{"id":9807,"date":"2020-06-07T20:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-06-07T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2020\/06\/07\/en-philo-eurodig-2020-virtual-spinoza-multitude\/"},"modified":"2020-06-07T20:00:00","modified_gmt":"2020-06-07T11:00:00","slug":"en-philo-eurodig-2020-virtual-spinoza-multitude","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2020\/06\/07\/en-philo-eurodig-2020-virtual-spinoza-multitude\/","title":{"rendered":"Spinozan Multitude on EuroDIG 2020 Virtual \u2014 Multitude against Empire"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the 17C Rationalism \/ Negri<\/strong> \u2014 most prominently associated with Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)<\/strong> \u2014 to re-read the EuroDIG 2020 Virtual conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Introduction: The Problem<\/h2>\n

The Spinozan political philosophy developed by Negri & Hardt in Empire and Multitude envisions a subject of plurality, neither state nor people. The diverse actors at EuroDIG can be read through this multitude concept.<\/p>\n

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of EuroDIG becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Multitude against Empire<\/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 multitude as networked subject<\/h2>\n

The differences among participants gathered at Virtual are valued as preservation of singularity rather than as material for integration. The moment Online's civil society organizations connect with those of other countries, production of the common begins.<\/p>\n

Each session's agenda-setting can be read as a contemporary restaging of the Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)-type problematic.<\/p>\n

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

Production of the common<\/h2>\n

Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2020 conference. We examine that application below.<\/p>\n

1. Application to "COVID-19"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "COVID-19" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire<\/strong>, as a central problematic. In Online's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around COVID-19 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

2. Application to "\u533b\u7642\u30c7\u30fc\u30bf"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u533b\u7642\u30c7\u30fc\u30bf" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire<\/strong>, as a derivative problematic. In Online's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u533b\u7642\u30c7\u30fc\u30bf are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

3. Application to "\u9060\u9694"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u9060\u9694" can be positioned, from the perspective of Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Online's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u9060\u9694 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 Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Online'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 Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s Multitude against Empire<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Online'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 Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt) perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Online.<\/p>\n

First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Multitude against Empire<\/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 Spinoza (via Negri & Hardt)'s framework to other IGF conferences<\/li>\n
  2. Comparative contrast between 17C Rationalism \/ Negri<\/strong> and other theoretical traditions<\/li>\n
  3. Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Online<\/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