{"id":13956,"date":"2025-09-02T20:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-09-02T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2025\/09\/02\/en-philo-afigf-2025-nairobi-maruyama-modernity\/"},"modified":"2025-09-02T20:00:00","modified_gmt":"2025-09-02T11:00:00","slug":"en-philo-afigf-2025-nairobi-maruyama-modernity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2025\/09\/02\/en-philo-afigf-2025-nairobi-maruyama-modernity\/","title":{"rendered":"Maruyaman Japanese Modernity on AfIGF 2025 Nairobi \u2014 System of irresponsibility and prototype"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Japanese Political Thought<\/strong> \u2014 most prominently associated with Masao Maruyama<\/strong> \u2014 to re-read the AfIGF 2025 Nairobi conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Introduction: The Problem<\/h2>\n

Maruyama analyzed Japan's modernity as a "system of irresponsibility." Analyzing AfIGF's decision structures from this angle reveals the responsibility-avoidance mechanisms latent in multistakeholder discourse.<\/p>\n

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of AfIGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of System of irresponsibility and prototype<\/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

System of irresponsibility in digital decisions<\/h2>\n

In many societies \u2014 not just Kenya \u2014 technical issues get dispersed to "experts," political ones to "government," social ones to "civil society," producing a structure where no one bears responsibility. Maruyaman subject formation demands subjectivizing this dispersion.<\/p>\n

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

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

Critique of substratum for subject formation<\/h2>\n

Masao Maruyama'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.<\/p>\n

1. Application to "GDC\u5b9f\u884c"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "GDC\u5b9f\u884c" can be positioned, from the perspective of Masao Maruyama's System of irresponsibility and prototype<\/strong>, as a central problematic. In Kenya's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around GDC\u5b9f\u884c are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

2. Application to "AI\u502b\u7406"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "AI\u502b\u7406" can be positioned, from the perspective of Masao Maruyama's System of irresponsibility and prototype<\/strong>, as a derivative problematic. In Kenya's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI\u502b\u7406 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

3. Application to "\u30c7\u30b8\u30bf\u30eb\u7d4c\u6e08"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30c7\u30b8\u30bf\u30eb\u7d4c\u6e08" can be positioned, from the perspective of Masao Maruyama's System of irresponsibility and prototype<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Kenya's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30c7\u30b8\u30bf\u30eb\u7d4c\u6e08 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

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

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

5. Application to "\u8d8a\u5883\u30c7\u30fc\u30bf"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u8d8a\u5883\u30c7\u30fc\u30bf" can be positioned, from the perspective of Masao Maruyama's System of irresponsibility and prototype<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Kenya's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u8d8a\u5883\u30c7\u30fc\u30bf 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 Masao Maruyama perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Kenya.<\/p>\n

First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of System of irresponsibility and prototype<\/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 Masao Maruyama's framework to other IGF conferences<\/li>\n
  2. Comparative contrast between Japanese Political Thought<\/strong> and other theoretical traditions<\/li>\n
  3. Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Kenya<\/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