This essay applies the conceptual framework of the 17C Rationalism / Negri — most prominently associated with Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt) — to re-read the SEEDIG 2023 Sofia conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.
Introduction: The Problem
The Spinozan political philosophy developed by Negri & Hardt in Empire and Multitude envisions a subject of plurality, neither state nor people. The diverse actors at SEEDIG can be read through this multitude concept.
This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of SEEDIG becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Multitude against Empire, and that the concept itself undergoes transformation under the new material of digital space. Describing this mutual transformation is the task of this essay.
The multitude as networked subject
The differences among participants gathered at Sofia are valued as preservation of singularity rather than as material for integration. The moment Bulgaria's civil society organizations connect with those of other countries, production of the common begins.
Each session's agenda-setting can be read as a contemporary restaging of the Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)-type problematic.
The regional IGF (SEEDIG) holds a philosophically distinct position as the intermediate category mediating global universality and national particularity.
Production of the common
Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2023 conference. We examine that application below.
1. Application to "AI規制"
Discussion of "AI規制" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a central problematic. In Bulgaria's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI規制 are particularly at stake.
2. Application to "選挙とディスインフォ"
Discussion of "選挙とディスインフォ" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a derivative problematic. In Bulgaria's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 選挙とディスインフォ are particularly at stake.
3. Application to "地域協調"
Discussion of "地域協調" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Bulgaria'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 Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Bulgaria'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 Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Bulgaria'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 Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt) perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Bulgaria.
First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Multitude against Empire. 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 Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s framework to other IGF conferences
- Comparative contrast between 17C Rationalism / Negri and other theoretical traditions
- Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Bulgaria
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 2023 Sofia Conference Materials.
- Japan IGF Support Organization. https://japanigf.jp/
- Nakazawa Yuki Blog. https://nkzw.jp/category/igf/
Secondary Sources (Philosophy)
- Works of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt) (representative texts of 17C Rationalism / Negri)
*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7月6日 12時57分（記事コンテンツアップ）
— 中澤祐樹
