Selves, Communities, and Signs

  • Brandon Daniel-Hughes


This chapter examines communities of inquiry, arguing that neither selves nor communities are simple, discrete entities. Rather, following Peirce’s theory of synechism (continuity), Sect. 3.1 examines selves as communities of relatively tightly coordinated habits. Section 3.2 uses Peirce’s theory of signs to explain how communities achieve different levels of integrative coordination while arguing that both selves and communities are loci of interpretive, inquisitive engagement. Section 3.3 argues that inquiry is best understood as a process of adapting, coordinating, and harmonizing one’s components, one’s communities, and oneself to other selves, communities, and components. Further, it argues for understanding inquiry as a process of habit coordination. Section 3.4 delves more deeply into a Peircean triadic theory of signs and wrestles with the question of how habits may be coordinated when they are not already adequately signified or known. Turning again to the notion of corrective feedback, this time with an emphasis on semiotic correction, it explores the unique potential of indexical signs to orient communities of inquiry toward the unknown and unhabituated.


Habit coordination Semiotics Communities Selves Signs 


  1. Bergman, Mats. 2009. Peirce’s Philosophy of Communication: The Rhetorical Underpinnings of the Theory of Signs. New York: Continuum International Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2012. Improving Our Habits: Peirce and Meliorism. In The Normative Thought of Charles S. Peirce, ed. Cornelis de Waal and Krzysztof Piotr Skowronski, 125–148. New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 2015. Minimal Meliorism: Finding a Balance Between Conservative and Progressive Pragmatism. In Action, Belief and Inquiry: Pragmatist Perspectives on Society and Religion, ed. Ulf Zackariasson, 2–28. Helsinki: Nordic Pragmatism Network.Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein, Richard. 1971. Praxis and Action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  5. Colapietro, Vincent. 1989. Peirce’s Approach to the Self: A Semiotic Perspective on Human Subjectivity. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  6. Corrington, Robert S. 1994. Ecstatic Naturalism: Signs of the World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fisch, Max H. 1986. Peirce and Hegel. In Peirce, Semiotic and Pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch, ed. Kenneth Laine Ketner and Christian J.W. Kloesel, 261–282. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Frei, Hans W. 1974. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hausman, Carl R. 1993. Charles S. Peirce’s Evolutionary Philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoopes, James. 1998. Community Denied: The Wrong Turn of Pragmatic Liberalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. James, William. 1950. The Principles of Psychology, Volume 1. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  12. Kant, Immanuel. 1965. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kohn, Eduardo. 2013. How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human. Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindbeck, George A. 1984. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and the Theology in a Postliberal Age. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.Google Scholar
  15. Liszka, James Jacób. 1996. A General Introduction to the Semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Merrell, Floyd. 1997. Peirce, Signs and Meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neville, Robert Cummings. 1981. Reconstruction of Thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2013. Ultimates: Philosophical Theology. Vol. 1. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2014. Existence: Philosophical Theology. Vol. 2. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ochs, Peter. 1998. Peirce, Pragmatism and the Logic of Scripture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pecknold, C.C. 2005. Transforming Postliberal Theology: George Lindbeck, Pragmatism and Scripture. New York: T&T Clark International.Google Scholar
  22. Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931–58. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, ed. Arthur W. Burks, C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss, 8 vols. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1982. Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, Volume 1: 1857–1866, ed. The Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Raposa, Michael. 1989. Peirce’s Philosophy of Religion. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rosenthal, Sandra B. 1986. Speculative Pragmatism. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  27. Short, T.L. 2007. Peirce’s Theory of Signs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slater, Gary. 2015. C. S. Peirce and the Nested Continua Model of Religious Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stern, Robert. 2005. Peirce on Hegel: Nominalist or Realist? Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 41 (1): 65–99.Google Scholar
  30. Thompson, Manley. 1953. The Pragmatic Philosophy of C. S. Peirce. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Wildman, Wesley. 2010. Religious Philosophy as Multidisciplinary Comparative Inquiry: Envisioning a Future for the Philosophy of Religion. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wiley, Norbert. 2006. Pragmatism and the Dialogical Self. International Journal for Dialogical Science 1 (1): 5–21.Google Scholar
  33. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1967. Zettel, ed. G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brandon Daniel-Hughes
    • 1
  1. 1.John Abbott CollegeSainte-Anne-De-BellevueCanada

Personalised recommendations