Conflated Discourses
Some of the online discourse in the public domain, even in serious, sober outlets. The small conflations seem trivial. But the larger ones seem worth covering in a relevant context.
In Canada, as a cultural and media institutional critique, I note two conflations. Separate conflations with four ideas. One idea comes from anti-Muslim acts, behaviours.
Another from terms such as Islamophobia. Most people stand against violence. Violent acts against people based on beliefs. That means, for example, anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim behaviour.
Other disagree with beliefs or worldviews plus suggested practices. For instance, most of the world believes Islam is false if taken as a whole.
Terms, such as Islamophobia not always but often, can have vague usage. It can mean anti-Muslim acts. Most people agree there. Then the word can mean disagreement with the worldview plus suggested practices.
Most people disagree with Islam as a worldview plus suggested practices. However, this gets taken as if anti-Muslim bigotry. It gets conflated. That makes critique of Islam the worldview a bashing of individual Muslims. They are not equivalent.
This tactic, if purposeful, or cognitive error, if accidental, limits discourse. Many times, the conflation seems unwitting. It causes problems in the public discourse.
Another further idea, the unaffiliated religious community or movements, e.g. atheism. For simplicity, let us go with atheism, it amounts to one identifiable (non-)religious category.
The last idea comes from the progressive social and political community. Progressive gets seen as non-religion and even anti-religious. Some influence from popularizers, no doubt, on this confusion.
The atheists and the progressives get seen as one, get conflated. If atheist, then assumed progressive; if progressive, then assumed atheist. I see this, often.
These two conflations represent four ideas, not two. So, they merit separate responses based on context.
The separation of the four ideas would clarify discourse. It means less crossed wires and less hatred. That is, respectful dialogue, fewer misunderstandings, and better communities through precise language use.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen founded In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal.
