VANGUARD
229
The first pOSItIon constitutes, of course, an affirmation of the
present position and functions of the technical intelligentsia and the
elites which direct it. It is, therefore, a rationalization of the social
im–
portance of that intelligentsia, and as such neatly calculated (consciously
or not) to allow a political union of the intellectuals and that segment
of the public (considerable because more than nominally literate) com–
prised by the intelligentsia. Those intellectuals who, by contrast, have
developed a structural rather than a pragmatic critique of industrial
society at first glance appear to have isolated themselves from the
technical intelligentsia. The intelligentsia, educated (or rather, trained)
and rewarded for tasks within the system, generally have been ex–
tremely resistant to critiques of the system - except, of course, insofar
as the criticisms have demanded a more ample role and larger rewards
for them. A critique which questions the rationality of the whole, which,
specifically, questions the present system of access to privileges and
rewards, has generally struck the intelligentsia as an expression of the
self-pity of those whose culture was unadapted to the implacable demands
of new social and intellectual forces. The intelligentsia admired the
intellectuals for their virtuosity in the realm of culture, derived such
entertainment and enlightenment as they could from their work, but
disdained their social criticism. But as the intelligentsia has increased in
size and importance, it has in some respects become more receptive to
criticism. Its social position assured, it, or rather, some of its members,
have begun to ask whether it is not entitled to a far greater share of
control of the technical operations in which it is skilled.
This would imply, of course, a direct assault on the powers of the
governing elites. The pressures upon the technical intelligentsia derive
from two very distinct sources. The one is the conviction, basically
occupational, that they can do at least as well as those placed above
them in their present organizations. The other is the feeling that in
their public and private lives, they are constantly encountering obstacles
resulting from the incompetence of the elite. The students, free of
occupational involvement and the servitudes it brings, have been free
to voice these views with unmatched clarity and force. But while
critical intellectuals have hitherto looked to the students as allies, as
agents of possible revolutionary changes in a world full of reformist
rhetoric but conservative intentions - in viewing the students in this
way, they have emphasized the generational nature of the movement.
Suppose, however, that the movement were in effect an anticipatory
strike by the technical labor force of tomorrow? Much vitiates this
hypothesis: the concentration of the student revolt in disciplines of a
nontechnical kind, the disinclination of the students involved to embark
upon technical and bureaucratic careers of an ordinary sort and the
