A Critical Appraisal of Amish Studies’ De Facto Paradigm, ‘Negotiating with Modernity’

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

Anderson, Cory, Joseph Donnermeyer, Jeffrey Longhofer, and Steven D. Reschly. 2019.

58(3):725-42.

Research Points
  • Kraybill’s “Negotiating with Modernity”—as a dominant paradigm in Amish studies—argues that Amish consciously adopt, modify, or reject innovations in technology, social structure, and culture based on logics optimized to perpetuate the Amish system.

  • NWM is not a scientific theory with testable propositions, so critical analysis is the best way to critique NWM. Five logical problems exist with NWM:
  1. Reified Unit of Analysis: Treats Amish as a collective agent (who negotiates?), ignores competing goals of individuals
  2. Circular Logic: Self-validating concepts, i.e. outcomes predetermined (process is the outcome), thus unable to explain change
  3. “Modern” Poorly Defined (among other terms): Vague and inconsistent usage of terminology, especially modern vs. modernity vs. modernization
  4. False Dichotomizations: Simplistic typology of Amish (traditional?) as opposite of modern society
  5. No Clear Theoretical Tradition: Eclectic concepts not well integrated into actual sociological theorizing, even as names of theorists are casually dropped occasionally
  • Production of knowledge also has problems:
  1. Data Collection Process Unclear/Undisclosed: Insufficient details on research methods and data analysis
  2. Lack of Peer Review: Minimal critical assessment outside popular press books
  • A post-NWM research era will use theories addressing structure, culture, and agency; disclose research methods fully; avoid normative (touristy) questions about Amish survival; focus on Amish as test of general theories

  • The history of NWM demonstrates how knowledge production problems arise when small subfields are dominated by an unchallenged scholar/paradigm, how minority group research risks dichotomizing narratives, and how critical analysis is important for analyzing influential theories lacking falsifiability.

Access Related Content From The Project: "Reviews by Topic"

© 2026 • Cory Anderson • All Rights Reserved