LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

and asylum seeker backgrounds because, not only may statistical information be unavailable, irrelevant to them socially and culturally or completely unknown, young people may appear considerably more mature and hence older than their Western counterparts as the consequence of their experiences, additional responsibilities and obligations; both to themselves and others. Failing to identify within the 0-17 age range impacts considerably, not only on their educational opportunities, but also on their access [27] to health and welfare support and to programs focussed on enabling successful integration which are primarily developed for those identified as students. This initial classification process continues to impact on the level of schooling that identified students are allowed be enrolled in, irrespective of their multiple, diverse educational experiences and academic prowess.

      This aspect of governmentality that pervades what may otherwise be considered educational opportunities for self-improvement, socialization and academic growth frequently results in students with refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds being placed in inappropriate classroom contexts relative to their understandings of Western school systems, their operations and procedures, and, importantly, the epistemological foundations of these institutions which are regarded as ‘truth’ and which exclude all other epistemologies as without value or currency. Issues which have critical impact on the capacities of students with refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds are not limited to notions of childhood or age. For those who are admitted to the educational institutions, there may be expectations from some cultural groups that their children and young people be placed in the contexts where they are most likely to develop basic competencies that are decisive in terms of potential future success, irrespective of the student’s age and with reference to their background of formal schooling, interrupted schooling or perhaps no previous experience of schooling at all (Brown, Miller, & Mitchell, 2006; Dooley, 2009, 2012; Emert, 2014; McWilliams & Bonet, 2016; E. Miller, Ziaian, & Esterman, 2018; J. Miller, 2009). The ‘norms’ of classification that are applied to Western schooling processes and procedures preclude any other than age- based criteria. Consequently, many students in these groups have their educational prospects marred by the lack of skills, knowledge and capacities that are ‘taken for granted’ as foundational competencies for future learning in their new homelands.

      For students who have the ascribed classification of refugee or asylum seeker, there may be another classification applied; that of students at risk; which in itself is used as an identification mechanism in the Foucauldian notion of ‘othering’ or practices of subdividing within technologies of government. This practice is present in the power/knowledge paradigm discussed by Foucault (1998) and the colonialism of Said (1978). When a population is ‘othered’ it serves to prioritise any of their perceived weaknesses and strengthen the sense of power of those doing the othering. When this is used as mechanism by governments or authorities, it serves to ensure the hierarchy of these bodies and reinforce their position in this order of power. This ‘othering’ leads to the perspective that students with refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds are ‘problems’ that need to be addressed in a particular, specific manner by policymakers and ‘micromanaged’ by teachers (Watters, 2007 [28] p.126). This perspective of this population of students in western classrooms typically leads to three major discursive domains focussing on child development, trauma, risk and resilience, the normative basis and evaluative criteria of which are exclusively based in western perspectives, ideologies and theory and formulated in the context of institutional parameters and procedures with little concern or consideration of cultural difference.

      This exclusive perspective on universalized child development processes infused with western cultural norms not only has the effect of classifying students with refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds with the consequence of setting them outside the norm, but of concealing important issues that are related to social power, culture and identity. This absolute confidence of the western perspective of child development is challenged by LeVine (2010 p. 31), who notes in his commentary on theories of child development developed using observations from American clinical practice;

      …..other non-pathological variants of childhood social development are possible in cultures with differing developmental goals. In this instance, the psychiatric theory ignored or underestimated the plasticity of human social and emotional development and claimed, in effect, that deviation from American standards of child rearing would lead to psychopathology, a claim that cannot survive empirical scrutiny of in diverse cultures. The evidence we have so far indicates that, on the contrary, there are multiple pathways….….to healthy or at least non-pathological psychic conditions in adulthood.

      The implications technologies of power which are manifested as school routines and strictures and of a western model of ‘optimal’ child development being utilized to address the perceived problems of a Burundian family settled in an American town becomes clear in the narrative of Anders and Lester (2014). They describe how Burundian students in an elementary school are forbidden to speak their heritage (first) language, how they are isolated from their siblings and not permitted to visit each other during school hours or speak to each other if they pass in the hallway. Silent, single file constitutes a regulatory passage to and from class and to and from lunch. There is no collaboration permitted in classroom activities; each student is expected to work alone. Amid this administrative, controlling interaction, one Burundian child (Spiderman) becomes depressed, his teacher has low expectations for him despite his academic achievements, indicating a lack of intention to consider him worth investing in. Amongst all this authoritative power and micromanaging, the reasons Anders and Lester describe their work as “Specifically, we detail the power non-Native, whitestream, racist institutions deploy to do harm” (Anders & Lester, 2014 p.169) becomes apparent.

      In discussing the ‘depth and layers of suffering’ that these students endured as the result of resettlement circumstances, the authors began to question their own [29] perspectives of inequity were allowing them to develop any real understanding of the suffering of these students in the research context. They write;

      As Farmer (2005) has noted, the denial of the real origins of suffering “serves the interest of the powerful” (p. 17). There were feelings we had about our own experience in the process that seemed untranslatable, and there were issues we wanted to address that were not neatly tied to data points. Our interpretations of the non-Native, whitestream, and racist institutional norms that school and health professionals reproduced to maintain authority and power in the school and in the only health system to which Spiderman and his family had access revealed unadulterated condemnation (Grande, 2004; Urrieta, 2005 in Anders & Lester 2014 p.171).

      While Foucault (1991) urges a positive perspective on the potential of power in his later work on governmentality, this narrative is a wretched example of much of what he perceives institutional power in society to represent in his earlier works (Foucault, 1977). The senseless imposition of petty, inhumane and uncaring rules, routines and discourses designed to dehumanize and ‘normalize’ in the institutional context of the educational professionals is only surpassed by the resultant medical treatment of Spiderman. His depression was diagnosed and treated with drugs intended, not for children, but for adult psychosis and schizophrenia. His parents were excluded from the Foucauldian discourse which determined this outcome. Spiderman was threatened with school penalties for his subsequent sleepiness in class.

      In an attempt to understand the situation with the medication prescribed and the side effects this was causing more fully, Spiderman’s parents and the researchers of this study endeavoured to engage in dialogue with both school and health professionals. Their enquiries resulted in the many mechanisms of power being engaged by both cohorts of ‘experts’, ultimately revealing, in this instance, the powerlessness of the parents and those who supported them in the face of those who wielded institutional power and authority. Spiderman’s parents were issued with an ultimatum; cease all contact with the researchers or seek support independently. Out of fear and lack of resources, they chose the former. It would appear, in this instance, that Foucault’s (1997) concern that branches of the medical professional had changed their role of healing to one of oppression and censorship to avert any societal contact with those outside of the ‘norm’ is credible. The issue that is most alarming in this narrative, however, is the notion that all of these actions were viewed as acceptable by individuals who worked as part of these systems. Leask

Скачать книгу