Mr Andrew has chosen an important topic for discussion, one which embraces some of the most significant theoretical and practical issues in contemporary society (both capitalist and socialist). His article is concerned with the concept of technological rationality, considered in the light of the attitudes of Marx and Marcuse towards the nature of work. He lists a series of points on which their attitudes differ and claims that “These differences may be seen to derive from a single source, namely, that Marx was not an adherent of technological rationality and Marcuse is.” In what follows I would like to comment briefly on his argument and to indicate the results of some other recent contributions to this discussion.

Mr Leiss has taken exception to my contention that Marcuse espouses the doctrine of technological rationality whereas Marx does not. He asserts that a re-examination of the original sources will not support such a classification. Since Mr Leiss does not. provide any sources or reasons to indicate why he disagrees with my assertion that Marx was not an adherent of technological rationality, I shall briefly recapitulate the reasons for my assertion and then pass on to his primary concern, namely, that I failed to support my view that Marcuse believes technological progress towards automation is the embodiment of reason in history.

I read with considerable interest Naomi Rosenbaum's article on the British in Cyprus in the December 1970 issue of this Journal. In her first footnote she refers to several publications including my own Cyprus: Conflict and Conciliation, 1954–58. She notes that I use Greek sources extensively and in the process cast a good deal of light on both Greek and Greek Cypriot perceptions and actions. This is so. As I made clear in my preface, the story is told as seen mainly through the eyes of the Greek “external decision-maker.” “Mainly,” however, is not synonymous with “exclusively.” The book also sheds light on the perceptions and actions of other parties to the Cyprus conflict.