The Undistinguished Scholar of the Amish, Werner Enninger, -or- Has the Time Yet Come for Rigorous Theory in Amish Studies? Cory Anderson1 Visiting Assistant Professor of Sociology and Geography Department of Society & Environment Truman State University Abstract Werner Enninger embodies the highest standards of methodological rigor and theoretical insight in Amish studies, and this article synthesizes his 30-some publications written in English. Enninger was a socio-linguist from Germany who conducted field research in Delaware in the 1970s and published intensely in the 1980s. His mixed methods address common hurdles field researchers face and offer meticulously detailed qualitative and quantitative data. Enninger’s theory can be organized around a social system model that fuses structural functionalism and symbolic interactionism. Within the model, he proposes a four-part superstructure—(1) core, group-defining values, namely, religious community and separation, (2) are realized in concrete norms in timeless (e.g. New Testament) and time-specific (e.g. Ordnung) ways (3) that are internalized, (4) producing an orderly role system. The role system is accessible to system actors, who assume roles through identifiable symbols (role attributes), notably, dress configurations. Mutual identification of alter distributes role privileges in the ensuing interaction and triggers language choice. The enactment of roles defines the social situation. Social situations of central importance to the brotherhood have fixed roles that are assumed and ascribed, with strong sanctions for deviance. Peripheral social situations permit greater role making, where roles are negotiated, ascribed statuses are reduced, and social sanctions are fewer. Peripheral social situations are the primary source for social change. Enninger’s work is not for the faint-of-mind or impatient, yet provides a much-needed source of inspiration to strengthen future Amish studies research, theoretically and methodologically. Keywords Ethnography of communication; Grooming and garment patterns; Dress; Pennsylvania German; Amish education; Amish ritual; Ascribed status; Role theory; Semiotics; Sociolinuistics; Structural functionalism; Symbolic interactionism; Superstructure; University of Essen; Karl- Heinz Wandt; Joachim Raith; Dover, Deleware, Amish Acknowledgement Gratitude is expressed to Erik Deetz, a spring 2017 Truman State University research assistant, who reproduced Werner Enninger’s original figures for this article. Anderson, Cory. 2017. “The Undistinguished Scholar of the Amish, Werner Enninger, -or- Has the Time Yet Come for Rigorous Theory in Amish Studies?” Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies 5(2):196-238. Anderson: Werner Enninger 197 Introduction Ask a contemporary scholar of the Amish what his take is on Werner Enninger’s work— or even a passing summary as to Enninger’s contributions—and you are likely to get the response, “Who’s that?” if not just a blank stare. (I know, for I have tried many times.) The scholars passing through Amish studies are many, and few have contributed sustained research, let alone become in-house names. So, then, who is Werner Enninger to even ask? Shortly put, the University of Essen’s late emeritus professor Werner Enninger (1931- 2016) was one of the most prolific, most rigorously methodological, and most theoretically meticulous scholars to undertake sustained study of the Amish. Between 1979 and 1994—the height of his productivity—he published no fewer than 30 Amish-themed peer reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and academic books in English—and that is to say nothing of his many Amish-themed German-language publications and conference papers, plus his beyond-Amish- studies theory publications built from his Amish research, plus his editorship of seven volumes during this span, and, plus, several publications after 1994, including Amish studies’ only recent annotated bibliography (Enninger 2002). Werner Enninger’s research was multifaceted, yet remarkably without sacrificing empirical and theoretical rigor, as has been the familiar cost with the frequent generalist approaches to Amish research. The two topics over which he most concertedly mused were Amish language and Amish dress (as a nonverbal communication system), fitting given his intellectual residency in socio-linguistics and semiotics. However, other writings evidence inter- disciplinary inclinations toward cultural anthropology, interactionist sociology, and literature. He further wrote about Amish understandings of time and ethnicity, the social dynamics of the Amish school, ethics in participant observation, Amish and modernity prior to the theory’s popularity in Amish studies, and the rituals of the church service. For all of his thoughtful contributions, Enninger’s influence on Amish studies—set alongside the big rigs—must be placed on a kitchen scale to measure its significance. Not only are citations to his work nearly zero, but the multi-topic tomes Amish scholars cite with habit— Amish Society [4th ed.], Riddle of Amish Culture, The Amish, and Amish Paradox—each refer to no more than four of his authored works (four, one, one, and zero, respectively) amidst a sea of other citations. When they do cite Enninger, they make no mention of his theoretical insights, findings, or methods, not even in areas where his contributions are most profound: clothing, language, and social system functionality. Scholars of linguistics demonstrate only a slightly greater awareness of Enninger’s ideas. Steven Keiser and Mark Louden, who have both recently published substantial capstone works about Pennsylvania Dutch among the plain people (Keiser 2012; Louden 2016), make very little reference to Enninger’s 20-some pieces in English (and probably that many if not more written in German). 198 Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies 5(2) Certainly, many scholars across history have been forgotten without damage to a field’s progress. In this article, I argue that forgetting Enninger is a tragedy, a miscarriage of the Amish studies Meidung—and has been a tragedy for the past two decades. It is time Enninger be given an honorary chair among us. Though not without flaws, his work is a model for the kind of scholarly activity we ought to engage in as we investigate that ethno-religious social phenomenon we call “Amish.” For future generations of Amish and plain Anabaptist scholars, he should be a prime role model. My reasons for advocating Enninger are four-fold. First, Enninger took others’ propositions and subjected them to scientific scrutiny, overturning (or at least questioning) prevailing conclusions. Putting it succinctly, he debated, something Amish studies has rarely done. Either we are too nice to debate or too mean to let others publish alternatives—certainly alternatives exist. Second, Enninger addressed topics of general scholarly interest, cumulatively building on others’ work by pushing beyond superficial generalizations to more nuanced conclusions (and inconclusions). Third, Enninger’s research was unquestionably theory-driven; he labored to introduce broader theoretical concepts, then applied them to the Amish case. Out of his research, he contributed back to broader theory. Fourth, Enninger’s qualitative analysis was self-scrutinizing, ethical, and surprisingly replicable, raising the bar for qualitative study among the Amish, which has too long either consisted of anecdotes falsely labeled participant observation / ethnography or has been at the mercy of the key informant approach. Enninger’s qualitative methods are systematic and value-neutral. After reading Enninger, the reader is left with a refreshing confidence that his conclusions were derived from data developed in ways transcending investigator preconceptions. My fear in summarizing Enninger’s work is in doing it an injustice in both not capturing the delightful specificity of his writing (some call it “wordy” though I would call it judiciously worded and free from cliché) and in not summarizing with sufficient comprehension the fullness of his theory. His work will be addressed first methodologically, then theoretically, demonstrating along the way how he models an ideal Amish studies scholar in his (1) engagement with theory, at both macro and micro levels, (2) willingness to debate and overturn false conclusions with data, (3) advancement of past research to more nuanced conclusions, and (4) methodological rigor. One important note I wish to add: I often speak of “Enninger” when at times Enninger has co-authors, such as his mentees and collaborators Joachim Raith and Karl- Heinz Wandt. I do not wish to detract from others’ contributions, yet am here focusing on Enninger as lead scholar and his ideas as a cohesive body across publications. The Life of Werner Enninger Although the goal of this article is to introduce Enninger the scholar and not Enninger the man, a brief biography is fitting. Werner Enninger was born in 1931 in Germany, just young enough to be spared an otherwise most-certain drafting into the National Socialist military during the 1940s. Coming of age in West Germany in the 1950s, he studied English and sports, then Anderson: Werner Enninger 199 taught in a high school. In 1968, he received his Ph.D., and in the 1970s, was called to Essen to help establish a new English department during a West German surge in higher education. At the University of Essen, Enninger drew many doctoral students into research, notably Joachim Raith and Karl-Heinz Wandt, with whom he frequently collaborated (Dow and Wolff 1997, 1-2). In the 1970s, Enninger received support from five organizations to conduct an extensive study of the Amish in Dover, DE. The organizations included the Deutsche Forschungs- gemeinschaft, the Minister für Wissenschaft und Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, the University of Delaware, the University of Essen Gesamthochschule, and the John F. Kennedy Institute at Berlin. With these grants, he coordinated a 35-member Essen-Delaware Amish Project Team (EDAPT), which included eight faculty members (including himself) and 27 students involved at one time or another (Enninger and Essen-Delaware Amish Project Team 1985, 23). The main research period spanned from 1974 to 1978, with the most intensive data- gathering occurring over eight months from mid-1977 to early 1978 (Enninger 1980b, p. 349; 1982, 87; 1984d, 67). His time in Delaware was facilitated by an adjunct appointment at the University of Delaware. Meanwhile, his closest collaborators—Raith and Wandt—took forays into Lancaster County, PA, where they expanded (Raith 1980; Wandt 1988) Enninger’s Delaware project. In the 1990s, James Dow of Iowa State University, whose work rubbed shoulders with Enninger’s—e.g. Dow (1986; 1988)—brought Enninger to the Midwest, where several major Midwestern universities jointly hosted Enninger as an International Scholar in Residence in the mid-1990s (Dow and Wolff 1997, 2). Figure 1: Werner Enninger and University of Essen Colleague Michèle Wolff Inside cover of the January 1997 Pennsylvania Mennonite Heritage, Vol. 20, Issue 1. Used with permission. Through the 1980s and into his Midwest scholar-in-residence position, Enninger co- edited what may have been the closest thing to a pre-JAPAS academic journal for Amish and plain Anabaptist studies: the Internal and External Perspectives on Amish and Mennonite Life series, which contained four volumes released in 1984, 1986, 1988, and 1994, with roughly ten 200 Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies 5(2) empirical articles each. The volumes were compiled from small conferences. Enninger edited the first volume alone (1984), co-edited the second and third with Raith and Wandt (1986; 1988), and co-edited the fourth with Dow and Raith (1994). Among Amish studies’ more familiar names in this multi-disciplinary series are—alphabetically—Hostetler, Huntington, Luthy, Meyers, and Olshan, plus a few peculiar but delightful pieces including then-Beachy Amish-Mennonite convert Fritz Plancke’s work on plain dress, Henry Troyer’s foretelling work on occupational changes in Holmes County, Annamaria Geiger’s communicative contrasts of Old Order and evangelical religious expression, and Anna Francis Wenger’s elucidation of Amish health care practices. The volumes are unfortunately under-cited, perhaps due to the small print run and their consequent rarity. Enninger also helped compile a volume of technical language studies (Burridge and Enninger 1992), which included works both of his closest colleagues (e.g. Raith and Wolff) and of other emerging and established scholars of Pennsylvania Dutch (e.g. Moelleken, Louden, Huffines, and Van Ness). Enninger retired in 1997. The Methodology of Werner Enninger Werner Enninger’s science is precedent-setting. His largely qualitative methodology is satisfyingly empirical, due largely to its surprising replicability and its logical justification. How does he manage this feat? The bane of Amish studies has long been that Amish shy from the nagging inquiries of formal researchers, especially surveys that treat collectively conferring cultures as if atomized opinions. Enninger attempted surveys in a pilot study, and the Amish reaction only “confirmed the well-documented reticence of the members of this religious group to cooperate with outsiders […] which led to the conclusion that ‘statistical’ correlations could neither be based on a random nor a judgment sample” (Enninger and Wandt 1979, p. 53). Faced with the obstacle of Amish reticence to be studied, Enninger turned to less invasive mixed methods, a tactic-of-necessity that not only provided data more convincing than survey data but also greatly broadened his scope of evidence. Among Enninger’s methodological strategies were participant observation and ethnography; content analysis of Amish publications; language interviews; and informal, unstructured interviews, among other strategies. The focus of Enninger’s methodology is in sign systems, the window to any culture. Enninger reasons that culture—as an imperceptible phenomenon—nonetheless demands signification, for culture is shared, and to share is to communicate: If [cultural] knowledge were only stored in the brain of autonomous individuals and neither fixed in sign-repertoires nor signitively mediated in interaction, it could be neither shared cultural knowledge, nor could it become effective in interaction, nor could it be reconstructed by a culture-external analyst […] social reality is objectified in sign-systems and re-subjectified in text-encoding and text-decoding processes. (Enninger 1986c, p. 116) Sign-systems, then, are a logical focal point in understanding Amish culture, and Enninger’s multiple methodological strategies pull together a smorgasbord of evidence. Anderson: Werner Enninger 201 Enninger’s data includes oral language, written language (ethnic texts) including typographical repertoires (e.g. Gothic font), song transcription, clothing articles, cultural artifacts like building architecture and transportation vessels, body motions (especially ritual motions), and even silence itself (Enninger 1985), or absence of cultural themes prevalent elsewhere. Within Enninger’s publications, a reader will encounter flow charts, tables cataloging social action, musical staffs with notation, lists of linguistic information, rich ethnographic descriptions, population pyramids, graphs of role distributions, tables of role-specific language skills and varieties in use, settlement and regional maps, drawings of cultural artifacts, and theoretical models—combinations of these and other data presentations are more often than not paired in single pieces. Frankly, the sheer amount of replicable data is overwhelming but welcome. Of all methods employed, Enninger gives the most attention to explaining participant observation. With few examples of strong methodological reflection treating data collection among the Amish, Enninger’s effort to detail his strategies is needed. An article by Enninger and Wandt (1983) reflecting on ethnographic methodology identifies three methodological challenges particular to the Amish. The first concerns community access and data collection, a familiar challenge to would- be researchers of the Amish. Participant observation is inherently difficult due to the closed Amish networks (few access points), no coincidence given the core value of separation and an oft-repeated narrative of a martyrdom past. Outsiders must build trust slowly. Enninger writes: The progression from the undisguised suspicion of being a 'spy' to an invitation to church (‘If you do not want to preach’), to the status of a trustworthy linguistic field worker took months; and ninety percent of the more valuable data were collected in the last of eight months spread out over four years. (Enninger 1982, 118) Even once networks are penetrated, two problems exist. First, the standard tools of field researchers—voice recording devices, cameras, and video recorders, perhaps also portable computers in recent years—are almost certain to raise the Amishman’s cautiousness if not complete withdrawal. Enninger’s list of problematic research tools and protocols is hardly complete. For example, Adkins (2011) later identified technical bureaucratic jargon common in IRB informed consent forms and surveys as similarly alienating. All of this suggests that, even more than some reticence against technology, the typical Amishman is hesitant to “go on record”—be it his voice captured word-for-word, his image presented in a photograph, or his contribution to any activity involving the government-like bureaucratic jargon of a big university—for, who is he to solely represent the unified voice of the community to the world? Enninger suggests that pencil-and-paper note-taking is the least intrusive mode of data collection, even though it presents limits to transcript analysis. “In this culture,” he concludes, “the choice the field worker has is to work on the basis of the obtainable data, or to gain no insight at all” (Enninger 1987b, pp. 149-150). 202 Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies 5(2) With tools in hand and community access opened, the researcher must still be able to observe natural social events unimpeded by the researcher’s presence. Inconspicuous observation is difficult because few natural roles exist for outsiders, and to take the role of “researcher” may produce unnatural situations. Enninger recommends resolving this dilemma by taking one of a few natural outsider roles, including taxi driver, customer, or expert in something they have interest in (e.g. German language and culture, in Enninger’s case). With the increasingly pervious Amish networks today, more roles could no doubt be added to this list, as illustrated with Denise Reiling’s (2002) role as mental health expert in the midst of a counseling conflict or Natalie Jolly’s (2014; 2017) as assistant to a midwife—or, looking back to Kollmorgen’s Great Depression-era field researchers, Charles Loomis’s role as a farmhand (Loomis 1979). The ultimate goal is not to hide one’s role as researcher but hope that the researcher role can recede and the natural role move to the fore. Enninger observes some closed social institutions provide basically no opportunity for the outsider to take on a natural role—notably the school setting (Enninger 1987b)—an observation substantiated by Andrea Fishman’s (1988) experience: her school observations were suddenly cut off when her informant told her some parents felt it was enough and that it was creating discomfort. A final data-collection hurdle is apart from the research subject. As with other long-term participant observation studies, the investigator may find funding and approval difficult to obtain due to the vagueness of measures, hypotheses to be verified or falsified, and instruments. Furthermore, only fuzzy hopes can be offered as to when quality ethnographic data will be obtained. All-in-all, such open-ended studies have difficulty garnering enthusiastic support. A second difficulty of Amish research according to Enninger is psychological in nature. In particular, it is the researcher’s superimposition of personal biases and frames of reference on research and interaction, as with the treatment of the Amish as anything from people who maintain quaint customs of the past to secretive, patriarchal child molesters, or in some other way “exotic, bizarre, or even irrational” (p. 34)—or, contrariwise, a rationalized, living moralistic lesson. Such simplistic frames show up not only in mass media, but too often in scholarship as well. In his Dover study, two researchers lived on an Amish farm while a third commuted daily. A third party reviewed the field notes of these researchers and suggested that the two live-ins faced high initial interactional frustration, but observational sensitivity increased alongside growing interactional competence, moving from guests to quasi-family members. Meanwhile, the commuting researcher—daily living in two worlds—expressed interactional irritation throughout the study. Beyond the suggestion that immersion permits greater empathy and understanding, Enninger leaves the larger question of pre-existing frameworks open-ended, a question for future researchers to explore further. The third difficulty of Amish research pertains to ethics. The researcher’s total immersion in participant observation raises interesting questions: what does the researcher do with information that could harm the subject? Being a quasi-member of the community, Amish may confide with the researcher (e.g. grievances or negative sanctions), secrets he would not share Anderson: Werner Enninger 203 with his own people. Does the researcher honor the trust granted his quasi-membership, or does he have an obligation to report all observations to the scientific community? Enninger asserts a definitive answer: while sensitive information may be included in field notes, data analysis must not only convert raw data to valid data but also filter data. After all, the researcher can only justify his invasion into the private, sensitive realm of a semi-secluded people as his research contributes positively to the community. Enninger gives the example of how he tried at every opportunity to convince the Amish that their Dutch is not impure but is adapting and surviving. This subject of research ethics is sticky—especially when incriminating information is discovered—but remains relevant for today. Voelz (2016) recently touched on such ethics for ex- Amish memoirists: is it an ethical violation for authors to move beyond re-telling their own experiences and surmise or reveal incriminating third-party details? Reiling and Nusbaumer (1997) tell of an interesting case where the Amish of Northern Indiana acquiesced to locals framing their youth as having a “drug problem,” but when the framing became too invasive, the Amish resisted this label. Much more could be written about Enninger’s methodology—in particular his linguistic research—but this suffices as the necessary introduction to understanding how he developed his theory of the Amish, to which we now turn. Werner Enninger’s Theory of the Amish While Enninger dabbles with symbolic interactionism, he is foremost a structural functionalist in his Amish research. In that fact alone, he differs little from the implicitly assumed theoretical moorings of the bulk of Amish scholars. Yet, Enninger’s functionalism restores hope for the explanative power of a theory that is often reduced to, “What you see exists because it serves a function, and the function is…,” with a set of explanations as to “why” that satisfies the acceptable logic of an outsider (etic perspective) (Billig and Zook 2017). Instead, Enninger’s task is to explain the emic (insider’s logic) perspective—why the social system exists, how it reproduces itself, what latent functions exist, and how the social system adapts to social change. While he feels obligated to honor Amish trust by not disclosing incriminating data, he does not in turn valorize the Amish, moralizing the social system with lessons for non-Amish readers. His functionalism is value-free. He thus stands in the Charles Loomis (1960) tradition (Donnermeyer 2017) and skirts Marc Olshan’s (1981) then-current rational choice alternative, for Enninger appears unconvinced that the Amish are so self-consciously rational, not that they do not rationalize, but that it has taken on a routinized, predictable form that in itself is properly latent. The moorings of over a decade of field research, analysis, theorizing, and publishing can be found in a piece released the first year—1979—of his Dover, DE, study publishing streak. In “Social Roles and Language Choice in an Old Order Amish Community” published in Sociologia Internationalis (Enninger and Wandt 1979)—a journal whose editor was also at the University of Essen—Enninger poses a question out of his interest in the Amish as trilingual: for 204 Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies 5(2) the three language varieties at Amish disposal, in what situations do they use which language? Enninger briefly visits the only prior work about Amish language choice: Frey’s (1945) “Amish Triple Talk.” He agrees with Frey, that language choice is situational, although his field research does not agree with Frey’s evasive suggestion that “occasion” (e.g. school, the home, or the church service) determines language selection. In field research, Enninger noted inconsistencies in language selection if “occasion” or “place” was the definer, even situations where the language ultimately used was not clear during an interaction’s opening. He suggests an alternative, that roles determine language selection. This begs a two-part question: how do Amishmen determine roles, and how much role clarity / agreement actually exists? The Amish literature yielded no theory to answer his questions, so he turns to broader theory to apply to the Amish case. The end result not only addresses language use and roles but is a total theory of the Amish social action system, addressing both macro and micro social structures and the changes of both, exploring grooming and garment practices, buggy styles, literature, conceptions of time, social institutions, ritual and music, and other topics. Twice he presents the theory diagram of Figure 2, first in his “Social Roles and Language Choice…” article referenced above (Enninger and Wandt 1979, p. 58) and then again in his short book about the Amish church service (Enninger and Raith 1982, p. 88). Although nearly all of his research can be couched in this theory, he seems somewhat reticent about reintroducing its tenets in most publications, preferring to manage a topic at hand in itself. Furthermore, he seems restless with exactly how all the pieces fit together, hence some modifications between 1979 and 1982, as well as a competing (simplified) alternative model that also incorporates changes through time (introduced later). The over-arching theory represented in Figure 2 is the only comprehensive theory he provided, and, despite its limitations, will be used here to organize his findings. The Superstructure (“Überbau”) Stepping back from the question of roles, Enninger first conceptualizes the superstructure that is the justification for the Amish’s existence. The superstructure contains four levels: the centrality of values, forms of behavior (making values concrete), social control (implementing these behaviors), and the role system (the repertoire of roles possible under these internalized values). Centrality of Values (Level “b”3 in Figure 2) The superstructure begins with values, that is, the Amish only exist because they, like other cultures, make sense of society through certain guiding values. Ultimately, values stabilize and reproduce the system. While other publications often present some cherry-picked Amish values in a throw-away introduction, Enninger selectively presents the values of most immediate consequence to their social system and contextualizes them in his theory. Anderson: Werner Enninger 205 Figure 2: Enninger’s Theory of the Amish Social-Sign System