Sarah Chapman- How Forests Think by Eduardo Kohn

 

Last year, I read How Forests Think by Eduardo Kohn, which pushed me to rethink not only what it means to “think,” but also who or what is capable of doing it. Kohn challenges a deeply ingrained assumption in Western thought: that thinking, meaning-making, and interpretation are uniquely human capacities. Instead, he argues that all living beings participate in forms of semiosis, or meaning-making processes, fundamentally expanding the boundaries of what we consider “mind.” One of the most striking aspects of Kohn’s argument is his focus on the idea that forests are not just collections of organisms, but dynamic systems of communication and interpretation. Through his ethnographic work with the Runa people in Ecuador, Kohn demonstrates that animals, plants, and even ecosystems engage in processes of interpreting signs—whether it is a predator reading tracks, a prey animal responding to sounds, or humans navigating the forest through both symbolic and non-symbolic cues.

This perspective made me realize how limited the human-centered definition of thought really is. If thinking is understood more broadly as responding to and interpreting the world, then it is not exclusive to humans at all. Kohn’s use of semiotics, particularly influenced by Charles Peirce’s framework, also stood out to me. He distinguishes between symbolic, indexical, and iconic signs, emphasizing that while humans rely heavily on symbolic language, other living beings engage with the world through different types of signs. This creates a shared, though not identical, field of meaning across species. Reflecting on this, I began to see communication not as something that separates humans from other beings, but as something that connects all forms of life. It challenges the idea that non-human beings are passive or mechanical and instead positions them as active participants in their environments.

What I found especially compelling was how Kohn’s work destabilizes the nature–culture divide. In Western frameworks, nature is often seen as something external to humans, something to be studied, managed, or used. However, Kohn shows that humans are embedded within the same semiotic processes as other living beings. The forest is not an “object” but a network of relationships in which humans are just one part. This perspective aligns with many Indigenous worldviews, where humans are not separate from nature but exist within a broader community of beings. It made me reflect on how much of environmental degradation stems from this perceived separation and the belief that humans stand outside of ecological systems. At the same time, Kohn does not romanticize these relationships. Life in the forest involves constant negotiation, interpretation, and sometimes conflict. Predators and prey are engaged in ongoing processes of reading and responding to each other’s signs. This highlights that interconnectedness does not mean harmony; it means entanglement. I found this idea important because it avoids oversimplifying human–nature relationships into something purely peaceful or balanced, instead acknowledging their complexity.

Overall, How Forests Think challenged me to move beyond an anthropocentric view of the world and consider a more expansive understanding of thought, communication, and life itself. It suggests that to truly engage with environmental issues, we need to recognize that humans are not the only beings that think, act, and make meaning. By expanding our perspective in this way, Kohn opens up new possibilities for how we relate to the natural world less as managers or controllers, and more as participants in a shared, living system.