Moral outrage about Muslim injustice can shade into endorsing Western intervention.
Evidence
Writers need the leeway to address any and all matters of concern, in particular those in which they feel a personal investment. However, Aslam’s response indicates the extent to which the default expectations engendered by topicality are never neutral, least of all when the subject matter is what is commonly deemed Muslim religious or cultural behavior. In the hands of more ideological writers, the moral imperative to address injustice becomes almost inseparable from wholesale endorsement of the neoimperial civilizing mission of the United States. In these writers’ novels, the confluence of Muslim religious doctrine with political power is inevitably disastrous, compromising individual liberty at every turn. Western intervention is then a consummation devoutly to be wished. — Peter Morey, Islamophobia and the Novel, 26
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
- XREF: The extreme end of the contest-vs-reinforce spectrum — the ideological writers who tip fully into neoimperial endorsement.
Related
- The moral imperative to address Muslim injustice can slide into endorsing Western civilizing missions (similarity 0.92)
- Topical Muslim fiction can slide into endorsing US neocolonial intervention (similarity 0.90)
- Novels can expose imperialism through their endings rather than endorse it (similarity 0.80)
- Multi-sited novels set amid imperial violence reject simple moral equivalences about recent history. (similarity 0.79)
- Judging novels by sympathy toward Muslims misses how form determines ideological effect (similarity 0.79)
- Muslim misery memoirs both endorse and destabilize war-on-terror ideology simultaneously (similarity 0.78)
- Abstract anti-imperial critique stays palatable to Western readers where concrete grievance does not (similarity 0.78)