American Political Science Review Vol.81 another theory concerns an intuitive sense only a quarter of executives in large com- of justice:people are willing to accept panies and two-fifths in small ones do the dangers that are voluntarily undertaken, same(Bloomgarden 1983).Polarization of but they reject risks that are imposed on elites is evident them.In Risk and Culture (1982),Mary A third study surveys business and Douglas and I argue that perception of ecology activists vis-a-vis the general danger is a function of political culture, public in West Germany in regard to their risk acceptance going along with approval political positions on a left-right basis.It of individualistic and hierarchical cultures is obvious that ecologists and business and risk aversion with egalitarian opposi- elites are divided(twice as sharply as the tion to these other cultures on the grounds general public)on ideological grounds. they are coercive and domineering.Put Similarly,in a study of voters in the briefly,we contend that the debate over United States Senate,Kalt and Zupan risk stemming from technology is a refer- (1984)report,"It turns out that politicians endum on the acceptability of U.S.insti- consistently package liberalism and en- tutions.The more trust in them,the more vironmentalism together-the correlation risk acceptance;the less trust,the more between the LCV [League of Conserva- risk rejection.12 tion Voters]'s and the ADA [Americans Consider,in this context of competing for Democratic Actionl's rating scales is explanations,a variety of survey findings. 0.94."But why are the two found The first,a survey of the feelings of a together? variety of elites about the safety of Nuclear war may well be the greatest nuclear power plants shows,among other contemporary risk of all.Glenn Sussman things,an immense gap (far greater than (1986)has conducted a survey of U.S.and survey research usually produces)be- British anti-nuclear weapons activists in tween nuclear energy experts(98.7%)and which he asked them to rate four goals: the military (86.0%)saying "safe"com- fighting rising prices,giving the people pared to relatively tiny proportions of more say in important governmental deci- leaders of public interest groups (6.4%), sions,maintaining order in the nation, movie producers and directors (14.3%) and protecting freedom of speech.A and elite journalists (29.4%).The differ- priori there is no reason to believe that ence between people expected to support these activists have anything else on their and to oppose authority is very great minds except opposition to nuclear war. (Rothman and Lichter 1985). Yet approximately two-thirds valued A second poll compares the general more say in government as their first public to executives of small and large priority while maintaining order got less corporations and environmentalists on a than 5%.13 If one posits a cultural connec- variety of preferences related to politics tion between this "anti"activism and and public policy.Whereas around two- opposition to existing authority as in- thirds of the general public and executives egalitarian,the low ranking of "order" favor a strong defense,only a quarter of makes more sense.Viewing environmen- environmentalists give it a high priority. talists as protestors against inegalitarian Maintaining order in the nation gets institutions (recall their concern about around 80%or more from everyone else "endangered species"and corporations but just 47%from environmentalists.On that cause cancer)helps us understand an egalitarian issue,such as having more their political alliances.Because Berkeley say at work,the situation is reversed. constitutes a kind of political-medical Two-thirds of environmentalists and the museum for this purpose,we can observe general public give it a high priority but a member of the city council,accused of 14