Grounding Ecological Democracy: Semiotics and the Communicative Networks of Nature

Abstract

Developments in biosemiotics and democratic theory enable renewed appreciation of the possibilities for ecological democracy. Semiotics is the study of sign processes in meaning-making and communication. Signs and meanings exist in all living systems, and all living systems are therefore semiotic systems. Ecological communication can involve abiotic and biotic communication, including human language, facilitating an integration of politics and ecology in the form of ecological democracy encompassing communicative networks in nature and human society.

Particularizing Nonhuman Nature in Stakeholder Theory: The Recognition Approach

“…The assumed 'silence' of nature has also been contested by suggesting that nature has a voice: it 'speaks'-not with human words but through numerous interactions and events, even diseases, to the extent that nature cannot be 'silenced' like humans can (Dryzek, 2002). 5 Consequently, nature's expressivity is a matter of humans' capacity to listen to and interpret its communication and ecological semiotics (Dobson, 2014;Romero & Dryzek, 2020;Whiteman & Cooper, 2011). While listening to nonhuman signals does not make humans able to fully step beyond the 'human perspective,' it may nevertheless significantly improve understanding about and sensitivity to the otherness while accepting its fundamental difference (Hailwood, 2015).…”

“…The environmental ethics inspired strands of contributions have argued for the noninstrumental, intrinsic value of nonhuman nature. Nonanthropocentric contributions, notably drawing on ecocentrism, have paid attention to the normative valuation and status of nonhumans (e.g., de Figueiredo & Marquesan, 2022;Heikkurinen et al, 2016;Purser et al, 1995;Starik, 1995) as well as the ways in which we humans can listen to, and try to respectfully interpret, nonhuman signals and agency (e.g., Heikkurinen et al, 2021;Preston & Antonsen, 2021;Romero & Dryzek, 2020;Vlasov, 2019). The critique for the hierarchical dualisms retained in human/nonhuman and organization/nature relationships (e.g., Allen et al, 2019;Phillips, 2019;Sayers et al, 2021) has been echoed by stakeholder scholars drawing on, for example, a Gaia-centric perspective (Waddock, 2011) and ethics of care (Sama et al, 2004;Tallberg et al, 2021).…”

“…The recognition of nature has also received notable attention in recent years (e.g., Hailwood, 2015;Laitinen & Kortetmäki, 2019;Romero & Dryzek, 2020;Schlosberg, 2007Schlosberg, , 2014, which demonstrates a shift away from the previously anthropocentric orientation in social and political theory. While the organizations and stakeholder research is yet to discuss the recognition of nature, some of the existing ideas point toward similar thinking.…”

“…the world are denied if agency is assumed to require human qualities and a conventional understanding of agency (Tallberg et al, 2021). In a broad view, all entities that exercise interaction and causation have some agency (e.g., Bennett, 2010;Dobson, 2014;Romero & Dryzek, 2020). These remarks call for widening the typically anthropocentric perspectives to agency (see also Heikkurinen et al, 2021).…”

Social Evolution in Jürgen Habermas: Towards a Weak Anthropological Naturalism between Kant and Darwin

“…… Humans begin to distinguish 1 In the discussion of communicative possibilities encompassing human and natural systems, John S. Dryzek has taken for granted the communicative competence of humans and sought analogues in nature in terms of non-linguistic communication (Dryzek, 1990b(Dryzek, , 1995b. This precondition for communicative action can be applied in abiotic and biotic terms (Romero & Dryzek, 2021).…”