{"id":12285,"date":"2017-12-18T17:00:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-18T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2017\/12\/18\/en-philo-igf-2017-geneva-stiegler-pharmakon\/"},"modified":"2017-12-18T17:00:00","modified_gmt":"2017-12-18T08:00:00","slug":"en-philo-igf-2017-geneva-stiegler-pharmakon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2017\/12\/18\/en-philo-igf-2017-geneva-stiegler-pharmakon\/","title":{"rendered":"Stieglerian Pharmakon on Global IGF 2017 Geneva \u2014 Pharmakon (both poison and remedy)"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Philosophy of Technology \/ Phenomenology<\/strong> \u2014 most prominently associated with Bernard Stiegler<\/strong> \u2014 to re-read the Global IGF 2017 Geneva conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Introduction: The Problem<\/h2>\n

Stiegler argued that technology is always pharmakon \u2014 both poison and remedy. Discussion of AI\u521d\u8b70\u8ad6 at Global IGF engages how to socially calibrate technology's pharmakon character.<\/p>\n

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of Global IGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Pharmakon (both poison and remedy)<\/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

Critique of the attention economy<\/h2>\n

The structure by which the attention of Switzerland's youth is exploited by the platform economy is precisely what Stiegler criticized as the "attention economy." Countermeasures discussed at 2017 contain the possibility of transition to a "contributory economy."<\/p>\n

The conference theme "Shape Your Digital Future!" carries implications beyond a mere policy slogan. It can be positioned as a contemporary reformulation, in digital-era vocabulary, of the kinds of questions Bernard Stiegler problematized.<\/p>\n

The form of the Global IGF stands between the principle of national sovereignty and the logic of a global public realm that transcends it.<\/p>\n

Transition to contributory economy<\/h2>\n

Bernard Stiegler's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2017 conference. We examine that application below.<\/p>\n

1. Application to "AI\u521d\u8b70\u8ad6"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "AI\u521d\u8b70\u8ad6" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bernard Stiegler's Pharmakon (both poison and remedy)<\/strong>, as a central problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI\u521d\u8b70\u8ad6 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

2. Application to "IoT"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "IoT" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bernard Stiegler's Pharmakon (both poison and remedy)<\/strong>, as a derivative problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around IoT are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

3. Application to "\u30d3\u30c3\u30b0\u30c7\u30fc\u30bf"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30d3\u30c3\u30b0\u30c7\u30fc\u30bf" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bernard Stiegler's Pharmakon (both poison and remedy)<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30d3\u30c3\u30b0\u30c7\u30fc\u30bf are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

4. Application to "\u30b8\u30a7\u30f3\u30c0\u30fc"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30b8\u30a7\u30f3\u30c0\u30fc" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bernard Stiegler's Pharmakon (both poison and remedy)<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30b8\u30a7\u30f3\u30c0\u30fc are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

5. Application to "\u56fd\u9023\u9023\u643a"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u56fd\u9023\u9023\u643a" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bernard Stiegler's Pharmakon (both poison and remedy)<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Switzerland's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u56fd\u9023\u9023\u643a 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 Bernard Stiegler perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Switzerland.<\/p>\n

First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Pharmakon (both poison and remedy)<\/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 Bernard Stiegler's framework to other IGF conferences<\/li>\n
  2. Comparative contrast between Philosophy of Technology \/ Phenomenology<\/strong> and other theoretical traditions<\/li>\n
  3. Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Switzerland<\/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