HighFlyers (In Low Places)

The false promise of ‘Representation’ constitutes a powerful weapon against marginalised communities.

ON THE LADDER - Gregor Ziolkowski

"Black faces in high places are not going to save us....if we allow ourselves to be conscripted into positions of power that maintain the oppressive status quo..."

Ruha Benjamin

When University Professor, Ruha Benjamin spoke these words in front of Princeton’s graduating class, she not only spread a key sentiment to young black graduates, some of which would go onto adopt positions of power, but she also spoke to a larger sentiment in the discussion of the value of representation for marginalised communities.

…

I remember first hearing about Malala Yousafzai.

I must have only been about 9 years old when we gathered in the assembly hall to hear news of what had already become a global inspiration. Her motives were clear, intentional and unyielding in the face of insurmountable odds, and we had never heard of another story that compared to this one. Having survived an assassination attempt by the Taliban due to her advocacy for girls' education, she inspired the wide-eyed child in me to remember the importance and privilege an accessible education system. She inspired girls and women all over the world to continue to align with feminist objectives, in this case being reminded to observe feminist concerns from outside the west to the same capacity as those typically emphasised. Perhaps most importantly, Malala challenged stereotypical notions of Muslim and South-Asian women that had been perpetuated by a flawed system, and so her legacy would speak tales of resistance and reformation. Since then, she has continued her activism globally, championing education for all and women's rights. She went onto co-found the Malala Fund, an organisation dedicated to ensuring girls around the world receive 12 years of free, safe, and quality education.

On the surface, Malala seems like an example of positive representation that marginalised communities had been looking for in the media. After all, her work had made a significant impact on education and gender equality advocacy worldwide. And yet, whispers (or yells) from the communities she appears to represent speak mostly of disappointment these days.

‘Suffs’

Last month, the New York Times published an article surrounding a new and peculiar alliance. The title read ‘Hillary Clinton and Malala Yousafzai Toast Their New Broadway Show’ in an air of literary applause…

The pair celebrated the premiere of their new Broadway show, "Suffs," a musical highlighting women's suffrage, which attracted a host of industry luminaries. Clinton, having once-upon-a-time, for a brief shining moment represented female mobility at the highest level in the US, revealed in the moment at the Music Box Theatre, marking her Broadway producing debut alongside Shaina Taub. The production, tracing the journey for women's voting rights from 1913 to the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, was intended to resonate deeply in today's political climate. The collaboration seems to fit just perfectly, with Yousafzai’s past emphasising the show's significance. The event, graced by a ‘star-studded’ audience, culminated in a call to action for voter registration, aiming to encapsulate the spirit of empowerment and historical reflection.

Theoretically, ‘Tuffs’ should have been a sensation, holding the potential to gather eyes from a wide range of demographics. Unfortunately, though, a Broadway musical is not all that the two share. In reality, Malala’s hero status has since faded sine she emerged in 2012, as has Clinton’s in recent years. The difference between them though, is that expectations of Clinton to uphold any kind of moral standing would always wane in the way that expectations for most politicians do. The understanding that politicians are generally self-interested would cloud over Clinton’s efforts to maintain her reputation if not for her own actions and familial ties. By contrast, people were supposed to be able to look to Malala to help re-enforce the interests of those communities she represents from that high place that she sits now. However, alike many others, she would go onto fail the test of time in remaining an inspiration for those who once revered her for her fearlessness and independence.

But the Pakistani community have been complaining about Malala for ages, though a lot of people failed to understand why. The responses to criticisms surrounding Malala accused commentators of an unmentioned ungratefulness, and the idea that women, Muslims and South Asian communities should be thankful for Malala, because she had managed to grab a seat at the table in a room to which so many had been barred access, and in such a mainstream way too. Still, it seems the objections made about her perceived heroism over the years weren’t at all unwarranted, as mimics the same inconsistent and selective activism as her new associate.

Despite initially advocating for female agency, Malala rarely discusses feminist objectives as they pertain to current world events, seemingly leaving behind the millions of girls she’s previously inspired. But her failure to adopt feminism in the present day is hardly the worst of it. In spite of her ability to speak on conflict as it occurred in the Middle East, Malala has repeatedly failed to discuss the role western powers, particularly as they facilitate geo-political tensions and then seek to separate themselves from the fallout. Instead, she repeatedly emphasised her backstory as analogous evidence that non-western nations and non-western religions are just ‘like this’, completely damaging her legacy as somebody who had a hand in changing how so many had been represented. With regards to Israel’s occupation of and genocide in Palestine, Yousafzai had repeatedly ignored calls to call for an immediate ceasefire, with just her latest statement emphasising her ‘prayers for the middle-east’, erring on the dangerous side of neutrality.

Even in the unlikely event that there might be explanation for this latest failure, her decision to work with Clinton signifies questionable intent at the very least.

Everyone remembers when in her time as secretary of state, Clinton disseminated false claims that Libyan armed forces had been given Viagra and in response, carried out mass rapes as a weapon of war. On the 3^rd of this month, Pro-Palestinian protesters interrupted her speech at Columbia University, highlighting her horrific past, earning herself the title of ‘war criminal’.

"Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, you are a war criminal! The people of Libya, the people of Iraq, the people of Syria, the people of Yemen, the people of Palestine as well as the people of America will never forgive you,” said one protestor.

So this begs the question as to why Malala would choose to align herself with somebody who has helped stoke the fires of the very conflicts that lead her to almost lose her life all those years ago.

‘Secretary of War’

In 2009, Clinton, alongside Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, advocated for an additional thirty thousand troops in Afghanistan to ‘stabilize the country’, counter the Taliban, and conclude the ongoing war. However, the outcome failed to fulfil this promise. Despite the troop surge and a decade of military engagement, Afghanistan remained embroiled in turmoil, marked by increased attacks on civilians and aid workers. We know now that the true intention behind the surge was not to expedite the withdrawal of US forces or promote democracy in Afghanistan but rather to assert US dominance, with little consideration for the escalating violence and prolonged conflict, emboldening the very forces that Malala suffered under.

Where she previously represented radical resistance, Malala will unfortunately go down in history with a place alongside others who have demonstrated that diversity does not equal representation. When black citizens in the U.S. first heard that there would be a black man in office it appeared as though we would witness some kind of change in government, where his understanding of marginalisation having faced it first-hand would theoretically contribute towards his decision-making in office. In 2009, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his vision of a world without nuclear weapons. However, his presidency saw a significant increase in drone strikes, approving 563 strikes resulting in thousands of casualties. These strikes extended to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan, with devastating impacts on civilians, including women and children. His actions, including the use of double tap strikes on responders, raise questions about his classification as an international war criminal, in a similar way to his successor. Despite Obama's self-defence in his memoir, his decisions violated international humanitarian law, ensuring that his achievement as the first black U.S. president was nothing more than a dream unrealised.

What can we learn here?

In order to better fortify our expectations for those in power who supposedly represent marginalised communities, viewing representation through an intersectional lens might help to mitigate feelings of disappointment. Specifically, if we observe the countless figureheads that we’ve had to mentally cast aside then we’ll notice that power, in the form of either economic or political capital creates the big divide here between supposed ‘representatives’ and the interests of those they’re seen to represent. If we pay attention to these facets, focusing on where efforts to self-preserve outweigh the consideration of those deemed as being ‘below’, it’ll be far easier to predict the motives of ‘marginalised’ individuals in powerful places.

Of course, part of me wonders whether criticising ‘bad representatives’ of marginalised communities ultimately upholds the practice that is judging entire demographics by their worst members. There is this danger when we say for example that Barack Obama is a ‘bad representative for black people’, but this is not my point here. I’m not really interested in the ways in which marginalised communities come off to the privileged majority. Instead, I’m more focused on the ways in which we as those disenfranchised on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexuality, orientation, ability (amongst other structures) might increase our awareness surrounding the motives of those who would capitalise on our marginalisation for their own gain, knowing first and foremost that we want to believe that the ‘world is becoming a more accepting place’.

Naturally it’s gratifying to see members of typically oppressed communities  make their way into high places, but we ought not to let the dream that ‘Someday I could get there too!’ lead us into believing in figures that would sooner see their climb the ladder of success, whilst being acutely aware that each rung is built from our own misguided expectations, without which they’d remain unseen.

Here’s to us.

Asisa

Sources

NY Times - ‘Hillary Clinton and Malala Yousafzai Toast Their New Broadway Show’ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/19/style/suffs-broadway-hillary-clinton-malala-yousafzai.html

Harvard Political Review – ‘Barack Obama Is A War Criminal’

https://harvardpolitics.com/obama-war-criminal/

The Fine Print - Five reasons that explain Rishi Sunak’s stand on immigrants https://theprint.in/opinion/five-reasons-why-twice-migrant-rishi-sunak-forgot-his-own-familys-routes/1432182/

Jacobin ‘Hilary Clinton, Secretary of War’ https://jacobin.com/2016/08/hillary-clinton-secretary-state-war-drones/