The Power of Public Opinion and the Rise of "Both Sides": Formal Constraints in the British Controversialist

IF 0.3 3区 社会学 N/A HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
J. Selbin
{"title":"The Power of Public Opinion and the Rise of \"Both Sides\": Formal Constraints in the British Controversialist","authors":"J. Selbin","doi":"10.1353/vpr.2023.a912319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This essay raises the profile of the understudied British Controversialist (1850–72), a monthly magazine that distinguished itself from peer cultural miscellanies by foregrounding opinion essays by working-class readers that the editors framed as a dialogic forum for gauging and augmenting what they called \"the power\" of \"public opinion.\" But if the Controversialist sought and achieved a significant expansion of the conversational demos, this essay argues, its pluralist ambitions were also compromised by the editors' self-imposed formal constraints, including limitations on style and authorship. Ultimately, these issues presage contemporary questions about how debate should be orchestrated and who should participate.","PeriodicalId":44337,"journal":{"name":"Victorian Periodicals Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Victorian Periodicals Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/vpr.2023.a912319","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:This essay raises the profile of the understudied British Controversialist (1850–72), a monthly magazine that distinguished itself from peer cultural miscellanies by foregrounding opinion essays by working-class readers that the editors framed as a dialogic forum for gauging and augmenting what they called "the power" of "public opinion." But if the Controversialist sought and achieved a significant expansion of the conversational demos, this essay argues, its pluralist ambitions were also compromised by the editors' self-imposed formal constraints, including limitations on style and authorship. Ultimately, these issues presage contemporary questions about how debate should be orchestrated and who should participate.
舆论的力量与 "双方 "的崛起:英国争议派的形式限制
摘要:这篇文章提高了英国《争论者》(1850-72 年)的知名度,这份月刊通过突出工人阶级读者的观点文章,将自己与同类文化杂文区分开来,编辑们将其定位为一个对话论坛,以衡量和增强他们所谓的 "公众舆论 "的 "力量"。但本文认为,如果说《争论者》寻求并实现了对话人群的显著扩大,那么编辑们自我设置的形式限制(包括对风格和作者的限制)也损害了它的多元化雄心。归根结底,这些问题预示着当代关于如何组织辩论以及谁应参与辩论的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Victorian Periodicals Review
Victorian Periodicals Review HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信