{"id":9312,"date":"2022-06-07T20:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-06-07T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2022\/06\/07\/en-philo-greece-igf-2022-latour-actor-network\/"},"modified":"2022-06-07T20:00:00","modified_gmt":"2022-06-07T11:00:00","slug":"en-philo-greece-igf-2022-latour-actor-network","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2022\/06\/07\/en-philo-greece-igf-2022-latour-actor-network\/","title":{"rendered":"Latourian Actor-Network Theory on Greece IGF 2022 Athens \u2014 Human and non-human actors"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Science and Technology Studies<\/strong> \u2014 most prominently associated with Bruno Latour<\/strong> \u2014 to re-read the Greece IGF 2022 Athens conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Introduction: The Problem<\/h2>\n

Latour's actor-network theory in Reassembling the Social treats humans and non-humans symmetrically. Greece IGF can be read as an assembly of protocols, cables, regulations, and humans.<\/p>\n

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of Greece IGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Human and non-human actors<\/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

Assemblies of protocols, cables, humans<\/h2>\n

AI debated at Athens typifies treating technical artifacts as political actors. Latour's "parliament of things" is a theoretical extension of IGF.<\/p>\n

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

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

Parliament of things<\/h2>\n

Bruno Latour'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 "AI"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "AI" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bruno Latour's Human and non-human actors<\/strong>, as a central problematic. In Greece's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

2. Application to "\u30b5\u30a4\u30d0\u30fc\u30bb\u30ad\u30e5\u30ea\u30c6\u30a3"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30b5\u30a4\u30d0\u30fc\u30bb\u30ad\u30e5\u30ea\u30c6\u30a3" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bruno Latour's Human and non-human actors<\/strong>, as a derivative problematic. In Greece's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30b5\u30a4\u30d0\u30fc\u30bb\u30ad\u30e5\u30ea\u30c6\u30a3 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

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

Discussion of "\u82e5\u8005" can be positioned, from the perspective of Bruno Latour's Human and non-human actors<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Greece'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 Bruno Latour's Human and non-human actors<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Greece'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 Bruno Latour's Human and non-human actors<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Greece'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 Bruno Latour perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Greece.<\/p>\n

First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Human and non-human actors<\/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 Bruno Latour's framework to other IGF conferences<\/li>\n
  2. Comparative contrast between Science and Technology Studies<\/strong> and other theoretical traditions<\/li>\n
  3. Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Greece<\/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