Àṣẹ
The concept that runs from "so be it" at the end of a prayer to the force by which anything happens at all, why both "power" and "life force" are inadequate translations, and how ase works in speech, ritual and art.
advancedmedium·
Loading…
The concept that runs from "so be it" at the end of a prayer to the force by which anything happens at all, why both "power" and "life force" are inadequate translations, and how ase works in speech, ritual and art.
The Yorùbá wey dem quote, the proverbs, oríkì, ẹsẹ Ifá, word list headwords, Odù names and citations dey exactly as the corpus record dem, for every language.
Àṣẹ na the concept for Yoruba thought wey dey explain why anything dey happen. Na im dey make word get power to work, medicine work, sacrifice reach where e dey go, king order hold ground, incantation bite, and carving carry presence. E start from Ọlọ́dùmarè and e dey share unevenly enter everything wey exist: òrìṣà, ancestors, people, animals, plants, stones, rivers, and talk wey include songs, prayers, praises and curses . How things take exist for Yoruba thought depend on am .
Na still the same word wey Yoruba people dey talk for the end of prayer, roughly where English speaker go say amen. Those two facts, the metaphysical range and the way dem dey take close prayer, na the same word and the same concept, and to hold both of dem together na where the whole difficulty of the term dey.
Dem dey routinely translate Àṣẹ as power, as authority, as command, as life force, as vital force. Each of dem dey catch one part, and each of dem still dey mislead.
"Power" broad too much and e too neutral. English power dey cover physical force, political capacity, electrical current and personal influence anyhow, and e no mean say anybody don talk anything. Àṣẹ na word wey person talk dey normally activate am. Power dey inside the wrong grammatical world.
"Life force" dey bring in foreign theory. The phrase enter African studies from Placide Tempels book Bantu Philosophy for 1945, wey be one Belgian missionary account of Luba thought wey propose say vital force na the master concept of African metaphysics. Later writers carry that framework apply across the continent, and people don criticize am for the exact reason wey matter here: e take one systematising interpretation, wey missionary make with evangelistic purpose, and treat am as the African metaphysics. To apply "life force" to àṣẹ dey carry that history enter body. E dey also misdescribe the concept, because àṣẹ no dey restricted to living things and no be biological thing first. Spoken curse get àṣẹ; stone fit carry am.
"Command" and "authority" dey closer for the social register and useless for the metaphysical one. Abiodun note say alongside im sacred characteristics àṣẹ get social ramifications wey dey show for the translation power, authority, command . The Yoruba phrase for royal or official order dey use àṣẹ, and àṣẹ ọba na the king command. But this register no reach the sense where river take get àṣẹ.
"Amen" na the one wey dey mislead pass all, because na im many Yoruba Christians go first meet. Amen na Hebrew word of agreement wey mean truly or make e be so, and the person wey talk am dey agree with wetin dem talk. Àṣẹ for the end of prayer no be agreement. E dey closer to operator wey dem apply to the words wey come before am: make this thing get effect now, make e be so with force. The person wey talk am no just dey support the talk, dem dey give am power to work, and that one na different speech act.
The honest position na say àṣẹ no get English equivalent and make dem leave am untranslated, explain am for first use, and make people understand am through how dem dey use am instead of to use substitute word. Na so the practice of the best scholarship on top the matter dey be.
The way àṣẹ take concentrate inside talk na the feature wey special pass for Yoruba thought, and na there Abiodun contribution take dey central.
How Abiodun take put am na say àṣẹ na the empowered word wey must happen . No be word wey dey describe, and no be word wey dey beg or request, but na word wey as person talk am, e dey take effect at the same time. Inside philosophy of language this one close to wetin J. L. Austin call performative utterance, talk wey dey do action instead of just to report, and the comparison dey useful reach one level. The limit na say Austin performatives dey work by social convention inside institutions, so marriage dey happen by talking the words because legal and social system dey behind dem. Àṣẹ no be conventional like that. The claim na say the talk get causal power to make things happen for the world, and that power dey vary based on who dey talk and how dem take talk am.
This one dey turn several Yoruba verbal genres to technologies instead of just literature.
Oríkì. Praise poetry wey dem dey direct to person, family lineage, town, òrìṣà or object. Abiodun argument for Yoruba Art and Language na say oríkì and àṣẹ na together be the guiding principles of Yoruba artistic production, and say oríkì na structure of verbal and visual invocation wey dey give life to ritual and domestic objects . To recite an object im oríkì na to do something to the object. Na why oríkì dey present for every point where something need activation: for shrines, for drumming, for naming of child, for installation of king.
Ọfọ̀, incantation. The technical verbal form wey dem dey use for medicine and work, where the words na the main working element and the material components na the support. The way words take connect to substances inside Yoruba medicine na the direct opposite of wetin pharmacological reading dey expect.
Curse and blessing. Both of dem na consequential talk instead of just to express wish, na why dem dey handle dem with care and why the standing of the speaker dey matter. The curse of elder, parent, or àjẹ́ na different thing from the curse of child.
The name. How Yoruba people dey give name, wey dem treat for section 02, stand on top the same principle: name na statement about life wey get tendency to bring about wetin e talk.
Two consequences dey follow wey reader suppose carry enter the rest of the corpus. First, the difference between to talk and to do, wey structure plenty Western thought about language, no dey do the same work here. Second, the way àṣẹ take concentrate inside speech na the reason why Yoruba tradition invest heavily like that inside oral verbal art and produce very little writing before the nineteenth century, without say intellectual culture no dey. The medium of consequential thought na speech, and dem understand speech as something wey dey work.
For ritual, àṣẹ dey behave less like quality, and more like quantity wey dem fit gather, concentrate, transfer and exhaust.
Person wey dem train to direct am na aláàṣẹ, person wey get àṣẹ, and the training dey happen through initiation, apprenticeship and experience . Dis one na matter of competence, no be moral standing. Àṣẹ no be reward for good behaviour and dem no dey withdraw am for bad character, and dis na one of the clear differences with how Christian tradition dey join spiritual power together with holiness.
Na substances dey carry Àṣẹ. People believe say particular leaves, sand, water, animal parts, metals and pigments dey concentrate am, and wetin make up medicine or shrine arrangement na composition of àṣẹ. The analysis wey the Drewals do about Yoruba composition apply dis thing straight to visual art: design wey dem divide into segments or rows where each unit dey separate and get equal value dey produce multifocal composition wey perspective dey shift, and dis formal arrangement dey mirror one world order of elements wey structurally different but still dey independent, wey dey function as way to arrange different powers so dat person fit evoke, invoke and activate dem . Yoruba veranda post, Ifá tray or ancestral mask dey arranged the way e dey because of theory about how powers dey live together.
The orí na the place inside the person where àṣẹ dey , wey dem treat for the orí file. The ìmọrí ceremony after dem born pikin, wey literally mean to-know-the-head, na where diviner dey establish the child spiritual connection, and where that connection join the child to an òrìṣà, the inner head dey turn vessel for that òrìṣà's àṣẹ during initiation for adulthood .
How Èṣù's position dey inside the system na based on àṣẹ. Ọlásopé The way Oyèláràn explain am na say Èṣù na the custodian of the primordial àṣẹ and e arbiter, wey dey determine how living beings fit get access to am and use am . Na that structural reason make person no fit remove Èṣù from the system, and the Èṣù file develop am.
Karin Barber 1981 article for Africa make one argument about the òrìṣà wey directly concern how person suppose understand àṣẹ .
Wetin she observe na say for Yoruba practice, the òrìṣà dey continue to exist because of the attention wey their devotees dey give dem, and say without the collaboration of the people wey dey serve dem, dem go reduce to nothing. She notice the paradox: the statement say na people dey make gods instead of gods making people na sceptical position for European intellectual tradition wey no fit agree with belief, but for Yoruba religion e dey operate as central drive for devotion .
Two things follow for àṣẹ. First, àṣẹ no be substance wey divine beings just hold for one place dey give people down below. E dey circulate, and human attention, sacrifice, praise and service na inputs into e circulation, no be just request for wetin e dey bring out. The relationship between devotee and òrìṣà closer to mutual maintenance pass petition. Second, wetin Barber find out na direct evidence against how missionaries describe Yoruba practice as fearful appeasement of powers wey person no fit predict. Practice where deity depend on the attention of devotee no be practice of terror.
Barber argument no be wetin everybody accept as description of wetin Yoruba worshippers believe, compared to wetin her analysis show say their practice dey imply, and readers suppose keep that difference for mind. But the structural point about circulation dey consistent with everything else wey people know about àṣẹ.
Yoruba sources dey separate different types of àṣẹ, and four names dey appear repeatedly: máyẹhùn, àfọ̀ṣẹ, gbétùngbétùn, olúgbohùn . Reference sources list dem without explaining dem, and dis corpus no fit explain their meaning from any source wey e consult. Na Àfọ̀ṣẹ dem dey see pass for other places, and dem generally associate am with efficacious utterance, from fọ̀, to talk, and àṣẹ. Confidence: low on that derivation and on all four terms.
Dis na one of the points where the honest answer be say the knowledge dey with practitioners and dem never publish am. How dem classify kinds of àṣẹ, the conditions under which each one dey acquired and used, and the verbal and material technique wey follow am, belong to initiate training. Accounts wey outsiders publish dey shallow, and accounts wey practitioners publish dey often target devotional market instead of documentary one. Dis corpus report the names and stop there.
The reason why àṣẹ worth the effort na say e dey do work wey no single Western concept dey do.
E dey join domains together wey European thought separate. Political authority, ritual efficacy, medical potency, artistic quality, verbal force and metaphysical existence na one single topic for Yoruba thought because dem be one thing, àṣẹ, wey dey appear for different registers. Yoruba explanation of why king word dey bind, why medicine dey work, why carving dey good and why prayer dey take effect na single explanation. For Western thought, all dis ones fall under political theory, pharmacology, aesthetics and theology, and no single concept dey cross all four.
E still supply the missing piece for Yoruba cosmos. Ọ̀run and ayé na two halves of one closed calabash, and àṣẹ na wetin dey move between dem. Na with am dem dey seal destiny, na am dey carry sacrifice, na through am speech dey effective, and orí hold portion of am. If person remove the concept, the system no get any mechanism again.
What Esu is in the Yoruba sources, why the divination system cannot function without him, and the documented history of the missionary translation that turned him into Satan.
Ori as physical head, inner head, personal destiny and personal divinity, why the sources rank ori above the orisa, and the practice of ibori.
What ebo does inside the system's own logic, its dependence on divination, the range from daily offering to symbolic substitution, and why the missionary reading of it as appeasement was wrong.
How Yoruba philosophical concepts map and fail to map onto Greek, Christian, Islamic and modern Western categories, and what goes wrong when the translation is made anyway.
Character as the whole content of Yoruba ethics, iwa pele and iwa rere, the identity of character with beauty, patience as the source of character, and an ethical system grounded in consequence and community rather than divine command.
How oríkì is built from independent units rather than narrative sequence, and the specific mechanisms, tonal, structural, and referential, that make it resist translation.