舆论的力量与 "双方 "的崛起:英国争议派的形式限制

IF 0.3 3区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
J. Selbin
{"title":"舆论的力量与 \"双方 \"的崛起:英国争议派的形式限制","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":"{\"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\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

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。
The Power of Public Opinion and the Rise of "Both Sides": Formal Constraints in the British Controversialist
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Victorian Periodicals Review
Victorian Periodicals Review HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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