¹ See for example “Special Issue on Political Socialization,” ed. Dennis, Jack and Jennings, M. Kent, Comparative Political Studies, 3 (1970).Google Scholar The issue includes studies on Japan, Peru, Chile, and Western Europe. See also Greenstein, Fred I. and Tarrow, Sidney, “Political Orientations of Children: The Use of a Semi-Projective Technique in Three Nations,” Sage Professional Papers in Comparative Politics, 1 (1970)Google Scholar; these writers focus on Great Britain, France, and the United States. The best known American studies are those of Greenstein and Easton and Hess. See Greenstein, Fred I., Children and Politics (New Haven, 1965)Google Scholar; Easton, David and Dennis, Jack, Children in the Political System (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; and Hess, Robert and Torney, Judith, The Development of Political Attitudes in Children (Chicago, 1967).Google Scholar

² On the socialization of young people in Canada see Johnstone, John C., Young People's Images of Canadian Society (Ottawa, 1969)Google Scholar; and Pammett, Jon H., “The Development of Political Orientations in Canadian School Children,” this Journal, 4 (March 1971), 132–41.Google Scholar Johnstone deals with teenagers while Pammett surveyed children enrolled in grades four through eight.

³ Culture is a factor that has been relatively ignored by scholars interested in socialization. Thus the study by Pammett on Canadian children does not even raise the issue of the impact of cultural membership. That culture is an intervening variable in the socialization process has been established by such writers as Greenberg, Lyons, and Jahoda. See Greenberg, Edward S., “Children and Politics: A Comparison across Racial Lines,” Widwest Journal of Political Science (May, 1970), 249–75Google Scholar; Lyons, Schley R., “The Political Socialization of Ghetto Children: Efficacy and Cynicism,” Journal of Politics, 32 (1970), 288–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jahoda, Gustav, “The Development of Children's Ideas About Country and Nationality, Part II: National Symbols and Themes,” The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 33 (1963), 143–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ See Almond, Gabriel A. and Powell, G. Bingham, Comparative Politics (Boston, 1966), 52–3Google Scholar; Verba, Sidney, “Comparative Political Culture,” in Political Culture and Political Development, ed. Pye, Lucian W. and Verba, Sidney (Princeton, 1965), 529–41Google Scholar; Dawson, Richard A. and Prewitt, Kenneth, Political Socialization (Boston, 1969), 34–5.Google Scholar

⁵ I am not claiming that the sample is representative of the entire elementary school population in Quebec.

⁶ Hughes, Everett C., French Canada in Transition (Chicago, 1943), 118.Google Scholar

⁷ In the past, elementary education included grades one through seven, and high school began with grade eight. The Parent Commission, which was appointed in order to review the provincial educational system, recommended that the elementary cycle include only grades one through six. Some of the recommendations of the Parent Commission are now being gradually implemented. As a result some elementary schools still include grade seven in the sample because it allows a clearer developmental pattern and because most schools in the sample still included grade seven.

⁸ The scale is reproduced in their book The Development of Basic Attitudes and Values Toward Government and Citizenship During the Elementary School Years, Part I (Chicago, 1965), 32–3.

⁹ On American children's attitudes toward political authority see, for example: Greenstein, Children and Politics, chap. 3; Easton and Dennis, Children in the Political System, chap. 6–14. On the personalization of authority see ibid., 281ff; Hess and Torney, Basic Attitudes and Values, 38.

¹⁰ Almond, Gabriel A. and Powell, G. Bingham Jr., Comparative Politics (Boston, 1966), 11–12.Google Scholar

¹¹ Easton and Dennis, Children in the Political System, 96.

¹² Easton, David and Hess, Robert D., “The Child's Political World,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, 6 (1962), 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ I am borrowing the term “distribution” from Almond who distinguished four kinds of outputs: regulative, symbolic, extractive, and distributive. The term distribution refers to government as an agency allocating goods, services, and concerned in general with the welfare of citizens. See Almond and Powell, Comparative Politics, 27.

¹⁴ Strictly speaking, sampling must be random in order to test meaningfully for statistical significance. However, as Greenstein and Tarrow note, statistical significance tests are also useful in non-random sampling as “rules of thumb, in order to determine which variables are worth discussing.” See Greenstein, Fred I. and Tarrow, Sidney, “The Study of French Political Socialization: Toward the Revocation of Paradox,” World Politics, 22 (1969), 102ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ See, for example: Greenstein, Children and Politics, 31–7 Easton and Dennis, Children in the Political System, 287 and 356–58; Hess and Torney, Basic Attitudes and Values, 44–5. For a critique of these interpretations see Jaros, Dean, Hirsch, Herbert, Fleron, Frederic Jr. “The Malevolent Leader: Political Socialization in an American Sub-Culture,” American Political Science Review, 62 (1968), 564–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Greenstein, Children and Politics.

¹⁷ The question asked was, “What does the government do?”

¹⁸ Jaros, Malevolent Leader, 564–65.

¹⁹ See Richert, Jean Pierre, “English and French-Canadian Children's Perception of the October Crisis,” Journal of Social Psychology, 89 (Feb., 1973), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Preliminary information derived from a study by the writer presently underway in Atlantic County, NJ, designed to measure young people's attitudes toward the police, shows that young people (both black and white) are overly critical of police and other government officials.

²¹ Power and Personality (New York, 1948), 156ff.

²² Ibid., 157.

²³ The term Chicago groups refers to Easton and Hess and their associates, many of whom were associated with the University of Chicago in the late fifties and early sixties.

²⁴ Children and Politics, 46.

²⁵ Basic Attitudes and Values, 48.

²⁶ Children and Politics, 47.

²⁷ Learning About Politics (New York, 1970), 188ff.

²⁸ Previous research suggests that the Queen's role and personality tend to be fused in children's minds, and thus that she is not perceived in sexual terms. See Greenstein, Fred I., “French, British, and American Children's Images of Government and Politics,” paper delivered at the meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association, 13–14 November 1970Google Scholar, Philadelphia, 12.

²⁹ The question asked was, “What do you think of when I say government?”

³⁰ “Political Orientations of Children: The Use of a Semi-Projective Technique in Three Nations.”

³¹ Lasswell, Power and Personality, 156, 157; Greenstein, Children and Politics, 46.

³² Maheux, Arthur, “French-Canadians and Democracy,” in Quebec Today, ed. Grant, Douglas (Toronto, 1960), 341–51.Google Scholar

³³ See the following on the style of authority and its impact on political socialization: Hoffman, Stanley, “Heroic Leadership: The Case of Modern France,” Political Leadership in Industrialized Societies, ed. Edinger, Lewis (New York, 1967), 111ff.Google ScholarSchonfeld, William R., Youth and Authority in France: A Study of Secondary Schools (Beverley Hills, 1971), 10–12.Google ScholarEckstein, Harry, A Theory of Stable Democracy, research monograph 10 (Princeton, 1961).Google Scholar

³⁴ See, on the general question of authority in French Canada, he Pouvoir dans la Société Canadienne-française, ed. Dumont, Fernand and Montminy, Jean-Paul (Quebec, 1966).Google Scholar In here, Gerald Fortin, in particular, contrasts two élites in Quebec: the old, which he labels the “technicians” of the preindustrial agrarian society, and the new “technicians” of the postindustrial society. He argues that while the latter are “perhaps less paternalistic than their predecessors they nonetheless see a privileged role for themselves in the new society” based on knowledge and information. Thus the setting changes, and new élites are arising, but the pattern of authority does not appear to change since it remains hierarchical. See “Transformation des structures du pouvoir,” 93ff.

³⁵ See Dumont, Fernand and Rocher, Guy, “An Introduction to a Sociology of French-Canada,” in Rioux, Marcel and Martin, Yves, French-Canadian Society (Toronto, 1964), 199ff.Google Scholar; Falardeau, Jean C., “The Changing Social Structures of Contemporary French-Canadian Society,” in Essais sur le Québec contemporain, ed. Falardeau, Jean C. (Laval, 1953), 137ff.Google Scholar Hubert Guindon, “The Social Evolution of Quebec Reconsidered,” in Rioux and Martin, French-Canadian Society, 137–61.

³⁶ See Falardeau, Essais, 116.

³⁷ See Marcel Rioux, “Kinship Recognition and Urbanization in French-Canada,” in Rioux and Martin, French-Canadian Society, 372ff.

³⁸ For a discussion of the traditional role of the curé in French Canada see Miner, Horace, St Denis, A French-Canadian Parish (Chicago, 1939)Google Scholar; Hughes, Everett C., French-Canada in Transition (Chicago, 1943).Google Scholar

³⁹ For specific examples see Falardeau, “The Changing Social Structures of Contemporary French-Canadian Society,” in Rioux and Martin, French-Canadian Society, 106–22; see in addition by the same author “The Role and Importance of the Church in French Canada,” 342–57; see also Hubert Guindon, “The Social Evolution of Quebec Reconsidered,” 137–61.

⁴⁰ Taylor, Norman W., “A Study of French-Canadians as Industrial Entrepreneurs,” (PH D Dissertation, Yale University, 1957).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid., 73.

⁴² See the following on the history of codification in Quebec and the impact of French law: Brierley, J.E.C., “Quebec's Civil Law Codification,” McGill Law Journal, 14, no. 4 (1968), 522–89.Google Scholar