THE
AMERICAN
lt~TELLIGENTSIA
475
of this fact. And since the audience for the material is strictly within
the prescribed field, the re.o.ult is intellectual incest.
T.!1e academic conventions reveal the plight of
th~
scholars. These
annual gatherings have a threefold fun ction. Ostensibly, but of least
importance for most, unfortunately, they provide an opportunity for
the reading of papers and personal discussion of intellectual problems
which the wide dispersion of academic centers does not ordinarily
afford. The otl:cr two functions of the convention are derived from the
over-all social structure. Established academicians from the various
colleges converge upon the designated spot to investigate the chances
of better jobs, and neophytes in search of careers sound out depart–
ment heads for any possible openings. The departmental heads them–
selves are often there for the sole purpose of discovering a man to
fill a vacant position. This aspect of the convention takes on the
character of the market-place where the fine American art of the
manipulation of personality comes to the fore. Here is a version of the
businessman's club, in which the mores of American culture operate
in a more subdued way. The other important function served by
the convention is the chance it provides for the big shot in the
field to bask in the limelight, to command deference from the lesser
brethren and expand under the warmth of prestige made manifest.
For the lesser fry there is the opportunity to exchange a few words
with the great ones. Status relationships are brought sharply into
focus by these gatherings so that after the initial forced cameraderie
the great ones retire among themselves, and discussion is limited
down the line by hierarchical criteria, reaching bottom with the
proletariat of graduate students who, genially ignored, cringe self–
consciously in the comers and corridors of the meeting place.
It must Il.Ot be thought that there is perfect: uniformity in the
general personality-structure of the academic man. The variations in
attitude, aside from individual idiosyncrasy, are the products of
the different fields of interest. The economist, for instance, is, as a
type, inclined to act as a man of affairs. Since orthodox classical
economics still prevails, he displays many of the characteristics of
the big businessman. He is in the way of being the businessman's
ideologist, systematizing and refurbishing the economic beliefs of
these American barons, making objective and highly abstract in terms
of the monetary calculus, the subjective valuations of the men of hard–
headed action. In this respect the economist differs considerably from
the philosophy teacher, who usually is inclined to underestimate the
weight of social and economic conditions that bear down on him.
