{"id":9925,"date":"2014-07-10T17:00:00","date_gmt":"2014-07-10T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2014\/07\/10\/en-philo-afigf-2014-abuja-ubuntu-philosophy\/"},"modified":"2014-07-10T17:00:00","modified_gmt":"2014-07-10T08:00:00","slug":"en-philo-afigf-2014-abuja-ubuntu-philosophy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2014\/07\/10\/en-philo-afigf-2014-abuja-ubuntu-philosophy\/","title":{"rendered":"Ubuntu Philosophy on AfIGF 2014 Abuja \u2014 \u201cI am because we are\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the African Philosophy<\/strong> \u2014 most prominently associated with John Mbiti \/ Desmond Tutu<\/strong> \u2014 to re-read the AfIGF 2014 Abuja conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Introduction: The Problem<\/h2>\n

Ubuntu philosophy expresses the personhood view "I am because we are" widespread in sub-Saharan Africa. AfIGF also becomes a venue for this relational personhood model against Western individualism.<\/p>\n

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of AfIGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of \u201cI am because we are\u201d<\/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

Ubuntu digital community<\/h2>\n

The sense of agenda brought to IGF by participants from Nigeria (especially African nations) often carries Ubuntu personhood as background. \u30e2\u30d0\u30a4\u30eb\u9769\u547d can be re-evaluated from the priority of community inclusion.<\/p>\n

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

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

Relational personhood<\/h2>\n

John Mbiti \/ Desmond Tutu's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2014 conference. We examine that application below.<\/p>\n

1. Application to "\u30e2\u30d0\u30a4\u30eb\u9769\u547d"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30e2\u30d0\u30a4\u30eb\u9769\u547d" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Mbiti \/ Desmond Tutu's \u201cI am because we are\u201d<\/strong>, as a central problematic. In Nigeria's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30e2\u30d0\u30a4\u30eb\u9769\u547d are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

2. Application to "\u30d5\u30a3\u30f3\u30c6\u30c3\u30af"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30d5\u30a3\u30f3\u30c6\u30c3\u30af" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Mbiti \/ Desmond Tutu's \u201cI am because we are\u201d<\/strong>, as a derivative problematic. In Nigeria's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30d5\u30a3\u30f3\u30c6\u30c3\u30af are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

3. Application to "\u30b9\u30ad\u30eb"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30b9\u30ad\u30eb" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Mbiti \/ Desmond Tutu's \u201cI am because we are\u201d<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Nigeria's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30b9\u30ad\u30eb 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 John Mbiti \/ Desmond Tutu's \u201cI am because we are\u201d<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Nigeria'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 John Mbiti \/ Desmond Tutu's \u201cI am because we are\u201d<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Nigeria'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 John Mbiti \/ Desmond Tutu perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Nigeria.<\/p>\n

First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of \u201cI am because we are\u201d<\/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 John Mbiti \/ Desmond Tutu's framework to other IGF conferences<\/li>\n
  2. Comparative contrast between African Philosophy<\/strong> and other theoretical traditions<\/li>\n
  3. Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Nigeria<\/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