{"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":"29 1","pages":"244 - 270"},"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\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"244 - 270\"},\"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}
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.