Police: A Sociology of Knowledge Approach

Peter K Manning, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA
Jeffrey Martin, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

The sociology of the police concerns the study of the institution of policing, its structure, function, and evolution. This focus
requires a sociology of knowledge, a framework that highlights how social factors shape current knowledge of police. The
concept of police is a contested one and often assumed without definition. Its functions are associated with governance in
general and the executive function in particular. The public policing form assembled by Robert Peel, a visible, reactive force, is
an assumed paradigm for much police research, but it is one of several types of policing, and contrasts with high policing
concerned with national security. Internationally, broad types or ‘families’ of policing have emerged as a result of colonialism.
Four specific types of police are common in Western democracies: private policing, pubic policing, hybrid policing, and
outsourcing or paying organizations to carry out functions previously restricted to police agencies. Metaphors for studying
policing, such as dramaturgy, the policing web, and nodal policing, highlight selected features of the policing function. Many
external factors shape policing and the future role and function of the police, given new forms of crime, is unpredictable.

The sociology of the police concerns the study of the institution
of policing, its structure, function, and development. This
perspective implies a sociology of knowledge, that is, how
social interests and ideologies shape the sociological study of
police. The independent analytic and theoretically grounded
study of the police is in competition with a sociology for the
police, a response to the practical-occupationally dictated
concerns of police command. These two quite different foci
lead to different research topics, findings, and definitions of the
central topics of interest. The concept of police itself is contested,
or more specifically, an ambiguous one, as it functions as an
institution of governance, an extension of the executive branch.
It is generally seen as managing formal social control within the
context of the nation-state, and its evolution is related, there-
fore to social differentiation of functions, legitimate authority,
and the emergence of a distinctive mandate.
Although many forms of formal policing exist and are
embedded in culturally and legally defined sociolegal systems
(Manning, 2010: p. 25), most of the present systematic research
concerns policing in common law and continental systems,
and the work of police engaged in everyday functions rather
than in specific state security functions. It is well to remember
that policing had a general function before the late eighteenth
century as that which maintained the health or integrity of the
body politic, and that the evolution of the concept must be
traced through the innovations of the gendarmerie, of policing
by Louis XIV and Napoleon. In this context, ‘policing’ was
a combination of national economic interests, national and
local security, and represented in time by distinctive organi-
zations (Chapman, 1970; Emsley, 1994).
What is generally considered now the sociology of the
police in the Anglo-American world is rather parochial and is
traced to the founding of the Dublin City Police in 1786, and to
later innovations associated with Robert Peel as Secretary for
Ireland and later as Home Secretary. The London-based police
of Peel, a response to complex societal changes, was an
unarmed, visible, reactive officer standing symbolically
between the people and the government. This imaginative and
successful move set a paradigm for what is thought of as
‘police.’ It is only one sort of formalized policing, detached to
some degree from national security and order maintenance.
This ‘Peel paradigm’ absent in the armed semisecret riot police
was adopted peacefully in counties throughout England by
1855, peacefully in the United States, Canada, and the Antip-
odes, and imposed by conquest in British colonies. Perhaps the
most significant consequence of the diffusion of Peel’s concept
in time was a political commitment to varieties of localized,
somewhat culturally sensitive, control over policing. This was
not the case of course in Colonial nations and in non-English-
speaking nations. Perhaps inevitably, then, the scope of ‘police’
and a sociology of the police shrank metaphorically and
became synonymous with the study of public, legitimate, state-
sponsored agencies that operated within a specified territory
and sociolegal political system. Police, found in anomalous
circumstances, exceptions to this tacit sketch, such as the
gendarmerie, colonial police, police in conquered territories,
secret and national-security police, police in authoritarian
systems, and police in ‘settler states’ (Weitzer, 1990, 1995),
have not been as extensively studied. The combination of
scholarly interest, governmental funding, and the growth of
cities in democratic societies led to an interest in and research
about public police shortly after World War II. A series of
important early studies in the 1960s and 1970s set the tone
and focus of the research.
Scholarship
The development of scholarship on the public police in English
has been well summarized (Reiner, 2010). But this work,
broadly based and concerning police functions, by and large
has assumed a well-ordered democratic state with sufficient
resources, legitimacy, and a compliant citizenry. These
assumptions have obscured ‘deeper’ questions of policing
such as the loyalty of police organizations and their members
to the state, their roles in revolution and a coup de grace, and

246 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 18 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.32107-9

their ideological commitments. They are armed and dangerous;
where do their loyalties lie in a crisis? These questions,
however, play an insignificant role in the current literature.
Studies in the last 50 years or so, published in English with
some exceptions, describe (1) socialization to the role; (2)
functions of patrol officers and investigators, and lower
participants rather than middle management or top
command; (3) strategies of policing such as community
policing or tactical variations such as ‘crack downs’ on high
crime areas; (4) the organizational and occupational culture
of the police; (5) variation in attitudes within the occupation
based on race or gender; (6) accountability, corruption, and
violence; and (7) the impacts of technology on police
practice. There are very few studies of police unions, decision-
and policy-making at the top, the internal politics of
succession to command positions, or indeed the internal
politics of the organization: who gets what, when, and
where? There is very little understanding of the current
dynamics, emotions, and politics within large urban
departments. Whether there is indeed a systematic theory of
the police is debatable.
Definition of Police as an Organization
As noted above, the growth of the sociology of police has taken
place without much debate over the central yet contested
definition of police and policing. If the police as an organiza-
tion is to be broadly understood, then it must include private as
well as public police and include the secret surveillance,
tracking, and intelligence gathering that is an essential part of
national security. Policing has a mandate, a tacit contract
between the public and the police that sets out the boundaries
of the actions, and denies these functions to others. Ironically,
police are permitted to act outside the law in the pursuit of their
obligations (Manning, 1977). Consider this definition of
police in modern nation-states with common law or civil law
traditions:
The police, constituted of many diverse agencies, are authoritatively
coordinated, legitimate organizations. They stand ready to apply
force up to and including fatal force in legally defined territories.
They seek to sustain politically defined order and ordering via
tracking, surveillance, and arrest. As such, they require compliance to
command from lower participants and citizens. Given their wide
mandate, they have the ability to proceed by exception.
As discussed below, this definition may require reformula-
tion as Asian forms of policing become better known and
researched and the scope of police studies expands. The above
definition is an organizationally based definition, which
contains a number of ambiguous features, namely, the ambi-
guity of ‘order’ and ‘ordering,’ which cannot be defined in the
absence of a sociolegal context, and the capacity for violence. It
is thus a formal and normative definition that begs the ques-
tion of police function. Bittner (1990: p. 131) eschews the
normative view, and argues for a means-focus: “The role of
police is best seen as a mechanism for the distribution of
non-negotiable force employed in accordance with the
dictates of an intuitive grasp of situational exigencies.” These
Police: A Sociology of Knowledge Approach 247
exigencies, in turn, are best determined by the here and now
assessment of the officer. The above definition does include
a matter that is implicit in the Bittner definition: the
compliance of a pacified citizenry. This trust and related
compliance is the source of the police mandate in modern
states (Manning, 1977). The framing of the function of
modern policing requires a distinction between law and
other social norms and values and a code or interpretative
context into which conflicts are entered. As Bittner (1970:
p. 40) points out, the nature of intervention by modern
police is not determined by the natural notion of solution
that arises from citizens, but lies in the practices of the police
in their management of the conflict. This interpretative code
is not law, but rather the framing of the case so as to be
entered into the legal system. The extension of this
formulation is that Bittner focuses on the means, and the
idea that, although force is the cornerstone of his idea, police
violence is left undefined by the courts and (p. 34):
“. police activities cannot be brought fully under the rule of
law.” Their independence of the courts, spelled out in detail
in Bittner (pp. 22–35), facilitates and validates their intuitive
actions. They are in effect permitted to act and account for
their actions and decisions later. This formulation leads to
the rather ironic conclusion that policing’s rationality, since it
has no known ends, is the rationality of the moment, and
this deciding rarely lands in court or comes under significant
judicial scrutiny. (Alternatively, one could argue following
Jobard (2013) that they remain an instance of organized
irrationality in the modern, rapidly rationalizing world.
Furthermore, one might argue that their situated actions,
because they do not and cannot draw on any fixed rules,
combine ignorance and irrationality and are a form of
performative magic. The idea that police draw on magic, or
are magicians, is not flattery, but is derived from Durkheim’s
(1961: pp. 58–60) distinction between practitioners of sacred
arts, who believe in what they are doing and know why are
they acting as they are, and magicians, practitioners do not
believe in the tacit premises that govern their actions. They
aim to deceive.) This is one facet of the phrase ‘proceed by
exception’ because no precise a priori limit can be set upon
their actions. As the above definition states, for the
democratic police to manage a pacified audience, they must
be able to draw on their dramaturgical powers, the ability to
draw on symbols and imagery, and carry out persuasive
performances. They are naturally dramatic, and designed
historically to produce trust.
Core versus Fringe Imagery
Let us consider another aspect of the sociology of police: the
core versus the fringe imagery of police. Imagery is the ways in
which the police present themselves – dramatize their actions
and intentions – and how they are seen. The core imagery in
Western industrialized societies is the visible, uniformed,
reactive, service-oriented patrol officer, while the fringe
functions, less visible and rarely considered or written about,
are carried out by specialized paramilitary units, riot-control,
surveillance and tracking functions, often now associated
with antiterrorist activities, and units devoted to ‘high
248 Police: A Sociology of Knowledge Approach
policing’ (Brodeur, 2010). Nonuniformed officers are also
engaged in such activities from time to time. This blindness
to covert and less-than-visible activities has meant that
a disproportionate amount of research in the sociology of
police has been devoted to the activities and occupational
culture of the uniformed officer, and relatively little to
investigators, top command, and specialized units (Marks,
2005).
Historical Modes of Formal Policing: Centers and
Peripheries
Most people in the world live under political arrangements that
developed outside the historical core of the capitalist world
system. Scholars in a number of disciplines have contributed
accounts of histories and practices of policing in the ‘alternative
modernities’ endemic to postcolonial or developmental envi-
ronments. This diverse literature has recently begun to coalesce
around the relativism of cultural anthropology into a sort of
critical theoretical counterpoint in dialogue with the main-
stream sociology of police (Garriott, 2013; Jauregui, 2013).
Colonized societies saw anthropologists and police arrive
together, as partners in the colonial system of control. Decol-
onization then forced contemporary anthropology to reevalu-
ate the ways its inherited archives of ‘cultural’ information were
implicitly structured by the practical concerns of the colonial
officers who created them (Pels, 1997). Critical studies of the
classification of populations in British South Asia (Cohn,
1987), Dutch Indonesia (Stoler, 2009), and elsewhere have
illuminated some of the many ways cultural knowledge has
historically functioned as a police technique. The contempo-
rary anthropological study of policing takes this lesson to heart,
examining policing as a field of knowledge/power in which
a variety of institutions operate as means to diverse ends,
structured by a plurality of hoped-for ideals of modern peace
and/or prosperity (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2006).
Globally comparative discussions of policing arrangements
are generally organized under historical and regional themes.
Historically, there seems to exist a roughly tripartite typology
of institutional ‘families,’ depending on whether a given
policing system is derived from Anglo-American, Continental,
or Soviet roots. Studies of policing in the former British Empire
(Anderson and Killingray, 1992; Sinclair, 2006), e.g., show
how the common law ideal can be differentially taken up as
an element in a local ‘policing vernacular’ (Hornberger,
2011). Latin American policing, by contrast, is largely derived
from the Civil Law tradition (Uildriks, 2009). Ethnographies
of contemporary Latin American policing have focused on
the ‘disjunctive’ qualities that arise where centralized policing
systems serve to maintain radical economic inequalities
(Caldeira, 2001). East Asian policing, finally, grows out of
the Japan’s nineteenth-century appropriation of French and
German legal and administrative institutions (Martin, 2014).
Subsequent to its 1949 revolution, China developed
a totalitarian system that projected police power deep into
the minutiae of everyday life, enforcing socialist order
onto things ranging from the way words could be written to
the number of children that could be born. China’s
subsequent success translating this authoritarian system into
the developmental mechanism it has used to become
a capitalist world power makes contemporary Chinese
policing something of a sui generis formation, which is only
beginning to be critically studied (Cao et al., 2014).
Types of Policing
Policing, as noted in the above formal definition, includes
private as well as diverse forms of public policing, and as such,
contrasts with informal policing or perhaps ‘self-appointed or
nominated policing,’ which includes ad hoc policing, posses,
militias, vigilante groups, and other informal, part-time
policing individually or collectively that is carried out without
uniform, pay, and specific conditions of employment. These
informal police officers cannot be fired and thus their
accountability is dubious. There are also ‘minders’ of public
order who in the course of their duties sustain orderly activities,
e.g., taxi drivers; traffic and parking attendants; bus, train, and
subway drivers; emergency medical services and emergency
personal; and members of the fire service. Thus, a sociology of
policing differs from a sociology of the (formal) police. The
range of functions carried out by the public police is diverse
and complex. More is known about the workings of formal
public police than about other forms.
Within the industrialized world, examination of formal
policing reveals many types of policing with varying mandates,
or legitimate validation of their claims to control the proper
attitude toward the work, their rhetorical and resource-
allocation strategies, and tactics and accompanying themes or
dramatic emphases in their rhetoric, uniforms, and actions. In
many ways, modern public police emphasize a theme of
responsiveness, service, and crime control. They are in
competition for legitimacy with other types of and of course
informal social control. Here are some types of formal
policing, their interests, and themes:
l Private policing – paid for actions in regard to maintaining
and or expanding private interests. Usually connected to
policing given territories. Policing with private interests as
the mandate only marginally, if at all, serves the public
welfare, even when policing quasi-public property. The
functions carried out by private police are those connected
with not only sustaining order in quasi-public spaces, but
also in all those areas in which control of a citizenry is
dubious. The theme here is prevention.
l Policing carrying out traditionally public police functions – using
public funds to pay for agents to carry out functions con-
nected the public good, e.g., traffic tickets, order mainte-
nance; regulation that does not entail arrest in excess of
‘everyday’ citizen powers. This is also called ‘outsourcing’ on
the grounds that it reduces costs and functions by con-
tracting. Such policing functions have a mandate in the
sense that they are licensed, legitimate, and have territorial
limitations. They draw also on the mandate of public police
by simulating their uniforms, interactional style, the deco-
ration of their vehicles, and symbols. In the United States,
they carry visible weapons. They may or may not include
some arrest powers in private spaces for trespassing. The
theme is protecting boundaries.

l Hybrid policing – varieties of policing, i.e., noticing,
responding to, and perhaps sanctioning behavior with
a quasi-public mandate. This sort of policing is now
included in the ‘police family.’ The confusion in regard to
legitimacy comes in that these functions can be carried out
by police employed privately, police employed and paid by
the public, or some amalgam of these. This can also include
third-party policing and varieties of the police web. The
theme here is service.
l Public police – the police organization includes warranted
officers, those with arrest powers, and those who are not
warranted or sworn. These ‘civilians’ can make up as much
as 50% of the organization’s employees. In addition, the
organization can include reserve constables, cadets, and
part-time officers. The organizational culture includes more
than the segmented occupational culture of the police. The
theme here is responsiveness and service.
In addition, the status of federal agents, the military and
military police, and military investigative services in the United
States, Australia, and Canada, is ambiguous. They carry out
many functions that are unrelated to national security, overlap
or compete with local jurisdictions, and operate primarily
within federal laws and courts. There are also highly specialized
police forces in the Anglo-American world with quite precise
and limited mandates, which mean that they are not in
competition with the above-listed types, e.g., British Railway
Police; Amtrak (US railroad) police, and the police of an
American rural development project, the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
Policing and Metaphors
To study modern policing requires more than the study of
police organization or even policing; it requires metaphoric
work. The sociology of police rests on metaphor: a way of
seeing something in terms of something else. If we conceive of
the police as ‘law enforcement,’ we reduce them to a mere part
of their whole; if we call them a ‘business,’ or an agency
providing human services, we are treating the whole and
denying many of the parts. The expansion of vision that has
taken place in the last 20 years in the sociology of police,
a result of transnational communication, migration, and travel,
as well as transnational policing, now requires an under-
standing of how types of policing rather than merely public
police are to be seen and seen to be in competition or conflict
with each other. Brodeur (2010) has suggested the metaphor of
a policing web or assemblage that connects loosely those
agencies that police in some fashion. These organizations are
a collection that is to some degree in conflict, in competitive,
and/or conflict mode over time and across incidents. Think of
this assemblage as a web: the strands are unequal in strength;
the number of their connections varies, and the content, the
communications exchanged, vary in density and frequency,
e.g., information about crime, disorder, villains, and disasters.
This shifts attention away from myopic focus on public police,
draws attention to multiple and competing policing functions,
and suggests the overlap of surveillance and control in which
citizens are embedded. The web concept is, however, focused
Police: A Sociology of Knowledge Approach 249
on agencies and organizations, not on interdigitated functions,
and Brodeur’s position is that the public police are and must
remain the center of authority primacy of resources and
collective obligations. A parallel and equally fascinating trompe
d’œil is Shearing’s notion of nodal policing (2005), which begins
with charting functional capacities, technologies, mentalities,
or socially grounded perceptions, and institutional arrange-
ments. These clusters of functions are arrayed in some sense
around social security or a collective sense of well-being. They
do not stand as organizations but as nodes of function. These
are seen as contingent arrangements for addressing emerging
problems, rather than conventionally mandated responses to
anomalies. In some sense, the idea is an analogue to the
open market or invisible hand notion of organizing
responses. There is an element of spontaneity about such
responses. The public police are partners in this enterprise of
security maintenance, and seen as cooperative partners in
problem solving. These metaphoric moves open up new
vistas and new avenues in the sociology of police.
The Role of External Factors
In the course of the development of the interdisciplinary field
of police studies, the focus has been on the police organization
as a dramaturgical actor within a field, the activities of officers,
both investigators and uniformed officers, or the occupational
culture and subcultures. In the last 20 years, the focus has been
on tactics, crime control efforts, and efforts to measure and
prevent crime. Surprisingly, the role of the organizational,
political, and economic environment has been described in the
abstract by economists and political scientists, but few empir-
ical studies demonstrate how such external factors actually
pattern policing practices such as arrest and enforcement
targets. Developments in the last 30 years, inexpensive
communication, travel, migration and immigration, the rise of
terrorism and antiterrorism, global commerce, and interna-
tional, transnational, and metanational policing (Bowling,
2010), have also widened the vision of scholars. The future
problems of technocrime, international organized crime, and
terrorism influence the police differently in developed nations.
How and to what extent these influences will shape the police
mandate, strategies, and tactics is yet to be determined.
Methods and Problematics
The study of police is problematic because access is difficult, the
police are secretive and often suspicious of research and
researchers, the work is diverse and spread out ecologically, and
police data require context to interpret. They require translation
and back translation (they are gathered in a context that is not
the same as a research context). The early research was ethno-
graphic and fieldwork based, and later studies expanded to
include other police-gathered-data (officially recorded crime),
interviews, questionnaires, and police records. Attention
shifted in the 1980s to community policing and attitude data
gathered from the public. Recent attention has been on crime
reduction by manipulation of police presence and formal
designs to measure the impact of tactics on the reduction of
250 Police: A Sociology of Knowledge Approach
crime and disorder. An abiding concern of researchers has
been normative, concerned with corruption, excessive use of
force, accountability, race profiling, gender and minority
mistreatment both within the organization and outside it,
and the quality of police–citizen interactions. Of late,
reducing officially recorded crime has been a research focus.
The impacts of new electronic technologies has not been
closely examined, even as police develop Web sites and
interactive blogs accessible to the public; employ social
media, such as Facebook and Twitter; and maintain Web
sites. While use of cell phones in the past was considered
a breach of security as well as a violation of the chain of
command, they are now considered part of the everyday
equipment of all officers (it is likely now that most officers
above the rank of sergeant carry at least two smart phones,
one their own and one a departmentally issued phone).
The Future of the Sociology of Police
The future of the sociology of the police cannot be predicted.
The sociological frames of reference within which police and
policing are cast; the practitioners’ interests, which bear an
abiding influence on the research; and the inevitable fads and
fashions in social science all will shape intellectual problems
and research methods. Global issues such as the ongoing
turmoil in the Middle East, global warming and related changes
in the climate, bodies of water, and natural disasters, as they are
seen to be in the ambit of the police, will shape the coming
century of research. A corollary of the rise of democratic
policing and governance is the resistance of the powerless in
the form of terrorism and the response of antiterrorism tactics,
paramilitary units, and increased surveillance. The issues that
may arise are questions of democratic policing as it is associ-
ated with emerging nation-states, changes in the political
economy of developing nations, and the growing importance
of human rights.
See also: Colonization and Colonialism, History of; Crime and
Criminal Justice: Applied Research from Routine Monitoring to
Evidence-Based Practices; Ethnography in Applied Social
Research; International and Comparative Criminology;
Knowledge, Sociology of; Myths and Symbols: Organizational;
Organizations and Culture; Policing; Public Bureaucracies; Public
Sector Organizations; South Asian Legal Traditions.
Bibliography
Anderson, David, Killingray, David, 1992. Policing and Decolonization: Politics, Nation-
alism and the Police, 1917–1965. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Bittner, Egon, 1990. Aspects of Police Work. Northeastern University Press, Boston.
Bowling, Benjamin, 2010. Policing the Caribbean. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Brodeur, J.-P., 2010. The Policing Web. Oxford University Press, New York.
Caldeira, Teresa, 2001. City of Walls: Crime, Citizenship and Segregation in Sau Paulo.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Cao, Liqun, Sun, Ivan, Hebenton, William, 2014. The Routledge Handbook of Chinese
Criminology. Routledge, London.
Chapman, Brian, 1970. The Police State. Pall Mall, London.
Cohn, Bernard, 1987. The census, social structure and objectification in South Asia. In:
An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays. Oxford University Press,
Delhi, pp. 224–254.
Comaroff, Jean, Comaroff, John L. (Eds.), 2006. Law and Disorder in the Postcolony.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Durkheim, E., 1961. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Collier Books,
New York.
Emsley, Clive, 1994. The Gendarmes and the State in Nineteenth-Century Europe.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Garriott, William (Ed.), 2013. Policing and Contemporary Governance: The Anthro-
pology of Police in Practice. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Hornberger, Julia, 2011. Policing and Human Rights: The Meaning of Violence and
Justice in the Everyday Policing of Johannesburg. Routledge, New York.
Jauregui, Beatrice, 2013. Cultures of legitimacy and postcolonial policing. Law &
Social Inquiry 38 (3), 547–552.
Jobard, F., 2013. The concept of the police springer encyclopedia of criminology and
criminal justice. In: Weisburd, D., Bruinsema, G., Manning, Peter K. (Eds.), Police
Work. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Jobard, F., 2012. Democratic Policing in a Changing World. Paradigm Publishers,
Boulder, CO.
Manning, Peter K., 1977. Police Work: The Social Organization of Policing. MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Manning, Peter K., 2010. Democratic Policing in a Changing World. Paradigm
Publishers, Boulder, CO.
Marks, Monique, 2005. Transforming the Robocops: Changing Police in South Africa.
University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, Durban.
Martin, Jeffrey, 2014. The confucian ethic and the spirit of East Asian police. Crime,
Law & Social Change 61 (4), 461–490.
Pels, Peter, 1997. The anthropology of colonialism. Annual Review of Anthropology 26,
163–183.
Reiner, Robert, 2010. The Politics of the Police, fourth ed. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Shearing, Clifford, 2005. Nodal security. Police Quarterly 8, 57–63.
Sinclair, Georgina, 2006. The End of the Line: Colonial Policing and the Colonial
Endgame, 1945–1980. Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York.
Stoler, A.L., 2009. Against the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial
Common Sense. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Uildriks, Niels, 2009. Policing Insecurity: Police Reform, Security and Human Rights in
Latin America. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.
Weitzer, R., 1995. Policing under Fire: Ethnic Conflict and Police Community Relations
in Northern Ireland. SUNY Press, Albany. http://books.google.com/books?hl¼
en&lr¼&id¼67hoMfy4kTsC&oi¼fnd&pg¼PR7&dq¼Weitzer,þRonaldþ&ots¼ywju
AkFQ8m&sig¼FVUFX4Ia5GLA9bInynJHwzpwHrY.
Weitzer, R., 1990. Transforming Settler States. University of California Press, Berkeley.