Security is a ‘Mental Game’: The Psychology of Bordering Checkposts in Pakistan

ABSTRACT

This article explores how checkposts, as a practice of everyday bordering, shape individuals’ feelings of ‘ontological security’ in the Pakistani cities of Peshawar, Islamabad and Lahore in a sample of Pakistani middle- and upper-class citizens. In this article, checkposts are treated as urban manifestations of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, being erected by the Pakistani state in the attempt to reinforce the border in the context of the war on terror. In contrast to the tendency in much of the political science literature to analyse ‘security’ in relation to states and militaries, this article interrogates individuals’ personal experiences of security by drawing on Giddens’ notion of ‘ontological security’. This exemplifies a shift away from quantitative accounts of what it means to ‘be secure’ towards a qualitative account of what it means to ‘feel secure’. The research analyses a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with psychologists, humanitarian workers and peace educators in Pakistan in 2014. Linking my participants’ narratives to an account of ‘ontological security’, I argue that bordering at checkposts diminishes feelings of security, even among citizens who seem not to be the prime suspects and target of checkposts.

Acknowledgments

I want to sincerely thank Dr. Matthew Nelson, Dr. Felix Berenskoetter, Dr. Sami Raza and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback to earlier versions of this manuscript.

Notes

^1. E. Sridharan, ‘International Relations Theory and the India-Pakistan Conflict’, India Review 4/2 (2007) pp. 103–24.

^2. Ibid.; P. Das, ‘Issues in the Management of the India-Pakistan International Border’, Strategic Analysis 38/3 (2014) pp. 307–24; G. Perkovich and T. Dalton, Not War, Not Peace?: Motivating Pakistan to Prevent Cross-Border Terrorism (New Delhi: Oxford University Press 2016).

^3. S. Alimia, ‘Performing the Border: Afghan Refugees, Identity Cards, and the Expulsion from Pakistan’, Geopolitics.

^4. All the study’s participants’ names are pseudonyms.

^5. S. Raza, ‘Legal Sovereignty on the Border: Aliens, Identity, and Violence in the Northwestern Frontier of Pakistan’, Geopolitics.

^6. S. Alimia, The Quest for Humanity in a Dehumanised State: Afghan Refugees and Devalued Citizens in Urban Pakistan, 1979–2012 (PhD-thesis submitted at the Department of Politics and International Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies) (2013) p. 277.

^7. Ibid., pp. 307–8.

^8. A. M. Bouzas, ‘Mixed Legacies in Contested Borderlands: Skardu and the Kashmir Dispute’, Geopolitics 17/4 (2012) pp. 867–86.

^9. A. Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identify: Self and Society in Late Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press 1991) p. 92.

^10. A. Bryman, Social Research Methods (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012) p. 414.

^11. Ibid., p. 424.

^12. D. Chandler, ‘Rethinking the Subject of Human Security’, in M. K. Pasha (ed.), Globalization, Difference, and Human Security (New York: Routledge 2013).

^13. B. Buzan et al., Security: A New Framework for Analysis (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers 1998).

^14. J. L. Austin, How to Do things with Words (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1962).

^15. O. Wæver, ‘Securitisation and Desecuritisation’, in R. D. Lipschutz (ed.), On Security (New York: Columbia University Press 1995) p. 35.

^16. J. Huysmans, ‘What’s in an Act? On Security Speech Acts and Little Security Nothings’, Security Dialogue 42/4–5 (2011) p. 372.

^17. C. Peoples and N. Vaughan-Williams, Critical Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge 2010) p. 82.

^18. A. Q. Suleri, ‘Insecurity Breeds Insecurity’, in A. M. Weiss and S. G. Khattak (eds.), Development Challenges Confronting Pakistan (Virginia: Stylus Publishing 2013) p. 57.

^19. A. Rashid, Pakistan On the Brink (New York: Penguin Group 2012) p. 27.

^20. United National Development Programme (UNDP), New Dimensions of Human Security (New York: Oxford University Press 1994) p. 22.

^21. J. Leaning and S. Arie, Human Security: A Framework for Assessment in Conflict and Transition, Thinking Complex Emergency Response and Transition Initiative - Crisis and Transition Tool Kit (2000) p. 8.

^22. P. Bilgin, ‘Individual and Societal Dimensions of Security’, International Studies Review 5/2 (2003) p. 213.

^23. R. Thakur, ‘A Political Worldview’, Security Dialogue 35 (2004) p. 347.

^24. A. Q. Suleri (note 18) p. 57.

^25. Y. Joseph and R. Rothfuss, ‘Symbolic Border and the Securitization of Identity Markers in Nigeria’s Ethno-Religiously Segregated City of Jos’, in R. Jones and C. Johnson (eds.), Placing the Border in Everyday Life (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited 2014) p. 167.

^26. Ibid., p. 171.

^27. M. K. Pasha, Globalization, Differences, and Human Security (Oxon: Routledge 2013).

^28. Ibid., p. 28.

^29. Stritzel and Vuori have drawn attention to the etymology of the English word ‘security’ which derived from the ‘Roman word securus, where se means “without” and cura means “worry”, “care”, “concern” or “anxiety.”’ Hence, security has also, traditionally, always been defined in negative terms, as not being insecure; H. Stritzel and J. Vuori, ‘Security’, in F. Berenskoetter et al. (eds.), Concepts in World Politics (London: Sage Publications 2016) p. 45.

^30. J. Leaning and S. Arie (note 21) p. 35.

^31. Ibid., p. 24.

^32. N. Husain et al. ‘Social Factors Associated with Chronic Depression Among a Population-based Sample of Women in Rural Pakistan’, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 39 (2004) pp. 618–24; R. Kidwai,‘Demographic Factors, Social Problems and Material Amenities as Predictors of Psychological Distress: A Cross-sectional Study in Karachi, Pakistan’, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 49/1 (2014) pp. 27–9.

^33. I. Mirza and R. Jenkins, ‘Risk Factors, Prevalence, and Treatment of Anxiety and Depressive Disorders in Pakistan: Systematic Review’, BMJ 328/7443 (2004) p. 794.

^34. Ibid., p. 795.

^35. H. Stritzel and J. Vuori (note 29) p. 44.

^36. A.T.R. Wibben, ‘Human Security: Toward an Opening’, Security Dialogue 39/4 (2008) p. 455.

^37. Ibid., p. 456.

^38. C. Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (Oakland: University of California Press 1990)

^39. L. Sjoberg, ‘Centering Security Studies Around Felt, Gendered Insecurities’, Journal of Global Security Studies 1/1 (2016) pp. 51–63.

^40. Ibid., p. 60.

^41. N. Parker and N. Vaughan-Williams, Critical Border Studies - Broadening and Deepening of the ‘Lines in the Sand’-Agenda (Oxon: Routledge 2014).

^42. Ibid., p. 3.

^43. H. Stritzel and J. Vuori (note 29) p. 45.

^44. Z. Bauman, Liquid Fear (Cambridge: Polity Press 2006).

^45. U. Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage 1992).

^46. A. Giddens (note 9).

^47. P. Sweetman,‘Twenty-first Century Dis-ease? Habitus Reflexivity or the Reflexive Habitus’, The Sociological Review 51/4 (2003) p. 530.

^48. Giddens borrows the concept from R.D.Laing, a psychoanalyst, R.D. Laing, The Divided Self (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1965).

^49. A. Giddens (note 9) p. 92.

^50. J. Mitzen, ‘Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma’, European Journal of International Relations 12/3 (2006) pp. 341–70.

^51. S. Croft and N. Vaughan-Williams, ‘Fit for purpose? Fitting Ontological Security Studies ‘into’ the Discipline of International Relations: Towards a Vernacular Turn’, Cooperation and Conflict 52/1 (2017) pp. 12–30.

^52. J. Mitzen (note 50) pp. 341–70.

^53. Ibid.

^54. A. Zarakol, ‘Ontological (In)Security and State Denial of Historical Crimes: Turkey and Japan’, International Relations 24/1 (2010) pp. 3–23.

^55. C. Kinvall, ‘Globalization and Religious Nationalism: Self, Identity, and the Search for Ontological Security’, Political Psychology 25/5 (2004) p. 741–67.

^56. J. Huysmans (note 16).

^57. S. Croft and N. Vaughan-Williams (note 51).

^58. C. Kinvall and J. Mitzen, ‘An Introduction to the Special Issue: Ontological Securities in World Politics’, Cooperation and Conflict 52/1 (2017) pp. 3–11.

^59. B. Rumelili, ‘Identity and Desecuritisation: The Pitfalls of Conflating Ontological and Physical security’, Journal of International Relations and Development 18/1 (2015) pp. 52–74.

^60. R. Thakur, ‘A Political Worldview’, Security Dialogue 35/3 (2004) pp. 347.

^61. M. Heidegger, Being and Time (Oxford: Blackwell 1962 [1927]).

^62. Ibid., p. 1.

^63. F. Berenskoetter, ‘Parameters of a National Biography’, European Journal of International Relations 20/1 (2014) p. 268.

^64. Ibid., p.7.

^65. F. Berenskoetter, From Friends to Strangers: A Theory of Interstate Security Cooperation Applied to German-American Relations, 1945–1995 (PhD thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics and Political Science 2008) p. 99.

^66. Building on Freud, Giddens notes that whereas ‘fear is a response to a specific threat’, anxiety ‘disregards the object’; A. Giddens (note 19), p. 43.

^67. F. Berenskoetter (note 65) p. 100.

^68. B. W. Davis, Martin Heidegger: Key Concepts (Durham: Acumen 2009) p. 70.

^69. A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Polity Press 1984) p. 50.

^70. A. Giddens (note 9) p. 114.

^71. F. Berenskoetter (note 65) p. 105.

^72. A. Giddens (note 9) p. 39.

^73. F. Berenskoetter (note 65) p. 105.

^74. E. Erikson, Childhood and Society (London: W.W. Norton & Co 1951).

^75. Ibid., p. 94.

^76. Ibid., p. 222.

^77. A. Giddens (note 9) p. 38.

^78. Ibid., p. 34.

^79. Ibid., p. 41.

^80. Ibid., pp. 40–1.

^81. E. Goffman, Relations in Public (London: Penguin 1971) p. 239.

^82. B. A. Misztal, ‘Normality and Trust in Goffman’s Theory of Interaction Order’, Sociological Theory 19/3 (2001) p. 312.

^83. M.C. Williams, ‘Modernity, Identity and Security: A Comment on the “Copenhagen Controversy”’, Review of International Studies 24/3 (1998) p. 435.

^84. E. Goffman (note 81) p. 239.

^85. E. Goffman (note 81) p. 239.

^86. A. Giddens (note 9) p. 40.

^87. A. Giddens (note 9) p. 53.

^88. C. Kinvall (note 55) p. 746.

^89. D. P. McAdams, ‘The Psychology of Life Stories’, Review of General Psychology 5/2 (2001) p. 101.

^90. C. P. Casanave, Writing Games: Multicultural Case Studies of Academic Literary Practices in Higher Education (London: Routledge 2002) p. 262.

^91. Ibid., p. 262.

^92. D. P. McAdams and D.R. Baerger, Life Story Coherence and its Relation to Psychological Well- Being’, Narrative Inquiry 9/1 (1999) p. 75.

^93. A. Giddens (note 9) p. 47.

^94. A. Zarakol (note 54) p. 6.

^95. B. Rumelili (note 59) p. 54.

^96. Ibid., p. 57.

^97. Ibid., p. 57.

^98. S. Alimia (note 6) p. 277.

^99. L. Sjoberg (note 39) p. 57.

^100. A. Q. Suleri (note 18) p. 59.

^101. E. Zureik et al., Surveillance and Control in Israel/Palestine (New York: Routledge 2011) p. 11.

^102. U. Beck, ‘Risk Society Revisited: Theory, Politics and Research Programmes’, in U. Beck and B. Adam et al. (ed.), Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory (London: Sage Publications 2000) p. 213.

^103. A. Cooper, C. Perkins, and C. Rumford, ‘The Vernacularization of Borders’, in R. Jones and C. Johnson, Placing the Border in Everyday Life (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited) p. 18.

^104. Y. Joseph and R. Rothfus (note 25) p. 171.

^105. H. Stritzel and J. Vuoriy (note 29) p. 43.

^106. A. T. R. Wibben (note 36) p. 460.

^107. D. Chandler, ‘Rethinking the Subject of Human Security’, in M. K. Pasha (ed.), Globalisation, Difference, and Human Security (Oxon: Routledge 2013) pp. 45–6.

^108. Ibid., p. 47.

^109. C. S. Browning and P. Joenniemi, ‘Ontological Security, Self-Articulation and the Securitisation of Identity’, Cooperation and Conflict 52/1 pp. 31–47.

^110. Ibid., p. 32.

^111. L. Gayer, Karachi: Ordered Disorder and the Struggle for the City (Uttar Pradesh: Harper Collins Publishers India Ltd. 2014) p. 241.

^112. S. Alimia (note 3).

^113. R. Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (New York: Columbia University Press 1997) p. 1.

^114. B. Rumelili (ed.), Conflict Resolution and Ontological Security (New York: Routledge 2015) p. 2.

^115. A. Zarakol (note 53).

^116. H. Stritzel and J. Vuori (note 29) p. 46.