American Political Science Review Vol.81 tion.To be culturally rational by bolster- people's political behavior.If these ing one's way of life is the intention,not criteria are incorrectly or insufficiently necessarily the accomplishment. specified,they will make people's If social life is the midwife of political opinions unrelated where another set of preferences,how do people get from cul- criteria would make them more consis- ture to preferences?Perhaps politics is too tent.When there is a question as to complicated to allow many people to whether it is the people who do not under- figure out what they prefer. stand what they are doing or we social scientists who do not understand the peo- "Preferences Need No ple,I am inclined to think that we have Inferences" fallen down.All of us in social science are looking for bedrock,for the most basic An obstacle to the development of a value and factual premises that we can theory of political preference formation is hypothesize as lying behind specific polit- the view,dominant in psychology until ical and policy preferences.My claim is recently,that cognition must precede that this foundation lies in social relation- affect.For if "preferences are formed and ships,roughly as categorized by political expressed only after and only as a result cultures. of considerable cognitive activity" foundation lies in social relationships, (Zajonc 1980,154),then it would indeed roughly as categorized by political be difficult to explain how most people, cultures. including many who engage only in How does the social filter enable people minimal cognitive activity,at least in who possess only inches of facts to gen- regard to politics,come to have so many erate miles of preferences?What is it preferences.If,however,one goes along about cultures that makes them the kind with Zajonc and the considerable litera- of theories that ordinary folk can use to ture he cites"that to arouse affect,objects figure out their preferences?The ability of need to be cognized very little-in fact people to know what they prefer without minimally"(p.154),more promising knowing much else lies at the crux of theoretical avenues open up.Preferences, understanding preference formation.Cul- Zajonc continues,"must be constituted of ture codes can be unlocked,I maintain, interactions between some gross object because its keys are social.By figuring out features and internal states of the indi- their master preferences,as it were-who vidual"(p.159).But how,we may ask, they are and are not,to what groups they do preferences get from object features to do and do not belong-they can readily internal states? figure out the rest.A basic reason people The cultural hypothesis is that indi- are able to develop so many preferences is viduals exert control over each other by that they actually do not have to work all institutionalizing the moral judgments that hard.A few positive and negative justifying their interpersonal relationships associations go a long way. so they can be acted upon and accounted It is no more necessary for a person to for.The prevailing view is that the inter- verbalize about culture than it is neces- relatedness among attitudes in the mass sary to know the rules of grammar in public is low,that is,people are inconsis- order to speak.The stock phrases "one of tent.Now,criteria of consistency express- us"versus "one of them"goes a long way. ing what ought to be related to what are Preferences might come from insight into not found in nature but,like the cate- general principles,but,because meanings gories of culture I am expounding,are have to be shared,ideologues and theo- imposed in an effort to make sense out of rists often discover that their views are 8