Integration discourse is both descriptive process and prescriptive ideal
Evidence
Integration is a concept with a long history that goes to the heart of how we understand the kinds of social relations that characterize modern societies, from rural to urban, from kinship to community. This dynamic has been recast in thinking about the integration of ethnic minority diversity, and a large part of European politics is presently occupied with coming to terms with how this renews and/ or unsettles established social and political configurations. Here integration starts to become a debate that describes not only processes of change that occur among groups, but what a principled position on that change should look like. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 439
Categorization
- DEFINE: Useful conceptual note: ‘integration’ carries both an empirical and a normative register — a distinction relevant to evaluating the government’s integration claims.
- XREF: connects to: Integration debates are normative arguments about principled social change — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 444
Related
- Integration debates are normative arguments about principled social change (similarity 0.93)
- Integration discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence (similarity 0.82)
- UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism (similarity 0.82)
- Radicalization anxieties drive integration discourse despite Muslims being integrated. (similarity 0.81)
- Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.81)
- Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base (similarity 0.80)
- UK integration strategy shifted from abstract policy language to mundane everyday practices (similarity 0.79)