This essay applies the conceptual framework of the 17C Rationalism / Negri — most prominently associated with Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt) — to re-read the New Zealand IGF 2020 Virtual conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.
Introduction: The Problem
The Spinozan political philosophy developed by Negri & Hardt in Empire and Multitude envisions a subject of plurality, neither state nor people. The diverse actors at New Zealand IGF can be read through this multitude concept.
This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of New Zealand IGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Multitude against Empire, and that the concept itself undergoes transformation under the new material of digital space. Describing this mutual transformation is the task of this essay.
The multitude as networked subject
The differences among participants gathered at Virtual are valued as preservation of singularity rather than as material for integration. The moment New Zealand's civil society organizations connect with those of other countries, production of the common begins.
Each session's agenda-setting can be read as a contemporary restaging of the Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)-type problematic.
The national-level IGF (New Zealand IGF) is an attempt to redefine the modern category of the nation-state in the digital era.
Production of the common
Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2020 conference. We examine that application below.
1. Application to "COVID-19"
Discussion of "COVID-19" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a central problematic. In New Zealand's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around COVID-19 are particularly at stake.
2. Application to "デジタル包摂"
Discussion of "デジタル包摂" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a derivative problematic. In New Zealand's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around デジタル包摂 are particularly at stake.
3. Application to "AI"
Discussion of "AI" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In New Zealand's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI are particularly at stake.
4. Application to "国内法整備"
Discussion of "国内法整備" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In New Zealand's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 国内法整備 are particularly at stake.
5. Application to "政府＋民間協働"
Discussion of "政府＋民間協働" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In New Zealand's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 政府＋民間協働 are particularly at stake.
Implications for Executives and Practitioners
The philosophical reflection of this essay is not merely academic. The Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt) perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in New Zealand.
First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Multitude against Empire. 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 Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s framework to other IGF conferences
- Comparative contrast between 17C Rationalism / Negri and other theoretical traditions
- Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of New Zealand
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 New Zealand IGF.
- New Zealand IGF 2020 Virtual Conference Materials.
- Japan IGF Support Organization. https://japanigf.jp/
- Nakazawa Yuki Blog. https://nkzw.jp/category/igf/
Secondary Sources (Philosophy)
- Works of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt) (representative texts of 17C Rationalism / Negri)
*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5日 13時03分（記事コンテンツアップ）
— 中澤祐樹
