| Scholars in the history and sociology of engineering in the United States have commented critically on the unwillingness of twentieth century engineers to participate actively in politics. Alfred Chandler, for example, has noted the absence of engineers in Progressive Era reform movements, while Edwin T. Layton jr has criticized engineers in the 1920s for an excessive focus on sterile status seeking. This perceived lack of twentieth century engineering activism is especially puzzling given that nineteenth-century American engineers and engineering societies did not hesitate to lobby openly for clean water, smoke abatement, municipal reform, and numerous other issues.;Why, after several decades of public spirit and political activism, did American engineers withdraw from overt civic involvement? In this dissertation I propose one possible answer. An examination of the history of local, state, and regional engineering societies suggests that American engineers' involvement in political affairs served as part of the professionalization of engineering. That is, engineering societies used lobbying on issues such as legislation promoting good roads to gain public acceptance of engineering as a profession rather than as a skilled trade. Paradoxically, once engineering acquired the sanction of the public and achieved the status it sought, the ideals of professionalism with its standard of disinterestedness and objectivity required that engineers refrain from further political discourse. By the turn of the century, as sociologists and philosophers increasingly referred to engineers as paradigm professionals, engineering involvement in influencing legislation, with the exception of engineering licensing laws, began to disappear. |
