Paper short abstract:

In the Swiss naturalisation process, intimate relations (of racialised groups) become a lens for assessing candidates' ‘integration’. Councils use the interview as opportunity for “intimate exposure” (Meiu, 2020) through which women become a ‘benchmark’ for their family members' "integration”.

Paper long abstract:

Dahinden and Kristol (2020) engage with the naturalisation of spouses of Swiss citizens (who undergo a facilitated process). They show how access to citizenship is regulated by gendered, ethnicised and classed logic and heteronormative ideas of ‘good marriage’. My paper shows that these implicit criteria are also integral to the ordinary track’s assessment. Candidates hand in a dossier, which includes evidence about the fulfilment of naturalisation criteria. When criteria are fulfilled, candidates are invited to an interview in front of a council that assesses candidates’ ‘integration’ beyond the provided documentation. However, the information provided in the dossier can also enhance the naturalisation councils' mistrust (especially for members of racialised groups), which justifies the investigation of candidates’ intimate relations. In my paper, I show how through the idea of “intimate exposure” (Meiu, 2020) and imaginations of Swiss “gender-nativism” (Manser-Egli and Dahinden, 2023), women are turned into a ‘benchmark’ of their family members’ ‘integration’ who must transform the council members’ suspicion.

I will analyse the constellation of a husband naturalising without his wife. In this ‘suspicious case’, the council members believe having a tool of investigation by inviting the spouse who was not applying for naturalisation to the interview; the interview becomes an opportunity for “intimate exposure” (Meiu, 2020). Councils can follow up on their suspicion by their own observation during the interview, which promises the opportunity to reveal non-integration (centring around ideas around gender relations and “equality”).