{"id":17011,"date":"2010-09-14T15:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-14T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2010\/09\/14\/en-philo-igf-2010-vilnius-mouffe-agonism\/"},"modified":"2010-09-14T15:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-09-14T15:00:00","slug":"en-philo-igf-2010-vilnius-mouffe-agonism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2010\/09\/14\/en-philo-igf-2010-vilnius-mouffe-agonism\/","title":{"rendered":"Mouffian Agonism on Global IGF 2010 Vilnius \u2014 Agonistic pluralism"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Post-Marxism<\/strong> \u2014 most prominently associated with Chantal Mouffe<\/strong> \u2014 to re-read the Global IGF 2010 Vilnius conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Introduction: The Problem<\/h2>\n

Against consensus-oriented deliberative democracy, Mouffe argues that the essence of politics is conflict. Evaluating Global IGF 2010 discussions only by "consensus building" represents, on Mouffian terms, an impoverishment of democracy.<\/p>\n

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of Global IGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Agonistic pluralism<\/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

The legitimacy of contest without consensus<\/h2>\n

The irreconcilable differences between Lithuania's position and those of other states and stakeholders are not to be suppressed but institutionalized as agonism. Positions on IGF\u30de\u30f3\u30c7\u30fc\u30c8\u7d99\u7d9a are a typical example.<\/p>\n

The conference theme "Developing the Future Together" carries implications beyond a mere policy slogan. It can be positioned as a contemporary reformulation, in digital-era vocabulary, of the kinds of questions Chantal Mouffe 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

From antagonism to agonism<\/h2>\n

Chantal Mouffe's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2010 conference. We examine that application below.<\/p>\n

1. Application to "IGF\u30de\u30f3\u30c7\u30fc\u30c8\u7d99\u7d9a"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "IGF\u30de\u30f3\u30c7\u30fc\u30c8\u7d99\u7d9a" can be positioned, from the perspective of Chantal Mouffe's Agonistic pluralism<\/strong>, as a central problematic. In Lithuania's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around IGF\u30de\u30f3\u30c7\u30fc\u30c8\u7d99\u7d9a are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

2. Application to "\u30af\u30e9\u30a6\u30c9"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30af\u30e9\u30a6\u30c9" can be positioned, from the perspective of Chantal Mouffe's Agonistic pluralism<\/strong>, as a derivative problematic. In Lithuania's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30af\u30e9\u30a6\u30c9 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

3. Application to "\u30bb\u30ad\u30e5\u30ea\u30c6\u30a3"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30bb\u30ad\u30e5\u30ea\u30c6\u30a3" can be positioned, from the perspective of Chantal Mouffe's Agonistic pluralism<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Lithuania's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30bb\u30ad\u30e5\u30ea\u30c6\u30a3 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

4. Application to "\u958b\u767a"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u958b\u767a" can be positioned, from the perspective of Chantal Mouffe's Agonistic pluralism<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Lithuania's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u958b\u767a 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 Chantal Mouffe's Agonistic pluralism<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Lithuania'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 Chantal Mouffe perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Lithuania.<\/p>\n

First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Agonistic pluralism<\/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 Chantal Mouffe's framework to other IGF conferences<\/li>\n
  2. Comparative contrast between Post-Marxism<\/strong> and other theoretical traditions<\/li>\n
  3. Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Lithuania<\/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