The same Islamophobic meaning persists across interchangeable labels.

Evidence

In explanation, whilst a range of recurrent and repetitively employed symbolic forms can be identified, quite irrespective of the symbolic form being employed – for example ‘fundamentalist’, ‘extremist’, ‘fanatic’, ‘radical’ or as has recently entered popular discourse, ‘Islamist’ – the meaning underlying the symbolic form and the modes and strategies employed through which this is sustained and perpetuated remains largely the same. What is therefore happening is that the same meaning is being sustained across different symbolic forms, something that occurs quite irrespective of the symbolic form, thus constituting the form quite arbitrary. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 907

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s definitional contest: Allen argues the label (‘Islamophobia’ vs ‘anti-Muslimism’ vs ‘anti-Muslim racism’) is arbitrary because the underlying meaning is constant — a deflationary stance toward the terminological wars. — connects to: Shifting labels like fundamentalist and Islamist sustain the same anti-Muslim meaning — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 907; The racialized content of the Muslim category persisted across changing labels — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 163; Visual markers of Muslim identity are treated as interchangeable signs of threat — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 452 (+1 more)
• SHARE: Worth flagging to anyone doing discourse analysis of anti-Muslim labelling: the argument that swapping terms from ‘fundamentalist’ to ‘Islamist’ sustains identical meaning.

Related

• Shifting labels like fundamentalist and Islamist sustain the same anti-Muslim meaning (similarity 0.95)
• Islamophobia centers on recognition of Muslim-ness and its ideological meaning (similarity 0.86)
• Islamophobia is an ideology sustaining negative meaning about Muslims. (similarity 0.83)
• Contested definitions of Islamophobia deepen the rift over its existence (similarity 0.83)
• Islamophobia is an ideology, not a set of actions or practices (similarity 0.83)
• A coded lexicon spread fundamentalism’s connotations across all discourse about Muslims (similarity 0.82)
• Conceptualizing Islamophobia must separate its forms from the phenomenon itself (similarity 0.82)
• A coded lexicon of associated terms essentialised all Islam around fundamentalism. (similarity 0.82)
• Islamophobia requires an acknowledged Muslim or Islamic element to be identified. (similarity 0.82)
• Islamophobia’s contestation stems from a failure to define or conceptualise it. (similarity 0.82)
• Labels like fundamentalist, Islamist and radical reduce Islam to political-military confrontation (similarity 0.82)
• An acknowledged Muslim or Islamic element is the defining criterion of Islamophobia (similarity 0.82)
• Islamophobia is a fluid neo-ideology built from reinterpreted historical material (similarity 0.81)
• Islamophobia must be defined at the level of the signified phenomenon, not its signs (similarity 0.81)
• A symbol is Islamophobic only through the meaning attached to it, not inherently. (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Shifting labels like fundamentalist and Islamist sustain the same anti-Muslim meaning #corroborates (0.95) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 907
• The racialized content of the Muslim category persisted across changing labels #corroborates (0.90) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 163
• Visual markers of Muslim identity are treated as interchangeable signs of threat #expands (0.75) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 452
• Islamophobia and Islamophilia share assumptions that produce the same political effects #expands (0.72)