This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Postcolonial / Deconstruction — most prominently associated with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak — to re-read the Ukraine IGF 2017 Kyiv conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.
Introduction: The Problem
Spivak theorized the difficulty of the subaltern's voice being heard as such. The representativeness of "civil society," "developing countries," and "youth" at Ukraine IGF carries this difficulty.
This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of Ukraine IGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, and that the concept itself undergoes transformation under the new material of digital space. Describing this mutual transformation is the task of this essay.
Audibility of the digital subaltern
The translation process by which voices from further subaltern groups within Ukraine (rural, ethnic minorities, the poor) reach IGF involves an essentially ethical question. AI addresses this superficially but root resolution remains difficult.
Each session's agenda-setting can be read as a contemporary restaging of the Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak-type problematic.
The national-level IGF (Ukraine IGF) is an attempt to redefine the modern category of the nation-state in the digital era.
Ethics of translation
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2017 conference. We examine that application below.
1. Application to "AI"
Discussion of "AI" can be positioned, from the perspective of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, as a central problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI are particularly at stake.
2. Application to "電子政府"
Discussion of "電子政府" can be positioned, from the perspective of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, as a derivative problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 電子政府 are particularly at stake.
3. Application to "偽情報"
Discussion of "偽情報" can be positioned, from the perspective of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 偽情報 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 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Ukraine'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 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Ukraine'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 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Ukraine.
First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of “Can the Subaltern Speak?”. 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 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's framework to other IGF conferences
- Comparative contrast between Postcolonial / Deconstruction and other theoretical traditions
- Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Ukraine
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 Ukraine IGF.
- Ukraine IGF 2017 Kyiv Conference Materials.
- Japan IGF Support Organization. https://japanigf.jp/
- Nakazawa Yuki Blog. https://nkzw.jp/category/igf/
Secondary Sources (Philosophy)
- Works of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (representative texts of Postcolonial / Deconstruction)
*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21日 18時38分（記事コンテンツアップ）
— 中澤祐樹
