The Biosemiotic Glossary Project: Agent, Agency
- 309 Downloads
The current article is the first in a series of review articles addressing biosemiotic terminology. The biosemiotic glossary project is inclusive and designed to integrate views of a representative group of members within the biosemiotic community based on a standard survey and related publications. The methodology section describes the format of the survey conducted in November–December 2013 in preparation of the current review and targeted on the terms ‘agent’ and ‘agency’. Next, I summarize denotation, synonyms and antonyms, with special emphasis on the denotation of these terms in current biosemiotic usage. The survey findings include ratings of nine citations defining or making use of the two terms. I provide a summary of respondents’ own definitions and suggested term usage. Further sections address etymology, connotations, and related terms in English and other languages. A section on the notions’ mainstream meaning vs. their meaning in biosemiotics is followed by attempt at synthesis and conclusions. Although there is currently no consensus in the biosemiotic community on what constitutes a semiotic agent, i.e., an agent in the context of semiosis (the action of signs), most respondents agree that core attributes of an agent include goal-directedness, self-governed activity, processing of semiosis and choice of action, with these features being vital for the functioning of the living system in question. I agree that these four features are constitutive of biosemiotic agents, and stipulate that biosemiotic agents fall within three major categories, namely 1) sub-organismic biosemiotic agents, 2) organismic biosemiotic agents and 3) super-organismic biosemiotic agents.
KeywordsAgent Agency Biosemiotic glossary Survey Terminology
This work has been carried out thanks to the support of the research project Animals in Changing Environments: Cultural Mediation and Semiotic Analysis (EEA Norway Grants/Norway Financial Mechanism 2009–2014 under project contract no. EMP151). I would like to thank my fellow editors, Alexei Sharov and Timo Maran, for contributing to designing the biosemiotic glossary project and for important feedback on this specific article. Furthermore I thank two reviewers of this paper for critical comments, and the respondents to the first survey for their contributions. I would also like to thank members of the Editorial Board of Biosemiotics for providing feedback – particularly Peter Harries-Jones, Myrdene Anderson, Günther Witzany, Claus Emmeche and Victoria Alexander. Finally I am grateful to Kalevi Kull for providing references for two biosemiotic glossaries, and to Sergey Chebanov for sending me Sedov and Chebanov 2009.
- Archer, M. (1988). Culture and agency: the place of culture in social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Aristotle (2002 [c330 BC/c348–347 BC]). Metaphysics (2nd ed.). Trans. J. Sachs. Santa Fe, N.M.: Green Lion.Google Scholar
- Barbieri, M., de Beule J. and Hofmeyr J.-H. (2014). Code biology: A glossary of terms and concepts. URL: http://www.codebiology.org/glossary.html.
- Barker, C. (2003). Cultural studies: theory and practice. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Bergson, H. (1907). L'Évolution créatrice. Paris: Les Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
- Blood, D.C., Studdert V.P. and Gay C.C. (2007). Saunders Comprehensive veterinary dictionary (3rd ed.). Saunders/Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Collins Dictionary (2014). URL: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/.
- Collins Latin Dictionary (1997). Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
- Cowley, S. (2012). Distributed language: cognition beyond the brain. In Proceedings of the Humanities International Forum. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities.Google Scholar
- Deely, J. (2001). Four ages of understanding: the first postmodern survey of philosophy from ancient times to the turn of the twenty-first century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
- Deely, J. (2005). Basics of semiotics (4th ed.). Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
- Encyclopædia Britannica (2014). URL: http://global.britannica.com.
- Emmeche, C. (1998). The agents of biomass. In J. Andreas & O. Carsten (Eds.), The mass ornament. The mass phenomenon at the turn of the millennium (pp. 64–79). Odense: Kunsthallen Brandts Klædefabrik.Google Scholar
- Emmeche, C., Kull, K., & Stjernfelt, F. (2002). A brief biosemiotic glossary. In C. Emmeche, K. Kull, & F. Stjernfelt (Eds.), Reading Hoffmeyer, rethinking biology (Tartu Semiotics Library 3) (pp. 25–30). Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
- Eshleman, A. (2014). Moral responsibility. In Zalta E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/moral-responsibility/.
- Farina, A. (2010). Ecology, Cognition and Landscape: Linking Natural and Social Systems (Landscape Series 11). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Franklin, S. and Graesser A. (1996). Is it an agent, or just a program?: A taxonomy for autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Giorgi, F. (2012). Agency. In D. Favareau, P. Cobley, & K. Kull (Eds.), A more developed sign – interpreting the work of jesper hoffmeyer (pp. 13–16). Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
- Harries-Jones, P. (1995). A recursive vision: ecological understanding and Gregory Bateson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
- Harper, D. (2014). Online etymology dictionary. URL: http://www.etymonline.com/.
- Hendriks-Jansen, H. (1996). Catching ourselves in the Act. Situated activity, interactive emergence, and human thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Hoffmeyer, J. (1997). Semiotic Emergence. Revue de la Pensée d'Aujourd'hui 25–7 (6), 105–17. In Japanese. English language version available online at http://www.molbio.ku.dk/MolBioPages/abk/PersonalPages/Jesper/SemioEmergence.html.
- Hoffmeyer, J. (1998). Surfaces inside surfaces: on the origin of agency and life. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 5(1), 33–42.Google Scholar
- Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). In J. Hoffmeyer & D. Favareau (Eds.), Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.Google Scholar
- Hoffmeyer, J. (2009). Epilogue: Biology is immature biosemiotics. In J. Deely & L. Sbrocchi (Eds.), Semiotics 2008 (Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America) (pp. 927–942). Ottawa: Legas Publishing.Google Scholar
- Joslyn, C. (1999). Semiotic Agent Models for Simulating Socio-Technical Organizations. Prepared for the DS Project, PSL/NMSU. URL: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.37.423&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
- Joslyn, C. and Rocha L. M. (2000). Towards Semiotic Agent-Based Models of Socio-Technical Organizations. In Sarjoughian H.S. et al. (Eds.): Proc. AI, Simulation and Planning in High Autonomy Systems (AIS conference 2000), Tucson, Arizona, 70–79.Google Scholar
- Juarrero, A. (1999). Dynamics in action. Intentional behavior as a complex system. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: the search for laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kauffman, S. (1996). Investigations on the character of autonomous agents and the worlds they mutually create. Santa Fe Institute Working Paper 96-08-072. Santa Fe, NM.Google Scholar
- Kauffman, S. (2000). Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kauffman, S. (2008). Reinventing the sacred: a New view of science, reason, and religion. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory. A few clarifications plus more than a few complications. Soziale Welt, 47, 369–381.Google Scholar
- Maran, T. (2013). Semiotics meets species conservation: translation and modeling. Manuscript. Presented at Gatherings in Biosemiotics 13. Castiglioncello, Italy, June 4–8 2013.Google Scholar
- Markoš, A. (2002). Readers of the book of life: contextualizing developmental evolutionary biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2014). Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary.
- Merriam-Webster Online Thesaurus (2014). Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary.
- Mosby's Medical Dictionary (8th ed.) (2009). Elsevier Health Sciences.Google Scholar
- Nöth, W. (2009). On the instrumentality and semiotic agency of signs, tools, and intelligent machines. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 16(3–4), 11–36.Google Scholar
- Oxford dictionaries (2014). Online: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/.
- Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Ross, S. A. (2000). The economic theory of agency: the principal’s problem. In N. J. Foss (Ed.), The theory of the firm: critical perspectives on business and management. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Salthe, S. (1993). Development and evolution. Complexity and change in biology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Sebeok, T. A. (1979). The sign and its masters. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
- Sebeok, T. A. (1991). A sign is just a sign. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Sedov, A., & Chebanov, S. (2009). Биосемиотика/Biosemiotika [Biosemiotics]. In A. V. Oleskin (Ed.), Terminologicheskij slovar’ (tezaurus): Gumanitarnaja biologija [Terminological Dictionary (Thesaurus): Humanitarian Biology] (pp. 295–338). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta [Moscow University Press].Google Scholar
- Segen, J. C. (2002). McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.Google Scholar
- Stedman’s medical dictionary for the health professions and nursing (7th ed.) (2012). FarlexGoogle Scholar
- Tønnessen, M., & Beever, J. (2014). Beyond sentience: Biosemiotics as foundation for animal and environmental ethics. In J. Hadley & E. Aaltola (Eds.), Animal ethics and philosophy: questioning the orthodoxy (pp. 47–62). London: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
- Tønnessen, M., & Tüür, K. (2014). Introduction: The semiotics of animal representations. In K. Tüür & M. Tønnessen (Eds.), The semiotics of animal representations (Nature, culture and literature 10) (pp. 7–30). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
- von Uexküll, J. (1982a). The theory of meaning. Semiotica 42(1): 25–82. Trans. by Barry Stone and Herbert WeinerGoogle Scholar
- von Uexküll, T. (1982b). Glossary. Semiotica, 42(1), 83–87.Google Scholar
- Vehkavaara, T. (2002). Why and how to naturalize semiotic concepts for biosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies, 30(1), 293–313.Google Scholar
- de Waal, F. B. M. (1996). Good natured: the origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Witzany, G. (Ed.). (2012). Viruses: essential agents of life. Dortrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- WordNet (2014). Princeton University. URL: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn.