Runnymede’s open-closed framework never penetrated everyday media discourse

Evidence

If one of the assumptions made in the first decade since the Runnymede report was that the media was where the report’s binary construction of the concepts of ‘open’ and ‘closed’ views of Islam were ‘at their most useful’ (Allen 2010: 54), because of the ability to ‘to identify Islamophobia in certain given situations’ (Allen 2010: 52), the paucity of mentions of the concept in the media over the greater part of the two decades since the 1997 publication would suggest that its ‘usefulness’ has been limited to classifying and analysing media content, rather than succeeding in popularizing the concept in everyday discourse or raising awareness about what it is and why it matters. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 622

Categorization

• XREF: Directly challenges Runnymede’s own claim that the open/closed binary was most useful in media contexts — the reader’s flagship comparative target. — connects to: Runnymede’s 1997 definition founded but did not fix the field’s usage — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 80
• QUESTION: If the framework’s utility was purely analytical rather than communicative, what does that imply about the 2017 racialization turn’s efforts to build a more politically mobilizing definition?

Related

• Islamophobia as a concept never reached everyday popular discourse. (similarity 0.91)
• Runnymede’s 1997 definition founded but did not fix the field’s usage (similarity 0.85)
• Runnymede defines Islamophobia as closed views of Islam (similarity 0.84)
• The 1997 Runnymede Commission already distinguished open from closed views of Islam. (similarity 0.84)
• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam (similarity 0.84)
• The Runnymede model so dominated Islamophobia discourse that it escaped critical scrutiny (similarity 0.84)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition shifted within its own pages toward closed views (similarity 0.83)
• The closed-versus-open views of Islam dichotomy anchors the Runnymede model. (similarity 0.83)
• The Runnymede Report gained authority despite being a non-academic policy document (similarity 0.83)
• The 1997 Runnymede definition fused hostility to Islam with discrimination against Muslims (similarity 0.83)
• Runnymede’s 1997 Islamophobia framework is a liberal construct defining harm as unfounded hostility (similarity 0.83)
• Runnymede redirects the term’s focus toward discrimination and exclusion (similarity 0.82)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition of Islamophobia shifted and changed within its own pages. (similarity 0.82)
• The Runnymede definition conflates Islamophobia’s effects with its core (similarity 0.82)
• The Runnymede report defines Islamophobia inconsistently across sentiment, prejudice, and discrimination. (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Runnymede’s 1997 definition founded but did not fix the field’s usage #corroborates (0.82) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 80