The Banality of Islamophobia: Confronting the Hegemonic Ambitions of Counter-Radicalisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the mid-2000s, counter-radicalisation has emerged as a modality of security governance that deploys a range of interventions in the non-security space to disrupt the “radicalisation” process. In Western countries, counter-radicalisation, desiring to curtail domestic “Islamist” terrorism, has disproportionately targeted Muslims. Important critiques have problematised counter-radicalisation for treating Muslims as the suspect community, engendering securitisation, and using risk, precrime, and racial logics. While these critiques are insightful, I contend that extant studies have not sufficiently leveraged the concept of hegemony to analyse counter-radicalisation. Focusing on the case of Canada, I argue that the concept of hegemony is central to understanding how counter-radicalisation regimes produce consent for the racial projects of national security. I show that counter-radicalisation is the site of production of everyday Islamophobia. It reinforces the common-sense understanding that “radicalisation” is a dangerous phenomenon tied to Muslimness. Based on interviews with Muslim community organisations and analysis of policy documents, this study examines how Muslim community organisations internalise and resist key ideas informing counter-radicalisation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".