Sigmund Ongstad given Biosemiotic Achievement Award for 2022 in Copenhagen

Yesterday I announced the winner of the Biosemiotic Achievement Award for 2022, Sigmund Ongstad, for his article "Simple Utterances but Complex Understanding? Meta-studying the Fuzzy Mismatch between Animal Semantic Capacities in Varied Contexts", at the 23rd gathering in biosemiotics, held in Copenhagen. I have taken part in this year´s Selection panel along with Ludmila Lackova and Anti-Veikko Pietarinen.

ISBS meeting attended in EiC role

Today I attended a teleconference meeting with Executive Officers of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS), in my role as Main Editor-in-Chief for Biosemiotics.

ISBS annual meeting attended

On Tuesday June 19th I attended the annual meeting of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS) in Berkeley, California. I was tasked with informing about Biosemiotics and announcing the 2017 Biosemiotic Achievement Award.

ISBS general meeting attended; mentions of some of my work

Today I attended the Annual Meeting of the ISBS, the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies, held at the 16th gathering of biosemiotics. The meeting included an announcement, by Don Favareau, of the first Biosemiotic Achievement Award (for 2015). In the President´s address, Kalevi Kull mentioned several works I have been involved in one way or another, including, among ten recent books he mentioned, The semiotics of animal representations (Rodopi 2014) and Thinking about animals in the age of the Anthropocene (Lexington Books 2016), both of which I have co-edited - and this blog.

Some 25 people were present.

ISBS announcement of Biosemiotic Achievement Award for 2015

An announcement of the Biosemiotic Achievement Award for 2015 has been posted on the homepage of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies.

Excerpts:

This year, the Selection Committee – Don Favareau (ISBS), Karel Kleisner (Biosemiotics), Izabela Witkowska (Springer) – arrived at its decision to bestow the award on Lynn Chiu and Scott F. Gilbert’s ‘The Birth of the Holobiont: Multi-species Birthing Through Mutual Scaffolding and Niche Construction (published in the August 2015 issue of Biosemiotics, Vol 8 (2): 191–210). 

[...]

The ISBS in conjunction with Springer Publishing congratulates Lynn Chiu and Scott Gilbert as the recipients of the first Annual Biosemiotics Achievement Award, who are awarded a book voucher from Springer Publishers worth EUR 250, and an electronic subscription to Biosemiotics for 1 year.

16th Gathering in Biosemiotics to be held in Prague

At the General Assembly of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies a few days ago (see separate post), it was disclosed, suggested and decided that the 16th Gathering in Biosemiotics will take place in Prague, the Czech Republic, next summer - convened by Karel Kleisner. It has furthermore been indicated that the 17th gathering might be held in Lausanne, Switzerland (though a decision will only be made next summer).

ISBS General Assembly attended; Kalevi Kull new President of biosemiotic society

On July 2nd, in Copenhagen (during the 15th gathering in biosemiotics), I attended the General Assembly of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS). At the meeting, Jesper Hoffmeyer stepped down as President of the ISBS, and Kalevi Kull was elected new President, the society´s second.

Selection panel of the Annual Biosemiotic Achievement Award appointed

The selection panel of the Annual Biosemiotic Achievement Award (see statutes) has now been appointed. Initially it counts the following members: Izabela Witkowska (Springer), Karel Kleisner (appointed by the Editors-in-Chief of Biosemiotics) and Don Favareau (appointed by the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS)).

The first award will be given to author(s) of an article in the 2015 volume (nos. 1, 2, 3) of Biosemiotics. The winner will be announced in Biosemiotics #1/2016 and on the ISBS webpage.

"Animals in the Anthropocene" CFP posted by biosemiotics society ISBS

The First Call for Papers for the conference "Animals in the Anthropocene: Human-animal relations in a changing semiosphere" has now been posted at the homepage of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS), with a link from the front page - see the CFP here.

Statutes of Annual Biosemiotic Achievement Award published on ISBS webpage

The statutes of the Annual Biosemiotic Achievement Award has been published on the webpage of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS). I have taken part in formulating the statutes, as one of the three Editors-in-Chief of the journal Biosemiotics.

Statutes of the Annual Biosemiotic Achievement Award finalized

A few days ago, on October 1st, the other Editors-in-Chief of Biosemiotics (Alexei Sharov and Timo Maran) and myself finalized the statutes of a new biosemiotic prize, previously called "The Biosemiotic Discovery Prize" (see previous posts), after having received suggestions this summer from participants at the 14th International Gathering in Biosemiotics (London June 30 - July 4th 2014). The final name of the title is "The Annual Biosemiotic Achievement Award". The prize statutes have been distributed to members of the editorial board of Biosemiotics and to the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS), and will shortly appear online.

ISBS annual meeting attended; annual biosemiotic prize to be launched - details to be worked out

On Thursday July 3rd, during the 14th International Gathering in Biosemiotics (London, 30th of June to 4th of July), I attended the annual meeting of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS). 

Among the topics were the proposed "Biosemiotic Discovery Prize" - a draft of the statutes for this prize, composed by Timo Maran, Alexei Sharov and myself (and language edited by Paul Cobley), was presented at the ISBS annual meeting and at the preceding panel presentation of the journal Biosemiotics. Different concerns were raised. At the annual meeting it was decided, on the suggestion of Jesper Hoffmeyer (the ISBS President), that the three mentioned Editors-in-Chief of Biosemiotics will invite the GiB14 participants to suggest changes in the prize statutes, and then decide on the final version of the statutes. We are currently in the process of receiving such suggestions.

See also:

Biosemiotics journal presented at gathering in London

15th Gathering in biosemiotics to be held in Copenhagen

15th Gathering in biosemiotics to be held in Copenhagen

On the annual meeting of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS) in London July 3rd it was officially decided that the 15th International Gathering in Biosemiotics will take place in Copenhagen, Denmark (Aalborg University - Copenhagen campus). Luis Emilio Bruni will convene the gathering, which will be arranged approximately June 29th to July 3rd 2015.

My vision for the journal Biosemiotics

As was made public at last night's General Meeting of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS), I am one of five nominees for the position of Editor-in Chief of the academic journal Biosemiotics, nominated by current Editor-in-Chief Marcello Barbieri.

The nominee with the most support in the biosemiotic community is Alexei Sharov. Although I primarily run for the position myself, I secondarily support Alexei. He would be an excellent choice, with his long experience, innovative approach and placement in systems theory biosemiotics.

This is what I have written to Springer's Senior Publishing Editor Catherine Cotton:

first of all, I confirm that I am willing to serve as a member of the editorial board in the way you describe. Second, I signal that I am interested in being considered for the position of Editor-in-Chief (primarily) or book series editor (secondarily), with the following agenda: I would...  

1) actively make use of citation data, sales/download data etc. in developing strategy and working to improve the standing of the journal (or book series) 

2) be undogmatic in dealing with contributors 

3) be open to making use of different semiotic traditions, Peircean and non-Peircean (and, within Piercean biosemiotics, be undogmatic and emphasise the value of diversity in interpretation) 

4) seek to make room for and highlight 'third paths' alongside Peircean biosemiotics and code biology, including for biosemiotics built on systems theory (represented e.g. by Aleksei Sharov) 

5) encourage collaboration across 'schools' and traditions (while also allowing for competition between them) 

6) assure a certain balance between orientation towards natural science, the humanities (including philosophy) and social sciences 

7) stimulate discourse and debate on fundamentals, including those on which we diverge 

8) emphasise the central role played by Uexküll's Umwelt theory, and encourage further development of Umwelt theory 

9) stimulate development of, and showcasing of, concrete applications of biosemiotic theory, in order to go beyond theory and methodology and move towards innovative scientific observations and breaktroughs 

10) initiate the creation of a biosemiotic glossary [...]. This would either take the form of a single project - a Special Issue or a book volume - or of an article series in the journal, with a section in each (regular) issue being devoted to a review of one key term per issue. Each review would map different uses and interpretations of the key term reviewed, and suggest synthesis in the form of a new definition. The long-term goal of the glossary project would be to be approaching concensus on the understanding of key terms, and thus contribute to biosemiotics' development as a maturing scientific field. In addition to literature studies/review the work with the glossary would likely involve a broad and representative survey among biosemioticians.

CFP: Gatherings in Biosemiotics 13 (Castiglioncelli - Livorno, Italy, June 4-8 2013)

Gatherings in Biosemiotics 13

Castiglioncello (Livorno), Italy, 4-8 June 2013

The Thirteenth Annual Gathering in Biosemiotics will be held in Castiglioncello (Italy) from June 4th to June 8th 2013, under the auspices of the Comune di Rosignano Marittimo and the University of Pisa in collaboration with the International Society of Biosemiotic Studies. The aim of the gathering is to provide scholars and researchers of various academic disciplines with a common platform to discuss the roles played by signs and communication in life processes.

The Scientific Advisory Committee of the 13th Gathering in Biosemiotics invites scholars and researchers from all over the world to submit their abstracts of presentations which are primarily centred on the roles and the significance of signs in life processes.

Abstracts should be 300-600 words, typed using a standard word processing format (using Times New Roman 12 point font, and setting the page size for A4). Abstracts should be submitted as single page files to the following address: abstract@biosemiotics2013.org to be received by no later than March 15th 2013. Please name the abstract file with the author's (your) surname in capital letters, for instance SEBEOK.doc. Please see http://www.biosemiotics2013.org/cfp for further details.

For early registration and any additional information, please contact info@biosemiotics2013.org.

Changes made by hand at Leigo farmstead

The picture below shows me at Leigo farmstead, Estonia, during the 12th Gathering in Biosemiotics, while I take notes in the margins and make changes by hand in the draft constitution of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS). Most of my suggestions were eventually implemented. The photo was taken by Sara Cannizzaro. Her photoblog is called Strange Love.

See also:

* "New ISBS constitution and board: About a backroom deal"
* "New ISBS constitution and board: About the election drama"

New ISBS constitution and board: About the election drama

Yesterday I posted "New ISBS constitution and board: About a backroom deal", and here, as promised yesterday, comes "New ISBS constitution and board: About the election drama". See also the documents on the pages of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS), namely a brief report from the General Assemby of the ISBS held on July 20 in Tartu, Estonia (under the 12th gathering in biosemiotics) and the new ISBS constitution.

This piece of paper was prepared, but not submitted anywhere, since our alternative proposal for members of the board was presented orally and all names proposed written on the black board in the auditorium where the General Assembly took place. All three of us - Gerald Ostdiek, Joachim de Beule and me, were up there. It was Gerald who got the idea a couple of hours earlier - that we should propose a new board consisting only of 'younger' scholars, given that arguably the true strength of a group of learned people depends on their ability to transfer power to a new generation. Generational transitions, in other words, and how smooth they are, are a measure of organisational success. The background in ISBS' case was also that all of the few who had been involved in recent conflicts were of the elder generation (including founders of the field of biosemiotics). During dinner that day (July 20th) I decided to support Gerald's idea, and the two of us made the list shown above. Straight before the General Assembly Joachim joined forces with us.

We were first of all motivated by the fact that the old board would only allow full lists of candidates, not individual nominations. Individual nominations would by far be preferable. But without that option, we thought the General Assembly should at the very least be given a choice, so that we could have a proper election, rather than just rubber-stamping the pre-made proposal of the board (which, notably, was only made public at the General Assemby). All this secrecy did not benefit anyone - and certainly not the members' trust in the board.

As can be read in Sara Cannizzaro's report from the General Assembly, the board's proposal ("List A") won with 37 votes, versus 12 votes for our "List B" and 10 blank votes. This implies that the board's proposal got 63% of the votes, our proposal 20% and that 17% voted blank.

Were we disappointed? Perhaps a bit silent at first. Given that Anton Markoš came out against our proposal (we had hoped for his support, since he had talked about the need for new people), as did Timo Maran (anything else would have been disloyal, given that he was nominated as Vice-President by the old board), and that only Marcello Barbieri of the biggest names explicitly supported us, we could not have expected many more votes than we got. But then, towards the end of the General Assembly and after the meeting, we all realised how the mood in the room had changed, after half an hour of presentation and discussion of our alternative nominations (where, notably, seven out of eleven people were in both proposals). To the better, for sure. So we thought our primary objectives had been achieved: To give people a proper election, to make the ISBS a little more democratic, and not least to give discontent a chance to be uttered and made visible.

New ISBS constitution and board: About a backroom deal

The International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS) has now uploaded its new constitution and a brief report from its first ever General Meeting, held in Tartu, Estonia, on July 20th. Since I played a role with regard to both the new statutes and at the General Meeting, here's a brief report from my side.

A draft of the constitution (the old board's proposal) was distributed on July 18th, the day after the 12th gathering in biosemiotics started. It had several flaws. I wrote to Jesper Hoffmeyer, the president of the ISBS, and Kalevi Kull of Tartu, about my concerns, and also talked with Sara Cannizzaro, who acted as the ISBS' Vice-president after Don Favareau stepped down. We agreed that Jesper, Sara and I should meet informally to see whether we could sort things out ahead of the General Meeting, and so we did, on the afternoon of July 18th (at Leigo farmstead). After half an hour's talk we agreed that Jesper would go through my concerns point by point and see what he could change.

On the morning of the day after, on the 19th, I received a revised draft where only one or none substantial change had been made. I then replied that I would raise my concerns at the General Meeting after all. Later that afternoon Kalevi, my former supervisor, came over during dinner to negotiate. Practically all my suggestions had now been incorporated into the board's constitution draft, and I gladly approved of it. The changes made due to this included (in addition to making a few points clearer or more accurate):

 - that the board's annual report is to be presented to members, not just the board itself - at an annual General Meeting (and indeed that annual General Meetings will be held)

 - that a rule stipulating that members at elections "will give a vite 'for' or 'against' each candidate" was dropped (a rule I feared would trigger conflict) in favour of the more common positive/blank voting

 - that the constitution may only be changed at General Meetings, not by the board

I am happy I thus contributed to making the ISBS a little more democratic and transparent. But as the decision-making process described above illustrates, this learned society still has some way to go in terms of being inclusive (there were complaints at the General Meeting about the board's attempts to avoid discussion, and the decision that no substantial changes to the constitution could be proposed at the General Meeting).

Tomorrow: "New ISBS constitution and board: About the election drama"

Biosemiotics: ISBS to hold first General Meeting ever

After weeks of discussion by email in the biosemiotic community, the president of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS), Jesper Hoffmeyer, today made clear that he will call for a General Meeting. According to the constitution of ISBS, which has been in place since 2008, such meetings open to all members should be arranged annually. The ISBS, however, has so far been run in an informal way, and these rules have not been put into practice.

On April 30th I wrote this in an email distributed in the biosemiotic community, in reply to an email (one of many) from Marcello Barbieri to all participants at this year's Gathering in Biosemiotics (Tartu, July 17-22).

Dear all, I have not gotten any response from anyone in the ISBS Committee on my prior notice (April 25), which read:

I can not recall ever having been directly invited or encouraged to attend an ISBS General Meeting at a Gathering (and I've been to 5 gatherings). I think this is regr[e]ttable - and problematic in terms of organisational democracy. I sincerely hope that the ISBS will develop a culture of greater inclusion in the future. The General Meetings were never (cf. the ISBS constitution) supposed to be mere meetings of the Executive Committee (in the constitution called "Committee"). 

I now feel compelled to ask explicitly for response, from the ISBS Committee itself. Has my notice been discussed in the Committee? If so, what was the outcome, or the opinions presented? If not, then it should now be discussed by the Committee. In the following I will make clear why this is of the highest importance. 

The constitution of the ISBS says:  

7.1 The supreme authority of the Society is vested in a General Meeting of the members. 

7.2 An Annual General Meeting shall be held.  

Marcello writes that "[a] General assembly [which he defines as "the actual community that is present at a General Meeting"] has never been convened before." My questions, then, are these:  

1) If Marcello is correct, why has the ISBS Committee never convened a General assembly (aka meeting)?  

2) Does not the ISBS constitution explicitly state that such meetings shall be held annually?  

3) If no General Meeting has ever been convened, what is the legality of all the decisions that have been made by the ISBS Committee in the period of 2005-2011? This point concerns rules etc. established by the ISBS (cf. Marcello's case), and more.  

4) If no General Meeting has ever been convened, then what of the validity of elections of ISBS committee members? Cf. the constitution's point 8.2: "Names for the above offices shall be proposed and seconded at the Annual General Meeting and election will follow on a simple majority vote of the members." If no General Meeting has ever been held, then WHO have elected the ISBS Committee members? Surely not the Committee itself??  

5) In case anyone would claim that General Meetings have actually taken place: If so, why have not all ISBS members present - i.e., all participants attending each Gathering - been explicitly invited to take part? Cf., the constitution's 7.5: "Notice of meeting stating the date, time and place of meeting shall be sent by the Secretary to all voting members". Is not the lack of such formal, personal invitations in violation of the spirit and letter of the ISBS constitution, which defines a General Meeting as "a General Meeting of the members"?  

Out of curiosity I also wonder:  

6) Approximately how many persons have been present at the ISBS meetings held during Gatherings so far? How many besides members of the Executive Committee? 

and  

7) What is the proper name for these meetings (at Gatherings up to 2011) - "Committee meetings"? If so, see points 3 and 4 above.  

I am not asking these questions to be difficult, but I do hold that they need to be answered satisfactorily - particularly because this is in terms of organisational democracy a problematic story whether the meetings held have been regarded as Committee meetings (which does not have such a wide mandate) or as General Meetings (which has in case not been correctly convened). 

For a start, the ISBS Committee should explain its practice, and signal whether it intends to follow the same practice in the future, or, if not, on what points it intends to change practice.

I will not, here in Utopian Realism, go into all details of this conflict - most of which has little to do with what has been my concern, as described above - but these were, in brief, the answers to my questions (many of which given by Donald Favareau, the former Vice-President of the ISBS, who withdrew about half a year ago, as a first sign of a looming crisis):

1) Don explained how the ISBS has been run in an informal way, and claimed the constitution was never meant to be taken literally. He accused me of being formalistic.

2) The ISBS constitution does indeed explicitly state that such meetings shall be held annually. The President of the ISBS has now signalled that the constitution will be followed from now on.

3) The legality of all the decisions that have been made by the ISBS Committee in the period of 2008-2011 has not been discussed further. Marcello Barbieri asked me, in a reply to my email, not to ask questions about the past (which he had done a little before). He has in the course of this changed argumentation, and recently focused exclusively on the validity of the constitution, and that a general assembly must be convened.

4) The validity of elections of ISBS committee members has not been addressed by anyone. Election of committee members will now likely start at the first General Meeting, to be held in Tartu in July. 

5) Noone have claimed that General Meetings have actually taken place so far. 

6) The number of persons present at the ISBS meetings held during Gatherings so far have been estimated to less than 10. As far as I understand only members of the Executive Committee (which has 15 members) have been present.

7) The proper name for the meetings (at Gatherings up to 2011) is Committee meetings. No minutes were taken.

***

Don, who's done a lot of good work for the ISBS over the years, wrote in his reply to my questions that he thought my "approach would be odious, and the final nail in the coffin of this group's long and often contentious journey from a warm fellowship of friends to what it is now: an arena for a war of escalating sides-taking." He talked about the death of good faith (as have many others - it is saddening to hear good colleagues be so defaitistic). But good faith did not die with me. I have not been involved in this conflict, but been a regular member only - and I do doubt very strongly that my concern for organisational democracy could ever be "the final nail in the coffin" for biosemiotics.

Today it became clear that the ISBS will introduce organisational democracy this year. I applaud that, and look forward to seeing it happen. What I cannot accept is that my allegiance should be given to persons (whoever they might be), regardless of ideal and principle. I pledge my allegiance to the cause of biosemiotics, the cause of organisational democracy, and the restoration of good faith.