Classical historiography of the European construction process has considerably underestimated the importance of transnational relations and the influence of all the debate and the previous experiences which contributed to this process from a cultural, religious, educational and scientific point of view. The analysis of the role played by cultural networks in the international sphere is still insufficient and deserves more attention (DUEDHAL, 2016).
The development of transnational history –along with its study of the different fields of relation established beyond borders and its study of the policies adopted with regard to people, ideas, goods and capitals (TYRREL, 2007; IRIYE & SAUMIER, 2009)– makes it possible to leave behind a simplistic narrative in order to perform a more complex and balanced analysis of the European construction process (LUNDIN & KAISERFELD, 2015). The structural analysis of transnational intellectual networks depending on their size, density, accessibility, connectivity and degree of cohesion (SARNO, 2017) also enables us to interpret the key elements to this process more rigorously.
Those non-governmental networks created to connect Europe and America after the Great War contributed to the emergence of the first circles of an internationalism which was in harmony with progressivism, ecumenism and pacifism (NOLAN, 2012), especially important in Europe. The global economic crisis and the rise of totalitarian regimes resulted in those ideas being excluded from political action; however, the debate held in the intellectual circles –such as the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation (Paris) or the Graduate Institute (Geneva)– kept the flame of those ideas alight so that they could become stronger in a more favourable future (RENOLIET, 1999).
The fragility of a continent which had to face horror and famine and which feared a new war, along with the spirit of the Cold War, contributed to strengthen previous transatlantic circles in order to fight the soviet regime. Public initiatives –such as the Marshall Plan– and powerful private foundations –such as the American Committee on United Europe– served as strategic tools for the reconstruction of the continent and the promotion of the integration process. Meanwhile, transatlantic networks were generating a series of institutions which combined Europeanism and Atlantism and considered them key to the Western civilisation, which also comprised new States that were former Iberian (especially Brazil and Mexico) and British (Dominions) colonial empires. That was the case of UNESCO (1945) –whose founding members did not include any countries belonging to the soviet bloc, except from Czechoslovakia, still not soviet at the time– and of the World Bank (1944) and the International Monetary Fund (1945), both linked to the Bretton Woods system and initially focused on post-war reconstruction. As for the NATO (1949) –which created its own Committee on Information and Cultural Relations (1953)– and the Congress for Cultural Freedom (1950), they had similar origins too.
The Europeanist narrative emerged as a result of the weakness shown by the States (devastated by the war) and by their national narratives. Nevertheless, as the reconstruction process progressed, it had to face the resurgence of national cultures and narratives –heir to a long tradition and supported by the States themselves– as well as the communist narrative. Therefore, the level of success reached by the various narratives in favour of European unity was closely related not only to the ability and the will of their main patrons at both sides of the Atlantic, but also to the alternative identity discourses (mainly national and religious), the worldview and the strategies assumed by each ideological current and the interests of the state apparatus. The dialogue established among those nationalist narratives had and still has an influence on the European narrative, just like the discourses of the different religious confessions which –at least during a considerable part of the integration process– proved decisive, as recently confirmed by Paul Mojzes (2018).
The challenges faced by historiography are especially relevant in the Spanish context. Inter-war Spain had tried to increase its influence on international institutions by means of some renowned diplomats as well as a noticeable number of initiatives which culminated in May 1936 with the IX International studies Conference, organised by the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation. At the time, the Hispanic cultural networks which connected both sides of the Atlantic were already an important bridge for cooperation and exchange (LÓPEZ & AZNAR, 2017). The Europeanist initiatives of Franco’s Spain came from two different sides: the exiles –both in the national territory and abroad– (ZARATEGUI, 2014) and Franco’s supporters, who only belatedly and reluctantly sought a rapprochement to European institutions. Spain’s late incorporation to the European Communities and the creation of an official Europeanist narrative in a context of transition to democracy contributed to underestimate the actions that had been previously taken by Spanish exiles, identified with past defeats, as well as the actions taken by Franco’s regime, identified with isolation and lack of freedom (MORENO & NÚÑEZ, 2017). Moreover, this fact also showed a discourse which was very interested in politics but did not pay enough attention to transnational networks, which played a significant role in the process as well.
The EUCLIO research team, which stemmed from the research project Hacer las Europas: Identidades, europeización, proyección exterior y relato nacional español en el proceso de integración europea (HAR2015-64429-MINECO/FEDER), firmly believes that, at a time in which the official narrative of the European integration process is facing a crisis, it is necessary to adopt a cultural perspective, whose main representative is Salvador de Madariaga. With this aim, we have created EUCLIO, an informal network which intends to offer a Spanish view of the Europeanist narratives. Besides, we consider that collaboration with Ibero-American social scientists is especially important and that we should all reflect on convergence points in the various integration processes. Both the experience gained by the researchers involved in the project in the previous years and the incorporation of young researchers from different universities (Tallinn University of Technology, Sorbonne Université, Universidad de Navarra, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción) are essential to make progress in our research, by promoting knowledge exchange as well as new approaches.