This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Political Philosophy / Phenomenology — most prominently associated with Hannah Arendt — to re-read the Latvia IGF 2018 Riga conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.
Introduction: The Problem
Arendt's concept of "action" in The Human Condition demands a public space where plural humans appear to one another through word and deed. Latvia IGF can be read as a rare implementation of this "space of appearance" in the digital age.
This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of Latvia IGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Labor / work / action and the public realm, 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 a space of appearance
Utterances at Riga are not only instruments for solving technical problems but acts in which participants disclose "who they are". This resists the reduction of society to mere "labor" and "work" that Arendt warned against — particularly resonant in Latvia's context as a response to the shrinking of the political realm.
Each session's agenda-setting can be read as a contemporary restaging of the Hannah Arendt-type problematic.
The national-level IGF (Latvia IGF) is an attempt to redefine the modern category of the nation-state in the digital era.
Plurality and natality in politics
Hannah Arendt's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2018 conference. We examine that application below.
1. Application to "GDPR"
Discussion of "GDPR" can be positioned, from the perspective of Hannah Arendt's Labor / work / action and the public realm, as a central problematic. In Latvia's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around GDPR are particularly at stake.
2. Application to "AI"
Discussion of "AI" can be positioned, from the perspective of Hannah Arendt's Labor / work / action and the public realm, as a derivative problematic. In Latvia's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI are particularly at stake.
3. Application to "デジタル経済"
Discussion of "デジタル経済" can be positioned, from the perspective of Hannah Arendt's Labor / work / action and the public realm, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Latvia's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around デジタル経済 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 Hannah Arendt's Labor / work / action and the public realm, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Latvia'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 Hannah Arendt's Labor / work / action and the public realm, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Latvia'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 Hannah Arendt perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Latvia.
First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Labor / work / action and the public realm. 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 Hannah Arendt's framework to other IGF conferences
- Comparative contrast between Political Philosophy / Phenomenology and other theoretical traditions
- Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Latvia
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 Latvia IGF.
- Latvia IGF 2018 Riga Conference Materials.
- Japan IGF Support Organization. https://japanigf.jp/
- Nakazawa Yuki Blog. https://nkzw.jp/category/igf/
Secondary Sources (Philosophy)
- Works of Hannah Arendt (representative texts of Political Philosophy / 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11日 16時03分（記事コンテンツアップ）
— 中澤祐樹
