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 civilization 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 it 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 now 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 recognized that space at once, intuitively, unquestioning.” Why should such a seeker who 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 fulfilment?

 If Wenger came from Europe and discovered in TR “truths of existence,” Soyinka and Akinnaso owe us elaborations on that otherwise vague cliché. 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 wilful 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-understands, you’re-not-in-the-spirits that these spiritual elites plead for exemptions from tests and analyses 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 with conical breasts and split vulva needs urgent self-examination. Wisdom, cannot be in a “sacred” grove but as I have argued, 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. Therefore, its value can never be relevant to any paradigm of social and mental progress.

Robot  # 1 | 21.03.2009 22:10

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 civilization 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;...Read the full article.