Orientalist decline theories explain Muslim failure via a fixed inner flaw

Evidence

International relations scholar Clara Eroukhmanoff argues that “political actors can both securitise Islam and simultaneously declare that ‘Islam is not a threat’ or that ‘Islamophobia is a shame’.” Statements like “Muslims are not the enemy” effectively construct Muslims as the enemy, even though the literal meaning of the phrase indicates the exact opposite because such speech activates, Eroukhmanoff argues, “an Orientalist set of assumptions about Islam” without the speaker having to resort to blatant and overt forms of racism. It works in ways akin to dog whistle tactics where certain words stand in for fully developed racial meanings among racist constituencies. As she puts it, “pre-existing registers of meaning” are typically “activated when the codewords ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’ are interpellated in more covert forms of speech.” She refers to this process as “indirect securitization.” Indirect securitizing speech inoculates the speaker and listeners from charges of racism. Thus, securitizing actors and audiences believe that they have not transgressed the bounds of a “post-racial,” multicultural society. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 589 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Orientalist essentialism painted Muslim societies as timelessly stagnant.; Orientalism’s decline thesis attributes Muslim stagnation to an immutable inner essence; Muslims were viewed as inferior when Muslim states were weak, not when strong (+14 more)

Broader Connections

• Denying Muslims are enemies can itself activate Orientalist registers and construct them as threats #complicates (0.72) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 589