The fundamental element in the Marxist theory of ideologies is that men's ideas and perceptions are determined by the way in which they earn their living and by the social conditions which ensue. But this view by itself does not adequately explain the ideological framework of a social organization and its process of development since other factors intervene. The dialectic governing the formulation of ideologies is not only vertical but horizontal as well, and in two respects. First, one must avoid being trapped by a logical assumption about the connection between the method of production and the creation of a social structure. We must recognize the co-existence of modes of production; that is to say that in a given social structure there can be several methods of production. Thus, while a capitalist mode of production may prevail, it can still accommodate perfectly well for a certain length of time the continuation of some elements of the feudal or slave system of production, even though the logical end of capitalism is to spread and eliminate them. Hence, depending on the relationship between methods of production, one can discover in the overall structure of the prevailing mode of production some traces of the method of production which previously was dominant, especially during a transitional period.

The analysis of political leadership is an enterprise often handicapped by the lack of an adequate conceptual framework. Mr Courtney has selected James Barber's model of presidential character as a means of overcoming this problem and has presented an interesting examination of Mackenzie King's political leadership based on this approach. There are, however, a number of aspects both of the Barber model and of Mackenzie King's leadership that Courtney has been unable to develop. It is proposed in this brief rejoinder to discuss some of these issues and to indicate the main lines of an alternative interpretation of Mr King's character.

In recent years numerous critics, generally those with strong nationalist inclinations, have attempted to demonstrate that Canadians are no longer autonomous in cultural and educational pursuits. Whether or not such autonomy ever existed to any substantial degree, especially for non-French Canada, might itself be disputed. Indeed, a good case can be put forward for the proposition that the gradual diminution of British practices, norms, and expertise in many facets of Canadian education, if not in Canadian culture generally, was accompanied by a concomitant increase in American practices, publications, and personnel rather than by any emerging period of distinctly Canadian expression. That most of the substantial Americanization in postsecondary education and many other areas was occasioned by Canadian invitation tends, however, to be widely ignored. Be that as it may, most critics now prefer to focus on the actual state of affairs and the continuing trends rather than on historical causes.