Runnymede’s open-closed binary reproduces the very dualism it condemns

Evidence

Whilst the report acknowledges how damaging dualistic interpretations of Islam can be, such interpretations are themselves embodied in the runnymede model that is as equally dualistic in its ‘open and closed’. It is therefore difficult to identify the benefit of ‘open’ and ‘closed’ for instance over such similar markers as ‘us’ and ‘them’. In reference to richardson’s dilemma previously, whilst the report suggests that closed views cause Islamophobia one must also concede that any reciprocal and equally bi-polar response – open views – attains its validity and understanding by asserting itself as the opposite of Islamophobia. That is, Islamophilia. By differentiating between ‘closed’ and ‘open’ to explain ‘us’ and ‘them’ the report appears contradictory, embodying the same ideas and meanings but behind only different terminologies. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 373

Categorization

• SEED: The definition-as-political-act angle: a framework meant to critique dualism is itself a dualism — a usable essay on how anti-racist taxonomies can replicate the logic they attack.
• XREF: connects to: The Runnymede model is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 915; Binary codes unite opposites by regulated negation rather than merely separating them — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 662; Binary schematization’s completeness claim masks the imposition behind any dichotomy (+2 more)

Related

• Runnymede defines Islamophobia as closed views of Islam (similarity 0.87)
• The closed-versus-open views of Islam dichotomy anchors the Runnymede model. (similarity 0.87)
• The Runnymede report’s definition is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak (similarity 0.86)
• The Runnymede model is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak (similarity 0.86)
• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam (similarity 0.85)
• The 1997 Runnymede Commission already distinguished open from closed views of Islam. (similarity 0.84)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition shifted within its own pages toward closed views (similarity 0.84)
• Runnymede’s 1997 Islamophobia framework is a liberal construct defining harm as unfounded hostility (similarity 0.84)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition of Islamophobia shifted and changed within its own pages. (similarity 0.84)
• Runnymede drew on anti-Semitism analogies yet built a different, dualistic model (similarity 0.84)
• Runnymede’s core aim is countering monolith views of Islam (similarity 0.84)
• The Runnymede definition conflates Islamophobia’s effects with its core (similarity 0.84)
• The Runnymede model so dominated Islamophobia discourse that it escaped critical scrutiny (similarity 0.84)
• The Runnymede report defines Islamophobia inconsistently across sentiment, prejudice, and discrimination. (similarity 0.83)
• Islamophobia should be analyzed as power-relations rather than as error about Islam. (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• The Runnymede model is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak #expands (0.95) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 915
• The Runnymede report’s definition is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak #expands (0.90) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 915
• Binary schematization’s completeness claim masks the imposition behind any dichotomy #expands (0.85)
• Binary codes unite opposites by regulated negation rather than merely separating them #expands (0.80) — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 662