Ungrounded definitions let racism and Islamophobia be dismissed or perpetuated

Evidence

Acknowledging the shortcomings and problematic nature of existing theories of racism, Miles concluded that any research into this or any other similar phenomena, necessarily needed to be grounded in empirical evidence and be ‘non-inflationary’, similar to the concerns aired previously about Islamophobia. In addition, it was paramount that both evidence and theoretical models were neither anecdotal nor superficially simplistic. Without theoretical and empirical grounding and thus substantiating the reality of racism, racism could be easily dismissed and justifiably ignored in the political and moral realms. If grounded evidence was not therefore put forward, then a lack of societal consensus would emerge, both of the reality and problematic nature, presence and influence of racism in society. Until such was achieved, a situation would ensue that would render it socially acceptable, possibly even justifying and perpetuating it. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 791

Categorization

• XREF: This ‘non-inflationary’ demand aligns Allen with Bleich’s social-scientific concern about inflation, though Allen will diverge from Bleich on method later. — connects to: Defining Islamophobia as ‘unfounded’ makes its denial subjectively defensible — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 657; The term Islamophobia demands a better-grounded, contestable definition — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 102; A non-normative measurable criterion like indiscriminate beats normative terms like unjustified for defining Islamophobia — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 30 (+3 more)

Related

• Poor evidence plus subjective definitions make Islamophobia easy to dismiss (similarity 0.87)
• Racism has empirical grounding that Islamophobia still lacks (similarity 0.86)
• Defining Islamophobia as ‘unfounded’ makes its denial subjectively defensible (similarity 0.86)
• Islamophobia’s contestation stems from a failure to define or conceptualise it. (similarity 0.85)
• Many Islamophobia definitions are too vague, narrow, or politically freighted for analytical use. (similarity 0.85)
• Contested definitions of Islamophobia deepen the rift over its existence (similarity 0.85)
• Even the UN’s recognition of Islamophobia came without a definition (similarity 0.84)
• Precise definitions of Islamophobia enable systematic cross-time and cross-group comparisons. (similarity 0.84)
• Inconsistent operational definitions prevent cumulating research on Islamophobia. (similarity 0.84)
• Islamophobia must be treated as a neutral social-scientific concept, not a political term. (similarity 0.84)
• Efforts to define Islam are what define understanding of Islamophobia (similarity 0.84)
• Islamophobia is an ideology sustaining negative meaning about Muslims. (similarity 0.84)
• Criteria-based checklists for identifying Islamophobia obscure its complexity rather than clarify it (similarity 0.84)
• Defining Islamophobia matters only insofar as it enables systematic comparison. (similarity 0.83)
• Public Islamophobia debate lacks empirical grounding and nuance (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Defining Islamophobia as ‘unfounded’ makes its denial subjectively defensible #corroborates (0.90) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 657
• A non-normative measurable criterion like indiscriminate beats normative terms like unjustified for defining Islamophobia #responds-to (0.85) — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 30
• The term Islamophobia demands a better-grounded, contestable definition #expands (0.80) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 102