Naturalization Policies, Education and Citizenship

Multicultural and Multi-Nation Societies in International Perspective

D. Kiwan

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780230303416
• eBook ISBN: 9781137315519
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Educational Policy
• Index: Social Sciences

This book examines constructions of 'national' citizenship in the context of perceived internal division, including devolution, multiculturalism, ethno-religious conflict, post-conflict and refugees, drawing on a wide range of countries such as Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the UK, Ukraine, Canada and Palestinians in Lebanon.

1

Introduction

Dina Kiwan

The approach of this book

Around the world there is a heightened interest in citizenship policy in the broadest sense – in the policy domains of education, naturalization and integration. We are witnessing widespread contestations over conceptions of citizenship, whether it be, for example, the challenges posed by multicultural diversity as a result of large-scale immigration in Western contexts, or those of the ongoing uprisings in the Arab world, as seen through the lens of the ‘Arab Spring’. Increasingly, we are observing governmental constructions of ‘common’ national citizenship in the context of perceived internal division – including devolution, increased social pluralism, immigration, increased ethnic and religious diversity and even civil conflict. However, these are simultaneously contested by students and teachers, as well as by prospective new citizens. This is the case not only in longer-established Western democracies but also in the new democratic states of Eastern and Central Europe, as well as in countries of the Middle East and Far East. This book draws on case study examples from an interdisciplinary perspective, including Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ukraine, the UK and Palestinians in Lebanon, examining these contestations of citizenship in the domains of education and naturalization.

All of the chapters in this book illustrate a commitment to what can be described as a ‘contextual’ methodological approach (Carens, 2004), where there is a mutual interplay between theory and practice. The basic premise of this approach is that social and political practices ‘may contain some forms of wisdom’ (p.122) and, as such, actual ‘cases’ or examples are used in developing theory (Carens, 2004). This is not to advocate endorsement of these practices per se but rather they are given ‘standing’, in an academic context where theory typically holds a privileged position over policy and practice. In developing his argument in support of this approach, Carens (2004) asserts that normative political theory can ignore that moral reasoning can serve particular interests – for example, class, ethnicity or gender interests. In addition, it should be remembered that such normative political theorizing takes place in particular institutional contexts that privilege some over others. Moreover, standards of justice are rooted in particular historical traditions that may not be shared with others. Carens’ characterization of a contextual approach to theory is an attempt to address these concerns. As such, policy and practice can allow for a critical perspective on theory, as well as theory allowing for a critical perspective on policy and practice.

Carens advocates an approach of oscillating between theory and practice that he refers to as ‘reflective disequilibrium’, which he characterizes as the ‘mutual unsettling’ in theory and practice by juxtaposing the two in an ‘ongoing dialectic’ (p.123). This approach entails a search for cases that potentially challenges the theoretical position, as well as considering a range of cases, especially unfamiliar ones (Carens, 2004). As already mentioned, the chapters in this book draw on a variety of case studies, including what Carens terms the more ‘unfamiliar’ cases outside the usual frame of Western democracies which tend to be the main academic focus for studies on citizenship and its related concepts and concerns.

There is, however, an ongoing academic debate with regard to the ‘usefulness’ of this approach (Kukathas, 2004), not only with respect to the development and refinement of theory but also for policy and practice. For example, Kukathas (2004) argues that in the real world, policies, practices and institutions are shaped by many things – not just a single theory – and that theoretical reflection is just one possible input into the development of a practical action. There are often many practical constraints – interests, time, money, not only reason – so the most that the theorist can do is assess and criticize (Kukathas, 2004). Kukathas disagrees about the use of real cases as he thinks they are so complex that they can often be a source of confusion rather than clarification. He does not think that the contextual approach leads to better theorizing or that public policy takes much account of political theory.

Whilst I have some sympathy with Kukathas’ argument, namely that the role of theory may be limited in the fast-paced and contingencydependent world of policymaking and practice, I would agree with Carens that a contextual approach is useful itself as a means to develop, refine and challenge existing theory, as well as in contributing to the understanding and development of policy and practice. His proposal of searching for challenging cases and those that are unfamiliar has particular pertinence when examining concepts from a cross-comparative perspective, as this necessarily deals with the methodological issue of the ‘translatability’ of both language and concepts in the domain of focus of this book, namely citizenship and its related concepts and practices. Within Western academic discourses, there is often an unquestioned assumption that these theories, conceptions and debates are universal,¹ at the level of language and concepts. Postcolonial critiques of citizenship have argued that the language and constructions of citizenship in Western academic discourses do no more than present particularist understandings of citizenship that masquerade as universal theories of citizenship. By considering the ‘translatability’ of concepts and theories of citizenship – typically developed within a Western frame of reference and socio-political context with its concomitant implicit assumptions – to other regional contexts, such a methodological stance allows for a more explicit scrutiny of these concepts and theories.

It is clearly a challenging task that faces theorists: one of both abstracting from the particular, and necessarily being located within a particular context in doing so, and in doing so attempting to generalize, providing an explanatory or clarifying role with respect to the phenomenon under scrutiny. This necessarily raises an extremely important methodological question of how we ‘do’ theory. This issue can be considered both in terms of the act of theorizing, which relates to how language and concepts are employed in different contexts, and in terms of the process itself, a question about the production of knowledge. As such, this book also speaks to these methodological/theoretical debates regarding the production of knowledge, contextualized in relation to how ‘citizenship’ is constructed in the different case studies analysed in this book.

Aims

The overall broad aims of this book are three-fold. Firstly, it examines the implications of different theoretical constructions of ‘national’ citizenship, drawing holistically across the domains of naturalization and citizenship education policy, as well as in the policy domain of civic integration policies. This is elucidated through the examination of constructions of ‘national’ citizenship, not only in Western democracies but broadening the focus to case studies in Eastern Europe and the Middle East to challenge thinking in this already contested domain.

Secondly, it critically explores how societal context differentially affects national or (state-level) constructions of citizenship, with particular attention to the forces of devolution and ethnoreligious conflict. Education and naturalization policies, which I examine in the UK example (Chapter 2), and also in the cross-comparative study of five countries in Northern Europe by Meer and Modood (Chapter 4), allow for the interrogation of constructions of citizenship in a multination devolutionary context, and a multicultural context as a result of large-scale immigration since the Second World War. Winter’s contribution on Canada (Chapter 5) also examines constructions of citizenship in its context of complex ‘ethnocultural’ heritage, whilst Tereshchenko examines constructions of Ukrainian citizenship that are ethnically polarized along an East–West axis (Chapter 6). Fincham examines constructions of citizenship for Palestinians in exile, living in the refugee camps in Southern Lebanon (Chapter 7). Finally, through the examination of constructions of citizenship though the policy domains of education and naturalization in different societal contexts – themselves reflecting considerable ethnic and religious diversity – the book also aims to contribute to theoretical understandings of how different constructions of ‘national’ citizenship shape experiences of belonging and participation in ethnically and religiously diverse societal contexts that potentially ‘challenge’ such national (state-level) framings.

A restrictive turn?

There is often an assumption that the introduction of new naturalization requirements, citizenship education policies and integration policies reflects a restrictive turn (Joppke, 2010; Pacquet, 2012; Wright, 2008). By ‘restrictive’ I refer to forms of state control, which may be reflected in terms of ‘nationalization’ trends but not exclusively. Trends of ‘de-ethnicization’ may similarly reflect restrictive state tendencies. These also relate to forms of state control as exercised through pedagogy – invoking the notion of the ‘pedagogical state’ (Pykett, 2010). Are such claims correct? There have been a number of initiatives developing ‘indicators’ of integration aimed at evaluating the integrative effectiveness of such policies. For example, the European Civic Citizenship and Inclusion Index allows for the comparison of policies relating to immigrant inclusion at the European level, naturalization being one of five areas where a number of specific policy indicators were developed (Geddes et al., 2005). The authors’ normative framework classifies language and citizenship tests as restrictive. Thus the requirements for naturalization in the UK, for example, are considered to make it less favourable than those countries without such requirements.

Others attest to the perceived restrictive nature of civic integration policies, in particular naturalization policy requirements across Europe and other Western democratic contexts, such as the US, Canada and Australia. Such mandatory language requirements and civic education are presented as a break from preceding multicultural policies in that they are conceived of as an undue ‘burden’ on newcomers and would-be citizens, with an emphasis on compliance and assimilation (Joppke, 2007, 2008; Triadafilopoulos, 2011; Wallace Goodman, 2010). Pacquet (2012) nuances her analysis, where she compares naturalization policy in Canada and the UK. Whilst she claims that the Canadian citizenship test remains ‘an instrument to promote naturalization and integration’ (p.243), she characterizes the citizenship test in the UK as an instrument of immigration control based on policy developments, whereby it subsequently also became a requirement for indefinite leave to remain. It is evident that the test is positioned at a relatively earlier point in the policy process than was originally envisioned in 2005. Yet the UK’s naturalization requirements consist of two routes: a ‘citizenship test’ route for those with relatively high levels of English language,² and a ‘course’ route that requires that applicants successfully complete an accredited English language course with embedded citizenship content. ³Although Pacquet’s (2012) account shows that the UK naturalization policy requirements have changed from the time of introduction in ways that can be characterized as more restricting, it is yet to be shown empirically whether naturalization policy has in practice come to act as a means of immigration control per se, given that applicants are able to i) resit the test, ii) take the less challenging route of an English language course with embedded civic content or iii) extend their stay on a temporary basis (UKBA, 2012).

A key theme running throughout this book is the challenge to the assumption that we are witnessing a ‘restrictive’ turn. In Chapter 2, ‘Learning to be “British”? Education and Naturalization in the UK’, I examine citizenship policy developments including the statutory introduction of citizenship education into schools in England in 2002 (QCA, 1998), as well as citizenship education developments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In addition, new requirements for the acquisition of British citizenship and settlement (Home Office, 2005, 2006) were introduced in 2005. I situate my analysis of these policy developments in the UK in the context of increased devolution, concerns about community cohesion and security threats since 9/11. This is further situated in relation to the UK as both a ‘multination’ state – made up of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales – and a ‘multicultural’ state in that there are a large number of different ethnic and religious groups, largely as a result of mass immigration since the Second World War. I illustrate how policy rationales for the initial introduction of citizenship education policy in England in 1998 – initially framed predominantly in terms of addressing the political apathy of the youth – subsequently came to be constructed in terms of addressing the challenges of living in an ethnically and religiously diverse society and a multination state (Kiwan, 2008a).

In considering the proposition that we are witnessing a restrictive turn, on the one hand, public policy discourses reflect UK governmental attempts to assert ‘state-level’ conceptions of citizenship in a context of perceived internal division, ascribed to both its multinational and its multicultural context. I draw on Pykett’s (2010) work on the nature of the ‘pedagogical state’. I discuss her (2010) claim that a dominant trend in the scholarly analysis of citizenship policy initiatives has emphasized a ‘neoliberal political rationality’ (p.621), where education and schooling are typically constructed as a form of ‘governmentality’, an ideological force with power over people holding an illusion of freedom. Pykett (2010) proposes that this approach to theorizing about the ‘pedagogical state’ – how the state uses pedagogical strategies to govern citizens – is limited in that it does not take account of the ‘distinctive nature of pedagogical power’ (p.623), which enables critical debate. As such, citizenship education cannot be said to illustrate a unified government agenda, as this overestimates the power of the state over citizens through schooling.

In my chapter I propose that given the distinctive nature of pedagogy and learning environments, constructions of education as restrictive forms of ‘governmentality’ are problematic, and that this applies both to the domain of citizenship education policy and to the domain of naturalization. I illustrate this, firstly, by explicating the educative nature and framing of naturalization policy, showing how this domain of policy explicitly relates to the domain of citizenship education policy, and, secondly, by proposing that naturalization policy itself can be conceptualized in educative terms. I examine policy rationales and objectives for the introduction of citizenship education in England, as well as the policy rationales framing citizenship education in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It is of note that the responsibility for education is devolved to the separate ‘regions’ or nations of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and so, as a consequence, policy and curriculum for citizenship education is developed and implemented autonomously in the different ‘nations’. By examining the different policy rationales and conceptions of citizenship across the four nations, I illustrate the extent to which the nations emphasize different conceptions of citizenship. I consider the extent to which these different conceptions are reconciled within the different regional contexts and within the UK as a whole, reflecting on whether these models are considered to be ‘effective’, according to governmental agendas typically characterized as ‘restrictive’, in the light of the conception of the ‘pedagogic state’ (Pykett, 2010).

This is followed by an examination of the policy rationale for the introduction of the new UK naturalization requirements, originally framed in terms of raising the status of becoming a British citizen, and so encouraging more eligible would-be citizens to apply for citizenship. The rationale for the work of the Life in the UK Advisory Group, set out in the group’s report, ‘The New and the Old’ (Home Office, 2003), situates this rationale in relation to the government’s broader policy aims, including ‘a wider citizenship agenda’ ‘encouraging community cohesion’ and ‘valuing diversity’. Indeed, in analysing the example of UK naturalization policy requirements, I have proposed that the policy rationale and objectives, the content of the ‘citizenship test’ and courses, and also the very nature of the ‘assessment’, are based on an educative rationale linked to notions of ‘entitlement’ to learning, skills development and conceptions of ‘lifelong learning’ (D. Kiwan, 2008a, 2011). This, in turn, has implications for how the acquisition of citizenship is conceptualized, in relation to the broader debates on integration and diversity.

Whilst characterizations of citizenship education and naturalization policy as restrictive may be overly simplistic, I have argued elsewhere that governments’ models of citizenship education policy, conceived in terms of individually equipping pupils with ‘skills’ for partici...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Notes on Contributors
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Learning to be ‘British’? Education and Naturalization in the UK
• 3. State Paternalism and Religious Dress
• 4. Diversity and Nationality: Contemporary Developments in Five European Citizenship Regimes
• 5. Descent, Territory and Common Values: Redefining Citizenship in Canada
• 6. Regional Diversity and Education for ‘National’ Citizenship in Ukraine: The Construction of Citizenship Identities by Borderland Youth
• 7. Shifting Youth Identities and Notions of Citizenship in the Palestinian Diaspora: The Case of Lebanon
• 8. Conclusion
• Index