Ours is a simple idea. Research continues to concentrate on the intolerant. They oppose inclusion on any terms. To see if there is a way forward, we submit that it is necessary to hone in on those who are potentially open to inclusion. How far are they willing to go? Where do they draw the line? And why there and not elsewhere?
Bleich and van der Veen have said for us as well as we could say for ourselves the result that matters most. The substance of proposals for inclusion, just what citizens are being asked to agree to, is pivotal. As Bleich and van der Veen put it, “latent support for inclusion exists … contingent on how the terms for inclusion are specified.” They pick out a particular pivot point – the difference between two conceptions of respect. The largest number across the political mainstream believe that the majority has a responsibility to publicly and privately recognize the dignity of Muslims and take seriously contributions of their culture and history (recognition respect). But they do not believe that the larger society has a duty to commend Islamic culture and traditions or agree that the larger society has an obligation to help sustain them (appraisal respect). Normative pivot points, we would emphasize, are politically consequential, not because the intolerant acknowledge them, but because they matter to those who are sympathetic to the ideal of inclusive tolerance.
We are heartened that Bleich and van der Veen recognize the methodological innovation in the Struggle for Inclusion, the sequential factorial design. We strongly believe that research should be iterative: benefiting by what is learned at each step to figure out the next step to take. The key to the sequential factorial is a repeatable template allowing, simultaneously, the introduction of new experimental interventions and the duplication of previous ones. A repeatable template thus offers a practical way to respond to the replication crisis. It dissolves the dilemma of having to choose to use always limited funds either to make a discovery or, alternatively, to make sure one has made a discovery.
Methods take you only so far. We are most indebted to Bleich and van der Veen for bringing out the depth of the theoretical challenge. In Covering Muslims, they have brought into the open how intensely, relentlessly negative are media representations of Muslims. We cannot think of a better way to underline the enormity of the challenge of the inclusion of Muslims in contemporary Western democracies. Still, our account of public opinion foregrounds the dynamism of democratic ideals. Others have documented their expansion. We analyze its consequences for the critical question of Muslim inclusion.
Our conclusion is that certain forms of political progress towards more truly inclusive societies are now within reach, in the sense that majorities will accept them. We suspect that this is the part of the book that will matter most to practitioners. For political science at large, Covering Muslims and the Struggle for Inclusion each in their own way illuminate the contradictions, shortcomings, and advances of liberal democracies grappling with the challenge of becoming more truly inclusive.
