Researcher positioning

I understand the importance of locating myself in this research in terms of my heritage, familial composition, geographic location, and professional/personal experiences. Positionality is complex, multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and nuanced, however, I will try to be succinct. I am a Canadian-Ukrainian teacher-researcher who lives beside the largest reserve in Canada, many of my family members are of First Nations heritage (through marriage/partnership), and over the past decade I have worked in the communities of 11 First Nations. This research is a reflection of: my accountability to all my relations, my lifelong commitment to decolonizing my ways and earning (not assuming) allyship (Wilson and Wilson, 1998).

An underlying premise of this study is that curriculum is an instrument of cognitive imperialism. Comprising history, geography, and citizenship education, social studies has the potential to teach about Indigeneity, power, and justice. Following the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2008–2015a, 2015b, 2015c), the province of Ontario revised its social studies curriculum in 2018 (OME, 2018), in partnership with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit educators, as well as residential school survivors. The revisions primarily consisted of adding Indigenous content to the existing curriculum (Kairos, 2016).

Research problem

Language is not neutral (Styres, 2019) and “No serious curriculum scholar would advance the argument that schools in general and curriculum in particular are politically neutral” (Pinar et al., 1995 p. 244). In education, compartmentalization controls “what stays out in terms of knowledges and worldviews” (Rockwell, 2005, p. 22). The lines of compartmentalization in society are traceable on the textual landscapes of curriculum (Rockwell, 2005). Curriculum is shaped by the way it is framed, which includes patterns of representation and/or the location of content. Meaningful and relevant action toward dismantling cognitive imperialism in education involves confronting dominance-imbued binary framing in curriculum that works as a mechanism of cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledges (Smith et al., 2011).

The research question for this study is: How does binary framing reinforce cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledges in the Social Studies curriculum for Grades 3 to 6 for the province of Ontario, Canada?

Literature review

Cognitive imperialism and compartmentalization

Colonization is a structure-not an event (Battiste, 2013; Battiste, 2016; Battiste and Henderson, 2008; McKenzie et al., 2016). As a form of colonization, cognitive imperialism is “maintains the legitimacy of only one language, one culture, and one frame of reference” (Battiste and Henderson, 2000 p. 198). Imperialism refers to dominance, thus, cognitive imperialism is dominance of the mind, encompassing knowledge systems and ways of being. An example of cognitive imperialism in education is when western notions of time that dominate Social Studies curriculum also dominate the minds of students who are implicitly taught to treat them as superior. Cognitive imperialism in education reproduces “colonial social relations” that are a reflection of binary framing logics, which contribute to the formation of in and out groups in society (Gahman and Legault, 2019, p. 57).

Defined as “divid[ing] something into separate sections, so that one thing does not affect the other” (Oxford University Press, 2020), compartmentalization ensures “the separation of a whole into small, distinct, and often isolated parts” (Angeli et al., 2016, p. 52). Land as alive and land is teaching us (Ahenakew, 2017). The control and domination of land teaches us of the control and domination of human beings.

Rooted in Cartesian dualism, early explorers compartmentalized land in divisive ways using fences and colonial maps. These early practices of compartmentalization continue to control who gets in and who stays out (Battiste and McLean, 2005; Pascale, 2011). As with land, compartmentalization controls the distribution of knowledge in education. Such controls include which knowledges are granted or withheld from access to power, legitimacy, influence, and/or value. On curricular landscapes, the compartmentalization of knowledge controls its representation and access to power. An example of the compartmentalization of knowledge in curriculum is the representation of Indigenous scientific developments as part of a distant past.

This example of compartmentalization teaches a hidden curriculum that reinforces cognitive imperialism via western epistemological dominance encompassing narratives of colonial common sense and progress (Julien et al., 2017; Martin, 1976; Jackson, 1990; Eisner and Eisner, 1985; Giroux, 1983; Schaefli et al., 2018; Hung, 2017; Dimitriadis and McCarthy, 2001). Similarly, education that foregrounds Indigenous knowledge(s) as one off or “isolated events” is an example of compartmentalization for silencing and erasure (Kaomea, 2003).

Compartmentalization is a way of categorizing the respective knowledge(s) of distinct culture groups which, according to Maori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2021), shapes society. Similarly, Fanon (1963) coined the term compartmentalization in reference to societal stratification and oppression. Similarly, the separation of Indigenous communities from education is linked to colonial relations and could also be considered to be form of compartmentalization (Goulet and Goulet, 2014). As a means of controlling the representation of knowledge and people(s), compartmentalization normalizes the stratification of society.

Curriculum framing

The explicit curriculum or “curriculum proper” (Martin, 1976, p. 136) is stated outright (i.e., learning goals and expectations), and the hidden curriculum encompasses values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that are taught but not stated openly (Eisner and Eisner, 1985; Giroux, 1983; Jackson, 1990). The hidden curriculum also includes the “unwritten rules, regulations, standards, and expectations that form part of the learning process in schools and classrooms, not specifically taught to students through the planned or open curriculum and the content” (Rahman, 2013 p. 660). If left unexamined, patterns in curriculum framing (diction and voice) embed mechanisms of cognitive imperialism in the hidden curriculum.

Drawing from linguistics and decolonial scholars, the following section describes curriculum framing in terms of diction and voice. Diction refers to word choice which is a powerful element of curriculum framing. The use of diction in curriculum framing constructs binaries (i.e., good/evil, past/present etc.) that act as mechanisms of cognitive imperialism because they marginalize Indigenous knowledges (Julien et al., 2017). Through the (mis)use of diction in curriculum, injustices can be framed as “temporary disadvantage whose effects can be lessened over time” (Schick and St. Denis, 2005, p. 296). Thus, diction can be used to downplay injustices rooted in colonization and white settler colonialism.

Voice is another powerful element of curriculum framing. Voice can reveal the positioning and intended audience of curriculum writers. Both written and spoken texts reflect voice in different ways. In text-based content, authors’ voice can reveal their positioning and location both historically and culturally (Ivanič and Camps, 2001). Voice in curriculum framing reflects dominant western epistemologies through the removal, adding or invisibilizing of tense, the inclusion or exclusion of content within featured writing and ways of writing that speak to a dominant and/or exclusive audience.

Voice in curriculum framing reinforces cognitive imperialism through the use of verb tense to relegate knowledge(s) to a past or a vague time period (Ivanič and Camps, 2001). Voice in curriculum framing also reinforces cognitive imperialism by presenting a homogenized version of knowledge as categorically true, neutral and universal (Ivanič and Camps, 2001).

The location of content is also an aspect of voice in the framing of curriculum. According to Godlewska et al. (2016) the dominant voice of curriculum writers can be evident in the marginalization of Indigenous-related content:

A common marginalizing placement strategy is redirection for Indigenous content to sidebars, appendices, pictures, picture legends and websites… FNMI topics, although discussed in every chapter, are segregated into separate sections, even when the themes discussed in a chapter have immediate relevance to Indigenous communities…These placement strategies mention FNMI people while effectively marginalizing them. (p. 454).

In terms of voice, additional features of location in curriculum framing that reinforce cognitive imperialism include the following: backgrounding, foregrounding, side-barring, relegating of content to appendices, the treatment of pictures and content as add-ons, the outsourcing of information to external locations via website links and/or the isolating of content into separate sections and/or themes (Godlewska et al., 2016).

Both voice and diction can work together to frame curriculum content in ways that reinforce cognitive imperialism. As such, adding Indigenous content to a curriculum that is already framed and structured within colonial logics will provide only a surface-level intervention.

Binary framing

Dating back to the enlightenment era, western knowledge systems and philosophical traditions are steeped in binary dualisms (i.e., individual/society, good/evil, civilized/uncivilized, white/non-white, Christian/non-Christian, male/female, knowledge/ignorance) (Pascale, 2011; Alexander, 2013). Such binaries are used to legitimate assumptions of progress (or lack thereof) that stratify, marginalize and exclude (Batiste, 2016; Alexander, 2013; Whyte, 2018).

In the social studies curriculum, citizenship stratification may appear as good/bad binaries (Dicks, 2023). While the characteristics of a “bad” citizen may go unsaid, non-desirable traits can be deduced from depictions of what makes a “good” citizen and overtones of cooperation. At first glance, the qualities of a good citizen may seem relatively innocuous, even altruistic. However, in the context of ongoing settler colonialism in Canada, such framing normalizes the stratification of citizenship (Dicks, 2023). The stratification of citizenship and society more broadly effectuates “dynamics” (Samset, 2020, p. 599) that “enable injury, exploitation and domination” (Rothberg, 2019, p. 1).

Pastoral power

Romanticized depictions of colonization and the ideal citizen cultivate a white-savior citizenship narrative that fuels the phenomenon of pastoral power and pastoral care (Dion, 2003; Rice et al., 2022; Cavanagh, 2001). Pastoral power allocates worth to those who most closely resemble the enactment of a dominant moral code (Cavanagh, 2001). In citizenship education, overtones of morality construct good/bad binaries that reinforce cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing diverse culture groups. Such binaries teach that citizens who behave and think a specific way are either good or bad. Therefore, good citizens are granted access to power and bad citizens are compartmentalized from access. Pastoral power confines students to life paths that are narrowly defined by western ideals (Cavanagh, 2001). Ultimately, the good Canadian citizen is constructed as an “agent of care” and all others are “in need of care”. (Cavanagh, 2001, p. 402).

Indigenous knowledges: relationality and holism

Throughout this study, the term “Indigenous knowledges” will encompass generational wisdom, truths, practices, histories, perspectives and expertize that continue to accumulate since time immemorial (Battiste, 2013; Gumbo, 2014). Relationality and holism are central to Indigenous knowledge(s). Although relationality and holism are very similar, each has distinct dimensions.

Relationality is the understanding that all parts of a system “are differentiated, [and] these relations are not oppositional, nor binary” (Martin and Mirraboopa, 2003, p. 207). As an epistemology, relationality is the belief that differences as more than just tolerated. Relationality deepens understandings of ourselves, and those around us and “position us in relation to each other” (Donald, 2009, p. 6). Therefore, a relational worldview sees connections among differences (Wilson and Wilson, 1998). In education, relationality is a way for overcoming the fragmentation caused by mechanisms of cognitive imperialism that compartmentalize Indigenous knowledge(s) (Keddie, 2014). Where Cartesian dualism involves division for purposes of categorization, enacted relationality builds connectedness (Tynan, 2020).

Holism “intercalates every aspect of Anishinaabe and many other Indigenous epistemologies, including one’s understanding of the self and one’s relationship to the community, other living things, the earth, and the divine” (Morcom, 2017 p. 121). Akin to relationality, holism refers more broadly to connectedness between the past, present, and future. Many Indigenous educational philosophies observe a holistic approach to education (Morcom, 2017) with “strands of connectedness” that bring all parts together (Cajete, 2020, p. 3).

Thus, holism is an understanding of the relationships within and among all that is, has, and will be. Holism is the understanding that what happens in one part affects all others. The divisiveness and reductionism of binaries in mainstream education negates Indigenous relationality and holism (Brigg, 2020). Conversely, Indigenous relationality and holism are antidote(s) to the discombobulation that is experienced when navigating a fragmented system.

Methods

Thematic analysis

Curriculum documents “as social facts (or constructs) alert us to the necessity to treat them seriously in social research” (Coffey, 2014, p. 370). According to May (2001), “sedimentations of social practices” are visible in documents (p. 176). Like the sedimentary rock of the Canadian Shield, a closer look at the layers of curriculum will reveal what is really happening below the surface (Mckernan, 2013).

Social studies curriculum comprises history, geography and citizenship education. I chose to analyze the curriculum for grades 3 to 6 specifically because there are explicit curricular connections to Indigenous topics in these documents, and this allowed me to prioritize depth over breadth while focusing on the grades/age groups I often work with. Curriculum analysis allows for an unobtrusive and relevant approach to the collection and assessment of data (Mckernan, 2013). In addition, throughout the methodological processes of this study, I consider what this research will bring of value both Indigenous and settler students (Tuhiwai Smith, 2021).

Thematic analysis of curriculum documents offers insight into the complex dynamics of relationships in education (human, conceptual, or otherwise). In addition, thematic analysis is a distinct branch concerned with the themes found in content rather than just content alone (McKernan, 2013). In each phase of this research, processes for confronting positivist assumptions of the researcher as a neutral agent paralleled the confronting of biases originating from colonial conditioning (Tuhiwai Smith, 2021).

A thematic analysis was carried out over several phases of theme-building through cycles of clarification and interpretation (Terry and Hayfield, 2022). Based on the definition of compartmentalization, the rounds of cycling through the data set centered on binaries in Indigenous-themed content. I also looked for evidence of compartmentalization in terms of the location of Indigenous-themed content in the curriculum.

In each round of analysis, my notes guided my ability to see the data set as a whole instead of fragmented and disconnected. Beyond categorizing, “meaningful entities were constructed from codes that unify disparate data and capture the essence of some degree of recurrent meaning across a data set” (Braun and Clarke, 2016, p. 740). The insights and themes from this reflexive theme-building process were considered in relation to the main research question. Ultimately, instead of attempting to silence my own biases, throughout the data interpretation and analysis process, I was acutely aware of the relevance of my positioning (Tuhiwai Smith, 2021; Simpson and Tuhiwai Smith, 2014).

Research findings and discussion

A thematic analysis of Indigenous-themed content in the Social Studies curriculum for Grades 3–6 from the province of Ontario revealed dominance-imbued binaries that reinforce cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledges. In this thematic analysis of the Social Studies curriculum for grades 3 to 6, the following binaries were evident: Positive/Negative; Conflict/Cooperation; and Us/Them. These binaries will be described below in terms of the ways that they act as mechanisms of cognitive imperialism that compartmentalize Indigenous knowledges.

Positive/negative binary

In reference to colonization, a positive/negative binary was evident in the Social Studies curriculum for Grade 3. For example, students are to “describe some of the positive and negative consequences of contact between Indigenous people and European explorers and settlers in what would eventually become Canada” (OME, 2018, p. 112). In conjunction with the big idea that “interactions between people have consequences that could be positive for some and negative for others” (OME, 2018, p. 110), this binary suggests that the positive and negative consequences of settler colonialism apply to both Indigenous and settler peoples equally. This positive/negative binary contributes to the null curriculum because it compartmentalizes Indigenous knowledges from meaningful discussions around colonization (Battiste, 2013; Battiste and Hendersen, 2000; Fanon, 1963; Eisner and Eisner, 1985; Giroux, 1983; Jackson, 1990).

In another example, Grade 3 students are to consider “[…] the positive and negative effects of clearing of land for farms?” (OME, 2018, p. 90). This binary suggests that all stakeholders were/are impacted equally by the colonization and clearing of land. Therefore, meaningful discussions around how land clearing carries disproportionate consequences for Indigenous communities are also compartmentalized to the null curriculum (Battiste, 2013; Battiste and Hendersen, 2000; Fanon, 1963; Eisner and Eisner, 1985; Giroux, 1983; Jackson, 1990).

Conflict/cooperation binary

In the social studies curriculum, framing practices construct a conflict/cooperation binary that acts as a mechanism of cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledge(s). For example, the Grade 3 curriculum asks students to:

describe how some different communities in Canada related to each other during this period (1780–1850), with a focus on whether the relationships were characterized by conflict or cooperation (e.g., cooperation between First Nations and settler communities) with respect to the sharing of medicines and technologies […] efforts to establish farms and villages; conflict as settlers impinged on First Nations lands. (OME, 2018, p. 91)

This curricular excerpt depicts Indigenous sharing of land and knowledge(s) as synonymous with cooperation. However, the question of whether cooperation was voluntary and who benefitted is compartmentalized to the null curriculum (Eisner and Eisner, 1985; Giroux, 1983; Jackson, 1990). In terms of diction, the word ‘impinged’ is used to describe Indigenous land dispossession (OME, 2018, p. 91). However, what exactly the impinging of land entails is unclear (Bradshaw, 2018; Eisner, 2002). Indigenous reaction to the development of settler farms and villages is presented as cooperation (OME, 2018, p. 91). This use of diction frames Indigenous communities as fully complicit with colonization and suggests that colonizer interests were/are neutral (Styres, 2008; Battiste, 2013). Lastly, when conflict and cooperation are treated as either/or binaries, anything less than full cooperation, by default, may be interpreted as a lack of cooperation (Schaefli et al., 2018).

In the Grade 5 curriculum, students are asked to “describe significant features of and interactions among Indigenous persons, among Europeans, and between Indigenous and European people prior to 1713 in what would eventually become Canada” (OME, 2018, p. 110).

Additional discussion questions include:

What are some ways in which colonialism has shaped Canada? Why might the same event have a different impact on different people? Why is it important to understand that different people have different perspectives? How do we form our own perspective? How do other people form theirs? What causes conflict? Do all conflicts have a resolution?

Why is it important to cooperate with others? (OME, 2018, p. 110)

Through the use of diction, the framing of above curriculum excerpt constructs a conflict/cooperation binary that acts as a mechanism of cognitive imperialism while crediting colonialism for having “shaped” Canada (Schick and St. Denis, 2005; Ivanič and Camps, 2001). A romanticized portrayal of colonialism with the expectation of cooperation comprises a hidden citizenship education curriculum of compliance and conformity that compartmentalizes Indigenous knowledges and controls access to pastoral power (Dicks, 2023; Cavanagh, 2001; Bradshaw, 2018; Eisner and Eisner, 1985).

Us/them binary

Framing was also found to construct an Indigenous/settler or us/them binary in the Ontario social studies curriculum (Martin and Mirraboopa, 2003; Shizha and Kariwo, 2011).

For example, under the section titled Indigenous Education in Ontario it states:

First Nation, Métis, and Inuit students in Ontario will have the knowledge, skills, and confidence they need to successfully complete their elementary and secondary education in order to pursue postsecondary education or training and/or to enter the workforce. They will have the traditional and contemporary knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to be socially contributive, politically active, and economically prosperous citizens of the world. (OME, 2018, p. 14)

In the above excerpt, First Nations, Métis, and Inuit students are represented as fully dependent upon settler systems for success (Gahman and Legault, 2019; Lu, 2018; Waligore, 2018; Battiste, 2013). As a mechanism of cognitive imperialism, this binary justifies settler presence, compartmentalizes Indigenous knowledges and controls the access to pastoral power (Cavanagh, 2001).

Also in the Grade 3 Social Studies curriculum, students will experience “opportunities to explore various topics that will enable them to develop an understanding of …First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities and students’ own communities…” (OME, 2018, p. 22). Whether intentional or not, the above excerpt speaks directly to non-Indigenous students’ “own communities” while compartmentalizing Indigenous students as the exception (Waligore, 2018; Lu, 2018; Styres, 2008; Ivanič and Camps, 2001). A similar example is evident in the curriculum for grade 2 where students are asked “which First Nation lived on this land before your community was established?” (OME, 2018, p. 72). This is another example of how voice frames curriculum in ways that speak to an exclusively non-Indigenous audience thereby implicitly reinforcing for whom education has been designed (Battiste, 2013; Schulz et al., 2010; Styres, 2008).

Conclusion

Summary of findings

In the Ontario Social Studies curriculum for grades 3 to 6, there is evidence of binary framing as a mechanism of cognitive imperialism that compartmentalizes Indigenous knowledges. Specifically, this qualitative thematic analysis found evidence of Positive/Negative, Conflict/Cooperation, and Us/Them binaries. Interactions between overarching big ideas and a positive/negative binary suggest that the consequences of settler colonialism apply equally to both Indigenous and settler people(s). As well, there were instances where curriculum framing contributed to an ideological and mythical portrait of colonization. A binary of either cooperation or conflict shaped a hidden curriculum of compliance and conformity. Pastoral power and pastoral care were evident in moral and value-laden overtones. In light of this, the compartmentalization of Indigenous knowledges controls access to pastoral power and normalizes citizenship stratification. The voice of pastoral care in the examined Social Studies curriculum was predominantly western and there is evidence the curriculum speaks primarily to a non-Indigenous audience. Overtones of neutrality would supersede calls for redressing the injustices of settler colonialism. At times, First Nations, Métis, and Inuit students were portrayed as dependent upon settler systems for success (Gahman and Legault, 2019; Lu, 2018; Waligore, 2018). The aforementioned binaries act as mechanisms of cognitive imperialism in the Social Studies curriculum because they work to justify settler presence, compartmentalize Indigenous knowledges and control the distribution of power.

Implications and recommendations

Through critical examination of the hidden curriculum, binary framing that results from intersections between big ideas and overall/specific objectives can be addressed more effectively. Confronting narratives that romanticize colonization is required to address instances the disproportionate impact on Indigenous people(s) has been minimized, homogenized, or glorified.

It is recommended that curriculum be designed to reflect the communities it intends to serve. Therefore, a context-aware approach to curriculum development that is informed by local Indigenous communities is needed. Confronting western tones of morality and pastoral care in the hidden curriculum will loosen colonial control of and access to pastoral power that works to uphold cognitive imperialism and compartmentalize Indigenous knowledges. Further recommendations also include what I refer to as decolonial justice education (DJE).

Decolonial justice education

DJE is a way of addressing mechanisms of cognitive imperialism in education that compartmentalize Indigenous knowledge(s). The curriculum for DJE is based on Indigenous justice projects. Indigenous justice projects seek redress for injustices rooted in settler colonialism. Informed by Tuck and Yang (2018) the use of the word projects reflects justice movements as a “way to refer to a worldview combined with strategy combined with motive combined with practices and habits” (pp. 6–7). In DJE, curriculum content that is based on Indigenous justice projects encompasses matters that often go undiscussed including: decolonization, resistance, recognition, sovereignty, self-determination, languages, gender, equity, land, treaties, racial justice, (im)balances of power and environmental justice (Hill and Coleman, 2019; Tuori, 2019; Kuokkanen, 2019; Palmater, 2020; Tuck and Yang, 2018). In the process of learning of, from and through the legacies of Indigenous justice projects through DJE, student learning would include unlearning the lies of cognitive imperialism.

For example, DJE curriculum based on Grassy Narrows would encompass the community’s journey for justice and access to clean drinking water. Such DJE curriculum would teach of Indigenous solidarity, as well as the structural violences and faceted complicities of systemic settler colonialism. Cross-curricular connections with (for example) Indigenous sciences, Indigenous languages and media literacy would invite student learning to a place of envisioning what is truly required for justice (Cajete, 2020; Tuck and Yang, 2018; Styres, 2019).

Directions for further research

An examination of binaries in the grades not included in this study is recommended. In addition, the following themes for future curriculum analysis are noted: presumptions of neutrality that divorce power analysis from perspective-taking; the prioritizing of peaceful relations over redressing power imbalances and adding Indigenous-themed content to the curriculum is not enough.

Divorcing of power analysis from perspective-taking

The divorcing of power from perspective-taking in the Social Studies curriculum teaches students to accept all perspectives as neutral and devoid of power differentials and biases.

Presumption of neutrality

As a mechanism of cognitive imperialism, presumptions of neutrality act as mechanisms of cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledge(s). Tied to western scientific reason and colonial logic imbued with common sense narratives of progress, a façade of neutrality conceals western interests (Battiste, 2016; Cunneen et al., 2017).

Adding indigenous content is not enough

Since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRCC, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c), Indigenous-related content has been added to Ontario’s social studies curriculum (Kairos, 2016). For example, information about treaties, residential schools and Indigenous achievements was added. Yet, the adding of content does little to address the structural violences of systemic settler colonialism. While additions to curriculum are arguably better than nothing, this research demonstrates that binaries remain embedded in the framing of the curriculum and act as mechanisms of cognitive imperialism that compartmentalize Indigenous knowledges.

In closing

Cognitive imperialism in education is reinforced through binary framing that compartmentalizes Indigenous knowledge(s). On the surface, the addition of Indigenous-related content to the Ontario social studies curriculum is a gesture of reconciliation. However, answering the Calls to Action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2008–2015a, 2015b, 2015c) requires looking beneath the surface. Confronting mechanisms of cognitive imperialism is a first step in dismantling the bias-based structures of systemic settler colonialism in education.