{"id":9211,"date":"2022-06-07T21:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-06-07T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2022\/06\/07\/en-philo-italy-igf-2022-habermas-public-sphere\/"},"modified":"2022-06-07T21:00:00","modified_gmt":"2022-06-07T12:00:00","slug":"en-philo-italy-igf-2022-habermas-public-sphere","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2022\/06\/07\/en-philo-italy-igf-2022-habermas-public-sphere\/","title":{"rendered":"Habermasian Public Sphere on Italy IGF 2022 Rome \u2014 Communicative action and deliberation"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Frankfurt School \/ Critical Theory<\/strong> \u2014 most prominently associated with J\u00fcrgen Habermas<\/strong> \u2014 to re-read the Italy IGF 2022 Rome conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Introduction: The Problem<\/h2>\n

Reading the Italy IGF 2022 Rome gathering through Habermas's "Theory of Communicative Action" frames the multistakeholder model as an attempt to reconstruct the public sphere whose erosion he diagnosed.<\/p>\n

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of Italy IGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Communicative action and deliberation<\/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 deliberative democracy<\/h2>\n

The deliberative process of this conference tests how far the three conditions of the ideal speech situation \u2014 symmetry, openness, and freedom from coercion \u2014 can hold. The communicative norms of Italy carry layers of dialogic culture distinct from Western rationality, intersecting with what Habermas later called the translation problem in post-secular societies.<\/p>\n

Each session's agenda-setting can be read as a contemporary restaging of the J\u00fcrgen Habermas-type problematic.<\/p>\n

The national-level IGF (Italy IGF) is an attempt to redefine the modern category of the nation-state in the digital era.<\/p>\n

Institutional implementation of the ideal speech situation<\/h2>\n

J\u00fcrgen Habermas's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2022 conference. We examine that application below.<\/p>\n

1. Application to "DSA"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "DSA" can be positioned, from the perspective of J\u00fcrgen Habermas's Communicative action and deliberation<\/strong>, as a central problematic. In Italy's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around DSA are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

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

Discussion of "AI" can be positioned, from the perspective of J\u00fcrgen Habermas's Communicative action and deliberation<\/strong>, as a derivative problematic. In Italy's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

3. Application to "\u82e5\u8005"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u82e5\u8005" can be positioned, from the perspective of J\u00fcrgen Habermas's Communicative action and deliberation<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Italy's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u82e5\u8005 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

4. Application to "\u56fd\u5185\u6cd5\u6574\u5099"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u56fd\u5185\u6cd5\u6574\u5099" can be positioned, from the perspective of J\u00fcrgen Habermas's Communicative action and deliberation<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Italy's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u56fd\u5185\u6cd5\u6574\u5099 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

5. Application to "\u653f\u5e9c\uff0b\u6c11\u9593\u5354\u50cd"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u653f\u5e9c\uff0b\u6c11\u9593\u5354\u50cd" can be positioned, from the perspective of J\u00fcrgen Habermas's Communicative action and deliberation<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Italy's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u653f\u5e9c\uff0b\u6c11\u9593\u5354\u50cd 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 J\u00fcrgen Habermas perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Italy.<\/p>\n

First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Communicative action and deliberation<\/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 J\u00fcrgen Habermas's framework to other IGF conferences<\/li>\n
  2. Comparative contrast between Frankfurt School \/ Critical Theory<\/strong> and other theoretical traditions<\/li>\n
  3. Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Italy<\/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