Strona:Dwa aspekty komunikacji.pdf/276

 The communication and the media give rise to a multitude of scientific papers, guides, essays and press releases. Many universities conduct programmes in communication, journalism, media studies. It would seem, therefore, that reflection on the phenomena of communication has already reached full bloom. However, when we analyse these publications and curricula, it may be concluded that many authors have forgotten (or even fail to see) that the main means of communication is a conversation between two people, not the activities of big media industries (basically not even present before the twentieth century). It is we who, by communicating, create the foundation of our cultural communicative society. Of course, we use a variety of tools for this purpose (which we do call the media), but our communication is not restricted to them. In everyday conversation, we usually do not think about what we actually do when we utter the successive words, answering questions. Our conversations in this regard are simply carried out in a habitual manner. However, these habits, rituals (e.g. extending the right hand when greeting), we have learned and we apply them in our activities. Furthermore, each of us has an idea of what communication is, what we are allowed to do in a conversation with a colleague, a supervisor, or a friend. We also know whether our negotiations have been successful or have failed. How do we know that? It appears that we do not always share a common definition of “effective communication”. It might even be said that not everyone believes that communication must be effective in order to be regarded as communication at all. Such differences in the beliefs and values we associate with communication shape our ways of communicating.
 We think of communication only when something starts to go wrong. If our daily conversations with colleagues at work fulfil their function (e.g. fill a coffee break time), then we do not speculate why something as “natural” to us as conversation can fill this free moments. However, if one day we cannot convince our friends to our arguments, we begin to ask ourselves: “Maybe I said something wrong? Maybe my tone was inappropriate? Maybe she did not hear me?”.
 The object of the considerations undertaken in the book is communication understood as a cultural activity. I attempt a twofold task. I want to demonstrate how communication can be reflected upon in the philosophical perspective. Simultaneously, I will indicate what assumptions can be used as the basis of a methodological tool for research on the history of communication. It pertains to the philosophical perspective, within which the history of communication and its subject matter may be analysed. The structure of the tool derives its inspiration from the philosophy of communication, philosophy of culture and

275