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:
Reified Unit of Analysis: Treats Amish as a collective agent (who negotiates?), ignores competing goals of individuals
Circular Logic: Self-validating concepts, i.e. outcomes predetermined (process is the outcome), thus unable to explain change
“Modern” Poorly Defined (among other terms): Vague and inconsistent usage of terminology, especially modern vs. modernity vs. modernization
False Dichotomizations: Simplistic typology of Amish (traditional?) as opposite of modern society
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:
Data Collection Process Unclear/Undisclosed: Insufficient details on research methods and data analysis
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"