{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02142524452724732, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007452258965999069, 'mean_word_length': 5.448948948948949, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Representation in State Legislatures. By Jewell Malcolm E.. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1982. Pp. 204. $18.00.)

of a small group of respondents to elucidate patterns of belief of Americans about the distribution, and possible redistribution, of wealth in this country. In addition, this book provides insight into two other interrelated topics of dispute within political science: the debate over whether the electorate thinks ideologically, and the differences between surveys and in-depth interviews as methodologies to assess public attitudes. The study is reminiscent of the work of Robert Lane in Political Ideology (Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), in which intense scrutiny of a few respondents provides valuable insights and perspectives for the entire political system. In this work, Jennifer Hochschild does an excellent job of painstakingly analyzing the responses of 28 persons (16 poor and 12 wealthy) concerning their views of wealth and its possible redistribution in America. One theme that develops throughout the book involves the lack of widespread political pressure for downward redistribution of wealth in the United States. This theme, and the research findings that surround it, constitute the central analytic contribution of What's Fair? Hochschild's analysis suggests that her respondents, and possibly people in general, tend to divide the world into three domains: social, political, and economic. Further, she concludes that the subjects generally tend to subscribe to egalitarian principles only in the political and social domains but prefer differentiation in the economic realm. This approach fits with the philosophy of John Locke and the classical liberal tradition in America where the world is divided between the public (government) and private (economy) and democratic principles apply only to the public sphere. Hochschild's conceptualization is therefore subject to the same critique as classical liberalism; many scholars believe that the economic system is inherently part of the political process. They argue that only when this fact is understood can we expect people to react in a consistently democratic fashion (Ronald Mason, Participatory and Workplace Democracy, Southern Illinois University Press, 1982; Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1970). Dividing the world into three domains relates to the question of the ideological clarity of the electorate. Some scholars, most notably Philip Converse, suggest that the electorate is primarily nonideological since voters do not consistently employ the liberal-conservative conceptualization of the world. In contrast, Hochschild concludes that her respondents do indeed have consistent patterns of belief within each domain even if they also have conflicting norms and ambivalence about their positions within the domains. She writes, "disjunctions that follow an intelligible pattern may be the most subtle response to a highly complex world" (p. 183). The issue of the ideological makeup of the electorate still remains unresolved; however this book should stimulate further research into the area. Possibly the most interesting and largely unexplored aspect of this investigation involves its policy implications. The book's final chapter does address the question but merely skims the surface. Hochschild suggests that the conflicts between distributional norms among the three domains may lead to ambivalence and presumably nonparticipation. This study might have clarified the matter greatly by including an analysis of the political activities of the respondents as they related to the putative social, political, and economic domains. One implication that is articulated is that the complexity of the belief systems and the subsequent ambivalence may be partly responsible for the lack of any large-scale support for downward redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately, a review of this brevity cannot do justice to the extent and quality of analysis represented by What's Fair? The comments above are intended to give some insight into the questions that are raised. In my estimation this book will have a significant impact because of the excellent quality of the research and also because of the important questions it generates.