Comparative Frame: Where the Categories Fail
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.
advancedmedium·
Loading…
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.
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.
Every concept for this section, dem don translate am enter European category at some point for the past two centuries, and most of the standard translations dey distort meaning. Dis file dey gather the mappings together, dey tok wetin each one get right and wetin e break, come draw the methodological conclusion. E dey analytical instead of to dey fight argument: the aim no be to show say Yoruba thought pass anoda one, wey go be the same mistake for the opposite direction, but to show clearly where the joints no match, so dat reader fit use the comparisons without make dem trap am.
The general shape of the problem na say translation na hypothesis, and people no dey usually see am like dat. Once dem don translate ẹ̀mí as soul, the reasoning wey follow go just assume say Yoruba thought get soul and come dey ask how e be, and dem no go ever test dat hypothesis. Quine indeterminacy thesis, wey Hallen and Sodipo take as starting point for dia work, na the formal statement of the problem: translation manuals wey no match each oda fit still agree with all the behavioural evidence equally, so the standard dictionary equations na choices, no be discoveries .
Ọ̀run no be heaven. The overlap: the two of dem na domain of the divine, na where dead people dey go, and dem dey tok say both dey up. The break: ọ̀run no be reward, person no dey enter am through faith or virtue, all the dead dey go there, person fit reach there continuously for normal everyday life instead of say na only after death, and no hell dey wey correspond to am in the sense of eternal punishment wey one adversary dey control. Wetin lost for the translation: the closed calabash, where ọ̀run and ayé be two halves of one bounded object instead of two places, and the fact wey follow say the places wey matter pass na the joins.
Ọlọ́dùmarè no just be God straight. The overlap: highest power, source of the animating principle, the one wey dey seal destiny, dem dey mention am for ordinary speech constantly, e no be just one being among many. The break: no shrine, no priesthood, no festival, no direct sacrifice, no divination, e no get gender for the source language, e no be lawgiver, e no dey judge the dead, and no be im dey receive the actual religious practice of the tradition. The scholarly argument about how much of the supreme-being framing be indigenous and how much missionary contact shape am dey for im own file, and till now dem never resolve am .
Òrìṣà no be saints and dem no be gods for the Greek sense. The saint comparison, wey common for diaspora traditions because of specific historical reasons to hide things, capture intercession and specialised patronage, but e break on top the fact say òrìṣà never be human beings wey dem elevate for holiness, no central authority dey approve dem, and dem no dey subordinate the way saints dey subordinate to God. The Greek comparison capture plurality of powerful beings wey get domains and personalities, but e break because òrìṣà no dey inside genealogy of divine politics, dem no dey oppose each other for factions, and according to wetin Barber find, na the attention of dia devotees dey maintain dem in being, something wey no Olympian god get .
Èṣù no be Satan, e no be Hermes, and e no be Loki. Dem treat am well for im own file. In short: Satan na adversary of God wey want make you perish, and Yoruba cosmos no get any adversary, no principle of evil, and no damnation. Hermes capture the messenger, boundary, and trickster functions, but e miss the enforcement of sacrifice and the custody of àṣẹ. Loki capture disruption but miss every oda thing, including the fact say Èṣù im own worshippers dey honour am with the title Ọ̀dàrà, the good one.
Àṣẹ no be power and e no be life force. Dem treat am for im own file. Power broad pass am and e no carry any sense of utterance. Life force dey carry the Tempels vital-force framework enter, wey be mid-century missionary systematisation wey dem apply across a continent, and e dey misdescribe concept wey no dey restricted to only living things.
Orí no be the soul and e no be guardian angel. Guardian angel capture the individual assignment and the protective function, but e break completely on top the fact say orí no be separate being wey dey watch over you, but na you, your own head, and na divinity wey you yourself dey serve. Soul break for the reasons wey dey below.
Ìwà no be virtue for the Aristotelian sense, even though na im close pass for the whole file. Both of dem na character as settled disposition, both dey formed by practice, community dey assess both, both na the subject matter of ethics instead of just one topic inside am, and both refuse rule-based account. Aristotle phronesis, practical wisdom wey person dey exercise for judgement instead of to apply rules, really close to wetin onísègùn dey do for Hallen account . The breaks: ìwà derive from wà, to exist, so bad character na deficiency of being in a way wey no get Aristotelian counterpart; ìwà na the same thing with beauty for Yoruba formulation, and Aristotle keep kalon close to good but no make am identical with am; ìwà get personification and e fit leave you, something wey no Greek disposition dey do; and the Yoruba account no get equivalent of eudaimonia as final end wey structure the virtues, since dem state the good life concretely as children, long life, and standing among people.
Àyànmọ́ no be predestination, e no be moira, and e no be karma. Predestination na wetin God decree without to consult person, e concern eternal salvation, and person no fit change am. Moira na something wey dey come from outside, and di attempt to run comot from am na im dey make am happen. Karma na moral record book wey person dey carry pass from one life go another, where wetin person dey get now na wetin e deserve. Yoruba destiny na wetin di person choose or receive, e concern life for ayé instead of wetin dey happen after death, person fit negotiate am through ẹbọ, ẹsẹ and ìwà, and, di main point be say, e no be wetin person work for. No be wetin you do make you get your orí. No record book dey. Di contrast wey Oyèláràn make na with di Greco-Roman case specifically: unlike fate wey person no fit change and wey dey come from outside, ìpín still dey possible to change through deliberate action .
Ẹ̀mí no be di soul. No Yoruba element match di description of di Christian soul, wey be single, immaterial, di true self, morally accountable, dey survive intact, and dey face judgement. Ẹ̀mí no get physical body and na God give am, but e no dey distinguish one person from another, e no dey carry moral record and e no dey face judgement. Orí dey distinguish person and dey survive, but na divinity, e dey carry destiny instead of wetin person deserve, and based on Balogun argument, e no concern moral character at all . Di functions wey soul dey join together, di Yoruba account intentionally spread dem out, and na di translator own work to join dem together.
Ìmọ̀ and ìgbàgbọ́ no be knowledge and belief. Di English pair dey divide based on justification and truth, with knowledge as a type of belief. Di Yoruba pair dey divide based on provenance, wetin person see firsthand versus wetin person receive, so ìmọ̀ no be type of ìgbàgbọ́. Dem treat am for di epistemology file .
Àjẹ́ no be witchcraft. European witchcraft na something wey covenant with di devil dey define, and e no fit go together with doing good. Àjẹ́ dey work for both directions, na women wey dem dey call our mothers and guardians of social order dey hold am, and dem dey honour am with festival instead of to prosecute am for court .
Ẹbọ no be sacrifice for di Christian sense. Christian sacrifice na to appease God, e dey atone for sin, and dem take am say one final sacrifice don replace am. Ẹbọ na wetin diagnosis prescribe for particular situation, most times na shared meal, person fit repeat am without say anything spoil, and e dey aimed to change outcome instead of to wipe away guilt.
Islam don dey Yorubaland longer pass Christianity and di flow of ideas dey go both ways, so di comparison no really be wetin outsider force put, but e be like old argument between neighbours.
Kádàrá, wey be one of di three Yoruba words for destiny, na wetin people generally take say dem borrow from Arabic qadar, divine decree. Confidence: medium on di etymology. If na loan word, then part of di fatalistic meaning wey di word carry for modern Yoruba fit follow enter with am, and di older stratum, àyànmọ́ and ìpín, fit no fatalistic reach wetin di vocabulary dey suggest now. That one na real possibility, but e never be established fact.
Tawhid, wey be say God na absolute one and nothing fit compare to Am, na di sharpest Islamic contrast. Ọlọ́dùmarè no be something wey person no fit compare like that, and naturally dem dey pass through intermediaries reach am, wey be di specific arrangement wey tawhid exclude. Islamic reformist criticism of Yoruba practice don mostly target this one pass anything else.
Where Islamic and Yoruba practice meet na for service provision, and Peel account of di nineteenth century note say Muslim scholars offer di same services wey Ifá priests offer: divination, healing, protective charms and written amulets . That functional overlap na part of why Islam spread for Yorubaland without plenty social breakdown like mission Christianity, and e be warning make person no treat di Yoruba and Abrahamic systems like say dem be completely closed alternatives.
Di distortions for here dey subtle pass because dem dey look like neutral description.
Religion. No Yoruba word dey wey separate religion make e stand alone as part of life wey distinct from politics, medicine, farming, art and kinship. Peel point na say di missionaries gats construct di object wey dem come study . Every use of "Yoruba religion", including for this work, na just for convenience.
The natural and the supernatural. That division no dey, so questions like "Yoruba people believe say this one na natural or supernatural?" no get answer inside di system. Àṣẹ dey operate for wetin modern reader dey sort into both.
Fact and value. Wetin Hallen find out be say di people wey e interview treat moral, aesthetic and epistemic evaluation as one subject with clear criteria, and Adepoju ojú inú dey arrange perception, critical thought, intuition and moral discernment along one scale . Di Humean separation of is from ought no be feature of di Yoruba conceptual landscape.
Individual and community. Di common claim say African thought dey put individual under community no fit stand when e face orí, wey be strong doctrine of individual uniqueness and inviolability like any other tradition get. Yoruba thought dey hold individual destiny together with social account of character in a way wey person no fit separate dem, and di interesting question na how, no be which one e pick.
Philosophy imsef. Whether Yoruba thought na philosophy na wetin dem don dey argue for fifty years, and the terms of that argument make sense to call. The position of people wey dey doubt be say philosophy require argument wey individual person write down and wey people fit criticize, and say oral traditional thought na worldview, no be philosophy. Wetin Sophie Oluwole answer be say the Ifá corpus get arguments inside am and say e correct make person read Ọ̀rúnmìlà as thinker, so the tradition get philosophy as dem demand am and that demand for writing na criterion wey the tradition wey dey judge just smuggle enter . Wetin Hallen and Sodipo reply na demonstration instead of argument: dem go find practitioners wey dey state, apply and defend criteria when dem ask dem philosophical questions . Kwasi Wiredu programme of conceptual decolonisation, wey be to identify and comot imported categories from how dem take dey describe African thought, na the general form of the project .
Three rules dey follow from the whole file, and dem apply to the reader just as dem apply to the writer.
Leave the terms without translating dem and learn dem. Make dem use Àṣẹ, ìwà, orí, ẹbọ, àjẹ́, ìmọ̀ and ìgbàgbọ́ for Yoruba with explanation the first time dem use dem, no be to replace dem with English words. Na so the best scholarship on top all of dem dey do, and e no be say e dey overdo. Every single-word English replacement for these terms don show say e dey change the meaning, and to continue to dey use dem go make sure say the mistake dey repeat imself.
Ask wetin the translation dey do for whoever make am. The missionaries need devil, and Èṣù come turn to devil. The African theologians for the middle of the twentieth century need supreme being to make the tradition get respect based on the terms wey dey ground that time, and dem describe Ọlọ́dùmarè with Christian terms. The Tempels tradition need African metaphysics, and dem carry vital force spread across whole continent. For each case, the translation do one work, person fit document that purpose, and to know am na part of reading the source.
No do the comparison the other way round too. The temptation, once the distortion don dey clear, na to try establish say Yoruba thought dey right all this while: no devil, no hell, ethics of character, destiny wey person fit negotiate, serious epistemology. Some of those comparisons really favour the Yoruba explanation and the corpus no hide am. But to treat the tradition like answer to Christian belief dey keep Christianity as the frame of reference and e dey judge the tradition by how e perform against am, wey be the opposite of Idowu error. The harder move wey Oluwole and Hallen do na to take the tradition as body of thought wey make sense to examine on the questions wey e actually ask: wetin make up person, how destiny and character dey work together, wetin dey make offering work, how you take know wetin you claim say you know. Na those be im questions, and dem good, and dem no need comparison before dem make sense to ask.
What the sources actually attribute to Olodumare, the disputed etymologies, and the live scholarly argument over whether the supreme-being framing is indigenous Yoruba thought or a shape given to it by the missionary encounter.
Hallen and Sodipo's finding that the Yoruba distinction between knowing and believing is drawn in a different place from the English one, why that is a genuine philosophical result, and what it exposes about Western epistemology.
Ara, emi, ori, okan and ojiji, the disagreement among scholars about how many elements there are, why "soul" fits none of them, and what Yoruba rebirth and ancestorhood actually claim.
The three Yoruba terms for destiny, how destiny is received, and the sustained scholarly argument over whether Yoruba destiny is fatalistic, with the case that it is negotiable rather than fixed.
The two-part Yoruba cosmos, why translating orun as "heaven" and aye as "earth" gets it wrong, how the two are joined rather than opposed, and what the calabash image actually claims.
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.