{"id":9793,"date":"2025-08-26T21:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-08-26T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2025\/08\/26\/en-philo-lacigf-2025-montevideo-foucault-governmentality\/"},"modified":"2025-08-26T21:00:00","modified_gmt":"2025-08-26T12:00:00","slug":"en-philo-lacigf-2025-montevideo-foucault-governmentality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2025\/08\/26\/en-philo-lacigf-2025-montevideo-foucault-governmentality\/","title":{"rendered":"Foucauldian Governmentality on LACIGF 2025 Montevideo \u2014 Power\/knowledge dispositif and subjectivation"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Post-structuralism<\/strong> \u2014 most prominently associated with Michel Foucault<\/strong> \u2014 to re-read the LACIGF 2025 Montevideo conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Introduction: The Problem<\/h2>\n

Read through Foucault's "Security, Territory, Population", the LACIGF appears as a laboratory for contemporary governmental technologies \u2014 neither sovereign nor disciplinary power, but the management of populations of users.<\/p>\n

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of LACIGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Power\/knowledge dispositif and subjectivation<\/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

Governance as governmental dispositif<\/h2>\n

The themes \u2014 \u60c5\u5831\u306e\u5b8c\u5168\u6027, AI\u898f\u5236, \u30b8\u30a7\u30f3\u30c0\u30fc\u30ae\u30e3\u30c3\u30d7 \u2014 debated at Montevideo in 2025 each presuppose a particular configuration of knowledge and power. The multistakeholder discourse functions as a normative apparatus that shapes subjects into "responsible internet users" and "appropriate platform operators" through voluntary consent rather than coercion.<\/p>\n

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

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

The constitution of the internet subject<\/h2>\n

Michel Foucault'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 "\u60c5\u5831\u306e\u5b8c\u5168\u6027"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u60c5\u5831\u306e\u5b8c\u5168\u6027" can be positioned, from the perspective of Michel Foucault's Power\/knowledge dispositif and subjectivation<\/strong>, as a central problematic. In Uruguay's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u60c5\u5831\u306e\u5b8c\u5168\u6027 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

2. Application to "AI\u898f\u5236"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "AI\u898f\u5236" can be positioned, from the perspective of Michel Foucault's Power\/knowledge dispositif and subjectivation<\/strong>, as a derivative problematic. In Uruguay's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around AI\u898f\u5236 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

3. Application to "\u30b8\u30a7\u30f3\u30c0\u30fc\u30ae\u30e3\u30c3\u30d7"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30b8\u30a7\u30f3\u30c0\u30fc\u30ae\u30e3\u30c3\u30d7" can be positioned, from the perspective of Michel Foucault's Power\/knowledge dispositif and subjectivation<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Uruguay's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30b8\u30a7\u30f3\u30c0\u30fc\u30ae\u30e3\u30c3\u30d7 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 Michel Foucault's Power\/knowledge dispositif and subjectivation<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Uruguay'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 Michel Foucault's Power\/knowledge dispositif and subjectivation<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Uruguay'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 Michel Foucault perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Uruguay.<\/p>\n

First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Power\/knowledge dispositif and subjectivation<\/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 Michel Foucault's framework to other IGF conferences<\/li>\n
  2. Comparative contrast between Post-structuralism<\/strong> and other theoretical traditions<\/li>\n
  3. Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Uruguay<\/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