From antagonist to protagonist: ‘Democracy’ and ‘people’ in British parliamentary debates, 1775–1885
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract ‘Democracy’ is a central word of our current political lexicon, often defined as ‘the power of the people’. However, in 19th century Britain, ‘democracy’ was not characterized by the rule of the ‘people’ but by the power of lower classes, of the ‘populace’ and the ‘mob’. In political discourse, and especially in parliamentary debates, the ‘people’ were an antagonist of ‘democracy’, not its protagonist. To support these statements, this article analyses British parliamentary debates between 1775 and 1885, through both a ‘distant reading’ with the help of corpus linguistics tools and a closer examination of certain key debates and actors. After a brief overview of the methodology, three crucial periods of British political history are analysed. (1) The end of the 18th century, where the impact of the French Revolution on democratic vocabulary is measured. (2) The debates surrounding the 1832 Reform Act, in which the explicit differentiation between the constitutional ‘people’ and the democratic ‘mob’ is drawn out by Whigs and Tories alike. (3) The Second Reform Act (1867), also presented as a ‘popular’ measure, and not a step towards ‘democracy’. In conclusion, the adoption of the democratic vocabulary by British Members of Parliament is traced to the 1880s, notably with the emergence of the idea of ‘Tory democracy’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it