I think you have that backwards. A non-intellectual would most likely not have read Rawls or Adorno (except for the poetry), and would treat a reference to either indifferently or suspiciously -- no particular take on it would be obvious to them. In order to think (outside of blind prejudice) that the reference was obviously anything, the thinker would have to be aware of not only of the contents of the work in question but the current aura and buzz surrounding it in those circles where such things have aura and buzz, to wit, the professional environment. If the wind was right....
Carrol Cox:
> This post represents progress on a definition, but this part won't quite
> do. If "intellectual" names a social function, which I think is what you
> are after, the definition can't include a concealed (or open) evaluative
> factor. In fact, it must cover both stupid and intelligent (as well as
> mediocre) intellectuals -- that is, the connection with intelligence
> (which, I agree with Gould, doesn't exist anyhow) must be broken. Being
> an intellectual involves a certain kind of _use_ of the intellect but
> says nothing about the quality of the intellect involved. Doolittle, who
> if I remember correctly, more or less first worked out the use of air
> power for terrorist purposes, was I think operating as an intellectual,
> not a technician. He was placing the technical question in a broader
> (though offensive) context.
A _bourgeois_ context, since the bourgeoisie and its culture constitute the established order, at least in America. So, if the intellectual is discernably a ruling-class operative, this might go far to explain the supposed hostility to them among other classes, orders, and castes: Hofstadter's tragic- irony victims turn out to be class-war casualties, along with doctors, lawyers and Congressmen, but probably of lower rank.
But after the revolution, when the bourgeois order has been swept away, what services will the Adorno-readers and the truck-drivers perform for one another, other than light entertainment, and what claims will they have? If the Adornists want their arugula fresh, then I can see their use for the truckists; but what goes the other way, once the aegis of class rule has been removed? Or will everyone drive a truck?