1987 Constructing Institutions cope with complexity (as in Ashby's"Law of Requi- and passive risk (active risk being more voluntary site Variety"),however,greatly increases the size and controllable by the individual and passive risk (the number and diversity of subunits)of the hierar- less voluntary and perhaps uncontrollable)in order chy.Once hierarchy is complex,as almost any but to justify why certain risks are more and other risks the most rudimentary government must be,its fer- less acceptable.But the distinction is misleading. vor declines because of the necessity of accom- One might imagine a static social system whose modating a broad range of values and adjusting rela- values,including its rules of accountability,were tionships among more diverse life-styles. petrified.The people who conferred meaning on 9.For the reasons given,I disagree with the view objects must have lived long ago,no one having that liberals are pro-and conservatives anti-change come along since with any changes to make.Classi- (see McCloskey and Chong 1985;and Robinson fications are clearly labeled and immobile.Then, 1980). and only then,might one allocate dangers according 10.The widespread belief among those who theo- to those that are active and voluntary and,there- rized about Jacksonian democracy in his time,a fore,properly subject to governmental regulation or belief apparently shared by their supporters in the prohibition.Once social change enters the picture, citizenry as well,was that equality of opportunity, however,the active-passive distinction is constantly meticulously followed,would lead to an approxima- redrawn.We now see that egalitarians consider the tion of equality of result.The operation of economic dangers stemming from technology (nuclear power markets,unimpeded by the federal government, or chemical carcinogens)as a passive risk,while would eventually approximate real equality of con- they perceive the dangers stemming from casual con- dition as closely as innate differences in human abil- tact with sufferers from acquired immune deficiency ity permitted.At the very least,central government syndrome as an active risk.At the very same time, would not add artificial to natural inequality, adherents of hierarchy view the dangers of tech- thereby preserving representative government.In- nology as actively chosen.To say a danger is volun- dividuals would be allowed,indeed encouraged,to tary is tantamount to saying it is acceptable; keep all gain that resulted from the unfettered use of involuntary dangers imposed on passive people,by their own talents.But everything artificial and un- contrast,are unacceptable.Classification and deci- natural,everything government imposed on man in sion are one and the same.If the anger against his free state,such as charters,franchises,banks, institutions were comprehensive enough,suicides and other monopolies,became anathema.It is this would be owed redress by the implacable institu- belief-not in equality undefined nor in just one tions that drive them to their undeserved and kind of equality but in the mutual reinforcement of involuntary end.Just as"we the people"are the ones opportunity and result-that I think made the who confer meaning on these distinctions,so we are United States truly exceptional.Another way to also the ones who change these meanings. describe U.S.exceptionalism is to say that liberty 13.The actual figures are 1)more say:U.S. (i.e.,individualism)is held to be compatible with citizens 64.5%,British 68.6%;2)order:U.S.citizens equality (egalitarianism).Just as supporters of 4.3%,British 2.1%;3)freedom of speech scored a hierarchy understand that their organizations are little over 25%;4)rising prices were 4%or below. likely to be rigid and egalitarians recognize that 14.Oakland Tribune,10 August 1986. perfect equality is unattainable,so adherents of U.S 15.This discussion of the conception of apathy as individualism understand that liberty can conflict a part of cultural bias is congruent with Carole with equality and vice versa.What they deny is that Pateman's view that"there is more than one way to this conflict is immutable,and what they affirm is interpret the norm of political efficacy and the other that their two cherished passions,liberty and equal- norms and values traditionally associated with ity,can reinforce one another(see Wildavsky 1986). democracy;there is more than one view on what 11.The impasse comes through in these two com- 'really'constitutes responsiveness of leaders and so ments:1)"There is mounting evidence that mass on,and these differences in interpretation also publics do not react in ideological terms.It seems encompass divergent notions of what form[s]of equally true that much contemporary political con- democratic institutions actually embody,or give flict has an ideological dimension"(Barnes 1966, practical expression to those norms and values" 513).2)"Although the conceptual and methodo- (1971,p.304). logical problems with ideological belief systems are serious enough for Bennett to have called for a moratorium on empirical research pending the References development of better concepts and measures,a Ball,Terrence.1979.Interest Explanations.Polity 'cottage industry'of comments and rebuttals con- 12(2):187-201. tinues to fill the journals with challenges to each and Banning,Lance.1978.The Jefferson Persuasion. every piece of research"(Hamill,Lodge,and Blake Ithaca,NY:Cornell University Press. 1985,850). Barnes,Samuel H.1966.Ideology and the Organiza- 12.Often distinctions are made between active tion of Conflict:On the Relationship Between 19