Call us now:
At the height of the Depression, a coherent North American social movement insisted that elected representatives, markets, and money were inadequate mechanisms for governing an industrial society. The group dubbed its replacement technocracy.
The other option integrated a blueprint for government, a new system of accounting, and an administrative system for an entire continent. Their adherents also cultivated an image of the machine age which permeated graphic design, robots, music and dancing. Tracing these interlinked aspects helps distinguish the historical movement from the more loosely defined usage of the term today.
In This Article
- Technocracy Meaning: Government By Technical Expertise
- The Movement’s Rise In The United States And Canada
- The Technocrats’ Economic And Political Plan
- Comparisons With Rival Political Systems
- Art, Design, And Popular Culture
- Key takeaways
- Frequently asked questions
- What the Idea Ultimately Represents
Technocracy Meaning: Government By Technical Expertise
So, in simple terms, technocracy means rule by those with technical knowledge, which means not by those with political connections, family ties, or wealth. So the difference between the two isn’t about whether or not scientists are consulted for their opinion, but whether they are ultimately given the right to make decisions. It’s common for all governments to have technical advisors like economists, engineers, doctors etc., but usually final decisions are made by politicians.
In this last case the decision rests on expert-led governance. It is not just that the technocrat counsels the minister; rather, the technical knowledge serves as the foundation on which policy decisions are made and administered. Technical expertise is thus part of the mode of governance. The technocratic meaning is thus much stronger than competent administration, and a technocratic government is not the same as a democracy that merely prizes good evidence.
This also avoids a misreading. The historical advocates were not asking for more competent political actors. They wanted industrial technocrats to manage production, transportation and consumption based on physical capacity instead of political bargaining.
The Movement’s Rise In The United States And Canada
If you would like me to write an essay about it, I can. If you want me to edit it, I can. If it is a test question, then I will need the answers.
Technocracy, Inc., was formed in the US and Canada as the main body for putting that claim into practice. It presented engineers and industrial specialists as capable of studying the North American continent as a single operating unit. Through its lectures, literature, insignia and street parades, Technocracy established a tangible presence.
It was proposed that the entire continent of North America be formed into a single unit, the Technate of America, which would comprise Canada and the U.S.A., and all of their resources, industries, transportation, power, and natural assets, without having been formed by popular election or by force of arms.
The Technocrats’ Economic And Political Plan
It was sparked by a physical question: what can the continent produce with its tools, labor, fuel, and raw materials? And based on that level of potential production, economic plans were drawn up to guide production levels. The market would no longer decide production based on expected profit, and earning power would no longer decide how many goods each citizen could buy.
The suggested administrative structure, in this scenario, would not be based on political entities and party systems, but rather on industrial or functional entities. For example, agriculture, transport, power, construction, health and communication would be administered by technical experts and would be coordinated by a continental structure.
The plan envisioned government as a component in the productive system. Proponents anticipated that information, channeled through the plans, would reveal what needed to be produced, where it should be dispatched, and what quantities were available for consumption within the bounds of physical constraints.
A New Calendar For Production And Daily Life
Technocracy proposed a calendar with thirteen 28-day months, plus a single extra day called “Year Day”. This meant that all records, plans, quotas and shifts would be perfectly aligned to one another. The lack of irregularities found in the Gregorian calendar made it much easier for officials to schedule shift rotation, repair, delivery, vacations, and around-the-clock production.
Energy Accounting Across The Continent
In Technocracy Inc.’s proposal for energy certificates in the North American Technate, it is suggested that Continental accounting can record the amount of energy used in the production of each good and service. These energy costs would then serve as the basis for pricing goods and services. In addition, each citizen would receive an equal share of certificates that could only be exchanged for goods and services; once the exchange was made, the certificate would cease to exist. Because the certificate could not be transferred, citizens would not be able to accumulate private property and make a profit off of certificates.
The Proposed North American Technate
The technate was expected to include a large enough and diverse enough area to provide resources for an industrial economy, encompassing areas in North America where the resources were located, including mines, farms, forests, factories, power plants, waterways, railroads, highways, and cities in the US and Canada. In such an environment, political boundaries would be subordinated to physical integration of these systems.
The administrative map of the plan was based on the infrastructure. A railway was in the domain of transportation, a generating station in that of electricity, and a hospital in that of medical care, regardless of what political district they were in. The central records would show the flow of materials between these sectors.
This scope helps to explain why the proposal was continental, instead of merely municipal. While a city can deal with its own water or transit system, no one city is capable of balancing fuel, food, metals, machinery, and electricity across North America.
A Working Soviet Of Technical Specialists
Others called the system a “Practicable Soviet of Technicians.” Here, the word “soviet” was employed in its primary meaning of council or assembly; and the whole expression indicated that this was to be a practical working committee of technical experts and specialists, explicitly not related to the communist soviet system of the Soviet Union.
Engineers will still have a significant role to play because the functioning of industrial systems requires design, measurement, maintenance and safety. But other skills will also be required: in agriculture, medicine, logistics, geology, architecture, statistics and communication, there are other challenges to tackle.
The Authority would perform these roles. A power specialist would determine the dispatch of generating capacity; physicians would arrange the provision of health care; and chief executives would coordinate activities in different sectors, where a requirement in one sector impinged on another, such as electricity use for transport or industry.
Equality, Rights, And Resource Distribution
The proposal describes technocracy as the means of allocating scarce resources in accordance with actual needs, not according to one’s wealth or social standing. Consequently, its claim that resources will be equally accessible requires someone to determine what those actual needs are.
The model tries to get rid of class privilege by setting up society around technical know-how and central administration; but this formal equality doesn’t guarantee fair influence, because experts might rack up authority that regular folks just can’t challenge.
Comparisons With Rival Political Systems
In what way did these approaches differ in terms of their ideologies, the source of their public authority, and how they viewed national interests? While socialism, fascism, and even certain North American programs like the New Deal attempted to address perceived deficiencies of liberal capitalism through some form of state involvement and economic coordination, they differed significantly in terms of their basic ideology, the source of their public authority, and how they viewed national interests. For instance, while socialism usually called for public or collective ownership of the means of production and a greater focus on class solidarity and egalitarian distribution, fascism often called for the maintenance of private ownership but subordinated it to the needs of a strong, centralized nationalist state that rejected the notion of class struggle and favored national unity over class interests. Meanwhile, the New Deal and other North American programs generally accepted the existence of a capitalist system based on private property and sought to use some degree of centralized coordination to maintain market stability and provide a limited degree of social welfare without threatening the fundamental basis of class relations and liberal democratic values.
It maintained that the needs of technical function, not of workers, owners, political parties, or military commanders, should guide production. But this did not mean its institutions were politically impartial. The selection of aims, the meaning of equality, and the identity of those deemed to be skilled all involve questions of power.
Differences From Socialism
The most common version of socialism, at least in terms of its traditions, takes ownership and class relations as central issues in political analysis. The specific program might advocate for social or state ownership, worker control of workplaces, redistribution, or planning on behalf of workers. Socialist schools diverge on the means by which these ends ought to be attained.
However, the North American version of the plan was conceived in an environment where the basic units of management were energy, capacity and material flows, and production planning was left to technical experts, leaving the monetary and private accumulative organizational functions largely out of play.
Although both models might reject completely free markets, their ideological justifications were different. Socialism draws much of its political rationale from property and class; communism offered physical calculation and professional expertise as the basis for order.
Differences From Fascism
The text then describes the central tenets of fascism: centralized government based on the principle of national identity and strong leadership, a repressive state apparatus designed to suppress opposition, a social system with clear class hierarchies, the celebration of war as an instrument of national greatness, and an economy in which private property is preserved but subordinated to state goals.
Those who were interested in rule by technical experts argued that there was no doubt these experts had proved their ability to control complex industrial systems. Nationalism and party conflict were seen as barriers that did not make any sense to North American supporters. The solution was to organize industry by means of management based on expertise and function. Dictatorship would not be a part of this.
However, the proposal still allows the possibility of authoritarianism because it eliminates the democratic safeguards of elections and of decentralized information. Even if bureaucrats can convince the public that their policies are justified by engineering evidence, the public has no mechanism for holding them accountable if they do not like the policies they enact.
Movements Suppressed By Fascist Regimes
Elsewhere, however, organizations used the language of technical rule without being part of Technocracy Inc. This distinction between organizations is important as we track the movement’s spread throughout Europe and North America. Interest in engineers or planning was not sufficient to forge common leadership, membership, or doctrine.
The reason why the fascists destroyed so many independent organizations, especially expert groups, was because such groups were the only remaining independent groups outside of the Party, and thus constituted an alternative source of legitimacy for the state. The fascists destroyed all organizations in order to eliminate any other locus of power. However, while it is true that these groups were destroyed by the fascists, it does not follow that the ideologies associated with these groups were the ideologies of the fascists.
The distinction was thus institutional as well as political, between a movement founded on independent professional administration and a dictatorship of engineers commanded by party, police, and military authority.
Art, Design, And Popular Culture
This dependence on machinery led to a specific aesthetic of organization based on clean lines, metal surfaces, charts, uniforms and machines. This visual approach helped turn abstract administrative proposals into a tangible public identity.
Mechanized society brings us to our present situation where we are surrounded by machines, yet we feel alienated from them. The machine has been made part of our culture. It has changed us and we have changed it.
Technocracy Inc.’s Visual Aesthetic
The “Technocracy” Corporation’s logo, a simple monad shape, suggests equilibrium and endless rotation. The logo is present everywhere on its charts, maps, clothing, cars and event invitations, which all seem well-organized and strict.
This was carried further in photography and film. According to Wikipedia, the organization filmed one body of work onto a 900-foot reel of 16mm color film. It was appropriate for a movement that wished its own efficiency to be displayed by modern media and technology.
The look made governance legible, rendering the continent as a single functioning apparatus in which a map presented the entirety, and matching outfits demonstrated how individual parts worked together within the system.
Robots As Symbols Of Expert Rule
The robotic image captures the paradoxical nature of automated government, which is sometimes portrayed as a model of impersonal, efficient fairness, in which a machine calculates tirelessly, follows the same rules every time, and cannot be bribed or corrupted. But the robot also conjures up images of soulless automatons that obey without question, lack humanity and discretion, and are insensitive to the need for compassion and justice.
This ambivalence made robots a powerful image in cartoons and in public exhibitions, as well as in later debates over robot rule. Supporters used it to suggest that machines would bring efficient, smooth service, while critics used it to describe expert rule as cold and impersonal.
It raised another question that engineering couldn’t resolve. Calculations can be made perfectly, but there must still be a person who decides on the objective, the goal, is it output, equality, safety, or liberty?
Music And Dance Inspired By The Movement
Enthusiasm for industrialization and mechanization entered American entertainment in all forms and became a cultural motif. Music and dance were based on mechanical rhythms, and comic acts parodied the regimentation of industry with their synchronized routines.
The performances turned the banal, administrative discourse into dance and light. Without needing to grasp technical details like production records or energy certificates, the audience could feel the essence of the mechanized society through the synchronized bodies.
The entertainment industry weakened the movement’s grip on its own messaging as well. In performance, exactness was visually compelling, amusing, or ominous, giving popular culture a chance to gauge the public’s response to a preordained system of society.
Key takeaways
The idea of placing public policy decisions in the hands of specialists rather than politicians was at the heart of the plan. Its advocates sought to build a North American technate that operated with an economy planned for the whole continent, and designed energy accounting systems to supplant money and distribute goods in line with production capabilities. Technate’s authority, property rights, and political aims departed from those associated with socialism and fascism. Industrial design, robots, music, and dance contributed to the construction of its popular culture.
Frequently asked questions
Has there ever been a technocracy?
In general, no country is considered a full case study in history. If we were to take technocracy as a very strict definition, the specialists must have the ultimate say in politics due to their expertise. The question that follows is what is a technocrat? This is defined as someone with specialized knowledge who can serve as the basis for public decision making.
What is an example of a technocracy?
Temporary expert cabinets in parliamentary systems offer a limited look at non-partisan governance, in which nonparty technocrats might be asked to solve severe economic and/or political problems, but these are partial cases as their powers are subject to the rules set down in the constitution and they continue to be accountable to parliament, face elections, and have to work with existing parties.
Are any countries a technocracy?
There is currently no country that fits all of these descriptions. Singapore and China are occasionally characterised as such, although only partially, and many democracies have central banks or regulatory agencies that can make narrowly defined decisions without consulting elected officials. Even these attributes do not give experts full control over a country’s destiny.
Is a technocracy good or bad?
This will only be of value depending on the ethical and political criteria used. While a specialized administration may increase the technical competence and long-term coordination of a state, rule by unelected specialists may diminish accountability, representation, and consent. Expertise provides guidance about how to achieve a goal, not which goals a society should have.
How would energy accounting replace money and the price system?
Those administering the economy would calculate potential output in units of physical energy. Each person would get certificates representing a share of consumption. Every good and service would have its own energy cost, and would be paid for with a corresponding reduction in one’s certificates. Because the certificates were individual and non-transferable, they could not be used like cash, or accumulate like capital.
What the Idea Ultimately Represents
This was not merely a plan to have technocrats advise a government; it was a plan for a whole society. The Technocracy model advocated by North American thinkers was one of total, exact technical management and the measurement of all resources in terms of energy values. In short, it was the idea of getting rid of markets and elections and replacing them with a single unified system of functional organization based on continent-wide planning and standardization.
Its system was different from socialism or fascism, though it too had a central authority which could enforce decisions upon people. Equal consumption claims did not guarantee political equality, and no amount of careful administration would settle arguments about values, rights, and public objectives.
The impact of its design also spread beyond politics, into industrial design, robotics, music and dance. With a clear understanding of both the political plan and the cultural legacy, we can better assess modern assertions about expert rule without conflating expert advice with expert governance. Standard reference works and academic publishing companies like Springer Nature still situate these issues in broader discussions of governance, democracy and political legitimacy.
