Scientific management and class relations

Conclusion

It has been the contention of this article that the true significance of the scientific management movement lies in what it can tell us about the engineering profession. Scientific management was not simply capitalist ideology, nor were the engineers who developed it simply the prisoners of capitalist ideology. Instead, scientific management was the product of the insertion of once-independent engineers into the complex, collective labor process in large corporations. It reflects both their inability to break loose fully from the dominant ideology and the fact that their interests as engineers were in conflict with the interests of their capitalist employers.

The significance of this point, however, lies beyond the experience of turn-of-the-century “shop culture” engineers. For, if even as unpromising a group as the scientific managers could develop a program with implications inimical to the interests of capital, what of other, less “commercialized” groups? We have already seen that the early school-based engineers initiated a professionalizing project that included a claim to autonomy that was incompatible with the needs of their employers. It seems clear that the engineer's status as an employee, albeit an employee in an ambiguous position in the labor process, constitutes a basis for the development of conflicts with capitalist employers. This has been the thrust of our earlier discussion of the process of class formation. Gramsci's analysis of the situation of engineers in capitalist class relations, then, may not be without foundation:

With the urban intellectuals it is another matter. Factory technicians do not exercise any political function over the instrumental masses, or at least this is a phase that has been superseded. Sometimes, rather, the contrary takes place, and the instrumental masses, at least in the person of their own organic intellectuals, exercise a political influence on the technicians.

It may very well be that engineers, given a more militant labor movement, a more penetrating ideology, or a weaker capitalist class, could find themselves on the same side as more subordinate employees in conflicts with their employers.

It is all the more important, then, that we understand the process by which American engineers have been domesticated. This has not happened automatically; far from it. Although there are ambiguities in the engineer's situation that make this process easier, the rapprochement of engineers with capital has had to be “made.” In this regard, the active intervention of business interests has been of particular importance, especially their efforts in fostering among engineers a “safe” variant of professionalism.

Nor does this historical lesson apply only to engineers. For, there are other “professional” occupations that, increasingly, find themselves in situations comparable to engineers. Accountants, nurses, teachers, even certain kinds of lawyers have long been employed in large numbers by complex organizations. More recently, even doctors have begun to experience the condition of being an employee. For each of these occupations, we must avoid the easy assumption that there is something inherent in their social structural position that leads them into an accommodation with capital. On the contrary, as with engineers, we must stress the existence of real conflicts generated by capitalist relations of production, and then examine each occupation historically, asking what specific circumstances explain why its members do or do not enter into explicit conflict with their employers.¹

However, while we must be aware of the possibility that professionals can (and sometimes do) enter into conflict with their employers, we also need to be sensitive to the complexity of the structural position of many professionals. Many professionals find themselves in positions of authority of some kind - either over subordinate workers in the case of engineers, or over clients in the case of doctors. This can be conducive to the attitude that the professionals' interests are different from those of the groups over which they have authority, or that their interests are the same as their employers'. Alternatively, as we saw in the case of engineers, this structural ambiguity may promote the formation of “narrow” occupational ideologies among professionals - i.e., the idea that their interests differ from those of both employers and subordinates. Therefore, while we need to be aware of the existence of employer/ professional conflict, we also need to recognize the existence of barriers to, and complexities within, the evolution of such conflicts.

It is with this in mind that this article has stressed the importance of developing an adequate approach to the process of class formation. To restate briefly some of the arguments made earlier, the process of class formation in capitalist society is set in motion by the antagonisms inherent in capitalist relations of production. This is not, however, all that we need to know about the process of class formation - we also need to recognize the existence of both objective and historical barriers to this process. Nevertheless, one must be clear about what exactly these barriers are. There is, for example, an important difference between the relations of production that constitute class in the first place and workers' functions in the labor process. Similarly, one should not confuse barriers to the process of class formation with full-fledged class divisions. If we fail to distinguish among these various factors, we will be in danger of artificially placing a class barrier between engineers and other forms of wage-labor. If, on the other hand, we do make these distinctions, we will be able to account for both engineers' opposition to their employers and their domestication.