Decolonising civic integration: a critical analysis of texts used in Dutch civic integration programmes

Abstract

European civic integration programmes claim to provide newcomers with necessary tools for successful participation. Simultaneously, these programmes have been criticised for being restrictive, market-driven and for working towards an implicit goal of limiting migration. Authors have questioned how these programmes discursively construct an offensive image of the Other and how colonial histories are reproduced in the constructions seen today. The Dutch civic integration programme is considered a leading example of a restrictive programme within Europe. Research has critically questioned the discourses within its policies, yet limited research has moved beyond policy to focus on discourse in texts in practice. This study presents a critical discourse analysis of texts used in the civic integration programme and demonstrates that they participate in multiple discursive constructions: the construction of the Dutch nationstate and its citizens as inherently modern, the construction of the Other as Unmodern and thus a threat, and the construction of the hierarchical relationship between the two. The civic integration programme has been left out of discussions on decolonisation to date, contributing to it remaining a core practice of othering. This study applies post-colonial theories to understand the impacts of current discourse, and forwards possibilities for consideration of decolonised alternatives.

A help or hindrance? Highly educated refugees’ perceptions of the role of civic integration programmes in accessing the labour market in Oslo, Malmö and Munich

“…Being seen as refugees creates the expectation to speak for the refugee community, rather than to express themselves beyond their refugee self. Showing how Dutch integration programme represents a core practice of Othering migrants like refugees, Blankvoort et al (2021) claim that the programme not only fails to contribute to the integration of its new members, but further perpetuates their marginalisation.…”

Do Integration Courses Promote Refugees’ Social and Political Integration? Evidence from Norway

“…Other possible explanations relate to increased perceptions of discrimination (Oskooii, 2020), or higher expectations for the host society (Maxwell, 2012). It is also possible that immigrants perceive integration programs, in particular those including civic courses, as a form of paternalism, which they respond negatively to (Böcker and Strik, 2011;Blankvoort et al, 2021). For instance, Hilbig and Riaz (2021) analyze a policy reform in Germany that restricted refugee mobility in the first three years after arrival, a strict form of paternalism.…”

Integrating the Immigrant the Swedish Way? Understandings of Citizenship and Integration in Swedish Local Civic Integration Projects

“…However, civic integration policies have been seen as marking a shift to a symbolic politics of subjugation and of disciplining the 'Other' (Lentin and Titley 2011) and have been criticized for 'normativity, the negative objectification of migrants as 'other', an outdated imaginary of society, methodological nationalism, and a narrow focus on migrants in the factors shaping integration processes ' Magazzini (2021: 5). They have been seen as creating hierarchically ordered categories of, for example, 'the Swede' and 'the immigrant' where the Swede becomes the taken-for-granted norm and the immigrant is subordinated and becomes 'the Other', the unmodern, lacking in gender-equality (Dahlstedt and Hertzberg 2007;Blankvoort et al 2021). Further as Magazzini (2020) points out, the problems of integration are seen as located in the immigrants themselves and the burden of solving them tends to be placed on them, effectively silencing issues of racial discrimination, inequality and poverty (Lentin and Titley 2011).…”