valued amish possessions: expanding material culture and consumption

Valued Amish Possessions:

Expanding Material Culture and

ConsumptionBruce M. Tharp

Old Order Amish1 life is often romanticized inthe contemporary American imagination. Despitethe severe persecution that drove the Amish fromtheir European homeland and their subjection toridicule and hate crimes throughout much of thetwentieth century, today they generally enjoy ahallowed status. While they are sometimes thesource of humor in the popular media, appearingin credit card commercials, Hollywood comedies,nationally syndicated cartoons, and even realitytelevision, behind this light-hearted mockingoften exists a quiet respect for their stubborn re-fusal to be swept up with mainstream consumerculture. Moreover, the criticisms levied against theAmish for such infamous transgressions as the1998 arrests of two Lancaster Amish youth fordealing cocaine, serve to advance the mytholo-gizing trope when cast, as it was by the nationalmedia, that ‘‘even the Amish were unable tomaintain their innocence’’ (Weaver-Zercher 193).Indeed, the purity and wholesomeness of theAmish reputation are seen in the association of itsname with a variety of high-quality food products(e.g., chicken, honey, bacon, melons, pies, andcheese) featured in fine restaurants and specialtyfood stores across the nation. Amish furniture is amultimillion-dollar business with many retailers,even ‘‘super-stores,’’ carrying their goods exclusively

and touting the quality of ‘‘old-world craftsman-ship’’ in their showrooms and on their Web sites.Their popularity is also evidenced by the multi-million-dollar tourist industries that have blos-somed in the three largest Amish communities inOhio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. While merecuriosity is at play, so too is the romantic notionof witnessing a simpler, more pristine life as itmight have been for our forefathers:

It wraps around your mind like a cozy blan-ket. A cool Fall day, yellow and purpleleaves flying, puffywhites floating by, ahorse-drawn buggy just ahead, horse tailflickering in the northwest breeze. A whitehouse, immaculate, with a gold and orangebackdrop of country flickering in the slantedsun. Tow-headed kids walking, carrying bas-kets of flowers. Some call it ‘‘small townAmerica.’’ Mapmakers call it ‘‘Northern In-diana.’’ Folks that live around here call it‘‘Amish Country.’’ (Amish Country 4)

The hundreds of thousands of visitors to‘‘Amish country’’ each year might, however, getslight glimpses of incongruity from the photosand descriptions in their travel guides and vaca-tion brochures. One might witness an Amishmother holding her child’s plastic, battery-operated Disney toy while shopping for frozen

Bruce M. Tharp recently completed his doctoral studies in anthropology at the University of Chicago and is presently an AssistantProfessor in the Architecture, Interior Architecture, and Designed Objects department at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

38 The Journal of American Culture � Volume 30, Number 1 � March 2007

The Journal of American Culture, 30:1r2007, Copyright the AuthorsJournal compilation r2007, Blackwell Publishing, Inc.

dinners at a local Wal-Mart; or an Amish manpurchasing the latest cordless tool set featured at ahome improvement center; or a horse and buggyhitched to a post outside a McDonald’s restaurantas an Amish family dines inside on Big Macs andHappy Meals. These paradoxical images areincreasingly common among the 180,000 OldOrder Amish adults and children living intwenty-eight American states and in Ontario,Canada (Luthy 18).

Unifying the dispersed population, Amish re-ligiosity conceptualizes two distinct and compet-ing human spheres: ‘‘those who are obedient andthose who are alienated from God’’—the latter ofa ‘‘blind, perverted world’’ (Phil. 2:15) repletewith ‘‘unfruitful works of darkness’’ (Hostetler22). Their ‘‘evil’’—worldliness—is defined as‘‘(1) seeking comforts (convenience), (2) the loveof material things, and (3) self-enhancing activity’’(22). How then, if ‘‘consumptive spending is care-fully guarded by meaningful rules against luxuriesand conveniences’’ (22), do we account for theseemingly contradictory presence of such thingsas cigarettes, cologne, battery-powered flash-lights, hired automobiles, electric-powered wash-ing machines, remote-controlled lanterns, andAmish families dining in restaurants?

TheAmish Academic Literature andthe Gaps Addressed by this Study

Steeped in the discourse of social and culturalchange, the Amish academic literature has focusedon the ‘‘peculiarities,’’ ‘‘puzzles,’’ ‘‘riddles,’’ ‘‘com-promises,’’ ‘‘stresses,’’ ‘‘struggles,’’ and ‘‘warfare’’separating traditionalism and modernity. Thesestudies successfully challenge the rampant roman-ticism associated with the ‘‘plain and simple’’ life,discussing nontraditional Amish consumption asevidence of necessary compromise. Objects areoffered, rightfully, as sites of cultural contestationand as boundary markers both within the Amishcommunity and between the Amish and non-Amish worlds. However, interrogation of materiallife at the level of actual possessions and their

purported importance and value is essentially ab-sent. Analysis of Amish consumption itself isoften handled with ‘‘kid gloves’’ (Olshan 232),accounting for the eventual acceptance and in-corporation of more progressive technologies andartifacts as merely necessary responses to eco-nomic exigency. And they focus only upon therelatively few objects that actually enter intochurch debate. The literature largely ignores thevast number of uncontested, quotidian productuses and it seemingly denies the Amish an interestin particular object attributes beyond the realmsof utility, simplicity, and thrift. Many questionsremain regarding their relationship with artifactsas individuals and as members of an asceticalcommunity.

Drawing from a larger ethnographic investiga-tion within northeastern Indiana’s Elkhart-LaGrange Amish settlement, this study concen-trates on a specific aspect of their material cul-ture and consumption, i.e., Amish valued posses-sions.2 The study asks three principal questions.First, what do these individuals consider to betheir most valued possessions? Second, how dotheir accounts of these items relate to valued-possessions research conducted on non-AmishAmericans? Third, what effect, if any, has theincreasingly pervasive and seemingly per-suasive ‘‘culture of consumption’’ had on theAmish conception of their most special domesticartifacts?

The Elkhart-LaGrangeAmish

None of the 250-plus North American Amishcommunities is free from modernity’s intrusion.However, northeastern Indiana’s Elkhart-LaGrange settlement is distinctive in its accept-ance of, and reliance upon, Amish employment innon-Amish industries. Despite being the third-most populous settlement (approximately 16,000adults and children), Elkhart-LaGrange is hometo the greatest number of factory workers. Ashousehold heads, they now constitute the occu-pational majority, while less than seven percent of

39Valued Amish Possessions � Bruce M. Tharp

those under the age of thirty-five remain agricul-turalists (Meyers and Nolt 114). Farming, theideologically preferential occupation and lifestyle,has been in gradual decline since the middle of thetwentieth century due to the steadily increasingAmish population that competes for scarce land atescalated prices. Moreover, Amish farmers arecompeting in the same markets with corporateagricultural juggernauts, and their mere hundred-acre (and frequently smaller) farms are oftenbarely profitable. Family income is commonlysupplemented by part-time entrepreneurial ven-tures or wage-labor employment, practices referredto as ‘‘working away.’’ While the preponderance ofsuch nontraditional work certainly distinguishesthe Elkhart-LaGrange settlement, it would be toosimplistic, and indeed erroneous, to credit theircurrent consumptive attitudes and behaviors sole-ly to membership and participation within a spe-cific productive regime. Amish farmers, too, shopat Wal-Mart, embrace technological advance-ments, and enjoy comforts from the non-Amishworld surrounding them.

This investigation deals specifically withAmish living in and around a small town in thewestern portion of LaGrange County whoseapproximately three hundred households com-prise a population of just over fourteen hun-dred. This town is considered by researchers tobe moderately conservative/progressive for thesettlement and ‘‘about in the middle’’ by theAmish within and around the area. Approxi-mately 58% of the household heads work full- orpart-time in the factories while 28% work full- orpart-time on farms. Amish began working infactories in the late 1930s and early 1940s3 as themobile-home industry accelerated in responseto the demands for modular housing by the ex-panding wartime military bases in the UnitedStates (Meyers, ‘‘Lunch Pails’’ 170). ElkhartCounty and, years later, LaGrange County, be-came important centers for this type of manufac-ture. While little is known about the specificcircumstances facing the first Amish to ventureinto the factory, by the mid- to late-forties it isbelieved that ‘‘economic survival’’ was the prima-ry motivation (170). This is also evident in the

reflections of a retired Amish farmer and businessowner:

Okay, the factories was a good thing whenthey first came here. The Amish people wasvery hard up through here—very hard up.When the factories came in here this startedbringing us income, more income [from] wor-kin’ away. It got us on our feet you can see.

The factories that initially made mobile homesand agricultural equipment eventually shifted oradded to their product lines, and by the 1960snorthern Indiana was well established as a centerof recreational-vehicle manufacture. It is believedthat the large Mennonite and Amish population inthe region was a draw for manufacturers who per-ceived it as an abundant source of skilled and hard-working labor, and indeed there is some evidenceof this in the company history literature (171).

As Kraybill and Olshan state, the shift fromfarm work ‘‘promises, in short, to be one of themost consequential changes that has touched theAmish community . . . and will surely shape theirdestiny in many ways’’ (13). But despite decades-old worries from both Amish and non-Amish thatfactory work is ‘‘the beginning of the end,’’ theElkhart-LaGrange settlement has been thrivingwith few signs of abatement. With an average ofseven children born to women over the age of 45(Meyers and Nolt 80, Table 5.3), the settlement’spopulation generally doubles every twenty totwenty-five years (Kraybill and Nolt 9). And notsurprisingly, this rapid growth and the nonagrar-ian work associated with it have affected thequality of Amish life. Indeed, the implications ofthis less traditional work are many, both for in-dividuals and the community. Amish, when labor-ing alongside non-Amish factory coworkers, havegreater exposure to worldly issues and events aswell as information about consumer products andservices. In addition to this knowledge, whichmay lead to temptation and desire, they are af-forded greater opportunity for expanding theirconsumption choices as working away providesgreater disposable income and, in many casesgreater leisure time to investigate and acquiregoods.


Just as it is difficult citing any society with astatic material culture, there is abundant evidenceof an expansion of the Amish objective realmthroughout at least the twentieth century (Kray-bill, The Riddle 297). While some unabashedlyadmit an eagerness for new products or technol-ogies, others find the acceleration of change inrecent decades to be a worrisome development:

We are slower than the outside . . . But thereis stuff that is wants, it’s not needs. And be-cause [of this] . . . we are getting ourselvesinto our own trouble—our own problems.We are causin’ ourselves problems.

The Ordnung, the set of rules governingAmish behavior for a specific community, is con-stantly being negotiated to regulate both demandsfrom outside governmental mandates and the ex-panding desires of church members. This has al-ways been a part of their history. In recent yearssome Amish churches in the Elkhart-LaGrangecommunity have, for example, newly allowedsuch accessories as rubber tires and windshieldwipers on horse-drawn carriages, as well as suchnew products as bicycles, bicycle trailers, decora-tive swan-shaped planter pots, weed whackers,lawnmowers, garden tillers, skid-loaders, andsolar-powered lighting. It is this expansion ofmaterial culture and consumption, regardless ofthe specific catalyst(s), that has inspired the in-vestigation of what are meaningful possessions ofthese Amish. Are these relatively new items val-ued highly? Have they displaced other items ofimport?

Approaching Consumption andPossessions

As Marshall Sahlins states, the human rela-tionship with artifacts is a special one where the‘‘distinctive quality of man [is] not that he mustlive in a material world, a circumstance he shareswith all organisms, but that he does so accordingto a meaningful scheme of his own devising, inwhich capacity mankind is unique’’ (viii). This in-

vestigation is framed within anthropology where,following Daniel Miller, society is understood ‘‘tobe always a cultural project in which we come tobe ourselves in our humanity through the mediumof things’’ Theory (169). Commodities are under-stood as ‘‘good for thinking,’’ and ‘‘for rationalbeings to make sense of their universe’’ (Douglas264) through their capabilities of making ‘‘visibleand stable categories of culture’’ (Douglas andIsherwood 38). What is denied is the approachthat may be traced through Marx and the Frank-furt School of Critical Theory wherein consumersare ‘‘dupes’’ helplessly subjected to the politicalhegemony of market production forces andwherein culture is antithetical to consumption.

Rather than the ‘‘reductionist myth’’ (Miller,Acknowledge) of a dichotomous, ‘‘good consump-tion’’ or ‘‘bad consumption,’’ here consumption isunderstood as a complex means through whichcultural processes of meaning- and value-makingare articulated, understood, negotiated, and con-tested. In addition to this anthropological per-spective, research from psychology, socialpsychology, and consumer behavior (Csi-kszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton; Dittmar;Wallendorf and Arnould; Hill; Schultz, Kleine,and Kernan; Richins, ‘‘Special Possessions’’; Belk;Hill and Stamey; Richins, ‘‘Valuing Things’’;Mehta and Belk) also usefully inform the inter-rogation of domestic possessions and the relation-ship to Amishness: ‘‘One of the important func-tions of cherished household objects is preciselytheir ability to provide tangible, enduring, andvitalized signs that can communicate the continu-ity of one’s experiences, relationships, and values’’(Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 224).

Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton inThe Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols andthe Self investigate the production and continuityof self through the possession of objects and offera rough framework for the formal interviewsconducted with Amish as well as a helpful bench-mark with (and against) which their possessionsmay be interpreted. While their interviews broad-ly probed ‘‘most cherished’’ and ‘‘special’’ posses-sions, in order to educe more specific responses,answers regarding their most treasured, most


important, and most comforting possessionswere solicited. As a behavioral appraisal of theseresponses, a question from psychology was alsoasked about what objects an interviewee wouldremove from his/her home if it were on fire.While replies to these questions are what willbe reported here, an investigation of gifts, heir-looms, desired possessions, beautiful possessions,collecting, planned future purchases, favoritebrands, and childhood objects was also conduct-ed in order to provide a more informed materialcontext.

ResearchMethod

The research concerning Amish possessions issituated within a larger doctoral dissertationproject, where formal fieldwork began full-timein October 2001 and continued through Decem-ber 2003. Methodologically, a taxi service wasstarted to recruit additional informants beyondalready established relations achieved during pre-field work (beginning in June 2000). Using hispersonal automobile, the researcher became partof the common practice of offering transportationto the Amish, who are permitted to ride in, butnot own or operate, automobiles. Advertisementswere posted in periodicals frequently read by theAmish and on a community bulletin board, andtwo local taxi drivers (one full-time and the otherpart-time) were of assistance in explaining proto-col and typical rates—$.50 and $.65 per mile.Little competition exists between taxi drivers inlight of a great and growing demand for taxiservice. The researcher provided local Amishwith three to four round-trips per day (excludingSundays), and there were nearly always morerequests for rides than could be filled. Nearly30,000 taxi miles accrued over two years provid-ing rides to approximately 160 adults, 30 adoles-cents, and 90 children (many under the age offive).

Many Amish became regular riders and afriendly rapport was developed during the hoursof conversation during trips. Subsequently they

were asked to take part in formal, in-home inter-views4 in return for free future transportation.Having a relationship before the interviews wasnecessary in achieving (remarkably candid) re-sponses to fairly personal questions, and it alsoallowed for permission to have the interviewstape-recorded, something that would have beendifficult otherwise. While some interviewees wererecruited through taxiing, others were enlistedthrough established social networks. A total ofthirty-three semistructured interviews occurred(seventeen men and sixteen women, twenty-sixmarried and seven unmarried), with eachlasting seventy-five to ninety minutes. It is im-portant to note that the factory/farm distinctionfor the interviewees was not particularly compel-ling in that ‘‘pure’’ farmers were extremelyrare. Many of the full-time farmers had workedaway when they were younger or still did duringthe winter seasons and when there is less farmwork. And often, children working in factories orother venues supplement farming household in-comes. Many of the factory workers also farmpart-time or full-time when factory employmentlapses.

Valued Possessions

During formal interviews, the objects citedmost often as being ‘‘most treasured’’ amongwomen were quilts, china cabinets, and glassware.In nearly every case these were gifts from familymembers that were purchased and given as wed-ding gifts (usually in the case of the china cab-inets) or were made (quilts), or handed down(glassware) on special occasions. Other responsesincluded a wedding float,5 baby books (to recordspecial events), a rocking chair, a ‘‘Holy matri-mony’’ clock, and a desk made by a respondent’sfather. For men, the overwhelming answer washunting rifles. Other answers included a tractorthat was a gift from a father, a plaque of the familygenealogy, their homes, furniture that was givenby parents, a coin collection, and the Bible andTestament.


The objects that were cited most often as being‘‘most important’’ among the Amish women werefairly wide-ranging: horses and buggies, everydaydishes, cooking stoves, refrigerators, homes, theBible, clothing, legal documents, and a religiousbook. The scope of objects mentioned by the menwas less wide-ranging with greater consensusabout household safes that contained legal docu-ments, homes, horses and buggies, and the Bible.Hunting guns were also mentioned.

The question of men’s and women’s ‘‘mostcomforting’’ possessions proved somewhat disap-pointing in that a majority of the respondents in-terpreted this as ‘‘most comfortable,’’ which islikely due to their less sophisticated facility withthe English language. Unaware of the semanticdistinction, the interviewees revealed essentially novariance across genders as both nearly always re-sponded regarding physical rather than psycholog-ical comfort by noting that their bed was theirmost comforting possession. When asked if therewas something special about the particular bed orrecliner (also a common answer), nearly all repliedthat there was not: ‘‘No, not just that bed, just thatwhen I am in there I have comfort.’’ The reclinerswere mentioned for the same reason: ‘‘It is where Ican kick up my feet and relax after a hard day’swork. We used to just have one [between her andher husband] and we were always fighting over it.’’To assess whether these objects had any specialmeaning or value beyond their utility, they wereasked if they imagined keeping them for some time.In typical response, they mentioned that it wouldjust be disposed of when it wore out: ‘‘[We’ll] justget a new one. It is almost as expensive to get itreupholstered as it is to buy a new one.’’ Houseswere also mentioned in several instances, seeminglywith these considered ‘‘comforting’’ in the psycho-logical/emotional sense: ‘‘When I come home I feelgood . . . We are happy here.’’ Similarly, in two in-stances the emotional comfort that accompanied acollection of greeting cards/sentimental missivesand ‘‘preacher books’’ that were received uponjoining the church was mentioned as well. Inter-estingly, only one respondent mentioned a recre-ational item, citing his ‘‘V-bottom’’ fishing boatthat he often used on outings with friends.

Interviewees were also asked to imagine if theirhouse was burning and their family and pets wereall safe, what objects they would most wish tosave, given the ability to retrieve anything re-gardless of portability or situational exigency.Following Kamptner, this question from the psy-chology literature was employed as a behavioralappraisal of their responses to the most comfort-ing, most important, and most treasured ques-tions. Moreover, the house-burning issue offers apractical, scenario-based question thought to bemore approachable for the Amish who generallyhave less experience thinking abstractly.6 Nearlyall male and female respondents mentioned cloth-ing as being important to salvage from the ficti-tious fire. For the non-Amish, clothing is asignificant issue because of the financial invest-ment, its necessity in civil life (‘‘I would lookkinda funny runnin’ around naked’’), and its con-nection to issues of identity. Also for the non-Amish, the acquisition of a wardrobe usuallytakes place over many years with many differentsources and as such would be difficult to replacewhen considering sentimental value.

Many of these issues are similar for the Amish,though they additionally make much of theirclothing, using purchased cloth.7 Things likeunderwear, socks, footwear, suspenders, and headcoverings are usually procured in Amish drygoods stores or in non-Amish stores like Wal-Mart. For the Amish, some sentimentality existsregarding their clothing, especially in cases whenclothing is made for special events like baptismalsuits and dresses, wedding-party outfits, and wed-ding suits and dresses, as well as clothing or fabricfor clothing that is received as gifts. Respondentsmentioned how special certain clothing was, par-ticularly the Sunday clothing that is often made bytheir mothers (in the case of males) or the onesthat they make themselves (often in the case offemales). In addition to possible sentimentality,these clothes also represent greater financial in-vestment with the quality of material used, andincreased labor and attention in their manufacture:‘‘We couldn’t just go to the store and buy ‘em.’’

Concerning clothing production, the patternsused to make family clothing were mentioned


often in conjunction with ‘‘clothing’’ answers andsometimes independently:

The first thing I would save would be mypatterns. I know I could make other clothesif the others got burnt. People are shapeddifferent and you have to search a bit to findones that fit best.

Women use patterns for clothing that theypurchase at Amish stores and will customize thepatterns for particular family members: ‘‘Yeah,sometimes we have to change ‘em a bit so they fitbetter. Alternate [sic] ‘em a little bit.’’ The factthat patterns were mentioned as being more im-portant than the clothing themselves points, inmany cases, not only to their importance in (pos-sibly) reconstructing a household but also thework that they require. In only one case did amale mention patterns, which reflects genderedlabor as sewing clothing falls within women’s do-main. While sentimentality toward wardrobeitems came up in other discussions, with thisquestion the dominance of its response was due toboth its necessity and requisite labor:

It would be hard to go without clothes. Lotof the clothes I got, my wife, you know, shemade. She made my pants, shirts. Not all of‘em. A lot of shirts you can buy at stores anymore. For that simple reason, it takes time—work.

For women, other prominent answers of itemsto save from a house fire included sewing ma-chines, dishes, refrigerators, and stoves. Thesewere items that respondents mentioned for rea-sons of expense and necessity rather than sen-timentality. Concern was also expressed overspecial furniture items, particularly hutches andheirloom items. Two women also mentioned, sec-ondly and thirdly, the family Bible. Anotherwoman cited a family religious book similar to aBible, and an unmarried woman mentioned adiary and the same special correspondence thatshe mentioned was one of her most treasureditems. Similarly, special dishes, china, and glass-ware were mentioned. While such items of mean-ing were cited, they were often secondary or

tertiary to responses of clothing, patterns, sewingmachines, and appliances.

Only one woman did not mention clothing orpatterns as her top response; so, too, for threeAmish men. While not top-of-mind, it is believedthat almost assuredly clothing or patterns wouldhave been added to their lists if they had beenasked to consider them. The items that were mostprominent among men were legal documents andthe safes in which they were stored. Many Amishmen mentioned having a fireproof or security safein which important papers and smaller valuableitems were kept. More men than women men-tioned furniture items, which were often eitherwedding gifts or heirlooms. In a few cases thesefurniture items were ones that they had madethemselves. One Amish man mentioned wantingto save furniture items like an infant’s changingtable and a crib. When asked why, he respondedthat he had made them himself: ‘‘I thought I did areally good job on [them]. They have pretty goodvalue.’’ A few men also mentioned family Bibles.

Valued Possessions Analysis

A romantic might expect that it would be dif-ficult for the Amish to speak about any substan-tive attachment to objects, other than perhaps theBible or religious items, given their ideologicalstance against things of this world. However,nearly all spoke quite openly, extensively, andeven emotionally about their possessions. Illus-trative of this, an Amish mother of five passion-ately discussed her interest in bluebird-relatedobjects:

When I went somewhere and I seen bluebirddishes—‘‘Ahh, that’s pretty!’’ I want it, Iwant it! I would collect more if my husbandwould let me. My living [room] in therewould probably all be bluebirds, but I gottalisten to him too. Maybe [I will get] a windchime . . . just to have around. I have a blue-bird mat over there. It is a mat but I hung itup on the wall because it is too pretty to putyour feet on.


An interesting finding alluded to above is therelative lack of emphasis on religious objects dur-ing not only the formal possessions interviews butin nearly all other discussions as well. This rough-ly parallels, but is more surprising than, Csik-szentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton’s finding that‘‘none of the great spiritual and ideological sys-tems that are supposed to have moved people inthe past have left objective traces [‘householdgods, crucifixes, icons, historical pictures, flags’]in the homes of these Americans [in their Chicagostudy], nor has a new configuration as of yet takentheir place’’ (87). While the Amish did mentionBibles and religious books, they did so in a muchsmaller proportion to secular items. Texts are theonly religious objects found in Amish materialculture due to proscriptions against idolatry andbecause they do not have churches, instead hold-ing worship services in members’ homes. Moreprosaic objects like calendars, plaques, planters,and clocks are, however, sometimes adorned withBiblical text, which can add a strong religiousvalence to objects. Still, these items were nevermentioned as particularly valuable.

Informants did speak of how they receivedBibles and New Testament scriptures as heirloomsand as baptismal gifts. A few mentioned how im-portant they were to their daily routine. However,in the scope of the questions about special posses-sions, such items comprised a small portion. And itmight be expected that as the interviews were be-ing conducted by someone outside their sect and asreligion is the cornerstone of their separation, thatrespondents would be more inclined to over-represent religious material. Suggestion of this isseen when an Amish shop owner is asked to namehis most treasured possession: ‘‘Actually it should. . . my Bible should be’’ (emphasis added), despitethe fact that he ‘‘does not read it as often as [he]should.’’ As well, many of the times that a Biblewas mentioned as special, it was not necessarilybecause it was a religious item, but more because itwas an heirloom (though certainly Bibles make forparticularly significant Amish heirlooms). Mentionof the Bible was made more often by the fewbishops and ministers who were interviewed. Thisis understandable given the public leadership roles

that they play; indeed, it would have been verysurprising otherwise. Similarly, the older Amishalso mentioned the Bible and religious books moreoften than did the younger and middle-agedrespondents. Greater religious orientation by theelderly was expected as it was found in otherstudies involving the elderly (Csikszentmihalyiand Rochberg-Halton; Grayson and Shulman;Kamptner; Livingstone and Lunt; Price, Arnould,and Curasi; Rudmin).

While frequency of response for religious ar-tifacts did not significantly differ by gender, it wasa more important variable regarding things secu-lar. Given the strong gender roles in Amishsociety this is of little surprise. Drawing fromHannah Arendt’s notion of vita activa and vitacontemplativa, Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton emphasized that the things most valued bywomen—photographs, sculpture, plants, plates,glass, and textiles—were contemplative ratherthan action objects (96). Comparing this withthe ‘‘most treasured’’ quilts, china cabinets, andglassware of Amish women, there is obviousagreement. While such items might seem like ob-jects of particular utility, or could be used inmanners similar to action objects, they were men-tioned because of their special meaning:

A candy dish that my grandma give me formy birthday when I was about fourteen [ismost treasured]. It reminds me of Grandmawhenever I see it. Every time I see it I thinkof Grandma.

That cabinet in there [is most treasured]because it was my mom’s and my grand-mother’s. It’s just meant a lot to me overtime . . . It came down on my mother’s side.

I would probably have to say the items thatMom has given me [are most treasured].That would be glassware . . . because whereit came from. If I could have chosen I prob-ably would have chose pink but she’s alwaysgot blue. So it is really just the idea thatMom gave it to me.

In fact these objects are almost always inten-tionally kept out of use, or used only on specialoccasions:


I guess I got a couple of quilts, one fromeach grandma, that I really treasure. I got ababy quilt from when he [her husband] wasa baby. We keep ‘em in the closet . . . ‘causeI don’t want them to wear out. And I gotsome [other quilts] that I use every day.

We don’t use those [dishes] as a rule. Thoseare for special occasions—sometimes forweddings or things like that.

Nearly every treasured object mentioned bythe women was of a contemplative nature, whilethe men’s objects were not so clearly distinctive.

The most treasured possessions of Amish menwere hunting rifles, which seems to support agreater proclivity for action objects—objects thatare part of or mark one’s own accomplishments orefforts. Guns are also valued because of their spe-cial meaning, similar to the contemplative objectsof Amish women. With an Amish dairy farmer,the entanglement of action and contemplation isapparent:

My shotgun [is most treasured]. I am kind ofattached to that thing. I don’t use it a lot, but. . . it is an old one. And I like it . . . I guessthe reason for that is that when I got marriedI wanted a shotgun and I went and I huntedfor a used one likes my dad had. That’swhere I learned to shoot. And this [gun] is. . . very similar to [his]. And I treasure thatquite a bit. It was old when I bought it. Ibought it in a gun shop, I found it in a gunshop and I keep that in top shape. And I stilluse it.

Similarly:

I guess you could say my older guns [aremost treasured]. Like to hold on to those . . .Model 120 Winchesters—they are about thebest guns you can get. They are hard to find.One Dad gave to me. I don’t want to losethat one ‘cause he gave it to me. I use it a lot.I got three now. I’d like to rotate guns so Idon’t use Dad’s as much—so they don’t wearout so quick.

And while guns dominated this category, mostof the other items mentioned also have a strongcontemplative aspect, like a tractor that once be-longed to an Amishman’s grandfather that he is

forbidden to use in his fields but maintains8; yetanother such item was a wooden genealogicalplaque. In general, there seems to be less corre-lation with the special items mentioned by Amishmen than with their counterparts reported bymales in the Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton study, where action objects were moreprevalent such as television sets, stereos, sportsequipment, vehicles, and sports trophies.

The contemplative/action distinction is lessuseful when discussing most important and mostcomforting possessions as well as items thatAmish would want saved from a house fire. Theiranswers were, somewhat unsurprisingly, ex-pressed largely in practical terms. Dominatinghere were action objects that allowed the respon-dents to function immediately and appropriatelyin their community and in their family roles.However, as alluded to above, it might be expect-ed that religious objects and concerns would moresubstantively challenge secular exigency.

Gender differences also arose with regard tothe most important objects. In this categorywomen mentioned a wide range of possessionsthat dealt largely with their traditional dutiesaround the home: (everyday) dishes, ovens, andrefrigerators. The horse and buggy were alsomentioned which also could be seen in terms ofgetting to market to purchase items necessary forhousehold production. For men, the house, horseand buggy, legal documents, and hunting gunswere prominent answers. Given their justificationsfor these responses, a strong tie exists to their roleas heads of the household and family providers.Certainly a cornerstone of Amish culture is thetraditional delineation of gendered productive ac-tivity—the fact that this was reflected in the mostimportant objects was not unexpected.

In terms of action and contemplation, religioustexts stand somewhat ambiguous. Bibles are passeddown through generations and gifted for specialoccasions. The materials that were mentioned asmost treasured were cited seemingly more for theirsentimental value rather than their utility:

The big Bible came from [her husband’s]parents. But we got some Testament from his


parents and my parents and they are some-what special than if we had just boughtthem.

Oh, my Bible and Testament . . . I got that asa wedding gift from my folks.

However for those who mentioned religioustexts as their most important possessions, the an-swer was in action terms:

I would say that that is my Testament, myTestament. Or the Bible—either one really. . . Actually I read more the New Testamentthan I do the Bible. The Bible is good read-ing, but that is the old. And we’re in the newnow—since Jesus Christ. So, but the old isgood too, you need to know the old. But Ido read more in the Testament than I do that.

Probably the Bible. The one that is tore—theone I always use. Also, Our Heritage Hopeand Faith book. Similar to a Bible . . . and allthe stuff we have in church is in here. Bibleverses and daily prayers. Morning prayersand evening prayers. I can read it easier thanthe Bible.

It should be noted that a few individuals re-sponded with religious items for many of thequestions. The majority of the interviewees, how-ever, never mentioned religious texts or did somore as an afterthought.

The ‘‘house on fire’’ question, as Kamptnermentions, allows for verification of objects thatwere noted as answers to the most important,treasured, and comforting questions—if indeedthese are cherished objects then it is expected thatthey would want to be saved from incendiary de-struction. While the question attends to this, hereit was employed primarily as another means toelicit responses regarding valued possessions, andin a way that may be less abstract and thereforeeasier for respondents to imagine.

The fire question was asked later in the inter-view after the respondents had discussed theirspecial items and heirlooms, but there was littleoverlap in the answers. Clothing, clothing pat-terns, legal documents, and other items that areclosely tied to household production dominatedthe responses. Certainly clothing and clothing

patterns are sensible responses from a practicalstance. It is understandable that many of the menand some of the women mentioned legal docu-ments in response to this question yet omittedmentioning them as other important possessions,as these less easily fall under the rubric of pos-sessions. However, after these legal documentswere accounted for, there was mention of thespecial furniture pieces, most often hutches, chinacabinets, and desks, which were either weddinggifts from parents or were heirlooms. The firequestion helped elicit responses to such items thatwere overlooked as special in earlier responses tovalued objects. Many respondents said that theywished to add these items to the ones mentionedas their most treasured possessions.

In a few cases, the Bible was mentioned first.The few other times that the Bible or other re-ligious texts were mentioned, the rationale wasoften because they were special gifts or heirlooms,though sometimes it seemed as this was an im-portant object to take as one Amish women said:‘‘Oh, a Bible or something.’’ And in one case, anelderly Amishman mentioned it first because ofits sacredness: ‘‘Probably my Testament and pray-er book. I would grab that because I would notwant that to burn—if at all possible. I don’t like tosee them burn.’’

With regard to responses to their most com-forting possessions, which were largely interpret-ed as ‘‘most comfortable,’’ a key issue that aroseinvolved labor. With the numerous responses ofbeds and recliners, which were chosen for theiruse-value rather than because they were in anyother way special, respondents mentioned hownice it was to rest.

I would say that recliner in there that I usu-ally use. It is just a real comfortable chair.After a day’s work it is really nice to sit inthere.

I mean once I hit that bed, it don’t matterwhere it is. I could sleep outside in a rain-storm.

As a culture, hard work and avoiding ‘‘idlehands’’ is a key tenet. The responses of beds andrecliners were largely a reflection of this work


ethic, and were interpreted as being a reward, butalso perhaps an escape.9 Certainly for the farmersand many shop owners, workdays are often verylong. And while the factory workers generallyhave shorter work hours, most of the Amish menthat were interviewed either farmed some as asecond job or had a side business, and many werejust as busy, sometimes more, than the farmers.Those that did not have jobs beyond the factoryseemed to fill their nonwork time with helparound the home or supervising their children, orwith leisure activities like hunting and fishing thatmay be viewed in terms of household productionas Amish families commonly eat what is killed.Also, there is more time for shopping amonghousehold heads working in the factories, but thistoo is often figured in terms of assisting withhousehold production. Amish women have littlerespite from household labor and chores regard-less of their husbands’ occupation, and the factoryoften increases the supervisory responsibility ofmothers during the hours that husbands areworking away.

Those that did interpret the question correctlyas ‘‘most comforting’’ mentioned their house, ‘‘aclean house’’, prayers, a religious book, God’swords, cards from friends, and two people men-tioned friends with whom to talk. While theseresponses are too few to allow substantive gener-alization, they seemingly point to a greater in-clination to turn toward friends and religion forsupport rather than material possessions.

Discussion of Consumption Findings

Through this investigation, two primary find-ings emerged: the traditional nature of Amishspecial possessions and (somewhat paradoxically)the relative dearth of religious artifacts cited.Despite the expansion of Amish material cultureand consumption, overwhelmingly the artifactsthat they claim to be of significant value and im-port are traditional,10 or at least not particularlynontraditional. Responses did not include the manyrecently allowed items that are most incongruous

with romantic notions of Amishness. While sev-eral questions were used to understand their val-ued possessions, of particular interest were theobjects that were ‘‘most treasured’’ or cherishedmost because of their meaning. Beyond the realmsof simplicity, austerity, and frugality, certain ob-jects were indeed found to be highly significant,especially as markers of family, community, andreligious connections. To the open-ended ques-tion of what objects were most treasured, nearlyall mentioned objects were heirlooms or, morecommonly, intended to be passed on as heirlooms.This result is consistent with the overall finding ofCsikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton in theirChicago investigation:

Despite the superficial veneer of modernity,the main concerns of these people are largelythe same ones that have moved men andwomen since the beginning of recorded his-tory . . . Despite a standard of living that ismany times higher than any of the past orthan that now enjoyed by most people of theworld, persons in this culture are still con-fronted by the same fears and frustrationsthat have threatened the value of life sincehumans acquired self-consciousness . . . Peo-ple still need to know that their actions mat-ter, that their existence forms a pattern withthat of others, that they are remembered andloved, and that their individual self is part ofsome greater design beyond the fleeting spanof mortal years. (145)

Even more so than in Csikszentmihalyi andRochberg-Halton’s study, contemplative objectsreigned as the most valued Amish possessions.Popular action objects associated with the self,like televisions, stereos, and musical instruments,are not permitted in Amish culture and obviouslywere not mentioned. But it might be expected thatother action objects would be mentioned in theirstead, but this was not often the case. With men,their hunting rifles were by far the most commonanswer, and these, as stated earlier, often repre-sented entanglements between action and contem-plation. Action objects are frequently associatedwith the self, even if the result of the action isdirected toward the family (like providing deer


meat for kin to eat). Since a primary tenet ofAmish ideology is Gelassenheit, which is a defer-ence of self to God and others, it is not surprisingthat these action objects are less often mentioned.The entanglement of action and contemplationwith regard to the seemingly necessary expressionand development of self may be a useful tactic orresult of Amish engagement with the materialworld at the most profound levels.

The significance of family and communityconnections, whose importance was marked bythe preponderance of cited contemplative objects,was manifest in traditional forms; however, asAmish material culture and consumption con-tinue to expand, this could shift. Of course, theboundaries demarcating ‘‘traditional’’ are nevertruly fixed and it is expected that at least thequalities of objects within traditional categorieswill continue to change, e.g., from iceboxes tokerosene refrigerators to liquid propane refriger-ators. For now, furniture, dishware, and huntingrifles dominate, but it is conceivable in certaininstances that other less traditional objects couldslowly begin to take on this role. As was discov-ered, what makes artifacts particularly treasured isthat they either previously belonged to a lovedone, or were received as a gift from a loved one.An example might be compound hunting bows,which are now more common in deer huntingthan in previous generations. Moreover, perhaps ifand when tractors are allowed in the fields ratherthan relegated as they are now to the barns forpower take-off or other light work, they might behighly treasured items, purchased or passeddown. As mentioned, this was already the casefor the Amishman who cherished the tractor hereceived from his grandfather.

Of course it is easier for a less traditional ob-ject to take on this role if it is associated with atraditional activity. It is conceivable that an Amishfather’s tool belt that accompanied him through-out his decades of factory work might become ahighly cherished heirloom for a son. The samescenarios are possible with gendered items forwomen, certainly with the quality of categoricalitems. Sewing machines were once a nontradi-tional item, but today they are closely linked with

traditional women’s productive labor and werementioned as highly cherished. If and when sew-ing machines begin to be alternatively powered, itis expected that they would still remain highlyvalued. Concomitantly, the quality of cherishedquilts has also shifted as more are partially as-sembled using sewing machines or syntheticmaterials. It is also possible that the category offemale-gendered objects could shift, but these areeven more difficult to foretell than with male-gendered objects. As from hunting rifle to com-pound bow, the shifts would probably remainsubtle and be tied to traditional domestic labor.As battery-operated, or alternatively powereditems become more common, it is possible thatthey will be more cherished as their use becomesassociated with loved ones.

While the future expansion of material culturemay increase the types and qualities of objectsthat allow for valued contemplation and action,the quantity of Amish possessions may have someeffect as well. One interesting finding was thatfew of the Amish interviewed actually owned apiece of heirloom furniture—glassware and disheswere dominant. With such large families andtraditionally limited possessions, these heirloompieces are relatively rare. In fact Amish often have‘‘children’s sales’’ where items from aged or de-ceased parents are auctioned off to the highestbidding offspring, with the proceeds then beingequally distributed among the children or kept bythe parent(s) in some cases when they are stillliving. This is seen by many as being the fairestmeans of allocating special items among so manychildren and grandchildren. With an expansion ofmaterial culture and growing number of personalpossessions, it seems likely that heirlooms will bemore prevalent.

The increased affluence that has assisted in theexpansion of material culture and consumptionmay also allow for greater preservation of heir-looms. For example, many Amish women spokeof dishes that they use every day and specialdishes that they never or seldom use. Also, house-holds often have special quilts that are only usedfor display or for a short period of time (usuallywhen they host church). More rarely, families


sometimes have duplicate pieces of furniture, forexample, an heirloom hutch that is kept upstairsaway from children, and another that is newer andkept downstairs. Having these duplicate piecesallows heirlooms to remain outside of everydayuse, helping in preservation and maintaining spe-cialty. Interestingly, buggies, which are substantialfinancial investments and given as special gifts,were never mentioned as heirlooms, though some-times mentioned as logistically important. As sucha strong symbol of Amish identity, these items,perhaps with greater family affluence, might be-come objects to be restored or kept aside for rareoccasions, much like special dishes and quilts.

We look next at the relative paucity of re-sponses regarding religious objects and ask whythis finding emerged from the interviews. As thisinvestigation of Amish possessions is believed tobe the first of its kind, no basis for comparisonexists. It may be that the expansion of materialculture and consumption has drawn Amish atten-tion away from religion; or, on the other hand,that the shift toward greater worldliness is theresult of an already existing decrease in traditionalideology. However, this researcher believes thatAmish religiosity has not markedly shifted, cer-tainly not from the core tenets—a position sharedwith other Amish researchers (Meyers, personalcommunication). Amish life, because of its inabil-ity to exist in isolation (partially due to economiccircumstances), has become increasingly entan-gled with the non-Amish world. As such, worldlyexposure and temptation are now more prevalentand more difficult to fend off than previously,especially given the growing economic depend-ence on the tourist industry and factory employ-ment. While this last observation addressesmaterial expansion, the expectation for greaterreligious expression in their most valued objectsmight be understood as due to the stalwart Amishorientation toward family and community.

While the Amish are certainly a religious com-munity with strong behavioral prescriptions andproscriptions mandated by the church, the eth-nographic evidence suggests that the Amish in thisinvestigation were not most immediately con-cerned with the religiousness of consumptive

practice. One of the conclusions of the larger re-search project from which this study draws(Tharp) is that the Amish consumptive rationaleis predominantly Ordnung based rather than re-ligiously based. There is the sense that if thechurch allows something then it must be an ac-ceptable practice, or that as long as one is not inspecific violation of the Ordnung, then membersare acting righteously (or not acting unrighteous-ly). The Ordnung, while an absolutely critical as-pect of their culture, is not comprehensive;understandably it cannot explicate all the artifacts(categories, qualities, and quantities) and con-sumptive contexts within which Amish might findthemselves.

The looser or ‘‘lower,’’ Ordnung-based con-sumptive rationale allows individuals to avoidconfronting many of the constant and challengingconsumptive issues that are conceivably present intheir lives. If Biblical teachings warn against con-sumption of ‘‘luxuries and conveniences,’’ and onewas truly concerned with avoiding them, the eth-ical decisions demanded throughout the daywould be daunting. Should one light the kero-sene lamp while making breakfast when it mightpossibly be accomplished without? Should oneadd pepper to the scrambled eggs to improve thetaste and, if so, how much? Should one use anapkin while eating the eggs? A plate? Should oneeat sitting at a table? How simple a table andchair? The moral conundrums alleviated by anOrdnung-based rationale are many and allowengagement with a world that might otherwisebe debilitating.

Looking next at the Amish interviewees whoparticipated in this study, we find that they do notcomprise a random sample of the Amish com-munity as a ‘‘snowballing’’ method was largelyused to recruit them. In particular, as we have seenearlier (in the research method section of this art-icle), the selection process began with one familyand then extended outward through their socialnetworks. In addition, by offering taxi services tothe community, the researcher incorporated othersocial networks into the study.

How, one might ask, did these selection tech-niques affect the survey responses, especially


those relating to the consumption of religiousarticles? With regard to the ‘‘taxi recruits,’’ itcould be claimed that those who choose to ride insuch public vehicles are progressively (or lessreligiously) minded and therefore less apt tomention religious items as most treasured orimportant. While this claim cannot be categorical-ly refuted, it is believed that the interview respon-ses are generally representative of this moderatecommunity. It is further believed that these re-sponses would also be quite similar to those of theNew Order and maybe the Andy Weaver Amish,but it is possible that the most conservativeSwartzentruber Amish might offer more explicit-ly religious responses in line with traditional per-ceptions of Amishness. Certainly, additionalresearch with other sampling techniques wouldhelp to elucidate Amish religiousness, but oneshould not underestimate the challenges of prob-ing such personal issues by non-Amish research-ers. Further, understanding of religious expressionthrough material culture and consumption wouldbenefit greatly from additional empirical investi-gations including both local and trans-local re-search studies.

Concluding Comments

While casual observers of the Amish have beenforetelling the dissolution of Amish society fordecades, it should be emphasized that Amish cul-ture, like all culture, is in constant flux. Whilethis might surprise the romantic American im-agination, the Amish condition is marked by aconstant struggle to remain separate from world-liness, while regularly accepting compromise:‘‘Oh, there are some things you gonna have tochange with. The world keeps moving; you haveto make some changes.’’ The Amish even codifythe change in their culture as ‘‘drift’’—the move-ment toward greater worldliness. In the words ofan Amish mother of seven:

It kinda changes as it goes. I mean lookingback at the pioneers—they didn’t have running

water or bathrooms in the house. That was aluxury, now it’s a need. You would be livin’ ina barn [today] . . . Some [necessary] things nowwere luxuries fifty years ago.

For the Elkhart-LaGrange Amish as well asthe Amish in other communities, it seems likelythat the expressions of Amishness will endureeven in their expanding realm of material cultureand consumption; and it is also expected that theboundaries of ‘‘traditional’’ will continue to shift,as they have over the last three centuries.

Notes

1. There are several types of Amish, e.g., Swartzentruber,Nebraska, Old Order, New Order, and Andy Weaver. Old OrderAmish are the mainstream of these conservative Anabaptist groups;Nebraska and Swartzentruber Amish are often considered ‘‘ultra-conservative’’ while the New Order Amish are generally consideredthe most progressive. All share the same basic religious foundationsand many cultural practices such as traveling by horse and buggy(though not exclusively); eschewing electricity from the public utilitygrid; using horses for field work; home worship services; and theexpectation of married males to wear beards and females to wear ahead covering.

2. This investigation focuses on socially acceptable possessions.The larger investigation from which this paper is derived (Tharp)addresses individual expression and forms of self-indulgence throughmarginal goods. Use of forbidden goods (e.g., a small battery-operated radio) was witnessed, though very rarely. More common,but still rare, are items like cigarettes and battery-operated, sonar fishfinders, which are normally kept from public view. However, per-missible products in full public view are also commonly used tocommunicate progressive/conservative postures. For example,household curtains that are vibrantly colored or have elaborate, dec-orative stitching or ‘‘frills’’ demonstrate a family’s marginal stance orsome sense of resistance. The greatest instances of Amish using con-sumer goods as means of resistance (Ozanne, Hill, and Wright;Schouten and McAlexander) is with Amish adolescents during theirRumspringa, or ‘‘running around’’ years. However, examination ofsuch adolescent consumption was not incorporated into this studybecause these youth have not committed through baptismal oath tochurch membership, and as such are not considered to be fullyAmish.

3. Meyers and Nolt note: ‘‘a handful of Amish men worked inindustry as early as the 1920s’’ (114).

4. Before formal interviews, informants were made aware of therationale and specifics of the research project as mandated andapproved by the human subjects Institutional Review Board at TheUniversity of Chicago. Informants were all offered a copy of thedissertation and the opportunity to discuss the findings. It will beprovided to the one informant who expressed an interest, though it isexpected that she will subsequently make the copy available to otherscurious about the project. Additionally when offering rides I wouldinitially state that I was a student who was researching the Amish,though many already knew of my existence within the community


through my pre-fieldwork spent as an apprentice in a local buggy-making shop—‘‘Oh, so you’re the college boy who was workin’ overat Henry’s that summer.’’

5. Wedding floats (sometimes ‘‘wedding boats’’) are usuallywooden memorabilia objects that hold (dried) flowers and are paint-ed with the names of the bride and the groom as well as the matri-mony date.

6. Religion aside, the Amish stress and receive a more practicaland less abstract education in Amish schools, which emphasizereading, writing and arithmetic. Further, Amish are only educated upto the eighth grade. Discussing more abstract issues such as nonfig-urative art proved quite difficult for myself as well as other Amishresearchers (Meyers, personal communication).

7. During fieldwork, respondents mentioned that it is becomingmore common to purchase shirts at stores, so long as there is nopattern and the colors are traditional. One woman mentioned thatshe often would shop at flea markets and a nearby Goodwill store,purchasing non-Amish shirts and then taking off the breast pocketsso they would be acceptable. One Amish man mentioned that it waseasier in the past to purchase their unique, male pants (with thefront-covering flap) from Amish stores but now they seem to be lessavailable.

8. The tractor may be used in the barn as a source of power,which this man indicated that he had used on rare occasions to run agrinding wheel. Also, it is permissible to be used around the farm forother non-plowing/tilling/harvesting chores, and in most communi-ties they must have steel wheels or hard rubber treads rather thanpneumatic rubber tires.

9. Factory workers often commented on the stress experiencedwhile working at a fast-paced assembly line (Cf. Meyers, ‘‘Stress andthe Amish Community’’). For these Amish in particular, it is believedthat recliners and beds might offer a sense of escape as well as a senseof reward.

10. Items such as refrigerators and ovens, while powered byliquid propane are still considered traditional objects in that as acategory they have long existed in Amish material culture. Before theshift to propane they were powered by kerosene. Earlier, refriger-ators were iceboxes and stoves were wood burning. The ‘‘V-bottom’’boat mentioned as a most-comforting possession may also be con-sidered traditional in that despite being made of aluminum, as acategory, boats have long been part of Amish material culture. So toowith the recliners mentioned as most comforting—upholsteredlounge chairs and ottomans, as well as the rocking chairs with pad-ding that are predecessors of the recliner.

Works Cited

Amish Country: Northern Indiana. Elkhart: Elkhart County Con-vention and Visitors Bureau, 2002.

Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: U of Chicago P,1958.

Belk, Russell W. ‘‘Possessions and the Extended Self.’’ Journal ofConsumer Research 15 (1988): 139-68.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, and Eugene Rochberg-Halton. TheMeaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. New York:Cambridge UP, 1981.

Dittmar, Helga. The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: ToHave is To Be. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.

Douglas, Mary. Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London:Routledge, 1992.

Douglas, Mary, and Brian Isherwood. The World of Goods: Towardsan Anthropology of Consumption. New York: Routledge,1996.

Grayson, Kent, and David Shulman. ‘‘Indexicality and the Verifica-tion Function of Irreplaceable Possessions: A Semiotic Analysis.’’Journal of Consumer Research 27 (2000): 17-30.

Hill, Ronald P. ‘‘Homeless Women, Special Possessions, and theMeaning of ‘Home’: An Ethnographic Case Study.’’ Journal ofConsumer Research 18 (1991): 298-310.

Hill, Ronald P., and Mark Stamey. ‘‘The Homeless in America:An Examination of Possessions and Consumption Behaviors.’’Journal of Consumer Research 17 (1990): 303-21.

Hostetler, John A. Amish Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP,1993.

Kamptner, N. Laura. ‘‘Personal Possessions and Their Meanings:A Life-Span Perspective.’’ Rudmin 209-28.

Kraybill, Donald B. The Riddle of Amish Culture. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins UP, 2001.

Kraybill, Donald B., and Marc A. Olshan, eds. The Amish Strugglewith Modernity. Hanover, New Hampshire: UP of New England,1994.

Kraybill, Donald B., and Steven M. Nolt. Amish Enterprise: FromPlows to Profits. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1995.

Livingstone, Sonia M., and Peter K. Lunt. ‘‘Generational and LifeCycle Differences in Experiences of Ownership.’’ Rudmin229-42.

Luthy, David. ‘‘Amish Settlements Across America: 2003.’’ FamilyLife (Oct. 2003): 17-23.

Mehta, Raj, and Russell W. Belk. ‘‘Artifacts, Identity, and Tran-sition: Favorite Possessions of Indians and Indian Immigrantsto the United States.’’ Journal of Consumer Research 17 (1991):398-411.

Meyers, Thomas J. ‘‘Lunch Pails and Factories.’’ Kraybill and Olshan165-81.

———. ‘‘Stress and the Amish Community in Transition.’’ Diss.Boston University, 1983

———. Personal communication. 2002.

Meyers, Thomas J., and Steven M. Nolt. An Amish Patchwork:Indiana’s Old Orders in the Modern World. Bloomington:Indiana UP, 2005.

Miller, Daniel. Acknowledging Consumption. London: Routledge,1995.

———. A Theory of Shopping. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1998.

Olshan, Marc A. ‘‘What Good are the Amish?’’ Kraybill and Olshan231-42.

Ozanne, Julie L., Ronald P. Hill, and Newell D. Wright.‘‘Juvenile Delinquents’ Use of Consumption as Cultural Resist-ance: Implications for Juvenile Reform Programs and PublicPolicy.’’ Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 17.2 (1998):185-96.

Price, Linda L., Eric J. Arnould, and Carolyn Folkman Curasi.‘‘Older Consumers’ Disposition of Special Possessions.’’ Journalof Consumer Research 27 (2000): 179-201.

Richins, Marsha L. ‘‘Special Possessions and the Expression ofMaterial Values.’’ Journal of Consumer Research 21 (1994a):522-33.


———. ‘‘Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of Posses-sions.’’ Journal of Consumer Research 21 (1994b): 504-21.

Rudmin, Floyd W., ed. To Have Possessions: A Handbook on Own-ership and Property. California: Select Press, 1991.

Sahlins, Marshall. Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago, 1976.

Schouten, John W., and James McAlexander. ‘‘Subcultures of Con-sumption: An Ethnography of New Bikers.’’ Journal of Con-sumer Research 22 (1995): 43-61.

Schultz, Susan E., Robert E. Kleine, and Jerome B. Kernan. ‘‘‘Theseare a Few of My Favorite Things’: Toward an Explication of

Attachment as a Consumer Behavior Construct.’’ Advances inConsumer Research 16 (1989): 359-66.

Tharp, Bruce M., ‘‘Ascetical Value: Consumption and the Materialityof Spirituality among Indiana’s Old Order Amish.’’ Diss.University of Chicago, 2006.

Wallendorf, Melanie, and Eric J. Arnould. ‘‘My Favorite Things: ACross-Cultural Inquiry into Object Attachment, Possessivenessand Social Linkage.’’ Journal of Consumer Research 14 (1988):531-47.

Weaver-Zercher, David. The Amish in the American Imagination.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2001.


valued amish possessions: expanding material culture and consumption

Documents