Defining Islamophobia as ‘unfounded’ makes its denial subjectively defensible

Evidence

When Islamophobia is defined as ‘unfounded’, immediately the evidence, manifestations and consequences of such are subjected to an interpretive understanding: what is unfounded to one may not necessarily be unfounded to another thus resulting in a situation where individual, group or communal subjectivities prevail over a somewhat invisible and difficult to establish objectivity. Thorough subjectivity, clarity never exists thus rendering the phenomenon invalid within individual, group or communal frameworks, all of which must be arguably accepted. Thus whether Islamophobia is dismissed by Burchill, Appleton or the BNP, that it is defined and categorised as unfounded allows for detractors, irrespective of the criticisms and dismissals they put forward, to argue them as subjectively valid, and by consequence, founded. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 657

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains the mechanism by which the ‘unfounded’ component of the Runnymede definition produces interpretive vulnerability.
• XREF: Connects to Bleich’s neutral social-scientific concept-formation objection and Halliday’s terminological critique — this is the causal link that makes definition a political act. — connects to: A Telegraph columnist argued Islamophobia claims are anecdotal and ideological. — Nasar Meer, Tariq Modood, Refutations of Racism in the ‘Muslim…, 70; Runnymede’s 1997 Islamophobia framework is a liberal construct defining harm as unfounded hostility — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 715; Denying Islamophobia as ideas-criticism enables anti-Muslim feeling disconnected from real Muslims. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 139 (+27 more)

Related

• Poor evidence plus subjective definitions make Islamophobia easy to dismiss (similarity 0.89)
• Efforts to define Islam are what define understanding of Islamophobia (similarity 0.89)
• Islamophobia need not rest on false beliefs about Islam or Muslims. (similarity 0.88)
• Runnymede’s 1997 Islamophobia framework is a liberal construct defining harm as unfounded hostility (similarity 0.88)
• Definitions of Islamophobia double as policy interventions, not neutral analysis (similarity 0.87)
• Islamophobia is an ideology sustaining negative meaning about Muslims. (similarity 0.87)
• Contested definitions of Islamophobia deepen the rift over its existence (similarity 0.87)
• The Runnymede model so dominated Islamophobia discourse that it escaped critical scrutiny (similarity 0.87)
• Poorly grounded definitions of Islamophobia fuel polarised claim and counter-claim (similarity 0.87)
• The term Islamophobia demands a better-grounded, contestable definition (similarity 0.87)
• The Runnymede definition conflates Islamophobia’s effects with its core (similarity 0.87)
• Established definitions of Islamophobia resist replacement despite their inadequacy (similarity 0.87)
• The 1997 Runnymede definition fused hostility to Islam with discrimination against Muslims (similarity 0.87)
• Islamophobia’s contestation stems from a failure to define or conceptualise it. (similarity 0.87)
• Runnymede’s 1997 definition founded but did not fix the field’s usage (similarity 0.86)

Broader Connections

• Poorly grounded definitions of Islamophobia fuel polarised claim and counter-claim #expands (0.85) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 101
• Poor evidence plus subjective definitions make Islamophobia easy to dismiss #expands (0.82) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 657
• The term Islamophobia demands a better-grounded, contestable definition #corroborates (0.80) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 102
• Islamophobia’s contestation stems from a failure to define or conceptualise it. #corroborates (0.75) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 913