Skip to main content

Germany, Islam, and Education: Unveiling the Contested Meaning(s) of the Headscarf

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Gender, Religion and Education in a Chaotic Postmodern World
  • 2609 Accesses

Abstract

Few religious symbols have ignited such public and widespread debate as the headscarf; since the 1980s, controversies in the political, judicial, and educational realms have reached across the European continent. In Germany, the headscarf debate, or Kopftuchstreit, is intrinsically connected to the country’s notions of secularism as it applies specifically to teachers; teachers who wear headscarves are denied teaching jobs not only because they are civil servants and supposed to represent German culture and ideals but because their religious beliefs are seen as threatening and incongruent with the German value system. The German Kopftuchstreit centers on two defining court cases: in one, a naturalized German educator is denied the right to wear a headscarf in the classroom because the courts defined the headscarf as inherently political, while the other grants the native-born educator the right to her headscarf because it was not perceived as a threat to the students. By framing my examination of the current literature on these court cases through the lens of intersectionality, this chapter posits that female Muslim teachers who are not ethnic Germans experience multiplicative oppressions based on their ethnicity as it intersects with their gendered religious identity, which contribute to the differing verdicts in these otherwise very similar court cases. By identifying the structural elements contributing to the invisibility of female Muslim educators, this chapter seeks to disengage hegemonic educational practices while simultaneously engaging the intersectional identity of this population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ius soli, the right of soil, is a foundational concept in citizenship laws which enables citizenship rights for anyone born within a nation-state. Ius sanguinis, the right of blood, allows citizenship to be recognized not based on place of birth but rather on the nationality of the parents. Until 2000, Germany’s citizenship law was modeled on ius sanguinis, but it now recognizes both.

  2. 2.

    See Rottmann and Marx Ferree (2008) for a detailed look at the intersections of citizenship, feminism, and headscarves in Germany. See also Mahalingam et al. (2008) for a broader application of intersectionality with immigrant populations.

  3. 3.

    Mae Henderson’s direct quote is as follows: “It is not that black women…have had nothing to say, but rather that they have had no say.”

References

  • Altinordu, A. (2004). The meaning(s) of the headscarf: The German Kopftuchstreit. Conference paper, American Sociological Association, pp. 1–23. San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, W. A. (1998). Ethics of citizenship: Education and group rights in Germany. Durham/London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beale, F. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be black and female. In T. Cade (Ed.), The black woman (pp. 146–155). New York: Signet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloemraad, I., Koretweg, A., & Yurdakul, G. (2008). Citizenship and immigration: Multiculturalism, assimilation, and challenges to the nation-state. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 153–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borovali, M. (2009). Islamic headscarves and slippery slopes. Cardozo Law Review, 30(6), 2593–2611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brah, A., & Phoenix, A. (2004). Ain’t I a woman? Revisiting intersectionality. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 5(3), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, R. S., & Culp, J. M. (2002). After intersectionality. University of Kansas Law Review Symposium, 71(2), 485–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P. H. (2000). Coming to voice, coming to power: Black Feminist thought as critical social theory. In J. Glazer-Raymo, B. Townsend, & B. Ropers-Huilman (Eds.), Women in higher education: A feminist perspective (Ashe reader series 2nd ed., pp. 34–52). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing (original work published in 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139, 139–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, K. (1994). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. In M. A. Fineman & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), The public nature of private violence (pp. 93–118). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, B. T., McLaughlin, A. E., & Nieves, A. D. (2006). Future directions of feminist research: Intersectionality. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook on feminist research (pp. 629–638). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dustin, M., & Phillips, A. (2008). Whose agenda is it? Abuses of women and abuses of culture in Britain. Ethnicities, 8(3), 405–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenreich, N. (2002). Subordination and symbiosis: Mechanisms of mutual support between subordinating systems. University of Kansas Law Review Symposium, 71(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrkamp, P. (2006). “We Turks are no Germans”: Assimilation discourses and the dialectical construction of identities in Germany. Environment and Planning, 38, 1673–1692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogel, R. S. (2007). Headscarves in German public schools: Religious minorities are welcome in Germany, unless – God forbid – They are religious. New York Law School Review, 51, 620–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göktürk, D., Gramling, D., & Kaes, A. (Eds.). (2007). Germany in transit: Nation and migration 1955–2005. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. (2002). Islam in Germany. In S. T. Hunter (Ed.), Islam, Europe’s second largest religion: The new social, cultural, and political landscape (pp. 29–50). London: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grillo, T. (1995). Anti-essentialism and intersectionality: Tools to dismantle the master’s house. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal, 10, 16–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häuβler, U. (2001). Muslim dress-code in German state schools. European Journal of Migration and Law, 3, 457–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohmann, M. (2003). Speech on the day of German unity. In D. Göktürk, D. Gramling, & A. Kaes (Eds.), Germany in transit: Nation and migration 1955–2005 (pp. 145–147). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D. K. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a black feminist ideology. Signs, 14(1), 42–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, G. A. (2005). Reclaiming baggage in fast traveling theories. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 12(3), 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levit, N. (2002). Introduction: Theorizing the connections among systems of subordination. University of Kansas Law Review Symposium, 71(2), 227–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahalingam, R., Balan, S., & Haritatos, J. (2008). Engendering immigrant psychology: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 326–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, R. (1989). Turkish Headscarves and the ‘Foreigner Problem’. New German Critique, 46, 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, R. (2008). Cosmopolitan anxieties: Turkish challenges to citizenship and belonging in Germany. Durham/London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30(3), 1771–1800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merz, F. (2000). Immigration and identity: On the freedom-based German guiding culture. In D. Göktürk, D. Gramling, & A. Kaes (Eds.), Germany in transit: Nation and migration 1955–2005 (pp. 313–314). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, C. (2006). Integrating Turkish communities: A German dilemma. Population Research & Policy Review, 25, 419–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy-Shigematsu, S. (2004). Expanding the borders of the nation: Ethnic diversity and citizenship education in Japan. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp. 303–332). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockhill, K. (2000). Dis/connecting literacy and sexuality: Speaking the unspeakable in the classroom. In J. Glazer-Raymo, B. Townsend, & B. Ropers-Huilman (Eds.), Women in higher education: A feminist perspective (Ashe reader series 2nd ed., pp. 391–412). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing (original work published in 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ropers-Huilman, B. (2008). Women faculty and the dance of identities. In J. Glazer-Raymo (Ed.), Unfinished agendas: New and continuing gender challenges in higher education (pp. 35–51). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rostock, P., & Berghahn, S. (2008). The ambivalent role of gender in redefining the German nation. Ethnicities, 8(3), 345–364. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rottmann, S. B., & Marx Ferree, M. (2008). Citizenship and intersectionality: German feminist debates about headscarf and antidiscrimination laws. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 15(4), 481–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J. (2002). Discourses of exclusion: Dominant self-definitions and “the Other” in German society. Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe, 2(1), 13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (2009). Forward: What is secularism? In G. B. Levey & T. Modood (Eds.), Secularism, religion and multicultural citizenship (pp. xi–xxii). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terkessidis, M. (2007). German guiding culture: The game of origins. In D. Göktürk, D. Gramling, & A. Kaes (Eds.), Germany in transit: Nation and migration 1955–2005 (pp. 316–319). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, S. (2007). Unveiling cross-cultural conflict: Gendered cultural practice in polycultural society. In Philosophy of education: 2006 (pp. 283–291). Urbana: Philosophy of Education Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkish Federation of Berlin. (2007). Ten-point plan of the Turkish federation of Berlin for combating intolerance toward women. In D. Göktürk, D. Gramling, & A. Kaes (Eds.), Germany in transit: Nation and migration 1955–2005 (p. 381). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • vom Bruck, G. (2008). Naturalising, neutralising women’s bodies: The “headscarf affair” and the politics of representation. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 15, 51–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Campenhausen, A. F. (2004). The German headscarf debate. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2004(2), 665–699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, B. (2004). Cloth on her head, constitution in hand. German Politics and Society, 22(3), 33–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuval-Davis, N. (2009). Intersectionality and feminist politics. In M. T. Berger & K. Guidroz (Eds.), The intersectional approach: Transforming the academy through race, class & gender (pp. 25–43). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katie Sandford-Gaebel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sandford-Gaebel, K. (2013). Germany, Islam, and Education: Unveiling the Contested Meaning(s) of the Headscarf. In: Gross, Z., Davies, L., Diab, AK. (eds) Gender, Religion and Education in a Chaotic Postmodern World. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5270-2_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics