Note: Dr. Mohammad Hossein Zarifian, with his background in seminary education, a PhD in Media Management from the University of Tehran, and his experience as the director of the Center for Islamic Media Research, is one of the most qualified individuals to discuss policymaking in cyberspace and the role of jurisprudence in it. While he considers policymaking a multidisciplinary and multifaceted endeavor that cannot rely solely on one field of knowledge, he views jurisprudence as playing a significant and fundamental role in policymaking. His simultaneous expertise in media, policymaking, and Islamic sciences has resulted in a compelling and insightful conversation.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What does policymaking in cyberspace entail, and what are its requirements and dimensions?

Zarifian: First, we must understand that cyberspace is a realm of simulated realities, creating a new platform for mass communication. In this space, temporal and spatial distances vanish, and communication has become two-dimensional, creating two spheres for human life. This is a significant component of the globalization project, which the West insists on portraying as an inevitable process. The dualization of human existence through cyberspace is one of the subprojects of globalization, intertwining the real and virtual worlds to create a pluralistic form of globalization.

We are confronted with phenomena that humanity has not previously experienced. The real and virtual worlds exist in parallel, or it could even be said that the second world—cyberspace—has gained hegemony over the first, the real world. Consequently, policymaking for cyberspace is far more complex than for real-world matters. This vast scope and profound impact necessitate comprehensive and intelligent policymaking, with governance naturally playing a distinguished role in optimal cyberspace policymaking.

The question raised is what dimensions can be considered in cyberspace policymaking. I believe the dimensions of policymaking correspond to the dimensions of cyberspace itself. When we discuss the spiritual and material dimensions of cyberspace, all aspects of this space—whether material or spiritual—are subject to and in need of policymaking.

In the spiritual dimension, a critical component is identity, which has a unique complexity in cyberspace. We encounter a different construction of identity in the virtual world. In the real world, we might consider skin color, nationality, race, religion, and so forth as symbols of identity. In cyberspace, however, it is the user who constructs these identity symbols based on their preferences, interests, and benefits. As a result, you encounter both known and anonymous identities, and individuals may link themselves to a real identity while simultaneously creating a new one.

Those who are satisfied with their real-world identity symbols often replicate them in cyberspace. Conversely, those who wish to escape their real-world identity attempt to conceal or differently represent it in the virtual world, though other reasons for varied representation also exist. For these and other reasons, policymaking in cyberspace presents unique complexities. You deal with both identified and anonymous users, and those intending to misuse this space for deviant purposes find it easier to operate. Slavoj Žižek has stated that cyberspace plays with our identity, creating a halo-like, image-based space that is neither fully real nor entirely devoid of reality. In cyberspace, we do not know who we are truly interacting with; it provides a minimal sense of reality, with the rest constructed through our imagination combined with other elements.

The second point regarding the spiritual dimensions, which also affects cyberspace policymaking, concerns language, religion, traditions, and customs. With over six thousand languages identified on Earth, eighty percent of which are gradually disappearing, what keeps a language alive is not merely the number of speakers but the extent to which it is referenced. The most significant aspect is the metadata in cyberspace, which is increasing at an astonishing rate, predominantly in American English. Yet, this language is not the primary spoken language of the majority of the world’s population. Because it has been the dominant language of science and other fields, it has become the language of cyberspace. This poses a serious threat to all languages, potentially leading to their demise, as language—the most fundamental component of civilization and identity—is at risk of extinction. This is a significant issue in policymaking that requires careful consideration.

Another spiritual dimension of cyberspace reflected in policymaking is online chaos, which fosters an anarchic society. We observe individuals, organizations, terrorist groups, and racist factions exploiting cyberspace, engaging in activities such as human trafficking, misuse of personal information, violation of citizens’ privacy, weakening family bonds, unrestricted relationships, easier access to illicit and confidential content, and numerous other examples. This represents a form of virtual chaos that, unlike street anarchy, does not immediately cause alarm but is far more concerning, serving as a source of widespread anarchism, as evidenced in recent years. While virtual culture has facilitated and enhanced society in many ways, it also has both potential and actual capacity to generate mental and behavioral chaos, a subject extensively studied in cognitive sciences.

When we consider the material dimensions of cyberspace, which are closely tied to policymaking, we first encounter technology. You cannot ignore technology in cyberspace policymaking! Cyberspace has fundamentally given rise to a new, trans-textual perspective on technology, achieving media convergence in its most advanced, complex, and fascinating form.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the requirements and characteristics of successful cyberspace policymaking?

Zarifian: First, we must understand the nature of cyberspace. Cyberspace is simultaneously becoming trans-local, creating a networked connection within an interdependent information network underpinned by technological infrastructure. Beyond its technological aspects, the nature of cyberspace can be categorized into three approaches: instrumental, essentialist, and interactionist. In the instrumental approach, cyberspace is considered neutral, without an independent essence, and its value is determined by how it is used.

The second approach, the essentialist perspective, posits that technology has an independent essence, akin to a personality we interact with. Essentialists vary, ranging from hard determinists who view technology as overwhelmingly powerful to soft determinists who see it as a primary but not absolute factor. Figures like Heidegger and Dr. Nasr align more with this view.

The third approach, which I believe better enables us to understand policymaking, is the interactionist perspective. This view holds that the foundation of technology in cyberspace lies in its interaction with humans. Whether you consider technology a tool or attribute an independent essence to it, the human-technology dichotomy creates a dialectic. In this space, rather than halting the wheels of technology, we seek an alternative. This interaction between humans and technology occurs regardless of philosophical perspectives.

To achieve a coherent perspective for cyberspace policymaking, the interactionist approach is more realistic and practical. However, we must also recognize that policymaking is a complex process. We are dealing with an unstable and highly dynamic space—cyberspace—characterized by numerous conflicting elements that both influence and are influenced by one another. In a space that serves as a platform for message transmission, with speed, reach, boundless accessibility, and a trans-local, trans-temporal, fluid nature, reality is amplified, and the space is multimedia. We must establish principles and norms to guide the behavior of communication systems. These principles and norms, whether applied to media organizations, cyberspace itself, or all societal domains, must be rooted in a value system. Theories of cyberspace policymaking are shaped by these value systems.

For instance, theories like libertarianism, authoritarianism, or communitarianism arise from specific value systems. I intersect these with the instrumental, essentialist, and interactionist frameworks mentioned earlier, creating a broad discussion. I view the foundation of cyberspace policymaking as a value system that takes a comprehensive, communitarian, and interactionist approach. If you base policymaking, implementation, and behavior on this foundation, actors in cyberspace—from policymakers and managers to stakeholders and users at all levels—gradually align themselves with these frameworks. The social responsibility theory also supports this view. The educational aspect of cyberspace policymaking is often overlooked, and jurisprudence can strengthen this perspective.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does the discipline of jurisprudence inherently possess the capacity and tools to shape policies, or is its influence limited to the legal and legislative domains?

Zarifian: The question of whether jurisprudence has the capacity and tools to shape policies is a significant and complex topic. I believe we must examine how jurisprudence has operated in similar domains before addressing its role in cyberspace. I think we have a long way to go before we can effectively use jurisprudence for policymaking, as this requires an efficient, jurisprudence-based methodology for policymaking. The alignment of policies with jurisprudence is also a matter of debate, and in many cases, despite valuable efforts, we have not yet seen tangible outcomes in policy implementation.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is policymaking inherently a single-disciplinary endeavor, or must it necessarily involve the collaboration of multiple disciplines? If so, what is the role of jurisprudence in cyberspace policymaking?

Zarifian: Policymaking is undoubtedly multidisciplinary, as it operates in a multifaceted domain with numerous intervening factors and components. Jurisprudence is certainly a determining factor in this domain, but its prerequisites must also be considered.

In the field of public policymaking, we identify five foundational characteristics. First, policies must be designed based on practical actions, not merely theoretical considerations. A significant portion of jurisprudence is practical, which is a noteworthy aspect. Given that cyberspace has a practical impact on social actions and reactions, policies rooted in jurisprudence can be effective due to its practical dimensions.

Second, policies are goal-oriented. This characteristic of public policymaking aligns closely with the objectives pursued in jurisprudence. Jurisprudence is a goal-oriented system, and since policymaking revolves around goals, whether viewed through an essentialist, instrumental, or our preferred interactionist lens, it can be effectively guided by a goal-oriented approach.

Third, policymaking is about what is implemented, not just what is discussed. In jurisprudence, we address the concrete behavior, actions, and reactions of individuals and society, which is closely related to policymaking. This is also evident in cyberspace, where the term “virtual” can mistakenly suggest a lack of reality, whereas cyberspace is a real phenomenon.

Fourth, policymaking is conducted based on law and requires the application of authority and enforcement. This aligns directly with jurisprudence, which establishes rules and delineates paths for the obligated to follow their duties. Policymaking requires authority, a concept well-established in jurisprudence, particularly in governance contexts where a fully authorized jurist leads, enabling policies grounded in jurisprudence to reach implementation.

Fifth, adopted policies are the result of a political process, requiring a general consensus derived from extended dialogue. We observe a similar process and elite continuity in jurisprudence.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: From a jurisprudential perspective, what policies are recommended for cyberspace governance?

Zarifian: If we aim for jurisprudence-based policymaking in cyberspace, we must take fundamental actions in five domains:

1. Regulation and Supervision with Jurisprudential Considerations: Governments are responsible for creating and enforcing legal and supervisory frameworks for cyberspace. Regulation has a significant connection to jurisprudence, particularly in areas such as content standards, ownership issues in cyberspace (closely tied to Islamic jurisprudence or law), and licensing or publishing rights. Jurisprudence must be an active participant in these areas, not merely a reference point. In Iran, since the 2010s, the Supreme Council of Cyberspace has been established, and the extent to which jurisprudential aspects are considered in this council and the National Cyberspace Center requires careful examination before judgment. The concerns and efforts of seminary institutions should also be evaluated.
2. Resolving Conflicts: Creating a balance between individual rights and governance responsibilities. Jurisprudence offers valuable insights and must provide solutions to challenges in cyberspace policymaking, particularly when individual rights and governance duties are weighed against each other in the virtual environment.
3. Attention to Ownership and Plurality: Numerous jurisprudential issues arise here, including those related to ownership in cyberspace, especially with new complexities stemming from Iran’s non-adherence to the Berne Convention and the lack of copyright enforcement in cyberspace. While we have struggled to address this in traditional publishing, the situation is even more chaotic in digital publishing. Online content platforms, for instance, face numerous legal ambiguities, some of which are jurisprudential, with unclear obligations in many cases. In today’s advanced world of the metaverse and artificial intelligence, where progress is exponential, the relatively slow process of jurisprudential reasoning cannot keep pace. This risks portraying jurisprudence as ineffective, leaving the obligated confused and matters ambiguous.
4. Boundary-Keeping: In cyberspace, we witness the instantaneous production of vast amounts of false and even destructive information, with access far less restricted than in the real world. The form and process of content boundary-keeping have changed with the advent of cyberspace. Censorship and filtering are no longer sufficient. Jurisprudence must offer insights into the boundaries and even some procedural aspects of boundary-keeping.
5. Strengthening the Affirmative Role of Jurisprudence: Jurisprudence should not be viewed solely from a prohibitive perspective; its affirmative role is equally essential. Jurisprudence must support the production of beneficial content and the dissemination of uplifting material. Our fatwas should address these concerns and promote affirmative action in cyberspace.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the potential challenges and harms of involving jurisprudence in cyberspace policymaking, and what should be done to address them?

Zarifian: I believe three points require special attention:

1. Jurisprudence and its custodians must not lag behind the rapid transformations in cyberspace; they should even be a few steps ahead, engaging in future-oriented research on these changes. They must gain mastery over the philosophy of technology, media, and cyberspace, as well as their future trajectories. Only then will we witness the fruits of wise, value-based, communitarian, and interactionist jurisprudential reasoning. Today’s seminaries and some of their scholars have the capacity and potential for this, and significant steps have already been taken.
2. The issues of cyberspace policymaking from the perspective of jurisprudence must be identified, prioritized, and structured. The criterion for prioritization should be based on societal needs aligned with the values of the Islamic system, as I mentioned regarding the value-based, communitarian, and interactionist foundation of policymaking. Amid the plethora of issues needed by society and governance, some have been so delayed that they are no longer relevant or have become obsolete.
3. A strategic and urgent point: If the custodians of jurisprudence fail to train distinguished jurists well-versed in the jurisprudence of cyberspace, media, technology, and related interdisciplinary fields, a historic loss will occur. We are at a critical juncture in human civilization. If we are not capable, we will lose the field. Thanks to the significant efforts in seminaries over the years, particularly with the Islamic system’s focus on the application of jurisprudence in various societal domains in recent decades, these achievements have been steadily increasing. One of the key institutions expected to address this issue competently and scholarly is the Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudential Studies.