This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Philosophy of Technology / Phenomenology — most prominently associated with Bernard Stiegler — to re-read the LACIGF 2025 Montevideo conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.
Introduction: The Problem
Stiegler argued that technology is always pharmakon — both poison and remedy. Discussion of 情報の完全性 at LACIGF engages how to socially calibrate technology's pharmakon character.
This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of LACIGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Pharmakon (both poison and remedy), and that the concept itself undergoes transformation under the new material of digital space. Describing this mutual transformation is the task of this essay.
Critique of the attention economy
The structure by which the attention of Uruguay's youth is exploited by the platform economy is precisely what Stiegler criticized as the "attention economy." Countermeasures discussed at 2025 contain the possibility of transition to a "contributory economy."
Each session's agenda-setting can be read as a contemporary restaging of the Bernard Stiegler-type problematic.
The regional IGF (LACIGF) holds a philosophically distinct position as the intermediate category mediating global universality and national particularity.
Transition to contributory economy
Bernard Stiegler's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2025 conference. We examine that application below.
1. Application to "情報の完全性"
Discussion of "情報の完全性" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bernard Stiegler's Pharmakon (both poison and remedy), as a central problematic. In Uruguay's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 情報の完全性 are particularly at stake.
2. Application to "AI規制"
Discussion of "AI規制" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bernard Stiegler's Pharmakon (both poison and remedy), as a derivative problematic. In Uruguay's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI規制 are particularly at stake.
3. Application to "ジェンダーギャップ"
Discussion of "ジェンダーギャップ" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bernard Stiegler's Pharmakon (both poison and remedy), as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Uruguay's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around ジェンダーギャップ are particularly at stake.
4. Application to "地域協調"
Discussion of "地域協調" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bernard Stiegler's Pharmakon (both poison and remedy), as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Uruguay's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 地域協調 are particularly at stake.
5. Application to "越境データ"
Discussion of "越境データ" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bernard Stiegler's Pharmakon (both poison and remedy), as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Uruguay's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 越境データ are particularly at stake.
Implications for Executives and Practitioners
The philosophical reflection of this essay is not merely academic. The Bernard Stiegler perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Uruguay.
First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Pharmakon (both poison and remedy). 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 Bernard Stiegler's framework to other IGF conferences
- Comparative contrast between Philosophy of Technology / Phenomenology and other theoretical traditions
- Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Uruguay
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 LACIGF.
- LACIGF 2025 Montevideo Conference Materials.
- Japan IGF Support Organization. https://japanigf.jp/
- Nakazawa Yuki Blog. https://nkzw.jp/category/igf/
Secondary Sources (Philosophy)
- Works of Bernard Stiegler (representative texts of Philosophy of Technology / Phenomenology)
*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10日 15時11分（記事コンテンツアップ）
— 中澤祐樹
