Strona:Dwa aspekty komunikacji.pdf/277

communicology, whereas the historical communicology itself can be understood here as the philosophically perceived communication history – a communicology or communication science sub-discipline.
 The first objective of my analysis is to present the culturalist understanding of the concept of communication which recognizes communication as activity and practice in the sphere of culture. It is crucial for me to emphasize the historical nature of these social processes. The culturalist definition of communication that is presented in this work is a consequence of my creating the philosophical research perspective. In this regard, I wish to emphasize that the way how contemporary communication practices are performed and what communication is, does not imply that these practices have always been performed the same way and that communication has always been such. I assume that the way we communicate today is the result of many transformations affecting social practices. I am primarily interested in communication practices transformations which take place under the influence of the changes in the means and forms of communication and in the collective representations on communication.
 Therefore, the main objective of this work is to present a tool for such a description of communication practices which allows the description of the historical dimension of the practices. That is, to emphasize that the contemporary rules and norms shaping the practices are a result of historical transformations. Thus, this book is an attempt to show the philosophical validity of the assumptions adopted here, and is intended as a justification for the possibility of constructing a culturalist research tool. The tool is used to analyse the research object of of historical communicology. The project of the culturalist approach to historical communicology is not so much meant to deliver specific research methods for media or communication studies as to rely on the delimitation of communicological knowledge.
 The research perspective I accept emphasizes that communication practices in the historical approach (past communication phenomena) are a research object of the history of communication. It is a young subdiscipline, which is not just a mutation of the press or media studies, because it emerges from the primacy of communication over its means and forms (for media studies the starting point – and often its finish – is the medium itself). As a philosopher I am interested in the research object which the subdiscipline constructs with its research.
 The book is divided into three parts, which are focused on considerations sequentially related to: (1) work assumptions and the culturalist definition of communication, (2) the presentation of research in the field of historical communicology and (3) the conceptual analysis of two communication aspects – in particular the metaphorical conceptualization within the aspect of the collective representations.

276