Tradition, Martial Arts, act 3

[Tak]

Good points.

Chinese, okinawan, and japanese cultures, while distinct, are very much more similar to each other than any of them to american culture. So, when CMAs went to Okinawa, the Okinawans may have gotten the gist of where the CMAs were coming from, and adjusted them to make them their own.

The difference between CMA going to Japan and JMA coming to the US stems from this, I think. The japanese changed CMA and OMA and imbued them with the japanese cultural perspective, while JMA in the US (supposedly) remain JMA. So, we retain the japanese cultural trappings because we (supposedly) practice JMA. Now, if we take a [COJ]MA and make it our own, americanize it (openly, admitting that we're doing so), then it should have an american cultural perspective. (All the training gear would be Nike brand, any meditation would be in front of a tv, weapons would be: switchblade, pool cue, broken beer bottle, leather belt, rank would be signified by tattoos, etc. - I wonder why kenpo didn't do this)

Maybe part of the reason that we try so hard to keep the original cultures of our martial arts is that the US is so culturally bankrupt. (Let the flames begin.)

[Vash]

US, culturally bankrupt? Noooooooo

There are many different things, I think, instructors wish to give by using the original culture. Some do it just because that's how they were taught; others say the culture which is presented is a necessary part of the art; for Shaolin (gonna generalize here, since I know diddly about kung fu styles), the martial art is an aspect of a particular whole; and then some do it just for the "awe" factor.

My thoughts: the presentation of the culture is not a necessity for some martial arts (those which are not a part of some other activity/lifestyle) but it does not usually detract from the art.

[Vash]

Indeed.

Thinking back to a conversation I had with my girlfriend recently . . . (this is in reference to the XMA thing, as well as "traditional" instruction) "You hate the new way and the old ways of doing stuff? How are you gonna get anything done?" A good question, which brings upa few points I think need to be made.

1. The new way, in reference to non-martial concepts being taught alongside (or in place of) martial concepts, does nothing for the art. It takes it from a fighting tradition to performance art.

2. The old ways. I don't think it is overly important to examine the "what" which was done (a blanket concept for both cultural "traditions" [those which were tacked on later] and martial techniques) so much as the "why" it was done. (Again, referencing Okinawan Martial Arts) Why did the instructors there speak in Hogen? It was there native language.

After this, though, comes the topic of kung fu instruction for Okinawan karate teachers. I've been told one reason they (the Okinawan karate men) didn't teach their martial art using Chinese dialect and/or traditions was that they weren't teaching kung fu, they were teaching karate based on kung fu principles. This, though, I doubt as a reason. I submit that these instructors, had they taught unaltered kung fu techniques/principles, would have instructed in the same manner as they would have karate.

Why does this matter? I say that, by keeping one's own social and cultural identity while practicing martial arts, one is following tradition.

Just to take up space, an example (for my own clarification):

The Okinawans trained using their language, wearing their clothes. So, if I do the same, I'm following the principle, not the technique.

Anyway, drive safe. I think I've beaten this topic so far beyond death that . . . dang, can't even come up with a good closing analogie.

Peace.

[apoweyn]

I think this can go one of two ways. Either you're practicing martial arts strictly as a combative system or you're training as an 'artist.'

I'm going to leave that first one alone for a minute. So you're an artist. I think it's a mistake to equate being an artist with giving two pence about your style's history, philosophy, or culture. The two aren't synonymous.

In every field of endeavor to which the world 'art' can be applied, there are going to be some artists who are very mindful of those who came before. There are going to be artists who honour that. And then there are going to be those who consciously react against it or simply ignore it entirely.

And those possibilities are what make art what it is. Personal, interpretive, and expressive. It has sod all to do with whether your practice is aesthetically pleasing, whether you train meditation, or there are things in your practice that you do solely because "it's part of the system." Those things don't make you an artist. They reflect your priorities. Nothing more.

If you're training in an art as a cultural experience, then obviously a study of culture, tradition, and even language will aid that experience. If you're doing it for some other reason (artistic or no), then they'll be less important. A process of self discovery, for example, may or may not be aided by your ability to learn cantonese terminology. That process is far too complicated to make sense of here (and by my brain).

As an artist, you decide what your art will be. You decide if it's ugly, what message it communicates, what values it reflects, and so on.

Now, back to combat effectiveness. My first instinct is to say that cultural trappings are unnecessary to communicate fighting skills. And I think that's still essentially true. But sometimes, people learn a concept like yielding more readily if they're called to 'step out of their own head' first. Sometimes, cultural trappings can do that. Sometimes, embracing another tradition can shift your perspective enough that you're open to a new idea, like yielding in a fight.

Is it necessary? No. I don't think so. I think a good teacher could explain yielding to a student without going into the flow of qi, etc. But sometimes, people learn more readily when they can leave themselves behind a bit. Know what I mean?


Stuart B.

[Vash]

That was very insightful and thought-provoking. Dang good post.
Thanks for the input.

For the ideas expressed . . . that's what I think I was thinking.
Great minds think alike, no?

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Vash
That was very insightful and thought-provoking. Dang good post.
Thanks for the input.

For the ideas expressed . . . that's what I think I was thinking.
Great minds think alike, no?

Indeed they do, mate.

[joedoe]

I agree with ap. I think the cultural aspects can help you to understand the art on a deeper level. It might not necessarily make you a better fighter, but it will probably help you gain a deeper understanding of why things are done the way your art does them.

[Kempo Guy]

I have answered this particular question in your previous thread... but I’ll post my thoughts again:

My personal opinion is that foreign budoka (I’m speaking of traditional Japanese arts as that is my primary study) should make a serious effort to understand or at least familiarize oneself with Japanese etiquette as well as language if they wish to be taken seriously by seniors in their respective arts.

I feel that the study of budo is more than the study and memorization of physical techniques, but rather the study and preservation of a cultural “treasure / art” as well as providing an opportunity to understand philosophical attitudes or underpinnings if you will and combative behavior of the warriors of the past. This study should include language, etiquette, philosophy, principles, history (at least as it relates to the art you study), and of course technical application of your art. Also, imho to not educate oneself about the culture and etiquette from your arts country of origin limits ones ability to properly interpret the original intent and meaning of ones chosen art.

A lot of the Japanese terminology as it pertains to martial arts does not translate accurately into English. There may be multiple meanings and implications associated with the particular terminology and it will not do it justice to simply translate it to English as it may diminish the original idea presented.


Of course tradition doesn’t necessarily translate or equate into fighting skill. However, parts of the ‘traditions’ in most combative systems (of old) include the study of human combative behavior (within its cultural context). This may be transmitted within these systems in the form of kata or kuden (oral teaching). I feel this separates these ‘traditional’ systems from an empty form of pugilism (or study of weapons for that matter), as the traditions often carry the philosophies and principles of the founders.

Some may say tradition isn’t necessary as the various arts discussed are constantly evolving as do the environmental conditions, which I agree with to a certain extent. The art may evolve, but tradition means that there is a cultural continuity in customs, social attitudes as well as technical and linguistic aspects of your art (whether it’s of Asian or European heritage).
Most traditional arts were developed out of principles that were tested in “real” combat (created out of necessity in many instances). They were founded upon revelations experienced during combat/battles and distilled down to find the essence of these conflicts. You could say these systems underwent a process of natural selection (“survival of the fittest” if you will), meaning that arts with flawed operating systems ceased to exist (these practitioners got killed over time).
The arts that made it went through constant refinement over centuries (in many cases) by succeeding generations. They had to distill the principles and philosophies and create a basic operating system in order to simplify transmission. BTW, this does not mean that these traditional systems aren’t based on sophisticated principles and philosophies. I ask, how can we dismiss these revelations that were taken from real combat experience? Again, some people may argue that combat (or it’s essence) has changed and that the realities of today are different from the realities faced by our ancestors. But I want get into that here…

I would like to end my tirade with this, the prospective student should be able to trust the teacher and the art (with all the cultural trappings if you will) in being able to convey the proper etiquette, philosophy, training methods and impart the principles of their art and eventually be able to help the students tailor the art to fit them (in some respects) by becoming the art. This is where “Shu, Ha, Ri” comes into play, which means to embrace the form, diverge from the form and finally discarding the form. In some ways the by adopting the cultural trappings and absorbing the art you become part of the art with free expression of the combative principles. This is perhaps the fundamental difference between modern (or eclectic) and traditional martial arts.

That's my two yen.
Sorry for the long post.

KG

[Vash]

This, along with the other "Tradition" thread, are two parts of a horse I've beaten to death many a time. However, I feel that they can contribute to active discussion on the traits, practices, and applications of JKD as both an art and a philosophy.