The hegemony of academic writing is deeply rooted in historical, political, and economic structures that dictate the production, dissemination, and consumption of knowledge. Teaching academic writing is not merely about instructing students on syntax, coherence, or argumentation; it is about engaging them in the political economy of knowledge production, where the dominant forces of the Global North shape what is considered legitimate scholarship. This semester, as I mentored students in the Department of Pakistan Studies at the National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad, I observed how deeply entrenched colonial, postcolonial, and neoliberal hegemonies influence their perspectives. Their personal narratives, reflecting on their past, present, and future, revealed the extent to which academic writing serves as a tool of epistemic control. Writing in this context was not just an academic exercise but an attempt to dismantle the colonized and neoliberal frameworks embedded in students’ imaginations, a task deeply rooted in the social fabric. Before engaging in writing, students first needed to unlearn and critically analyze their reading practices, which are predominantly structured within the center-periphery theory. Reading is not a neutral act; it is a political process that shapes consciousness. In the global academic arena, knowledge production is disproportionately influenced by the Global North, a phenomenon that Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony helps to elucidate. The canonization of texts from the West dictates what is considered legitimate knowledge, marginalizing indigenous epistemologies and alternative voices.
Karl Marx’s theory of base and superstructure provides a fundamental framework to understand the political economy of academic writing. The economic base, dominated by capitalist interests, dictates the superstructure, which includes academia, knowledge production, and intellectual discourse. The academic publishing industry, primarily controlled by institutions in the Global North, operates within a neoliberal framework, commodifying knowledge and limiting access to those who can afford it. This reinforces the stratification between knowledge producers and consumers, maintaining an epistemic hierarchy that privileges certain voices while silencing others. Edward Said’s Orientalism further exposes how academic writing is an instrument of power. The Global North produces knowledge about the Global South in a way that perpetuates stereotypes, reinforcing colonial narratives. The structure of academic writing, with its rigid conventions and emphasis on certain methodologies, serves as a gatekeeping mechanism that excludes alternative epistemologies. Indigenous knowledge systems, oral traditions, and non-Western methodologies are often deemed unscientific or illegitimate within this framework.
Subaltern Studies, particularly the work of Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, sheds light on the exclusion of marginalized voices in knowledge production. Spivak’s famous question, “Can the subaltern speak?” resonates deeply in the context of academic writing. The structures governing academic discourse ensure that even when the subaltern speaks, their voices are mediated, edited, and often co-opted to fit the frameworks of dominant knowledge systems. Academic journals, conferences, and peer-review systems are structured in ways that privilege established scholars from elite institutions, further marginalizing voices from the periphery.
The political economy of academic writing, as discussed in works such as Dangerous Writing and Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University, reveals how market forces shape knowledge production. The neoliberalization of universities has transformed academic institutions into competitive enterprises where publishing in high-impact journals is prioritized over critical engagement and community-based research. The rise of academic capitalism, as analyzed by Sheila Slaughter and Larry L. Leslie, illustrates how universities in the Global South are pressured to conform to Western standards of academic excellence, often at the expense of local needs and epistemologies. A Geopolitics of Academic Writing by A. Suresh Canagarajah provides a critical lens to understand how scholars from the Global South navigate these constraints. The dominance of English as the primary language of academic publication creates additional barriers, privileging native English speakers and marginalizing those for whom English is a second or third language. The politics of citation further exacerbates this divide, as scholars from the Global South are often required to cite Western scholars to gain legitimacy, reinforcing the epistemic dominance of the Global North.
David L. Szanton’s The Politics of Knowledge highlights how area studies, a field heavily influenced by Cold War geopolitics, continues to shape academic discourse. Knowledge about the Global South is often produced in a way that serves the strategic interests of Western powers. This asymmetry in knowledge production ensures that academic writing is not merely an intellectual pursuit but a tool of hegemonic control. Roberto Mangabeira Unger’s The Knowledge Economy and Yann Moulier-Boutang’s Cognitive Capitalism further explore how knowledge is commodified within global capitalism. The shift from industrial to knowledge economies has intensified competition among universities, leading to the corporatization of academic institutions. This has significant implications for academic writing, as scholars are increasingly pressured to produce marketable research that aligns with the interests of funding agencies and multinational corporations.
In this context, the concept of the cognitariat becomes crucial in understanding the labor dynamics of academic writing. The cognitariat, a term popularized by Boutang, refers to knowledge workers who are exploited within the neoliberal academic system. These precarious intellectual laborers, including adjunct professors, independent researchers, and graduate students, navigate an environment where academic labor is undervalued and hyper-commodified. The plight of the cognitariat is symptomatic of the broader crisis in knowledge production, where intellectual work is subjected to market forces, limiting critical and decolonial scholarship.
Can the cognitariat decolonize academic writing? This question necessitates a re-evaluation of knowledge production beyond the constraints of neoliberalism and coloniality. Decolonization of academic writing involves resisting the commodification of knowledge and fostering alternative epistemologies that challenge the hegemony of Western scholarship. This requires collective resistance by the cognitariat against exploitative academic structures and the creation of autonomous spaces for decolonial knowledge production. Open-access platforms, community-based research, and transnational collaborations grounded in epistemic justice can serve as viable pathways to decolonizing academic writing.The neoliberalization of academic writing is also evident in the rise of predatory publishing and the monetization of research. Academic knowledge production, as analyzed by Márton Demeter in Academic Knowledge Production and the Global South, is characterized by an unequal distribution of resources. Scholars from the Global South often struggle to access high-quality journals due to financial constraints, limiting their ability to contribute to global academic discourse. The challenge, then, is to decolonize academic writing by fostering dialogue, collaboration, and alternative epistemologies. Joe L. Kincheloe’s Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy emphasizes the need for critical pedagogy that challenges hegemonic knowledge structures. This involves rethinking academic curricula, incorporating indigenous knowledge systems, and creating spaces for alternative voices in scholarly discourse.
Decolonizing academic writing requires dismantling the power structures that govern knowledge production. This involves challenging the dominance of Western epistemologies, advocating for linguistic diversity, and creating open-access platforms that democratize knowledge. Collaboration between scholars from the Global North and South must be based on mutual respect and equity, rather than extractive research practices that reinforce existing hierarchies. To achieve sustainable development in academia, we must move beyond hegemonic control and towards an inclusive knowledge ecosystem that values diverse perspectives. This requires institutional reforms, policy changes, and a commitment to fostering intellectual autonomy in the Global South. The future of academic writing lies in breaking free from its colonial and neoliberal shackles, embracing plurality, and ensuring that knowledge serves the needs of all humanity rather than the interests of a privileged few.
Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shakeel Ahmad is Chief Executive of Global Strategic Institute for Sustainable Development (GSISD).
