FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2158998312> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2158998312 endingPage "616" @default.
• W2158998312 startingPage "603" @default.
• W2158998312 abstract "The founding of Old Order Amnish Steering Committee provides an unusual opportunity to identify environmental factors that may pressure collectivities to fonnally organize. Arnish communities, despite a nornative stance antithetical to central authority and hierarchy, felt compelled to create a national as best means of effectively articulating their views to a proliferating array of government bureaucracies. The Amish's perceived need to create Steering Commtittee makes clear that legal may be coercive independent of substantive character of particular laws. The mere pervasiveness of government standards, codes, regulations, and programs forces collectivities subject to them to adopt bureaucratic structures. The Steering Committee's evolution confirms pervasiveness and decisiveness of legal infrastructure, features only sporadically appreciated in organizational literature. The genesis of an creates special opportunities for social scientist, particularly when in question emerges de novo from a relatively undifferentiated congeries of rural communities. Such milieus are rapidly disappearing into realm of history. If bureaucratization of world is not complete, it has at least left few unrationalized enclaves. Consequently, appearance in 1966 of an embryonic bureaucracy known as Old Order Amish Steering Committee merits examination, providing an unusual opportunity to identify, in a contemporary setting, environmental factors militating for initial adoption of organizational structure. A study of evolution of Steering Committee also confirms pervasive character of legal infrastructure and its decisive role both in initiating bureaucratization and shaping structure and process of existing organizations. Laws, regulatory groups, and political systems were identified as discrete elements of organizational environments even by early proponents of what Aldrich and Marsden (1988:375) refer to as environmental contingency theory (see, e.g., Schein 1965:89; Stinchcombe 1965:142; Thompson 1967:28). But it was another ten years before organizational theorists began a systematic explication *My sincere thanks to staff of Herrick Memorial Library and to Dean Chris Grontkowski for her suipport. Direct correspondence to Marc A. Olshan at thle Division of Social Science, Alfred University, Alfred, NY 14802. ? The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, December 1990, 69(2):603-616 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.17 on Fri, 02 Sep 2016 06:08:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 604 / Social Forces 69:2, December 1990 of impact of these elements. More recently legal has been presented as being of paramount importance in relation to other environmental sectors: Indeed, state must be major force affecting organizational formation in twentieth centuly (Aldrich 1979:164; emphasis in original). Perrow has come to see that the power of state to regulate and disburse entitlements is probably single most important means of controlling an environment (1986:190). Study of Steering Committee helps reveal one facet of legal environment's primacy that has not been adequately appreciated. Its potency what might plausibly be called its coerciveness does not derive solely from its being backed by power of state. Nor does it depend on substantive character of specific laws, i.e., that they may be unfair, oppressive, and intrusive. It derives rather from pervasiveness of legal infrastructure. Laws may be coercive in that they force collectivities that are subject to them to adopt bureaucratic structures iff they are to survive, a consequence that is as unintentional as it is universal. The evolution of Steering Committee provides a telling confirmation of this pressure to bureaucratize not only because of its recency (and hence its accessibility to research) but also because Amish' communities share a normative stance distinctly antithetical to organization. Amish Antipathy to Organization The Old Order Amish stand out on American cultural landscape like human outcroppings of especially unyielding material. One highly significant but seldom emphasized expression of their uniqueness is their rejection of organization. In a world where organizations have become necessarily ubiquitous, Amish have been perhaps most unique in their ability to survive well into twentieth century without employing degree of routinely assumed to be a prerequisite for survival.2 As with their rejection of certain types of technology (Olshan 1981), their rejection of was based on purposeful adherence to a set of ultimate values. In this respect Amish most closely approximate Weber's wertration7al (valuerational) social action, a rational orientation to absolute values (Weber 1968). Certainly phrase formal organization is not part of Amish demonology, nor is it a term with which many Amish would be familiar. However, a brief inspection of some of values fundamental to Amish culture reveals them to be profoundly antithetical to establishment of organization. This normative stance derives from valuing: 1. an opposition to any ecclesiastical hierarchy beyond local community, 2. a severing of all ties between political and religious realms, 3. an untrained and unpaid clergy selected from within community, 4. a separation from worldly (i.e., non-Amish) institutions to extent possible, and 5. a glorification of simplicity. The value of simplicity is relevant to organizational structure since it has translated into use of technologies that do not require a high level of social differentiation. Adherence to all of these values explains much of schismatic This content downloaded from 157.55.39.17 on Fri, 02 Sep 2016 06:08:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Organizational Evolution of Amish / 605 character of Amish history. More to point for present discussion, it explains Amish's limited intercommunity and intercongregational association. To better understand innovative character of Steering Committee we need to look briefly at context from which it emerged. In absence of any ecclesiastical hierarchy beyond local community, possibilities for decision making outside of church district (i.e., congregation) are limited. Ministers and bishops of congregations connected by common church rules do meet on occasion to discuss appropriate positions toward new technologies, styles of dress, and institutions. One of earliest recorded Amish conferences took place in Pennsylvania in 1809. The various articles of resulting discipline adopted included, for example, an agreement that church members of districts represented be prohibited from participating in jury service (Bender 1934). The conference of 1865 addressed draft issue, specifically practice of exempting those who paid a commutation fee or provided a substitute (Bender 1946:223). Today large Amish settlements in Lagrange County, Indiana, and Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, continue to hold annual and semiannual gatherings of church officials, respectively. In other settlements such gatherings are held only when a problem arises that cannot be solved within clhurcl district (Luthy 1979). Despite these occasional semiformal meetings, it would be injudicious to speak of Amish as a single denomination. The Amish population is divided into numerous fellowships, all considered Old Order but differing in dress, level of technology considered appropriate, and other such issues. Members of a particular church district normally will only attend services in other districts if those districts are in fellowship with their own. The church district is largest officially recognized administrative unit. The approximately 750 districts in United States, and another 16 in Canada (Raber 1989), contain about 30 to 40 families each. The highest religious official is bishop, whose authority extends only to families in his own district. This arrangement corresponds closely to concept of congregational polity elaborated by Wood (1970). Informally, more senior bishops command greater respect at conferences. Likewise, members of a nominally autonomous church district will not lightly disregard consensus of believers in other districts with which they are in fellowship. They will, for example, consider church rules of those districts when they agree on rules for their own church, which are formally determined by members of each district alone. As a result of this limited and uneven degree of coupling between districts, establishment of a formally organized entity, speaking for all Amish communities in United States, represents an unprecedented strategem in Amish history. Origins of Steering Committee The Amish, despite bucolic surroundings with which they are usually associated, exist in an dominated by large-scale organizations. Separation from world is necessarily imperfect. They rely on non-Amish This content downloaded from 157.55.39.17 on Fri, 02 Sep 2016 06:08:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 606 / Social Forces 69:2, December 1990 banks, medical facilities, and corporations of all kinds for goods and services as well as for employment.4 They pay income and property taxes, are subject to Department of Agriculture regulations, and must register with Selective" @default.
• W2158998312 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2158998312 creator A5061680360 @default.
• W2158998312 date "1990-12-01" @default.
• W2158998312 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2158998312 title "The Old Order Amish Steering Committee: A Case Study in Organizational Evolution" @default.
• W2158998312 cites W151157839 @default.
• W2158998312 cites W1565119869 @default.
• W2158998312 cites W1979973999 @default.
• W2158998312 cites W1990593669 @default.
• W2158998312 cites W1998477590 @default.
• W2158998312 cites W2026437798 @default.
• W2158998312 cites W2068805170 @default.
• W2158998312 cites W2321465039 @default.
• W2158998312 cites W2333933116 @default.
• W2158998312 cites W293074814 @default.
• W2158998312 cites W2335126140 @default.
• W2158998312 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/69.2.603" @default.
• W2158998312 hasPublicationYear "1990" @default.
• W2158998312 type Work @default.
• W2158998312 sameAs 2158998312 @default.
• W2158998312 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W2158998312 countsByYear W21589983122016 @default.
• W2158998312 countsByYear W21589983122019 @default.
• W2158998312 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2158998312 hasAuthorship W2158998312A5061680360 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConcept C110354214 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConcept C156312663 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConcept C182306322 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConceptScore W2158998312C10138342 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConceptScore W2158998312C110354214 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConceptScore W2158998312C127413603 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConceptScore W2158998312C144024400 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConceptScore W2158998312C144133560 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConceptScore W2158998312C156312663 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConceptScore W2158998312C162324750 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConceptScore W2158998312C182306322 @default.
• W2158998312 hasConceptScore W2158998312C187736073 @default.
• W2158998312 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2158998312 hasLocation W21589983121 @default.
• W2158998312 hasOpenAccess W2158998312 @default.
• W2158998312 hasPrimaryLocation W21589983121 @default.
• W2158998312 hasRelatedWork W1581079417 @default.
• W2158998312 hasRelatedWork W184631574 @default.
• W2158998312 hasRelatedWork W1989255878 @default.
• W2158998312 hasRelatedWork W2105321008 @default.
• W2158998312 hasRelatedWork W2482532317 @default.
• W2158998312 hasRelatedWork W4234426802 @default.
• W2158998312 hasRelatedWork W4234467080 @default.
• W2158998312 hasRelatedWork W4295558910 @default.
• W2158998312 hasRelatedWork W4372263656 @default.
• W2158998312 hasRelatedWork W2391298693 @default.
• W2158998312 hasVolume "69" @default.
• W2158998312 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2158998312 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2158998312 magId "2158998312" @default.
• W2158998312 workType "article" @default.