Decolonization must be either “revolutionary or inexistent,” declared the Martinican poet and politician Aimé Césaire (356). So long as it enforces a relationship between domination and subjugation, colonialism cannot be “reformed” in any substantive way. The International Colonial Institute (ici, 1893–1982)—the subject of Wagner’s penetrating volume—begged to differ. The ici claimed that under the guidance of European experts, colonial subjects could become productive contributors to global capitalist society “voluntarily” and “without renouncing their culture and traditions” (354). It rejected modernization theory’s claims of liberal universalism, arguing instead for localized models. Nonetheless, ici experts shared “best practices” from around the world, creating a “trans-colonial” sphere of knowledge. Its ideas shaped colonial policies before 1945 and neocolonial practices thereafter; famous colonizers like Frederick Lugard and Hubert Lyautey were among its members. Wagner argues that the very consistency of the ici’s calls for reform reveals the hollowness of imperial apologetics.Despite the group’s significant influence, the ici has received little study. By conducting research in twenty archives across six countries, Wagner provides an account of the group’s institutional history, engaging critically with its central ideas and tracing its impact on policy. His central argument? “The ici is the smoking gun that proves the immobility of colonialism” (350).Wagner’s approach is mainly historical, though he has read relevant sources in other disciplines. Chapter 5 draws from law and sociology to show how ici experts like Cornelis van Vollenhoven used codification to manipulate indigenous laws for the benefit of colonizers. He draws from social theory, especially Foucault’s, to frame his interpretation of colonial reform as the search for “governmentality”—the control of colonies through elite knowledge and with the voluntary cooperation of the colonized.1Through the ici’s minutes and publications, Wagner reconstructs the group’s discourse of reformist colonialism. Chapter 3 explains the group’s standard discursive method. Colonial “experts” would begin by identifying a “stereotype” of successful colonialism (usually in Dutch Southeast Asia), which could be juxtaposed with unsuccessful ventures (often British India or settler colonies more generally). Experts would argue that successful practices respected indigenous traditions and attracted voluntary participation, and then lobby governments and private investors to bring these modalities to other colonies.Chapter 4 offers an especially revealing study of the Buitenzorg botanical garden in Dutch Java, the plants and techniques of which were imported to German East Africa, the Belgian Congo, and French West Africa. But according to Wagner, such supposed colonial success stories were inevitably based on “myths.” They were neither as profitable nor as transferrable as the experts claimed, and they actually relied on heavy doses of coercion and violence. The true function of places like Buitenzorg was ideological; they stood for the idea that trans-colonial science could improve colonialism. Thus, Wagner concludes that the main function of the ici was not to improve life for colonial subjects, nor even to enhance the productivity of the colonies. Instead, it helped its members to “boost their careers as colonial experts” (349), with commensurate salaries, pensions, and respect.Chapters 6 to 9 trace the group’s lasting influence from the 1920s into the decolonization era. By the 1930s, it stood in opposition to the liberal reformism of the League of Nation’s Permanent Mandate Commission (pmc) and became a haven for fascists and their sympathizers from Italy, Germany, and Portugal. The organization—which renamed itself the Institute of Differing Civilizations (incidi) in 1949—even admitted war criminals and notorious antisemites. The group continued to embrace “cultural relativism” and local knowledge, arguing not only that the pmc’s liberal universalism reflected ignorant Eurocentrism but that prominent anticolonial nationalists were unrepresentative of the diverse desires of their people.At times, the significance of the ici in shaping particular colonial policies can be difficult to ascertain from this book, and Wagner’s claims of wide incidi influence into the 1960s are not fully developed. Moreover, the book’s deep research can sometimes result in excessively dense passages. Wagner succeeds, however, in demonstrating the centrality of the ici to discourses about colonial governance. That the group’s members promoted a remarkably consistent narrative of reform throughout its lifespan should interest the many scholars tracing the role of empire in the construction of twentieth-century internationalism and development.
Read full abstract
Nov 15, 2024
Samuel Weeks 
Open Access
Just Published
