Demarcating the boundaries of non-belonging: Gender, integration, and the Burkini in German newspaper comments

1 Introduction

“Burkinis für alle! [Burkinis for everyone!]” proclaimed the attention-grabbing headline in Die Zeit, a left-leaning weekly newspaper of record (Luig 2018).^[1] “Die Prinzipienlosigkeit der Burkini-Befürworter [The unprincipledness of burkini advocates]” countered an equally engaging headline in the right-leaning daily broadsheet Die Welt (Kelle 2018). In Germany, where the aforementioned opinion columns were published, the burkini – a type of swimsuit worn by some Muslim women – not only has become a point of contention in mandatory coeducational swimming lessons in state-funded secondary schools, but, increasingly, is also part-and-parcel of what Wodak (2021) terms the ‘politics of fear,’ or the myriad ways in which discourse constructs ‘us’ and politicises anxiety about ‘them.’ In this sense, while the Die Zeit editor asks the reader what at first glance appears to be a straight-forward question: “Ob Ganzkörperanzug oder Bikini: Warum können Mädchen im Schwimmunterricht nicht einfach anziehen, was sie wollen? [Whether full-body swimsuits or bikinis: Why can’t girls just wear what they want in swimming lessons?]” (Luig 2018), the answer is far more complex. In fact, discourse about the burkini, particularly on the right, but also on the left, often combines a racialised body politics with gender nationalism to justify the notion of Muslim cultural alterity and non-belonging.

Focusing on how political ideologies about gender and integration are reflected and recontextualised in everyday digital discourse, this article takes a multilevel critical discourse-analytical approach to the study of these issues by examining how the burkini is framed by readers of German regional and national newspapers. In doing so, it builds upon work examining the discursive portrayal of veiled Muslim women in European news media (e. g., Davis 2025; Korteweg and Yurdakul 2014, 2021; Schiffer 2023). Analyses of Islam-related coverage in German newspapers, in particular, indicate that Muslims are framed not only as a homogeneous group according to stereotypes and recurring argumentation schemes, but, as a large, multinational meta-analysis also found (Ahmed and Matthes 2017), commonly, in terms of extremism, political unrest, migration, and debates about “women, their rights, and their clothing” (Richter and Paasch-Colberg 2023; Schmidt 2022; Shooman 2014). A key locus upon which national belonging is discursively negotiated, studies show that Muslim body-coverings are framed by the German press as non-conforming, contrary to the constitutional right of gender equality, and, as a result, a major obstacle to integration (Ehrkamp 2010; Korteweg and Yurdakul 2014). Indeed, Muslim practices are often framed in terms of unintegration (Fuller 2019). These frames prime the reader to associate objects – for example, in this case, the burkini – with specific topics irrespective of context (Schiffer 2023). Work examining public policy and political discourse, generally, also suggests that gender equality is regularly instrumentalised as a liberal-democratic value in boundary-marking between the European ‘self’ and Muslim ‘other’ with dress serving as a visual foil and marker of societal ‘otherness’ (e. g., Rosenberger and Sauer 2012). However, research gaps remain – namely, limited analysis of veiled Muslim women in the German press especially following the passage of the 2016 Integration Act (Richter and Paasch-Colberg 2023), the burkini compared to other forms of Muslim body-coverings, and online news media particularly newspaper comment sections from a critical discourse studies perspective (Ahmed and Matthes 2017; Dorostkar and Preisinger 2017).

Consequently, in this article, specific attention is given to follow-ups, or comments posted to online comment sections in response to news articles and opinion columns about a key discursive event – reports that a state-funded secondary school (Gymnasium) in Germany’s largest and most densely populated polycentric urban area, the Rhine-Ruhr metropolitan region in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), had supplied female students with burkinis for use in swimming lessons in 2018.^[2] As the abovementioned headlines illustrate, the press, echoing statements issued by the school principal, as well as regional and federal politicians, framed the ensuing public debate in terms of the appropriateness of the burkini and its role in fostering integration, especially vis-à-vis gender equality. These issues are not new; integration also informed a 2016 Federal Constitutional Court judgment that established a new legal precedent by ruling that a Muslim student could not be excused from coeducational swimming lessons on religious grounds, in part, because participation could occur in a burkini. Notably, in both cases, the emphasis on integration obscures the fact that ‘migrant’ and ‘Muslim’ are not coreferential – indeed, nearly half of all Muslims in Germany are German nationals (Pfündel et al. 2021). It also underscores how Muslim women’s dress and behaviour are scrutinised for evidence of individualised integration and adherence to liberal-democratic norms (Davis 2023), even as the act of veiling remains largely stigmatised in German public discourse and a subject of societal concern (Korteweg and Yurdakul 2014).

To investigate how these issues are reflected and recontextualised in follow-ups, the article begins with a short overview of discourse about the burkini in German state-funded education. It next introduces the three interconnected theoretical frameworks that inform and guide the analysis: the politics of belonging (Yuval-Davis 2006, 2011), gender nationalism (Hadj Abdou 2017), and non-belonging (Korteweg and Yurdakul 2024). Together, these indicate that power is negotiated through gender nationalist discourse to delineate societal differences reflective of the politics of belonging and that the news media, in particular, acts as a conduit whereby non-belonging is ascribed onto Muslim women’s bodies according to gendered and racialised boundaries. After detailing the research questions, materials, and methodological framework, the article reviews the major themes and argumentation schemes that emerged from the analysis, as well as how these employ referential strategies to discursively frame the burkini in exclusionary terms. It concludes by discussing the major findings and pointing towards further areas of study.

2 Contextual overview

Discourse about the burkini – specifically, whether one may wear it or be excused from mandatory coeducational swimming lessons altogether on religious grounds – on the one hand, centres on the issue of religious freedom and accommodation and on the other, on the integration of migrants into German society. While this article focuses on examples of the latter in newspaper comment sections, the former remains a key facet of socio-political discourse about the burkini. In keeping with a critically contextualised approach to discourse, both are detailed here in brief; attention is given to the legal judgments and educators featured in political news about the burkini. These – along with statements by prominent politicians, which are further detailed in tandem with the analysis of newspaper comments – are reiterated in news articles and opinion pieces and thus, the discourse most often repeated and reinterpreted in online public forums.

While Germany is a secular state, religion plays a role in public life. The German Basic Law provides individuals with the constitutional right to freedom of faith and conscience, parents with control over their children’s upbringing, and individual states with the right to administer education.^[3] Each state also has the power “to prohibit the wearing of religious, political and philosophical symbols and to re-define the balance between state neutrality and religious manifestation in public schools as long as those limitations are in line with fundamental freedoms” (Baldi 2021: 75). As a result, when disputes about students’ religious freedom and accommodation have arisen, ultimately these often must be resolved by the judiciary. The first major adjudication on this matter – a 1993 Federal Administrative Court judgment – found that students could be exempt from coeducational physical education classes on religious grounds if a school could not offer gender-separate instruction.^[4] However, in 2011, a Gymnasium in the city of Frankfurt am Main in the state of Hessen denied a fifth-grade student’s request to be exempt from coeducational swimming lessons by arguing that she could attend in a burkini. Notably, when the case was settled on appeal by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2016, the justices agreed with the school – as had the Administrative Court of Frankfurt am Main, the Hessian Administrative Court, and the Federal Administrative Court before them.^[5] This decision not only overturned established precedent, but realigned the politics of belonging to include the burkini by emphasising individualised integration and the state’s role in socialisation and enculturation (Davis 2023).

Yet, the 2016 judgment did little to settle the issue. In fact, less than two years later in 2018, burkinis again made news when media outlets reported that a Gymnasium in Herne, the most densely-populated city in the Rhine-Ruhr metropolitan region had provided the garments for use in coeducational swimming lessons. First reported by the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung regional newspaper, the privately funded, student-led initiative was undertaken after 34 ‘integration students’ (Integrationsschüler) enrolled at the school at the height of the ‘refugee crisis’ in 2016 (Poll 2018). At this time, the 2016 Integration Act had instituted a policy of ‘support and challenge’ (Fördern und Fordern) that required individuals to show ‘successful’ integration in order to access various government benefits. According to news reports, the decision to purchase twenty burkinis was also rooted in long-term efforts to provide disadvantaged pupils with school supplies and sports equipment (Bolsmann et al. 2018; Poll 2018). Name-brand burkinis can be expensive and ‘homemade’ (Eigenbau) versions composed of a synthetic shirt and leggings are often not permitted in municipal swimming pools (Niewerth 2018 a, 2018b), which, in general, is where such lessons take place. Also, according to the principal, the newly arrived students had little to no swimming experience and refused to attend lessons on religious grounds (Poll 2018). Thus, he said the school sought “’Teilhabe im Rahmen der gesetzlichen Vorgaben ermöglichen [to enable participation within the scope of the legal requirements]’” enumerated in the Federal Constitutional Court’s 2016 judgment by providing free rental burkinis – a decision supported by Herne’s City Council, Integration Council (Integrationsräte), and the Arnsberg Government District (Bolsmann et al. 2018; Poll 2018). Just as the courts had stressed individualised integration in their rulings, so too, did the principal, who told the press, “’Ich vertrete aber eine klare Haltung: Bei uns soll jeder schwimmen lernen und dafür schaffe ich die Bedingungen...Schwimmen ist Integration, das gehört in Deutschland zur Kultur [I take a clear stance: everyone should learn to swim here and I create the conditions for this...swimming is integration, it’s part of the German culture]’” (Poll 2018).

3 Theoretical framework

To better conceptualise how political ideologies about gender and integration are reflected and recontextualised in discourse about the burkini, this article relies upon three interconnected frameworks centred on the concept of ‘belonging’:

First, Yuval-Davis (2006, 2011) theorises that while ‘belonging’ is naturalised in terms of social categories, identifications, and normative value systems, the ‘politics of belonging’ is the political project that constructs, maintains, and reproduces the intersectional boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. The ability to demarcate who ‘belongs’ is governed by access to power and as a result, social categories and their boundaries – whether physical or symbolic – are often most salient when their “hegemonic naturalness” is contested (Yuval-Davis 2011: 91). Gender plays a major role in this process; women are framed in nationalist discourse as ‘border guards’ whose actions and appearance symbolically embody sociocultural norms and values representative of the nation (Yuval-Davis 1997).

Second, research indicates that gender equality is increasingly employed in European political discourse as a means of boundary-marking. This requires discursively spatialising and temporalising Europe (e. g., Krzyżanowski 2009), as well as ‘conceptual flipsiding’ liberal-democratic values for illiberal gains (Krzyżanowski and Krzyżanowska 2024). Hadj Abdou (2017) describes this phenomenon as ‘gender nationalism,’ which is the term used here, but others have employed ‘femonationalism’ (Farris 2017) and ‘gendernativism’ (Dahinden and Manser-Egli 2023) to reference related ideas. For example, Hadj Abdou (2017: 85) argues that by framing gender equality as an established liberal-democratic value, gender nationalist rhetoric positions a liberal European ‘self’ in binary opposition to an incompatible Muslim ‘other’ responsible for “(re)importing gender inequality.” Similarly, Farris (2017) shows that right-wing politicians and feminists utilise tropes – like that of the veiled Muslim woman as the oppressed victim or the incompatibility of ‘Muslimness,’ in general – to justify anti-Muslim policies. Dahinden and Manser-Egli (2023) further contend that comparable language is widespread throughout society and functions to reinforce in-group cohesion. According to Sauer (2016: 118), such discourse, especially in relation to Muslim head and body coverings, is a part of a new, gendered politics of belonging in which attention to bodily practices serves as a form of governance that symbolically defines “who belongs and who does not, who is a ‘normal’ citizen and who is not and, hence, who has access to rights and who does not.”

Lastly, bridging the politics of belonging and gender nationalism, Korteweg and Yurdakul’s (2024) theoretical model of ‘non-belonging’ provides a framework for focusing attention on the discursive portrayal of Muslim women in news media and its subsequent digital mediation in newspaper comment sections. They argue that non-belonging is fostered through representations ascribed to bodies in gendered and racialised ways, in part, through boundary formations in the news media that specifically exclude Muslims. Starting from the position that “non-belonging is not simply the absence of belonging,” but, rather, the result of an intersectional, context-specific process of boundary-making (Korteweg and Yurdakul 2024: 294), their model suggests how non-belonging is reified, especially in terms of the mediatisation of political speech about Muslims in Europe.

Together, these interconnected frameworks inform the research design. They indicate that while power is negotiated through gender nationalist discourse to delineate societal differences reflective of the politics of belonging, the press not only amplifies, but also ascribes non-belonging onto Muslim women’s bodies according to gendered and racialised boundaries. This informs how the burkini is framed by readers of German regional and national newspapers in terms of gender and integration.

4 Research design

5 Results

5.1 Major themes in the corpus

The qualitative content analysis revealed three major themes in the corpus: (1) gender, (2) sociocultural difference and integration, and (3) sociopolitical difference and governance (see Table 2). The major theme of gender is characterised by topical references to gender equality/inequality, protection for women and children, and societal participation (e. g., in education or the labour market). The major theme of sociocultural difference and integration is thematically categorised according to discourses about the Occident (e. g., European social norms, values, or identity), Germany (e. g., German social norms, values, or identity; the ‘we’ in-group), sociocultural difference (e. g., diversity; integration), and Muslims in Germany (e. g., claims about self-isolation or integration resistance). The major theme of sociopolitical difference and governance reflects discourse related to Islamism (e. g., fear of Islamisation), German legal codes (e. g., the German Basic Law and associated constitutional rights), and federal, state, or local government (e. g., fiscal policy and social benefits; political representation). Together, these major themes represent the most salient topics embedded in the corpus and thus, reflect how commenters frame discourse about the burkini. It is important to note these themes are found in comments posted to all three newspapers and also, that there is considerable overlap; that is to say, any given comment may include thematic content reflecting interconnected topics, discourses, or forms of argumentation.

The major themes manifest in the corpus at varying frequencies. The most common major theme is sociocultural difference and integration with 68 % (2,430) of the comments framing the burkini in these terms (see Figure 1). Found in 48 % (1,740) of the comments, gender is the second most frequently utilised major theme. The least common major theme is sociopolitical difference and governance, which manifests in 36 % (1,312) of the comments.

Figure 1

Major themes, corpus of online user-generated comments (n=3,600).^[6]

As a result, the burkini is most often discursively framed in terms of political ideologies about gender and integration. The prominence of these topics largely reflects how the burkini was presented in news articles and opinion columns. For example, in all three newspapers, politicians are quoted either confirming or questioning the role of the burkini in fostering integration and, by extension, the acceptability of the garment vis-à-vis gender equality in coeducational swimming lessons. This is evinced not only in terms of the overall number of comments about gender and integration in their associated major themes, but also per each newspaper comment section. The major theme of sociocultural difference and integration is apparent in 66 % (1,092) of the comments posted on Die Zeit, 67 % (1,132) of the comments posted on Die Welt, and 79 % (206) of the comments posted on the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (see Figure 2). The major theme of gender is expressed in 54 % (880) of the comments posted on Die Zeit, 45 % (758) of the comments posted on Die Welt, and 39 % (102) of the comments posted on the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung.

Figure 2

Major themes per newspaper, corpus of online user-generated comments (n=3,600).^[7]

However, differences are apparent across ideological lines. The results indicate a slightly greater focus on gender relations among Die Zeit commenters compared those posting on Die Welt, who, in comparison, are more likely to frame their commentary in terms of integration and the perceived cultural alterity of ‘Muslimness.’ Specifically, 41 % (675) of Die Zeit comments compared to 32 % (545) of Die Welt comments frame the burkini in terms of gender equality. The analysis also reveals that gender equality is invoked in tandem with discourse about sociocultural difference and integration and, combined, this accounts for 34 % (562) of Die Zeit comments and 32 % (540) of Die Welt comments. Additionally, while comments posted on both Die Zeit and Die Welt overwhelmingly frame the burkini in terms of discourse about Muslims in Germany, the latter are nearly one-and-a-half times more likely to do so do. Specifically, 60 % (1,010) of Die Welt comments frame the burkini in terms of arguments about self-isolation, integration resistance, or similar discourses problematising Muslims in Germany.

Lastly, while there are clear differences in how commenters frame discourse about the burkini suggestive of ideological variance, overall, the discourse is negative. Excluding unclear or off-topic commentary, only 22 % (357) of comments posted on Die Zeit and 6 % (97) of comments posted on Die Welt express support for the burkini and/or religious accommodation in German state-funded education (see Figure 3). In this sense, the majority of Die Zeit and Die Welt comments label such practices in exclusionary terms.

Figure 3

Attitude towards the burkini and/or religious accommodation per newspaper, corpus of online user-generated comments (n=3,600).

6 Discussion and conclusion

Guided by the politics of belonging, gender nationalism, and the argument that non-belonging is ascribed through boundary formations in the news media, this article shows how political ideologies about gender and integration are reflected and recontextualised in discourse about the burkini. Focusing on a corpus of online user-generated newspaper comments compiled from the online edition of German regional and national newspapers, it follows a two-fold analytical approach. Examining thematic patterns within the corpus, the qualitative content analysis indicates that the burkini is characterised according to the major themes of gender, sociocultural difference and integration, and sociopolitical difference and governance. Further substantiating these findings, the critical discourse studies-based analysis reveals that commenters utilise argumentation schemes about gender relations, European and German societal norms and values, sociocultural difference, and concerns related to Muslim sociocultural practices to frame the burkini in terms of gender and integration. In addition, the analysis shows that commenters combine positive, neutral, and/or negative frames with referential strategies with ideological effects. Examples of this include the use of positive self- and negative other-presentation and the strategic use of pronouns to align or distance the commenter from specific claims, which, discursively, also allow for exclusionary boundaries of non-belonging to be drawn.

On the subject of gender and integration, these findings need to be contextualised. Notably, although commenters draw upon ideologies about gender and integration separately, roughly a third of all Die Zeit and Die Welt comments specifically reference gender equality in terms of sociocultural difference and integration. This is significant as it points towards the salience and normalisation of gender nationalist rhetoric in everyday digital discourse, as well as the role of the news media in priming the public to associate veiling with ‘foreignness’ (Schiffer 2023). Gender equality is not referenced as a liberal-democratic value in its own right in these comments, but, rather, as Hadj Abdou (2017: 87) notes, instrumentalised as “part of a nationalist repertoire of exclusion.” By drawing upon gender nationalism to symbolically define “who belongs and who does not” in what Sauer (2016: 118) argues is a new, gendered politics of belonging centred on Muslim body-coverings, the commentary also reflects a changing understanding of ‘Germanness.’ Specifically, Rostock and Berghahn (2008: 358) contend that following the introduction of jus soli citizenship procedures in 2000, gender equality became “a useful tool to secure the image of German society as modern and emancipated” in contrast to the Muslim ‘other.’

Also, across ideological lines, differences are apparent with Die Zeit commenters slightly more likely to focus on gender relations while comments posted on Die Welt are nearly one-and-a-half times more likely to emphasis and problematise ‘Muslimness.’ This indicates that while gender equality is a key means of framing the burkini in the analysed commentary, it is also utilised as part of what El-Tayeb (2011: xxvi) describes as a “shared iconography” in which race is implicitly rather than explicitly referenced – for example, by framing specific behaviours as evidence of insurmountable sociocultural or religious differences – to denote un-belonging. Lewicki and Shooman (2020) argue that anti-Muslim racism is a key component of German nation-building, which gains legitimacy, in part, through what Farris (2017: 3) terms “a new, unholy alliance” that unites right-wing nationalists, feminists, and neoliberals in invoking gender equality to advance their own political objectives. To this point, the populist and ethnonationalist far-right party, the Alternative for Germany portrayed imagery of women in bikinis in campaign posters and videos in 2017 to contrast German ‘liberality’ with the ‘illiberality’ of Muslims (Yurdakul, et al. 2019). And while such discourse could lead Die Welt’s presumably more conservative readership to frame the burkini in similar terms, focusing on gender in combination with perceived sociocultural difference also serves a larger societal function. Specifically, Lewicki and Shooman (2020: 40) claim that racialised body politics combine with gender nationalism to redirect former East German grievances and solidify the collective German self-image of ‘who we are not’ and ‘what we don’t do’ that “not only masks, but also re-creates and reinforces hierarchical binaries” between groups. Consequently, as part of a ‘politics of fear,’ in which veiled Muslim women symbolise the ultimate societal ‘other’ or provocatively the “enemy within” (Baldi 2021; Lewicki and Shooman 2020: 32; Wodak 2021), it is not surprising that the analysis, despite evidence of some ideological variance, indicates that the majority of Die Zeit and Die Welt commentary is exclusionary in nature and against allowing the burkini and/or other forms of religious accommodation in German state-funded education.

Additional research is needed to test these conclusions against linguistic corpora that reflect discourse about other forms of Muslim body-coverings, such as ongoing public debates about face-veils in state-funded schools in the German news media. Also, while literature has examined related public policy and political discourse, particularly regarding the far-right, more analysis is needed to indicate how gender nationalist discourse has begun to shift from a focus on integration to exclusion.