Comment by dangus
7 years ago
The practical difference between this ideal and our own lives is so minute that the entire idea of shunning modern technology past an arbitrary date still doesn't end up making any sense. We sometimes hold up the Amish and similar communities as "more pure" versions of ourselves, when in reality they are families just like our own - just with (IMO oppressive and patriarchal) orthodox beliefs applied.
Any digital household can attest to maintaining rules like:
"No phones at the dinner table"
"No TV until after dinner and homework"
Is it also not possible to interrupt attentive family time with books and toys, or any other non-digital distractions? Maintaining rules and family time in a household isn't unique to these communities.
> The practical difference between this ideal and our own lives is so minute that the entire idea of shunning modern technology past an arbitrary date still doesn't end up making any sense.
First off, I don't think it's minute at all. Look outside - 95% of people are staring at a screen in their hands. Cell phones in general and social media in particular have completely taken over the social sphere. Casual conversation on the street or in the checkout line has been replaced with pull out your device and scroll. Online dating is rapidly becoming the default dating method. The examples are endless.
Secondly, the Amish don't shun any technology past an arbitrary date. They decide as a community whether or not to introduce a certain technology, depending on its perceived benefits or costs. This strikes me as a rather wise and mature approach, one that the general public would do well to adopt.
And finally, statistically, the Amish have far more robust families and birth rates as compared to the general population. So it seems pretty easy to make the argument that their system results in a greater focus on family, even if adopting similar behaviors (without becoming Amish) is theoretically possible.
I edited my comment away because I didn't think it was useful. Sorry about that.
Your contention was that their lives are not fundamentally different than the average person. I gave a few examples to illustrate that it is indeed quite different. I think you just proved my point.
As to whether online dating/less social interaction in public/lower birthrates/etc. are ultimately better or worse - that's a different discussion.
I am not Amish, have no intention of becoming Amish, and indeed don't know a single person in the Amish community. Yet I applaud them for taking control of the technology in their community - even if I personally disagree with some of their views - unlike the rest of society, which by and large blindly adopts whatever is trendy, pleasurable, or pushed by monied corporate interests.
I don't think many people with direct dealings with Amish or similar communities would consider them 'more pure'. Heck, I have had a few and the best I can say is that it is very complicated.
There is a lot to admire about Amish communities. They aren't really anti-technology, they're just into a different kind of technology. That has given them strong competitive advantages in areas, for example, they still export farm equipment to third world countries where animals still do a majority of farm labour. Some of their wagons are technological works of art...they just use different technology. The Amish/similar approach to family and group is quite interesting.
I remember going on a tour of a similar group's community. Afterwards, we had some refreshments in their community dining room and we got to mingle and talk to some people. I ended up in a conversation with these two gentlemen about farm implements. Within about thirty seconds, I realized that I was among fellow nerds. They reminded me more of startup founders than I ever would have expected. They were very innovative and obviously very smart. I am not convinced they even think their views on technology make sense, but at this point, I wager it's more about holding onto a way of life than genuine belief.
I might be wrong and hope that wasn't offensive, but that's just a nerdy outsider's point of view on their technology.
There are also downsides. Personally, I find some of their views patriarchal and oppressive, but I was not raised Amish, have never practiced any of those religious and so that's a very uninformed opinion.
Honestly this was a great piece of insight and I think my own view that you replied to is probably closer to being offensive.
The patriarchy and sort of community oppression is the part of these communities that creeps me out, and I don't think those downsides are exactly advertised as part of the Amish "brand." The idea of your own nuclear family's life being so visible to the larger community isn't something that appeals to me.
But then again, neither do some of the more traditionalist family structures that have nothing to do with small religious groups. For example, I wouldn't want to live with my grandparents or parents, personally, but that's based on my own upbringing and experiences.
Isn't everyone oppressed by their culture in one way or another? An essential part of culture is to reward collaborators and punish defectors. One of the unique aspects of some Amish communities is their cultural exit option.
The Amish count on the rumspringa process to inoculate youth against the strong pull of the forbidden by dosing them with the vaccine of a little worldly experience. Their gamble is also based on the notion that there is no firmer adhesive bond to a faith and way of life than a bond freely chosen, in this case chosen after rumspringa and having sampled some of the available alternative ways of living.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=545557...
The most important effect of all their rules is of course that it creates a cohesive community. If you look at it as a group evolutionary strategy it’s incredibly successful.
And of course most rules and laws in society are “arbitrary”, but in order to be applicable on a mass scale they need to be measurable. For example, there is nothing magical about the age of 18 or 21, but there has to be some easily measurable rule to prevent young and immature people from drinking. So we choose a completely “arbitrary” number like 18 and stick to it.
Why is patriarchal used derogatorily?