Compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledge(s): binary framing and cognitive imperialism in social studies curriculum

The study is premised on the view that curriculum functions as an instrument of cognitive imperialism. In Ontario, following the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, the Social Studies curriculum was revised in 2018 primarily by adding Indigenous-related content. The paper argues that language and curriculum are not neutral and that framing choices (diction, voice, and location of content) can embed dominance-imbued binaries that marginalize Indigenous knowledge(s). The research question guiding the 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? The study underscores the importance of addressing such framing to move beyond surface-level inclusion toward meaningful decolonial change in education.

The literature review situates cognitive imperialism as a form of colonization that legitimizes a single dominant language, culture, and frame of reference, thereby shaping knowledge systems and identities. Compartmentalization, originating in Cartesian dualism and colonial practices of dividing land and people, is described as controlling what knowledge is granted legitimacy, visibility, and power, often relegating Indigenous science and histories to a distant past or isolating them as one-off events. The review discusses explicit versus hidden curriculum, noting how hidden norms and expectations can embed mechanisms of cognitive imperialism. It analyzes curriculum framing through diction and voice: word choices that construct binaries (e.g., good/evil, past/present) can downplay injustices, while voice (including verb tense, claims of neutrality/universality, and placement of content in sidebars or appendices) can marginalize Indigenous content and signal for whom the curriculum is written. Western knowledge traditions are steeped in binary dualisms (e.g., civilized/uncivilized, white/non-white) that stratify citizenship and society. The concept of pastoral power explains how moralized good/bad citizen binaries allocate worth and constrain students within dominant norms. As counterpoints, Indigenous epistemologies of relationality and holism emphasize non-oppositional interdependence among differentiated parts and connectedness across past, present, and future, offering antidotes to fragmentation caused by binaries.

The study employs qualitative, reflexive thematic analysis of the Ontario Social Studies curriculum documents for Grades 3–6 (history, geography, and citizenship education). These documents are treated as social facts reflecting sedimented social practices. The selection of grades prioritizes depth where explicit Indigenous-themed connections exist and aligns with the author’s professional focus. Analysis proceeded through multiple iterative cycles of coding, clarification, and interpretation, centering on identification of dominance-imbued binaries within Indigenous-themed content and examining evidence of compartmentalization via the location and framing of such content. Notes and reflexivity were used to view the data set holistically and to confront positivist assumptions of researcher neutrality, acknowledging the researcher’s positionality. The approach is unobtrusive document analysis consistent with curriculum research methods.

The thematic analysis revealed three dominance-imbued binaries that act as mechanisms of cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledges:

• Positive/Negative: In Grade 3, students are directed to "describe some of the positive and negative consequences of contact between Indigenous people and European explorers and settlers" (OME, 2018, p. 112) and to consider the "positive and negative effects of clearing of land for farms" (p. 90). Such framing implies symmetrical impacts and obscures disproportionate harms to Indigenous communities, relegating power analyses to the null curriculum.
• Conflict/Cooperation: Grade 3 content asks whether relationships were characterized by conflict or cooperation, citing "cooperation between First Nations and settler communities" in sharing knowledge and the "imping[ing]" on First Nations lands (OME, 2018, p. 91). Diction like "impinged" minimizes dispossession and presents Indigenous responses as cooperation, implying neutrality of colonizer interests. Grade 5 prompts (e.g., "What causes conflict? Do all conflicts have a resolution? Why is it important to cooperate with others?") alongside noting colonialism has "shaped Canada" (OME, 2018, p. 110) produce a romanticized narrative that privileges cooperation and compliance.
• Us/Them (Indigenous/Settler): The "Indigenous Education in Ontario" section frames First Nations, Métis, and Inuit students as needing to acquire knowledge and skills to succeed in settler systems (OME, 2018, p. 14), reinforcing dependency and justifying settler presence. Grade 3 references to "students’ own communities" implicitly address a non-Indigenous audience (OME, 2018, p. 22), and Grade 2 asks which First Nation lived on the land "before your community was established" (OME, 2018, p. 72), further othering Indigenous peoples. Across these binaries, hidden curriculum elements—moral overtones, pastoral power, claims of neutrality, and placement strategies—normalize citizenship stratification, justify settler colonial narratives, and control access to power for Indigenous knowledge(s).

The findings directly address the research question by showing how binary framing within the Grades 3–6 Ontario Social Studies curriculum reinforces cognitive imperialism through the compartmentalization and marginalization of Indigenous knowledge(s). Positive/negative framings suggest equal consequences of colonization, the conflict/cooperation binary constructs expectations of compliance and portrays colonization as benign or mutual, and us/them framings position Indigenous learners as outsiders to a curriculum designed primarily for non-Indigenous students. These patterns operate as hidden curriculum, shaping perceptions of citizenship, morality, and history while preserving dominant interests via diction, voice, and content placement. The analysis underscores that adding Indigenous-themed content without transforming underlying colonial logics and binary structures remains a surface-level intervention that perpetuates epistemic dominance and restricts access to pastoral power.

The study contributes a focused qualitative analysis demonstrating that Positive/Negative, Conflict/Cooperation, and Us/Them binaries are embedded in Ontario’s Grades 3–6 Social Studies curriculum and function as mechanisms of cognitive imperialism that compartmentalize Indigenous knowledges. It highlights how romanticized portrayals of colonization, moralized citizenship narratives, and a curriculum voice aimed at non-Indigenous audiences normalize stratification and justify settler presence. Recommendations include designing context-aware curricula in collaboration with local Indigenous communities, critically examining and revising hidden curriculum elements (diction, voice, content location) that perpetuate binaries, and confronting romanticized narratives and pastoral power. The paper conceptualizes Decolonial Justice Education (DJE), proposing curriculum centered on Indigenous justice projects (e.g., Grassy Narrows) to engage topics like sovereignty, language, land, treaties, and environmental justice, fostering unlearning of cognitive imperialism and building cross-curricular connections. Future research directions include analyzing binaries in grades beyond 3–6, interrogating presumptions of neutrality that separate power analysis from perspective-taking, examining how prioritizing peaceful relations can eclipse redress of power imbalances, and assessing why adding Indigenous-themed content alone is insufficient.

The analysis is limited to Ontario’s Social Studies curriculum for Grades 3–6 and to document-based thematic analysis; it does not assess classroom implementation, teacher practices, or student outcomes. Findings may not generalize beyond this jurisdiction or subject area. The study relies on textual evidence and framing (diction, voice, content location), with no empirical datasets generated.