Entangled Speech: Semiotic sympoiesis for the posthuman commons | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Technoetic Arts
  4. Volume 19, Issue 1
  5. Article
Global Conversation
  • ISSN: 1477-965X
  • E-ISSN: 1758-9533

Abstract

In our performance , we connect the integration of microbial agency into a new complex ‘common good’ with the shared values of language. Drawing on a posthuman commons we aim for a hybrid language that not only processes formal symbols but also interacts with the microbes in the speaker’s mouth. We argue that the metaphors historically used to frame the relationship between microbiomes and speech cannot account for the co-creative material relationship between human speech and posthuman microbial, environmental and biotechnological needs. In our performances, first we harvest sensitized microbes from a speaker’s mouth who had repeated those phonemes, which lead to a deviation of pH of saliva. This makes the microbes sensitive for the further processing: via a spectrogram, phonemes repetitively spoken by the audience drive pumps, which add pheromones to the microbes, the pheromones, which then are faded out. In the microbes, for some replication cycles, an ecological adaptation to the individual phonemes persists, which – in our definition – affirms some phonemes as ecological and others to be deleted, thereby changing the alphabetical order of the input word. Although parts of the process are digitally animated, the major parts develop in real time. We propose ‘microbial speech’ as a category beyond semantic meaning, with ecological qualities such as a transcorporeal mattering between words and the body. We aim at a language becoming a biological state in order to protect its own ecology. We propose a more entangled mode of microbes existing in common with language, affirming posthumanist transversal relations of all living and non-living matter.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • The Austrian Science Fund (FWF) (Award AR 687)
© 2021 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00063_1
2021-06-01
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barad, Karen. ( 2014;), ‘ Invertebrate visions: Diffraction of the brittlestar. ’, in E. Kirksey. (ed.), The Multispecies Salon, Durham, NC:: Duke University Press;, pp. 221–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Becker, Andreas,, Doll, Martin,, Wiemer, Serjocha, and Zechner, Anke. ( 2008;), ‘ Einleitung. ’, in A. Becker,, M. Doll,, S. Wiemer, and A. Zechner. (eds), Mimikry: Gefährlicher Luxus zwischen Natur und Kultur, Schliengen:: Edition Argus;, pp. 7–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Buzzini, Pietro,, Lachance, Marc-André, and Andrey, Yurkov. (eds) ( 2017), Yeasts in Natural Ecosystems Ecology, Cham:: Springer;.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Caillois, Roger. ( [1984] 2003;), ‘ Mimicry and legendary psychasthenia. ’, in C. Frank. (ed.), The Edge of Surrealism: A Roger Caillois Reader, Durham, NC and London:: Duke University Press;, pp. 89–104.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Caudron, Fabrice, and Barral, Yves. ( 2014;), ‘ Mnemons: Encoding memory by protein super-assembly. ’, Microbial Cell, 1:3, pp. 100–02.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cavanaugh, Jillian R., and Shankar, Shalini. (eds) ( 2017), Language and Materiality: Ethnographic and Theoretical Explorations, Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Clemente, Jose C.,, Pehrsson, Erica C.,, Blaser, Martin J.,, Sandhu, Kuldip,, Gao, Zhan,, Wang, Bin,, Magris, Magda,, Hidalgo, Glida,, Contreras, Monica,, Noya-Alarcón, Óscar,, Lander, Orlana,, McDonald, Jeremy,, Cox, Mike,, Walter, Jens,, Oh, Phaik Lyn,, Ruiz, Jean F.,, Rodriguez, Selena,, Shen, Nan,, Song, Se Jin,, Metcalf, Jessica,, Knight, Rob,, Dantas, Gautam, and Dominguez-Bello, M. Gloria. ( 2015;), ‘ The microbiome of uncontacted Amerindians. ’, Science Advances, 1:3, p. e1500183.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Deleuze, Gilles, and Guattari, Felix. ( [1980] 1987), A Thousand Plateaus (trans. B. Massumi.), London:: Continuum;.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Freitas, Elizabeth De. ( 2014), ‘The materiality of language’, in E. De Freitas, and N. Sinclair. (eds), Mathematics and the Body: Material Entanglement in the Classroom, Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press;, pp. 112–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gilbert, Scott F.,, Sapp, Jan, and Tauber, Alfred I.. ( 2012;), ‘ A symbiotic view of life: We have never been individuals. ’, The Quarterly Review of Biology, 87:4, pp. 325–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gilchrist, James Cleland, and Furchtgott, Ernst. ( 1951;), ‘ Salivary pH as a psycho-physiological variable. ’, Psychological Bulletin, 48:3, pp. 193–210.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hörl, Erich. ( 2017;), ‘ Introduction to general ecology. ’, in E. Hörl, and J. E. Burton. (eds), General Ecology: The New Ecological Paradigm, London:: Bloomsbury Academic;, pp. 1–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ikegami, Takashi, and Zlatev, Jordan. ( 2007;), ‘ From non-representational cognition to language. ’, in T. Ziemke,, J. Zlatev, and R. Frank. (eds), Body Language and Mind, vol. 1, Berlin:: Mouton;, pp. 241–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Lederberg, Joshua. ( 2006;), ‘ The microbe’s contribution to biology: 50 years after. ’, International Microbiology, 9:3, pp. 155–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Maran, Timo. ( 2014;), ‘ Semiotization of matter: A hybrid zone between biosemiotics and material ecocriticism. ’, in S. Iovino, and S. Oppermann. (eds), Material Ecocriticism, Bloomington, IN:: Indiana University Press;, pp. 141–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Melitopoulos, Angela, and Lazzarato, Maurizio. ( 2015;), ‘ Maschinischer Animismus. ’, in I. Albers, and A. Franke. (eds), Animismus: Revisionen der Moderne, Zürich:: Diaphanes;, pp. 279–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Mitchell, Amir,, Romano, Gal H.,, Groisman, Bella,, Yona, Avihu,, Dekel, Erez,, Kupiec, Martin,, Dahan, Orna, and Pilpel, Yitzhak. ( 2009;), ‘ Adaptive prediction of environmental changes by microorganisms. ’, Nature, 460:7252, pp. 220–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Morton, Timothy. ( 2007), Ecology Without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics, Cambridge, MA and London:: Harvard University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Morton, Timothy. ( 2010;), ‘ Queer ecology. ’, PMLA, 125:2, pp. 273–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Noori, Hamid Reza. ( 2014), Hysteresis Phenomena in Biology, New York:: Springer;.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Odling-Smee, F. John. ( 1988;), ‘ Niche-constructing phenotypes. ’, in H. C. Plotkin. (ed.), The Role of Behavior in Evolution, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;, pp. 73–131.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. O’Doherty, Kieran C.,, Virani, Alice, and Wilcox, Elizabeth S.. ( 2016;), ‘ The human microbiome and public health: Social and ethical considerations. ’, American Journal of Public Health, 106:3, pp. 414–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Panchin, Alexander Y.,, Tuzhikov, Alexander I., and Panchin, Yuri V.. ( 2014;), ‘ Midichlorians: The biomeme hypothesis: Is there a microbial component to religious rituals?. ’, Biology Direct, 9:1, p. 14.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Parisi, Luciana. ( 2009;), ‘ Technoecologies of sensation. ’, in B. Herzogenrath. (ed.), Deleuze|Guattari & Ecology, Basingstoke:: Palgrave Macmillan;, pp. 182–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Puppel, Stanisław. ( 2017;), ‘ Some notes on ecophonetics: The problem of sound distinctiveness, sound sustainability of vowel systems. ’, Studia Germanica Posnaniensia, XXXVIII, pp. 143–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Read, Jason. ( 2011;), ‘ The production of subjectivity: From transindividuality to the commons. ’, New Formations, 70:1, pp. 113–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Rees, Tobias,, Bosch, Thomas, and Douglas, Angela E.. ( 2018;), ‘ How the microbiome challenges our concept of self. ’, PLoS Biology, 16:2, p. e2005358.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Saussure, Ferdinand de. ( 2011), Course in General Linguistics, New York:: Columbia University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Sebeok, Thomas A.. ( 1991;), ‘ The semiotic self. ’, in T. A. Sebeok. (ed.), A Sign is Just a Sign, Bloomington, IN:: Indiana University Press;, pp. 36–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Serres, Michel. ( 2007), The Parasite, Posthumanities. , Minneapolis, MN:: University of Minnesota Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Serres, Michel. ( 2016), The Five Senses: A Philosophy of Mingled Bodies, London:: Bloomsbury Revelations;.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Shaviro, Steven. ( 1996;), ‘ Two lessons from Burroughs. ’, in J. Halberstam, and I. Livingston. (eds), Posthuman Bodies, Unnatural Acts: Theorizing the Performative , Bloomington, IN and Indianapolis, IN:: Indiana University Press;, pp. 38–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Simondon, Gilbert. ( 2001), Du mode d´existence des objets techniques, Paris:: Editions Aubier;.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Spiess, Klaus,, Hauptmann, Maximilian, and Strecker, Lucie. ( 2021;), ‘ Entangled speech. ’, Performance Research, 25:5, pp. 122–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Spiess, Klaus,, Strecker, Lucie,, Baltov, Bozhidar,, Ropp, Jürgen,, Soulimenko, Oleg,, Zakravsky, Katherina T., and Rinnerthaler, Mark. ( 2020;), ‘ Microbial keywording: Towards material speech acts. ’, Performance Research, 25:3, pp. 51–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Turner, J. Scott. ( 2000), The Extended Organism: The Physiology of Animal-Built Structures, Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Wloch-Salamon, Dominika M.,, Regenberg, Birgitte, and Fisher, Roberta M.. ( 2017;), ‘ Division of labour in the yeast: Saccharomyces cerevisiae. ’, Yeast, 34:10, pp. 399–406.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Zaura, Egija, and Mira, Alex. ( 2015;), ‘ The oral microbiome in an ecological perspective. ’, Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 5, April, p. 39.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Spiess, Klaus. ( 2021;), ‘ Entangled Speech: Semiotic sympoiesis for the posthuman commons. ’, Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research, 19:1&2, pp. 203–14, https://doi.org/10.1386/tear_00063_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00063_1
Loading
Entangled Speech: Semiotic sympoiesis for the posthuman commons
Technoetic Arts 19, 203 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1386/tear_00063_1
/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00063_1
/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00063_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): language; matter; non-arbitrariness; oral microbiome; phonemes; symbiosensation

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error