---

Damola Awoyokun In his widely published tribute to the late Susanne Wenger, Wole Soyinka drapes the traditional religion

---

Todays update on this compelling debate :)

here http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/editorial_opinion/article04//indexn2_html?pdate=050309&ptitle=The%20sanctity%20of%20nothing

---

The sanctity of nothing
By Damola Awoyokun

IF to Prof Niyi Akinnaso the sanctity of tributes derives from its being closed to debate, then nothing should be sacred under the sun. Not only is discourse and counter-discourse the expression of an open society but the turbulent space between them is the indispensable channel for growth and development. Any idea that discounts the necessity of asking questions is an idea heading for collapse when not actually draconian. Critical consciousness is to civilisation what blood is to the body.

In my article, Soyinka on Adunni Olorisa (The Guardian, February 8, 2009), I never 'dismissed the focus' of Soyinka's Tribute to Susanne Wenger (The Guardian, January 20, 2009) as Akinnaso alleged in his 'The Sanctity of Tributes' (The Guardian, February 18, 2009), I only spent more space elaborating the fundamental before taking on the superficialities. I stated that traditional religion (TR) is nothing but superstition; that it was invented in the primitive age as a means of satisfying human desire to know; that it is based on fate, akoole; that Ifa, its divination scripture though crafted in beautiful prose, is fallacious, as proof, I analysed an emblematic passage from Otura meji; I argued that TR has no place for scientific methods to evaluate its claims which is what superstition is; in short that TR is irrational.

Having built this foundation, I took on the superficialities: the 'qualities' Soyinka praised in Wenger's religion and also his weird mantra which I'd rightly termed an instruction because it asked us to "Go to the orisa, learn from the orisa, and be wise." Go to!

I contended that Christianity and Islam in origin were not different from TR but along the line, they opened up to fruits of thought. Who could dispute the contributions of Islam to astronomy, physics, mathematics? Or does the Christmas we celebrate nowadays with its pageantries and carols anywhere near what is laid out in the Bible? But these religions due to their newfound rigidity to their scriptures and indifference to the latest fruits of thought have become absurd like TR that never rose above ground zero. I moved on to add a fresh angle to the thinking on tolerance and reason: that what Soyinka credits Wenger's religion with is actually a pseudo-tolerance; that TR had never been tolerant as evidenced in its history of burning mosques and churches and disowning children who happens to go to the white man's school and churches; that it looks tolerating because it had taken severe beatings from the foreign religions; that if its numerical strength were to increase significantly it would show its true colours since intolerance is that utopian quest to be the only majority, the only big tree under which nothing grows. Of course, no religion can be tolerant of the other since they are intolerant of reason. They know reason is a natural rebel, with it, every religion will lose its identity, that is, will fall apart. Any successful support of Soyinka's indefensible tribute therefore, would espouse the rebuttal of these arguments. Instead, Akinnaso's Sanctity... in a bid to stand shoulder to shoulder with Soyinka's piece stood on quicksand with it.

Contrary to Akinnaso's charge, I never followed "Eurocentric conventions" or any of those theories or "isms" that disparages freedom of thought which universities and intellectoids over use nowadays in order to look busy. I argued from pure reason, first principles and critical consciousness. What is Eurocentric in saying traditional religion? Even in the language it is called "esin abalaye, esin awon baba wa, esin ibile." Surely, the etymology of these words predates both the European and Arabic colonial incursions. There always had been what is past and what is igbalode. Colonists from the desert and sea did not teach us that.

What Akinnaso did not realise is that Soyinka's piece had already shot itself in the foot and in so doing hinted at a mistake of Wenger and the irrationality of the religion. I explain. Having described Wenger as "a spiritual seeker," "questing stranger," "a being of the universal spirit who found the truths of existence not in Europe, nor Austria, but in a place she had never heard of.... Yet she recognised that space at once, intuitively, unquestioning." Why did such a seeker that had invested so much in being curious then stop questioning? The surrender of critical consciousness is sleep of reason that gives birth to not only nonsense but also monstrosities. This I already exemplified in the case of Olunde in Death and the King's Horseman. Why is it that when anyone - Christians and Muslims alike - who wants to destroy the other easily find ample space and means to in TR? Bank managers preventing a rival from rising, market women preventing the other from outselling them, or ritualists who kill others because they want quick money. What is in the religion that makes it tolerant of such evil motives that hunger for quick fulfillment?

If Wenger came from Europe and discovered in TR "truths of existence," Soyinka and Akinnaso owe us elaborations on that otherwise vague clich�. What are those truths of existence that TR uniquely offers? More evasive is that which Soyinka said was "too personal for outsiders to understand." This can, of course be put down as either willful obscurantism or underestimation of our intelligence. Nevertheless, such tactic is common to every religion. And it has proved all through the ages an easy means by which pastors and prophets, sheikhs and imams, rabbis and rabbonis, babalawos and oniseguns keep their people perpetually duped. It is through such claims to superior insights, those you-cannot-understand, you're-not-in-the-spirits that these spiritual elite plead for exemptions from tests set up to safeguard facts from fantasies, knowledge from illusions, intelligence from aberrations. It is from there moral and intellectual irresponsibility find basics and extremisms follow. "Ifa has told me your mother is the one in charge of your poverty, she was born a witch!" Or the examples of a Pastor King or several others who swear from their privileged access or insider's information that the world would soon end.

The conclusion of Akinnaso's piece is intriguing. He quoted from UNESCO: "The sacred grove, which is now seen as a symbol of identity for all Yoruba people, is probably the last in Yoruba culture. It testifies to the once widespread practice of establishing sacred groves outside all settlements." Disappointed by its elegiac tone, he recourse to another: "What is even more important for present purposes is the invocation of Susan Wenger's contribution." He cited UNESCO's hailing Wenger for developing "new sacred artists" (whatever 'sacred' means in the arts world) and "her absorption into Yoruba community have proved to be a fertile exchange of ideas that revived the sacred Osun Grove." This means before Wenger voyaged in, the grove was fortunately dead or dying. And what is this revived grove for? It is the abode of the goddess of fertility. That is the place Akinnaso said: "Anyone who goes there and is not the wiser for it needs self-examination." Whereas the truth is: anyone who still thinks fertility is administered by a piece of carved wood simply because it has conical breasts and split vuvla urgently needs self-examination. Wisdom, I have argued, cannot be in a "sacred" grove but it is acquired through immersion in the best that has been thought and said.

As the centuries-old masterpieces of religious arts in Florence or Isfahan do not rescue Christianity and Islam from being superstitions so does Wenger's 50-year decoration of Osun River or the army of 'sacred' artists she inspired make TR sensible. Its method of operation is never sufficiently determinate to make possible, specific inferences and empirical data. Hence, its value can never be relevant to any paradigm of social and mental progress.

Awoyokun lives in London.

---

---

a response to this

---

The sanctity of tributes
By Niyi Akinnaso

ONE of the most important social functions that The Guardian newspaper performs is the publication of tributes on its editorial page. Having read and written a number of them in the past, I observed something about tributes which, I think, puts them above reproach. They are more or less like prayers, which are essentially monologues, although thousands may be listening as they are said (as in a Church or Mosque). Don't get me wrong. It is in the spirit of dialogue to engage in discussion on the pages of newspapers whenever someone expresses any opinion we agree or disagree with. My problem with Damola Awoyokun's "Soyinka on Adunni Olorisa" (The Guardian, February 8, 2009) is that he is arguing with a tribute, which is like a praise-song in which the singer celebrates a special bond with the target of the song.

The distinctive quality of a tribute as a special genre is captured by The American Heritage Dictionary, which offers two interesting definitions of the word, among others: (1) "a gift, payment, declaration, or other acknowledgment of gratitude, respect, or admiration" and (2) "evidence attesting to some praiseworthy quality or characteristic". These definitions imply that a tribute is both a monologue (in the sense that no one is expected to respond) and a special communion with the dead, whose attributes are being celebrated in the tribute.

Whatever is said within a tribute should be understood within these bounds. In other words, a tribute is not open to debate. Professor Soyinka himself emphasized the very personal and intense nature of the engagement between him and the late Susan Wenger in the opening paragraph of his tribute: "My favourite summation of her experience: she came, she saw and was conquered. An internal, as yet undefined spiritual quest, too personal for outsiders to understand, had come to fulfillment, and there was no turning back. I glimpsed this phase of illumination at our very first meeting, all the way back in the early sixties." (The Guardian, January 20, 2009)

Awoyokun brushed aside over four decades of personal engagement between the two and dismissed the focus of the tribute paid by one to the other as superficial. Hear him: "Soyinka zeroed in on the superficial at the expense of the fundamental" He did not stop there. He also dismissed Susan Wenger's lifelong commitment to Osun Sacred Grove, which she brought to global attention, as nothing more than devotion to "superstition", which is his characterization of Traditional Religion. I will return to the grove shortly. In the meantime, I must confess, reading Awoyokun's piece to this point broke my palmwine keg and spilled my emu. In the days of my father, ase, and the appropriate incantations, would be conjured to dry up his ink pot for the audacity to question a tribute and for denigrating Yoruba culture, including Ifa, which is its nucleus. By so doing, he also downplays Susan Wenger's lifelong contribution to the preservation of that culture.

Awoyokun confessed to being tripped by two aspects of Professor Soyinka's tribute. One is the discussion of the incorporative nature of Yoruba cultural practices, as evidenced, for example, by Ifa and its pervasive capacity for accommodation. Awoyokun takes this discussion out of context without paying attention to why this issue was raised in the first place, namely, to show that Susan Wenger imbibed this trait as well: "Susanne Wenger, re-named Adunni Olorisa, mapped out the path of tolerance, of spiritual ecumenism, the choice of being true to oneself yet accommodative of others. All she demanded, indeed insisted upon, was the sanctity of the spiritual space of her adoptive community. Let the warring dacoits of foreign deities take note, and place a check on their fanaticisms and bigotries. Believe and worship what you will, but let others also believe, and worship in their chosen mode." Incidentally, tolerance happens to be an essentially Yoruba cultural trait, which is evident in politics, in fashion, in art, in popular culture, and in our culinary practices. The Yoruba remain as accommodating of all religions as they are of various political parties, all sorts of garbs, and different culinary practices.

Following Eurocentric conventions and what he terms "modern philosophical consensus", Awoyokun dubs Yoruba religious practices as Traditional Religion, reduced to the initial TR, as if Christianity and Islam have no tradition and as if they were not originally traditional to some people. He glosses over the complex history by which these religions became World religions, first through the canonization of their scriptures after diversity and variation had been eliminated in their written accounts and second through their proselytization, which was often accompanied by the persecution of local religious practices. Today, Christianity and Islam are exclusive religions of the Book to which one is "converted", in contrast to non-literate religions with their eclectic shrines and cults, allowing free membership and dismembership at will.

By borrowing into this dichotomous usage, Awoyokun got caught up in Eurocentric discourses about the Other, discourses which often reduce Others to primordial status: traditional, primitive, and uncivilized, as opposed to modern, advanced and civilized. In these discourses, the former is consigned to superstition and the latter to science. Accordingly, my father's yam planting ritual became adherence to superstition (never mind his large yam barns during the harvest season), whereas the Idaho farmer's potato planting ritual is viewed as scientific, even as he experiences poor harvest.

The second aspect of Professor Soyinka's tribute which tripped Awoyokun is the mantra at the end. Again, Awoyokun ignored the premise of the mantra, which was used to capture the journey of self-discovery that characterized Adunni's encounter with the orisa-"Go to the orisa, learn from the orisa, and be wise". Awoyokun interpreted this mantra as Professor Soyinka's "irreducible instruction" to the reader, whereas the mantra is best understood against the immediately preceding statement, "a questing stranger who came, saw, and was conquered" and against a word-painting of how Adunni's quest took root: "She was European, Austrian, yet a being of the universal spirit who found the truths of existence not in Europe, nor Austria, but in a place she had never heard of until brought thither in the most ordinary of circumstances. Yet she recognised that space at once, intuitively, unquestioning."

The space is Osun Sacred Grove, which "became not merely her physical, creative retreat, but her spiritual refuge and inspiration". To deny this is to deny Marlow's journey of self-discovery down the Congo river in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. But there is a major difference between the two: Susan Wenger's journey to the grove gave inspiration and engendered cultural renaissance; Marlow's journey revealed suppression, racism, and all the evils of imperialism.

If Awoyokun thinks that Susan Wenger wasted five decades of her life tending to superstition in the grove, many a sympathizer of Yoruba culture does not think so; nor does UNESCO (the world's body devoted to education and science). In 2005, Osun Sacred Grove was added to the World Heritage List and described, inter alia, as follows: "The sacred grove, which is now seen as a symbol of identity for all Yoruba people, is probably the last in Yoruba culture. It testifies to the once widespread practice of establishing sacred groves outside all settlements." What is even more important for present purposes is the invocation of Susan Wenger's contribution. Here is UNESCO's statement under justification for inscription: "Criterion (ii): The development of the movement of New Sacred Artists and the absorption of Suzanne Wenger, an Austrian artist, into the Yoruba community have proved to be a fertile exchange of ideas that revived the sacred Osun Grove".

Anyone who has been to Osun Sacred Grove knows that it is not simply about religion. Not even about worship. It is about a people's culture. About their history. About their cosmology. About their philosophy. About their art. And, yes, about their spirituality as well. Anyone who goes there and is not the wiser for it needs self-examination.

Professor Akinnaso teaches Anthropology and Linguistics at Temple University, Philadelphia, United States.

---

---

Niyi Akinnaso's response to Damola Awoyokun's critique of Soyinka's tribute to Adunni Olorisa was apt, witty and very carefully phrased. It is a shame that Awoyokun's rebuttal was rather lacking in these qualities.

Yes, Awoyokun is correct to state that obituaries and tributes should not be immune to critique. However, as a point of taste and respect for the context of mourning, such critique should be limited to points of fact. Akinnaso's main point was that it is inappropriate for a writer to critique an obituary by denigrating the deceased and dismissing their cultural validity and significance.

Surely this is merely common sense? Would Awoyokun think it appropriate to deliver such an attack on Yoruba traditional religion before an audience at a commemoration event for Adunni Olorisa? I think not. It is very easy to apologise for indecorous behaviour, and such an apology would not invalidate his argument about reason vs superstition. In any case, his argument fails on its own basis.

Let's talk about this dichotomy that Awoyokun poses between reason & superstition, or rather the dichotomy that Awoyokun adopts. For this apposition of "primitive" superstition against "scientific" rationalism was not invented by Awoyokun. In fact, it was developed in the late 18th century in Europe and elaborated through the 19th century, the Age of Reason. The discoveries of scientists like Isaac Newton and the theories of philosophers like Rene Descartes were at the basis of this revolution of rationalism. In recent times, writers like Richard Dawkins have reacted to the growth of religious fundamentalism by reinvoking the reason/superstition dichotomy and dismissing all spirituality as false, because it is "unprovable" by scientific method or rational argument.

Awoyokun has co-opted such views in his attack on Yoruba traditional religion. In that sense, Akinnaso is quite correct to apply the term "Eurocentric" to Awoyokun's arguments, according to the definition of the term. Awoyokun's critique is based on ideas developed by Europeans at precisely the time when Europeans were subjecting the rest of the world to slavery and colonialism. Scientific or rational thought in the 18th & 19th century was used to justify the oppression and exploitation of "primitive" cultures.

It is indisputable that rationalism is responsible for the material breakthroughs that have transformed the world by mechanization of production processes and the development of science and modern medecine. However, it is also indisputable that the triumph of rationalism over Christianity left a spiritual vacuum in Western societies, which neither capitalist consumption, nor socialist ethics have succeeded in filling.

No matter how much rationalists and materialists bang on about spirituality and religions being "unprovable", people cleave to such beliefs, because they provide a useful narrative for living. As human beings, we find living without narrative very difficult, because we want to believe there is a reason for us to strive through hard times.

Awoyokun and other rationalists also cleave to a narrative. It is a narrative that poses a timeline of development, from the primordial or "primitive" stage of superstition and fear, through the intermediate stage of "sophisticated" philosophy of the religions of the book, to the "advanced" stage of rationalism and science. Rationalists therefore position themselves as intrinsically superior in the narrative of human development, a distinctly Eurocentric concept.

Awoyokun may proudly declare his use of "pure reason" in formulating his attacks of Yoruba traditional religion, but this belies the truth that all positions are relative and no system of thought can demonstrate that it is universally comprehensive. Since Awoyokun is so enamoured of rationalism, I am sure that he is aware of Kurt Godel's famous mathematical theorem proving that no closed system can be proved free of contradictions without stepping outside the system. In layman's terms, in this context, you cannot use logic to prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings. What logic can do, however, is reveal the chain of thought that underpins a belief system and logic can indicate whether some systems are more useful than others at enabling humans to fulfill certain objectives.

This begs the following questions for Damola Awoyokun: "What is your objective in dismissing Yoruba religion as false and absurd?"; and "How does adversarial debate based on a spurious dichotomy illuminate this issue of the relevance of traditional religion in Nigeria today?"

---

---

As human beings, we find living without narrative very difficult, because we want to believe there is a reason for us to strive through hard times.

---

Is it safe to proceed then, that since we dont seem able to agree on proof, we may settle for the notion that its a state of mind that borders on "imagination" ? that is an imagined situation, that grows from the sustained notion of spirituality(even if void ?)