This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Contemporary German Philosophy — most prominently associated with Peter Sloterdijk — to re-read the Global IGF 2018 Paris conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.
Introduction: The Problem
Sloterdijk's Spheres trilogy argues that humans are always spatial beings needing some "interior." Global IGF can be read as an attempt to construct new "spheres" against the globalized "exterior."
This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of Global IGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Spheres, foams, spatial anthropology, and that the concept itself undergoes transformation under the new material of digital space. Describing this mutual transformation is the task of this essay.
Construction of digital foams
France's national sphere, the regional sphere, and the global sphere co-exist as "foams" rather than concentric circles. Discussion of サイバーセキュリティ exemplifies governance constructed as immune system.
The conference theme "Internet of Trust" carries implications beyond a mere policy slogan. It can be positioned as a contemporary reformulation, in digital-era vocabulary, of the kinds of questions Peter Sloterdijk problematized.
The form of the Global IGF stands between the principle of national sovereignty and the logic of a global public realm that transcends it.
Governance as immune system
Peter Sloterdijk'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 "サイバーセキュリティ"
Discussion of "サイバーセキュリティ" can be positioned, from the perspective of Peter Sloterdijk's Spheres, foams, spatial anthropology, as a central problematic. In France's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around サイバーセキュリティ are particularly at stake.
2. Application to "誤情報対策"
Discussion of "誤情報対策" can be positioned, from the perspective of Peter Sloterdijk's Spheres, foams, spatial anthropology, as a derivative problematic. In France's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 誤情報対策 are particularly at stake.
3. Application to "パリ・コール"
Discussion of "パリ・コール" can be positioned, from the perspective of Peter Sloterdijk's Spheres, foams, spatial anthropology, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In France's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around パリ・コール are particularly at stake.
4. Application to "AI倫理"
Discussion of "AI倫理" can be positioned, from the perspective of Peter Sloterdijk's Spheres, foams, spatial anthropology, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In France's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI倫理 are particularly at stake.
5. Application to "国連連携"
Discussion of "国連連携" can be positioned, from the perspective of Peter Sloterdijk's Spheres, foams, spatial anthropology, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In France's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 国連連携 are particularly at stake.
Implications for Executives and Practitioners
The philosophical reflection of this essay is not merely academic. The Peter Sloterdijk perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in France.
First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Spheres, foams, spatial anthropology. 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 Peter Sloterdijk's framework to other IGF conferences
- Comparative contrast between Contemporary German Philosophy and other theoretical traditions
- Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of France
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 Global IGF.
- Global IGF 2018 Paris Conference Materials.
- Japan IGF Support Organization. https://japanigf.jp/
- Nakazawa Yuki Blog. https://nkzw.jp/category/igf/
Secondary Sources (Philosophy)
- Works of Peter Sloterdijk (representative texts of Contemporary German Philosophy)
*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16日 17時09分（記事コンテンツアップ）
— 中澤祐樹
