PAUL HOLLANDER
357
unchallenged, many of them persist due to their institutionalization:
more people than ever before make their living in occupations and
institutions which permit or encourage the continued elaboration
and expression of the themes of social criticism we have become fa–
miliar with since the 1960s.
Much of the foregoing discussion suggests that contrary to the
conventional sociological wisdom the connection between socio-eco–
nomic and political marginality on the one hand, and the propensity
to radical social criticism on the other, has become tenuous, at any
rate in American society. Marginality, defined in some objective way
(with reference to income, education, social position and political
affiliation), no longer provides a satisfactory explanation of the rejec–
tion of the prevailing social-political order. The reflexive disparage–
ment of American society has become firmly entrenched during a
period when intellectuals - including many of the most eloquent and
impassioned spokesmen of social criticism - enjoyed considerable
occupational success and prosperity.
Critiques of American society have over the past two decades
acquired solid subcultural foundations and have become institution–
alized - a process that assures their vigorous survival regardless of the
(good) socio-economic fortunes and political freedom of the critics
and regardless of the improvement or decline in the qualities of life
in American society.
