This essay applies the conceptual framework of the 17C Rationalism / Negri — most prominently associated with Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt) — to re-read the Switzerland IGF 2024 Geneva 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 Switzerland IGF can be read through this multitude concept.
This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of Switzerland 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 Geneva are valued as preservation of singularity rather than as material for integration. The moment Switzerland'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 (Switzerland 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 2024 conference. We examine that application below.
1. Application to "AI倫理"
Discussion of "AI倫理" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a central problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI倫理 are particularly at stake.
2. Application to "GDC"
Discussion of "GDC" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a derivative problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around GDC are particularly at stake.
3. Application to "デジタル外交"
Discussion of "デジタル外交" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around デジタル外交 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 Switzerland'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 Switzerland'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 Switzerland.
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 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 Switzerland IGF.
- Switzerland IGF 2024 Geneva 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9日 14時27分（記事コンテンツアップ）
— 中澤祐樹
