{"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}
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.