In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

❖ 197 ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ Chapter 12 Journeymen or Traditional Emigrants? Norwegian and Swedish Engineers and Architects in North America, 1880–1930 Per-Olof Grönberg Unlike a large portion of those whom left the country districts of Norway to take up land in the Middle West, the engineers burned no bridges behind them; in fact a majority had every intention of returning to the homeland after acquiring experience, perhaps a fortune, and­ possibly, too, a great reputation. They had no farms to sell and no families to care for. A ticket for the voyage to America, a few dollars to keep them going until they found a job, some articles of clothing—these with exceptions were all that they carried with them. In a short time they would return to visit parents and friends in Europe; a few years more and they would return to take over engineering posts in Norway. This fact—the tendency of many to regard America as a place of temporary residence only—colored their life in the New World and gave it an orientation that was different from that of the main body of Norwegian Americans. Thus in a social as well as purely economic sense the story of the engineers is a distinct and in many ways a separate chapter in American urban life.1 Norwegian American historian Kenneth O. Bjork describes engineers as a specific group of transatlantic migrants differing considerably from immigrants settling as farmers in the midwestern prairie. At a 1901 meeting of returned engineers and architects, one participant claimed that Swedish technicians rarely migrated in order to settle permanently but rather to acquire knowledge and experience and return to use them back home. The destination pattern in North America usually diverged from that of the main body of immigrants. Bjork describes the engineer as someone who “made his way to the large metropolitan centers—New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, the Twin Cities, and later to the cities of the west coast; but smaller industrial centers such as Butler, Pennsylvania, and Schenectady, New York, often exerted an equally great attraction.”2 Bjork’s observations connect to a European tradition of journeyman migration with medieval roots; for centuries Scandinavian artisans rarely could become 198 ❖ Per-Olof Grönberg masters without having spent time abroad. Journeymen acquired knowledge and skills that contributed to a continuous development of artisan technology. In the nineteenth century, technically educated people largely took over the role. Innovations such as Atlantic steamships extended the tradition beyond Europe. There was a lot to see and learn in the New World. Visitors to the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893 returned impressed. Lecturers told Scandinavians about the marvels of electricity in Thomas Edison’s country, a Swedish engineer reported in enthusiastic terms about the modern tools, and the Norwegian commissioner stated that no other country was as technologically advanced as the United States. Nine years later, a returned engineer claimed in a lecture in Kristiania (Oslo) that the United States was technologically superior to Europe in an astounding way.3 Swedish historian Lars O. Olsson credited this view of U.S. technology as the most important factor encouraging engineers to cross the Atlantic. Nevertheless, it is a misconception to separate it completely from general emigration. Naval architect Hugo Hammar described how as a child he had heard about many in the province who left for America and became successful. Third to Ireland and Iceland, Norway was the European country that lost the highest share of its population to North America, and Sweden was fourth. Every technology graduate who crossed the Atlantic was, of course, not a “journeyman.” Some intended to settle permanently in the United States and others simply remained.4 In this chapter, we will discuss differences in migration strategies and patterns among Norwegian technical school graduates and their Swedish colleagues in the light of the two traditions and differences in terms of industrialization and technical development. Industrialization and Technical Education in Norway and Sweden AlthoughNorwayandSwedenwereverysimilar,theydivergedasregardsindustrialization . To mark the hundred-year anniversary of the dissolution of the union, Swedish historian Bo Stråth wrote a comparative book about the countries in the nineteenth century; his Norwegian colleague Francis Sejersted wrote on the twentieth. Agrarian interests in Sweden were weakly organized and could easily be marginalized. Conservatives, liberals, and social democrats formed a vague modernization and industrialization alliance. Capital and labor clashed but also agreed that large-scale industrialization offered a solution to the country’s problems and supported development...

Share