{"id":11544,"date":"2024-08-19T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-08-19T01:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2024\/08\/19\/en-philo-aprigf-2024-taipei-taylor-recognition\/"},"modified":"2024-08-19T10:00:00","modified_gmt":"2024-08-19T01:00:00","slug":"en-philo-aprigf-2024-taipei-taylor-recognition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2024\/08\/19\/en-philo-aprigf-2024-taipei-taylor-recognition\/","title":{"rendered":"Taylorian Politics of Recognition on AprIGF 2024 Taipei \u2014 Recognition and authenticity"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Thumbnail\"<\/p>\n

\n

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Communitarianism<\/strong> \u2014 most prominently associated with Charles Taylor<\/strong> \u2014 to re-read the AprIGF 2024 Taipei conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Introduction: The Problem<\/h2>\n

In "The Politics of Recognition", Taylor argues that contemporary identity depends on recognition by others. AprIGF can be read as a site of recognition for each country, culture, and stakeholder.<\/p>\n

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of AprIGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Recognition and authenticity<\/strong>, and that the concept itself undergoes transformation under the new material of digital space. Describing this mutual transformation is the task of this essay.<\/p>\n

\"Analytical<\/p>\n

IGF as a site of cultural recognition<\/h2>\n

Taiwan's experience of being recognized in international space carries constitutive significance beyond mere procedural participation. Regional-level discussion in particular cannot stand without recognition of cultural diversity.<\/p>\n

Each session's agenda-setting can be read as a contemporary restaging of the Charles Taylor-type problematic.<\/p>\n

The regional IGF (AprIGF) holds a philosophically distinct position as the intermediate category mediating global universality and national particularity.<\/p>\n

Minority authenticity<\/h2>\n

Charles Taylor'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.<\/p>\n

1. Application to "\u30c7\u30b8\u30bf\u30eb\u6c11\u4e3b\u4e3b\u7fa9"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30c7\u30b8\u30bf\u30eb\u6c11\u4e3b\u4e3b\u7fa9" can be positioned, from the perspective of Charles Taylor's Recognition and authenticity<\/strong>, as a central problematic. In Taiwan's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30c7\u30b8\u30bf\u30eb\u6c11\u4e3b\u4e3b\u7fa9 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

2. Application to "AI\u30ac\u30d0\u30ca\u30f3\u30b9"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "AI\u30ac\u30d0\u30ca\u30f3\u30b9" can be positioned, from the perspective of Charles Taylor's Recognition and authenticity<\/strong>, as a derivative problematic. In Taiwan's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI\u30ac\u30d0\u30ca\u30f3\u30b9 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

3. Application to "\u4fe1\u983c"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u4fe1\u983c" can be positioned, from the perspective of Charles Taylor's Recognition and authenticity<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Taiwan's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u4fe1\u983c are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

4. Application to "\u6301\u7d9a\u53ef\u80fd\u6027"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u6301\u7d9a\u53ef\u80fd\u6027" can be positioned, from the perspective of Charles Taylor's Recognition and authenticity<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Taiwan's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u6301\u7d9a\u53ef\u80fd\u6027 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

5. Application to "\u5730\u57df\u5354\u8abf"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u5730\u57df\u5354\u8abf" can be positioned, from the perspective of Charles Taylor's Recognition and authenticity<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Taiwan's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u5730\u57df\u5354\u8abf are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

\"Philosophical<\/p>\n

Implications for Executives and Practitioners<\/h2>\n

The philosophical reflection of this essay is not merely academic. The Charles Taylor perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Taiwan.<\/p>\n

First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Recognition and authenticity<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n

Academic Positioning and Future Research<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Verification of the applicability of Charles Taylor's framework to other IGF conferences<\/li>\n
  2. Comparative contrast between Communitarianism<\/strong> and other theoretical traditions<\/li>\n
  3. Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Taiwan<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In particular, the third point has the potential to liberate IGF research from West-centric debate and open a more multi-layered discursive space.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Primary Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n