REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Ideal of Intellectual Community The subsociety hypothesis formulated by Gordon (1964) maintains that American intellectuals such patterned ways as to form at least elementary structure of a subsociety of their (p. 224). As Gordon further claims, this subsociety only one American life which of different ethnic backgrounds interact primary group relations with considerable frequency and with relative comfort and ease (p. 224). This simple but elegant concept has shaped much of subsequent discourse about and group membership. The term intellectual has few competitors for number of definitions supplied by scholarly literature. Therefore, present study, rather than make a heroic (but likely futile) effort to reconcile many and varied definitions of term offered by scholars, artists, and lay persons, adopts Gordon's (1954-55) definition as an operational anchor. Gordon identifies as intellectuals people for whom ideas, concepts, literature, music, painting, dance have intrinsic meaning (p. 518). In his model, particulars of ethnicity, gender, class, or national origin have no legitimate bearing on an individuals' standing as an intellectual. Gordon acknowledges pull of ethnic concerns on some thinkers whom he describes as actively or passively committed ethnic intellectuals who blend ethnic concerns to varying degrees with their passion for intellectualism. However, he surmises that such individuals are a distinct minority within ethnic population, and claims that large majority of ethnic intellectuals operate as marginally ethnic These persons, Gordon's view, finding ethnic communality unsatisfactory, wear their ethnicity lightly (p. 228).(1) Accordingly, what binds this subsociety or community of intellectuals together is not or other sentimental features, but a commitment to ideas, universals, and place of reason affairs of humans. Shils (1967) affirms idea of an community, concluding that in its territorial scope and its criteria of it is the most of communities (p. 2). While his views parallel those of Gordon, Shils rejects place of what he calls properties--that is, kinship, locality, tribe or territory--as qualifications or disqualifications for standing, and tactfully concedes that ideal of universal community is but myth. As Shils notes, Of course practice, primordial membership and properties are sometimes operative governing admission to membership particular corporate institutions, but those who apply them know they are contravening rules of community. (p. 2) Institutions that recruit and train American intellectuals--namely, colleges, universities, and other training centers-tend to be committed to universalistic ideal advanced by Shils and Gordon. Consequently, aspiring intellectuals matriculating at these institutions frequently find their attachments to ethnicity, region, and religion challenged and undermined by universalistic ethos. Shils approvingly notes process, and reasons that emphasis on universalistic values higher education produces a group or class that is separated from bonds and sentiments of their precollegiate experience. He further hypothesizes that as intellectuals complete their training and go on to work academic settings, they find themselves contact predominantly with persons who have undergone same process, and such peers become their new community or reference group. The premise that intellectuals should be detached from group affiliations was challenged by Gramsci (1977), who maintains that social groups could and should generate their own distinct intellectuals. Unimpressed with abstract quality of much that passed for intellectualism modern Europe, Gramsci claims that groundedness is necessary for some groups to ensure relevance of their work (p. …