Discursive Constructions of Refugee Status and Citizen: A Critical Curriculum Analysis

• In Event: Legally Statused Realities in the Racialized World: Educational Implications for Refugee Children

Abstract

Despite increasing attention to refugee children’s needs (McBrien, 2005), the dominant narrative of refugees is one of deficit: damage, neediness, and helplessness (Kisiara, 2015). Further, less attention is placed on schools’ responses to changing demographics (Pinson & Arnot, 2007; Castles, 2017) and their role in furthering this narrative. This study explores the explicit and implicit curriculum of citizenship in 8-12th grade lesson plans about refugees, addressing these research questions:
• What do lessons convey as significant about refugee experiences and identity?
• What relationships are established between refugee and citizen?
• How do these constructions define values and boundaries of power and citizenship?
A wealth of scholarship examines the “hidden curriculum” (Margolis, Soldatenko, Acker, & Gair, 2001), implicit messages that reproduce (inequitable) societal norms (Apple, 1996). Critical Curriculum Studies emphasize the politics of knowledge—who is included and what is valued (Au, 2012). I use critical discourse analysis to examine the link between language patterns in text to constructions of power (van Dijk, 1993; Luke, 1995; van Dijk, 2015; Gee, 2014; Rogers, et al., 2005).
Purposeful search of online repositories yielded eleven lessons for analysis. Most were created between 2009–2016 by teachers, media and nonprofit organizations, and focused on a specific group of refugees (e.g. Hmong, Somali Bantu, Syrian).
I used open and axial coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2014) to analyze lessons utilizing constant comparative method (Glaser, 1965). Themes emerged regarding definition of refugee identity (e.g. passive, tragic, numbers), relationship between refugee and citizen (e.g. similarity/difference, power, community impact), and placement of refugees in geopolitical landscape (e.g. legal definitions, borders, documentation).
Four tensions emerged between stated and implicit lesson purposes:
• Distance: Objectives asked learners to “come closer” to refugees’ experiences; in execution these lessons maintained distance by distilling “refugees” into numbers and definitions, excluding refugee voice, and subtle use of intermediaries.
• Difference: Lessons emphasized difference while simultaneously encouraging relationship. They might remark that it is “impossible to imagine” refugees’ experiences, then invite students to do just that. Lessons gave richer detail when highlighting cultural difference, ‘exoticizing’ refugees and establishing boundaries of normality. At a deeper level, use of ‘they/them/their’ pronouns reinforced that refugees are not ‘us.’
• Reflexive Awareness: Lessons exhibited lack of reflexive design: Students were rarely centered within the learning, and never in ways that asked them to explore their identity and experiences within context that creates refugees.
• Power & Obligation: Refugees were portrayed as helpless and passive, while only ‘we’ could help. Narratives of power suggested American superiority and generosity, but ignored U.S. roles in creating forced migration.
These lessons distanced and disempowered refugees, reinforcing the power of formal citizenship status. Refugee voices were excluded and dominant perspectives unchallenged, urging application of RefugeeCrit perspectives for future scholarship. Educators should consider whose voices are centered, how Whiteness and citizenship are positioned, and use reflexive assignments to encourage students’ awareness of self-in-context. Continued research should explore how these discourses influence citizenship identity and ideology and their impact refugee students’ experiences.

Author

• Lindsay Jarratt, The University of Iowa