This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Kyoto School — most prominently associated with Kitaro Nishida — to re-read the Global IGF 2017 Geneva conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.
Introduction: The Problem
Nishida's logic of basho (place) envisions a logical site that encompasses both subject and object before their separation. Reading Global IGF as a Nishidan basho reveals an Asian dialogue possibility distinct from Habermasian deliberation.
This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of Global IGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of The place of absolute nothingness, and that the concept itself undergoes transformation under the new material of digital space. Describing this mutual transformation is the task of this essay.
IGF as basho
The dialogic norms brought by participants from Switzerland (especially Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan) often implicate Nishidan logic of basho. Discussions at 2017 contain the possibility of dialogue mediated by absolute nothingness.
The conference theme "Shape Your Digital Future!" carries implications beyond a mere policy slogan. It can be positioned as a contemporary reformulation, in digital-era vocabulary, of the kinds of questions Kitaro Nishida problematized.
The form of the Global IGF stands between the principle of national sovereignty and the logic of a global public realm that transcends it.
Dialogue prior to subject-object separation
Kitaro Nishida's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2017 conference. We examine that application below.
1. Application to "AI初議論"
Discussion of "AI初議論" can be positioned, from the perspective of Kitaro Nishida's The place of absolute nothingness, as a central problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI初議論 are particularly at stake.
2. Application to "IoT"
Discussion of "IoT" can be positioned, from the perspective of Kitaro Nishida's The place of absolute nothingness, as a derivative problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around IoT are particularly at stake.
3. Application to "ビッグデータ"
Discussion of "ビッグデータ" can be positioned, from the perspective of Kitaro Nishida's The place of absolute nothingness, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around ビッグデータ are particularly at stake.
4. Application to "ジェンダー"
Discussion of "ジェンダー" can be positioned, from the perspective of Kitaro Nishida's The place of absolute nothingness, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around ジェンダー are particularly at stake.
5. Application to "国連連携"
Discussion of "国連連携" can be positioned, from the perspective of Kitaro Nishida's The place of absolute nothingness, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 国連連携 are particularly at stake.
Implications for Executives and Practitioners
The philosophical reflection of this essay is not merely academic. The Kitaro Nishida perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Switzerland.
First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of The place of absolute nothingness. Second, in dialogue with regulators and civil society, it suggests dimensions of consensus formation that purely technical arguments cannot reach. Third, it indicates that the long-term ground of business legitimacy lies not so much in technical advantage or market share as in participation in such philosophical-normative debates.
Academic Positioning and Future Research
The argument of this essay attempts to graft a philosophical perspective onto the mainstream political-science and legal approaches to internet governance research. Three future research questions follow.
- Verification of the applicability of Kitaro Nishida's framework to other IGF conferences
- Comparative contrast between Kyoto School and other theoretical traditions
- Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Switzerland
In particular, the third point has the potential to liberate IGF research from West-centric debate and open a more multi-layered discursive space.
Primary Sources
- IGF Secretariat. Annual Reports of Global IGF.
- Global IGF 2017 Geneva Conference Materials.
- Japan IGF Support Organization. https://japanigf.jp/
- Nakazawa Yuki Blog. https://nkzw.jp/category/igf/
Secondary Sources (Philosophy)
- Works of Kitaro Nishida (representative texts of Kyoto School)
*This piece belongs to the academic essays (philosophy series). The author's views do not necessarily represent those of any institutional affiliation. Feedback and critique are welcome.*
更新履歴
第1稿投稿 2026年6月3日 19時59分（記事コンテンツアップ）
— 中澤祐樹
