Spinozan Multitude on YouthDIG 2024 Vilnius — Multitude against Empire

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the 17C Rationalism / Negri — most prominently associated with Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt) — to re-read the YouthDIG 2024 Vilnius 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 YouthDIG can be read through this multitude concept.

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of YouthDIG 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 Vilnius are valued as preservation of singularity rather than as material for integration. The moment Lithuania'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 Youth IGF practically raises the philosophical problematic of intergenerational justice.

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 2024 conference. We examine that application below.

1. Application to "AI"

Discussion of "AI" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a central problematic. In Lithuania's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI are particularly at stake.

2. Application to "選挙"

Discussion of "選挙" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a derivative problematic. In Lithuania's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 選挙 are particularly at stake.

3. Application to "メッセージング"

Discussion of "メッセージング" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Lithuania's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around メッセージング are particularly at stake.

4. Application to "若者育成"

Discussion of "若者育成" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Lithuania'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 "メンタルヘルス"

Discussion of "メンタルヘルス" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Lithuania'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.

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 Lithuania.

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.

1. Verification of the applicability of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s framework to other IGF conferences
2. Comparative contrast between 17C Rationalism / Negri and other theoretical traditions
3. Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Lithuania

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 YouthDIG.
• YouthDIG 2024 Vilnius Conference Materials.
• 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10月8日 21時37分（記事コンテンツアップ）

— 中澤祐樹