Abstract
Reviewed by: Haakon A. Ikonomou, Aarhus University, Denmark
Writing the Rules for Europe forms part of the ‘Making Europe’ series, which in all brevity wishes to offer a ‘European history viewed through the lens of technology rather than war’ (ix). Subscribing to the transnational turn, a specific aim of the series is to break down the state-centric periodization of ruptures in European history – with the first, second and cold wars seen as clear markers of new eras – and instead focus on continuities in flows of ideas, goods and persons across time and across boundaries. With technology as their prism, the series offers six co-authored volumes on Europe’s long twentieth century, from 1850 to 2000.
Within this body of work, Writing the Rules of Europe provides a 150-year history of the hidden expert-driven integration of Europe, which eventually led the EU to become the most important and contested producer of rules, regulations and systems for transnational interaction in Europe. The book is divided into three parts: the first three chapters (Chapters 1–3) trace the emergence, growth and crisis of technocratic expertise in Europe. This first part is dedicated to the 1850s up until the immediate post-war years. The next part (Chapters 4–7) explores two sectors in which technocratic internationalism was prominent, but where the outcome of such efforts varied greatly, namely transportation, with a particular emphasis on railways, and heavy industry, with a specific focus on steel. The transnational organization and rule-writing of these sectors are traced from the mid-1800s until the 2000s, and therefore partly overlap chronologically with the first three chapters, and partly with the last (Chapter 8), which traces the EU’s rise to the hegemonic organization writing the rules for Europe from the post-war years until the 2000s.
Kaiser and Schot’s book combines three historical threads. First, it takes the call for provincializing European integration history seriously, and places the EU’s emergence within the broader history of the patchwork of international and European cooperation that evolved from the nineteenth century onwards. Secondly, it draws upon Schot’s earlier research on the history of technocracy and technology in Europe. Particularly, the book seems indebted to a 2008 article by Schot and Vincent Lagendijk: here we find the first definition of technocratic internationalism; the emphasis on the interwar period and transportation; and the approach of investigating two technical/industrial sectors. Lastly, it owes much to two of Kaiser’s earlier preoccupations: introducing a genuinely transnational approach to European integration history and breaking down the interpretive barrier between interwar and postwar Europe. By weaving together these threads, the book offers a fresh historicizing of what we see as today’s grey, unelected Eurocracy. With some ingenuity, Kaiser and Schot show how technocracy ‘formed an organic part of governing Western political systems and societies after 1945’, and thus traces the historical processes underlying the tensions between democracy and technocracy experienced in the EU since the 1990s.
Two points of criticism might be raised. First, one of the explicit aims of the book is to ‘investigate long-term continuities in modern European history across major political ruptures such as regime changes and the two World Wars’ (14). It is evident from the challenges facing Europe today that we historians would be failing our mission to the contemporary world, if we considered 1945 as ‘a kind “zero hour”‘ (15). This is laudable. Indeed, the chronologies of Eric Hobsbawm and Tony Judt are fundamentally challenged, and rightly so, thanks to Kaiser and Schot and others daring to break new ground by turning over old soil.
However, in some ways, Kaiser and Schot offer the explicitly European echo of Akira Iriye’s global history approach. For Iriye, the end point is the ‘global community’, in Kaiser and Schot’s narrative it is the allied forces of transnational associations and the EU. In debunking the existing foundational myth of the EU, however, Kaiser and Schot risk putting in its place a new progressive tale, where a vision of a technologically connected Europe comes to life as a result of the tireless work of ideologically motivated experts.
Secondly, the analytical concept of ‘technocratic internationalism’ is problematic and tends to enhance the teleological drive of the argument: for while ‘technocracy’ simply denotes rule by technical knowledge, internationalism is a political view – the belief that closer cooperation among nations and peoples fosters peace. While we may assume a great deal of overlap between the style of governance and the political beliefs of those practising it, we cannot equate the two, and one of the challenges with the concept is to know when Kaiser and Schot are simply describing ‘international technocracy’ – technocrats working in international organizations – and when they are describing the political beliefs of technocrats.
Until the book reaches the post-war years, Kaiser and Schot describe a great deal of technocratic practice, but fail to show that this was underpinned by internationalism. The technocratic practices of the interwar period are then linked to the technocratic Europeanism following the Second World War. The two periods are patched up by labelling ‘technocratic internationalism’ a ‘background ideology’ (Schot and Lagendijk), not necessarily explicitly expressed by, or, indeed, apparent to, the actors themselves. Put differently: if we see it, it’s there, if we don’t, we may assume it is there nonetheless.
Neither of the two connected points of criticism detract from the richness and ingenuity of the book, nor from the importance of challenging state-centric chronologies. All in all, the book connects the history of technology, perspectives from transnational and global history, and European integration history in a way that is refreshing and, for the field of European integration history, absolutely vital. One can only hope for further broad interpretations of the EU’s place in history in time to come.