Umwelt theory and phenomenology article lauded in 2024 semiotics review article

In the article "Technological futures in semiotics: The year 2024 in review", published in Sign Systems Studies, Auli Viidalepp and Alin Olteanu have some kind words about my research related to Umwelt theory and its relevance for phenomenology. The article they refer to is "Applied umwelt theory in the context of phenomenological triangulation and descriptive phenomenology", which is openly available online.

Excerpt:

Drawing on umwelt theory, Morten Tønnessen (2024) takes new steps towards a more-than-human descriptive phenomenology. The value of his contribution as an integral and transdisciplinary framework cannot be overestimated. Tønnessen also indicates potential further applicability of the applied umwelt theory across 17 fields of research that study the perception and behaviour of humans and/or animals. To name a few less common perspectives, this framework could help in behavioural reframing of human ecology, address Anthropocene discourses in environmental humanities, model potential lifeworlds for astrobiology, or enrich psychological lifeworld studies, especially in “socio-ecological contexts and settings that involve human–animal interaction” (Tønnessen 2024: 334). The theory is also relevant for well-established epistemic communities such as the fields of sociology, political science, anthropology, (behavioural) economics, speculative and futures studies, and many others (Tønnessen 2024). In similar lines, we note Anton Markoš and Jana Švorcová’s (2024) theoretical development of the umwelt theory in regard to symbiosis.

"Wasted GDP in the USA" referenced in Mongabay news story and podcast; and South Africa Today

My article "Wasted GDP in the USA" is referenced in the news story "Can ‘degrowth’ solve our ecological, social & economic problems?" by Mike DiGirolamo and Rachel Donald which was published on the international environmental issues news site Mongabay on January 30th, along with a podcast featuring economist Timothée Parrique, who is currently based at Lund University, Sweden. In the podcast, Timothée talks about my research around 18m30s - 21m40s, and later on, around 59m - 1h05m, Mike and Rachel discuss it.

The Mongabay article has been republished by South Africa Today on February 2nd.

Excerpts:

Recent research indicates that the United States wastes 65% of its economic output on things that do not provide essential or quality-of-life needs, bolstering the argument that the economy could be strongly scaled back to decrease its impact on the environment. 

Research published in the journal Humanities and Social Sciences Communications finds that just in the United States, trillions of dollars are wasted on things that do not improve the quality of life for Americans. Podcast guest Timothée Parrique, an economist and researcher at the Lund University School of Economics and Management, argues this is strong evidence that the United States (and other wealthy, industrialized nations) could significantly scale back production and consumption, thereby decreasing their impact on the planet’s stretched ecological limits — the Planetary Boundaries — allowing low- and middle-income nations the latitude they need to raise their standards of living.

My article "Wasted GDP in the USA" has now been referred to in media based in the USA, Spain, and South Africa, in addition to Mongabay.

See also:

News story on "Wasted GDP in the USA" article in Spanish online newspaper La Politica Online

"Wasted GDP in the USA" mentioned in Counterpunch news story 

Jablonka and Ginsburg´s response to my commentary on their target article; with comments

In the recently published article "Living and Experiencing: Response to Commentaries", published in Biosemiotics, Eva Jablonka and Simona Ginsburg respond to my commentary "The Evolutionary Origin(s) of the Umwelt", which was one out of several commentaries on their 2022 target article "Learning and the evolution of conscious agents". While they overall present another impressively comprehensive article on the character, diversity and range of life, I feel that some of my views are misrepresented in their comments.

Excerpts:

Olteanu too (2022) points to the resonance between our theory and the biosemiotic approach to learning and consciousness, while other biosemioticians [Campbell (2022), Hendlin (2023), Tønnesson (2022)] emphasize both the common ground and the need to incorporate terms such as Umwelt into our framework and to expand on the continuity between life and mind.

No problem here.

The assumption that there is no life without sentience is reflected in the biopsychic stance of some of our commentators, who regard all living beings, from bacteria to humans, as sentient. This biopsychic assumption is clearly stated by Reber et al. (2022) and by Meincke (2023), but a biopsychic stance is also implied in the commentaries of Hendlin (2023), Tønnessen (2022), and Riskin (2023).

I do not think this is accurate. I make no claim in my commentary that I think it is fair to characterize as adopting a biopsychic stance implying that all life is sentient. On the contrary, I distinguish clearly between sentient and non-sentient organisms, and thematize the emergence of sentience during the Cambrian explosion.

Maybe the a priori assumption that intrinsic value must be mentally experienced is related to a different understanding of the terms “subject” and “subjective experiencing”. Subjective experiencing, as Tønnessen (2022) defines it, is “the experiencing of the subject”. However, a “subject”, as we understand the term, does not necessarily have mental states. A subject does have closure (and hence also a necessary inwardness and individuality) and is an agent that interacts with object/s external to it, reacting differently to world-generated and self-generated identical stimuli. Such reafferent reactions, were, we suggested, the non-mental precursors of the mental sense of self, and such reactions may be thought of as constituting “subjecthood”. But such subjecthood is as yet not mental subjecthood. Olteanu (2022) may have interpreted our usage of the term “subjective” in biosemiotic terms (as belonging to a subject, as subjecthood) and not in the common sense of equating “subjective experiencing” with “mental experiencing”, implying private, mental states such as perceiving the taste of banana ice cream and feeling fear.

I agree that not all subjects have mental states, and that some subjecthood is mental whether other organisms´ subjecthood is non-mental. What I criticized in my commentary was Jablonka and Ginsburg´s conflation of subjective experience with consciousness in their target article. Specifically, I questioned "one of its basic premises, namely that it is justified to “use the terms consciousness and subjective experiencing as synonyms” (p. 2)".

As Tønnessen (2022) rightly points out, the origin of the Umwelt is very ancient. We believe, as we think he does, that the co-construction of organisms and their relevant environment is as ancient as life itself. We also agree with him that a “sense saturated” Umwelten emerged during the Cambrian (with UAL), but we do not understand the basis of his claim that a primitive, mental sense of self preceded the Umwelten of sentient, Cambrian animals, and that the notion of Umwelt presupposes sentience.

I make no claim in my commentary to the effect "that a primitive, mental sense of self preceded the Umwelten of sentient, Cambrian animals, and that the notion of Umwelt presupposes sentience." This is misrepresenting my views. I refer to nothing "mental" in my commentary, clearly distinguish between conscious and non-conscious organisms, with and without the capacity for sensation, and my portrayal of the emergence of "sense-saturated" Umwelten, on the background of non-sentient Umwelten, clearly opposes the views that Jablonka and Ginsburg attribute to me.

In my commentary, I write: 

"The origin of the Umwelt did not coincide with the origin of sentience or consciousness. Nor did subjecthood, or subjective experience, emerge during the Cambrian explosion, though more complex forms of subjective experience evolved at this time."

I find it hard to understand how this can be taken to imply that all life is sentient and conscious, as Jablonka and Ginsburg appear to think is my view. "Subjective experience", in my view, "is a graded phenomenon, and evolved gradually to more complex forms as organisms evolved from simple organisms to more complex organisms."

Google Scholar: 1.010 citations at end of 2023

As of the end of year 2023, my research has according to Google Scholar - cf. my profile - attracted 1.010 citations, including 142 in 2023. This compares to 865 citations at the end of 2022, after which a further 145 citations have been registered by Google Scholar, and with 615 citations at the end of 2021. My h-index remains 18 (meaning that 18 of my publications have attracted at least 18 citations each), like a year ago, and +4 since the end of 2021, while my i10-index (meaning the number of publications that has attracted at least 10 citations each) has increased from 33 to 36 over the last year, and +12 since the end of 2021.

With 142 citations, 2023 is my third best year in terms of number of citations, after 2022 with 183 citations and 2021 with 148 citations.

On my profile, Google Scholar lists 128 publications (+4 since December 29th 2022 and +28 since December 26th 2021; this in not an accurate count), with 52 of them not cited and 76 cited at least one time each.

Google Scholar: 1000 citations; updated Google Scholar history

According to Google Scholar - cf. my profile - I have now been cited 1000 times (+10 since November 17th). This includes 135 citations so far in 2023 (+9 since November 17th), and altogether 699 citations since 2018. My i10-index remains 36 and my h-index 18. As shown below, the accumulated citations of my work have increased by a factor of 10 since 2016, and doubled since the winter of 2021.

Updated Google Scholar history (cf. my March 2023 post):    

My first Google Scholar citation occurred in 2002.  

By April 2013 I had 38 citations, and a verified Google Scholar profile.

I passed 100 citations in the winter of 2016.    

I passed 200 citations in the summer of 2017.    

I passed 300 citations in the summer of 2018.    

I passed 400 citations in the autumn of 2019.    

I passed 500 citations in the spring of 2021.    

I passed 600 citations in the autumn of 2021.    

I passed 700 citations in the winter of 2022.    

I passed 800 citations in the autumn of 2022.  

I passed 900 citations in the spring of 2023.

I passed 1000 citations in the autumn of 2023.

"Wasted GDP in the USA" featured in ISQOLS monthly newsletter

Mention of my article "Wasted GDP in the USA" is featured in the latest monthly email newsletter of the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS), "Members Only ISQOLS October 2023 updates and info".

Google Scholar: 938 citations; i10-index 35, h-index 18

According to my Google Scholar profile, my research has to date attracted 936 citations (+18 since May 31st). This includes 66 citations so far from 2023 (+5 since May 31st). My i10-index is now 35 (+1) and my h-index 18 (+1). This implies that 35 of my texts have been cited at least 10 times, and that 18 of my texts have been cited at lest 18 times.

Altogether 123 texts are listed on my profile.

Environmental crisis article addressed in Sign Systems Studies´ "Semiotics 2021: The year in review" article

I am honored to see my article on "how to solve the environmental crisis", "Anticipating the societal transformation required to solve the environmental crisis in the 21st century" (Open access), being addressed in Sign Systems Studies´ review of the year 2021 in semiotics, written by Frank Nuessel and Ott Puumeister:

"Anticipating the future The future is neither fully pre-determined nor absolutely empty. The future does not exist, but it does insist: we have to behave in a certain manner to fulfil our dreams, we have to envision future states as already existing to make sense of the past and present. Future is an imperative: life has to find a way to continue transforming while maintaining its integrity. Anticipating the future is an interplay between predictability and unpredictability. The special issue of SSS on “Anticipation and change”,5 guest edited by Lauri Linask, Inesa Sahakyan and Aleksei Semenenko, situates itself in the midst of this interplay and asks how we produce predictability in the context of unpredictability, and how the production of predictability hinders the unpredictability at the core of actualization of the future. These questions are especially relevant in the face of the environmental crisis, which requires fundamental transformations in cultural, political, social, economic, etc. spheres – that is, in most spheres of life that have become our “human nature”.

Morten Tønnessen (2021) attempts to envision how ecosemiotics could help model the societal transformation necessary to address the environmental crisis.6 He juxtaposes the positions of ecomodernists and Deep Ecologists, preferring the latter to the former, since they do not rely on continuous growth based on technological solutions and take non-human beings seriously. He advocates for a normative orientation in ecosemiotics, which “constitutes a form of transformative semiotics in so far as human ecology is approached critically in a political, ethical and/or another normative context” (Tønnessen 2021: 55). In other words, semiotics can no longer satisfy itself with being descriptive, but needs to intervene in the sociopolitical field."

Google Scholar: 747 citations

According to my Google Scholar profile, my research has to date attracted 747 citations (+13 since May 1st). This includes 52 citations in 2022 (+11 since May 1st). My i10-index remains 28 (meaning that 28 of my publications have attracted 10 citations or more) and my h-index 15 (meaning that 15 publications of mine have been cited at least 15 times each).

Of my 10 most cited publications, the most recent is "The ethics of laying hen genetics" (first author M. Fernyhough), which was published in 2020 and has been cited 26 times, including 8 times so far in 2022. My 2009 article "Umwelt transitions: Uexküll and environmental change", the most central article in my ph.d. work, has been cited 57 times, including 5 times so far in 2022. My 2003 article "Umwelt ethics" has been cited 49 times, including 2 times so far in 2022 - and each year since 2008.

Cited extensively in Moser 2022

My research is referred to on 10 different pages in Keith Mosers new book Contemporary French Environmental Thought in the Post-COVID-19 Era. 

The first mention, on p. 5, goes like this:

Due to the omnipresence of human semiosis that interferes with the ability of other organisms to communicate effectively, “countless beings do not, any longer, master the semiotic niche conditions which according to Hoffmeyer are vital to the success of an organism” (Tønnessen, 2009, p. 54).

My biosemiotic approach to phenomenology criticized in article by Zixuan Liu

The article "Sign-free Biosemantics and Transcendental Phenomenology: a Better Non-Metaphysical Approach to Close the Mind-body Gap" by Zixuan Liu (Department of Philosophy, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China) has just been published in Biosemiotics. It includes criticism of my approach to phenomenology in the context of biosemiotics, and more specifically "Uexküllian phenomenology". Excerpts (in selection):

Tønnessen et al. (2018: 326-327) have argued that “it does likewise not make sense, from a biosemiotic point of view, to say that there are non-semiotic phenomena”, and argue that “a strictly Husserlian concept of mind is much too narrow to capture all biosemiotic phenomena”. ... On an initial reading, the objection is that Husserl’s theory of meaning is based on phenomenal consciousness, yet we lack robust evidence that this form of consciousness is to be found in primitive forms of life. This argument is implicit in Tønnessen (2015) and Tønnessen et al. (2018), where we find the claim that “a bacterium” has only “non-phenomenal Umwelt experience” because it is not “endowed with mind” (2018: 326). If this is right, it is unjustifiably anthropomorphic to apply Husserlian concepts to biosemiotics. I do not intend to provide strong evidence for the existence of phenomenal consciousness in primitive forms of life, but at least a weak form of quasi-mind thinking can be found in our conception of microbiology. (p. 6)

Husserl would have strongly repudiated subsequent work in biosemiotics that identifies his views with anthropocentrism: “Umwelt theory challenges central dogmas in current phenomenology, starting with the misguided idea that all phenomena are human phenomena” (Tønnessen et al., 2018: p. 328). The difficulties discussed so far merely indicate that phenomenology should reform itself while at the same time reforming biosemiotics. In doing so, it will become possible to tackle primitive forms of life in a scientific manner. p. (7)

Mention of concept "Umwelt transition" in University of Tartu news story

My concept "Umwelt transition" is mentioned in a news story from university of Tartu, "Research news: binge eating, sexually transmitted infections, zoosemiotics and rainfalls" which includes a description of Mirco Cerrone´s ph.d.:

Zoosemiotics helps to understand interspecies communication  Interspecies communication is a hotly-debated topic in ever-expanding environments like cities, where it shapes the quotidian interactions of different animal agents, including humans. In a recently defended doctoral thesis, the interspecies communication taking place in hybrid environments was analysed semiotically, focusing on the interaction of humans and apes in zoological gardens and research laboratories. It was analysed through the lens of zoosemiotics, enabling the researcher to abandon an anthropocentric perspective and adopt that of other species. The umwelt model used in the research proves to be an inspiring and powerful tool that we can use to (partially) access the world of other organisms. In the thesis, the author develops the concept of "umwelt overlap", namely the idea that the umwelt should not merely be understood as a species-specific nor as an organism-specific model, but should rather be expanded to encompass areas of shared meanings. The thesis shows how interaction can lead to mutually intelligible languages that allow two different species to communicate. For instance, the acquisition and usage of new signs remarkably modify the semiotic environment of different animal species and is therefore linked to the concept of umwelt transition. The study also reveals that animals in captivity can shape institutional practices and other human-made sign systems, such as animal handling practices. The research proposes several practices to improve animal welfare in captivity.   

Read more in the doctoral thesis.

Google Scholar: 2021 year with record number of citations

According to Google Scholar (cf. my profile), my research has as of now attracted 87 citations in 2021, making 2021 a year with a record number of citations (in 2016, I had 86 citations).

This is good, though a "breakthrough" trajectory should involve a record number of citations every year, not just now and then. Altogether my research has to date attracted 584 citations.

Google Scholar: 551 citations, 55 in 2021, i10-index 21

According to Google Scholar (cf. my profile) my research has by now attracted 551 citations (+16 since May 28th). This includes 55 citations in 2021 (+11 since May 28th). My i10-index is now 21 (+1), meaning that 21 of my texts have been cited at least 10 times each. My h-index remains 14.

Google Scholar: 539 citations; 44 so far in 2021

According to my Google Scholar profile, my research has been cited 539 times (+8 since May 21st). This includes 44 citations in 2021 (+7 since May 21st). My i10-index remains 20 and my h-index 14.

Google Scholar: 531 citations; 37 so far in 2021

According to Google Scholar (see my profile), my research has attracted 531 citations (+3 since May 14th). 2021 now stands with 37 citations (+4 since May 14th). My h-index remains 14 and my i10-index 20.

I am currently listed with 100 texts, 51 of which have been cited.

The screenshot below shows my 10 most cited papers.

Google Scholar: 528 citations; h-index of 14

According to my Google Scholar profile, my work has attracted 528 citations by now (+6 since May 7th). 2021 now stands with 33 citations (+4 since May 7th). My i10-index remains 20, my h-index is now 14 (+2 since May 7th and +1 since March 14th).

Google Scholar: 522 citations; i10-index 20

According to my Google Scholar profile, my research has attracted 520 citations (+13 since March 14th; +3 since December 30th 2020). My h-index is 12 (-1 since March 14th), and my i10-index 20 (+2 since March 14th and unchanged since December 30th). 2021 now stands with 29 citations (+13 since March 14th).

On the current count, I have 5 publications with more than 30 citations each. This includes 31 citations of the book The semiotics of animal representations, which I co-edited and co-wrote the introduction for, along with Kadri Tüür (and which has been merged to one source by Google Scholar).

Cited in Denis Noble´s Target Article "The illusions of the Modern Synthesis"; commentary to follow

The first Target Article of Biosemiotics has been published. It is written by Denis Noble, Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology, Oxford University, and titled "The illusions of the Modern Synthesis".

Noble cites three of my articles: 

Tønnessen, M. (2010). Wolf land. Biosemiotics, 3, 289–297. 

Tønnessen, M. (2015a). The biosemiotic glossary project: Agent, agency. Biosemiotics, 8, 125–143. 

Tønnessen, M. (2015b). Umwelt and language. In Velmezova, E., Kull, K., Cowley, S.J. (Eds) Biosemiotic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics. Springer. Pp. 77–96.

Excerpts:

I

"I think Darwin was right and was brilliantly foresighted to resist Wallace’s attempt to subsume intentional sexual (and by implication other forms of social) selection to natural selection. Brilliant because I think he must have been aware of the importance of the distinction he was making. He did not use the word agency, but I think he would have agreed with biosemioticians that the concept is necessary to understand the meanings organisms give to the signs and communicative paradigms they use (Tønnessen 2015a)."

II

"If we follow Ginsburg and Jablonka’s (2019) arguments for attributing conscious action to many other organisms capable of unlimited associative learning, then those organisms must also be capable of intended or unintended illusions. I am assuming here, of course, that conscious meaning is a prerequisite of the creation of illusions. I think that biosemiotics could make valuable contributions to this issue. As an example, through understanding the perspective (the Umwelt) of an animal like the wolf (Tønnessen 2010) we may come to understand its possible use of illusory behavior in predator-prey interactions and in signaling within social networks. Organisms capable of anticipatory behavior surely must use such tactics in successful hunting, just as conscious prey must do so to avoid them. I suspect that this must be what Tønnessen has in mind when he refers to “the naïvety of prey”. They become less naïve precisely through developing anticipation of the diversionary signs from predators.

Of course, I am not suggesting that all illusory signs in organisms are intended. ..."

III

"Tønnessen (2015b) has also addressed the application of Umwelt theory to human language in which he argues that “language is not external to Umwelt, but internal to it. Language changes the human Umwelt not by escaping or sidelining it, but by fundamentally transforming it.” This gets to the core of what I think happened in the development of the illusions of the Modern Synthesis between 1940 and the end of the last century. Language was crafted in creating a coherent model of how organisms work and how they depend on and interact with their environment. In a biosemiotic context we could call it the Umwelt, the mind-set on the nature of the environment-organism interaction, of the Modern Synthesis."

Noble´s article is Open Access and can be read and downloaded here on the homepage of the journal.

Commentaries to the Target Article are soon to be published, including one written by me.

Google Scholar: 517 citations; 65 in 2020

According to Google Scholar (see my profile) my research has now attracted 517 citations (+5 since November 27th). 65 of these are from 2020 (+4 since November 27th), which means I right now have just as many citations in 2020 as I had in 2019. I had more in 2016 (93) and 2018 (72).

My i10-index remains 20 and my h-index 13.