Manufacturing desire and producing (non-)citizens: integration exams in Canada, the UK and Netherlands

Abstract

This paper focuses on desire in the problematization of immigrant integration in Canada, the UK and Netherlands. I argue that the immigrant’s affective orientation towards society became viewed as the source of these problems, and not the communities or societies orientation towards them. The integration exam becomes a suitable solution because it solves multiple problems at once. The exam works as the mechanism through which desire is manufactured by making tangible the object of desire in the first place and by making society itself more exclusive. I turn to the implementation of the exam content to explore of what this might mean for the kinds of citizens that the exams produce, arguing that they primarily work to produce unstable citizens, rather than more ‘affected’ citizens.

Keywords:

• Integration exams
• policy implementation
• citizenship
• affect
• Canada
• United Kingdom
• Netherlands

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments which improved the focus and clarity of this article. I would like to thank members of the Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Migration, Citizenship and Democratic Participation at Queen’s University, Keith Banting, Natalia Equihua Bracho Naama Ofrath, Alexandra Liebich, and especially the organizers of the workshop Sara Pavan and Manoj Dias-Abey, for providing a supportive and intellectually productive space to present an earlier draft of this paper. Finally, I thank Michael Di Gregorio for introducing me to the literature on affect and helping me navigate this new terrain, and of course, for his support in putting this special issue together.

Notes

1. The Citizenship Oath became a central issue within the 2015 election, with the Liberal Party of Canada eventually winning a majority government and swiftly eliminating the requirement. Notwithstanding this, a survey of 3000 Canadians commissioned by the Conservative Party of Canada government in the Spring of 2015 suggested that well over 69% of respondents strongly supported the ban. Of the 82% of respondents who either strongly or somewhat supported the ban, 29% cited identification as the primary reason for their position. Concern for the equality of women came in at 2% and ‘Shows that one adopts Canadian culture’ at 12%. (Leger Research Intelligence Group 2015). This suggests while the government at the time employed strong language around the ban and its significance, the discourse was not wholly taken up by residents of the state.

2. I use the term ‘integration exam’ as a general term to refer to any standardized test used as part of the permanent settlement and naturalization process. The literature on integration requirements sometimes differentiated between citizenship exams and pre- and post-immigration integration exams. While these distinctions may be useful for tracing the variety of obstacles throughout the immigration process, it is less relevant to the argument I put forward here. The focus is on the effect of these exams on our understanding of citizenship generally, and the relationship between new citizens and their adopted state. Thus, the timing of the exam in the process of becoming a citizen is less relevant.

3. The exam in the Netherlands was completely rewritten in 2012. In the United Kingdom, the exam remains largely the same, however the ESOL with citizenship course option has been eliminated. In Canada, the exam and content has not been changed, however the newly elected Liberal Party government has indicated they will be revising the guidebook from which questions are drawn over.

4. Allochtoon is a geological term used to describe rock formations and literally means ‘of different or foreign earth’. Autochtoon, used to refer white, ethnically Dutch residents, means ‘of this earth.’ These terms rose to dominance in the 1990s as a way of refer to immigrants versus non-immigrants without relying on ethnicity. The supposed neutrality of these terms is highly contested (Essed and Trienekens 2008; Yanow and van der Haar 2012).

5. ‘John’ (Citizenship & Immigration employee) interview by author, 17 November 2011.

6. Tower Hamlets College is a vocational school based in East London serving several immigrant communities and offers ESOL courses.

7. Annette Zera (member of LUKAG and ABNI), interview by author, February 16, 2011.

8. Entry 3 level in the National Standards for ESOL is approximately equivalent to B1 in the CEFR.

9. CITO and Bureau ICE were responsible for the development of test questions for the KNS. CITO, Bureau ICE and ITTA worked together on the EPE and Portfolio. A fourth agency, CINOP, responsible for the development of the Integration Abroad exam, won that bid for the TGN spoken language exam.

10. ‘Afra’ (consortium member), interview by author, 27 May 2011.

11. ‘John’ (Citizenship & Immigration employee) interview by author, 17 November 2011.