A Critical Appraisal of Amish Studies' De Facto Paradigm, "Negotiating with Modernity"
The predominant paradigm for Amish research over the past three decades has been "negotiating with modernity" (NWM). NWM explains how the Amish as a distinctive American culture and religion have overcome the threats modernity poses to their existence. This article argues that NWM has been...
| Authors: | ; ; ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2019]
|
| In: |
Journal for the scientific study of religion
Year: 2019, Volume: 58, Issue: 3, Pages: 725-742 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
USA
/ Amish
/ The Modern
/ Social interaction
/ Research
|
| RelBib Classification: | AD Sociology of religion; religious policy KBQ North America KDH Christian sects |
| Further subjects: | B
Donald Kraybill
B Amish B Technology B dichotomy B Elizabethtown College B Cultural Materialism B falsifiable B Modern |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | The predominant paradigm for Amish research over the past three decades has been "negotiating with modernity" (NWM). NWM explains how the Amish as a distinctive American culture and religion have overcome the threats modernity poses to their existence. This article argues that NWM has been accepted and replicated uncritically and without empirical testing due to properties making it inherently untestable. We first synthesize the central NWM literature, as the paradigm has never been fully constructed in one place. We then call attention to two sets of impairments that prevent empirical tests. First, the perspective contains several logical fallacies and terminology problems. NWM reifies "the Amish" as its unit of analysis; creates circular variable relationships (the Amish are Amish because they are not something else); employs terms problematically, notably "modernity" and "modernization"; dichotomizes phenomena; and is grounded in no particular theoretical tradition. Second, we argue that the production of knowledge within core NWM literature has not been sufficiently substantiated. Data collection procedures and methodological strategies are unclear or undefined and scientific peer review is relatively low. We conclude by suggesting more promising theoretical directions for Amish studies. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1468-5906 |
| Reference: | Kritik in "Response (2019)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal for the scientific study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/jssr.12600 |