cult to interpret, which may put the entire theoretical construct and many of the assumptions into question. I may encounter such social actions which will destroy the logic of the above arguments. I do not want to assume that the only correct answer is: “so much the worse for the facts”. On the contrary, I assume that our (i.e., the researchers’) views on communication, as well as the reflection on communication are relative to the socio-historical conditions and, therefore, are not universal or universally applicable. Thus, when claiming that the communicators and communication theorists have a view on communication it should also be assumed that the proposed solutions are presented “only” one of many (historically variable) concepts. Therefore, the measures of “truth and falsehood”, a better suitability or adequacy, cannot be applied to such theoretical ideas. However, one can talk about the usefulness of a given approach on the basis of the humanities discourse.
The assumption about the self-reference is directly related to the assumption about the reflexive historicising of communication. It stems from the fact that such a methodological step can be understood as a self-referring historicising of the object of study. The researchers accepting this assumption assume that their communication is subject to historical changes. This in turn implies that history becomes a context for the understanding of both past and contemporary phenomena of communication. The assumptions that the self-reference and the reflexive historicising of communication imply that the researcher scrutinizes the matter as a research object submerged and growing out of a historical context, while assuming that the same applies to his research method.
The last condition is the assumption about accepting the weak version of presentism. It means that I accept the need to acquiesce to the fact that a pure historical interpretation is impossible. In other words, historical research necessarily involves applying the procedures from the scope of adaptive interpretation. The understanding of communication presented in this work is not essentialist.
