When Lions Roar Calves Whisper: A Case of Transnational Community Mobilization (2010–20)

Summary

Introduction

In African fables and folktales, people depict the lion as an undeniable king and as the most dominant and intimidating creature in nature. The lion asserts a fierce hierarchy imposed upon less powerful creatures. Such unequal relationships often ensure that the lion has access to and monopolizes the highest and most invaluable spaces and resources. However, other smaller, smart creatures often bypass and resist outright submissions to domination. Though remaining anxious and fearful of a reckless confrontation with the superordinate by not willingly trespassing the lion's demarcations, certain creatures, individually or collectively, mobilize resources for perseverance. Occasionally, the lion demands not only an unbalanced share of bounties but also additional requirements for sustaining the imbalance, hereunder the caring of domination entitlements. In one occasional encounter, a lion got sick and was called homage by other creatures. Among other things, the fox refrained from complying with this disposition. When the lion inquired about sidestepping, the fox responded, “I would have come straight away, if I did not see a lot of tracks going in but none coming out.” Though the powerful might often designate and accumulate a “lion's share” of collective resources, actual unintended processes intervene within a complex dialectical relationship—including potential reluctance and scrutiny from often subordinate constituents.

The application of an animal analogy illustrating existing struggles and perseverance under imbalanced power relationships might seem superficial and exaggerated in comparison to the realities of the lives of transnational communities. However, all living creatures exist in situations of inequalities and subordination, resting on differences in power, unfair distributions, and the potential scarcity of resources. According to Aristotle and other classics, humans are thinking political animals (Willingham and Riener, 2019). For Arendt and other modern political theorists, the social animal conception fits the human condition better (Arendt, 2013). Others have modified such propositions by portraying humans as linguistic animals (Steiner, 2008). More recently, postmodern critical scholars profiled humans not just as thinking, social, political, and linguistic creatures but also probably as a city and urbanized sociopolitical agents (Derrida, 2008). It is certain that humans combine and balance the natural side of their beings with the ethical and moral dimensions of their existence. On the one hand, within such complexities, desires, unguided energetic impulses, and sometimes aggressions might sustain the human quest for power and prestige.