Abstract

According to Ruth Millikan, some representations are hybrid: they have both descriptive and directive content, both mind-to-world and world-to-mind direction of fit. Millikan calls them “pushmi-pullyu representations,” and they play an important role in her overall framework. Marc Artiga, however, has argued that the pushmi-pullyu doctrine puts Millikan’s entire edifice at risk. It has the unfortunate implication that all representations are hybrid. I call this would-be implication “universal hybridity.” In this paper, I scrutinize Artiga’s argument, paying special heed to Millikan’s recent response. I conclude that Millikan fails to defuse the objection. I then examine how the Millikanian should respond, given that Artiga is right. Is universal hybridity so bad, or can we learn to live with it? My tentative answer is that no, it’s not so bad, and yes, we can learn to live with it.