248
ALVIN W. GOULDNER
were associated had an ambivalent relation to the modem bourgeois
order. On the one hand, some were given increased support by the
state, in order to win the allegiance of secular ideologists who might
help it in controlling the Church, and, in general, they were increas–
ingly released from the personalized controls of patrons or from per–
sonalized service as tutors. On the other hand, however, their liveli–
hoods were often subject to the insecurities of the impersonal market–
place and, except for a few literary "stars," the new world of emerging
industrialism did not hold this language-manipulating elite in great
esteem.
Intellectuals, then, were a social stratum that were freed of cor–
porate and patron controls, but were also limited in the enjoyment
of their new freedom by poverty and neglect: bohemia with its de–
privations was not only a preferred style of life but for many it was
also a necessity. Intellectuals were an elite possessed of a privileged
education, but usually lacking in any commensurate
power
-
to
which they felt their superior education entitled them - as well as
lacking a commensurate
income.
They were, in short, characterized
by the tensions typically generated by such status disparities. The very
society that had created intellectuals allowed them only a marginal
place, so that they were at once both beholden and hostile to the new
society. After the passing of the "Old Regimes," they were the struc–
turally alienated.
Despite the differences between Enlightenment and Romantic
intellectuals, Western intellectuals - Marxist or bourgeois - none–
theless shared certain important values. They were committed to the
importance of intellectual productivity and performance; whether
courtly
philosophes
or bohemian Romantics, they were commonly
hard workers. They usually believed in the value of advanced edu–
cation and of universities, even if they did not always agree on what
constituted a good education. They were rationalists even when pro–
mulgating an antiintellectualism. Even the Romantics, despite their
special interest in Oriental civilization and languages, undoubtedly
viewed European and Western societies as their paradigms - willy,
nilly, all were Westernizers. Intellectuals were, too, commonly "uni–
versalistic" in their value commitments, believing that a man's re–
wards should be proportionate to his performances and achievements.
Thus even Marx says under socialism the slogan should be: from each
