Radicalization anxieties drive integration discourse despite Muslims being integrated.

Evidence

As our discussion reflects, the obvious problem with measuring Muslim integration is that it quickly becomes a ‘vortex’ issue that sucks in a range of others (Saggar et al. 2012). One of these is, of course, ‘extremism’ or ‘radicalization’. For, despite evidence that Britain’s Muslims are integrated according to conventional measures, international conflict, political violence and shifting national identity are in many respects the real drivers of anxiety over Muslim integration. What is insufficiently registered, however, is that they are the exception and not the norm. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 468

Categorization

• DEFINE: Summarizes the field’s central conceptual problem: ‘integration’ as a vortex term that drags in unrelated anxieties about extremism.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: how does ‘vortex’ issue-conflation distort the very concept of integration being measured?
• XREF: connects to: International conflict rather than Muslim behavior drives integration anxiety. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 463; Muslim visibility in Europe paradoxically increases perceived non-integration — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 708; Integration discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 430 (+4 more)

Related

• International conflict rather than Muslim behavior drives integration anxiety. (similarity 0.91)
• Integration discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence (similarity 0.87)
• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base (similarity 0.87)
• UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism (similarity 0.87)
• UK integration discourse shifted from organic integration toward a muscular clash-of-values stance (similarity 0.85)
• Official UK integration strategy framed Muslims as a threat to national cohesion (similarity 0.84)
• Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.83)
• UK integration discourse framed Muslims as demographic threats to national existence (similarity 0.83)
• The Muslim threat was framed as infesting Britain’s body and values (similarity 0.83)
• British integration policy elites recycled assimilationist rhetoric against Muslims decades after it failed (similarity 0.83)
• British official dossier linked its own foreign policy to Muslim radicalization (similarity 0.83)
• British press blame for radicalization shifted toward extremist Islam itself (similarity 0.82)
• Integration discourse is both descriptive process and prescriptive ideal (similarity 0.81)
• Islamophobia is one of several challenges British Muslims confront. (similarity 0.80)
• European Muslim integration will enrich rather than harm Europe (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• International conflict rather than Muslim behavior drives integration anxiety. #corroborates (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 463
• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base #corroborates (0.80) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 425
• UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism #expands (0.78) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 446
• Integration discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence #corroborates (0.75) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 430
• UK integration discourse framed Muslims as demographic threats to national existence #expands (0.75) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 447
• Muslim visibility in Europe paradoxically increases perceived non-integration #complicates (0.72) — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 708