Mouffian Agonism on EuroDIG 2025 Strasbourg — Agonistic pluralism

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Post-Marxism — most prominently associated with Chantal Mouffe — to re-read the EuroDIG 2025 Strasbourg conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.

Introduction: The Problem

Against consensus-oriented deliberative democracy, Mouffe argues that the essence of politics is conflict. Evaluating EuroDIG 2025 discussions only by "consensus building" represents, on Mouffian terms, an impoverishment of democracy.

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of EuroDIG becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Agonistic pluralism, 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 legitimacy of contest without consensus

The irreconcilable differences between France's position and those of other states and stakeholders are not to be suppressed but institutionalized as agonism. Positions on AI法施行 are a typical example.

Each session's agenda-setting can be read as a contemporary restaging of the Chantal Mouffe-type problematic.

The regional IGF (EuroDIG) holds a philosophically distinct position as the intermediate category mediating global universality and national particularity.

From antagonism to agonism

Chantal Mouffe's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2025 conference. We examine that application below.

1. Application to "AI法施行"

Discussion of "AI法施行" can be positioned, from the perspective of Chantal Mouffe's Agonistic pluralism, as a central problematic. In France's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI法施行 are particularly at stake.

2. Application to "情報の完全性"

Discussion of "情報の完全性" can be positioned, from the perspective of Chantal Mouffe's Agonistic pluralism, as a derivative problematic. In France's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 情報の完全性 are particularly at stake.

3. Application to "デジタル主権"

Discussion of "デジタル主権" can be positioned, from the perspective of Chantal Mouffe's Agonistic pluralism, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In France's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around デジタル主権 are particularly at stake.

4. Application to "地域協調"

Discussion of "地域協調" can be positioned, from the perspective of Chantal Mouffe's Agonistic pluralism, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In France's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 地域協調 are particularly at stake.

5. Application to "越境データ"

Discussion of "越境データ" can be positioned, from the perspective of Chantal Mouffe's Agonistic pluralism, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In France's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 越境データ are particularly at stake.

Implications for Executives and Practitioners

The philosophical reflection of this essay is not merely academic. The Chantal Mouffe 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 Agonistic pluralism. 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.

1. Verification of the applicability of Chantal Mouffe's framework to other IGF conferences
2. Comparative contrast between Post-Marxism and other theoretical traditions
3. 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 EuroDIG.
• EuroDIG 2025 Strasbourg Conference Materials.
• Nakazawa Yuki Blog. https://nkzw.jp/category/igf/

Secondary Sources (Philosophy)

• Works of Chantal Mouffe (representative texts of Post-Marxism)

---

*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10月4日 8時04分（記事コンテンツアップ）

— 中澤祐樹