Mediality: the cultural-symbolic sphere of social practice

: At least since the practical complexity of media landscapes is gro-wing, the theoretical complexity of media communication has to be widened (horizon and frame) and deepened (focus) — especially when fulfilling the mission and the quality of science: generating complexity on a level of logical theory towards a subject that is not an object by itself but a culturally programmed metaphor of description: communication, culture, society etc. The complexity of communication, media or society is not a character of those constructs themselves but a complexity of thinking, in practice hopefully redu-ced, in theory hopefully produced. Facing communication (more) as a cultural performance of humanness and of social practice and facing media (more hermeneutically than technically) demands to conceptualize those constructs as models of knowledge, as culturally programs in search of mindful meaning and meaningful relevance of social /societal life. Therefore, there is need of a shifting paradigm from functional, objectivist concepts to hermeneutically open concepts — not only, but also to generate a wider frame of analysis and interpretation of social and cultural change referred through the mediality character of communication and society. So called social media are not new media but show the possibility as well the challenge and chance of change of media orders. Of course, that demands other (new) competence concepts of social practice.

Mediology: shifting the paradigms of theoretical logics. Observing media as frame of reference of social construction of relevance of reality.
The more complex the media landscapes are getting; the more media science is challenged to widen (the frame) and to deepen (the focus) the logical sphere of complexity. A scientifically acting theory is not just an ordering system of what we think communication, media, society or culture is, could be or should be: it needs a logical reference (format) of observation, of conceptualisation, of definition, of determination, and of problematization, in order to be able to match a level of complexity that goes farer then the complexity-feeling of everyday observation. While the everyday observation is interested in reducing the complexity (using causal or even mechanical models of imagination), the scientific observation is expected to widen the frame (options) of complexity until the point of getting to recognize that there was even more to know, what we might still not be able to explain, to order, to signify or to classify. e51775 Galáxia

essay
The constructivist thinking teaches us that complexity is not a character of the constructs we observe (like communication, society, culture, religion, family, media etc.), its rather the complexity of observation, by which we objectify contexts of acting and living (cf. SCHMIDT, 2003;SCHÜTZ;LUCKMANN, 2003;BAUER, 2014). Consequently, and simply to say: we cannot resolve problems with models of thinking (objectivation) by which we are creating or evoking the problems. A logical frame enables to get aware of a logical focus and perspective, which could be socio-logical, psycho-logical, or as well anthropological, philosophical or eco-logical one.
In that frame of thinking it makes logical sense to widen the scope and to deepen the focus theorizing media not just as tools, channels, platforms, or means of and for communication, and not to reduce the term media to indicate by this unique media (classical or new) and not to structurally separate the term from communication. Facing the philosophical / logical complexity of the media-term, my plaidoyer goes for a hermeneutical turn, based on constructivist approach to understand why we understand in the way we do what we think to understand (cf. BAUER, 2014;GADAMER, 1972;SCHMIDT 2003). The ontological level of media is not (just) the technology, is not (just) the logic of organization, not (just) the logic of economy -kind of unique media ontology (cf. LESCHKE, 1972), but is rather more to explore the options of constructing reality and to social-mutually indicate the relevance of the normative forces of reality. So, it is mind-based inter-activity of observing communication mediatising communication as well as communicating the media sphere. and to each another, is a socio-logically / culture-logically (and because of that: media-logically) comprehensible interrelation of societally mutually engaged reference (cf. GADAMER, 1972;KURT, 2004;BAUER, 2014;BURS, 2019 e51775 essay the constructs of communication, society and culture to each other enables to set up a mediological interpretation of society with the same consequences for any (interpretative/qualitative) analysis as it theoretically is doable and (especially) in frame of systems theory already done, when communication of society gets analysed as a model of society of communication (cf. LUHMANN, 1984;BECKER, 2005) -all that opens a theoretical perspective of the mediality of the society. To bring the idea down to earth: any media research always is social/societal research as social/societal research in same time is research on the mediality status of the society: competence, literacy, quality, impact inclusions.
Considering communication, as well media communication scientifically, as a term that mirrors (frames, refers) social and societal practice, we are using a logical model of sociability in an constructivist way of thinking: society is as we communicate it. That demands to understand the (order of the) society or media by understanding the social (cultural) logic of communication, knowing that the term communication by itself is a metaphor of description contextualizing social action and observation by a concentrate (cf. BAUER, 2014, p. 33).
Any society organizing its status and its development is structurally depending from its interaction and communication system, culturally from its communication quality, and generally from its orders of social practice. Or even better to say: a society is, what its communication is like. The grade of its sociality depends from its cultural level of its sociability competence (BAUER, 2011a, p. 499). In a media-organized society the interaction and communication structure -that means at least mutual attention, traffic, connections, topics etc. -follows prima vista the technical and aesthetical logics, the attractions, the facilities and possibilities but also the limitations, options, challenges, and chances of communication through its mediatized organization and its medialized character (cf. HEPP, 2008;BAUER, 2014, p. 327). In any case, though it is often said that media reduces the complexity of societal communication (cf. LUHMANN, 1968), on the other hand also it gets evident that in a media environment the society and its self-interpretation becomes more complex through this mode of communication -and interaction structure -in manifold perspectives: the increasing amount of information, the variety of aspects, evaluations, opinions and options coming up to public sphere overdrive the capacities of processing of social communication. In order to feel or to realize oneself responsibly as a relevant part or partner within a communication process, one must overlook its social e51775 Galáxia  essay space (frame), its relational structures, its options of meaning and relevance and last but not least its contingence of sense. The reference to a culturally defined social framework might help to come clear with orientation.
There is obviously a structural change ongoing in media. Especially since media technology has entered the digital age, not only the modes of production, but much more patterns and attitudes of consumption have changed the traditional ontology of media communication. The key character concerns the role of the consumer now becoming a user -often appealed as prod-user, what means: the industrial fragmentation of roles as a producer and a consumer has overcome, the interaction now happens not any more between producer and consumer, but between user and user. This phenomenon -social convergence -is the social dimension of the technical convergence. The former producer professionalism and the appropriate consumer skills have been fallen in one model of use: taking and giving within a generalized and socially shared model of competence, which is a mutually supposed expectation of trust.
This convergence can be estimated as a horizontalization of a formerly hierarchically ordered relation of trust. A model of dependence (for example: journalism quality -audience media competence) has changed into a model of interdependence of media literacy, which has (to) become the competence motif of a civil society (cf. BAUER, 2011;2014).
The emergence of social-media-communication (many-to-many media interaction) might be seen as one of the areas of media change, enabling social networks or casual communities and giving them opportunity to establish e51775 essay be accepted as a theoretical legitimacy to build a concept of media shaping the societal contexts of personal life? (cf. BURS, 2019). It is somehow selfevident that a structural theory of media just focusing to the technical or even aesthetical materiality of media can not be enough framing a mediological description of society. Media in such an theoretical context must be taken as a hermeneutical term contextualizing the terms of change, media, culture and society: so then not just the media are changing, what is changing is the cultural sphere, the meaning (the observation) of (conditions and valuation of) social practice (cf. HEPP, 2004;2011;BAUER, 2014). When we are talking about media in such a context, we should -so the epistemologically well based advice of Cultural Studies (cf. HALL, 1980) -not just talk about the structurally given facts but rather about the contexts, in which it gets the significance it has, and which always is meant additionally, but hardly respected in analyses. Not to mention the worlds of construction in relation to them it makes logical sense to face up to the questions of value to be focused on in educational contexts. Media is becoming to what it is and how we understand it through the way as we use or we think we should use it as a reference of and for social interaction and communication as well for societal exchange. The culture of usage predominately is determined by the specific and personally relevant contexts of living of people.
That is, what mediology aims to be: is to be understood as a broad frame of scientification the contextual observation of society, culture and mediatized social relation (practice). In that sense mediology is not a theory of media (structures, systems, organization) but a theory-logical observation of use of media related to the circumstances and contexts of individual and social life. Mediology is not a structural theory but rather cultural hermeneutics of everyday social practice (cf. BAUER, 2014, p. 331). Behind that approach there is a clear motivation: it is the logic of human and human capability that matters, not the logic of technical abilities of systems. In that sense a theory of media owing the logics of media as a socio-cultural sphere (passage) of social practice (mediology) is not just a theory explaining, ordering, classifying and problematizing the structures (systems of hardware and software), but more the theory-logical observation of social use.

The logical tentativeness of objectivism. Concepts theorizing a construct of observation
Having said all that so shortened, of course, that aims to be a critical assessment of traditional and conventional streams of theoretical explanations e51775 Galáxia    • and identity building understood as a nationally realizable frame of knowledge and consciousness for all formally nationalized members to be used as a code of reference in order to get identified as "one of us" because being the same like us.
It does not need much force to imagine that this view of usability and fungibility of media for the establishment of societal order, even if this might be considered as a positive function, in its core already includes the inclination of usability of media as a control system. As it reaches masses it also can form masses and can address masses.  essay (LESCHKE, 2007, p. 237) the view to what the medium culturally means has been pushed to the backgrounds: mediality as the symbolic, cultural and social environment and reference of possibility of mutual understanding.
The symbolic interaction increasingly refers to a cultural program that has been developed by itself (autopoiesis). Thus, the interaction program continuously replaces through itself, maintaining itself through change by itself. So, not the media change the culture, but culture is changing in the context of the usage of its media as a concrete social practice ( The term of literacy is a conceptual statement related to the experience that understanding and using general media structures provides social success but always depends from accessibility to education. So media literacy connects to this concept of literacy and originally in all theoretical frameworks of media education it has been related to the development of personal capacity of accessing to social capital (BOURDIEU, 1982) and always has been seen as a factor of rationality and reasonability within the process of personal socialisation, since it theoretically has been linked to so called cultural techniques of usage of language, to an alphabet or a language code, that is, through reading, writing and understanding and -related to media -especially linked with print media (cf. BAACKE, 1997). However, from there the term literacy has then been extended in order also to cover the skills and competencies involved in finding, selecting, analysing, evaluating and storing information, in its treatment and its use, independently of the codes or techniques involved ( e51775 essay media literacy is thought to be a specification of a general set of communicative and cultural competences in order to gain social capital. In consequence to communication literacy media literacy is a different literacy model and is realized according to Dieter Baacke (1997) at least on four levels: • media knowledge: know how the system of media is constructed, how it is working -related to technology, economy, politics, law, social values -and under what conditions media fulfil socially useful or as well problematic functions to the society's public discourse; • media analysis: analyse content, effects, the way and the interest of industrial production of media and understand the position of their potential and power; • media critiques: value the role of media programmes related to the critical self-observation of the society and to the personal development of knowledge and orientation of life; • media arrangement: gain ability in social participation through productive media work and learn to express yourself by means of media.
Of course, Baake's concept of media competence is meant as an outcome of media education in a still very instrumental understanding of media and is connected to a functional concept of media as means of power, of influence and of participation. The media-centred understanding of competence made media education becoming a system of learning the media as an instrument for itself. New conceptions of media competence, of course, go farther, but still are quite rare because of the domination of the functional understanding of media. A cultural interpretation of media is much more interested in understanding the meaning (value) of media as a specified and a socialenvironmental indicator of and for a style of communication: • being in contact, in relation, in mutual attention under conditions of the ever generalized other; • getting aware and acquainted of each other in relation (and relationability) to technically, organizationally, economically and structurally standardized codes; • investing trust and credibility to each other through usage of a system of symbols being arranged not in a direct way of construction, but e51775 essay in a way of re-using an archive of symbolic structures (symbolically arranged and codified interaction) (BLUMER, 1973;MEAD, 1973;BERGER;LUCKMANN, 1972); • observing each other not by directly and intrinsically motivated interests, but by supposing the importance and unavoidability of knowing what any other (the generalized other) would know by using the same system of mediation in order to gain information on what is going on to happen and what of that could be a news value for the one and through that also for any other (SCHULZ, 1976;1990); • it is the code of news, of eventuality and concernment that characterizes a media organized communication and that relates people to each other in a more or less standardized (in terms of distributive media) and a more or less pre-designed (in terms of net and social media) way of interrelation, inter-observation and interaction.
To come along with this code of mediality in a way to keep the balance between assimilation to social, cultural and symbolic environment and accommodation of social, cultural and symbolic environment (cf. PIAGET, 1947) what means the intelligent balance between the code of media and the code of culture of authentic, meaningful and mindful life demands a rationality and reasonability, which has to be learned in order to train the functional memory of individuals and the cultural one of society (cf. BATESON, 1972). The fear not to get lost in the code of media has to be combined with the ambition to find one's autonomy in and through communication. Not to get lost in generalized standards or superficial design, not to get dispersed, dissolved or dissipated in news, not to get lost in simulation or in cyberspace and not to get alienated from one's own code of interest and building a concept of identity and idiosyncrasy (KAMPER, 1999) exactly in that way of getting aware of being related to any generalized other (KRAPPMANN, 2000;HABERMAS, 1973) is the feat of media competence and media literacy.