Kurzman, C., & Owens, L. The Sociology of Intellectuals

The Sociology of Intellectuals
Author(s): Charles Kurzman and Lynn Owens

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 28 (2002), pp. 63-90
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069235 .
Accessed: 03/05/2013 15:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002. 28:63-90
doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140745
Copyright? 2002 by AnnualReviews. All rightsreserved
THE SOCIOLOGYOF INTELLECTUALS
CharlesKurzmanand LynnOwens
Departmentof Sociology, Universityof North Carolinaat ChapelHill, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina27599-3210; e-mail: kurzman@unc.edu,dilettante@unc.edu
Key Words academic,class-less,organic,professional,"newclass"

* Abstract Thesociologyof intellectualshasadoptedthreefundamentally distinct
approachesto its subject.The Dreyfusards,JulienBenda,"newclass"theorists,and
PierreBourdieutreatedintellectualsas potentiallya class-in-themselves,that is, as
havingintereststhat distinguishthem from othergroupsin society.AntonioGram-
sci, MichelFoucault,andtheoristsof "authenticity" treatedintellectualsas primarily
class-bound,thatis, representativesof theirgroupof origin.KarlMannheim,Edward
Shils, andRandallCollinstreatedintellectualsas relativelyclass-less,thatis, ableto
transcendtheirgroupof originto pursuetheirown ideals.These approachesdivided
thefieldatits foundingin the 1920s,duringits mid-centurypeak,andin its late-century
revival.
INTRODUCTION
The sociology of intellectuals,like its subjectsof study,hashada checkeredhistory.

At times, the field seemedreadyto emergeas a cohesive body of literature,just as its
subjects-variously definedin the literatureas personswith advancededucations,
producersor transmittersof cultureor ideas, or membersof either category who
engage in public issues-sometimes gelled into a cohesive social group.At other
times, the field hardlyexisted andwas subsumedinto the sociology of professions,
the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of science, and other fields-just as
its subjects sometimes shunnedthe collective identity of intellectuals,preferring
professional,middle-class,ethnic, and otheridentities.The field's ebbs and flows
have not often matched those of its subjects, with the result that the sociology
of intellectuals is sometimes written in a normativekey, attemptingto call into
existence a groupthatno longer rallies to the name "intellectual."
Such was the field's founding moment, in the late 1920s, when three ap-
proaches to the subject emerged, treatingintellectuals as a class-in-themselves,
as class-bound,or as class-less (see also the categorizationsin Brym 1980:12-13,
1987, 2001; Gagnon 1987b:6-10, Szel6nyi & Martin1988:649). These three ap-
proachesare reflectedin the three editions of the Encyclopediaof the Social Sci-
ences: Michels (1932) adoptinga class-in-itself approach,Shils (1968) adoptinga
0360-0572/02/0811-0063$14.00 63

64 KURZMANI OWENS
class-less approach,and Brym (2001) adoptinga class-bound approach.Our re-

view of thefield,focusingprimarilyon theEnglish-languageliterature,is organized
aroundthese three approaches,discussing the updatingof each approachduring
threewaves of interestin the subject,in the 1920s, the 1950s, and the 1990s.
The Foundingof the Field

In contrastto the first decade of the twentiethcentury,when the Dreyfus Affair
sparkeda positive and almost messianic collective identity among intellectuals
aroundthe world (Kurzman2003), intellectualsin the interwarperiod were char-
acterized by disillusionmentand de-identification.Roberto Michels, writing in
1932 on "Intellectuals"for the Encyclopediaof the Social Sciences, characterized
his subjects as "largelydemoralized"and undergoing"an intense spiritualself-
criticism"(Michels 1932:123-24). TheodorAdoro recalled the early 1920s as
a period of "anti-intellectualintellectuals"seeking authenticitythroughreligion
(Adomo [1964] 1973:3-4). EdouardBerth,whose savagecritiqueof intellectuals
just before World War I as "the harshest,the most nefarious, the most ruinous
of aristocracies,"prefaced his second edition in 1926 with the pitiful image of
"intellectualand moral prostration"beneath the plutocraticcaptains of industry
(Berth 1926:74, p. 29). V. I. Lenin, who expressedhigh hopes before the war that
bourgeoisintellectualswould turnrevolutionaryand enlighten the workingclass
(Lenin [1902] 1975:24-25), now called them"not[thenation's]brainsbutits shit"
(Koenker& Bachman 1997:229). Leftist intellectuals in China adoptedthe slo-
gan, "Downwith the intellectualclass" (Schwarcz 1986:186). "Intellectualsof all
countries,unite!"wrote Roger Levy (1931:164). "Unitebecause the war [World
WarI], which decimatedyou, has reducedthe survivorsto the wages of misery;
unite because, among otherworkers,your brothers,you [survivors]dareto speak
of the materialconditions of your miserablelives, which are brightenedonly by
the will to learnor teach."
At this low point in the collective history of the intellectuals, the sociology
of intellectuals emerged out of the long traditionof speculationon the subject
(Plato [360 B.C.] 2000, Campanella[1602] 1981, Bacon [1627] 1989, Fichte
[1794] 1988, Comte [1822] 1969, Bakunin[1870] 1950, Makhaiski[1899] 1979;
see also Boggs 1993:15-27). Three approachesdeveloped at this time, each dis-
tinguished by its consideration of intellectuals as a class: one, pioneered by
Antonio Gramsci,viewed intellectualsas boundto theirclass of origin;a second,
associated with Karl Mannheim,treatedintellectualsas potentially class-less; a
third, popularizedby Julien Benda, proposed that intellectuals form a class in
themselves.
AS CLASS-IN-THEMSELVESDreyfusardintellectuals claimed
INTELLECTUALS that
they formeda class:
We alumni and alumnae of the colleges are the only permanentpresence
that correspondsto the aristocracyin older countries. We have continuous

SOCIOLOGY
OFINTELLECTUALS 65
traditions,as they have;ourmotto,too, is noblesse oblige; andunlikethem,we

standfor ideal interestssolely, for we have no corporateselfishness andwield
no powerof corruption.We soughtto have our own class consciousness. "Les
intellectuels!"What prouderclub name could there be thanthis one. (James
1912:319)
This class was not based on its relation to the means of production,as in most
Marxistimages of class at the time, but ratheron its lack of relationto the means
of production.That is, intellectualsconsideredtheir intereststo be coterminous
with the interestsof society as a whole, precisely because they were free from the
narrowingof interestthatthe occupationof anyparticularposition in the economy
entailed.
[H]ereis an entirephalanxof people who not only conceive of generalideas,

but for whom ideas determine the correspondingemotions, which in turn
determine their acts, which are, much of the time, directly opposed to the
immediate interest of the individual.Here is a lieutenant-colonel[Georges
Picquart]who, throughdevotionto an abstaction,ruinshis career,acceptsthree
monthsof detention;a novelist [EmileZola] who confrontsthe savageryof the
crowds;thousandsof young men who sign manifestosthatmay compromise
their future,perhapseven theirsecurity ... (Benda 1900:309)
The authorof this paeanto the intellectualanti-class,JulienBenda,laterwrotewhat
we taketo be the foundingdocumentof the sociology of intellectuals,La Trahison
des clercs, translatedintoEnglishas TheTreasonofthe Intellectuals(Benda[1927]
1928). This work may be little known today but was influentialat the time, going
throughmore than 50 editions in 20 years. The authordefinedhis subjectsas "all
those whose activityessentiallyis not in the pursuitof practicalaims, all those who
seek theirjoy in the practiceof an artor a science or metaphysicalspeculation,in
shortin the possession of non-materialadvantages,andhence in a certainmanner
say: 'My kingdom is not of this world"' (p. 43). Benda contrastedthis group
with "'the laymen,' whose functionconsists essentially in the pursuitof material
interests"(p. 43).
The treasonin Benda's title referredto the failureof contemporaryintellectu-
als to uphold their anti-class. The Dreyfusardphalanxthat Benda optimistically
describedin 1900 had succumbedto base "politicalpassions"(p. 45), by which
Benda meantmaterialinterests."Themodem 'clerk' has entirelyceased to let the
laymanalone descend to the marketplace,"he asserted(p. 46), and in descending
they have "betrayedtheir duty, which is precisely to set up a corporationwhose
sole cult is that of justice and of truth"(p. 57). Benda repeatedlylisted three sets
of interests that intellectuals were duty-boundto avoid: nation, class, and race.
He identifiednationalism,predatingthe outbreakof WorldWarI but accelerating
thereafter,as particularlypernicious. Contemporaryintellectuals,he wrote, "de-
clare that theirthoughtcannotbe good, thatit cannotbeargood fruit,unless they
remainrooted on their native soil, unless they are not 'uprooted"'(p. 64). Benda

66 KURZMANu OWENS
worriedthat the break-upof the intellectualclass might be permanent."Itis hard

to imagine a body of men of letters (for corporativeaction becomes more and
moreimportant)attemptingto withstandthe bourgeoisclasses insteadof flattering
them. It is still harderto imaginethem turningagainstthe tide of theirintellectual
decadence and ceasing to think that they display a lofty culturewhen they sneer
at rationalmoralityand fall on theirknees before history"(p. 194).
Despite its literary flavor and apocalyptic tone, Benda's book encapsulates
manyof the themesof the class-in-itselfapproachto the sociology of intellectuals:
Intellectualscan develop common intereststhat set them apartfrom othergroups
in society. Intellectualscan organizearoundthese interestssometimes and reject
such organizationat othertimes.
AS CLASS-BOUND Antonio Gramsci, the Italian communist, crit-

INTELLECTUALS
icized Benda's famous book for ignoring "the function of the intellectualsin the
life of the state"(Gramsci[1932] 1995:470). Gramsci'sapproachto the subjectof
intellectualsbegan with a questioningof the Dreyfusardideal: "Areintellectuals
an autonomousand independentsocial group,or does every social grouphave its
own particularspecialised category of intellectuals?"(Gramsci [1932] 1971:5).
He quickly selected the second option:
Everysocial group,coming intoexistenceon the originalterrainof anessential
function in the world of economic production,creates together with itself,
organically,one or more strataof intellectualswhich give it homogeneityand
an awarenessof its own function not only in the economic but also in the
social and political fields. (p. 5)
The bourgeoisieproducedits intellectuals,and the proletariatproducedits own.
Both sets of intellectualswere "organic"to the extentthattherewas a "relationship
betweenthe intellectualsandthe worldof production"(p. 12). Gramscicontrasted
"organic"intellectuals with "traditional"intellectuals, exemplified by Catholic
clerics, who "putthemselvesforwardas autonomousandindependentof the domi-
nantsocial group"(p. 7). This self-conceptionwas delusional-a "socialutopiaby
which the [traditional]intellectualsthinkof themselvesas 'independent"'(p. 8)-
but the bourgeoisie sought to eliminateeven this fictionalautonomythrough"its
struggleto assimilateand to conquer'ideologically' the traditionalintellectuals,"
a process "made quicker and more efficacious the more the group in question
succeeds in simultaneouslyelaboratingits own organicintellectuals"(p. 10). The
vagariesof the intellectuals'relationswith the classes that producedthem are the
subjectof numerousscatteredreferencesthroughoutGramsci'sprison notebooks
(Gramsci[1929-1935] 1971).
Gramsci'swritingson intellectualsonly became well-knowna decade afterhis
death,when his prisonnotebookswere published.Fromthe mid-twentiethcentury
onward, while Benda was largely forgotten, Gramsci's reputationhas steadily
spread,andnot only amongMarxists.His workis commonlycited as an exemplar
of the class-boundapproachto the sociology of intellectuals:Intellectualscannot

SOCIOLOGY
OFINTELLECTUALS 67
form a single group,but are dividedinto subsetsthatemergefrom and serve other

social groups.
AS CLASS-LESSKarl Mannheim, an exiled Hungarian social-

INTELLECTUALS
democrat,also distanced his sociology of intellectuals from Benda's approach.
Benda, he wrote, was "mistaken"in clinging to the "traditionalcult of the exclu-
sively self-oriented,self-sufficientintelligentsia";the dangerBenda saw in politi-
cization lay ratherin "the encapsulationof free thoughtunder the constraintof
church,state or class organization"(Mannheim[1932] 1993:79).
Mannheim'sprimarystatementon the sociology of intellectuals,a section of
his famous book Ideology and Utopia, defined its subjectby the ability to avoid
such fetters: intellectuals were "not too firmly situated in the social order,"an
"unanchored,relativelyclass-less stratum,"and "sociallyunattached"(Mannheim
[1929] 1985:154-55), drawingon recent work by Max Weber(M. Weber[1919]
1946) and Alfred Weber (A. Weber [1923] 1999). Mannheimrejected the view
that "intellectualsconstitute either a class or at least an appendageto a class"
(p. 155)-the Dreyfusardand Marxistapproaches,respectively.Rather,intellec-
tuals transcendedclass, at least to a certaindegree. Theireducationexposed them
to "opposingtendencies in social reality,while the personwho is not orientedto-
wardthe whole throughhis education,butratherparticipatesdirectlyin the social
process of production,merely tends to absorb the Weltanschauung[worldview]
of thatparticulargroup"(p. 156). Educationallowed intellectuals"to attachthem-
selves to classes to which they originallydid not belong,"as "theyand they alone
were in a position to choose their affiliation"(p. 158). As a result,
.. .unattachedintellectualsareto be foundin the courseof historyin all camps.
Thusthey always furnishedthe theoristsfor the conservativeswho themselves
because of their own social stabilitycould only with difficultybe broughtto
theoreticalself-consciousness. They likewise furnishedthe theorists for the
proletariatwhich, becauseof its social conditions,lackedthe prerequisitesfor
the acquisitionof the knowledgenecessaryfor modempoliticalconflict.Their
affiliationwith the liberalbourgeoisiehas alreadybeen discussed.(Mannheim
[1929] 1985, p. 158)
Affiliationdidnot implyuttersubservience,Mannheimcontinued.Because of their
"need for total orientationand synthesis,"their"broaderpoint of view," and their
"interestin seeing the whole of the social andpolitical structure,"intellectualshad
a "mission"to encourage mutual understandingamong classes and to "createa
form outside of the party schools in which the perspectiveof and the interestin
the whole is safeguarded"(pp. 161-62). In laterwork,Mannheimworriedthatthis
mission was in jeopardy,andthat"thedecline of a relativelyfree intelligentsia"in
the twentiethcenturythreatened"thecomparativeand criticalapproachwhich an
atmosphereof multi-polarviewpoints stimulates"(Mannheim1956:166).
These threeapproachesto the sociology of intellectualsmay be summarizedas
follows (Table 1):

68 KURZMANU OWENS
TABLE1
Class-in-itself Class-bound Class-less
Foundingfigure: Benda Gramsci Mannheim

Do intellectuals
sometimes Yes No No
forma distinctclass?
Do intellectuals
generally Yes No Yes
transcendtheirclassof origin?
These threeapproacheshave continuedto shapethe field duringsubsequentwaves

of interestin the subject.1
Mid-Century Attention
Scatteredworkson the sociology of intellectualscontinuedto appearin the 1940s,
but the field surgedin the late 1950s, as evidenced by the anthologies published
soon thereafter(de Huszar 1960, Rieff 1969). "Intellectualsare in fashion," a
Frenchauthornoted (Bodin 1962:5, quoted in Nichols 1978:1). This wave coin-
cided with a rise in the fortunesof intellectualsin manyregionsof the world.In the
UnitedStatesandWesternEurope,the welfarestateboth expandedthe intellectual
class andhiredit to solve society's problems(Bauman1992, Bruce-Briggs1979b).
In EasternEurope,intellectualsentereda "heroicage"(Shlapentokh1990:105-48)
of technocraticascendancy(KonrAd& Szelenyi 1979). In manynewly independent
countries,intellectualsassumedleadershipof the post-colonialstate (Shils [1958]
1972). The global upswing in studentmovementsdrew additionalattentionto the
role of intellectualsin social change (Katsiaficas 1987, Kraushaar1998), and a
numberof studies emphasizedthe rise of educationalattainmentin contemporary
stratification(Collins 1979, Sarfatti-Larson1977, Young 1958).
AS CLASS-LESSThis approach came to dominate the field in the

INTELLECTUALS
1950s. The structural-functionalist paradigmreserveda special role for intellec-
tuals as "people specializing in culturalconcerns and being, relatively speaking,
relievedof responsibilityfor currentsocietalfunctions"-that is, people concerned
with the meaning of symbolic systems ratherthan with the interactionand con-
tentionof social groups(Parsons1969:11). Intellectuals,in this view, do not form
a class and are "necessarilynot among the primaryholders of political power or
controllersof economic resources"(p. 23). Rather,they elaboratethe symbolic
system of all social groups-not as organicrepresentativesof these groups, as in
the class-boundperspective,butas occupantsof a role thatemphasizes"universal-
istic standards"(p. 14), "'non-material'factorsof effective social action"(p. 21),
'These categories suggest a fourthpossibility, in which intellectualsform a distinct class

anddo not transcendtheirclass of origin.Such an image of hereditarycastes of intellectuals
does not play a large partin the sociology of intellectuals.

SOCIOLOGYOF INTELLECTUALS 69
and"thedoubleimperativesof the maximal(thoughalways imperfect)objectivity

of science and of seeking generaltheoreticaland empiricalsolutions of problems
regardlessof theirbearingon the immediateproblemsof action"(p. 25).
EdwardShils, the leading figure in the field at this time, arguedthat the dis-
juncturein the intellectuals'role-between theiruniversalisticideals andsociety's
more mundaneconcerns-led frequentlyto intellectuals' alienation. "It is prac-
tically given by the natureof the intellectuals' orientationthat there should be
some tension betweenthe intellectualsandthe value-orientationsembodiedin the
actualinstitutionsof any society" (Shils [1958] 1972:7). Otherauthorsdrew sim-
ilar conclusions, likening intellectualsto explorerswho "specialize, so to speak,
in doing the unexpected"(Znaniecki 1940:165); or to courtjesters and medieval
fools, whose power "lies in [their] freedom with respect to the hierarchyof the
social order"(Dahrendorf[1953] 1969:54). Still othersemphasizedintellectuals'
rebelliousness(Aron [1955] 1957, Brinton[1938] 1965:39-49, Lipset & Dobson
1972, Schumpeter1942)-a concernthatlong predatedstructural-functionalism.
Since the early 1800s, certain scholars worried that educational opportunities
were expanding faster than appropriatejobs, creating a malcontented"intellec-
tual proletariat,"detached by their education from their traditionalstation but
unable to maintainthe standardof living they believed they deserved (Barbagli
[1974] 1982, Kotschnig 1937, O'Boyle 1970). Emile Durkheimblamed general
education,amongotherthings,for therise of anomiein moder society (Durkheim
[1893] 1984:307;but see his defense of Dreyfusardintellectuals,Durkheim[1898]
1973). Along similarlines, SeymourMartinLipset (1959) noted thatintellectuals
could express anomic resentmenteven when their social status and employment
opportunitieswere favorable,as in the United States of the 1950s. As he and a
co-authorput it in a later essay, "To gain the participationof the intellectuals,
powermust offer more thanbread,it must allow access to a courtof glory"(Lipset
& Basu 1975:465).
In addition to their critical tendencies, Shils also emphasized the intellectu-
als' frequent access to such a "courtof glory." In contrast with Parsons, Shils
noted that intellectualshave at times "playeda great historicalrole on the higher
levels of stateadministration"-mandarins,civil services, even philosopher-kings
(Shils [1958] 1972:8-9). Shils publishedan extendedstudy of one such instance,
the intellectualswho came to rule India after decolonization(Shils 1961). Shils
viewed intellectualsin India,as in otherdecolonized states(Shils 1962:19-24), as
the cadre necessary to bring modernityto traditionalsocieties. Yet for all his ap-
preciationof the talents and achievementsof India's great intellectual-politicians
and intellectual-bureaucrats, Shils feared that too much involvementin the state
would underminethe intellectuals' true role, namely that of responsible critic
(Shils 1961:116).RobertK. Mertonmade a similarpoint with regardto New Deal
intellectualsin the United States:When intellectualsparticipatedin government,
they lost the autonomy-"whether real or spurious"-associated with the intellec-
tual role (Merton[1945] 1968:276). Still othersconsideredintellectuals'political
participationto be a betrayalof the intellectual'sduty to transcendpartisancom-
mitments(Kolakowski1972, Molnar 1961).

70 KURZMAN * OWENS
AS CLASS-BOUNDVarious radical scholars viewed this call for in-

INTELLECTUALS
tellectualsto be free of partisanshipas a mystificationof theirrole as spokespersons
for thepowerelite. C. WrightMills arguedthatintellectualshave succumbedto ca-
reerpressuresand "a fear which leads to self-intimidation... sometimes politely
known as 'discretion,' 'good taste,' or 'balancedjudgment."'As a result, "The
means of effective communicationare being expropriatedfrom the intellectual
worker.The materialbasis of his initiativeand intellectualfreedom is no longer
in his hands"(Mills [1944] 1963:297;see also Mills [1959] 1963). Arlene Kaplan
Daniels called white male academicshardly"freeof statusbias"andthereforeun-
ableto claimMannheimianclass-lessness(Daniels 1975:343-44). Noam Chomsky
describedbourgeoisintellectualsas offeringideological apologies and a veneerof
legitimacy to the bourgeoisstate (Chomsky 1969, 1978).
Yet these critiquesof class-lessness often aspiredto class-lessness themselves.
Mills juxtaposedthe timidityof power-eliteapologists with his own aspirationto
"relatehimself to the value of truth"and "responsiblycope with the whole of live
experience"(Mills [1944] 1963:299). Daniels claimed for women and African-
Americansthe insightfulnessof marginalitythatMannheimhad claimedfor white
male academics(Daniels 1975:344). Chomskycontrastedbourgeoisintellectuals'
subordinationto the state with the "civilized norms" to which he presumably
aspired(Chomsky 1969:72).
Michel Foucault, in his enigmatic fashion, offered a class-bound theory for
the postmodernage. "The role of the intellectualis no longer to place himself a
'little ahead or a bit to the side' so as to speak the silent truthto all," he argued
againstclass-lessness. "Rather,it is to struggleagainstthe forms of power in rela-
tion to which he is both object and instrument:withinthe domainof 'knowledge,'
'truth,''consciousness,' and 'discourse"'(Foucault& Deleuze [1972] 1973:104).
The difference,he elaboratedin anotherinterview,lay in the distinctionbetween
the "universal"intellectual,"a free subject ... counterposedto the service of the
State or Capital,"versus "specific"intellectuals,grounded"within specific sec-
tors, at the precise points where their own conditions of life and work situate
them (housing,the hospital,the asylum, the laboratory,the university,family and
sexual relations)."Specific intellectualsdo not speak for truthin the abstract-
Foucaultbrokehere with the dominantFrench"universal"intellectualof the era,
Jean-PaulSartre-but only for the impact of general truthregimes in particular
locations. As with Gramsci,Foucaultconsidered such groundedintellectualsto
be a potentiallyrevolutionaryforce-not becausethey representthe oppressed,as
with Gramsci,butbecausethey operatecogs in the power/knowledgemachineand
thus may expose and disable it (Foucault[1977] 1984:67-69; see also Bove 1986,
Radhakrishnan1990).
AS CLASS-IN-THEMSELVESThe heroic Dreyfusard image of the in-

INTELLECTUALS
tellectual class-in-itself continuedto dissipate at mid-century.Virtuallythe only
exception to this trend was Lewis Coser, whose work was also exceptional in
raising explicitly the centralquestion for this approach:the circumstancesunder
which "men of letters began to find conditions favorableto the emergence of a

self-conscious stratumof intellectualswith a peculiarethos and sense of calling"

(Coser [1965] 1970:xi; see also Lasch 1965:x). Coser identifieda varietyof insti-
tutional settings that allowed intellectualsto gain class-like solidarity,including
salons, coffeehouses, scientificsocieties, andcommercialpublishing(Chaps.2-7).
Yet an overabundanceof institutionalsettings,too, could underminesolidarity,as
in the United States in the mid-twentiethcentury,where intellectualswere frag-
mented among universities,researchinstitutes,governmentbureaucracies,mass-
cultureindustries,and foundations(Chaps.21-25), thoughCoser felt the country
might be witnessing the emergence of "an official establishmentculture"that
would reintegrateintellectualswhile de-fangingtheircriticallegacy (Chap.26).
Cosernoted thatintellectuals'political ascendancy-he offered case studies of
the FrenchJacobinsand the RussianBolsheviks, in particular-turned out badly:
their "scientificmillenarianism,"theirenthusiasmto remakesociety along "ratio-
nal" lines, involved monstrousabuses of power (Coser [1965] 1970:Chap. 13).
This critiquedominatedthe mainstreamof class-in-itself researchduringthis pe-
riod: the relatedliteratureson the intelligentsia(Pipes 1961) and the "new class"
(Djilas 1957) in state socialism. Both terms were coined in the mid-nineteenth
century,"intelligentsia"referringto Russia's most alienated,radicalintellectuals
(Confino 1972, Nahirny 1983), and "new class" referringto the ruling class of a
futuresocialist state:
It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic,despotic,
arrogant,and contemptuousof all regimes. There will be a new class, a new
hierarchyof real and pretendedscientists and scholars, and the world will
be divided into a minorityruling in the name of knowledge and an immense
ignorantmajority.(Bakunin [1870] 1950:38, quoted in Szelenyi & Martin
1988:647)
AlthoughYugoslavdissidentMilovanDjilas,who popularizedtheterm"newclass"
in the 1950s, did not identify it with intellectuals, whom he consideredjust as
oppressed as other groups under state socialism (Djilas 1957:45, 130, 135), the
literatureson the intelligentsiaand the "new class" merged,placing intellectuals
at the heartof the socialist administration(Gella 1976, Konrid & Szel6nyi 1979,
Szel6nyi 1982b).
The "new class" thesis migratedto the West in the 1960s and 1970s (Bruce-
Briggs 1979a; but see the precursor,Nomad 1937). Daniel Bell, for example,
thoughhe consideredthe concept of the "newclass"to be "muddled"(Bell 1979),
argued that socialist and capitalist societies are converginginto a postindustrial
conditionbased on knowledge-workand ruledby highly educatedplanners.Bell
welcomed the "riseof the new elites based on skill,"who "arenot boundby a suf-
ficient common interestto make them a political class," but share"normsof pro-
fessionalism"that"couldbecome the foundationof the new ethos for such a class"
(Bell [1973] 1976:362).Alvin Gouldner'soptimismwent further:The"newclass,"
he wrote,is the new "universalclass,"albeit a flawedone, replacingthe proletariat
(Gouldner1979:83-85). This class is composedof two groups-critical intellectu-
als andtechnicalintelligentsia-linked throughcommonmembershipin a "culture

72 KURZMAN* OWENS
of criticaldiscourse"thatgains authoritynot throughforce but throughthe power

of ideas, andthatsubverts"allestablishments,social limits, andprivileges,includ-
ing its own" (p. 32). At the same time, this class has a special interestin rewarding
its own formof culturalcapitalin an effort"toincreaseits own shareof the national
product;to produceand reproducethe special social conditionsenabling them to
appropriateprivatelylargersharesof the incomes producedby the special cultures
they possess; to control their work and their work settings; and to increase their
politicalpowerpartlyto achievethe foregoing"(pp. 19-20). The new class is thus
caughtin tensionbetweenits universalisticaspirationsandparticularisticinterests
(Szelenyi 1982a)-a tensionthatGouldnerexploredin his posthumouslypublished
studyof MarxandotherMarxistintellectuals,documentingtheirprivilegedsocial
backgroundsand their sometimescontemptuoustreatmentof their working-class
co-conspirators,all in the name of socialist revolution(Gouldner1985).
Gouldner'swork was controversial.Some questioned whetherthe new class
formed a class. Survey analyses found a distinct new class of young social and
culturalworkersin the Netherlands(Kriesi 1989), but it was debatablewhethera
distinctclass could be discernedin U.S. data(Brint1984, Lamont1987a). A qual-
itativeprojectcomparingthe United States and severalWest Europeancountries
concludedthatthe new class was difficultto distinguishfrom contemporarybour-
geois culture(Kellner& Heuberger1992). In a more hostile vein, Wrong ([1983]
1998) arguedthat classes in general were an anachronisticirrelevancy,and that
Gouldner'sconceptionof "new class," in particular,was not new, not a class, and
not significant(see also Pryor1981). Speakingfromthe perspectiveof intellectual
class-lessness, Wrong arguedthat "the conception of 'intellectuals'or 'the intel-
lectual community' as speakingout on most issues with a single voice, let alone
forminga coherentclass, even with purely self-servingpolitical aims, is likely to
pass from the scene" (Wrong 1998:129). Some questionedwhetherthe new class
was coming to power; in the words of one critic, "Its members are bit players
who do not even choose their own lines" (Hacker 1979:167; also Fridjonsdottir
1987). And some challenged the intellectuals'universalisticpretensions.Ehren-
reich & Ehrenreich(1979), for example, arguedthat intellectualsform part of a
new "professional-managerial class" whose "objectiveclass interest"lies in chal-
lenging the capitalistclass, althoughnot necessarilyto benefit the workingclass
(see also the responsesto this argumentin Walker1979). Etzioni-Halevy(1985)
called them "prophetswho failed,"whose trackrecordof societal improvementis
not nearly so rosy as their self-interestedclaims (see also many of the essays in
Bruce-Briggs1979c, andJohnson1988:342)-a sentimentpithilycapturedby the
Frenchneologism "intellocrates"(Hamon& Rotman 1981).
The "new class" concept faded in popularity,as Wrong predicted(Frentzel-
Zagorska& Zagorska1989). One of its most prominentproponentscame to have
second thoughts,backing away from the concept, suggesting that the muddle of
previous theoreticalformulationsreflectedthe incompletenessand failure of the
new class's politicalprojects,andurginga reorientationof studyarounda "general
theory of symbolic domination"(Martin& Szelenyi 1987, Szelenyi 1986-1987,
Szelenyi & Martin1988).

Late-Century Developments
The sociology of intellectualsgained a new momentumin the last years of the
twentieth century, as evidenced by numerous collected volumes (Ashraf 2001,
Dennis 1997a, Eyermanet al. 1987, Fink et al. 1996, Gagnon 1987, Jennings &
Kemp-Welch1997, Kellner& Heuberger1992, Lawrence& Dbbler 1996, Lemert
1991, Macleanet al. 1990, Mohan 1987, Robbins 1990, Suny & Kennedy 1999),
but intellectuals themselves did not. Bauman (1987) called their fate "the fall
of the legislator"-the loss of intellectuals' confidence in their ability to discern
and promulgatea rationalvision for society. In the United States, longstanding
anti-intellectualism(Hofstadter1963) deepenedin "culturewars"thatcalled into
questionthe intellectuals'rightto engage in autonomousculturalproduction(Mc-
Gowan 2002, Ross 1989). Britain,whose intellectualshad long been "absent"as
a class (Anderson [1968] 1992, Turner1994:154), entered"a distinct climate of
anti-intellectualism"(Dominelli& Hoogvelt 1996:60).Even France,the birthplace
of moder intellectualidentity,witnessed"disenchantment" (Hourmant1997) and
the "flamesof anti-intellectualism"(Bodin 1997:8). But this process was uneven.
In some communities-we discuss African-Americansand the Middle East-
intellectuals retainedor even gained stature.The study of intellectuals in these
communities often involved first-personimplications, while other studies took
third-persontacks, examiningintellectualsin historicalor foreign settings. Much
of the literaturethus achieved a measureof distance from its subjects.The three
approachesto intellectuals with which we have organizedthis literaturereview
became less hard-and-fastin this period,though still salient and useful.
AS CLASS-LESS
INTELLECTUALS Recent work in this approachhas shifted from an
emphasis on intellectuals' roles in society to their roles within the intellectual
world. Ahmad Sadri (1992), for example, identifiedfour ideal types of intellec-
tuals, forming a 2 x 2 table: other-worldlyversus this-worldly, and paradigm-
foundersversus paradigm-followers(Sadri 1992:109). Sadri derivedthis catego-
rization from Max Weber's analyses of religion and politics, focusing on two
premises:thatintellectuallife is relativelyautonomousfrom its social context,and
thatideas may feed backto affectthematerial"base"(pp. 58-59). Sadritransferred
these insightsfromthe worldof ideas to intellectualsas the carriersandproponents
of such ideas. In this way, Sadri continuedthe class-less approachpioneeredby
Mannheim,althoughhe was at pains to distinguishhis discussion of intellectual
autonomyfrom Mannheim's,which he consideredideologically committedto the
formationof an intellectualclass (p. 150). Scott (1997), taking a similarposition
of intellectualclass-lessness, invertedthe theoreticallegacy, claimingthatWeber's
understandingof intellectualsas "servants"was too narrowandclass-bound,while
Mannheim'sunderstandingof intellectualfreedomwas not far off the mark.
RandallCollins' massiveworkon TheSociology of Philosophies(Collins 1998)
also began from similar premises of intellectual autonomy.Intellectualshave a
"detachmentfrom ordinaryconcerns"(p. 19), and "intellectualdiscourse focuses
implicitly on its autonomy from external concerns and its reflexive awareness
of itself" (p. 26). This autonomyis not absolute:"Externalconditions rearrange

74 KURZMAN ? OWENS
materialbases for intellectual occupations, and these in turn lead to restructur-

ing networks, generatingnew alliances and oppositions in the attention space"
(p. 552). Yet Collins stressedthat "Onelayer does not reduceto another;least of
all do the contents of the philosophies"-the field on which Collins focused his
study--"reduceto the outermostmaterialandpolitical conditions"(p. 622).
The conteststhatdetermineintellectualcareersoperate,Collins argued,accord-
ing to patternsspecific to intellectuals.In particular,Collins identifiedtwo over-
archingpatterns:a "law of small numbers"that "limits how many positions can
receive widespreadattention"(pp. 38-40, 81-82), anda "clusteringof contempo-
raneouscreativity"in which "philosophersof a similarlevel of creativeeminence"
tend "to cluster in the same generations"(pp. 883-89). In the approximately75
generations since philosophy began to be recorded in writing, Collins counted
almost 2700 philosophers,but the greatestof these were not dispersedrandomly
throughouthistory. Collins identifiedhot spots in which three or more majoror
secondaryfigureswithina given culturaltraditioncoincidedin a single generation
(pp. 57-58). Collins's analysis of these hot spots focuses on the importanceof ri-
valrywithinintellectualnetworksand on the "emotionalenergyof creativity"that
"is concentratedat the centerof networks,in circles of persons encounteringone
anotherface to face. The hot periods of intellectuallife, those tumultuousgolden
ages of simultaneousinnovations,occur when several rival circles intersect at a
few metropolesof intellectualattentionanddebate"(pp. 379-80). Unlike Merton's
([1961] 1973) analysis of simultaneousscientific discoveries, which emphasized
consensusbornof a sharedsocial setting,Collins emphasizedconflict-in keeping
with his previousidentityas propagatorof "conflicttheory"(Collins [1985] 1994).
AS CLASS-BOUND
INTELLECTUALS Radical scholars continued to draw on
Gramsci's concept of organic intellectuals, dividing intellectuals by their class
position and calling for a more activistrole by those who representthe oppressed
classes (Boggs 1984, Kellner 1997, Said 1994, Sassoon 2000, Strine 1991). Case
studies included the literatureon policy intellectuals,whose service to the state
was viewed, in this approach,as legitimatingbourgeoisinterests(Domhoff 1999,
Lawrence1996, Smith 1991; for contrastingviews emphasizingpolicy intellectu-
als' potentialclass-lessness, see Gattone2000, Ollauson 1996).
Three debateshave advancedthe class-boundapproachin recent years: under
whatconditionsdo intellectualsaspireto organicity;whatdoes it meanfor anintel-
lectualto be "organic"in a community;andcan intellectualsconstructthe commu-
nity in which they claim to be organic?Crucialcases for these debateshave been
the MiddleEast, the African-Americancommunity,andnationalism,respectively.
Severalscholarsadoptingthe class-boundapproachraisedthe question:under
what conditionsdo intellectualsaspireto organicity?JeromeKarabelproposeda
series of conditions that make intellectualsmore likely to align themselves with
subordinatesocial groups, a list drawingon social-movementtheory: organized
and sharplydefined allies, weak but repressiveelites, high ratios of intellectuals
"relativelyunattached"to large-scale organizations,and well-groundedcultural
repertoiresof resistanceto authority(Karabel1996:211-14). Boggs (1993) argued

OFINTELLECTUALS
SOCIOLOGY 75
thatthe logic of capitalistrationalizationgeneratedits own dialecticopposition,the

division between technocraticand critical intellectuals,which expresseditself in
the new social movementsof the 1960s and afterward.Othercase studiesincluded
Boggs (1987), Pasquinelli(1995), and Salamini(1989) on Italy, Petras& Morley
(1990) onLatinAmerica,andBrym(1977,1978,1980,1988) on JewishMarxistin-
tellectualsin the Russianempirein the earlytwentiethcentury.Brymelaboratedhis
approachin a series of worksoverthe pastquartercentury.Like Collins's sociology
of intellectuals,Brym focused on networks(Brym 1980, 1987, 2001). However,
Brym's networkslead outside of the group,while Collins's networksare internal
to the group.In recent work, Brym emphasizedthe compatibilityof Collins's ap-
proach (and Bourdieu's,which we cover underthe class-in-itself approach)with
his own (Brym2001). Yet one might as easily emphasizethe distinctions:whereas
Collins emphasizedthe relative autonomyof intellectuals' networks, Brym em-
phasizedintellectuals'embeddednessin the class system. Citing Gramsciagainst
Mannheim,Brym examinedin particularthe case of Jewish Marxistintellectuals
in the Russianempirein the earlytwentiethcentury,whose politicalpositionswere
a functionof theirlinkageswith the workingclass (Brym 1977, 1978, 1980, 1988).
The Middle East has been the scene of considerabledebate on this issue of in-
tellectuals'becomingorganic,thoughthe Gramsciantermitself is rarelyused. The
termmost often used insteadis "authenticity," which intellectualsin the region are
said to have lost and regainedover the past century.AfterWorldWarII, andespe-
cially in the 1960s, Arabintellectualsturnedto a "quasi-magicalidentificationwith
the greatperiodof classical Arabianculture,"accordingto the famous critiqueof
AbdallahLaroui([1974] 1976:156;see also Charnay1973, Milson 1972). In Iran,
too, the turnto authenticityacceleratedin the 1960s, when intellectualsrejected
earlierWestern-orientedideologies andadoptedslogans such as "gharbzadegi(the
state of being struckby the West)"and "returnto one's (original and authentic)
self" (Gheissari 1998:88, 106). MehrzadBoroujerdirefers to this movement as
"thetormentedtriumphof nativism,"whose call for "collectiveconsciousness"ap-
pealed to Iranianintellectualssufferingfrom atomismand insecurity(Boroujerdi
1996:178). In Turkey,the process occurreda bit later, in the 1970s and 1980s,
with prominentMuslim intellectualsrejecting the European-derivedidentity of
entelektiielin favor of the more authenticidentity of aydmn,or enlightened one
(Meeker 1991:202). The irony of these claims of authenticity,noted some time
ago by WilfredCantwell Smith (1955) and repeatedby later authors,is thattheir
very expressionis, in its own terms,inauthentic,being the productof contactwith
the West. Whetherthroughcompetitionwith traditionallytrainedreligious schol-
ars, or increasing self-confidence, or changing global trends,many intellectuals
in Iran (Ashraf 2001, Jahanbegloo2000, Richard1990) and elsewhere in the Is-
lamic world (Federspiel 1998, Kurzman1998, Sagiv 1995) have recently begun
to downplayauthenticityand emphasizeglobal themes of democracyand rights.
What does it mean for an intellectual to be "organic"?Class-boundanalyses
worried about the relations between organic intellectualsand their class of ori-
gin (Karabel 1976, Said 1994, Sassoon 2000), and the issue has been central to
African-Americanintellectual debates ever since W. E. B. Du Bois called for

76 KURZMAN[ OWEN
a college-educated"talentedtenth"of the African-Americancommunityto "be

made leaders of thoughtand missionariesof cultureamong their people. ... The
Negro race, like all other races, is going to be saved by its exceptional men"
(Du Bois 1903:75; see also Dennis 1997b). The talented tenth shared much of
the cultureand treatmentthatotherAfrican-Americansexperienced,yet in recent
years, some scholars have questioned Du Bois's conception of the relationship
between"exceptional"intellectualsandthe rest of the African-Americancommu-
nity (Dennis 1997a). Some noted the marginalposition that intellectualsoccupy
withinthe community,and the suspicionwith which they are sometimesregarded
(Watts1994, West 1985). Otherswrestledwith the issue of celebrity(Young1997;
see also Debray [1979] 1981 on a similarissue in France),or chargedthat intel-
lectuals had abandonedthe African-Americancommunityin favor of careerad-
vancement(Rivers 1995). OthersarguedthatcertainAfrican-Americansunfairly
dominatedintellectualpractice-men, for example, accordingto black feminist
critiques(Collins [1990] 2000, hooks & West 1990, James 1997). These interven-
tions soughtnot to removeAfrican-Americanintellectualsfromprominencein the
community,but to urge greaterinclusivenessand representativeness.At the same
time, as the numberof African-Americanintellectualsgrows, pressurefor them to
be spokespersonsfor the race may be decreasing,allowing them to speakto more
individualexperiences(Banks 1996).
Can intellectualsconstructthe group in which they are "organic"?If so, then
Gramsci'sformulationmay be turnedon its head: Instead of groups producing
their own organicintellectuals,intellectualsmay be producingtheir own organic
groups.Eyerman(1994), for example, suggestedthat"movementintellectuals"-
citing Gramsci,butgeneralizingfrom class movementsto all social movements-
help to "constitute"groups, sometimes "tragicallyor as farce, ... projectingon
to movementstheirown needs and fantasies,"but sometimeshelping "to uncover
deep-seatedneeds andinterests"(Eyerman1994:198).This issue has been central
to debates over nationalism.The scholarlyliteratureon the subjecthas generally
recognized intellectualsas the catalysts of nationalistideologies and movements
(Anderson[1985] 1991, Hobsbawm 1990, Smith 1971, Suny & Kennedy 1999).
Yet the literaturehas disagreedover causality:whethernationalismemergesfrom
pre-existingcommunities,with intellectualsplaying only the role of midwife, or
whether nationalism involves reconfiguredcommunities that intellectuals have
foisted upon the world. The latterview might be expressed in a positive tone-a
"functioning intellectual group . . . is a vital condition for nation-building" (Alatas
1977:15)-but it has more often been expressedin criticalterms. Giesen (1998),
for example,suggestedthatintellectualsbuiltGermannationalismto gainpolitical
power commensuratewith their cultureand education,and only became organic
once they had succeeded.Similarly,Dupay (1991) arguedthatCaribbeanintellec-
tuals framedindependencemovementsin termsof fightingfor "thepeople,"then
positionedthemselves againstthe rest of the populationonce they came to powe
after decolonization. Such moves do not always succeed. In Nigeria, Williams
(1998) ro osed, intellectualswere cooptedby the state,failed to gain real power,

SOCIOLOGY
OFINTELLECTUALS 77
and turnedeventually to the pro-democracyopposition movement. Likewise in

Romania,Palade(2000) argued,intellectuals'promotionof nationalismservedto
suppressmovementsin oppositionto Communistrule, prolongingthe intellectu-
als' own subservienceto the state.In all of these cases, intellectualsappearto have
generatedtheir own organiccollective identities.
AS CLASS-IN-THEMSELVESAll of the class-bound approaches, Dick

INTELLECTUALS
Pels (2000) has argued,involvethe "metonymicfallacy of the intellectuals,"thatis,
they succumb"tothe universaldangerthatresides in the very logic of speakingfor
others:which is to disregardthat inevitablehiatus between representersand rep-
resented,or the specific sociological 'strangeness'which separatesspokespersons
fromthe subjectsor objectsthey claim to speakfor"(p. x). Intellectuals,Pels wrote,
are professional"strangers,"whose class interestit is to protecttheir "estrange-
ment"fromthe state,the market,andeven-for some he called "Bohemians"-the
university(Pels 1995, 1999, 2000). EchoingBenda,Pels suggestedthattheseforms
of estrangementgrantintellectualsan authorityneeded in contemporarypolitics.
In a similarvein, Goldfarb(1998) also focused on the structuralposition of intel-
lectuals,arguingthatintellectualsareparticularlyable to addressthe pressingneed
of democraciesto deliberateover commonproblems,to cultivatecivility in public
life, and to promote the subversionof restrictivecommon sense. There is some
evidence thatintellectualshave at times servedas the social basis of democratiza-
tion, specificallyin the firstand last decades of the twentiethcentury(Kurzman&
Leahey 2002), yet furtherempiricalwork is needed to evaluatethis rosy scenario.
If intellectualsform, at least potentially,a class, when and how do they do so?
Recent work has begun to tackle this central question. Disco (1987:62-68) ap-
proachedthe issue of class formationin theoreticalterms,focusing on the process
of "social closure"by which intellectualsmay rally to set discrete group bound-
aries, allowing them to reap returnson their culturalor human capital (see also
Aronowitz1990, Aronowitz& DiFazio 1994, Bauman1992, Murphy1988:16-21;
on social closure more generally,see Manza 1992, Murphy1988). Brint's (1994)
surveyof leadingintellectualsandperiodicalsin the UnitedStatesin the late 1980s
found that normsof professionalism-one form of social closure-were displac-
ing norms of social change. The returnson closure may be valuable indeed. In
a provocativebook thatmight revive the "new class" thesis, Hodges (2000) esti-
matedthat"professionals'pelf,"the feudal-style"tribute"thatintellectualsextract
by virtue of their claims to expertise"(p. 17), increasedmassively in the United
Statesin the last quarterof the twentiethcenturyand amountedto more thana tril-
lion dollars in the mid-1990s-more thandouble the profitsextractedfrom labor
by capitalists (pp. 109-13). The intellectuals"haveyet to formulatean ideology
expressive of theirunique class interests"(p. 162), but "the issues dividing them
pale in comparisonwith the privilegesthey have in common and theirunderlying
hostility towardlaboras the chief threatto those privileges"(p. 174).
Severalcase studies of intellectuals' solidarityhave attractedparticularschol-
arlyattention,includingthe "NewYorkintellectuals"(Bloom 1986, Cooney 1986,

78 KURZMAN? OWENS
Jacoby 1987, Jumonville 1991, Laskin 2000, Teres 1996, Wald 1987) and in-
tellectuals in post-Mao China (Calhoun 1994, Cherrington1997, English-Lueck
1997, Hao 2002, Lin 1999, Liu 2001, Mok 1998). The most intensively studied
case involved the collapse of state socialism and its aftermathin EasternEurope.
Ratherthanfocus on the role of the "newclass" in the socialist state,these authors
emphasized the oppositional identity that intellectualsdeveloped in Czechoslo-
vakia (Karabel1995), East Germany(Andrews1998, Joppke1995, Torpey1995),
Hungary (Machecewicz 1997, Bozoki 1994), Poland (Karabel 1993, Kennedy
1990), and the Soviet Union (Garcelon 1997, Kagarlitsky 1988). This identity
fracturedin the post-Communistera, accordingto a varietyof studies, with some
intellectualsadoptingstatistor professionalidentitiesthat have underminedwhat
solidarityexisted at the transitionalmoment(Borocz 1991, Eyal & Townsley1995,
Greenfield1996, Kennedy 1992, Kurczewski 1997, Mokrzycki 1995; for a con-
trastingapproachto this phenomenon,emphasizingpost-Communistintellectuals'
"free-floating"class-lessness, see Coser 1996).
With the work of PierreBourdieu,we returnfull circle to Benda's approach.
Bourdieuexpressed contemptfor the sociology of intellectuals,which he called
"very often the mere conversionof an interestedand partialvision of the weak-
nesses of one's intellectualopponentsinto a discoursethathas all the trappingsof
science" (Bourdieu 1989a:4);"neitherthe 'sociology of the intellectuals,'which
is traditionallythe businessof 'right-wingintellectuals,'nor the critiqueof 'right-
wing thought,' the traditionalspeciality of 'left-wing intellectuals,' is anything
more than a series of symbolic aggressionswhich take on additionalforce when
they dress themselves up in the impeccableneutralityof science." Each side, he
argued,"fails to include the point of view from which it speaks and so fails to
constructthe game as a whole" (Bourdieu [1979] 1984:12). More specifically,
Bourdieudistancedhimself from the class-less and class-boundapproachesto the
subject. Notions of intellectualclass-lessness, he wrote, are self-deluding:"The
ideology of the utopianthinker,rootless and unattached,'free-floating',without
interestsor profits,... scarcelyinclines intellectualsto conceptualizethe sense of
social position, still less theirown position"(Bourdieu[1979] 1984:472).Bourdieu
was equally dismissive of the "myth of the 'organic intellectual"' (Bourdieu
1989b:109) and of intellectualswho have become "'fellow travelers'-not of the
proletariatbut of second-rateintellectualsclaiming to speak on behalf of the pro-
letariat"(Bourdieu1989b:103).
Bourdieu'salternativeapproachwas to describethe propertiesof the "intellec-
tual field" as a whole (Bourdieu 1989a,b, 1990). The intellectual field is hardly
unanimousand consensual,as it comprisesnumeroussubfields,stricthierarchies,
and virulent conflict-indeed, Bourdieu acknowledged"the tendency inscribed
in the very logic of the intellectual field towards division and particularism"
(Bourdieu 1989b:109), and his extended study of French humanitiesand social
science facultiesduringthe revoltof 1968 emphasizedthe politicalimplicationsof
differentpositions in the academic field (Bourdieu [1984] 1988). For Bourdieu-
inspired surveys of intellectual fields, see Borocz & Southworth (1996) on
Hungary,Lamont(1987b,c, 1992) on Franceand the United States, McLaughlin

SOCIOLOGY
OFINTELLECTUALS 79
(1998) on the United States, Rahkonen& Roos (1993) on Finland,Ringer (1992)

on Franceand Germany,circa 1890-1920, and Verdery(1991) on Romania.
Yet Bourdieu'sconcept of "field"also stressedthe sharedinterestsof actorsin
the field,howevergravetheirdisagreements.In place of a definition,Bourdieugave
the analogyof a game:"Playersagree, by the mere fact of playing, andnot by way
of a 'contract,'thatthe game is worthplaying,thatit is 'worththe candle,' andthis
collusion is the very basis of theircompetition"(Bourdieu& Wacquant1992:98).
The value of the game lies in the appropriationand exploitationof specific forms
of capital(Bourdieu& Wacquant1992:108). In the case of intellectuals,this form
is "culturalcapital,"perhaps Bourdieu's most influentialcontributionto world
sociology, whose meaning may be approximated,if not defined, by Bourdieu's
usage of the termto refer to familiaritywith, appreciationof, and participationin
high-cultureartand science (Bourdieu[1979] 1984).2
The analogyof capitalforegroundedintellectuals'materialself-interest(Swartz
1998). Culture,in Bourdieu'sscheme, is somethingone invests in andreapsprofit
from. Intellectualswith high levels of culturalcapitaland low levels of economic
capital,for example,seek "maximum'culturalprofit'for minimumeconomiccost"
by consuming inexpensive avant-gardeart that only they understand,sneering at
the philistinetastes of the wealthy (Bourdieu[1979] 1984:270, 282). Intellectuals
also sharean "invariable"interestin autonomy,Bourdieulaterwrote, going so far
as to define intellectualsin partthroughtheirmembershipin "anintellectuallyau-
tonomousfield, one independentof religious,political,economic or otherpowers"
(Bourdieu1989b:102, 99; see Sabour1996).
Yet intellectuals' self-interestcoincides, at least potentially,with universalin-
terests. Intellectuals,accordingto Bourdieu, are the bearersof universalreason
(Bourdieu 1975, 1991). He offered three reasons why this should be so: (a) be-
cause they are dominatedby the wealthy, intellectuals"feel solidaritywith any
and all the dominated, despite the fact that, being in possession of one of the
majormeans of domination,culturalcapital,they partakeof the dominantorder;"
(b) theintellectualfieldhastraditionallyrewarded"thedefenseof universalcauses,"
so that "it is possible to rely on the symbolic profitsassociatedwith these actions
to mobilize intellectuals in favor of the universal;"and (c) intellectuals have a
"monopoly"on critical reflexivity,which allows them to examine their own "in-
terestin disinterestedness,"andthusto transcendtheirpositionof privilegethrough
"strugglefor the universalizationof the privileged conditionsof existence which
renderthe pursuit of the universalpossible" (Bourdieu 1989b:109-10; see also
Bourdieu[1980] 1993).
Accordingto Bourdieu,intellectualscomprisea class fraction-specifically, a
dominatedfractionof the dominantclass. Yet this class fraction,despite its shared
interests,does not often act collectively.Only atparticularmomentsin historyhave
intellectualstranscendedthe politicalpessimismof pureculture(class-lessness, in
2Whileintellectualsare reliantupon culturalcapital,they are not the only people with high
levels of it, and Bourdieu'sanalysis of culturalcapital in generalmay be distinctfrom his
analysis of intellectuals.

80 KURZMAN? OWENS
our terms) and the political hypocrisy of engagement(class-boundness)to mobi-

lize in defense of their own interests-most prominently,Bourdieuproposed,in
the DreyfusAffair(Bourdieu1989b:99-101). Bourdieucalledfor a revivalof intel-
lectualsolidarity--"anInternationalof Intellectuals"-in defense of intellectuals'
corporateinterests. Only when these interests are protected, Bourdieu argued,
will intellectuals be free to promote universal ideals (Bourdieu 1989b:97-99).
One century after the Dreyfus Affair rallied intellectuals on behalf of a French
Jew, Bourdieu founded an activist group, "Raisons d'Agir" (Reasons to Act),
to rally intellectuals against neoliberal globalization.Borrowinglanguage from
Bourdieu'spublications,the organization'sweb site describeditself as "a small
groupof researchers[who] felt the need to give more social and political force to
work, research,reflection, and analysis that contradictsdominantdiscourses, in
particularthe economic discoursesbroadcastdaily on television"(Raisonsd'Agir
2000a). "Itis also the outline for an autonomousintellectualcollective capableof
interveningin the political field ... [and]the collective inventionof a new type of
political engagementfor intellectuals"(Raisons d'Agir 2000b).
Bourdieu's approachdiffered from the Dreyfusards,and from later class-in-
itself approaches,in its open admissionand defense of intellectuals' self-interest.
Yet it recalled the Dreyfusardcampaignin its self-conscious mobilizationof in-
tellectuals, and in its identificationof intellectualswith universalideals. At the
end of the twentiethcentury,the sociology of intellectualsaboundedwith Benda-
like complaints about other intellectuals' treasonouspassivity and their lack of
political responsibility(Maclean et al. 1990), in particulararoundthe theme of
the "publicintellectual,"whose demise was decriedas a betrayalof intellectuals'
ideals (Donatich2001, Jacoby 1987, 1999).
The Twenty-First Century

We do not expect thatthe three approacheswe have outlinedin this essay will be
consolidatedor transcended,as they begin from distinctpremises. Yet respectful
cross-talkand cross-fertilizationmay be on the increase,as demonstrated,for ex-
ample,by Collins'sandBourdieu'sshareduse of theconceptof "culturalcapital"-
thoughthe formerhas used it primarilyto distinguishpositions withinthe intellec-
tual field, while the latterhas used it also to distinguishintellectualsfrom others
in society. In addition,the three approachesto the sociology of intellectualsface
a series of common concerns.We wish to highlightfour avenues for exploration.
CONTESTEDDEFINITIONS Readers may have noticed that this review essay does
not expend much effort in defining"intellectuals"-an approachsharedby Bour-
dieu (1989a:4), who suggested that cut-and-drieddefinitionsend up "destroying
a centralpropertyof the intellectualfield, namely, that it is the site of struggles
over who does anddoes not belong to it."We proposethatdefiningintellectualsis
less importantthanexploringhow intellectualsdefine themselves,and are defined
by others,in particularhistoricalsituations.Bauman(1987:8) has emphasizedthe
special traitof such definitions,"which makes them also differentfrom all other

SOCIOLOGY
OFINTELLECTUALS 81
definitions:they are all self-definitions,"intended to create a boundarywith the

defineron the inside. Yet intellectualidentitycan also be ascribedby outsiders,and
in hostile climates the label "intellectual"(or "egghead"or othersynonyms)may
damagea politician,a novelist, even an academic-as in the case of a historianwho
was deniedtenure,accordingto a seniormemberof his department,in partbecause
"hecaredmoreaboutbeing an intellectualthanaboutstudyingintellectualhistory."
MATERIALCONDITIONS The sociology of intellectuals has generated two im-

ages of intellectuals' materialconditions: in one image, intellectualsare surplus-
extractorsandrelativelyautonomous;in another,they areproletarianizedand sub-
jugated to the logic of the marketor the state. The polemics that surroundthese
images have rarelyconfrontedone anotherin empiricalresearch.We proposethat
such a confrontationmight fruitfullytake a comparativeapproach:comparingin-
tellectuals with other social groups, and comparingintellectuals in one setting
(geographic,sectoral, or temporal)with intellectualsin another.Whetheror not
the intellectuals in these settings self-identify as such, one might examine-for
example-how North Americansociologists who study intellectualstoday com-
pare, in termsof controlover theirlabor andremuneration,with those who did so
a half-centuryago.
CHANGING
MEDIA Much intellectual communication is mediated by the media,
andchanges in the mediaenvironmentmay disproportionatelyaffect intellectuals.
Coser ([1965] 1970) and others noted the importanceof printtechnology for the
emergenceof publicspheresassociatedwith modem intellectualcommunities,and
Kellner(1997) has suggestedthat ongoing revolutionin electronicmedia may be
creating similar opportunities.For example, the Internetoffers intellectualsnew
lines of communicationandopportunitiesto controltheirpublishedoutput(Roberts
1999, Sosteric 1996). Yet new media presentpotential threatsto intellectualsas
well. Benjamin([1955] 1969), for example, suggested that mechanicalreproduc-
tion destroysthe "aura"of art and intellectualwork, and Bourdieu([1996] 1998)
has arguedthat television turnsintellectuals'discursiveadvantage-sustained at-
tention and nuancedanalysis-into a disadvantage.The "informationexplosion"
on the Internetmay undermineintellectuals'claims of expertise.These and other
issues relatingto intellectualsin changingmediacontextsseem ripe for systematic
and comparativestudy.
IDEOLOGICALTENSIONS Intellectuals often exhibit a tension between elitism and

egalitarianism.On an ideological plane, this tension may take the form of ar-
guments against human dominationthat aspire to discursive domination.In the
political plane, the tension may mean gaining and using power in orderto erase
(otherpeople's) power. Hostile observersdismiss the egalitarianelement in view
of the elitist element; sympatheticobserversdownplay the elitist in favor of the
egalitarian,or argue-as Bourdieuhas-that intellectuals' self-interestmay even
furtheregalitariangoals. Yet intellectuals' self-interesthas not always played it-
self out so fortunately,and it strikesus as importantto understandhow elitism and

82 KURZMANa OWENS
egalitarianismhave been resolved,or remainedunresolved,in particularhistorical

junctures.The sociology of intellectualshas frequentlytaken a normativeform,
offeringvisions of how intellectualsoughtto behave.We recognizethe legitimacy
of exhortatorytropes, and we have covered many such works in this review. Yet
we wish to encouragethe study of intellectuals'actualpractice,as well.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thankJudithBlau, CharlesGattone,JeromeKarabel,Jeff Manza, John Levi
Martin,and Dick Pels for their assistance.
The AnnualReviewof Sociologyis online at http://soc.annualreviews.org
LITERATURECITED
AdornoT. [1964] 1973. TheJargon of Authen- BakuninM. [1870] 1950. The state and Marx-
ticity.Transl.KTarnowski,F Will. Evanston, ism. In Marxism, Freedom, and the State.
IL: NorthwesternUniv. Press Transl. KJ Kenafick, pp. 26-39. London:
Alatas SH. 1977. Intellectuals in Developing FreedomPress
Societies. London:Cass Banks W. 1996. Black Intellectuals:Race and
AndersonB. [1983] 1991. ImaginedCommuni- Responsibilityin AmericanLife. New York:
ties: Reflectionson the Originand Spreadof WW Norton
Nationalism.London:Verso.2nd ed. BarbagliM. [1974] 1982. Educatingfor Unem-
Anderson P. [1968] 1992. Componentsof the ployment: Politics, Labor Markets,and the
national culture. In English Questions, pp. School System-Italy, 1859-1973. Transl.
48-104. London:Verso RH Ross. New York: Columbia Univ.
Andrews M. 1998. Criticism/self-criticismin Press
East Germany:contradictionsbetween the- BaumanZ. 1987. Legislatorsand Interpreters:
ory and practice.Crit. Sociol. 24:130-53 On Modernity,Post-Modernityand Intellec-
Aron R. [1955] 1957. The Opiumof the Intel- tuals. Cambridge,UK: Polity
lectuals. Transl. T Kilmartin.Garden City, BaumanZ. 1992. Love in adversity:on the state
NY: Doubleday and the intellectuals,and the state of the in-
Aronowitz S. 1990. On intellectuals.See Rob- tellectuals.ThesisEleven 31:81-104
bins 1990, pp. 3-57 BellD. [1973] 1976. TheComingofPost-Indus-
AronowitzS, DiFazio W. 1994. Contradictions trialSociety:A Venturein Social Forecasting.
of the knowledge class: power, proletariani- New York:Basic Books
zation, and intellectuals.In The Jobless Fu- Bell D. 1979. The new class: a muddled con-
ture: Sci-Techand the Dogma of Work,pp. cept. See Bruce-Briggs 1979c, pp. 169-90
173-201. Minneapolis, MN: Univ. Minn. BendaJ. 1900.Dialogues a Byzance.Paris:Edi-
Press tions de la Revue Blanche
AshrafA, ed. 2001. Intellectualsin Contempo- Benda J. [1927] 1928. The Treasonof the In-
raryIran. (Specialissue of IntJ. Polit., Cult., tellectuals. Transl.R Aldington. New York:
Soc.) 15(2) WilliamMorrow
Bacon F. [1627] 1989. New Atlantis.InNewAt- BenjaminW. [1955] 1969. The work of art in
lantis and the Great Instauration,ed. Jerry the age of mechanicalreproduction.In Illu-
Weinberger,pp. 35-83. Arlington Heights, minations,ed. H Arendt.Trans.H Zohn, pp.
IL: HarlanDavidson 219-53. New York:Harcourt,Brace& World

Berth E. 1926. Les Mefaits des intellectuels. apart.In In Other Words:Essays Towardsa
Paris:MarcelRiviere. 2nd ed. ReflexiveSociology. Transl.M Adamson,pp.
Bloom A. 1986. Prodigal Sons: The New York 14-49. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv. Press
Intellectuals and Their World. New York: BourdieuP. 1991. The peculiarhistory of sci-
OxfordUniv. Press entific reason.Sociol. For.5:3-26
Bodin L. 1962. Les Intellectuels.Paris:Presses BourdieuP. [1996] 1998. On Television.Transl.
Universitairesde France P. P. Ferguson.New York:New Press
Bodin L. 1997. Les Intellectuels existent-ils? BourdieuP,WacquantLJD. 1992.An Invitation
Paris:BayardEditions to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: Univ.
Boggs C. 1984. The Two Revolutions:Gram- Chicago Press
sci and the Dilemmas of WesternMarxism. Bove PA. 1986. Intellectuals in Power: A Ge-
Boston, MA: South End nealogy of Critical Humanism.New York:
Boggs C. 1987. Intellectualsand the transfor- ColumbiaUniv. Press
mation of political culture in postwarItaly. Boz6ki A. 1994. Intellectualsanddemocratiza-
See Gagnon 1987a, pp. 101-20 tion in Hungary.In Social Changeand Polit-
Boggs C. 1993. Intellectualsand the Crisis of ical Transformation,ed. C Rootes, H Davis,
Modernity.Albany:State Univ. N.Y. Press pp. 149-75. London:UCL Press
Borocz J. 1991. Vanguardof the construction Brint S. 1984. "New-class" and cumulative
of capitalism?The Hungarianintellectuals' trendexplanationsof the liberalpoliticalatti-
tripto power.Crit. Sociol. 18:111-15 tudes of professionals.Am.J. Sociol. 90:30-
Borocz J, SouthworthC. 1996. Decomposing 71
the intellectuals' class power: conversionof Brint SG. 1994. In an Age of Experts: The
cultural capital to income, Hungary, 1986. Changing Role of Professionals in Politics
Soc. Forces 74:797-822 and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
BoroujerdiM. 1996. Iranian Intellectualsand Univ. Press
the West: The TormentedTriumphof Na- BrintonC. [1938] 1965. TheAnatomyof Revo-
tivism.Syracuse,NY: SyracuseUniv. Press lution.New York:Vintage.Rev.expandeded.
Bourdieu P. 1975. The specificity of the sci- Bruce-BriggsB. 1979a. An introductionto the
entific field and the social conditions of the idea of the new class. See Bruce-Briggs
progressof reason. Soc. Sci. Info. 14:19-6 1979c, pp. 1-18
BourdieuP. [1979] 1984. Distinction:A Social Bruce-BriggsB. 1979b. Enumeratingthe new
Critiqueof theJudgementof Taste.Transl.R class. See Bruce-Briggs 1979c, pp. 217-25
Nice. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press Bruce-Briggs B, ed. 1979c. The New Class?
BourdieuP. [1980] 1993. How can "free-floa- New York:McGrawHill
ting intellectuals"be set free? In Sociology Brym RJ. 1977. Democracyand the intellectu-
in Question.Transl.R Nice, pp. 41-48. Lon- als: a test of KarlMannheim'sthesis.Scottish
don: Sage J. Sociol. 1:173-82
Bourdieu P. [19841 1988. Homo Academicus. Brym RJ. 1978. The Jewish Intelligentsiaand
Transl. P. Collier. Stanford, CA: Stanford Russian Marxism:A Sociological Study of
Univ. Press IntellectualRadicalismand Ideological Di-
Bourdieu P. 1989a. An interview with Pierre vergence.London:Macmillan
Bourdieu:for a socio-analysis of intellectu- Brym RJ. 1980. Intellectualsand Politics. Lon-
als: On HomoAcademicusTransl.LJDWac- don: Allen & Unwin
quant.BerkeleyJ. Sociol. 34:1-29 BrymRJ. 1987. Thepoliticalsociology of intel-
BourdieuP. 1989b.The corporatismof the uni- lectuals:a critiqueandproposal.See Gagnon
versal:the role of intellectualsin the modem 1987a, pp. 199-209
world. Telos 81:99-110 BrymRJ. 1988. Structurallocationandideolog-
BourdieuP. 1990. The intellectualfield:a world ical divergence:Jewish Marxistintellectuals

84 KURZMAN m OWENS
in turn-of-the-centuryRussia. In Social CoserLA. 1996. The social role of EasternEu-

Structures:A NetworkApproach,ed. B Well- ropeanintellectualsreconsidered.In Culture,
man, SD Berkowitz,pp. 59-79. Cambridge, Modernityand Revolution:Essays in Hon-
UK: CambridgeUniv. Press our ofZygmuntBauman,ed. R Kilminster,I
Brym RJ. 2001. Intellectuals,sociology of. In Carvoe,pp. 166-83. London:Routledge
InternationalEncyclopediaof the Social and Daniels AK. 1975. Feministperspectivesin so-
BehavioralSciences,ed. NJ Smelser,PB Bal- ciological research.In AnotherVoice:Femi-
tes, 11:7631-35. Oxford,UK: Elsevier Sci. nist Perspectives on Social Life and Social
Calhoun CJ. 1994. Neither Gods Nor Emper- Science, ed. M Millman, RM Kanter, pp.
ors: Studentsand the Strugglefor Democ- 340-80. GardenCity, NY: Anchor
racy in China. Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif. DahrendorfR. [1953] 1969. The intellectual
Press and society: the social functionof the "fool"
CampanellaT. [1602] 1981. TheCityofthe Sun. in the twentiethcentury.See Rieff 1969, pp.
Transl.DJ Donno.Berkeley,CA: Univ.Calif. 53-56
Press de Huszar GB, ed. 1960. The Intellectuals:
CharnayJP. 1973. The Arab intellectual bet- A ControversialPortrait.Glencoe, IL: Free
ween power andculture.Diogenes 83:40-63 Press
Cherrington R. 1997. Deng's Generation: Debray R. [1979] 1981. Teachers, Writers,
Young Intellectuals in 1980s China. New Celebrities: The Intellectuals of Modern
York:St. Martin's France. London:New Left
Chomsky N. 1969. American Power and the Dennis RM, ed. 1997a. TheBlackIntellectuals.
New Mandarins.New York:Pantheon Specialissue of Researchin Race and Ethnic
ChomskyN. 1978. Intellectualsand the State. Relations 10. Greenwich,CT:JAIPress
Baar, Netherlands:Wereldvenster Dennis RM. 1997b. W.E.B. Du Bois and the
Collins PH. [1990] 2000. Black Feminist traditionof radicalintellectualthought. See
Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and Dennis 1997a, pp. xi-xxiv
the Politics of Empowerment.New York: Disco C. 1987. Intellectualsin advancedcap-
Routledge.Rev. ed. italism: capital, closure, and the new-class
Collins R. 1979. The Credential Society: An thesis. See Eyermanet al. 1987, pp. 50-77
HistoricalSociology of Educationand Strat- Djilas M. 1957. TheNew Class: An Analysis of
ification.New York:Academic Press the CommunistSystem.New York:Praeger
Collins R. [1985] 1994. FourSociological Tra- DomhoffGW. 1999. WhoRulesAmerica2000.
ditions. New York:OxfordUniv. Press. Rev. New York:Simon & Schuster
ed. DominelliL, Hoogvelt A. 1996. The Tayloriza-
CollinsR. 1998. TheSociologyofPhilosophies: tion of intellectuallabour.See Lawrence &
A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Dobler 1996, pp. 60-87
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press Donatich J, ed. 2001. The futureof the public
Comte A. [1822] 1969. Plan of the scientific intellectual:a forum.TheNation Feb. 12, pp.
operationsnecessary for reorganizingsoci- 25-35
ety. See Rieff 1969, pp. 248-82 Du Bois WEB. 1903. The talentedtenth.In BT
ConfinoM. 1972. On intellectualsandintellec- Washington,et al.,The Negro Problem, pp.
tual traditionsin eighteenth-and nineteenth- 33-75. New York:Pott
centuryRussia. Daedalus 101:117-49 Dupay A. 1991. Political intellectuals in the
Cooney TA. 1986. The Rise of the New York ThirdWorld:the Caribbeancase. See Lemert
Intellectuals:PartisanReviewand its Circle. 1991, pp. 74-93
Madison,WI: Univ. Wisc. Press Durkheim E. [1893] 1984. The Division of
Coser LA. [1965] 1970. Men of Ideas: A Soci- Labour in Society.Transl.W. D. Halls. New
ologist's View.New York:Free Press York:Free Press

DurkheimE. [1898] 1973. Individualismand liberaldemocracies.See Gagnon 1987a, pp.

the intellectuals. Transl. M. Traugott. In 3-16
Moralityand Society,ed. RN Bellah, pp. 43- Garcelon M. 1997. The estate of change: the
57. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press specialistrebellionandthedemocraticmove-
EhrenreichB, EhrenreichJ. 1979. The profes- ment in Moscow, 1989-1991. Theory Soc.
sional-managerialclass. See Walker 1979, 26:39-85
pp. 5-45 GattoneC. 2000. The role of the intellectualin
English-Lueck JA. 1997. Chinese Intellectu- public affairs:changing perspectives in the
als on the WorldFrontier:Blazing the Black modem era. Theory Sci. 1.http://theoryand
Path. Westport,CT:Bergin & Garvey science.icaap.org/content/vol001.001/02gat
Etzioni-HalevyE. 1985. The KnowledgeElite tone.html
and theFailureof Prophecy.London:George GellaA, ed. 1976. TheIntelligentsiaand theIn-
Allen & Unwin tellectuals:Theory,Method,and Case Study.
Eyal G, Townsley E. 1995. The social com- Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
position of the Communistnomenklatura:a GheissariA. 1998. Iranian Intellectuals in the
comparisonof Russia, Poland and Hungary. 20th Century.Austin, TX: Univ. TexasPress
TheorySoc. 24:723-50 Giesen B. 1998. Intellectualsand the German
EyermanR. 1994. Between Cultureand Poli- Nation: CollectiveIdentityina GermanAxial
tics: Intellectuals in Modern Society. Cam- Age. Transl.N. Levis. Cambridge,UK:Cam-
bridge, UK: Polity bridgeUniv. Press
EyermanR, Svennson LG, S'derqvist T, eds. Goldfarb,JC. 1998. Civility and Subversion:
1987. Intellectuals, Universities, and the TheIntellectualinDemocraticSociety.Cam-
State in WesternModernSocieties. Berkeley, bridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press
CA: Univ. Calif. Press GouldnerAW. 1979. The Future of Intellectu-
FederspielHM. 1998. Indonesia in Transition: als and theRise of theNew Class. New York:
MuslimIntellectualsand National Develop- Seabury
ment.Commack,NY: Nova Sci. Publ. Gouldner AW. 1985. Against Fragmentation:
FichteJG. [1794] 1988. ThePurpose of Higher The Originsof Marxismand theSociology of
Education,Also Knownas the Vocationof the Intellectuals.New York:OxfordUniv. Press
Scholar. Mt. Savage, MD: Nightsun Books GramsciA. [1929-1935] 1971. Selectionsfrom
FinkL, LeonardST,Reid DM, eds. 1996. Intel- the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci.
lectuals and Public Life. Ithaca,NY: Cornell Transl.Q Hoare, GN Smith. New York:Int.
Univ. Press Publ.
Foucault M, Deleuze G. [1972] 1973. The in- GramsciA. [1932] 1971. The intellectuals.See
tellectualsand power.Telos 16:103-9 Gramsci[1929-1935] 1971, pp. 5-23
FoucaultM. [1977] 1984. Truthand power.In Gramsci A. [1932] 1995. Croce and Julien
TheFoucaultReader,ed. P.Rabinow,pp. 51- Benda.In FurtherSelectionsfrom thePrison
75. New York:Pantheon Notebooks. Transl. D Boothman, p. 470.
Frentzel-ZagorskaJ, Zagorska K. 1989. East Minneapolis,MN: Univ. Minn. Press
Europeanintellectualson the roadto dissent: GreenfieldL. 1996. The bittertaste of success:
the old prophecyof a new class re-examined. reflectionson the intelligentsiain post-Soviet
Politics Soc. 7:67-88 Russia. Soc. Res. 63:417-38
Fridj6nsd6ttirK. 1987. The modem intellec- HackerA. 1987. Two "new classes" or none?
tual: in power or disarmed?See Eyerman, See Bruce-Briggs 1979c, pp. 155-68
Svennson, & S6derqvist 1987, pp. 110-26 Hamon H, RotmanP. 1981. Les intellocrates:
GagnonAG, ed. 1987a.Intellectualsin Liberal Expedition en haute intelligentsia. Paris:
Democracies. New York:Praeger EditionsRamsay
GagnonAG. 1987b.The role of intellectualsin Hao Z. 2002. Intellectualsat a Crossroads:The

86 KURZMAN * OWENS
ChangingPolitics of the ChineseKnowledge KarabelJ. 1993. Polishintellectualsandthe ori-

Workers.Albany,NY: StateUniv.N.Y.Press. gins of Solidarity:the making of an opposi-
In press tional alliance. CommunistPost-Communist
HobsbawmEJ. 1990. Nations and Nationalism Stud.26:25-46
since 1780: Programme,Myth,Reality.Cam- KarabelJ. 1995. The revolt of the intellectu-
bridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press als: the Prague Spring and the politics of
Hodges DC. 2000. Class Politics in the Infor- reform Communism.Res. Soc. Movements,
mationAge. Urbana,IL: Univ. Ill. Press ConflictsChange 18:93-143
Hofstadter R 1963. Anti-Intellectualism in Karabel J. 1996. Towards a theory of intel-
AmericanLife. New York:Knopf lectuals and politics. Theory Soc. 25:205-
hooks b, West C. 1991. Breaking Bread: In- 33
surgentBlackIntellectualLife. Boston, MA: Katsiaficas G. 1987. The Imagination of the
South End New Left:A GlobalAnalysisofl 968. Boston,
HourmantF. 1997. Le Desenchantementdes MA: South End
clercs: Figuresde l'intellectueldans I'apres- Kellner H, HeubergerFW, eds. 1992. Hidden
Mai 68. Rennes, France: Presses Univ. de Technocrats:TheNew Class and New Capi-
Rennes talism. New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction
Jacoby R. 1987. The Last Intellectuals. New Kellner D. 1997. Intellectuals,the new public
York:Basic Books spheres,and techno-politics.New Polit. Sci.
Jacoby R. 1999. Intellectuals:from utopia to 41-42:169-88
myopia. In The End of Utopia: Politics and Kennedy MD. 1990. The constitutionof crit-
Culturein a Age ofApathy,pp. 101-24. New ical intellectuals: Polish physicians, peace
York:Basic Books activists and democraticcivil society. Stud.
JahanbeglooR. 2000. Iran:The role of the in- Compar.Communism23:281-304
tellectuals.J. Democ. 11:135-38 Kennedy MD. 1992. The intelligentsia in the
James J. 1997. Transcending the Talented constitutionof civil societies and post-com-
Tenth:BlackLeadersandAmericanIntellec- munistregimesin HungaryandPoland.The-
tuals. New York:Routledge ory Soc. 21:29-76
JamesW. 1912. The social value of the college KoenkerD, BachmanRD, eds. 1997. Revela-
bred. In Memoriesand Studies,pp. 309-25. tionsfrom the RussianArchives:Documents
London:Longmans,Green in English Translation.Washington,DC: Li-
JenningsJ, Kemp-WelchA, eds. 1997.Intellec- braryof Congress
tuals in Politics: From the DreyfusAffair to KolakowskiL. 1972. Intellectualsagainstintel-
SalmanRushdie.London:Routledge lect. Daedalus 101:1-15
Johnson P. 1988. Intellectuals. London: Wei- KonradG, SzelenyiI. 1979. TheIntellectualson
denfeld & Nicolson theRoad to Class Power.Transl.A Arato,RE
Joppke C. 1995. East GermanDissidents and Allen. New York:HarcourtBraceJovanovich
theRevolutionof 1989: Social Movementin a Kotschnig WM. 1937. Unemploymentin the
LeninistRegime.New York:N.Y. Univ.Press LearnedProfessions. London:Oxford Univ.
Jumonville N. 1991. Critical Crossings: The Press, HumphreyMilford
New YorkIntellectuals in PostwarAmerica. KraushaarW. 1998. 1968: Das Jahr,das alles
Berkeley,CA: Univ. Calif. Press verdnderthat. Munich,Germany:Piper
KagarlitskyB. 1988. The ThinkingReed: In- KriesiH. 1989. New social movementsand the
tellectuals and the Soviet State, 1917 to the new class in the Netherlands.Am. J. Sociol.
Present. Transl.B Pearce.London:Verso 94:1078-1116
KarabelJ. 1976. Revolutionarycontradictions: Kurczewski J. 1997. Intellectuals and social
Antonio Gramsci and the problem of intel- movementsin processof transformation. Pol-
lectuals.Politics Soc. 6:123-72 ish Sociol. Rev. 3:211-26

KurzmanC, ed. 1998. LiberalIslam:A Source- Lipset SM. 1959. Americanintellectuals:their

Book. New York:OxfordUniv. Press politics and status.Daedalus 88:460-86
KurzmanC. 2003. Democracy Denied, 1905- LipsetSM, BasuA. 1975. Intellectualtypes and
1915: Intellectualsand the Fate of Constitu- political roles. In The Idea of Social Struc-
tional Revolutions.In press ture, ed. L Coser, pp. 433-70. New York:
KurzmanC, LeaheyE. 2002. Intellectualsas the HarcourtBrace
social basis of democratization,1905-1912 Lipset SM, Dobson RB. 1972. The intellectual
and 1989-1996. In press as critic and rebel. Daedalus 101:137-98
LamontM. 1987a. Culturalcapital and the lib- Liu M. 2001. IntellectualDissidents in China.
eralpolitical attitudesof professionals:com- Lewiston,NY: Edwin Mellen Press
ment on Brint.Am. J. Sociol. 92:1501-5 Machecewicz P. 1997. Intellectuals and mass
LamontM. 1987b.How to become a dominant movements:the study of political dissent in
Frenchphilosopher:the case of JacquesDer- Poland in 1956. Contemp.Eur.Hist. 6:361-
rida.Am. J. Sociol. 93:584-622 82
Lamont M. 1987c. The productionof culture Maclean I, MontefioreA, Winch P, eds. 1990.
in Franceand the United States since World The Political Responsibilityof Intellectuals.
WarII. See Gagnon 1987a, pp. 167-78 Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press
LamontM. 1992. Intellectualsand intellectual MakhaiskiJW [Vol'skiiA]. [1899] 1979. Le So-
subcultures.InMoney,Moralsand Manners: cialisme des intellectuels. Transl. J Skirda.
The Culture of the French and American Paris:Editionsdu Seuil
Upper-MiddleClass, pp. 110-14. Chicago, Mannheim K. [1929] 1985. The sociological
IL: Univ. Chicago Press problemof the "intelligentsia."In Ideology
LarouiA. [1974] 1976. The Crisis of the Arab and Utopia. Transl. L Wirth, E Shils, pp.
Intellectual. Transl. D Cammell. Berkeley, 153-64. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace
CA: Univ. Calif. Press Jovanovich
Lasch C. 1965. The New Radicalism in Amer- MannheimK. [ 1932] 1993. The sociology of in-
ica, 1889-1963: The Intellectualas a Social tellectuals.Transl.D Pels. Theory,Cult.Soc.
Type.New York:Alfred A. Knopf 10:369-80
Laskin D. 2000. Partisans:Marriage,Politics, MannheimK. 1956. The problemof the intelli-
and Betrayal among the New YorkIntellec- gentsia. In Essays on the Sociology of Cul-
tuals. New York:Simon & Schuster ture, pp. 91-170. London: Routledge &
Lawrence PK. 1996. Intellectuals and the KeganPaul
American security state. See Lawrence & ManzaJ. 1992. Classes, statusgroups, and so-
Dobler 1996, pp. 151-79 cial closure: a critiqueof neo-Weberianso-
LawrencePK, DoblerM, eds. 1996. Knowledge cial theory. Curr.Perspect. in Soc. Theory
and Power: The ChangingRole of European 12:275-302
Intellectuals.Aldershot,UK: Avebury Martin B, Szel6nyi I. 1987. Beyond cultural
LemertC, ed. 1991. Intellectualsand Politics: capital: toward a theory of symbolic dom-
Social Theory in a Changing World.New- ination. See Eyerman et al. 1987, pp. 16-
buryPark,CA: Sage 49
Levy R. 1931. Intellectuels, unissez-vous! McGowan JP. 2002. Democracy's Children:
Paris:MarcelRiviere Intellectuals and the Rise of Cultural Pol-
Lenin VI. [19021 1975. What is to be done? itics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press. In
In The Lenin Anthology,ed. RC Tucker,pp. press
12-114. New York:WW Norton McLaughlinN. 1998. How to become a forgot-
Lin M. 1999. The Searchfor Modernity:Chi- ten intellectual:intellectualmovements and
nese Intellectualsand CulturalDiscourse in the rise andfall of ErichFromm.Soc. Forum
the Post-MaoEra. New York:St. Martin's 13:215-46

88 KURZMAN * OWENS
Meeker ME. 1991. The new Muslim intellec- O'Boyle L. 1970. The problem of an excess
tuals in the Republic of Turkey.In Islam in of educatedmen in WesternEurope (1800-
Modern Turkey,ed. R Tapper,pp. 189-219. 1850). J. ModernHist. 42:471-95
London:IB Tauris OllausonL. 1996. The intellectualas social en-
MertonRK. [1945] 1968. Role of the intellec- gineer:GunnarMyrdaland the formationof
tual in public bureaucracy.In Social Theory the good society. See Lawrence & Dobler
and Social Structure,pp. 261-78. New York: 1996, pp. 37-59
Free Press. Enlargeded. PaladeB. 2000. The Romanianutopia:the role
MertonRK. [1961] 1973. Singletons and mul- of the intelligentsiain the Communistimple-
tiples in scientificdiscoveries.In TheSociol- mentationof a new human paradigm.Crit.
ogy of Science, ed. NW Storer,pp. 343-70. Rev.Int. Soc. Polit. Philos. 3:107-15
Chicago, IL: Univ. ChicagoPress ParsonsT. 1969."Theintellectual":a socialrole
Michels R. 1932. Intellectuals.InEncyclopedia category.See Rieff 1969, pp. 3-26
of the Social Sciences, ed. ERA Seligman, Pasquinelli C. 1995. From organic to neo-
8:118-26. New York:Macmillan corporatistintellectuals:the changing rela-
Mills CW. [1944] 1963. The social role of the tions between Italianintellectualsand polit-
intellectual. In Power, Politics and People, ical power.Media, Cult. Soc. 17:413-25
ed. IL Horowitz, pp. 292-304. New York: Pels D. 1995. Knowledge politics and anti-
Ballantine politics: towarda critical appraisalof Bour-
Mills CW. [1959] 1963. The culturalapparatus. dieu's conceptof intellectualautonomy.The-
In Power,Politics and People, ed. IL Horo- ory & Soc. 24:79-104
witz, pp. 405-22. New York:Ballantine Pels D. 1999. Privileged nomads: on the
Milson M. 1972. Medievalandmodem intellec- strangenessof intellectualsand the intellec-
tual traditionsin the Arab world. Daedalus tualityof strangers.Theory,Cult.Soc. 16:63-
101:17-37 86
Mohan RP, ed. 1987. The Mythmakers:Intel- Pels D. 2000. The Intellectual as Stranger:
lectuals and theIntelligentsiain Perspective. Studiesin Spokespersonship.London:Rout-
New York:Greenwood ledge
Mok KH. 1998. Intellectuals and the State in Petras J, Morley M. 1990. The metamorpho-
Post-MaoChina. New York:St. Martin's sis of Latin America's intellectuals.In U.S.
Mokrzycki E. 1995. Is the intelligentsia still Hegemonyunder Siege: Class, Politics, and
neededin Poland?Polish Sociol. Rev.4:341- Developmentin Latin America,pp. 147-56.
48 London:Verso
MolnarT. 1961. TheDecline of theIntellectual. Pipes R, ed. 1961. The Russian Intelligentsia.
Cleveland,OH: WorldPubl. New York:ColumbiaUniv. Press
MurphyR. 1988. Social Closure:TheTheoryof Plato. [360 B.C.] 2000. TheRepublic,ed. GRF
Monopolizationand Exclusion.Oxford,UK: Ferrari.Transl.T Griffith.Cambridge,UK:
Clarendon CambridgeUniv. Press
Nahimy VC. 1983. TheRussianIntelligentsia: Pryor FL. 1981. The 'new class': analysis of
From Tormentto Silence. New Brunswick, the concept, the hypothesis,andthe idea as a
NJ: Transaction researchtool. Am.J. Econ. Sociol. 40:367-79
Nichols R. 1978. Treason, Tradition,and the Radhakrishnan R. 1990. Towardan effective in-
Intellectual:JulienBenda and Political Dis- tellectual. See Robbins 1990, pp. 57-99
course. Lawrence, KS: Regents Press of RahkonenK, Roos JP. 1993. The field of intel-
Kansas lectuals:the case of Finland.Int.J. Contemp.
Nomad M. 1937. Masters-old and new. In The Sociol. 30:154-72
Making of Society, ed. VF Calverton, pp. Raisons d'Agir 2000a.Qui sommes-nous?
882-93. New York:Modem Lib. http://www.agir.msh-paris.fr

Raisons d'Agir. 2000b. Un intellectuelcollec- and Democracy, pp. 145-55. New York:
tif autonome. http://www.agir.msh-paris.fr/ Harper
rdaassoc.html Schwarcz V. 1986. The Chinese Enlighten-
Richard Y 1990. Clercs et intellectuels de la ment:Intellectualsand theLegacyof theMay
RepubliqueIslamiqued'Iran.In Intellectuels Fourth Movement of 1919. Berkeley, CA:
et militants de l'lslam contemporain,ed. G Univ. Calif. Press
Kepel, Y Richard,pp. 29-70. Paris:Seuil Scott A. 1997. Between autonomyandrespon-
Rieff P, ed. 1969. On Intellectuals: Theoreti- sibility: Max Weberon scholars, academics
cal Studies, Case Studies. GardenCity, NY: and intellectuals. See Jennings & Kemp-
Doubleday Welch 1997, pp. 45-64
RingerFK. 1992. Fields of Knowledge:French Shils E. [1958] 1972. The intellectualsand the
Academic Culturein ComparativePerspec- powers: some perspectives for comparative
tive, 1990-1920. Cambridge, UK: Cam- analysis. In The Intellectuals and the Pow-
bridge Univ. Press; Paris: Ed. de la Maison ers and OtherEssays, pp. 3-22. Chicago,IL:
des Sci. de l'Homme Univ. Chicago Press
Rivers E mII.1995. Beyond the nationalismof Shils E. 1961. The Intellectual Between Tra-
fools: towardan agendafor Black intellectu- dition and Modernity:The Indian Situation.
als. Boston Rev. 20:16-18 The Hague, Netherlands:Mouton
Robbins B, ed. 1990. Intellectuals:Aesthetics, Shils E. 1962.PoliticalDevelopmentin theNew
Politics,Academics.Minneapolis,MN:Univ. States. Gravenhage,Netherlands:Mouton
Minn. Press Shils E. 1968. Intellectuals.InInternationalEn-
Roberts P. 1999. Scholarly publishing, peer cyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. DL
review, and the Internet.First Monday4(4), Sills, 7:399-415. New York:Macmillan &
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4-4/ Free Press
proberts ShlapentokhV. 1990. Soviet Intellectuals and
Ross A. 1989. No Respect: Intellectuals and PoliticalPower:ThePost-StalinEra. Prince-
PopularCulture.New York:Routledge ton, NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press
SabourM. 1996. Betweenpatronageandauton- SmithAD. 1971. Theoriesof Nationalism.Lon-
omy: the position of intellectualsin modern don: Duckworth
society. See Lawrence & Ddbler 1996, pp. SmithJA. 1991. TheIdea Brokers:ThinkTanks
11-24 and the Rise of the New Policy Elite. New
SadriA. 1992. Max Weber'sSociology of Intel- York:Free Press
lectuals. New York:OxfordUniv. Press SmithWC. 1955. The intellectualsin the mod-
Sagiv D. 1995. Fundamentalismand Intellec- em developmentof the Islamic world.In So-
tuals in Egypt, 1973-1993. London:F. Cass cial Forces in theMiddleEast, ed. SN Fisher,
Said EW. 1994. Representationsof theIntellec- pp. 190-205. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ.
tual. London:Vintage Press
Salamini L. 1989. Intellectuals and politics: Sosteric M. 1996. Electronic journals: The
from Marxto Berlinguer.Int.J. Compar.So- grand information future? Elec. J. Sociol.
ciol. 30:139-58 2(2), http://www.sociology.org/content/vol
Sarfatti-LarsonM. 1977. The Rise of Profes- 002.002/sosteric.html
sionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berke- StrineMS. 1991. Criticaltheory and "organic"
ley, CA: Univ. Calif. Press intellectuals: Reframing the work of cul-
SassoonAS. 2000. Gramsciand Contemporary tural critique. Commun. Monogr. 58:195-
Politics: Beyond Pessimism of the Intellect. 201
London:Routledge Suny RG, KennedyMD, eds. 1999. Intellectu-
Schumpeter JA. 1942. The sociology of als and the Articulationof the Nation. Ann
the intellectual. In Capitalism, Socialism, Arbor,MI: Univ. Mich. Press

90 KURZMAN * OWENS
SwartzDL. 1998. Universalismandparochial- WalkerP, ed. 1979. Between Labourand Cap-

ism: How Gouldner and Bourdieu under- ital. Hassocks, UK: HarvesterPress
stand the interests of intellectuals. Pres. Watts JG. 1994. Heroism and the Black In-
Annu. Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc., 93rd, San tellectual:Ralph Ellison, Politics, and Afro-
Francisco AmericanIntellectualLife. ChapelHill, NC:
Szelenyi I. 1982a. Gouldner'stheory of intel- Univ. N. CarolinaPress
lectuals as a flawed universalclass. Theory WeberM.[1919] 1946. Science as a vocation.In
Soc. 11:779-98 FromMax Weber,ed. HH Gerth,CW Mills,
Szel6nyiI. 1982b.The intelligentsiain the class pp. 129-56. New York:OxfordUniv. Press
structureof state-socialist societies. Am. J. WeberA. [1923] 1999. Die Not der geistigen
Sociol. 88(Suppl.):287-326 Arbeiter. In Alfred WeberGesamtausgabe,
Szelenyi I. 1986-87.The prospectsandlimits of ed. E Demm, 7:579-639. Marburg, Ger-
theEastEuropeannew classproject:An auto- many:Metropolis
criticalreflectionon The Intellectualson the West C. 1985. The dilemmaof the Black intel-
Road to Class Power.Politics Soc. 15:103- lectual. Cult. Critique1:109-24
44 WilliamsA. 1998. Intellectualsandthe crisis of
Szelenyi I, MartinB. 1988. The threewaves of democratizationin Nigeria:towardsa theory
new class theories.TheorySoc. 17:645-67 of postcolonialanomie.TheorySoc. 27:287-
Teres HM. 1996. Renewing the Left: Politics, 307
Imagination,and the New YorkIntellectuals. Wrong D. [1983] 1998. The new class: Does
New York:OxfordUniv. Press it exist? In The Modern Condition:Essays
Torpey J. 1995. Intellectuals, Socialism, and at Century'sEnd, pp. 99-113. Stanford,CA:
Dissent: The East German Opposition and StanfordUniv. Press
Its Legacy. Minneapolis, MN: Univ. Minn. Wrong D. 1998. Knowledge and power: intel-
Press lectuals, universities,and the class structure.
TurnerBS. 1994. Ideology and utopia in the In The Modern Condition: Essays at Cen-
formationof an intelligentsia:Reflectionson tury'sEnd, pp. 114-30. Stanford,CA: Stan-
the English culturalconduit.In Orientalism, ford Univ. Press
Postmodernism,and Globalism,pp. 144-63. YoungAA, Jr. 1997. Political engagementand
London:Routledge AfricanAmericanscholars in the age of the
Verdery K. 1991. National Ideology Under AfricanAmericanintellectualcelebrity.See
Socialism: Identityand CulturalPolitics in Dennis 1997a, pp. 117-46
Ceausescu's Romania. Berkeley,CA: Univ. Young MD. 1958. The Rise of the Meritoc-
Calif. Press racy, 1870-2033: An Essay on Education
Wald AM. 1987. The New YorkIntellectuals: and Equality.London:Thames& Hudson
theRise andDecline oftheAnti-StalinistLeft ZnanieckiF. 1940. The Social Role of the Man
from the 1930s to the 1980s. ChapelHill, NC: of Knowledge. New York: Columbia Univ.
Univ. N. CarolinaPress Press


Kurzman, C., & Owens, L. The Sociology of Intellectuals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kurzman, C., & Owens, L. The Sociology of Intellectuals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sociology of Intellectuals

Author(s): Charles Kurzman and Lynn Owens

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

THE SOCIOLOGYOF INTELLECTUALS

Key Words academic,class-less,organic,professional,"newclass"

The sociology of intellectuals,like its subjectsof study,hashada checkeredhistory.

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

class-less approach,and Brym (2001) adoptinga class-bound approach.Our re-

The Foundingof the Field

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

traditions,as they have;ourmotto,too, is noblesse oblige; andunlikethem,we

[H]ereis an entirephalanxof people who not only conceive of generalideas,

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

worriedthat the break-upof the intellectualclass might be permanent."Itis hard

AS CLASS-BOUND Antonio Gramsci, the Italian communist, crit-

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

form a single group,but are dividedinto subsetsthatemergefrom and serve other

AS CLASS-LESSKarl Mannheim, an exiled Hungarian social-

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

Foundingfigure: Benda Gramsci Mannheim

These threeapproacheshave continuedto shapethe field duringsubsequentwaves

AS CLASS-LESSThis approach came to dominate the field in the

'These categories suggest a fourthpossibility, in which intellectualsform a distinct class

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

and"thedoubleimperativesof the maximal(thoughalways imperfect)objectivity

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

AS CLASS-BOUNDVarious radical scholars viewed this call for in-

AS CLASS-IN-THEMSELVESThe heroic Dreyfusard image of the in-

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

self-conscious stratumof intellectualswith a peculiarethos and sense of calling"

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

of criticaldiscourse"thatgains authoritynot throughforce but throughthe power

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

materialbases for intellectual occupations, and these in turn lead to restructur-

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

thatthe logic of capitalistrationalizationgeneratedits own dialecticopposition,the

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

a college-educated"talentedtenth"of the African-Americancommunityto "be

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

and turnedeventually to the pro-democracyopposition movement. Likewise in

AS CLASS-IN-THEMSELVESAll of the class-bound approaches, Dick

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

(1998) on the United States, Rahkonen& Roos (1993) on Finland,Ringer (1992)

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

our terms) and the political hypocrisy of engagement(class-boundness)to mobi-

The Twenty-First Century

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

definitions:they are all self-definitions,"intended to create a boundarywith the

MATERIALCONDITIONS The sociology of intellectuals has generated two im-

IDEOLOGICALTENSIONS Intellectuals often exhibit a tension between elitism and

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

egalitarianismhave been resolved,or remainedunresolved,in particularhistorical

The AnnualReviewof Sociologyis online at http://soc.annualreviews.org

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

in turn-of-the-centuryRussia. In Social CoserLA. 1996. The social role of EasternEu-

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

DurkheimE. [1898] 1973. Individualismand liberaldemocracies.See Gagnon 1987a, pp.

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM

ChangingPolitics of the ChineseKnowledge KarabelJ. 1993. Polishintellectualsandthe ori-

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Fri, 3 May 2013 15:45:26 PM