UK integration discourse shifted from organic integration toward a muscular clash-of-values stance

Evidence

Meanwhile, the ‘Muslim question’ continues to inform the current musings of former influencers of policy on integration. Trevor Phillips, for example, who introduced the term ‘sleepwalking to segregation’ into the UK policy sphere in the 2000s, has more recently returned to update his prophecies about an imminent clash of values represented in the threat of Muslims. In Race and Faith: The Deafening Silence (2016) Phillips argues that the ‘organic integration’ that accompanied post-war immigration is no longer suitable for 21st-century Britain faced with the Muslim question. In Phillips we hear echoes of David Cameron at the Munich Security Conference in 2011 when he too called for an approach that was more ‘muscular’ (Cabinet Office 2011). — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 452

Categorization

• XREF: Trevor Phillips’ pivot from multiculturalism champion to ‘muscular’ integration advocate is a concrete case of the Runnymede ‘closed views of Islam’ stance operating through a single influential figure. — connects to: The niqab functions as a visual marker of failed integration in British public discourse — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 562; Official UK integration strategy framed Muslims as a threat to national cohesion — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 451; British integration policy elites recycled assimilationist rhetoric against Muslims decades after it failed — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 457 (+5 more)

Related

• British integration policy elites recycled assimilationist rhetoric against Muslims decades after it failed (similarity 0.93)
• Official UK integration strategy framed Muslims as a threat to national cohesion (similarity 0.86)
• UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism (similarity 0.85)
• Radicalization anxieties drive integration discourse despite Muslims being integrated. (similarity 0.85)
• UK integration discourse framed Muslims as demographic threats to national existence (similarity 0.84)
• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base (similarity 0.81)
• UK integration strategy shifted from abstract policy language to mundane everyday practices (similarity 0.80)
• Integration discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence (similarity 0.80)
• International conflict rather than Muslim behavior drives integration anxiety. (similarity 0.79)
• The Muslim threat was framed as infesting Britain’s body and values (similarity 0.79)
• Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.79)
• Governments select Muslim interlocutors only when they accept official assumptions. (similarity 0.79)
• British official dossier linked its own foreign policy to Muslim radicalization (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• UK integration discourse framed Muslims as demographic threats to national existence #exemplifies (0.82) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 447
• UK integration strategy shifted from abstract policy language to mundane everyday practices #expands (0.80) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 448
• Muslim visibility in Europe paradoxically increases perceived non-integration #expands (0.78) — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 708
• Radicalization anxieties drive integration discourse despite Muslims being integrated. #expands (0.72) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 468