Turning Back to Nature: Perspectives of Biosemiotics in a Post-Pandemic Humanity





Umwelt, Nature-friendly approach, human expansion, philosophy of life, a change in scientific paradigm


The paper represents a view on a plausible way of development of scientific methods and methodologies of the humanitarian studies in the post-pandemic society. Starting with the analysis of the current state of “lockdown” and “isolation” in the atmosphere of fear and insecurity, the idea of better understanding the reasons of such a situation is connected with the possibilities of interdisciplinary approach, called “biosemiotics”. In the context of paradigmatic change in the humanities, caused by the interpretative turn of deconstruction of the XX century, today’s situation with COVID-19 is also regarded to be a turning point in the history of post-modern humanity. As it often happens in the periods of change and transformation, the humanity searches for the answers to the questions of ontological character: What do we know about the world today? How our knowing of the world can help us in solving current problems and preventing further disasters? Is human knowledge sufficient to treat global problems? Biosemiotics, as a interdisciplinary scientific project, based on the assumption that life and culture are fundamentally grounded in the semiosis and are subject to biological laws of nature (Hoffmeyer, 2010) can unite a century long divide in scientific tradition of separation Nature and Culture, Body and Mind.

Author Biography

Inna Adamivna Livytska, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine Department of English Philology and Cross-cultural Communication

Ph.D., Associate Professor, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Institute of Philology


Althusser, L. (1969). For Marx (B. Brewster, Trans.). London: New Left Books.

Benveniste, E. (1971). Problems in General Linguistics (M., Meek, & C. Gables, Trans. ). FL: University of Miami Press.

Cobley P. (2016). The Age of Biosemiotics. In P. Cobley (Ed.). Cultural Implications of Biosemiotics, 15, (pp. 1-16). Dordrecht: Springer.

Deacon, T. W. (2012). Incomplete nature: how mind emerged from matter. New York: Norton

Deely, J. (2003). The quasi-error of the external world. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 10(1), 25-46.

Deely, J. (2009). Purely objective reality. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Hoffmeyer, J. (2010). Semiotics of nature. In P. Cobley, (Ed).The Routledge companion to semiotics. London: Routledge.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.) Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Kull, K. (1998). On semiosis, umwelt and semiosphere. Semiotica, 120 (3/4), 299-310.

Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5-38.

Lotman, J. (1990). Universe of Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. London: I.B.Tauris.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Peirce, C. S. (1967). Manuscripts in the Houghton Library of Harvard University, as identified by Richard Robin, Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Sebeok, T. (2000). Signs, bridges, origins. In P. Perron et al., (Eds). Semiotics as a bridge between the humanities and the sciences. Toronto: Legas.

Sebeok, Y. (1986). I think I am a verb: more contributions to the doctrine of signs. New York: Plenum Press.

Sonnenhauser, B. (2008). On the linguistic expression of subjectivity: Towards a sign-centered approach. Semiotica, 172(1/4), 323-337. https://doi.org/10.1515/SEMI.2008.102 .

Von Uexküll, J. (2001). An introduction to umwelt. Semiotica, 134(1/4), 107-110.




How to Cite

Livytska, I. A. (2020). Turning Back to Nature: Perspectives of Biosemiotics in a Post-Pandemic Humanity. Postmodern Openings, 11(1Sup2), 07-11. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/11.1sup2/134



Theoretical articles