Advertisement

The ‘Truth’ About Pakistan: Knowledge Production and Circulation in International Relations

  • Ahmed W. WaheedEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter argues that even though research in International Relations has often sought to explore how representational identities are constructed, they have seldom analyzed the processes within the International Relations community through which these identities are produced and circulated to the wider International Relations community. The chapter analyzes the discourse on Pakistan by exploring the knowledge-production processes through which the International Relations community has come to ‘know’ Pakistan. Instead this study investigates another question. How is the meaning of Pakistan fixed or stabilized via practices of the International Relations community? The chapter initially explores top journals in the field of International Relations and analyzes dominant trends in the study of Pakistan. Through an analysis of these academic contributions the chapter firstly explains how knowledge-production processes and their intrinsic connection to pedagogy become conduits for the circulation of truth and in doing so implicitly construct the representational identity of Pakistan. Secondly, the chapter analyzes how knowledge on Pakistan is circulated in policy thinking by academics pursuing policy-proximate roles. Finally, a discourse analysis of the most cited texts on Pakistan in International Relations Journals unveils the discursive construction of Pakistan’s identity.

Bibliography

  1. “About Foreign Affairs.” Foreign Affairs, 2019. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/about-foreign-affairs.
  2. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. New York: Routedge, 2010.Google Scholar
  3. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030516003.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behera, N. “International Relations in South Asia: State of the Art.” In International Relations in South Asia: Search for an Alternative Paradigm, edited by N. Behera. New Delhi: Sage, 2008.Google Scholar
  6. ———. “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
  7. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. International Security. MIT Press. Accessed October 11, 2018. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/isec.
  8. Bilgin, Pinar, and Adam D. Morton. “Historicising Representations of ‘Failed States’: Beyond the Cold-War Annexation of the Social Sciences?” Third World Quarterly 23, no. 1 (2002): 55–80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. “From ‘Rogue’ to ‘Failed’ States? The Fallacy of Short-Termism*.” Third World Quarterly 24, no. 3 (2004): 169–80.Google Scholar
  10. Brookings Institution. “Profile of Stephen P. Cohen,” 2018. https://www.brookings.edu/experts/stephen-p-cohen/.
  11. Bullock, Will, Kosuke Imai, and Jacob N. Shapiro. “Statistical Analysis of Endorsement Experiments: Measuring Support for Militant Groups in Pakistan.” Political Analysis 19, no. 4 (January 4, 2011): 363–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carvalho, Benjamin de, Halvard Leira, and John M. Hobson. “The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths That Your Teachers Still Tell You About 1648 and 1919.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (May 24, 2011): 735–58.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811401459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, S., P. Stephen, and S. Cohen. “The Nation and the State of Pakistan.” The Washington Quarterly 25, no. 3 (2002): 109–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dawn News. “Pakistan May Become a Failed State If Current Circumstances Persist: Shahbaz.” Dawn, February 21, 2013. https://www.dawn.com/news/787642.
  17. Desch, Michael. “Technique Trumps Relevance: The Professionalization of Political Science and the Marginalization of Security Studies.” Perspectives on Politics 13, no. 2 (June 18, 2015): 377–93.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714004022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donnelly, Jack. “The Discourse of Anarchy in IR.” International Theory 7, no. 3 (November 21, 2015): 393–425.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971915000111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doty, Roxanne Lynn. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations. Mineapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University. The Washington Quarterly. Taylor & Francis. Accessed October 11, 2018. https://twq.elliott.gwu.edu/about-twq.
  21. Finnegan, Ruth H., ed. Participating in the Knowledge Society: Researchers Beyond the University Walls. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.Google Scholar
  22. Foreign Policy. “Does the Academy Matter?” Foreign Policy Magazine, March 2014. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/15/does-the-academy-matter/.
  23. Fuller, Steve. The Governance of Science: Ideology and the Future of the Open Society. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000. https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/4321059.
  24. Godin, Benoit, and Yves Gingras. “The Place of Universities in the System of Knowledge Production.” Research Policy 29, no. 2 (2000): 273–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00065-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hagmann, Jonas, and Thomas J. Biersteker. “Beyond the Published Discipline: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of International Studies.” European Journal of International Relations 20, no. 2 (June 18, 2014): 291–315.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066112449879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hehir, A. Is Pakistan a Failed State? Brief Number 15, Bradford: Pakistan Security Research Unit (PSRU), 2007.Google Scholar
  27. Higgott, Richard, and Diane Stone. “The Limits of Influence: Foreign Policy Think Tanks in Britain and the USA.” Review of International Studies 20, no. 1 (1994): 15–34.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210500117760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoebink, Paul, and Sarah Cummings. “Representation of Academics from Developing Countries as Authors and Editorial Board Members in Scientific Journals: Does This Matter to the Field of Development Studies?” European Journal of Development Research 29, no. 2 (2017): 369–83.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-016-0002-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoffman, Stanley. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106, no. 3 (1977): 41–60. https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/0084/Hoffman.pdf.
  30. Jazeel, Tariq, and Colin McFarlane. “The Limits of Responsibility: A Postcolonial Politics of Academic Knowledge Production.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35, no. 1 (January 1, 2010): 109–24.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00367.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. John J. Mearsheimer. “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
  33. Johnson, Thomas H., and M. Chris Mason. “No Sign Until the Burst of Fire: Understanding the Pakistan-Afghanistan Frontier.” International Security 32, no. 4 (April 2008): 41–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnston, Patrick B., and Anoop K. Sarbahi. “The Impact of US Drone Strikes on Terrorism in Pakistan.” International Studies Quarterly 60, no. 2 (June 2016): 203–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kapur, S. Paul. “Ten Years of Instability in a Nuclear South Asia.” International Security 33, no. 2 (October 2008): 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ———. “India and Pakistan’s Unstable Peace: Why Nuclear South Asia Is Not Like Cold War Europe.” International Security 30, no. 2 (2013): 127–52.Google Scholar
  37. Keim, W. “Social Sciences Internationally: The Problem of Marginalisation and Its Consequences for the Discipline of Sociology.” African Sociological Review/Revue Africaine de Sociologie 12, no. 2 (2008): 22–48.  https://doi.org/10.2307/24487604.
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Markey, D. No Exit from Pakistan: America’s Tortured Relationship with Pakistan. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  40. McNair, S. “Is There a Crisis? Does It Matter?” In The End of Knowledge in Higher Education, edited by Ronald Barnett and Anne Griffin, 192. London: Cassell, 1997.Google Scholar
  41. Mead, Lawrence M. “Scholasticism in Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 8, no. 2 (June 17, 2010): 453–64.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mignolo, Walter. “The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 101, no. 1 (2002): 57–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murad, A. “US Aid to Pakistan and Democracy.” Policy Perspectives 6, no. 2 (2009): 1–40.Google Scholar
  45. Narang, Vipin. “Posturing for Peace? Pakistan’s Nuclear Postures and South Asian Stability.” International Security 34, no. 3 (2010): 38–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Newsom, David D. “Foreign Policy and Academia.” Foreign Policy 101, no. 101 (1995): 52–67.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1149406.
  47. 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.
  48. Oren, Ido. Our Enemies and US: America’s Rivalries and the Making of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  49. ———. “The Enduring Relationship Between the American (National Security) State and the State of the Discipline.” Political Science and Politics 37, no. 1 (2004): 51–55.Google Scholar
  50. ———. “International Relations Ideas as Reflections and Weapons of US Foreign Policy.” In The Sage Handbook of the History, Philosophy and Sociology of International Relations, edited by Andreas Gofas, Inanna Hamati-Ataya, and Nicholas Onuf, 399–413. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2018.Google Scholar
  51. Osiander, Andreas. “Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth.” International Organization 55, no. 2 (June 1, 2001): 251–87.  https://doi.org/10.1162/00208180151140577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Press Trust of India. “In Signal of US Frustration with Pakistan, Donald Trump Cancels $1.66 Billion Aid.” NDTV, 2018.Google Scholar
  53. Raghuram, Parvati, and Clare Madge. “Towards a Method for Postcolonial Development Geography? Possibilities and Challenges.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 27, no. 3 (November 1, 2006): 270–88.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.2006.00262.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rahman, Attaur. “A Failing State.” The Express Tribune, February 22, 2013. https://tribune.com.pk/story/510629/a-failing-state/.
  55. Royal Institute of International Affairs. International Affairs. Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1944. https://academic.oup.com/ia/pages/About.
  56. Saracino, Grazia M. Writing for Scholarly Publication in English: Issues for Nonnative Speakers. San Cesario di Lecce: Manni Publishers, 2004.Google Scholar
  57. Scott, Peter, ed. Higher Education Re-formed. London: Falmer Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  58. Shapiro, Ian. The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8083.html.
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.
  61. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy. The International Institute for Strategic Studies. Accessed October 11, 2018. https://www.iiss.org/.
  62. Teschke, Benno. The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations. London: Verso, 2009.Google Scholar
  63. The News International. “Pakistan a Failed State, Stated Planning Commission Chief.” The News International, December 19, 2012. https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/print/627238-pakistan-a-failed-state,-stated-planning-commission-chief.
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver. International Relations Scholarship Around the World. New York and London: Routledge, 2009.Google Scholar
  66. Wæver, Ole. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (October 1, 1998): 687–727.  https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Waheed, Ahmed. “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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. ———. The Wrong Ally: Pakistan’s State Sovereignty Under US Dependence. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2018.Google Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Waver, Ole. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American in and European Developments International Relations.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (2013): 687–727.Google Scholar
  71. Wiebke Keim, Ercüment Çelik, and Veronika Wöhrer, eds. Global Knowledge Production in the Social Sciences: Made in Circulation. London and New York: Routledge, 2014.Google Scholar
  72. Williams, Brian Glyn. “The CIA’s Covert Predator Drone War in Pakistan, 2004–2010: The History of an Assassination Campaign.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 33, no. 10 (September 20, 2010): 871–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ziring, L. “Weak State, Failed State, Garrison State: The Pakistan Saga.” In South Asia’s Weak States: Understanding the Regional Insecurity Predicament, edited by T. Paul, 170–95. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010.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