IGLP: The Colloquium
As part of our continuing effort to strengthen the network of collaboration among our Workshop alumni and faculty, the IGLP has established a week-long Colloquium at Harvard for IGLP Faculty and Invited Guests. Each year, IGLP: The Colloquium focuses on a new, central theme of significance. The themes for the 2016 Colloquium were: Technologies, Spaces and Borders curated by Sheila Jasanoff; The Economy in Time: Stages, Modes and Rupture curated by Christine Desan; and The Decolonization of Global Law and Policy curated by Sundhya Pahuja.
The Colloquium Sponsors
The IGLP is particularly grateful to our Leading Sponsors and collaborator Santander Universities, who continue to show their faith in our efforts to develop innovative ideas and alternative approaches to issues of global law, economic policy, social justice and governance as well as to strengthen the next generation of scholars by placing them in collaboration with their global peers. Santander Universities have generously agreed to be the Leading Sponsor of the June Conference as part of their commitment to higher education. Harvard Law School is proud to join with them in this effort.
Santander Universities, was created by Banco Santander on the conviction that the best way of contributing to growth and economic and social process is by backing the higher education and research system. Banco Santander’s commitment to progress finds its expression in the Santander Universities Global Division, whose activities form the backbone of the bank’s social action and enable it to maintain a stable alliance with the academic world in Latin America, China, United States of America, Spain, Morocco, Portugal, United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, Singapore, and Russia. Santander Universities Global Division, a team of more than 2,100 professionals distributed across 17 countries, coordinates and manages Banco Santander’s commitment to higher education. Between 1997 and 2012, Banco Santander channeled $1 billion into sponsorship of academic, research and technological projects in support of higher education. There are now over 1,000 academic institutions receiving support from Banco Santander for the development of academics initiatives including Harvard University and the IGLP.
Santander Universities is the Lead Sponsor of our June Conference, Colloquium, and Pro-Seminars at Harvard.
The 2015 Colloquium developed our concerns by focusing on modes of engagement, both public and scholarly. How can we think about modes of public engagement, for example, as public intellectuals or activists? How might we enact supervisory relationships which complement our heterodox engagements with global political economy? How may we engage with our research in ways which takes seriously what we know about the production of knowledge? How can we approach the task of writing not only to communicate our concerns, but also as part of the iterative process of thinking? We asked these questions by engaging in a series of interviews and conversations with a selection of activists, writers, intellectual historians, and scholars from other disciplines, and by putting their work into conversation with heterodox scholarship in international law.
The 2014 Colloquium explored the history and contemporary potential for heterodox and critical approaches to scholarly work in the social sciences. Our goal was to engage in a cross-disciplinary conversation about the mechanics of stability and change within and across fields. Some invited participants offered a genealogy of critique as it has evolved over time in their field; others outlined the methodological predilections characteristic of what have come to be critical interventions in their field, by describing game-changing moments. We also used the opportunity to brainstorm together about a several ongoing research projects being undertaken by IGLP scholars.
The 2013 IGLP Colloquium explored two questions of method. People talk about linking the global and the local, “seeing” them together, appreciating their “interconnections” — but just how can this be done? After all, across the social sciences, linking the general and the particular, or the macro and the micro, or the theoretical and the practical, is no easy matter. What can we learn from the history of trying? How might we develop better accounts of the “whole” by placing our accounts of local and national legal, political and economic arrangements in relationship to accounts of the international or transnational or global? If “global and local” suggests a vertical axis of scale, “comparison” suggests a horizontal axis of differentiation. Our second question focused on this horizontal axis: how can we understand the relationships among local or national arrangements? As a matter of technical similarities and cultural differences – or vice versa? As a pattern of historical influences? As a system of centers and peripheries? As we do each year at the Colloquium, we invited interesting intellectuals from a range of disciplines to join us in Cambridge where these quite general questions were explored in depth as they have arisen in their own work.
In 2012 our inaugural IGLP: The Colloquium focused on the potential to renew “political economy” as a domain of investigation, a framework for comprehending the global order, and as a terrain for investigation of the role of “ideas” or “expertise” in the operations of “power” and “governance.” The 2012 IGLP: The Colloquium focused specifically on the political economy of the modern global order, which we explored along three dimensions: economics as a technical field of explanation, knowledge and expertise as a mode of global governance and politics, and the significance of global structures of inequality, center-periphery dynamics and post-colonial legacy. Our question were whether a political economic approach could help us explore the way these dimensions conventionally operate and interlock to produce norms that separate markets and politics, define boundaries for acceptable governance, and prioritize certain forms of knowledge and knowledge production. Can we locate the role of law and legal vocabulary in entrenching those realities, and could we identify their roles in a contrary project? We will improve our understanding of the tradition through which politics and economics were rent asunder, the technical vernaculars that need to be analyzed today in the study of economic, capital dynamics and law for bringing them back into a relationship with one another, and the traditions for understanding the power/knowledge nexus, ideas as governance, power constituting the known, ideology, consciousness, expertise and more.