¹ Easton, David, “An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems,” World Politics, ix (April 1957), 338–370.Google Scholar In this study “political system” replaces Easton's concept of “community.” Political system is defined as the most comprehensive political unit with which an individual primarily associates himself. For a fuller, but compatible, definition see Harry Eckstein, “The Concept ‘Political System’: A Review and Revision,” paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, 1963.

² The composite social picture of the students indicates that when they are divided according to first language they are remarkably similar. They are mostly men, about twenty-four years old, who come from urban areas. They see themselves as products of above-average family situations in which a high percentage of at least one parent had some university training. They are not committed to regular religious observance. The Francophones frequently discuss politics with their school companions or friends, whereas the Anglophones, while similar in the frequency of their discussions, are more likely to discuss politics with their parents. The Francophones are more likely to have attended a political meeting, but a similar percentage of both groups have actually been members of a party. All were then Quebec residents and planned to practise law in Quebec.

³ Only third-year students were interviewed because many people who start law studies do not finish. Those students in their last academic year seemed likely to actually join the legal profession and, consequently, become part of the prospective élite. In this context the respondents were randomly selected.

⁴ These data are collapsed so that respondents who identify first and only with Canada or Quebec are grouped. So arrayed the data yield a x ² of 37.69 and a C of 0.638. 3.84 is a significant x ² at the.05 level with 1 degree of freedom. A maximum C of 0.707 is possible for a 2 x 2 table.

⁵ X² analysis was conducted by excluding “none of these” replies and apportioning “Canada and Quebec” responses between the two system identification groups.

⁶ These data are achieved by combining replies to both of the identification questions. For example: allegiants are those who identify as “only a Canadian or Québécois” and are willing to fight for that choice; associates are those who identify as “first a Canadian or Quebecois” and are willing to fight for that choice.

⁷ In this study an analytical distinction is made between “regime organization” and “regime ethic.” The former applies to the structural arrangements of the government, while the latter refers to the norms of politics.