Assimilationist integration demands Muslims adopt a dominant political culture while retaining private diversity.

Evidence

One is that integration should proceed on the grounds of established configurations which diverse cultural, religious and ethnic minorities should seek to emulate, if not assimilate into. That is to say that where Muslim minorities ‘insist on retaining their separate cultures, they should not complain if they are viewed as outsiders and subjected to discriminatory treatment’ (Parekh 2000: 197). A more nuanced and elaborate version of this position limits the comprehensiveness of assimilation to the public sphere, into which Muslims should assimilate in order to participate in the political cultures of a society, but without preventing them from retaining their diversity at the level of the family, and some parts of civil society. The insistence here is upon a prescribed ‘political culture, which includes [society’s] public or political values, ideals, practices, institutions, modes of political discourse, and selfunderstanding’ (Parekh 2000: 200). — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 446

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Distinguishes two tiers of assimilationist integration: full emulation vs. public-sphere-only political-cultural assimilation — a key conceptual distinction in the Islamophobia-adjacent integration debate.
  • QUESTION: Parekh’s phrase ‘they should not complain if they are viewed as outsiders’ — worth chasing whether the ‘blame the victim’ framing is a recurring feature across assimilationist arguments.
  • XREF: connects to: Islamophobia requires cultural convergence, not separation, to sustain itself; American tolerance of Muslims conditioned on their political quiescence and departure.; Muslim inclusion in American civic life comes at the price of disciplined loyalty

Broader Connections