Latourian Actor-Network Theory on Youth AprIGF 2019 Vladivostok — Human and non-human actors

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Science and Technology Studies — most prominently associated with Bruno Latour — to re-read the Youth AprIGF 2019 Vladivostok conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.

Introduction: The Problem

Latour's actor-network theory in Reassembling the Social treats humans and non-humans symmetrically. Youth AprIGF can be read as an assembly of protocols, cables, regulations, and humans.

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of Youth AprIGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Human and non-human actors, and that the concept itself undergoes transformation under the new material of digital space. Describing this mutual transformation is the task of this essay.

Assemblies of protocols, cables, humans

アジア太平洋若者 debated at Vladivostok typifies treating technical artifacts as political actors. Latour's "parliament of things" is a theoretical extension of IGF.

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

The Youth IGF practically raises the philosophical problematic of intergenerational justice.

Parliament of things

Bruno Latour's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2019 conference. We examine that application below.

1. Application to "アジア太平洋若者"

Discussion of "アジア太平洋若者" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bruno Latour's Human and non-human actors, as a central problematic. In Russia's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around アジア太平洋若者 are particularly at stake.

2. Application to "フェローシップ"

Discussion of "フェローシップ" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bruno Latour's Human and non-human actors, as a derivative problematic. In Russia's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around フェローシップ are particularly at stake.

3. Application to "メンタルヘルス"

Discussion of "メンタルヘルス" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bruno Latour's Human and non-human actors, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Russia's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around メンタルヘルス are particularly at stake.

4. Application to "若者育成"

Discussion of "若者育成" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bruno Latour's Human and non-human actors, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Russia's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 若者育成 are particularly at stake.

5. Application to "若者のSNS利用"

Discussion of "若者のSNS利用" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bruno Latour's Human and non-human actors, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Russia's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 若者のSNS利用 are particularly at stake.

Implications for Executives and Practitioners

The philosophical reflection of this essay is not merely academic. The Bruno Latour perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Russia.

First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Human and non-human actors. 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 Bruno Latour's framework to other IGF conferences
2. Comparative contrast between Science and Technology Studies and other theoretical traditions
3. Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Russia

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 Youth AprIGF.
• Youth AprIGF 2019 Vladivostok Conference Materials.
• Nakazawa Yuki Blog. https://nkzw.jp/category/igf/

Secondary Sources (Philosophy)

• Works of Bruno Latour (representative texts of Science and Technology Studies)

---

*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7日 11時20分（記事コンテンツアップ）

— 中澤祐樹