Abstract
This essay – a collection of contributions from 10 scholars working in the field of biosemiotics and the humanities – considers nature in culture. It frames this by asking the question ‘Why does biosemiotics need the humanities?’. Each author writes from the background of their own disciplinary perspective in order to throw light upon their interdisciplinary engagement with biosemiotics. We start with Donald Favareau, whose originary disciplinary home is ethnomethodology and linguistics, and then move on to Paul Cobley’s contribution on general semiotics and Kalevi Kull’s on biosemiotics. This is followed by Cobley (again) with Frederick Stjernfelt who contribute on biosemiotics and learning, then Gerald Ostdiek from philosophy, and Morten Tønnessen focusing upon ethics in particular. Myrdene Anderson writes from anthropology, while Timo Maran and Louise Westling provide a view from literary study. The essay closes with Wendy Wheeler reflecting on the movement of biosemiotics as a challenge, often via the ecological humanities, to the kind of so-called ‘postmodern’ thinking that has dominated humanities critical thought in the universities for the past 40 years. Virtually all the matters gestured to in outline above are discussed in much more satisfying detail in the topics which follow.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
With this formulation, and with this collective manifesto as a whole, we attempt to specify and develop the thesis on “semiotics as a bridge”, which has been argued for on several earlier occasions. (See, for e.g., Perron et al. 2000.)
“[...] Art means mastering the world (modelling the world) in a conditional situation. [...] Works of art [...] can increase the amount of information stored in them. This unique characteristic of works of art makes them similar to biological systems and gives them an extremely special place among everything created by the mankind. [...] Artistic models are a unique combination of scientific and play-type models, which simultaneously organize both the intellect and behaviour. In comparison to art, play is without content, while science is without effect” (Lotman 2011 [1967]: 265; 268; 269).
That Lotman’s approach to semiotics of culture can be productively used for deriving the principles for biosemiotics, has been demonstrated (e.g., in Kull 2015).
The musings presented here are developed elsewhere. In Ostdiek (2012), I argue that self-awareness exists as a consequence of multiple scales of post biotic phenomena exerting selective pressure on the interactions of living things. In Ostdiek (2016), I argue that symbiosis with post-biotic living things distinguishes human experience from that of other animals. In Ostdiek (2015), I argue that religion, philosophy and science form a Neo-Peircean trinity wherein (proto)religion represents the binding of interpretation into interpretant, which results in and is the presence of mind, which is furthered by checking itself against the objects of the signs of which it is composed, as well as against itself. Should the argumentation of these essays prevail, the notions I present here become a mere matter of course.
Ayn Rand (1905–1982) was a libertarian, and a defender of capitalism and ethical egoism.
References
Anderson, M. (2012). How qualification and quantification meet, or don’t, in ethnography. In M. Bockarova, M. Danesi, & R. Núñez (Eds.), Semiotic and cognitive science essays on the nature of mathematics (pp. 296–329). Munich: Lincom Europa.
Anderson, M., Deely, J., Krampen, M., Ransdell, J., Sebeok, T. A., & von Uexküll, T. (1984). A semiotic perspective on the sciences: Steps toward a new paradigm. Semiotica, 44, 7–47.
Barthes, R. (1977a). From work to text. In S. Heath (Ed. & trans.), Image – Music – Text (pp. 155–164). London: Fontana.
Barthes, R. (1977b). Change the object itself. In S. Heath (Ed. & trans.), Image – music – text. London: Fontana.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bateson, G. (2002 [1979]). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
Bateson, G., & Bateson, M. C. (1988). Angels fear: Towards an epistemology of the sacred. New York: Bantam Books.
Beever, J. (2011). Meaning matters: The biosemiotic basis of bioethics. Biosemiotics, 5(2), 181–191.
Beever, J., & Tønnessen, M. (2013). “Darwin und die Englische moral”: the moral consequences of Uexküll’s umwelt theory. Biosemiotics, 6(3), 437–447.
Brockman, J. (1995). The third culture: Beyond the scientific revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Calloway, E. (2017). Do you speak virus? Phages caught sending chemical messages: a virus that infects bacteria listens to messages from its relatives when deciding how to attack its hosts. Nature. 18 January. http://www.nature.com/news/do-you-speak-virus-phages-caught-sending-chemical-messages-1.21313. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.
Champagne, M. (2011). Axiomatizing umwelt normativity. Sign Systems Studies, 39(1), 9–59.
Cobley, P. (2016). Cultural implications of biosemiotics, (biosemiotics 15.). Berlin: Springer.
Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species: the co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: Norton.
Deacon, T. W. (2012). Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. New York: Norton.
Deely, J. N. (1992). Semiotics and biosemiotics: are sign-science and life-science coextensive? In T. A. Sebeok, D. J. Umiker-Sebeok, & E. P. Young (Eds.), Biosemiotics: the semiotic web 1991 (pp. 45–76). New York: Praeger Publishers.
Deely, J. N. (2009a). Pars pro toto from culture to nature: an overview of semiotics as a postmodern development, with an anticipation of developments to come. The American Journal of Semiotics, 25(1/2), 167–193.
Deely, J. N. (2009b). Purely objective reality. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Deely, J.N. (2015). Objective reality and the physical world: relation as key to understanding semiosis. In W. Wheeler, L. Westling (Eds.) Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism – Special issue on biosemiotics and culture (Volume 19, Issue 3, pp. 267–279).
Deely, J. N., Williams, B., & Kruse, F. (1986). Editor’s preface: Pars pro toto. In J. N. Deely, B. Williams, & F. Kruse (Eds.), Frontiers in semiotics (pp. xviii–xxxii). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Dunant, S. (Ed.). (1994). The war of the words: the political correctness debate. London: Virago.
Eco, U. (1990). Unlimited semiosis and drift. In The Limits of Interpretation (pp. 23–43). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Emmeche, C. (1994). The garden in the machine: the emerging science of artificial life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Favareau, D. (2008). Collapsing the wave function of meaning: The epistemological matrix of talk in interaction. In J. Hoffmeyer (Ed.), A legacy of living systems: Gregory Bateson as a precursor to biosemiotics (pp. 169–212). Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag.
Favareau, D. (2015a). Symbols are grounded not in things, but in scaffolded relations and their semiotic constraints. Biosemiotics, 8(2), 235–255.
Favareau, D. (2015b). Creation of the relevant next: How living systems capture the power of the adjacent possible through sign use. Journal of Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 119(3), 588–601.
Favareau, D., & Kull, K. (2015). On biosemiotics and its possible relevance to linguistics. In E. Velmezova, K. Kull, & S. Cowley (Eds.), Biosemiotic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics, (biosemiotics 13.) (pp. 13–28). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hoffmeyer, J. (1993). Biosemiotics and ethics. In N. Witoszek & E. Gulbrandsen (Eds.), Culture and environment: interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 152–176). Oslo: Centre for Development and the Environment.
Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe (trans: Haveland, B.J.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2007). Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to Biosemiotics (pp. 149–166). Berlin: Springer.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2010). Semiotics of nature. In P. Cobley (Ed.), The Routledge companion to semiotics (pp. 29–42). London: Routledge.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2014). The semiome: From genetic to semiotic scaffolding. Semiotica, 198, 11–31.
Kelly, K. (1998). The third culture. Science, 279(5353) (13 February 1998), 992–993.
Kull, K. (2001). Biosemiotics and the problem of intrinsic value of nature. Sign Systems Studies, 29(1), 353–365.
Kull, K. (2011). Foundations for ecosemiotic deep ecology. In T. Peil (Ed.), The space of culture – the place of nature in Estonia and beyond (approaches to cultural theory 1) (pp. 69–75). Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Kull, K. (2015). A semiotic theory of life: Lotman’s principles of the universe of the mind. Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism, 19(3), 255–266.
Kull, K. (2016). What kind of evolutionary biology suits cultural research. Sign Systems Studies, 44(4), 634–647.
Kull, K., Kotov, K., Keskpaik, R. (2004). Semiotic fundamentals of deep ecology. In V. Sarapik (Ed.), International conference culture, nature, semiotics: locations IV. Abstracts (p. 33). Tallinn: Estonian literary museum.
Lin, M. F., Kheradpour, P., Washieti, S., Parker, B. J., Pedersen, J. S., & Kellis, M. (2011). Locating protein-coding sequences under selection for additional, overlapping functions in 29 mammalian genomes. Genome Research, 21(11), 1916–1928.
Lotman, J. (1974). The sign mechanism of culture. Semiotica, 12(4), 301–305.
Lotman, Y. (1977). The structure of the artistic text. Michigan Slavic contributions 7 (trans: Lenhoff, G. & Vroon, R.) Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
Lotman, J. (2011[1967]). The place of art among other modelling systems. Sign Systems Studies 39(2/4), 249–270.
Maran, T. (2014a). Biosemiotic criticism: modelling the environment in literature. Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism, 18(3), 297–311.
Maran, T. (2014b). Semiotization of matter. A hybrid zone between biosemiotics and material ecocriticism. In S. Iovino & S. Oppermann (Eds.), Material ecocriticism (pp. 141–154). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Maran, T. (2017). Mimicry and meaning: structure and semiotics of biological mimicry. (biosemiotics 16). Berlin: Springer.
Marrone, G. (2014). The invention of the text. Milan: Mimesis.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible (trans: Lingis, A.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Ostdiek, G. (2012). The self as social artifice: some consequences of Stanislavski. Biosemiotics, 5, 161–179.
Ostdiek, G. (2015). Signs, science and religion: a biosemiotic mediation. In D. Evers et al. (Eds.), What is life? (issues in science and theology 8) (pp. 169–178). New York: Springer.
Ostdiek, G. (2016). Towards a post-biotic anthropology. In K. Pauknerova et. al. (Eds.) Non-humans and after in social science. (pp. 73–86) Červený Kostelec CZ: Pavel Mervart Publishing.
Peirce, C. S. (1891). The architecture of theories. The Monist, 1, 161–176.
Perron, P., Sbrocchi, L. G., Colilli, P., & Danesi, M. (Eds.). (2000). Semiotics as a bridge between the humanities and the sciences. New York: Legas.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, P. (2003 [1975]). The rule of metaphor: The creation of meaning in language. (trans: Czerny, R., McLaughlin, K., Costello, J.). London: Routledge.
Santayana, G. (1923). Scepticism and animal faith. New York: Scribner’s.
Sebeok, T. A. (1984). Signs of life. International Semiotic Spectrum, 2(June 1984), 1–2.
Sebeok, T. A. (1991). In what sense is language a “primary modeling system”? In A sign is just a sign (pp. 49–58). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Global semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Shapiro, J.A. (2012). DNA as poetry: multiple messages in a single sequence. The Huffington Post. 24 January. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/dna-as-poetry-multiple-me_b_1229190.html. Accessed 14 Mar 2016.
Snow, C. P. (1959). The Two Cultures and the scientific revolution. The Rede Lecture. 1959. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snow, C. P. (1963). The two cultures and a second look. An expanded version of the two cultures and the scientific revolution (1959). New York: New American Library.
Tallis, R. (2011). Aping mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the misrepresentation of humanity. London: Acumen.
Tønnessen, M. (2003). Umwelt ethics. Sign Systems Studies, 31(1), 281–299.
Tønnessen, M. (2009). Signs grow – But should they? Semioethics and the dominant semiosis of Homo sapiens sapiens (= Meditationes Semioticae I). Hortus Semioticus, 4, 81–84.
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.
von Uexküll, J. (2013). Darwin and the English morality. Translation of “Darwin und die Englische moral”, deutsche Rundschau 173: 215–242. (trans.) M. Tønnessen, (Ed.), J. Beever. Biosemiotics, 6(3), 449–471.
Wagner, A. (2014). Arrival of the fittest: Solving evolution’s greatest puzzle. New York: Current.
Westling, L. (2014). The logos of the living world: Merleau-Ponty, animals, and language. New York: Fordham University Press.
Wheeler, W. (2016). Expecting the earth: Life/culture/biosemiotics. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Wolf, E. R. (1964). Anthropology. New York: W.W. Norton.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies for encouraging the affirmation of the interdisciplinary nature of biosemiotics by suggesting the compilation of this multi-contributor essay on the importance of the humanities in the scientifically grounded biosemiotic endeavour.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Favareau, D., Kull, K., Ostdiek, G. et al. How Can the Study of the Humanities Inform the Study of Biosemiotics?. Biosemiotics 10, 9–31 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-017-9287-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-017-9287-6