I have just finished a chapter proposal titled "Ecosemiotic questions: Towards a comprehensive description of the complexity and creativity of life", and submitted it to the editors of the prospective book volume Creativity – Complexity – Intelligence, Semiotic Perspectives on the Emergence of Meaning (Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture).
This concludes my academic writing in January, with a total of 3.186 words written.
Today I have had an article writing day, with some 600 words written in the process of composing an extended abstract for the article now titled "Climate economics imaginaries and the contested future of economic growth", which I have submitted to a special issue on the history of climate economics of the journal Œconomia – History / Methodology / Philosophy. This brings the number of writing days so far this Spring up to 4,5, including 3,5 article writing days.
I have just composed and submitted the abstract below to the organisers of the 22nd annual conference of the Nordic Society for Phenomenology (NoSP), "Phenomenology in the Anthropocene", which is to be held at Tampere University, in Tampere, Finland, April 22–24, 2026.
***
What characterizes a more-than-human phenomenology suitable for the Anthropocene?
To address this question, it is pertinent to start out with the observation that the Anthropocene discourse is at its core a discussion about humanity´s impact on the natural environment that emerged from geology. At the same time, the Anthropocene has also over the last several years been vividly discussed from the perspectives of social sciences and the humanities. There is a disconnect between how the Anthropocene has been discussed in a natural science setting, and how it is being discussed in social science and humanities settings, with third-person objective perspectives predominating in the first and subjective perspectives prevailing in the others.
In my view, to be suitable for the circumstances of the Anthropocene, a more-than-human phenomenology must meet the following criteria:
* It must account for human lifeworlds as well as non-human lifeworlds
* It must account for human phenomena and non-human phenomena within a consistent and comprehensive theoretical framework
* It must be capable of explaining how human agency can lead to material changes in the natural world, and how these material changes affect living conditions
* It must be capable of tackling the problem of human bias which appears e.g. in the form of anthropocentrism and zoocentrism, and which distorts our thinking about nature
I will present a version of more-than-human phenomenology that draws on biosemiotics and Jakob von Uexküll´s Umwelt theory which I will argue meets the abovementioned criteria. The relevance of such a brand of phenomenology is supported by the fact that Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty both engaged with von Uexküll´s work in their discussions about animal lifeworlds. By outlining the main characteristics of a more-than-human phenomenology suitable for the Anthropocene, I simultaneously address key issues related to the nature, scope, and purpose of ecophenomenology.
I have just composed the abstract below for the organisers of the upcoming conference "Cognition and Evolution in Historical and Social Research", which is to be held September 23–24, at Lund University, Sweden (I have been invited to contribute).
***
Prospective studies of contested climate pasts and futures
While most researchers in relevant fields of study may agree that the current scale of human impact on current ecology is massive and unprecedented, there is no agreement on the time frame for the Anthropocene. Like the epoch itself, the current conceptualisation of the Anthropocene remains a work in progress. We are currently situated in the middle of an ongoing climate crisis. On this background, it may come as no surprise that both how we should understand recent modern history, and how we should understand possible climate futures, is contested. In this presentation I will outline how biosemiotics and Umwelt theory can contribute to prospective studies of past and future lifeworlds. I will then proceed to discuss how climate futures may be construed by way of a few examples. The presentation will draw on my articles «The study of past Umwelten» (Discipline Filosophische, 2023) and «What can be known about future Umwelten?» (The American Journal of Semiotics, 2019) as well as my forthcoming book Captured: CCS and the fight for the soul of the environmental movement (Bloomsbury Academic). In relation to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), I will touch upon the influence ideas about CCS have had on envisioned climate futures over the last 30 years or so. Disturbingly, there is no consensus among researchers or regulators on the relevant time scales for CO2 storages. Short retention times for CO2 in CO2 storages (<10,000 years) may delay rather than solve the problem of climate change, in effect exposing future generations to the risk of anthropogenic climate change caused in our time. Lastly, I will look into the challenges of long-term waste management in the contexts of radioactive waste and CO2 storage, respectively, including the challenge of communicating across multiple generations.
Short bio: Morten Tønnessen (born 1976) is a professor of philosophy at University of Stavanger, Norway. Academic (b)log: https://utopianrealism.blogspot.com
Today I have had a book writing day, with some 950 words written on my scientific monograph Captured: CCS and the fight for the soul of the environmental movement. Among other things, I finished the book abstract. So far this Spring I have had 67,5 writing days, including 58,5 book writing days.
By the time I finished placing all researched references in the text on May 7th, the bibliography counted 502 references. It now counts 548 references.
Today I have had a book writing day, with some 800 words written on my scientific monograph Captured: CCS and the fight for the soul of the environmental movement. So far this Spring I have had 59 writing days, including 51,5 book writing days.
I have logged more than 16.000 words written so far this month.
By now in 2025, I have written in excess of 50.000 words.
I have just submitted the abstract below to the organizers of the 25th gathering in biosemiotics, which will be held in Rotterdam August 25-29th.
***
Ecological semiotics
ABSTRACT
This presentation draws on my recently published encyclopedia chapter “Ecological semiotics” (Tønnessen 2024). Ecological semiotics, or ecosemiotics, can be understood as the study of sign use by organisms in an ecological context. In ecology, semiotic phenomena and sign processes occur at different levels of biological organization, and distinctive kinds of sign use is characteristic of different kinds of interspecies interaction. Ecosemiotic studies help to explain how ecological complexity can be understood in semiotic terms, and how sentient organisms interpret their environment and make choices that are informed by their sign use. The basic theoretical outlook of ecological semiotics includes lifeworld perspectives, particularly represented by the Umwelt theory of Jakob von Uexküll (2010). This connects ecosemiotics with phenomenology, subjectivity and agency. In a more rudimentary sense, even plants, fungi and microorganisms have agency which can be framed in semiotic terms. A semiotic approach to ecology is particularly pertinent in the context of human ecology and contemporary discussions concerning environmental sustainability. While ecosemiotics is amply informative applied to general ecology, it is especially pertinent in the context of understanding how human agency and sign use affects the environment at large. Ecological semiotics can help us understand how genuinely human sign use stands out from non-human sign use, and the ways in which human sign use is subject to cultural variation. Crucially, a semiotic approach to environmental issues can be informative with regard to understanding how human behaviour and sign use affects non-human lifeworlds by triggering environmental change which is experienced in sign-mediated ways. This positions ecosemiotics to address issues of environmental sustainability.
REFERENCES
Tønnessen, Morten 2024. “Ecological semiotics”. Chapter. Encyclopedia of Ecology (3rd edition) (Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21964-1.00018-5.
von Uexküll, Jacob 2010. A foray into the worlds of animals and humans with A theory of meaning. O’Neil, J. D. (transl.). Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.
I have just composed and submitted the abstract below to organizers of The 14th conference of the Nordic Association for Semiotic Studies along with the 15th Annual Lotman Days, which has the theme “Creativity – Complexity – Intelligence“ and is held in Tallinn, Estonia, June 11–13, 2025.
***
"Ecological semiotics, lifeworld perspectives, and sustainability"
Abstract
Morten Tønnessen
Drawing on my recently published encyclopedia chapter “Ecological semiotics” (Tønnessen 2024), in this presentation I outline how ecological complexity is underpinned by sign use and sign systems. Ecological semiotics, or ecosemiotics, can be understood as the study of sign use by organisms in an ecological context. In ecology, semiotic phenomena and sign processes occur at different levels of biological organization, and distinctive kinds of sign use is characteristic of different kinds of interspecies interaction. Ecosemiotic studies help to explain how ecological complexity can be understood in semiotic terms, and how sentient organisms interpret their environment and make choices that are informed by their sign use. I will present the basic theoretical outlook of ecological semiotics with an emphasis on lifeworld perspectives, particularly represented by the Umwelt theory of Jakob von Uexküll (2010). This implies relating ecosemiotics to phenomenology, subjectivity and agency. In a more rudimentary sense, even plants, fungi and microorganisms have agency which can be framed in semiotic terms. In my work, I stress the relevance of a semiotic approach for human ecology and contemporary discussions concerning environmental sustainability. While ecosemiotics is amply informative applied to general ecology, it is especially pertinent in the context of understanding how human agency and sign use affects the environment at large. Ecological semiotics can help us understand how genuinely human sign use stands out from non-human sign use, and the ways in which human sign use is subject to cultural variation. Crucially, a semiotic approach to environmental issues can be informative with regard to understanding how human behaviour and sign use affects non-human lifeworlds by triggering environmental change which is experienced in sign-mediated ways. This positions ecosemiotics to address issues of environmental sustainability.
REFERENCES
Tønnessen, Morten 2024. “Ecological semiotics”. Chapter. Encyclopedia of Ecology (3rd edition) (Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21964-1.00018-5.
von Uexküll, Jacob 2010. A foray into the worlds of animals and humans with A theory of meaning. O’Neil, J. D. (transl.). Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.
The abstract for my chapter "Ecological Semiotics", which is part of the 3rd edition of Elsevier´s Encyclopedia of Ecology, was published online on October 19th.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21964-1.00018-5
Abstract:
Ecological semiotics, or ecosemiotics, is the study of sign use by organisms in an ecological context. This chapter provides an outline of semiotic phenomena in ecology and sign processes at different levels of biological organization and explains how complexity can be understood in semiotic terms. It presents the basic theoretical outlook of ecological semiotics, with emphasis on lifeworld perspectives, particularly represented by the Umwelt theory of Jakob von Uexküll. Studies of sign use can help us to understand how sentient organisms interpret their environment and make choices that are informed by their sign use. In a more rudimentary sense, even plants, fungi and microorganisms have agency which can be framed in semiotic terms. The chapter also outlines the characteristics of sign use in different kinds of interspecies interaction. Finally, the relevance of ecological semiotics for human ecology is stressed. While ecosemiotics is amply informative applied to general ecology, it is especially pertinent in the context of understanding how human agency and sign use affects the environment at large. Ecological semiotics can help us understand how genuinely human sign use stands out from non-human sign use, and the ways in which human sign use is subject to cultural variation. Crucially, ecological semiotics can be informative with regard to understanding how human behavior and sign use affects non-human lifeworlds by triggering environmental change which is experienced in sign-mediated ways. This positions ecosemiotics to address issues of environmental sustainability.
Abstracts of the six plenary talks for the 5th conference of the International Association for Cognitive Semiotics have now been shared online.
These include:
Elena Cuffari: "Autonomy, participation, and sense-making as sites of crisis: studying the technopolitical situatedness of linguistic bodies"
Hans-Georg Moeller: "The Crisis of Authenticity: Meaning under Conditions of "Profilicity""
Cornelia Müller: "Multimodality and aesthetic experience: How feeling guides the ways we make sense"
Jamin Pelkey: "The birth of wild meaning: Facing crises of alienation and disenchantment"
Komarine Romdenh-Romluc: "Break-downs and times of crisis"
Morten Tønnessen: "The crisis of mechanistic science seen through the lens of the nature crisis"
The introduction to the special issue of Biosemiotics ‘Umwelt Theory and Phenomenology’, written by Carlo Brentari and me, has just been published online.
Reference:
Carlo Brentari and Morten Tønnessen 2024. Introduction to the Special Issue ‘Umwelt Theory and Phenomenology’. Editorial. Biosemiotics. Published online July 19th 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-024-09583-w
Abstract:
This introduction to the special issue “Umwelt Theory and Phenomenology” is composed of a brief theoretical introduction to phenomenology seen as a key attitude of philosophical research, an investigation of the possibilities offered by a combined application of phenomenology and biosemiotics, and an overview of the articles that are included in the special issue. The theoretical introduction stresses the possibility of distinguishing, within phenomenology, between approaches centred on the object (in other terms, the phenomenon), and subject-centred approaches which have emerged in the wake of Kantian transcendental idealism. The connection with biosemiotics is explored for both kinds of approaches, showing how Uexküll, and many other scholars after him, have used phenomenological tools and perspectives in the study of biological meaning and meaning-making processes. For each article in the collection, the overview of the articles indicates one or two points that we believe are of the greatest interest for the reader.
I have been notified that my conference paper "Applied Umwelt theory in the context of descriptive phenomenology and phenomenological triangulation" has been scheduled for presentation on Friday 21st of June at 10:30, during the 24th Gathering in Biosemiotics, which is to be held June 17-21st in Bloemfontein, South Africa (University of the free state) and online. I will attend the conference digitally.
This is the conference abstract I submitted:
Applied Umwelt theory in the context of descriptive phenomenology and phenomenological triangulation
Author: Morten Tønnessen
Affiliation: Professor of philosophy, Department of social studies, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
In earlier work, I have argued that a genuine ´Uexküllian phenomenology´ can be derived from the Umwelt theory of Jakob von Uexküll and that such a phenomenology is capable of accounting for the subjective experience of both humans and animals. With its foundation in contemporary biosemiotics, such a modern, empirically informed phenomenology is particularly relevant for the study of human-animal relations and interaction in societal and ecological settings. In a recent chapter (Tønnessen 2023) I have outlined a scientific method for conducting qualitative studies of human and animal lifeworlds by introducing a semiotically informed descriptive phenomenology. While descriptive phenomenology in its current forms is typically only applicable to the study of human lifeworlds (Giorgi 2009), a reiteration of descriptive phenomenology that draws on Umwelt theory can be designed to be non-anthropocentric and pluralistic. In this paper I elaborate on a more-than-human descriptive phenomenology and explain how it can be applied within the humanities and social sciences as well as in a natural science context. Furthermore, I will discuss how Umwelt theory can be made use of as part of a methodology of phenomenological triangulation, in which 1st, 2nd and 3rd person perspectives are combined in studies of one and the same study object. This methodology draws on ideas developed in cognitive semiotics by Jordan Zlatev, Göran Sonesson, and others (e.g. Zlatev 2012). Overall, this paper aims to contribute to integrating biosemiotics and phenomenology and demonstrating the relevance of Umwelt theory for phenomenology, and vice versa.
REFERENCES
Giorgi, Amedeo (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology. Duquesne University Press.
Tønnessen, Morten (2023). Umwelt theory for practitioners: Semiotic guidelines for application in a more-than-human descriptive phenomenology. Pp. 303–314 in Open Semiotics (4 volumes, ed. Amir Biglari), volume 4: Life and its extensions. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Zlatev, Jordan (2012). Cognitive Semiotics: An emerging field for the transdisciplinary study of meaning. The Public Journal of Semiotics IV(1) (2012): 2–24.
My Erasmus exchange to Italy and Slovenia is approaching. On Tuesday May 14th, I will give a lecture at Instititum Studiorum Humanitatis, Alma mater Europaea (AMEU–ISH), in Ljubljana, titled “The Anthropocene: Alpha and omega?”. Abstract and bionote below.
***
Title: The Anthropocene: Alpha and omega?
Abstract: For about a generation, the perspective of the Anthropocene has been much discussed as a framing of our current socioecological predicament. Recently, the Anthropocene reportedly failed to become an official designation for the time we live in, after a majority of the members of the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), sorting under the International Commission on Stratigraphy´s Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy, voted against it. But this is not the end of the Anthropocene, given how fruitful the concept and perspective has proven to be over the last several years. Key questions remain to be satisfactorily answered: What does the perspective of the Anthropocene say about humans´ place in nature, generally and currently? When did human impact start overwhelming ecosystems? When did humans start having a global impact? For how long is it likely – or desirable – that we humans, and the Earth, will remain in a predicament in which humans predominate environments globally? And how can the Anthropocene perspective be informative with regard to understanding how we should solve environmental problems, including the climate crisis?
Bionote: Morten Tønnessen (born 1976) is a professor of philosophy at University of Stavanger, Norway. Tønnessen has been an Editor-in-Chief of Biosemiotics and is currently a member of its editorial board. He is a past president and the current secretary of the Nordic Association for Semiotic Studies (NASS), and a member of Norway´s Council for animal ethics. His writings on the Anthropocene include “The Global Species” (New formations: a journal of culture/theory/politics, 2010), Hvem er villest i landet her? Råskap mot dyr og natur i antropocen, menneskets tidsalder (co-editor, Scandinavian Academic Press 2013) and Thinking about animals in the age of the Anthropocene (co-editor, Lexington Books 2016). Academic (b)log: https://utopianrealism.blogspot.com. For an overview of publications see Tønnessen´s Google Scholar profile.
I have composed and submitted the proposal and abstract below to the organizers of IAEP 2024, the 28th conference of the International Association for Environmental Philosophy, which will be held online May 22-24th.
*
Umwelt phenomenology, the human condition, and the nature crisis
PROPOSAL
Edmund Husserl famously thematized science´ forgetting of the lifeworld in what was after his death published as Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die Tranzendentale Phänomenologie, published in English translation as The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. In a somewhat similar way, the biologist Jakob von Uexküll, who contributed originally to theoretical biology and our understanding of science, decried the ´meaning-blind´ biology of his time. Drawing on the fact that the experience of animals is constrained by the sensory and behavioral repertoire of each organism and takes place within the context of species-specific configurations of time and space, the Umwelt theory von Uexküll developed was programmatically presented as subjective biology. This makes his Umwelt theory relevant for phenomenology, so that his work warrants the designation Umwelt phenomenology. This is also supported by the fact that central phenomenologists, including Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty, have related to and made use of von Uexküll´s work. While he applied the Umwelt perspective not only to animals, but to humans as well, particularly in Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen, published in English translation as A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans, unfortunately, human Umwelten remained undertheorized in his work. Hannah Arendt, however, in her book The Human Condition, discussed the human condition and observed a crisis within the natural sciences play out as an inability to be relatable to normal speech and thought. Although she saw the significance of our evolving global perspective and power, which is today often conceptualized in terms of the Anthropocene, Arendt failed to acknowledge the decisive difference our anthropocentric bias makes in matters of ontology and epistemology alike. From the perspective of Umwelt phenomenology, I have argued that today´s environmental crisis can be conceived of as an ontological crisis involving the extinction and marginalization of myriads of lifeworlds. As is well established, the environmental crisis is characterized by extensive anthropogenic environmental change. This can be conceptualized in terms of Umwelt transitions. The ongoing nature crisis is most blatantly observable in rapidly escalating climate change, and the well-documented marginalization of wild terrestrial mammals, which now account for only 4% of terrestrial mammalian biomass, as documented by Bar-On and colleagues in their inventive work on “The biomass distribution on Earth”. Arguably, the last decades´ scientific neglect, theoretically and methodologically, of the agency, subjectivity, and worth of living beings has contributed to this intensifying and deepening nature crisis. With its objectivistic, mechanistic perspective on the natural world, the scientific enterprise has in practice facilitated and helped justify a real-life objectification, de-souling, exploitation, and commodification of living beings as mere means and resources. It is high time to replace this outdated and harmful outlook with a philosophically based scientific framework more fit for the 21st century. One way forward entails acknowledging the semiotic agency of all that lives, and start planning for the socio-ecological and economic transformations that will be required to solve the environmental crisis in the next few decades. This will have to involve a serious rethinking of the human condition and how we think about our place in nature.
ABSTRACT
Edmund Husserl famously thematized science´ forgetting of the lifeworld. In a somewhat similar way, the theoretical biologist Jakob von Uexküll decried the ´meaning-blind´ biology of his time, developing what I call “Umwelt phenomenology”. In her book The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt observed a crisis within the natural sciences play out as an inability to be relatable to normal speech and thought. I discuss the ongoing nature crisis in light of these perspectives, and make some observations on how we can rethink matters related to the human condition, our place in nature, and science´s role in justifying exploitation of living beings.
Today I have had an article writing day with work done on the article "Hva Arne Næss kan lære oss om økonomifagets tverrfaglighet" (What Arne Næss can teach us about the interdisciplinarity of economics), which I have co-written with Jan Karlstrøm and Thomas Hylland Eriksen. Today´s work included reworking in-text and bibliography references and writing a summary in Norwegian and English. In the process I added some 500 words to the article, which has now been submitted to Norsk filosofisk tidsskrift.
Marginally, I also did some work related to my book project Captured and my article "Applied Umwelt theory in the context of phenomenological triangulation and descriptive phenomenology".
So far this Spring I have had 14,5 writing days.
I have just submitted the abstract below to the organizers of the 2024 conference of the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS), which will be held in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, June 24-28th.
***
Can welfare and environmental concerns be measured in extension of GDP?
Morten Tønnessen, Professor of Philosophy, Department of Social Sciences, University of Stavanger
Jan Karlstrøm, Research assistant, Department of Social Sciences, University of Stavanger
What the purpose of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is as a measure of economic activity has been debated ever since the term was launched and adopted in the 1930s. In this paper we go through the history of the concept of GDP, the criticism GDP has been met with, and proposed alternatives to GDP. Originally, GDP was constructed based on a need for more overview and a better basis for planned government management of the economy during the Depression and the Second World War. In the post-war period, GDP growth became a central political goal in and of itself. Even though from the very beginning it has been pointed out that GDP is not intended as a measure of welfare, GDP growth has constantly been associated with welfare development. Modern criticism of GDP as a measure of the state of the economy and social development has largely addressed the fact that GDP is poorly suited as a measure of welfare and that the target of GDP growth is unfortunate given the environmental consequences of increasing production and consumption. Several alternative measures of welfare development and environmental concerns have been launched, but none of them have succeeded in becoming as central as GDP. The new measure that has gained the most traction, namely the UN's Human Development Index, has incorporated GDP rather than replaced GDP. We look at alternatives for measuring welfare, alternatives that address environmental concerns, and alternatives that address both welfare and environmental concerns and evaluate these critically.
I have just submitted the abstract below to the organizers of the 24th Gathering in Biosemiotics, which will be held in Bloemfontein, South Africa, June 17-21st.
***
Applied Umwelt theory in the context of descriptive phenomenology and phenomenological triangulation
Author: Morten Tønnessen
Affiliation: Professor of philosophy, Department of social studies, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
In earlier work, I have argued that a genuine ´Uexküllian phenomenology´ can be derived from the Umwelt theory of Jakob von Uexküll and that such a phenomenology is capable of accounting for the subjective experience of both humans and animals. With its foundation in contemporary biosemiotics, such a modern, empirically informed phenomenology is particularly relevant for the study of human-animal relations and interaction in societal and ecological settings. In a recent chapter (Tønnessen 2023) I have outlined a scientific method for conducting qualitative studies of human and animal lifeworlds by introducing a semiotically informed descriptive phenomenology. While descriptive phenomenology in its current forms is typically only applicable to the study of human lifeworlds (Giorgi 2009), a reiteration of descriptive phenomenology that draws on Umwelt theory can be designed to be non-anthropocentric and pluralistic. In this paper I elaborate on a more-than-human descriptive phenomenology and explain how it can be applied within the humanities and social sciences as well as in a natural science context. Furthermore, I will discuss how Umwelt theory can be made use of as part of a methodology of phenomenological triangulation, in which 1st, 2nd and 3rd person perspectives are combined in studies of one and the same study object. This methodology draws on ideas developed in cognitive semiotics by Jordan Zlatev, Göran Sonesson, and others (e.g. Zlatev 2012). Overall, this paper aims to contribute to integrating biosemiotics and phenomenology and demonstrating the relevance of Umwelt theory for phenomenology, and vice versa.
REFERENCES
Giorgi, Amedeo (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology. Duquesne University Press.
Tønnessen, Morten (2023). Umwelt theory for practitioners: Semiotic guidelines for application in a more-than-human descriptive phenomenology. Pp. 303–314 in Open Semiotics (4 volumes, ed. Amir Biglari), volume 4: Life and its extensions. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Zlatev, Jordan (2012). Cognitive Semiotics: An emerging field for the transdisciplinary study of meaning. The Public Journal of Semiotics IV(1) (2012): 2–24.
***
See also:
#27,5; abstract for special issue of Sign Systems Studies on Umwelt theory
I have just composed and submitted the abstract below for my plenary talk at the 5th conference of the International Association for Cognitive Semiotics (IACS5), to be held in Lund, Sweden in August 2024.
***
The crisis of mechanistic science seen through the lens of the nature crisis
Morten Tønnessen
Edmund Husserl (1954, 1970) famously thematized science´ forgetting of the lifeworld. In a somewhat similar way, Jakob von Uexküll (1956 [1940]) decried the ´meaning-blind´ biology of his time. Drawing on the fact that the experience of animals is constrained by the sensory and behavioral repertoire of each organism and takes place within the context of species-specific configurations of time and space (von Uexküll 1928), the Umwelt theory he developed was programmatically framed as subjective biology. While he applied the Umwelt perspective to humans as well, particularly in von Uexküll 1956 [1934], unfortunately, human Umwelten remained undertheorized in his work. Hannah Arendt, however, discussed the human condition and observed a crisis within the natural sciences play out as an inability to be relatable to normal speech and thought (Arendt 1958). Although she saw the significance of our evolving global perspective and power, which is today often conceptualized in terms of the Anthropocene (Steffen et al. 2011), Arendt failed to acknowledge the decisive difference our anthropocentric bias makes in matters of ontology and epistemology alike. From the perspective of Umwelt phenomenology, today´s environmental crisis can be conceived of as an ontological crisis (Tønnessen 2003) involving the extinction and marginalization of myriads of lifeworlds. As is well established, the environmental crisis is characterized by extensive anthropogenic environmental change. This can be conceptualized in terms of Umwelt transitions (Tønnessen 2009). The ongoing nature crisis is most blatantly observable in rapidly escalating climate change, and the well-documented marginalization of wild terrestrial mammals, which now account for only 4% of terrestrial mammalian biomass (Bar-On et al. 2018). Arguably, the last decades´ scientific neglect, theoretically and methodologically, of the agency, subjectivity, and worth of living beings has contributed to this intensifying and deepening nature crisis. With its objectivistic, mechanistic perspective on the natural world, the scientific enterprise has in practice facilitated and helped justify a real-life objectification, de-souling, exploitation, and commodification of living beings as mere means and resources. It is high time to replace this outdated and harmful outlook with a philosophically based scientific framework more fit for the 21st century. One way forward entails acknowledging the semiotic agency of all that lives (Sharov & Tønnessen 2023), and start planning for the socio-ecological and economic transformations that will be required to solve the environmental crisis in the next few decades (Tønnessen 2021). This will have to involve a serious rethinking of the human condition (Tønnessen, forthcoming).
REFERENCES
Arendt, Hannah 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bar-On, Yinon M., Rob Phillips, and Ron Milo 2018. The biomass distribution on Earth. PNAS 115(25) (2018): 6506–6511. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115. Includes Supplementary Information Appendix.
Husserl, Edmund 1954. Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die Tranzendentale Phänomenologie (Husserliana: Gesammelte Werke 6). Edited by Walter Biemel. Extended version, with appendices. Haag: Martin Nijhoff.
Husserl, Edmund 1970. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. Translation of (and selection from) Husserl 1954 by David Carr. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
Sharov, Alexei and Morten Tønnessen 2021: Semiotic Agency: Science beyond Mechanism (Biosemiotics 25). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89484-9
Steffen, Will, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen, and John McNeill. The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 369 (2011): 842–867. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0327
Tønnessen, Morten 2003. Umwelt Ethics. Sign Systems Studies 31 (1): 281–299. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2003.31.1.13
Tønnessen, Morten 2009. Umwelt Transitions: Uexküll and Environmental Change. Biosemiotics 2 (1): 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-008-9036-y
Tønnessen, Morten 2021. Anticipating the societal transformation required to solve the environmental crisis in the 21st century. Sign Systems Studies 49 (1/2): 12–62. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2021.49.1-2.02
Tønnessen, Morten, forthcoming. A biosemiotic perspective on the human condition and the environmental crisis. In Lenart Škof, Sashinungla, Sigridur Thorgeirsdottir (eds.), Elemental-Embodied Thinking for a New Era (Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures 42). Springer.
Uexküll, Jakob von 1928. Theoretische Biologie. 2nd edition. Berlin: J. Springer.
Uexküll, Jakob von 1956 [1934/1940]. A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans – with A Theory of Meaning (Posthumanities 12). Transl. Joseph D. O¨Neil. Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press.
My proposed paper "Applied Umwelt theory – in the context of descriptive phenomenology and phenomenological triangulation" has been accepted for inclusion in the special issue “Contemporary applications of umwelt theory” of Sign Systems Studies. A full manuscript is due March 1st.
Today I have had what ended up as half a writing day, bringing the Autumn´s total so far up to 27,5, with an abstract written for my prospective contribution to a special issue of Sign Systems Studies titled “Contemporary applications of umwelt theory”, and a little work done on my book project Captured, and some 300 words composed in total.
***
Work title: Applied Umwelt theory – in the context of descriptive phenomenology and phenomenological triangulation
Author: Morten Tønnessen
Abstract for the special issue “Contemporary applications of umwelt theory”, Sign Systems Studies
In earlier work, I have argued that a genuine ´Uexküllian phenomenology´ can be derived from the Umwelt theory of Jacob von Uexküll and that such a phenomenology is capable of accounting for the subjective experience of both humans and animals. With its foundation in contemporary biosemiotics, such a modern, empirically informed phenomenology is particularly relevant for the study of human-animal relations and interaction in societal and ecological settings. In a recent chapter, I have outlined a scientific method for conducting qualitative studies of human and animal lifeworlds by introducing a semiotically informed descriptive phenomenology. While descriptive phenomenology in its current forms is typically only applicable to the study of human lifeworlds, a reiteration of descriptive phenomenology that draws on umwelt theory can be designed to be non-anthropocentric and pluralistic. In this article, I will elaborate on a more-than-human descriptive phenomenology and explain how it can be applied within the humanities and social sciences as well as in a natural science context. Furthermore, I will discuss how umwelt theory can be made use of as part of a methodology of phenomenological triangulation, in which 1st, 2nd and 3rd person perspectives are combined in studies of one and the same study object. This methodology draws on ideas developed in cognitive semiotics by Jordan Zlatev, Göran Sonesson, and others. Overall, the aim of this article is to contribute to integrating biosemiotics and phenomenology and demonstrating the relevance of umwelt theory for phenomenology, and vice versa.
