The EUMC report separated Islamophobia’s products from its motivating phenomenon

Evidence

To the contrary, the EUMC report suggested that the products were motivated by them, a subtle but hugely important distinction. The eUMC report therefore differentiated between the products and the phenomenon whilst also touching upon the possibility of some form of consequential or exclusionary practice, as in the rise of political campaigning against Muslims and Islam. In differentiating between these different constitutive components, the report initiates the possibility of a new means of conceptualising Islamophobia. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 668

Categorization

• DEFINE: This product/phenomenon distinction IS Allen’s whole definitional edifice — the load-bearing analytical move.
• XREF: connects to: Conceptualizing Islamophobia must separate its forms from the phenomenon itself — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 653; Past conflation of products and phenomenon obscured Islamophobia’s distinct existence — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 667; Indicators of Islamophobia vary widely in how directly they reflect underlying attitudes — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 54 (+1 more)

Related

• Past conflation of products and phenomenon obscured Islamophobia’s distinct existence (similarity 0.92)
• Conceptualizing Islamophobia must separate its forms from the phenomenon itself (similarity 0.86)
• EUMC evidence shows anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim phenomena coexist, contradicting Halliday (similarity 0.85)
• Islamophobia is the meaning disseminated about Muslims and Islam rather than any single act (similarity 0.85)
• The EUMC report shows Islamophobic signs operate beyond media in all social spheres (similarity 0.84)
• Evidence of anti-Muslim incidents has not convinced many of Islamophobia as a distinct phenomenon (similarity 0.81)
• European monitoring reports legitimized Islamophobia as a concept but not proactive policy (similarity 0.81)
• Even the report’s own authors lacked clarity about what Islamophobia is. (similarity 0.81)
• Islamophobia is an ideology, not a set of actions or practices (similarity 0.80)
• The Runnymede report’s definition is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak (similarity 0.79)
• Islamophobic exclusionary practices remain empirically unproven. (similarity 0.79)
• Runnymede’s model failed to distinguish Islamophobia from other similar phenomena (similarity 0.79)
• Islamophobia must be defined at the level of the signified phenomenon, not its signs (similarity 0.79)
• Defining Islamophobia requires abandoning checklists of identifying criteria. (similarity 0.79)
• Indicators of Islamophobia vary widely in how directly they reflect underlying attitudes (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Conceptualizing Islamophobia must separate its forms from the phenomenon itself #corroborates (0.90) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 653
• Past conflation of products and phenomenon obscured Islamophobia’s distinct existence #corroborates (0.85) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 667
• Indicators of Islamophobia vary widely in how directly they reflect underlying attitudes #corroborates (0.75) — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 54