Rokeach’s ahistorical framework shaped how Runnymede conceived Islamophobia

Evidence

What is interesting is how rokeach’s typology and its appropriation would seem to have had a determinative effect on the Commission’s thinking. What with the ‘closed mind’ being both the foundation for theoretical development and the definition of Islamophobia, did the Commission understand or interpret Islamophobia as a social psychological phenomenon? Whilst this cannot be answered either way, evidence would appear to suggest that this might have been so, most notably in the similarities between both rokeach and the Commission’s desire to establish a single ahistorical set of concepts. In a very brief and impromptu discussion with the incumbent Chair of the Commission at the time, richard Stone, he suggested that the closed views of Islamophobia were ‘as relevant today as they were then, and will no doubt continue to be’. To some degree, both rokeach and the Commission’s model become quite complimentary in their collaborative purpose. Consequently, one might conclude that the use of rokeach’s theories was either that it concurred with pre-conceived ideas about how Islamophobia was understood by the Commission or that Rokeach’s influence was significant in that it shaped the Commission’s thinking. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 361

Categorization

• QUESTION: The ahistorical design of the typology may explain the report’s repudiation of history that Allen critiques.
• XREF: connects to: The Islamophobia concept was born partly from Runnymede’s earlier antisemitism work — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 692; The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 348; The 1997 Runnymede report defined Islamophobia as faith-based discrimination beyond ethnicity — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 185 (+1 more)

Related

• The Islamophobia concept was born partly from Runnymede’s earlier antisemitism work (similarity 0.87)
• The 1997 Runnymede Commission already distinguished open from closed views of Islam. (similarity 0.85)
• The Runnymede model so dominated Islamophobia discourse that it escaped critical scrutiny (similarity 0.84)
• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam (similarity 0.83)
• The Runnymede report introduced Islamophobia as marking Muslim-specific experience beyond shared discrimination. (similarity 0.83)
• The Runnymede report classed Islamophobia as racism without defining it as racism (similarity 0.83)
• Runnymede’s 1997 Islamophobia framework is a liberal construct defining harm as unfounded hostility (similarity 0.83)
• The 1997 Runnymede report defined Islamophobia as faith-based discrimination beyond ethnicity (similarity 0.83)
• The Runnymede Trust’s founding paradigm was colour-based race relations, not religion. (similarity 0.83)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition of Islamophobia shifted and changed within its own pages. (similarity 0.83)
• Runnymede’s core aim is countering monolith views of Islam (similarity 0.83)
• The 1997 Runnymede Commission introduced, not invented, the term Islamophobia. (similarity 0.82)
• The linking of Islamophobia with antisemitism predates the 1997 Runnymede report. (similarity 0.82)
• The 1997 Runnymede definition fused hostility to Islam with discrimination against Muslims (similarity 0.82)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition shifted within its own pages toward closed views (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam #expands (0.92) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 348
• The 1997 Runnymede report defined Islamophobia as faith-based discrimination beyond ethnicity #expands (0.75) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 185