I have just composed the abstract below for the 21st Gathering in biosemiotics, which will be held online and possibly in Stockholm on July 26-29th.
**
The relevance of Umwelt theory for the theory and practice of phenomenology
Morten Tønnessen, Professor of philosophy, Department of social studies, University of Stavanger, Norway
**@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This presentation draws on two chapters I have recently written, one titled “Phenomenology” (to appear in Sharov & Tønnessen, forthcoming) and the other “Umwelt theory for practitioners: Semiotic guidelines for application in a more-than-human descriptive phenomenology” (Tønnessen, forthcoming).
In the first chapter, we discuss the phenomenological tradition within philosophy with emphasis on representative phenomenological positions on subjectivity, sentience, consciousness and self-consciousness, and make the argument that giving phenomenology a biosemiotic grounding will make it more comprehensive. Even though both Husserl and Heidegger, two classics of phenomenology, acknowledged that animals have subjective lifeworlds, their respective phenomenologies were clearly anthropocentric. The same goes for most mainstream versions of contemporary phenomenology. Heidegger states this anthropocentric bias plainly when, after referring to the Umwelt theory of Jakob von Uexküll, he claims that animals are “poor in world”. The Umwelt theory offers an alternative, more pluralistic framework for phenomenology – a phenomenology beyond the human, with a biosemiotic basis. Von Uexküll´s Umwelt theory was discussed by Merleau-Ponty and has further inspired several contemporary philosophers within and beyond phenomenology. In the chapter we also discuss the relation between semiotics and phenomenology, including Peirce´s ideas and recent calls for a naturalized phenomenology. While modern phenomenology was from its inception programmatically presented as anti-naturalism, leading contemporary phenomenologists favour realignment between phenomenology and naturalism. With its roots in sign theory and biology, biosemiotics can contribute further to this endeavour, and be an important piece in the puzzle when realigning phenomenological studies of subjective experience and behaviour with natural science.
The second chapter outlines a scientific method for conducting qualitative studies of human and animal lifeworlds by introducing a semiotically informed descriptive phenomenology that goes beyond the human. A depiction of the theoretical basis for a more-than-human descriptive phenomenology is followed by a depiction of its methodological basis. The chapter concludes with a number of semiotic guidelines for practical application of Umwelt theory organized by relevant professions and settings of study.
Acknowledgements: Alexei Sharov contributed to the chapter “Phenomenology”. Tønnessen is a member of the University of Stavanger´s program areas for research “Philosophy and subjectivity” and “The Greenhouse: An environmental humanities initiative at University of Stavanger”.
References
— Tønnessen, M., forthcoming. Umwelt theory for practitioners: Semiotic guidelines for application in a more-than-human descriptive phenomenology. In Amir Biglari (ed), Open Semiotics. Paris: L’Harmattan.
— Sharov, A. & Tønnessen, M., forthcoming: Semiotic Agency: Science beyond Mechanism. Springer Nature.
