Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Ahmed W. WaheedEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter begins by summarizing the research in the book which sought out to problematize the notion of Pakistan’s widely circulated identity, especially among policy-makers. The chapter further explains how the book, rather than focusing inward, follows an outward approach in that it seeks to understand how the ‘international’ comes to know Pakistan and how this particular knowledge directs decision-making processes. The chapter argues that the power of western discourse to determine what interpretations of knowledge are privileged, who the authoritative subject is, and how the subject is positioned in the discursive field, continues to legitimize a specific interpretation of Pakistan’s identity and its actions. This chapter concludes that, understanding how discourse structures our political ‘reality’, it is time that questions such as ‘What do we know about Pakistan?’ or ‘Why Pakistan is the way it is?’, be replaced by questions such as ‘How do we know about Pakistan?’.

Bibliography

  1. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan, eds. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. New York: Routledge, 2010.Google Scholar
  2. Alatas, Syed Farid. “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences.” Current Sociology 51, no. 6 (November 30, 2003): 599–613.Google Scholar
  3. Alatas, Syed Hussein. “Intellectual Imperialism: Definition, Traits, and Problems.” Asian Journal of Social Science 28, no. 1 (January 1, 2000): 23–45.Google Scholar
  4. Avey, Paul C., and Michael C. Desch. “What Do Policymakers Want from Us? Results of a Survey of Current and Former Senior National Security Decision Makers.” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 2 (June 1, 2014): 227–46.  https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12111.Google Scholar
  5. Behera, N. “South Asia: A ‘Realist’ Past and Alternative Futures.” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, edited by A. Tickner and O. Wæver. London: Routledge, 2009.Google Scholar
  6. Beigel, Fernanda. “Publishing from the Periphery: Structural Heterogeneity and Segmented Circuits. The Evaluation of Scientific Publications for Tenure in Argentina’s CONICET.” Current Sociology 62, no. 5 (September 3, 2014): 743–65.Google Scholar
  7. Blaney, David L., and Arlene B. Tickner. “Worlding, Ontological Politics and the Possibility of a Decolonial IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45, no. 3 (June 12, 2017): 293–311.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829817702446.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, David. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. University of Minnesota Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, Peter, and Michael C. Desch. “Rank Irrelevance.” Foreign Affairs, September 15, 2013. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2013-09-15/rank-irrelevance.
  10. Canagarajah, A. Suresh. “‘Nondiscursive’ Requirements in Academic Publishing, Material Resources of Periphery Scholars, and the Politics of Knowledge Production.” Written Communication 13, no. 4 (1996): 435–72.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013004001.Google Scholar
  11. ———. A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. Checkel, Jeffrey. “Review: The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory.” World Politics 50, no. 2 (1998): 324–48.  https://doi.org/10.2307/25054040.
  13. Choi, Po King. “‘Weep for Chinese University’: A Case Study of English Hegemony and Academic Capitalism in Higher Education in Hong Kong.” Journal of Education Policy 25, no. 2 (March 2010): 233–52.Google Scholar
  14. Doty, Roxanne Lynn. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. ———. “Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines.” International Studies Quarterly 37, no. 3 (September 1993): 297.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2600810.Google Scholar
  16. Gareau, Frederick H. “Another Type of Third World Dependency: The Social Sciences.” International Sociology 3, no. 2 (June 29, 1988): 171–78.Google Scholar
  17. Gruffydd Jones, Branwen, ed. Decolonizing International Relations. Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, Stuart, ed. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage in association with the Open University, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. ———. “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power.” In The Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives, 165–73. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  20. Hanafi, Sari. “University Systems in the Arab East: Publish Globally and Perish Locally vs Publish Locally and Perish Globally.” Current Sociology 59, no. 3 (May 28, 2011): 291–309.Google Scholar
  21. Hansen, Lene. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Routledge, 2006.Google Scholar
  22. Hopf, Ted. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security 23, no. 1 (July 27, 1998): 171–200.  https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.23.1.171.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, Peter A. “The Neoliberal University and Global Immobilities of Theory.” In Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn, edited by Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge, 27–44. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59834-9_1.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, Richard. “Constructing Enemies: ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in Political and Academic Discourse.” Government and Opposition 42, no. 3 (March 28, 2007): 394–426.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00229.x.Google Scholar
  25. ———. “The Ghosts of State Terror: Knowledge, Politics and Terrorism Studies.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 1, no. 3 (December 10, 2008): 377–92.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17539150802515046.Google Scholar
  26. Jentleson, Bruce W. “The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance Back In.” International Security 26, no. 4 (April 29, 2002): 169–83.  https://doi.org/10.1162/016228802753696816.Google Scholar
  27. Katzenstein, Peter J. “Area and Regional Studies in the United States.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34, no. 4 (2001): 789–91.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1350268.
  28. Ludden, David. “Area Studies in the Age of Globalization.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 6 (2000): 1–22.Google Scholar
  29. Maliniak, Daniel, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney. “International Relations in the US Academy.” International Studies Quarterly 55 (2011): 437–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00653.x.Google Scholar
  30. Mearsheimer, John J. “A Self-Enclosed World?” In Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics, edited by Ian Shapiro, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, 388–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511492174.Google Scholar
  31. Mielke, Katja, and Anna-Katharina Hornidge, eds. Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.Google Scholar
  32. Milliken, Jennifer. “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods.” European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 2 (1999): 225–54.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066199005002003.Google Scholar
  33. Narang, Vipin. “Posturing for Peace? Pakistan’s Nuclear Postures and South Asian Stability.” International Security 34, no. 3 (2010): 38–78.Google Scholar
  34. Nimmer, Livio. “De-contextualization in the Terrorism Discourse: A Social Constructionist View.” ENDC Proceedings 14 (2011): 223–40.Google Scholar
  35. Nye, Joseph S., Jr. “Scholars on the Sideline.” Washington Post, April 13, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041202260.html?noredirect=on.
  36. Palan, Ronen. “A World of Their Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations.” Review of International Studies 26, no. 31 (2000): 575–98.Google Scholar
  37. Pasha, Hafiz A. Growth and Inequality in Pakistan: Volume I. Islamabad: Freidrich Ebert Stiftung, 2018. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/pakistan/14113.pdf.
  38. Pennycook, Alastair. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Routledge, 1994.Google Scholar
  39. Phillipson, Robert. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  40. ———. Linguistic Imperialism Continued. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.Google Scholar
  41. Qadir, Abdul. “Growth and Inequality in Pakistan: Interview with Economist Hafiz A. Pasha.” Freidrich Eber Stiftung Connect, 2018. https://www.fes-connect.org/people/growth-and-inequality-in-pakistan/.
  42. Rafael, Vicente L. “The Cultures of Area Studies in the United States.” Social Text 41, no. 41 (1994): 91–111.  https://doi.org/10.2307/466834.
  43. Schueller, Malini J. “Area Studies and Multicultural Imperialism: The Project of Decolonizing Knowledge.” Social Text 25, no. 1 90 (March 1, 2007): 41–62.  https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-2006-016.Google Scholar
  44. Shahid, Muhammad R. “Pakistan’s Economic Aid and Losses in the War on Terror.” Counter Terrorist Trends and Analysis 6, no. 5 (2014): 10–15.Google Scholar
  45. Shapiro, Jacob N., and C. Christine Fair. “Understanding Support for Islamist Militancy in Pakistan.” International Security 34, no. 3 (January 2010): 79–118.  https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2010.34.3.79.Google Scholar
  46. Shilliam, Robbie, ed. International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism, and Investigations of Global Modernity. Routledge, 2011.Google Scholar
  47. Shin, Kwang-Yeong. “Globalization and the National Social Science in the Discourse on the SSCI in South Korea.” Korean Social Science Journal, XXXIV 34, no. 1 (2007): 93–116.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, Steve. “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline.’” International Studies Review 4, no. 2 (2002): 67–85.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3186354.
  49. Tickner, Arlene B. “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 627–46.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494323.Google Scholar
  50. Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver. International Relations Scholarship Around the World. New York and London: Routledge, 2009.Google Scholar
  51. Waheed, Ahmed Waqas. “State Sovereignty and International Relations in Pakistan: Analysing the Realism Stranglehold.” South Asia Research 37, no. 3 (2017): 277–95.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0262728017725624.Google Scholar
  52. Walt, Stephen M. “The Relationship Between Theory and Practice in International Relations.” Annual Review of Political Science 8, no. 1 (June 15, 2005): 23–48.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104904.Google Scholar
  53. Yeung, Henry Wai-Chung. “Redressing the Geographical Bias in Social Science Knowledge.” Environment and Planning A 33, no. 1 (2001): 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a33181.Google Scholar
  54. Zehfuss, Maja. Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for International Peace & StabilityNational University of Sciences and TechnologyIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations