Runnymede’s eight closed views form an internally inconsistent typology

Evidence

The closed views may be best categorised into three types: perceptional, prejudicial or naturalised. The first five views form the first type, constructing a neat basis from which negatively evaluated perceptions of ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslims’ can be identified. These five also appear to be most appropriate to the description of being ‘views’. The sixth and seventh views form the prejudicial type, whereas the final view falls into the naturalized type alone in that it is much more distinct: more an observation of the current climate rather than a specific perception, prejudice or indeed ‘view’. The latter ‘views’ would therefore seem to require the need for some questioning about their appropriateness especially when the corresponding ‘open view’ for the final ‘closed view’ is little more than the identification for the need for good practice. As such, the ‘views’ are inconsistent and possibly even incoherent when considered as a typology. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 391

Categorization

• DEFINE: Allen’s own recategorization of the eight views into perceptional, prejudicial, and naturalized types — a core-structure map for understanding the framework.
• XREF: connects to: The Runnymede Report’s definition shifted within its own pages toward closed views — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 274; The closed-versus-open views of Islam dichotomy anchors the Runnymede model. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 275; The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 348

Related

• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam (similarity 0.89)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition shifted within its own pages toward closed views (similarity 0.88)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition of Islamophobia shifted and changed within its own pages. (similarity 0.88)
• Runnymede defines Islamophobia as closed views of Islam (similarity 0.88)
• The closed-versus-open views of Islam dichotomy anchors the Runnymede model. (similarity 0.86)
• The 1997 Runnymede Commission already distinguished open from closed views of Islam. (similarity 0.86)
• The Runnymede report’s definition is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak (similarity 0.85)
• Closed views treat Islam as a monolithic, static bloc with no internal diversity (similarity 0.85)
• The Runnymede definition conflates Islamophobia’s effects with its core (similarity 0.84)
• The Runnymede report defines Islamophobia inconsistently across sentiment, prejudice, and discrimination. (similarity 0.83)
• The Runnymede model so dominated Islamophobia discourse that it escaped critical scrutiny (similarity 0.82)
• The Runnymede model is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak (similarity 0.82)
• Runnymede’s core aim is countering monolith views of Islam (similarity 0.81)
• Runnymede’s model failed to distinguish Islamophobia from other similar phenomena (similarity 0.81)
• The 1997 Runnymede definition fused hostility to Islam with discrimination against Muslims (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• The Runnymede Report’s definition shifted within its own pages toward closed views #exemplifies (0.90) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 274
• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam #complicates (0.80) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 348
• The closed-versus-open views of Islam dichotomy anchors the Runnymede model. #expands (0.75) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 275