Morten Tønnessen

DISSERTATIONES SEMIOTICAE UNIVERSITATIS TARTUENSIS 16 DISSERTATIONES SEMIOTICAE UNIVERSITATIS TARTUENSIS 16 MORTEN TØNNESSEN Umwelt transition and Uexküllian phenomenology An ecosemiotic analysis of Norwegian wolf management Department of Semiotics, University of Tartu, Estonia The Council of the Institute of Philosophy and Semiotics of University of Tartu has, on October 24th 2011, accepted this dissertation for defence for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (in Semiotics and Culture Studies). Supervisor: Kalevi Kull (Professor in biosemiotics, University of Tartu, Estonia) Consultant: Winfried Nöth (Professor, Universität Kassel – Germany; Catholic University of São Paulo – Brazil) Opponents: Jesper Hoffmeyer (Professor emeritus, University of Copenhagen, Denmark) Dominique Lestel (Associate professor, Department of Cognitive Sciences; Archives Husserl – Ecole Normale Supérieure of Paris, France) The thesis will be defended at the University of Tartu, Estonia, on December 15th 2011, at 12.15 in UT Council Hall, Ülikooli 18. The publishing of this dissertation was supported by the Centre of Excellence in Cultural Theory (CECT), funded by the European Regional Development Fund. The work contained in this dissertation has been carried out partaking in four research projects (cf. Curriculum Vitae), among them Dynamical Zoosemiotics and Animal Representations (Estonian Science Foundation grant 7790) and Biosemiotic Models of Semiosis (Estonian Science Foundation grant 8403). ISSN 1406–6033 ISBN 978–9949–19–903–7 (trükis) ISBN 978–9949–19–904–4 (PDF) Autoriõigus: Morten Tønnessen, 2011 Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus www.tyk.ee Tellimus nr. 757 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ..................................................................................................... 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................... 9 PUBLICATIONS INCLUDED IN DISSERTATION .................................. 12 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................ 13 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 14 1. THE BIOSEMIOTIC APPROACH ......................................................... 19 1.1. Appraisal of Sebeok’s depiction of the Umwelt as species-specific modelling system ............................................................................... 19 1.2. The levels of biosemiosis ................................................................. 20 2. UEXKÜLLIAN PHENOMENOLOGY ................................................... 24 2.1. On the notion of phenomenology ..................................................... 24 2.2. Semiotics and phenomenology ......................................................... 26 2.3. Husserl’s notion of Lebenswelt ........................................................ 31 2.4. The notion of Uexküllian phenomenology ....................................... 35 3. UMWELT MAPPING ............................................................................. 40 3.1. Visual representation of Brock’s phenomenal fields ........................ 41 3.2. The notion of semiotic causation ...................................................... 47 4. CASE STUDY: NORWEGIAN WOLF MANAGEMENT ..................... 49 4.1. Field research .................................................................................... 51 4.2. The cultural semiotic of wolves and sheep ....................................... 56 4.3. Remarks on Næss’ philosophy of wolf management ....................... 66 4.4. On invasive management of shy animals ......................................... 68 4.5. The symbolic construction of the Big Bad Wolf in contemporary Norway ............................................................................................. 71 5. SUMMARIES OF ARTICLES ................................................................ 74 6. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ........................... 78 6.1. Theoretical findings ........................................................................... 78 6.2. Umwelt futurology: Three Umwelt scenarios ................................... 83 6.3. Deep and shallow solutions ............................................................... 85 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 86 SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 93 SUMMARY IN ESTONIAN ........................................................................ 96 PUBLICATIONS .......................................................................................... 103 CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................... 227 ELULOOKIRJELDUS .................................................................................. 230 5 PREFACE This thesis contributes to developing Umwelt concepts, and various methods for modelling Umwelten and their interrelations. Simultaneously it offers an analysis of past and current interrelations of wolves, sheep and people, thus pro- viding an application, and test, of the notation and methodology suggested. The dissertation summarises a multitude of activities of various sorts. An overview of my participation in research projects, organising of international conferences and workshops and presentations at international conferences is offered in the Curriculum Vitae.1 In “Delectable creatures and the fundamental reality of metaphor: Biosemio- tics and animal mind”, Wendy Wheeler (2010) refers to the ‘night science’ – or dare I say biosemiotics? – described by Francois Jacob (1988: 296), which “feels its way, questions itself [...] a sort of workshop of the possible [...] Where hypotheses take the forms of vague presentiments [...] Where the plans for experiments have barely taken form.” Biosemiotics’ present incoherence, on the negative side, is reflected in its principal openness to programmatic statements, on the positive. Were it not for that open atmosphere, this work would probably not have been possible. A remark on genre: Jakob von Uexküll (1936) openly agreed that the depiction of many human Umwelten is best carried out by artists, such as nove- lists or poets. The genre of this text is necessarily that of the academic dissertation. Though matters of Umwelt research (Umweltforschung) and Umwelt mapping are treated in the form of a systematised disposition, it is critical to keep in mind the implications of Uexküll’s abovementioned recognition: There are phenomena that cannot (best) be described in scientific language. The academic genre on the whole is given to objectification and generalization, and might thus not be capable of capturing phenomena which are not easily objectifiable. This reminder is not less important given the topic matter of this text – subjective experience. Warnings à la that of Gabriel Marcel (1949) with regard to the pitfalls of methods of objectification should be kept in mind. By objectifying subjective phenomena, and describing them in scholarly language, we convert them into another genre, and consequently a different mode of being – and this scholarly mode of being is not in all respects true and faithful to the phenomena. In particular, the detachment necessitated by abstract analysis is (if it were to become our only mode of being) irreconcilable with full-fledged participation qua incarnated, engaged being on par with other creatures. To some extent, then, the form of this text contradicts its message. In keeping with these reflections, however, I have in some cases allowed for a measure of variety in genre – this concerns e.g. the anecdote on the role of 1 Activities further included popularising texts published in 7 media, including three national Norwegian daily newspapers (Aftenposten, Dagbladet, Nationen), and media coverage in 6 media, including two national Estonian media (Eesti Rahvusringhääling – online; Viker- raadio) and one Norwegian (Nettavisen). 7 fiction in the natural sciences retold in Paper II, and the section “In search of the wolf’s perspective” in Paper 7. At the conference Zoosemiotics and Animal Representations (Tartu, April 4–8, 2011), Colin Allen, who was one of the plenary speakers, remarked that semiotic models are too abstract to be of any use for ethology, and challenged the biosemioticians present: “Semiotics must stop talking about what it is, and start showing what it does!” It has been my intention with this work to contribute to a development of semiotics of nature which makes its methodology more easily applicable, especially within the realms of ecosemiotics and zoosemiotics. The final point of the deep ecology platform2 states that those who subscribe to the foregoing seven points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the changes that are necessary in light of the ecological crisis. According to Arne Næss, the frontier of the environmental crisis is long and varied, and there is a role for everyone to play. In this context, ecosemiotics and other brands of semiotics of nature definitively have a role to play. As Max Oelschlaeger (2001: 226) notes: “If ecosemiotics is to be more than academic entertainment, then an outline is in order, however provisional or elliptical, of how the ecosemiotic thesis facilitates intentional cultural change”. 2 Quoted in full in Tønnessen 2003: 290–291. 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Of the people who have made this work possible, the first

Load more