The Umwelt: The Semiotic World Of Dog

The “Umwelt” of a particular organism can be interpreted as the semiotic world of that organism, and “Umwelt is not simply the environment in general, but the environment which holds significance for any particular species” (Wheeler, 101). The semiotic world of a female human and the semiotic world of dog are distinctive in their biological differences and how they can perceive a particular scenario. One scenario is a “perceived threat” where a human female is walking her dog and a threat is viewed through both the Umwelt of the human and of the dog. Their semiotic responses differ, and this essay will examine how emotional response affects their perception, how biological differences alter or enhance their perception, and how the semiotics

of the human and the dog create a relationship that overlaps their Umwelten to create a connection. This relationship is enforced by it’s importance of understanding how human beings can connect with living creatures on the planet, and what we are capable of within the Anthropocene.
A young (any range between ages 16-30) Caucasian woman who lives in a city of no particularly high crime-rate, wears brand-named clothing, and has little financial concerns will have a unique Umwelt from her experiences and perceived reality. The characteristics of her personality influence her Umwelt, and the human brain is much more intelligent then that of a dog. As Marian Dawkins proposes, “we can either concentrate on our breathing, consciously deciding when to breathe in and when to breathe out, or do it all unconsciously and automatically” (Dawkins, 8) and her words bring to light the concept that human beings have a complex though process. The woman’s semiotic world is shaped by her ability to make decisions and have complex thought, however in contemporary society, media and Internet must be considered when analyzing the human perception and influences. Take, for instance, the scenario where the woman walks her dog. It is a routine walk that occurs every evening; she takes the same path, at the same time, however when she turns into the dark alley—the dim lighting somehow makes it unfamiliar. Brownlee furthers the idea of human complex minds by discussing how we see:
For all animals, seeing requires light…the simplest eyes are nothing more than collections of cells that sense light…Light passes into the eye through a disc-shaped structure called a lens. It focuses the light onto the retina at the back of the eye. The retina is full of cells, called rods and cones, that sense light. Rods pick up dim light. (Brownlee, 4)
For humans, eyesight is typically very important in interpreting a scenario. The darkness, or in this scenario, the lack of light, brings on a “perceived threat” within the darkness. As suggested by Li et al, “most people, especially children, have a fear of darkness. Environmental darkness…may elicit unpleasant feelings, such as insecurity, tension, or anxiety, by suggesting potential dangers and risks” (Li, et al, 46). In this case, it stands to reason that the woman will have a semiotic response to the threat due to cultural conditioning. This conditioning can come from real-world threats that stem from past experiences, instinctive thought, or even exposure to recent news reports of a similar nature. Her Umwelt becomes clouded by cultural paranoia, and as Li et al continues, they examine how the female brain examines the fear of darkness as “when the darkness is associated with an imagined and anticipated aversive event (thoughts of evil, death, and danger) that it can result in a more abstract mental representation of the threat value and aversive properties of the darkness” (Li, et al, 55). Darkness becomes abstract, and the epistemic judgment she makes is created through her Umwelt, as our brain tells up what our eyes are seeing, but it takes out own interpretation of the semiotics to translate it and know what we are truely seeing. As Li et al states, “darkness (a purely physical variable) creates the perception of fear may not be entirely accurate” (Li, et al, 55). This implies that our mind, as well as the way we read the world of semiotics, is not trustworthy when in darkness, as the variable initiates a fear that is subconscious and controlled natural forces within the human body. As with Dawkins’ argument:
In [humans], emotion can be positive (e.g. pleasure, contentment, relief) or negative (e.g. fear, pain, boredom, discomfort, anger) and are accompanied by a variety of behavioural and physiological signs such as increased heart rate and facial expressions. (Dawkins, 7)
Humans are subject to their emotions, and they are subject to their natural tendencies to view darkness within their Umwelt as fear inducing. The dog may not sense the danger or “perceived threat” if it is not actually there, however, the animal will react to the master’s hesitation and emotional response.
Dogs have heightened sense, as they have over 220 million cells in their nose (opposed to the 5 million in humans). With their senses heighten, they may be able to perceive the threat in the darkness before the human, but as Brownlee notes, “No animal can see in complete darkness” (Brownlee, 4). Dogs, however are more sensitive to motion at a distance and react strictly to actual movement and threats than a irrational “perceived threat” concocted by the mind of the human. Even so, Dawkins states, “animals that show high intellectual achievements like [humans] must in some sense by conscious like [humans]” (Dawkins, 6). Dogs are thus categorized as sentient creatures as they can perform intellectual tasks, but it is arguable as to whether they are conscious of the decisions they are making or if they are just performing an ordered task as Dawkins also comments on how “we do not know which cognitive abilities point to sentience, particularly as many apparently ‘clever’ tasks can be accomplished by following relatively simple rules” (Dawkins, 6). The Umwelt of the dog involved heightened senses as well as diluted senses as dogs have a different colour vision from humans. Their main focus is instant gratification, the attention of their master, or a small that has caught their nose. Dogs react to the current situation and do not suffer the same cognitive functions as humans, however Dawkins tells us that “the study of animal cognition is extremely important in telling us about what animals are capable of intellectually and is very influential in helping people decide how to treat them. (Dawkins, 6). The way people treat animals reflects the way they treat others as well as their own environment, and thus the animal, or dog in this scenario, is reflective of that treatment. Much like the earth, the way humans treat it reflects how it treats them. Climate change is one of the larger ways in which the earth is communicating to humans that there is something wrong and that the “threat” is evolving.
The melodic meeting between the Umwelten of the female human and the dog is their semiotic reaction to the “threat”.

The dog, with its heightened senses, can either hear or smell the threat and the hair on its back will rise. The human reacts in return with the same action—making the dog an augmentation of perception for the human. The human and dog relationship is linked, as the dog reacts to the human’s stresses and the human reacts to the dog’s stresses. Their Umwelten experience an overlap and they translate the scenario through each other in order to translate the “threat” and the cognitive body of the human is linked to the dog and vice versa. The female human and the dog become semiotically linked as they both perceive the threat and experience similar modes of reaction. The perceptual worlds of a human and dog are important towards the Anthropocene and how humans influence and change their world. In order to understand how humans influence the world, “man’s best friend” needs to be examined. Humans connect with the earth in many ways, and as a part of the biosphere, an understanding of the relationship between dogs and humans is important to discuss in order to see how humans influence the world. Fear is also a key element in the understanding of the relationship between humans and dogs and the Anthropocene. Fear, in this scenario, connects the humans and dogs, yet within the terms of the Antrhopocene, fear takes on the form of

denial.
In Naomi Klein’s work This Changes Everything she states: “A great many of us engage in this kin of climate change denial. We look for a split second and then we look away” (Klein, 3). There is a habitual fear she mentions among society that disconnects them from the reality of the Anthropocene, and Klein continues by saying that “we deny because we fear that letting in the full reality of this crisis will change everything” (Klein, 4). The fear is much like that of the human in the darkness. There is no way of knowing what will happen with climate change, and it is like people are looking into the same dark alley. They connect with other humans and with other animals, all feeling the same fear as they are connected within their Umwelten, however it is warped from imagination and a perceived notion by leaders that there is no problem. As Klein explains, “Climate change has never received the crisis treatment from our leaders, despite the fact that it carries the risk of destroying lives on a vastly greater scale than collapsed banks of collapsed buildings” (Klein, 6). This is comparative to that of the Honey Bees, where people are in search of a quick fix for the problem, rather than a long-term solution. It is a society of instant gratification, much like the dog, and humans have become more interested in self-service rather than global service. Klein’s outcry is crucial to the Anthropocene, “But before any of these changes can happen—before we can believe that climate change can change us—we first have to stop looking away” (Klein, 10). Humans and people need to step outside of their own perceptions, or Umwelten, and step into the darkness that is climate change. The fear, as represented with the hair raising on the neck, arms, and body is representative of the raising notions of climate change, and Klein begs her readers into accepting that fear:
Next, use it.

Fear is a survival response. Fear makes us run, it makes up leap, it can make us act superhuman. But we need somewhere to run to. Without that, the fear is only paralyzing. So the real trick, the only hope, really, is to allow the terror of an unlivable future to be balanced and soothed by the prospects of building something much better than many of us have previously dared hope. (Klein,

28)
By embracing fear, Klein urges readers to think about life without the earth the way it is for them within their Umwelten. She wants them to realize that it will be taken from them, and that it is important to realize that fear does not always stem from irrational thought or is simple a “perceived threat.” Sometimes, it is a real threat.