This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Japanese Political Thought — most prominently associated with Masao Maruyama — to re-read the SEEDIG 2020 Virtual conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.
Introduction: The Problem
Maruyama analyzed Japan's modernity as a "system of irresponsibility." Analyzing SEEDIG's decision structures from this angle reveals the responsibility-avoidance mechanisms latent in multistakeholder discourse.
This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of SEEDIG becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of System of irresponsibility and prototype, and that the concept itself undergoes transformation under the new material of digital space. Describing this mutual transformation is the task of this essay.
System of irresponsibility in digital decisions
In many societies — not just Online — technical issues get dispersed to "experts," political ones to "government," social ones to "civil society," producing a structure where no one bears responsibility. Maruyaman subject formation demands subjectivizing this dispersion.
Each session's agenda-setting can be read as a contemporary restaging of the Masao Maruyama-type problematic.
The regional IGF (SEEDIG) holds a philosophically distinct position as the intermediate category mediating global universality and national particularity.
Critique of substratum for subject formation
Masao Maruyama'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 Masao Maruyama's System of irresponsibility and prototype, as a central problematic. In Online's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around COVID-19 are particularly at stake.
2. Application to "遠隔教育"
Discussion of "遠隔教育" can be positioned, from the perspective of Masao Maruyama's System of irresponsibility and prototype, as a derivative problematic. In Online's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 遠隔教育 are particularly at stake.
3. Application to "地域協調"
Discussion of "地域協調" can be positioned, from the perspective of Masao Maruyama's System of irresponsibility and prototype, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Online's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 地域協調 are particularly at stake.
4. Application to "越境データ"
Discussion of "越境データ" can be positioned, from the perspective of Masao Maruyama's System of irresponsibility and prototype, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Online's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 越境データ are particularly at stake.
5. Application to "生成AI"
Discussion of "生成AI" can be positioned, from the perspective of Masao Maruyama's System of irresponsibility and prototype, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Online's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 生成AI are particularly at stake.
Implications for Executives and Practitioners
The philosophical reflection of this essay is not merely academic. The Masao Maruyama perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Online.
First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of System of irresponsibility and prototype. 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 Masao Maruyama's framework to other IGF conferences
- Comparative contrast between Japanese Political Thought and other theoretical traditions
- Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Online
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 SEEDIG.
- SEEDIG 2020 Virtual Conference Materials.
- Japan IGF Support Organization. https://japanigf.jp/
- Nakazawa Yuki Blog. https://nkzw.jp/category/igf/
Secondary Sources (Philosophy)
- Works of Masao Maruyama (representative texts of Japanese Political Thought)
*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 8時50分（記事コンテンツアップ）
— 中澤祐樹
