Florida State University Libraries

Honors Theses The Division of Undergraduate Studies

2015 Rentention Rates in American Anabaptists Morgan Cairns

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES

BIOCULTURAL COMPONENTS INFLUENCING HIGH BIRTH AND

RENTENTION RATES IN AMERICAN ANABAPTISTS

By

MORGAN CAIRNS

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major

Bachelor of Science: Spring, 2015 2

The members of the Defense Committee approve the thesis of Morgan Cairns defended on April 6, 2015.

Dr. Glen Doran Thesis Director

Dr. Kimberly Hughes Outside Committee Member

Dr. Geoffrey Thomas Committee Member 3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………4 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………5 History……………………………………………………………………………………6 “Little Community” and the “English”…………………………………………………..11 Why Not ?...... 12 Differences Between the and the ……………………………………...13 Reproductive Practices…………………………………………………………………...18 Biological Obstacles……………………………………………………………………..20 Member Empowerment and Low Social Tension……………………………………….24 Why Not Leave?...... 27 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….29 Citations………………………………………………………………………………….31

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map shows Hutterite migrations through Europe and displays average population rates in each area……………………………………………………………..10 Figure 2: Abbreviated timeline of major Anabaptist events from their conception to their migration to North America……………………………………………………………...11 Figure 3: Map showing the general spread colonies from the three different Leuts over America and Canada in 2003………………………………………………...... 15 Figure 4: Map shows the spread and size of Amish districts across the United States….17

List of Tables Table 1: Summation of the differences between Hutterites and Amish………………....17 Table 2: Chart outlining some of the most common recessive disorders in the Amish.....21 4

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my honors thesis committee (Dr. Glen Doran, Dr. Geoffrey

Thomas, and Dr. Kimberly Hughes) for supporting the direction and providing guidance throughout my research.

Also, Dr. Carole Ober whose work on Hutterites genetics first inspired this topic.

Lastly, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Max E. Stanton and Dr. Rod Janzen for their ethnographic work on the Hutterites that was largely inspirational to the direction of this research.

5

INTRODUCTION

The Anabaptists of America are a collection of religious groups that date back to sixteenth century Europe. Although, they have since branched into three distinct groups before migrating to North America, Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites, the religions still share many similarities because of their shared history and beliefs. When the Anabaptist groups came to America, they all had low founding populations, but over the past 200 years, they have grown exponentially.

Biological research has repeatedly shown that because of the low founding populations of these groups and the low introduction of new members, the health risks associated with inbreeding are a constant struggle. These circumstances result in a higher chance of recessive diseases being expressed and higher rate of miscarriages compared to the average American family.

Contrary to the biological expectations, the Anabaptists continue display exponential population growth. The Amish, with a population of over 30,000 migrating to America in the eighteenth century, are expected to reach near a million members by

2050 with a new community being built every 3.5 weeks (Donnermeyer, Anderson, and

Cooksey 2013). The Hutterites have increased their population hundredfold, during their

140 years in North America, from 400 to 49,000.

As humans, we have the unique advantage of not only using biology to overcome our obstacles but also culture. This study examines the cultural elements contributing to population growth and retention within the Hutterities and the Amish, including their shared history, beliefs, and social dynamics. Specifically, this discussion will focus on 6 their member empowerment and low social tension techniques, reproductive practices, as well as some of the challenges individuals face if they decide to leave their communities.

HISTORY

The term Anabaptist comes from the Greek word for re-baptizer. This was significant of the Anabaptists stance against infant baptism during the sixteenth century

Reformation. In both Catholic and Protestant dominated areas of Europe, infant baptism was a legal requirement and symbolic of entrance into society. Anabaptists did not believe that children should be baptized into a faith without their consent and would often re-baptize their followers after they joined the church, called a “believer’s” baptism.

Anabaptists shared some similarities with both and Catholicism.

Like Protestantism, the Anabaptists lessened the number of sacraments from seven to two and also did not acknowledge the hierarchy within the Catholic Church. But like

Catholics, the Anabaptists believed that a person needed more than a relationship with

God and recognized the importance of service. Catholics also acknowledge Jesus’ teachings of living without personal property though they only apply it to their leaders like priests and nuns that live in simple housing offered by the church they service.

The communal way of life appealed to many, especially during the when the tension between Catholic and Protestant states was mounting. The three main areas with Anabaptist populations became Switzerland, Austria, and Moravia in today’s

Czech Republic. As the Catholic Church and began to notice its spread, they instructed the state to take violent action against the group, which lead to persecution in the form of imprisonment, torture, and killings (Janzen and Stanton 2010). 7

An Austrian Anabaptist leader by the name of led groups in Moravia when persecution in the area became too extreme (Miller and Stephenson 1980). After seeing a vision of several suns, with one shining brighter than the others, he deemed that his group was the one chosen by God. He excommunicated the other competing groups of Anabaptists in Eastern Europe and deemed his people “Hutterites” (Packull 1995).

Jakob Hutter believed that the End Times were near and a model community must be set up immediately to appease God. In 1536, while attempting to assist persecuted members in Austria escape to Moravia, Hutter was captured, tortured, and burned at the stake

(Stayer 1991).

Menno Simons was a Catholic priest who, in 1540 at the age of forty, left the church and joined the Anabaptist movement. He was largely influenced by his brother who was an Anabaptist that was killed when he was attacked by persecutors and refused to fight back due to the Anabaptists’ beliefs on . Simons worked with Dutch

Anabaptists and became hugely influential in standardizing Anabaptist beliefs in many different areas. When a large debate about shunning arose between leaders of the movement, Simons took an extreme stance and, in the process, created his own branch called Mennonites (Urry 1983).

At the end of the seventeenth century, one Swiss Mennonite group was headed by

Jakob Ammann. Ammann began to believe that the Mennonites were not following

Menno Simons teachings properly and began to forge a new path. His group began to be called Amish Mennonites. Characteristically, they were more conservative and believed in more rigid shunning of members. 8

Anabaptist groups took refuge in Moravia and Slovakia. The nobility there was

Catholic but welcomed them when they saw their expert farming style and how it could benefit the economy. Soon, three separate communities of Anabaptists were created and thrived for a short while (Janzen and Stanton 2010).

The three groups were persecuted throughout Europe, but from this time, the most important literature of the Anabaptist churches was written. The major hymnbook that is still used today in Amish services was completed in the sixteenth century. Books like The Bloody Theater and Martyrs Mirrors told first-hand accounts of violent crimes against the Amish including many deaths in the name of martyrdom (Nolt 1992). These stories became greatly influential in how the Amish view their own religion and are still told today.

The Amish began migrating to Pennsylvania in the eighteenth century. In 1873, the first five hundred Amish migrated, but only two hundred members participated in communal living and developed a district. The Amish took advantage of the cheap, farmable land in Pennsylvania, buying enough land for themselves as well as their children.

The early Hutterites experienced a period of great success the hundred years after their first leader was executed. Rising to 40,000 members in Moravia, communities held about 500 people from various social classes, including many different kinds of craftsman. John Hostetler wrote that the level of industry among these groups was

“practically unknown before the Industrial Revolution” (Hostetler 1974). The Hutterites became models of economic success and created an educational system that both prepared children to apprentice in a craft as well as read and write for religious purposes. 9

Following this period, violent persecution ensued with Catholic and Protestant authorities pillaging and destroying communities in Moravia, forcing Hutterites into hiding (Kalesny 1981). In 1622, Catholic authorities expelled any remaining Hutterites to

Slovakia and Transylvania (Figure 1). By 1631, only one thousand Hutterites remained.

Led by a new elder, Andreas Ehrenpreis, the Hutterites continued on in hiding. In this period of time, the bulk of the sermons and hymns still used today were written. Much like the Amish, many of these writings had themes of persecution, implying the similarities between their struggle for freedom and Jesus’ death and resurrection (Martens

2001). But after Ehrenpresis’ death, the Catholic Church’s campaign against heretics proved rather successful when Hutterite membership dwindled down to its historic low of forty-five around 1690-1757.

In 1770, the Hutterites relocated to Southern Russia, in present day Ukraine. This was a period of change for the Hutterites as they were surrounded by Mennonite communities. Mennonite leader, Johann Cornies, was very influential in helping the

Hutterites regroup from their difficult times that had not only left them poor but also scattered in beliefs. At the time, they were divided on the issue of continuing communal living. Cornies insisted that they remain communal and gave them money to rebuild their communities. He also helped with construction of their homes and retriggering their agriculture (Urry 1988). He was also credited for terminating the Hutterite idea of arranged marriage (Hutterite Brethren 1988). 10

Figure 1: This map shows Hutterite migrations through Europe and

displays average population rates in each area (Karlis 2011).

In 1870, when ten Mennonites were scheduled to visit North America to look for a place to resettle, two Hutterites were appointed to travel with them. Paul Tschetter was the Hutterite responsible for finding a new place to colonize. He traveled from Nebraska to Manitoba and was most impressed with the climate of the Red River Valley in the

Dakota territory. He set up a meeting with President Ulysses S. Grant to discuss his conditions. Tschetter requested that the Hutterites be exempt from military and jury duty and also have permission to settle in self-governing communities, use German, and operate their own schools. Grant could not guarantee all these rights, as many fell under the responsibilities of the state, but he did assure them he could not see the possibility of another war for at least fifty years (Correll 1935). While the Canadian government allowed them all of their requested rights, Tschetter was not impressed with the climate or civilians in Manitoba. 11

He quickly returned to Russia and spoke to the Hutterites of what he had seen.

The population of 1,270 unanimously agreed to resettle in the Dakota Territory. The majority of these Hutterites, 829, decided upon arrival to live on independent farms while the other 425 chose to establish three communal colonies: the Schmiedeleut, the

Dariusleut, and the Lehrerleut. Over time, these colonies stayed endogamous, and developed separate ideologies and cultures.

Anabaptist history was full of influential individuals, collective struggle, and expansive cultural growth that worked to provide a common ideology, create specific sects, and build the foundations of communal living structures in Europe (Figure 2).

Immigrations to America provided these communities new opportunities to expand on their religious and economic practices without fear of discrimination.

Figure 2: An abbreviated timeline of major Anabaptist events from their

conception to their migration to North America.

“LITTLE COMMUNITY” AND THE “ENGLISH”

In the earlier years of anthropology, there was a push to create benchmarks for studying culture through grouping societies by their similarities. Anthropologists worked 12 hard to methodize these models for different categories of society based on parallels they could find in economics, religion, and level of integration into modern society. Today, anthropology is more focused on defining cultures by their own terms rather than trying to group them with other societies. The practice has mostly died out due to the idea that two cultures being grouped together invalidates the underlying functions and can create assumptions that may not exist.

In the case of these Anabaptist groups in America, there may be some benefits of using these benchmarks. Because these cultures share related religions and history, their practices today also show similarities.

To examine some of these shared cultural aspects, Robert Redfield’s 1955 idea of the “little community” fits best. This model recognizes that a smaller and more socially intimate community can exist within a state. The term also indicates the high level of communication between members, the social importance of upholding tradition, and the aversion to both modern culture and change. Redfield, in his writings, focused on the four common features of the little community: distinctiveness, smallness, homogeneity, and self-sufficiency (Redfield 1960).

In this study, one will find the term “English” brought up often. This term is the

American Anabaptist term for Western culture. This word was initially used because when Anabaptists first came to America, they only spoke their German or Swiss dialects.

English was the language used by outsiders so the word is still used today to describe the culture that the Amish and Hutterites desire to isolate themselves from.

WHY NOT THE MENNONITES? 13

The Mennonites are not assessed in this study because, although they come from the same roots as the Hutterites and Amish, their culture was too diverse to closely compare them.

The largest component of this was the fact that unlike the other two groups, the

Mennonites proselytize in order to gain new members. This fact alone has led to a population of over 1,700,000 on six continents with an endless number of different sects

(Mennonite World Conference 2015). This forgoes the idea of “little community” because there is no distinctiveness, smallness, or homogeneity.

American Mennonites have also become increasingly assimilated into English culture. It is not uncommon to see Mennonites who earn graduate degrees, drive their own Hondas, dress in modern clothes, and live in urban apartments (Heinzekehr 2012).

Their spread has deviated them from their isolated, farm country roots and diluted their traditional culture. While on the surface, Mennonites seem to share the distinct history of other Anabaptist groups, the truth is that there is too much variation in their practices to compare them.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HUTTERITES AND AMISH

While the goal of this research is find similarities between these two cultures that are experiencing similar phenomenons, there are a few key differences that have developed over time between the Hutterites and the Amish. The main differences include the level of integration into the English world and style of social structure.

Hutterites recognized that although they do not assimilate with modern culture, they can benefit from knowing about modern developments. Individuals are educated 14 and kept up to date with the current political, social, and economic climate in Western culture. Unlike the Amish, modern technology is embraced when it comes to their agriculture, industrial, and domestic operations. Their communal lifestyle has allowed them to become hard workers who understand their role in a capitalistic world and can compete with other businesses in the more populated areas they inhabit.

The Hutterites are organized into Leuts and, from there, colonies. Leut is the

Hutterisch word for people and is used to describe the three main groups of Hutterites; the Schmiedeleut, the Dariusleut, and the Lehrerleut (Figure 3). Though these groups only formed after colonizing in America, 100 years has allowed them to diversify in how they follow traditions and adapt to changing times. While the traditions of the Church are concrete, the way in which they are interpreted and adapted vary between Leuts and are up for democratic debate.

The Hutterites in North America uses the example of the Miller and the Baker colony to describe the differences between Hutterite populations. In the Miller colony, agriculture is the mainstay, higher education is prohibited, there is no Internet access,

German is the only language permitted for church services, use of musical instruments as well as radios and photography is opposed, and women must fully cover their heads at all times. In the Baker colony, women work in machine shops building ventilators and picnic tables, there are small house gardens but no agriculture, university degrees are encouraged, operations are computerized, and Internet access is available to all. Children are encouraged to take piano and voice lessons, painting is a well-respected way to express oneself, and they have built cross-country ski courses nearby. The variation in traditions has everything to do with their Leut. 15

Figure 3: This is a map showing the general spread colonies from the

three different Leuts over America and Canada in 2003 (Lehr, McGregor,

and Heibert 2006).

While Hutterities have Leuts that give way to colonies scattered over multiple states, the Amish are limited in their ability to travel because they do not use modern transportation. The only acceptable form is horse and buggy, which governs the spread of their communities and the interactions between them. There are 290,100 Amish in

America, spread over 28 states (Figure 4). When looking at the actual population density, it is much higher than in the widely spread Hutterities.

The Amish organize themselves into districts. Districts are all of the Amish households in a given area. It is important to note that Amish live alongside non-Amish farmers in most areas. A district will usually contain 30-40 households that share the 16 responsibility of rotating the bi-weekly church services between their homes. Unlike the

Hutterites, there is no central building for church services. Families can move between districts as they wish (Hostetler 1963).

Because there is only a central system for Amish governing, not a tri-Leut system as in the Hutterites, beliefs and practices are more standardized across the country. They rely heavily on religious texts to provide insight into acceptable behavior and practice.

Because the Amish are forbidden to use modern technology, they have faced economic problems in recent years as they struggle to keep up with the English factory farm industry. This has led to a dramatic increase in tourism for profit as well as specialty goods like furniture and gourmet foods (Cates and Graham 2002). They also have an increased number of men and women who are having to work factory jobs in order to provide for their household. Though this is a taboo and can lower a family’s social status in a district, more and more Amish are having to assimilate with the English economic system (Table 1). 17

Figure 4: This map shows the spread and size of Amish districts across

the United States (Hou et al. 2013).

Hutterites Amish Use modern technology and travel Modern technology and travel forbidden by the Work and share resources communally More concentration on the household as an within their communities economic unit Organized into a tri-Leut system District system Diversity between Leuts in adaptation and More standardized by religious texts practices Central, democratic governing system in No central government each Leut Colonies contain >150 members Districts contain 30-40 households Area within a colony is exclusively Live among English households Hutterites Spread widely across 6 American states Live in densely packed areas in 28 states and 3 Canadian provinces Table 1: Summation of the differences between Hutterites and Amish.

18

REPRODUCTIVE PRACTICES

The primary contributor to exponential population growth in American

Anabaptist groups is the trend of having large families. Anabaptists are never limited by how many children it is socially acceptable to have or access to resources. These cultures consider children to be a “heritage of the Lord,” and, therefore, always welcome

(Hostetler 1963). In all communities, another child means another set of hands to help with work. In Anabaptists, the average family has about six or seven children. The birth of a new child is joyous and the whole community shares that joy. In Hutterite society, childcare is shared among community members while in Amish society, it is shared solely through familial ties.

Though children are chastised when they disobey or act outside of the social norm, Anabaptists recognize that children are “sinless” and do not know the difference between right and wrong.

Children are sheltered from the English world and taught very early on that their way of life is different. Members shower children in affection and light discipline to the point where children feel uncomfortable outside of their communities. All children are taught German as most church services are performed in German. The Amish teach it within their families while Hutterites have German school, much like Sunday school.

Children are motivated to work from early on and all children participate in some form of work. Some are encouraged to have pet pigs or calves. Older children are allowed to tend to horses, milk cows, and sometimes plow fields. Young girls help around the home, collect eggs, and tend to the garden. There is constant work and, therefore, no one is ever bored (Janzen and Stanton. 2010). 19

A large part of childhood is the idea that the child is not yet a part of the church.

The Anabaptists separated from the Protestant church because they did not believe in infant baptism, which still stands today. Childhood is spent helping with tasks, attending to school, and going to church services until the age of 18. At that time, children experience Rumspringa which translates to “running around.” During this period, they are allowed 1-3 years in the English world to explore before they commit to their churches and are properly baptized into the faith. It is important to these societies that children have their choice and are fully aware of their social responsibilities before they join the church (Shachtman. 2006).

The Anabaptists believe that the purpose of marriage is to procreate. Family systems are monogamous and patriarchal with the husband having the final word on all matters. They believe that the Bible is clear that the martial role of a wife is to assist her husband, not be his equal.

Marriages among the Amish are usually district-endogamous, while the Hutterites are Leut-endogamous. While first cousin marriages are taboo, second cousin marriages frequently occur. It is extremely rare for an Anabaptist couple from two different communities to marry and then move to the more liberal community. This is a tremendous taboo. The couple must always move into the more conservative community of the two partners.

The place to meet a mate in Amish society is at the Sunday singing events where young, unmarried people from several districts will meet to sing hymns on a Sunday evening. This gives Amish teenagers an opportunity to interact with others since most of their time is spent exclusively with the family. After the singing, there is an hour given 20 for visiting and conversing. Courtship is usually begins at age sixteen and is kept a secret as to avoid teasing from family members (Hostetler. 1963).

The Amish, specifically, believe that marriage is not piloted with love but mutual respect. Public gestures of affection are considered to be inappropriate. The family unit has a goal of keeping up the financial and social status of the household.

Hutterites’ constant interaction with members of their colony, as well as nearby colonies, allow single members to interact freely. The most popular time to find a mate is at the engagement and wedding parties of other Hutterites since several neighboring colonies will usually attend. Marriage is wholly decided by the community. When a man decides which woman he wants to marry, he discusses the matter with the colony minister who calls a meeting with all the colonies’ males to discuss the character of each individual and their compatibility (Janzen and Stanton. 2010).

The same privacy regarding public gestures exists in the Hutterites. The relationship between two spouses should be strong but not too strong as too override relationships with the community as a whole (Huntington. 1995).

The Hutterites and Amish have almost identical ideologies on marriage and childbirth. While some details like child raising and social exposure may vary, the similarities in birth rates can be attributed to these shared philosophies.

BIOLOGICAL OBSTACLES

The Hutterites and Amish have a very similar history and this is reflected in their similar genetic problems. There are only fourteen common Hutterite surnames and only forty common Amish surnames. These surnames account of 97% of the population in 21 both cultures (Janzen and Stanton 2010). While the genetic research being done on either of these populations is quite different, both types seek to study the effect of inbreeding on reproductive success. The Hutterites are a smaller and less popular group to study but, in the past twenty years, have been the major subject of an expansive research project studying the influence of inbreeding on immunity genetics and reproduction.

Amish populations have been studied for many decades due to their reputation for exhibiting rare recessive disorders. Recessive disorders are congenital conditions that result from a child receiving two recessive alleles for the same disease; one from each parent. In the general population, genetic variability is high and there is an overall low chance of being born with a rare recessive disorder. In isolated populations, like the

Amish, genetic variability is low due to a small founding population and virtually no introductions of new members that could help diversify the gene pool. Therefore, the rate of recessive disorders is much higher than in Western populations (Table 2). For example, in Geagua County in Ohio, the Amish make up ten percent of the population, yet fifty percent of the special needs cases (McKay 2005).

Disease Gene(s) Result Symptoms Occurrence Occurrence Affected in Global in and Population Anabaptist Chromos Populations ome Ellis-van Creveld EVC (C4) Disrupts the Short stature, 1 in Anabaptist Syndrome and pathways for polydactyly, 200,000 account for EVC2 cell malformed nails, 50% of (C4) development heart defects, global cases and specializatio n Cohen Syndrome VPS13B Disruption in Impaired motor Fewer than 1 in 500 (C8) sorting and skills and mental 1,000 cases transporting development, worldwide proteins infection prone, 22

throughout microcephaly, eye the body problems, obesity Maples Syrup Urine BCKDH Unable to Sweet smelling 1 in 1 in 380 Disease A (C19), process urine, vomiting, 185,000 BCKDH certain amino lethargy, brain B (C6), acids damage during DBT (C1) properly, physical stress, leading to a coma buildup of these chemicals in the blood Crigler-Najjar UGT1A1 Deficiency in Jaundice, 100 known 20 Amish Syndrome – Type 1 (C2) the liver enlarged liver, cases cases enzyme muscle spasms, worldwide glucuronyl increased heart transferase rate

Chicken Breast TNNT1 Improper Tremors, muscle 1 in 50,000 1 in 500 Syndrome (Nemaline (C19) development atrophy, impaired myopathy) of skeletal motor muscles development, Amish Brittle Hair MPLKIP Reduced Short stature, 100 known 25 Amish Syndrome (C7) sulfur intellectual cases known (Trichothiodystrophy) content in the impairment, worldwide cases body brittle hair and nails, decreased fertility Table 2: Chart outlining some of the most common recessive disorders in

the Amish. Information gathered from the Genetics Home Reference and

the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man.

In a 1999 study on Amish infant mortality, sociologists used records from twelve generations of Amish to study the relationship between inbreeding and infant mortality.

The results conveyed a positive relationship between a higher inbreeding coefficient, a numerical measure used to signify the level of biological relation between two individuals, and neonatal and postneonatal mortality. This study demonstrated that the 23 more related the parents were, the more likely it was their child could die in their first year of life (Dorsten, Hotchkiss, and King. 1999).

In 1976, Carole Ober, a geneticist from the University of Illinois Urbana-

Champaign, set out to collect Hutterite DNA as part of an ongoing study (Ober et. al.

1983). At the center of Ober’s research was the major histocompatibility complex or

MHC. In humans, this is referred to as the human leukocyte antigen complex or HLA.

The HLA system is controlled by a large region of genes, close to four million base pairs, on the sixth chromosome that codes for immunity proteins located on the surface of the body’s cells (Edwards and Hendrick 1998). HLA is the largest factor affecting organ transplant success and has also been shown to play a part in autoimmune diseases like type I diabetes and celiac disease. This system’s influence on the human immune system has major significance when it comes to reproduction.

High compatibility, meaning sharing more alleles within the HLA system, between mother and fetus often leads to a communication error where maternal immunologic response is not initiated and the embryo is rejected. This reaction occurs in the first few weeks of pregnancy (Gill and Repetti 1979). Because the communal living structure of Anabaptist groups, most do not have immediate access to modern medical care and cannot confirm pregnancies as quickly as the average member of Western society. Birth control is prohibited by the Christian lifestyle they maintain and, as a result, 60% of Hutterite couples have their first child within their first year of marriage.

Growing a family is a major goal of Hutterite life with couples averaging 6.5 children.

(Mange 1964). These cultural factors often mean that these spontaneous abortions caused by HLA compatibility go unnoticed. 24

The biggest factor attributed, according to geneticists, to these spontaneous abortions is inbreeding. When two partners have high HLA compatibility, as you would expect between individuals who are related, the chance of the embryo having compatibility with the mother is higher. In the field of genetics, a couple is deemed inbred when they are more closely related than the average of their community. In anthropology, inbreeding or endogamy refers to mating within your social group.

Hutterities consider themselves leut-endogamous and preferred marriages are between colonies that are in close proximity, while also have a history of marriages between them.

Because of this, Hutterites often experience double and triple marriages between families of different colonies.

MEMBER EMPOWERMENT AND LOW SOCIAL TENSION

The secondary contributor to exponential population growth is the high retention rate within these communities. The Anabaptists average retention rate is unusually high; between 85-90% (Peter et al. 1982). One of the reasons that the Amish and Hutterites have such high retention rates is the way they empower their members while simultaneously reducing social tension. The Anabaptist lifestyle is centered around the idea that any little part the individual can play is important and will be seen by God.

They also recognize the importance of using democracy to make important decisions.

The most important concept to the Anabaptist groups is the idea of “Community of Goods” or communal living. The idea of communal living can be found at various points of the Bible. In Genesis, Adam and Eve have the entire Garden of Eden at their disposal and, instead, forsake personal possessions. The Fall, as interpreted by the 25

Anabaptists, brought forth individualism, jealously, and selfishness (Walter. 1901).

Anabaptist communities strive to recreate this utopia and also model their idea of heaven, where no one has personal ownership over anything.

In the New Testament, Jesus instructs people to give up all their personal possessions to follow him and his community of disciples (Hostetler, Gross, and Bender.

1975). The Anabaptists also cite Paul and groups in Antioch and Macedonia who lived simply and communally in the first century (Stayer 1991).

Another mainstay in all Anabaptist ideology is the concept of Gelassenheit, which translates to “surrender to God.” This practice centers around giving up your personal will and yielding to members of the church (Cronk 1978). For Anabaptists, the religious and secular are one in the same so forfeiting all personal goods is necessary. There is also a belief that an individual cannot fully connect to God without connecting to the community (Friedmann 1961).

Janzen and Stanton recognize that their “view of all life is communally, not individualistically” (Janzen and Stanton 2010). The life purpose of an Anabaptist is not to develop and understand themselves as an individual but to understand the relation of all people and things. The groups are highly communicative and open; raising children with noticeably above average confidence and self-esteem.

While the social structures of both cultures are different, each style plays an important role in empowering individuals. Hutterite groups are evenly split once they reach 150 members because the founding leaders knew that this would help decrease interpersonal conflicts and allow many men to hold high positions in their own colonies.

There are several leadership positions available to the men of the colony (Gladwell 26

2002). Social responsibility is shared among all members which allows for a group that is diverse in skills. The community recognizes that the best work is done when all members are in good spirits. Therefore, they ensure that all members have assistance with every part of their lives; from raising children to building homes to making dinner. A Hutterite never does anything alone and there is virtually no privacy between colony members.

Members who had left, often cited the deep personal relationships as the quality they missed most about Hutterite life (Janzen and Stanton 2010).

In the Hutterites, social tension is kept low because of the low number of individuals in each community as well as the high level of reliance members have on each other. Anabaptists are naturally pacifists and are prohibited from physical fighting or participating in the military. This belief plays an important role in easing tension.

In the Amish, the main structure is the household and the nuclear family. The husband and wife play critical leadership roles within their household. The Amish household is run much like a company in that the main goals are to work together to either maintain or improve financial and social status in their district. The man of the house is like the Chief Executive Officer. in that he has the final word on all matters. He is responsible for generating income for the household through farming, raising livestock, and manufacturing home goods, as well as managing those profits and deciding how to use them. On top of that, he is the religious leader of his home, enforcing daily practice for his family while teaching his children German. Other households in the district still heavily rely on each other for labor but they do not pool their resources the same way that the Hutterites do. 27

The Amish ease tension with their distance. While district members work together when needed, there is no central government. The Amish are free to run their farms alone as long as they uphold the beliefs of the church. Compared to both the

Hutterites and the English world, Amish households see a low amount of social interaction beyond occasional communal work and weekly social event.

WHY NOT LEAVE?

Although there are many positive reasons individuals stay in their Amish or

Hutterite communities, it’s important to acknowledge that there are repercussions of leaving that also influence the choice to stay.

In both cultures, leaving the community is the highest of sins because of the dichotomy of good and evil equating to communal living and English life. One of the largest repercussions is that no communication is allowed with individuals who leave the community. Both cultures have strict rules that forbid communication with excommunicated members. Though this might seem hypocritical seeing as the

Hutterites, in particular, have no qualms about interacting with outsiders, both groups believe that there is an enormous difference between an excommunicated individual and an English individual. The English individual was not born into the community or raised with the teachings of the church, therefore they are not expected to understand or follow the religion. A true member was taught from an early age that the communal lifestyle was God’s intention for mankind so to escape the community is to openly sin against God

(Janzen and Stanton 2010). 28

Many Christian churches, mostly Evangelical or liberal Mennonite, do outdoor services outside of Amish communities in an attempt to prostilitize individuals

(Shachtman 2006). The church volunteers urge them to leave their communities and offer to help former Amish with finding a home and jobs under the pretense that they will attend the church. Many of the people who are trying to convince them to leave are former Amish themselves. The truth is that even when Amish members leave and seek these services, they still face immeasurable challenges in building a life in the modern world. Since they have little education past eighth grade and no English world experience, the Amish have difficulty finding jobs. Also, managing bank accounts for a single household, acquiring shelter, and even owning and learning to drive a car prove to be difficult for those who leave.

The Amish and Hutterites use their traditions as protection from the English world. Many elements of their culture are meant to give the impression of separation including their dress, language, geographic isolation, and lack of assimilation.

This harkens back to the idea of Redfield’s “Little Community.” The Hutterites and Amish use the qualities, distinctiveness, smallness, homogeneity, and self- sufficiency, to influence their members into staying in the culture (Redfield 1960). The

Anabaptists are distinctive in their dress, language, and lifestyle. This works to create a protection from English world and all its evils. The smallness provides a heavy sense of social responsibility to each individual. They know that they must contribute and they must abide by the rules of their church in order to be accepted by their community. The homogeneity works opposite to the distinctiveness in that the individual lives without a great deal of social variation and can readily relate to other members. The self- 29 sufficiency teaches Anabaptists trades that are useful to them if they continue in their community while empowering members. The English world is outside of this realm of the “little community” and, therefore, a frightening place for an Anabaptist to navigate alone.

CONCLUSION

Though Anabaptist life seems severe from an outsider’s perspective, the truth is that these communities are warm, social, and bursting with energy. Through distinct traditions, these cultures focus on creating utopias where the sacred intertwines with the secular and members can feel safe, supported, and empowered. The Hutterites and

Amish use their culture to overcome their biological obstacles by encouraging large families, creating supportive and peaceful environments, and having strict procedures on .

Continuing on into the future, the effects of globalization are becoming increasingly apparent. In Hutterite communities, a disproportionate amount of males are leaving before joining the church, creating a situation where many females cannot find husbands. The Amish have begun to use solar energy to power washing machines and charge batteries for LED lights. It is too soon to suggest that these changes will have an effect on population rates. That being said, it is generally found that more liberal colonies have lower birth and retention rates.

While a founding population can be hindered by their biological features and history, the American Anabaptists use their practices and traditions to overcome these 30 odds. Cases like this truly show that culture is the most influential tool that humans can manipulate.

31

Cates, James A. and Linda L. Graham

2002 Psychological Assessment of the Old Order Amish: Unraveling the Enigma.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 33(2): 155-161

Correl, Ernst.

1935 President Grant and the Mennonite Immigration from Russia. Mennonite

Quarterly

Review. April:144-152

Cronk, Sandra Lee

1978 Gelassenheit: The Rites of the Redemptive Process in Old Order Amish and Old

Order Mennonite Communities. Mennonite Quarterly Review. 52 (2): 183-185

Donnermeyer, Joseph F., Cory Anderson, and Elizabeth C. Cooksey

2013 The Amish Population: County Estimates and Settlement Patterns. Journal of

Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies. 1(1):72-109

Dorsten, Linda Eberst, Lawrence Hotchkiss, and Terri M. King

1999. The effect of inbreeding on early childhood mortality: Twelve generation of an

Amish settlement. Demography. 36(2):263-271

Edwards, Scott V. and Philip W Hedrick

1998 Evolution and ecology of MHC molecules: from genomics to sexual

selection. Tree. 13(8):305-311.

Friedmann, Robert

1961 Hutterite Studies. Goshen, IN. Mennonite Historical Society.

Gill, T.J. and C.F. Repetti

1979 Immunologic and Genetic Factors Influencing Reproduction. American Journal 32

of Pathology. 95(2):465-570.

Gladwell, Malcolm.

2002. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make A Big Difference. New York:

Back

Bay Books.

Heinzekehr, Hannah

2015 [2012] I’m Mennonite, Not Amish: 7 Common Questions.

http://www.femonite.com/2012/04/30/im-mennonite-not-amish-7-common- questions/

Hostetler, John A.

1963 Amish Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hostetler, John A.

1974 Hutterite Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Janzen, Rod and Max Stanton

2010 The Hutterites of North America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hostetler, John A., Leonard Gross, and Elizabeth Bender

1975 Selected Hutterian Documents in Translation. Philadelphia: Temple University

Press.

Hou, Liping, Gloria Faraci, David T.W. Chen, Layla Kassem, Thomas G. Schulze, Yin

Yao Shugart, and Francis J. McMahon

2013 Amish revisited: next-generation sequencing studies of psychiatric disorders among the

Plain people. Trends in Genetics. 29(7): 412-418 33

Huntington, Gertrude

1995 A Separate Culture: Hutterite Women in the Colony. Archives of the Mennonite

Church, Goshen, IN.

Hutterite Brethren

1988 Brothers Unite. Rifton, NY

Kalesny, Frantisek.

1981 Habani Na Slovensku. Slovakia: Tatran.

Karlis

2015 [2011] File:Hutterite migrations in Europe.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hutterite_migrations_in_Europe.png

Lehr, John, Brian McGregor, and Weldon Heibert

2006 Mapping Hutterite Colony Diffusion in North America. Manitoba

History. 53:192-

198.

Mange, Arthur P.

1964 Growth and Inbreeding of a Human Isolate. Human Biology. 36(2):104-133.

Martens, Helen.

2001 Hutterite Songs. Kitchner, ON: Pandora Press.

McKay, Mary-Jayne

2015 [2005] Genetic Disorders Hit Amish Hard: Centuries Of Intermarriage Make Rare

Diseases More Likely. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/genetic-disorders-hit- amish-hard/

Mennonite World Conference 34

2015 About MWC. https://www.mwc-cmm.org/content/about-mwc

Miller, Ann and Peter H. Stephenson

1980 Jakob Hutter: An Interpretation of the Individual Man and His People. Ethos.

Fall:229-252

Nolt, Steven M.

1992 A History of the Amish. Intercourse, Pennsylvania: Good Books

Ober, C.L. et. al.

1983 Shared HLA Antigens and Reproductive Performance among Hutterites.

American Journal of Human Genetics 35:994-1004

Packull, Werner C.

1995 Hutterite Beginnings: Communitarian Experiments during the Reformation.

Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Peter, Karl A., Edward D. Boldt, Ian Whitaker, and Lance W. Roberts.

1982 The Dynamics of Religious Defection among Hutterites. Journal for the

Scientific Study

of Religion. December: 327-337

Redfield, Robert

1960 The Little Community and Peasant Society and Culture. Chicago: University of

Chicago

Press

Shachtman, Tom

2006 Rumspring: To be or not to be Amish. New York: North Point Press. 35

Stayer, James M.

1991 The German Peasant’s War and Anabaptist Community of Goods. Montreal:

McGill/Queens University Press.

Urry, James

1983 Who are the Mennonites? European Journal of Sociology. 24(2): 241-262

Urry, James.

1988 None but Saints: The Transformation of Mennonite Life in Russia, 1789-1889.

Winnipeg: Hyperion Press.

Walter, Elias

1901 Preface and Teaching: Acts 2. Winnepeg, MB: Hutterian Brethen.