616
PARTISAN REVIEW
and which lends itself so readily to both denigration and ideal–
ization .
The dispute about the roles and functions of intellectuals often
centers on the propriety of their social-public involvements .
"If
they
concentrate solely on the creation of knowledge they will be accused
of secluding themselves in an ivory tower, of being socially uncon–
cerned... .
If
they step out into the world and dispense practical
advice they will be accused . . . of detracting from , perhaps more
than they are contributing to , the welfare of Western society . Intel–
lectuals are thus in a no-win situation ; their role is open to criticism
either way," according to Etzioni-Halevy .
Occasionally intellectuals are portrayed as heroic figures in
modern society, a beleaguered group of fearless social critics, the
new conscience of society, telling truth to power (as some would
have it), relentlessly unmasking hypocrisy and exposing injustice. In
such an idealized incarnation truth-seeking and an unshakeable
idealism are their defining characteristics (as for example in the
apotheosis Lewis Coser offered in his
Men of Ideas,
a title that must
have become a source of some embarrassment due to its "sexist"
character) .
Perhaps intellectuals have been idealized because there is no
one else left to idealize (by those who need to idealize some social
force or entity). The social classes and groups earlier envisioned as
harbingers, vanguards, triumphant historical actors bringing about
a brighter future - the proletariat, Third World peasants , guerrilla
fighters, charismatic leaders of the philosopher-king cast - all have
fallen short of the expectations.
Idealizing intellectuals is made relatively easy by their elusive–
ness, making it possible to project upon them a wide range of charac–
teristics . Perhaps for the same reason intellectuals have also been
easily demonized and held accountable for more problems of
modern society than any other collection of people (except Jews) .
Just as they lend themselves to idealizing projections, so too they
have provided a convenient target for the projection of dark suspi–
cions and discontents. Not unlike Jews (who swell their ranks), intel–
lectuals are sometimes viewed as deeply subversive, iconoclastic,
unpatriotic, undermining important traditional values , overly criti–
cal, lusting for power, unjustifiably privileged, condescending to
ordinary people, and claimants of elite status on dubious grounds . It
is often unclear for the critics how they make their (increasingly
comfortable) living and what social utility their work has .
