Last night was an event at the American Corner of Tetovo around the day of Freedom of Religion (a holiday I didn't know we celebrated back home), and Gezim and Saranda asked me to lead the discussion. As a rather agnostic person myself, I must say at first I was a little unsure about leading a discussion about freedom of religion, especially in a place where religion can be linked to issues of ethnicity--a volatile issue to say the least. But, being me, I said ok. and I'm so glad I did. Not because I've had some religious revelation, or some political epiphany about the importance of choice (something I believed already) but because it gave me yet another perspective on life here. It was a small group--not more than ten or eleven--but included a really eloquent (enough that even though he spoke in Albanian I could tell) professor at Tetovo State University, and the leader of the Bektashi community here in Tetovo (as well as regionally). The Bektashi are a branch/sect of Islam which have a Tekke here in Tetovo (although it's contested space--although between whom is somewhat up to debate). There were two comments from the leader of the Bektashi community which struck me profoundly--the first was "religion is not a profession."
In this he was commenting on some of the corruption within the religious leadership, but it mirrored oh so closely another conversation I had (the night before) with friends about how ethnicity was becoming a profession--or if not a profession, than at least the most important job qualification someone could possess. It's a scary thought, especially because it not only speaks to the degree in which ethnicity is understood as the primary "identity umbrella" as Malvina put it, but also, if this is indeed true, sheds light on the vicious cycle of identity reificaiton in process here. how do we transcend this process?
and again, I think of sitting next to one of the small rivers in Sanski Most, outside the CIM office, with the sun on our backs, laughing with Vahido, writing down different identities we felt we belonged to, and then slowly (sometimes painfully) crossing them off.
The second comment the Bektashi leader made was a bit more spiritual: he said "Religion. that is simple. The first step is to know yourself. and once you know yourself, then you can find the right (for you) path to God."
There's a simple beauty to it. Enlightenment as coming from within.
It, oddly, feels very Feirian--very praxis-ish, reflection first, then action.
and I want to just say something light--like 'sounds like my kind of religion.' which perhaps is true, but I think for me it speaks to a larger philosophy of being--which I guess could be religious, if that's how you see things, but I think I prefer the terminology spiritual. because I don't think the path from knowing yourself just leads to God--it leads everywhere. if you want to accept God as part of that--that's your personal choice, part of your personal path.
Over the weekend, I visited the other ETA in Stip and we got talking about religion, and she asked me what I believed in. In perhaps a roundabout way, I responded 'curiosity' which I'm not sure is really the answer to "what do I believe in" (other than papuci--house slippers). but it's certainly one of my sources of motivation. But I think what the Bektashi leader said perhaps speaks more eloquently to what it is I believe in--which is self honesty, self-knowledge. and for me, this process has no end. there is no finite conclusion to a reflective process, a reflective practice. And that, for me, is where curiosity comes in.
It's also given me a chance to revisit Freire--I'm actually thinking of assigning sections for my classes next semester (and ooh is reading Pedagogy different here. it feels a lot more blunt to say the least, and I think my challenge will be to get students thinking about "oppression" as being broader than just ethnicity--because of course it is, but I think it can be easy to forget about the multidimensionality of oppression. or to be able to situate yourself within another system of oppression (for example gender)). and so much of what speaks to me about Freire is his emphasis on the role of dialogue, and how this pedagogy is a life-long project--a life philosophy in a way (what's that old civil rights song--they say that freedom is a constant struggle?).
There's a lot about Freire's presentation style which I'm finding myself jarred by (perhaps it's that it was 8am. brain calisthenics to say the least.) and he does say that overthrowing oppression will require just as much violence as the initial oppression brought--and here I disagree, because I'm not convinced that this won't only lead to re-oppression, lead to more violence (is violence ever justified? I'm going to have to table that question for another day.)
I haven't found the conclusion yet for this piece--perhaps the subject matter itself lends itself to inconclusive writing?
No comments:
Post a Comment