XIII — Les Amish
Chapitre XIII
CASE STUDY: AMISH COMMUNITIES
The Amish, descendants of Swiss and Alsatian Anabaptists settled in the United States since the 18th century, form self-sufficient communities of 350,000 people [161][162]. Their voluntarily archaic way of life offers an extreme example of a self-funded community.
13.1 — What Worked
Exceptional longevity. 330 years of continuous existence [161]. The Amish have weathered industrial revolutions, world wars, and the modernization of America without disappearing.
Demographic growth. The Amish population doubles every 20 years, thanks to high birth rates and a youth retention rate of 85-90% [162]. Departures are free, but rare.
Total self-funding. The Amish receive no government assistance. They are exempt from Social Security because they neither participate in nor benefit from it [161].
Community mutual aid. When a member has a problem (fire, illness, accident), the community pools resources. No external insurance, but effective internal mutualization.
“Rumspringa” and freedom of exit. At 16, young Amish can leave the community to discover the outside world. Those who return (85%) make an informed choice [162]. Those who leave are not persecuted.
13.2 — Sociological Analyses: Cohesion, Regulation, and Constraints
Amish communities constitute a singular example of durable intentional societies, characterized by strong internal cohesion, strict religious regulation, and voluntary separation from the dominant society. John A. Hostetler’s classic works describe a social system founded on obedience to community rules, collective discipline, and voluntary limitation of individualism, enabling remarkable stability across multiple generations [55].
More recent analyses show that this stability rests on precise institutional mechanisms. Kraybill emphasizes the central role of religious norms in regulating economic, educational, and social behaviors, as well as the existence of informal sanction mechanisms ensuring conformity without recourse to the State [56]. These mechanisms favor strong economic autonomy and low dependence on public institutions.
However, empirical literature also highlights significant structural constraints, particularly in education and health. Strauss and Puffenberger’s work documents the effects of endogamy on genetic health, with increased prevalence of certain hereditary diseases linked to the strong homogeneity of Amish communities [57]. These results underscore that the social and cultural durability of these communities comes with measurable biological and health costs.
13.3 — What Is Problematic
Cultural closure. The Amish live in a bubble. Marriages are endogamous. Consanguinity increases certain genetic diseases [161].
Rejection of modernity. The prohibition of electricity, automobiles, and higher education limits economic adaptability. The model does not scale.
Strong social pressure. “Shunning” (ostracism) of those who break the rules creates intense conformist pressure. Formal freedom (Rumspringa) coexists with massive informal pressure.
Patriarchy. Women have no leadership role. The model is difficult to export to an egalitarian society.
13.4 — What We Keep from the Amish Model
- Total self-funding without State aid
- Community mutual aid as an alternative to formal insurance
- Formalized freedom of exit (Rumspringa) that legitimizes the choice to stay
- Longevity as proof of viability
13.5 — What We Improve
- No cultural closure: the prohibition of identity selection avoids the ghetto
- Assumed modernity: ACs can use all available technology
- Gender equality: no imposed patriarchy
- Diversity of rules: no single model to replicate
13.6 — What We Do Not Adopt
- Cultural closure: ACs are open to all
- Rejection of modernity: no technological restrictions
- Ostracism: leaving is a right, not a betrayal
- Patriarchy: equality of all members