Islamophobia persists as a term despite definitional failure because it is now socially real

Evidence

Despite the failings of the term and the lack of clarity that exists, it would appear that Islamophobia is here to stay and that it will no longer be able to be discarded from the various languages and discourses that form part of the pan-european lexicon. The most important task therefore is to locate some way in which Islamophobia might be defined as clearly as possible, setting out what one means by Islamophobia and as equally importantly, what one does not. Little consensus about this is in evidence at present. Despite being a term that had limited discursive value or resonance at the turn of the century, the spread of Islamophobia both discursively and conceptually into the public and political spaces of europe has meant that whilst one may not necessarily always be able to articulate exactly what Islamophobia is, it is a phenomenon that is conceptually at least, a social reality. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 616

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes the stakes: definition is the key task, and the term’s social reality outruns its analytical clarity.
• XREF: This is the classic ‘socially constructed but real in its consequences’ argument, echoing the Thomas theorem. — connects to: Islamophobia as a concept never reached everyday popular discourse. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 627; Islamophobia names a real social reality despite being imprecise and polemical. — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 21; Islamophobia’s definitional looseness makes it a contested and unstable concept in Europe — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 551 (+5 more)

Related

• Islamophobia is real but resists empirical proof, and the term stays despite flaws. (similarity 0.91)
• Islamophobia’s contestation stems from a failure to define or conceptualise it. (similarity 0.91)
• Contested definitions of Islamophobia deepen the rift over its existence (similarity 0.90)
• Islamophobia’s definitional looseness makes it a contested and unstable concept in Europe (similarity 0.90)
• Islamophobia names a real social reality despite being imprecise and polemical. (similarity 0.89)
• The term Islamophobia demands a better-grounded, contestable definition (similarity 0.89)
• Efforts to define Islam are what define understanding of Islamophobia (similarity 0.86)
• Conceptualizing Islamophobia must separate its forms from the phenomenon itself (similarity 0.86)
• Sloppy public usage of the term widens the advocate-detractor divide (similarity 0.86)
• Across EU states in 2001 no operable consensus definition of Islamophobia existed (similarity 0.85)
• Islamophobia must be defined at the level of the signified phenomenon, not its signs (similarity 0.85)
• Islamophobia as a concept never reached everyday popular discourse. (similarity 0.85)
• Even the UN’s recognition of Islamophobia came without a definition (similarity 0.85)
• Islamophobia is an ideology sustaining negative meaning about Muslims. (similarity 0.85)
• Retaining the term Islamophobia centers hostility on Islam itself. (similarity 0.85)

Broader Connections

• The term Islamophobia demands a better-grounded, contestable definition #expands (0.85) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 102
• Islamophobia’s contestation stems from a failure to define or conceptualise it. #responds-to (0.80) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 913