. Thjyer. Tobe M. ran. 14. Itersfaberxer, Melvin L 32. Whetstone, Orvm J . Dee. IS. Hostetler. Qtva 0 . 33. Yoder. Ebxene A. 16. Hostetler. VObor Lee 34. Yoder. Marie Euxene Min. 17. Lambrixht. S e n H. Bisfa. 18. Lambrixht. Richard

67 members 92 noo-members

r r

¥2 tf n rr n

tr ir

l« JT n

22 2f I a/

Data borrowed from the Indiana Amish Directory; Elhart, IxiGrange and Noble Counties, 1995

2 3 6 Beachey, Devon L. 9780W 650S. Topeka factory Fry, Wayne P. 9785W 650S. Topeka factory son of Lews A. and Edna EBen (MHIer) Beachey son of Paul 0. and Elsie Mae (MBer) Fry b. Nov. S. 1970 m. Aug. 26.1993 to b. Jan. 6,1965 m. July 24.1988 to Cathy Joann Fry b. Oct 8.1973 Uartana Sue Wbigard b. Jan. 24.1966 dau. of Levi J. and Ameka (Hosteder) Fry dau. of Olan J. and Irene (Lehman) WIngard AflMOim b.0K.16.1994A OmsOMi b. Non 30.1988 4 OwnVMym U Jan. 22.1988 A JoEUm b. Fib. S. 19904 Beachey, John Allan 6650S 900W, Topeka factory KyliJiy b.Jwk 11.1994 4 ion of Lews A. and Edna EBen (MUer) Beachey b.Juna 16 .1973 m. Dec. 29.1994 to Fry, Wilbur L 9575W 650S. Topeka factory, farmer Lora WIngard b. Sept 21.1973 son of Levi E. and Polly B. (Bonoager) Fry dau. of Ebner J. and EBa H. (Frye) WIngard jmvaAm b.ttay 14.1M4A b. Sept 2.1948 m. Sept 7,1967 to AdaUeeKnepp b. May 28.1948 dau. of Chris X and Mary W. (Lambright) Knepp Beachey, Lewie A. 6660S 900W. Topeka factory, farmer b. Jum 19.19S7B47 iikUaryLouRMar son of Alvin J. and Mary (Ybdar) Baacney UApt 13.1970848 RkOaMt-IOtar b. May 9.1943 m. Dec. 5.196810 b.Apc30.1971 834 nkUanaMia Edna EUan umer b. July 29.1947 UaF«m b.Jl4y24,1974 838 1-1 <4«ii of Jofin K. arat Sylvia N. (MUer) MHIer OpMd b.Noit 1.1979 4 OwMnakay Ik Nam 18.1960838 m.Glem HooMar IMwi bLUey3.19784 OevonL. 0. Notts. 1970829 ULCaOiyJowviAV RalyAm b.SWt2Z 1980 4 JohnAOin b.JmlA 1973129 m. Loia Wingsd nehwdlM bJulyr. 1976A oncfc. John 8785W 700S. Topeka son of Mosa 0. and Barbara (Hershberger) (àBck Bontragar. Emeet G. 9880W 700S. Topeka factory b. Aug. 11,1918 d. Jan. 30.1975 m. Aug. 28.1955 to son of Glenn I. and Lydiam A. (Mast) Bontrager Verna Yoder b Nov. 14,1918 b. July 24.1965 m. May 29.1985 to dau. of Dan A. and Lydia (Stutzman) Ybder Baa Mae Bontrager b. Aug. 6.1966 Vbma Yoderwas m. (1) Dec. 14.1939 to dau. of Ervin A. and Edna A. (Schfabach) Bontrager Levi D. Hershberger b. June 23.1918 d. Oct 30.1948 EaiOMii b.Mwf23.19eaA son of DavdJ. and Susie (MHIer) Hershberger &vinRay b.Ow.14. t967A cflMvnolLaviO. indVwm(Ybdw)HMrMigw ErieLym bOM.8.19634 KwwMiil. b.Juw 29.19410 a.UnyAMnt,GoMn.lN MWwnL. IkJuw 4.1943829 m. May FMntiMn Bontrager, Irvin G. 9780W 700S. Topeka buggy shop MayESaiL b. Fib. 20.19450 ok MSa Sinon. Goaiwk M son of Glenn I. and Lydiann A. (Mast) Bontrager AnmlML b.MK 19.19470 nk Scos RMWL Boom. NC b. Sept 27.1961 m. May 13.1962 to OwWI_ h.Un10.194S d.AuQ.17.1987 Ruby Fern FTy b. Nov. 14,1963 cMd or Jctm nd Vm (Ybdw) GSdi dau. of Glen 0. and Anna W. (Ybder) Fry EtaOMlUn DLSnC.20.1994E OeankiN joAirakay b. Nott 3.1983 A QNaJMn b.Aug.8.1988A Helmuth. Dannie J.8355W700S. Topeka farmer, factory UnyJay tk Jin. 31,1988 A son of John Anon and E9zabethB.(Bonitrager) Heimutn SuiaHnFiYO b.OM.a. 19894 b. June 12.1969 m. June 27.1990 to UayEsltar b. July 31.1992 4 Niva S. Kauffman b. Feb. 21.1971 dP" of Sam M. and Lydia Arm (Troyer) Kauffman Frey, Daniel M. 8120W650S. Topeka factory JiyOn b.Auo.2.19924 son of Melvin J. and Edna (Raber) Frey SmanOUp b.JWk 27.1998 4 b. May a, 1987 m. May 7,1992 to Natue Sue Hosteder b. May 3.1971 Hefanuth, John A. 6365W700S. Topeka window/door shop dau. of Orva O. and EBa (MHIer) Hosteder [from UPnoo. 1935] SbwonKiy b. FM. 27.1983 A son of George and Susie (Schncfc) Hebnutti UyrenLyim b. Apt 20.1998 A b. Aug. 15.1923 m. Nov. 28.1946 to EBzabetti Bomtrager b. Sept 17,1928 Fry, Jerry Wayne 832SW650S, Topeka factory dau. of Ben 0. and MaHnda (MUer) Bomtrager son of WUHam H. and Betsy W. (Ybder) Fry [from Plain City, OH. 1938] b. Nov. 4, 1984 m. Sept 20.1989 to b Oct. 19.1947 828 HkHnWySchtibPcn Lavera Mae Frey b. May2.1970 unoy h. Not 3.1990 E dau. of Richard J. and Barbara A. (MHIer) Frey b.DPC.22L 19910 0kT1neUirtiTlliy,TapM.IN WcfMio Lyiyi b.Jwn# 22.19904 b. Pee. 27. 1993 8834 nkGMnQratMr Oa«onjay IkUay is. 1992 4 b N ot4 .1957838 nk Uoyd Sctnbacn EbaDMiMie bJun 14.1980 d.Uik 29. 19831 nkMMa Ffyv Saann Apt 12.199S mctara b. May 31.1988 183 RkSiraJnnMeir Emaw b. Jan. 13.1968 8834 RkUan«aiKau8 mwi bJunalZ 1989 129 Rk Mva S. Kaulbnm

2 3 7 MOO W. 6055S 900W. Topew Hoory. repay anop [trem NaopanM. IN] Lahmau Oanlel F. 9660W 700S. Topeka factory, rockers son of Freeman M. and Susie (Bontrager) Lahman 5ono^ waiter M. and Sofdara (Stutzman) Heimutn b. Feb. 26.1962 m. Mar. 24.1982 to p. June 30.1948 m. June 1 1 .1970 to Edna Fry b. May 20.1962 /unanda W. Raber b. June 14.1947 dau. of David 0. and Mattie Irene (Ybder) Fry dau. at Melvin J. and Susie C. (MUer/ Raber V M ilrin i 16apAI9.1983A «LJiiy t7.1974BSa ntMartynFfy J a n Oman lJin.17.1989A b. Aug. 20.1379 A lJulyll1986A 19.1977 A b.Jaa D o rm I N O K ll 1987 A b.Jan.20.1979A Lou Arm lM ir.111990A 0.0a. 21.1980 A OwiMLyrm 1 OCA 211991 A AiHriwLM 1 F H 4 . 1994 A H*aliberger.Malvlnl_87G5W700S.TbpeKa sheet metal snop son ol Levi 0. and Vema Odder) Hetsnbefper Lahmau WDbur 0.8490W600S. Topeka' factory p. June 6.1943 m. Oct. 20.1966 to son of Darnel M. and Sara E (Shrock) Lehman Mary PetersneiRi b. Mar. 1.1942 b. Aug: 2 8 .1959 m. Apr. 19.1979(0 dau. of Jacob and Sarah (Shrock) Petarsneim KaUa Irena Frey b.Jan. 16.1959 SarMlAim bLAus.20.19S7A dau of Jospeh E and ESzabem D. (Bontrager) Frey nubrAilm a. Aug. 18.1970 A DlWivniRiy 1FH211980A o.juir2i.i9nA NetmiJMn INoi. 1.1981 A CwoynSui 1FH11994A Hoatatlar. Orva O. S490W 650S, Topeka laOred farmer OmonJiy lJaL211985A ion of Owen 0. and BzabeOi (MUer) Hosteller WamFim 1I4IC.I11987A p. Dec. 10.1933 m. Jan. 13.1965 to lOWmW. 1 0 0 .3 1 .1 9 9 1 A æ inner b. Mar. 23. 1935 dau. of Joni B. and PoUy C. (Trayar) Mmer Maai Calvin H. 6780S 900W. Topeka farmer, factory son of Harry A. and Mary (WIngard) Mast ttevmRiy b. Die. 11998028 nAEatarMBtar VMborLM b.Mle 21.1957029 n . S u m N. L illian b.OO.5.1956 m. Nov. 7.1979 to Ctfm b. Mar 21.1998029 n. ManrMMMUaM Barbara Sue Yoder b. Apr. 28,1959 lany b.Fib. 1119800294 OLSuMiAOtar dau of WiUam L and Katy H. (Frye) Yoder OandJiv b.Aec.18.1981034.1 IL JodyAim lJ i4y2119aO A Ona.Jr. IA 87U.198ZSM JeoktC. I f i l Z l 1982A UBaMM lOw. 311984 038 lA Elm# mew BewiLii lApA8.19aSA Ftm 1 Apr. 111987048 Bvm b.OcL211988A m.O#MA*# NMm Sui bWirl 1971 039 in.OiiMIM.Frir Hast Harry 9030W 700S. Topeka son of Abe and Leah (Lamtinght) Mast b. July 14.1927 d. Mar. 22.1994 m. Nov. 30,1950 to Hostetler. Wilbur Lae 6470W 650S. Topeka farmer ion of Orva O. and E3a (lAer) Hosteder Mary WIngard b. May 31.1927 b. Mar. 21.1957 m. Apr. 9.1980 to dau of Joseph J. aral Fame (MUer) WIngard Susie N. Lohman b. Feb. 26. i960 a##mH. INOV 17.1991889 n. Edn AMm eoniag# dau of Noan 0. and Amanda (Ybder) Lehman Bmy lA ug.24.19S3 848 m. J#ry Lm Sctwwa CilvmH. 10CA11938 839 UwlynSui 1 Die. 17.1981 A n.BirbiraSuiYM# m 1M K.8.19S1 844.1 m. Mwvm LM B o n r^ # 10CL211984A Iva 1 Nov. 24.1982 888 OrawiLM lMiy29.19e8A m. Uwvm D un HanM # JiyH. 1J#A 4.1987829 m. Sim Aim Bcntngw LrliOiin b. Fib. 111988 A NUion Hir b. Jan. 21.1990 A Lion Jay b. Jan. 111992 A MasL Jay H. 9030W 700S. Topeka farmer b. J im 311994 A son of Harry and Mary (Wingaro) Mast b.Jan.4.1967 m. Sept 22.1988 to LambrighL Glen H. 862SW 600S. Topeka farmer, bishop Sue Arm Bontragar b. June 7.1967 son of Harvey V. and Clara (MUer) Lambnpht dau of (àlen l_ and Glerma (Troyer) Bontrager b. Feb. 13.1945 m. Apr. 30.1964 to Qtonjly 1NOIL29.1989A Annie II Raber b. Feb. 28.1943 Amy JO 1 July 11-1991 A dau of Melvin J. and Sus» C. (MBer) Ratjer OwylAiy 10eL311993(HmlA Olwiikpy 10cL311993n«miA Ckipy 1010.111981049 I Harry M. Q iie #

LambrighL Richard 8775W 600S. Topeka farmer, buggy shop Mmer. Clara Mae 8750W 650S. Topeka restaurara son of Edward. Jr. and Esther (Schrock) Lambnght dau of Freeman S. and Edna Mae (Bomnager) MUer b. Nov. 23.1959 m. June 4. i960 to b.Aug. 10.1953 Carolyn Mmer b. Aug. 18. i36i dau. of Leroy and Mary Anna (Bontrager) MiOer MIOer, Freeman S. 9660W 650$. Topeka rebreo farmer, carpenter JMMidy lJi4y111980A son of Simon A. and Lizzw (BorkhoUer) Mfller LuArniRimi 1 No*. 1 1 1981 A b. July 18.1930 m, Feb. 15.1951 to MwwJiin 1 May 9.1984 A EdiM Mae Bomtrager b. Nov. 17.1930 EatMEim iJai9.i9a8A dau. of Ben and Mahnda (Mmer) Bomtrager lAug.9.1987A [from Plain City, OH] Marcum 1 Jim 24.1989 A MwiJo lA pr.24.1991 A Jmr 1 Jim 23.1992 84 XL EBzmm Am MH# ClaraMai l A u g . l l 1953 E29 P o ly im i I F i l 1 .1998 E29 VwnonF. IJu ly 111998829 RLMv i m iiMH#

2 3 8 llOlar. Maynard 0.9585W 700S. Topeka faaoiy, minister IVoyor. Tobe M. 9275W 700S. Topeka retired farmer, minister son of Orva A. and Ebna B. (MHIer) Miller son of Mose M. and Mary Edna (Yoder) Troyer b. Dec. 31.1947 m. May 7.1968 to b. Nov. 30.1906 m. Apr. 15. 1926 to Barbara Ann WIckay b. July 13.1946 U zae Miller b. Dec. 6.1908 dau. of Amos Jay and Edna A. (Yoder) WIcfcey dau. of Clvts A. and Polly (WIngard) Miller Nomn &IJK,t7.19eeaSM Kaba b. Oae. 10.1928 002 m.CM aJ.Uaw F a o i kS ao (.1 S .1 8 7 0 8 M m. K tfiyn BonDigar Edra biSapt 17.1928082 m. Ezra E. Mam b.UK21.1>72A b. Jan. 1930 d. Mac 10.1998 b.M«t2Z 1973C m.JaknL.a«knotdar.BawMalN b. Jan. 2 .1 9 3 2 0 01 Many J. BonDagor b. On. 20.1975* b. Apt 2Z 1934 0S2 OL Vamonj.Uif, a Aug. 9.1939 0 LiOianea.M MHIer. Mervin P. 8285W 600S. Topeka farmer LydaMaa b.Mar. 12.19370 OL J. HaMig. Qunnaan. CO son of PfilHip N. and WHma (Lambngm) Miller bL Oct 9.19390 m. Jclm J. MHar. Topoua.IN Edbi b. Fab. 24.19410 OL CMt P. ScbKant Coion. Ml b. Mar. 22.1943 m. May 25. 1967 to bi Apt 21.19430m. Hamid Bonaag«i. WhbaPiyaiAL MI Irene MHIer b. June 14.1946 b. Oae. 2 9 .19470 Laaabug.M dau. of Sam W. and Lovina (Stauffer) Miller Tbby b .J a n .lZ 19490 nLAmBaiiaiian.ropaka.iN WMaUm &Mar3.19Saas* at. Jacob Utnengm Oorony b. Aug. 2& 1992829 OL Eugana A. yodar lememKay b. Jan. 24.1970 091.2 oLKaawmf UknaWL— bHont. 1 6 .1972A Whetstone, Orva J.882SW650S. Topeka fanner, factory, deacon CaralynSua b .J im 6 .1 9 7 8 A son of John and Rosa (Eash) Whetstone EWnaJo b.NoK 14.1906 A b. Sept 15.1948 m. Mar. 28.1972 to Emma Sue MBtar b. July 13.1952 MHIer. Pollyonna 9750W 650S. Topeka dau. of Marvin N. and Sadie Mae (Fry) Miller dau. of Freeman S. and Edna Mae (Bomtrager) MUer aOae.3ai972A b. Feb. 1.1956 WanataSua aApt9.1979A aMac10.198SA Miner. Vomon F. 9660W 650S. Topeka Uanm Laa ajulyiai989A farmer Oma.ji: ajan.ai992A son of Freeman S. and Edna Mae (Bomtrager) Mmer OaVon a jid y 28.1994(110011 A b. July 16.1958 m. Apr. 1 1 .197910 UVton b. July 2& 1904 (imniA Marietta MHIer b. Sept 7.1960 dau. of Leonard H. and RiAy J. (Slabaugh) Miller Yodor, Eugene A. 9225W 700S. Topeka factory UonvURay b.Jwrso.i9aoA son of Andrew E. and Ehra (MiSer) Yoder b.Aug. 14.1901 A EdUiAira b. Aug. 28.1903 A b. June 8.1950 m. Jan. 21.1971 to CawnOaan b.Mab3ai900A Dorothy Thiyer b .A u g .28.1952 Uuncn. Jb b.JiAylS.1901 A dau. of Totie M. and Lizzie (MUer) Tmyer UatlmWayna b. Mar 28.1994 A Lorantaa b. May s a 1971B28 OLLaVaidaFiy Bianaa b. Apt 2Z 1973034.1 OL Ricnara Mdor MHIor. Wilbur 0 .8270W 700S. Topeka JayAlian a May 3.1978 A farmer Cm b.Jan.a 1978 A son of Daniel 0. and Susie (Mast) Miller StOMnfloy iLJuna 17.1980 A b.Dec. 13.1945 m. Oct 10.1967 to TobyLym b.Mar. 1.1982 A Mary Estbor MHIer b. Mar. 15.1946 dau. of Joni J. and Susie (Bontrager) Miller Yoder. Merle Eugene 9270W 6S0S. Topeka factory, minister Oaugntar Sabom July23.isanw ni son of Felty W. and Ruby Mae (Lehman) Yoder Oaugnar SSSbom July 23.1988 (Imn) b. Nov. 9.1961 m. May 19.198310 OandWayna b. Oae.28.1989 Dol Bnnoa Kurz. MiddMury. IN MayrwdJay b. Oct 29.1971E S « u c a .R . Oorottiy Arm Yoder b. Jait 26.1962 CireiynKay b. Sagt 3 a 1978 A dau. of Jonas £. and WHma J. (Bontrager) Yoder SuaAim b .J u n a a i9 0 1 A BranoaSua b. Aug. i t 1982A Amy LOU b.M at22.1983 A CamyJo b.Fob.2ai984 d.Dae.9.1991 NafmaJaan b .0 a c 91988A . JaiamyLym b.Noa29.1989A CynmaRanaa b .S « p t2 1 .1988 A Robor. Melvin J. 8635W 600S, Topeka retired farmer, mason AngoMOaam b.Juna24.1990A son of Joe J. and Armie (Bontrager) Ratier b. May 4.1912 m. Feb. 13.1941 to Susie C. Mmer b. Nov. 8.1912 a Jan. 13.1993 dau. of Crist B. and Amanda (Ybder) MIDer (from Holmes Oiumy. OH. 1941] MaNcn b.Oac. IS. 1941090 laFitadaMailaHosaliar AmaM. b. Fab. 2& 1943029 m. GMn H. LanangM Ada b.N0 K 11.1944034 m. Pony 0. MMar Lydiam b. Jan. 9.1948 014 m. Joa 0. Stutzman Amanda M. b.Junai4.1947 029 m. Mto W. HcMuin Law b. Jan. 29.1949 013 oLVanaUmar

2 3 9 G.4

PRAIRIE HOME SETTLEMENT

240 aAIGHOVE SCHOOL 1960 Prairie Home. MO 65068 Terni Teachere Grades Stu 1980-81 Htzaneth Warner Frame Home. MO 1-8 17 1981-82 1 Bzaoem waoier PrameHome.MO 1-8 7 1982-83 Bzaoem Waoter Praine Home. MO 1-8 7 1983-84 FSMnwh Warner nam e Home. MO 1-8 7 1984^5 Bzaoem Warner Prairie Home. MO 1-8 7 1985-86 Bzaoetnwagier Rame Home. MO (staned) 1-8 24 MaodalenaN.Lee Prairie Home. MO (flntshed) 1986-87 Maodalena N. Lee Rame Home. MO 1-8 26 1987-88 Maaoatana N. Lee Rrame Home. MO 1-8 23 KatharmeMast Rame Home. MO 1-8 17 Manna J. WiBoter Rame Home. MO 1-8 18 11990- Schools tooether ai Rose Vailav School i

ROSE VALLEY SCHOOL 1980 Rame Home, MO 65068 Term Teachers Grades Shr 1980-81 Bzaoeth A. Bomtrager AnaaeLMO (started) 1-8 17 PanmeN Lee Rame Home. MO (tbilshed) 1981-82 NaomrC.Lee BoommUe MO 1-8 3 E 1982-83 MaodatanaN Lee Rame Home. MO 1-8 LLL 1983-84 Maaoatana N. Lee Rame Home. MO 1-8 13 1984-85 Maaoatana N.Lae Rame Home. MO 1-8 -12- 1985-88 Schools tooether at Sm Grove School 1988-89 Esther lee PrameHome. MO 1-8 TT Esther te e Rame Home. MO 1-8 1990-91 Esther le e Prame Home. MO 1-8 i ± - 1991-92 Esther le e Rame Home. MO 1-8 23 1992-93 Esther te a Prame Home. MO 1-8 21_ 1993-94 Esther le e Boonvilte.MO 1-8 24_ 1994-95 Esther le e BoonviUe. MO 1-8 26 1995-96 Esther Lee BoonviUe.MO 1-8 28 Marthas. Burkholder BoonviUe. MO iheloerl

PRAIRIE HOME BISHOP Sbnon C QurMioider I. Lee,ArtdrewC 12. Z ü e e .S C 13. Lee. Christian A. (Min.) 1 Yoder. Junior L (Min.) 14. Lee. Esther A. 4. Lee. David E. 15. Buridiolder. Simon C. (Bishop) 5. Sulcrioider, Christian M. 16. Burkholder. Joseph C. 6. MasLSamuelE 17. Burkholder. Christian M.Sr.(Mki.) 7. Bomtrager. B A. 18. Lee. Alberto. 8. Burtcftotdef. Oaniei M. 19. Burkholder. John M. 9. Burididder. Moses C. (Min.) A. Former Mark Yoder Place 10. Bomtrager. PWneas A. 8. Rjmier Jacob WhglerRace II. Lee. B A. C. Former OanBeectry Place

Data borrowed from the Missouri Amish Directory, 1996

2 4 1 D. Former Noah Lee Place Milk Stations F. Rose Valley School X. Low water crossings Q. Sm Grove School Amish Cemetery M. Prairie Home Sawmill

'•c éX ■CiAÀr ‘•■r

242 Bomtrager. Phtneas A ...... Ponrar Burkholder. John M...... Shop Owi^ 21785EHtsDavHRd. PrameHome. MO 55068 20101 Bis OavB Rd. Boonviiie. MO 65233 Son of Alton N. and Ame&a a (Bomtrager) Bamtrager Son of Moses and Eva (Beacny) Burkholder BomS-6-67 Mamed 12-6-68 to Boml(KW5 Mamed 1-2568 to Naomi C. Lee Bomi 2-18-63 Ada N. Lee Bom 12-17-65 Oaugtiter of Christian A. and Mary A. (Kauffman) Lee Daughter of Noah and Katie (Martin) Lee Christian P. 10-30-89 A NoahJ. 7-2589 A ManeWus P. 10-3-91 A EvaJ. 10-23-91A CamenneP. 3-22-93 A Amos J. 2-25-92 A AtoertP. 5-20-95 A Moses J. 3-15-93 A MaryJ. 525-94 A Bomtrager. a A...... Farmer OarveiJ. 11-10-95 A 11498 Candy CT. Prairie Home. MO 65068 Son of Atvatiam and Martha (Bomtrager) Bomtreger Burkholder. Joseph C...... Fanner Bom 7-9-59 Mamed 3-20W to 21254 Bis Daws BoonvWle. MO K233 Anna 0. Beachy Bom 3-20-57 Son of Chris and Leah (Schwartz) Bwkhoidar CJaughter of Oaniei and Lydia (Byler) Bearmy Bom 10-21-60 Mamed 11-1*61 to Martha 12-1&80A Esther M. MUer Bom 11-552 Oaniei 12-10-81A Daughter of Monroe and Alma (Schmucker) Maier Manno 12-1*62 A Monroe J. 52962 A Rosa 3-14-64 A Christy J. 151353 A Rachei 9-665A OanteiJ. 11-12-64 A Abraham 2-12-67 A AknaJ. 1-1566A Mary 7-29-88 A LeahJ. 52587A Tobias 5-15-90 A Moses J. 3-2589 A Edward 8-19-62A Simon J. 3-29-91A Lydia 4<-94A Henry J. 12-24-92 A EdnaJ. 530-94A Burttholdar. Chris M...... Farmer 21252 Q is Davis BoonviUe. MO Burkholder. Moses C. Fanner & Mechanic Son of Moses J. and Maryann (Troyer) Burkholder 22235 Bis Davis Rd. Prairia Home. MO 65068 Bom 8-4-21 Mamed 5-28-42 to Son of Chris and Leah (Schwartz) Burkholder Leah S. Schwartz Bom 3-16-23 Bom524-43 Mamed 11-19-64 to Daughter of Peier Land Saran (Zook) Scfiwartz Eva 0. Beachy Bom 2-541 Moses C. 3-24-43 C Daughter of Daniai and Lydia (Byler) Beachy Martha C. 9-2-44 d. 1-5-45 John 1056SC Peter C. 11-16-45 C Lytfia 3-567C S E 3-25-47C Leah 11-19-68C JaisbC . 5-2&-48C d. 7-28-93 Christian 514-70 C JohnC. 11-13-49 C Daniai 4-1572C Samuel C. 3-15-510 Sarah 10-4-74 C AfflosC. 4-2-52C Samuel 8-578 d. 6-6-91 Simon C. 7-12-53 C Kade 52578A Sarah C. 7-12-53 C Joseph C. 10-21-60 C Burkholder. Simon C...... farmer 11650 Hidden Valley CT. BoonviUe. MO 65233 Burkholder. Christian M...... ■ Farmer Son of Chris M. and Leah S. (Schwartz) Burkholder 22496 AlenCT. Prairia Home. MO 65068 Bom 7-12-53 Mamed 4-24-75 to Sonoi Moses and Eva (Beacny) Biakholder Naomi M. Lee Bom 9-24-52 Bom 9-14-70 Married 1 -3 0 ^ to Daughter of Mtton N. and Mary yA/Mfred (Beachy) Lee BIzabeth C. Lae Bom 7-9-71 Mary S. 5576A (Sdughtar of (3tfistian and Mary (Kauffman) Lee Marthas. 92577A Mary 10-5-62A Christian S. 4-2579 A Eva 11-23-93 A Johns. 11-3050A Noah 3-3-95A Sarah S. 4-2-62 A VWHamS. 152583A Burkholder. Daniel M...... ■ Farmer Jacobs. 4-2565A 22233 B is Davs Praiie Home. MO 65068 Mos»S. 2-567 A Son of Moses and Eva (Beachy) Burkholder Leans. 57-88A Bom 4-15-72 Mamed 11-4-93 to UzzraS. 57-68 Sus» E Lae Bom 1-17-73 a s . 5-0-60A Daughter of B and Susanna (Bomtrager) Lee Farm»S. 4-29-92A a 2-4-95 A Noah S. 57-94 A

2 4 3 Lee. A teit C ...... Fanner Lee. David E ...... - ...... Hog Fanner 11295 Hwy U Boonvde. MO 65233 22501 AlenCT. F>ianeHome.MO 65068 Son Q( CMstian and Mafy (Kauflnan) Lee Son of a and Susanna (Bomtrager) Lee 8dm 5-20-67 Mamed3-30^to Bom 12-2671 Mamed 62695 to Lyda M. Burktiolder Bom 3-6-67 Sarah M. Burkholder Bom 10-4-74 Oaugtiter of Moses and Eva (Beecny) Burknoider Daughter of Moses and Eva (Beachy) Burktiofder MosasA. 7-2969 A Eva A. 92660A Lee. a A...... Fraaner CMsdanA. 4-4-82A 21711 Elis Davis Rd. Prairie Home. MO 65068 BvinA. 630-93A Son of Akert and Catherine (Amstutz) Lee Andrew A. 67-95 A Bom 625-48 Msmed11-6ato Susanna N. Bomtrager Bom 1-16-44 Lee. Andrew C...... Farmer Daughter of Neel and Susa (Hoctatetier) Bomtrager 11142 F«cMe Ad. Praiis Home. MO 65068 David 12-2671C Son of Christian and Mary (Kauffman) Lee Susie 1-17-73 C Bom 12-23-64 Mamedl-966to Catherine 62674 C azabeth (Magler Bom 7-269 Mattie 614-76 A Daughter of Ezra and Rosa (Wrigler) Wagier Chrtsttan 4-678 A Christian A. 614-68 A Johnny 7-2-80 A JeaseA. 1-2-91A Maneiius 6262A AIWrtA. 12-9-91 A Anna 61683A Ezra A. 11-24-92 A - Daniel 2-21-86 A RosaA. 11-1693 A Esther 6668A NeomlA. 4-5-95A Lee. a C_...... SawmU Manager Lee. Christian A ...... F^nrar 11140 Ritchie m Praiie Home, MO 65068 11668 Hidden VafleyCT. Boonviiie. MO Son of Christian A. end Mary A. (Kauffman) Lee Son of Albert and Catheme (Amstmz) Lee Bom 11-1669 Mimed629-90to Bom 4-5-40 Mamed 1-3066to Leah M. Buridioider Bom 11-1968 Rtary M. Bomtreger Bom 11-2646 Daughter of Moses C and Eva 0. (Beachy) Burkholder Oaugtterof Moses and Mary (Bomtreger) Bomtreger Moses E 2-1691A Moses 61687A MaryE 12-2691A Joseph 61468 A EvaE 12*92A Anna 2-16-90A Christian E L 167-93 A Sarah E 12-2694 A Christian was first mamed on 12-1-60 to Mary A. Kauffnan bom 4-21-32 died 1-13-85 daughter of Andrew and Naomi Lee. Esther A. School Teacher (Qlngerch) Kairifman. Their chlidren were: 11863 Hidden VaiieyCT. Boonvbe.MO 65233 Bom 62652 Oanrel 66962 d.62962 Daughter of Abeit and Catherine (Amstutz) Lee Neons 12-18-63 C Andrew 12-23-64 C Mast. Samuel E ...... Day Laborer Cethenne 2-27-66 C 11192 Candy CT. Prairie Home. MO 65068 Afcert 62667 C Son of Enos and Ltzzie (Yoder) Mast Henry 162368 d. 361-69 Bom 9-4-61 Mamed 614-89 to a 11-1S69C Catherine C. Lea Bom 2-27-66 Bzabetn 7-671C Daughter of Christian and Mary (Kauffman) Lee Noari 8-4-73 C azabelhS.7-2690A AndrewE 4-28-92A CamstianS. 4-2694A Yoder. Ljevi Junior ...... Farmer ASawndl 11651 AlenCT. Praiie Home. MO 65088 Son of Levi D. and Mary P. (Bomtrager) Yoder Bom 1-23-45 Memed 2-2664 to Anna A. Lee Bom 67-42 Daughter of Alieit N. and Catherine C. (Amstutz) Lee StmbomSon 2-2665 AtrertJ. 61668C RayJ. 2-20-70 C SUOtxxnSon 67-74

244 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (Q A -3 )

/,

%

1.0 HIM u 1^ t 11^ IIIIIM l . l «- > i l ' - 8 1.25 II 1.4 :: : —: I l ' 6

150mm

/4 P P L .IE O A IIVI/4GE . Inc 1653 East Main Street • Roctiester, NY 14609 USA Phone: 716/482-0300 Fax: 716/288-5989

O 1993. Applied Image, Inc.. Ail Rights Reserved