addressing your teacher

[rmcrobertson]

Being something and requiring a certain form of address are two different things, just for openers.

I'd still like to hear an argument that makes sense about using the term, "master," in a modern and democratic society, especially given all the patriarchal baggage that goes along with the term. And this isn't even considering all the fake, "masters," out there, who have thouroughly debased both the term and the concept.

We all know that there are some things wrong with contemporary martial arts. One of the things wrong, I'd submit, is all this fuss about being a master...especially given the fact that a fair chunk of the folks using the term are frauds.

And what, exactly, is the hell wrong with calling somebody by their name, thinking of them as your teacher, and addressing them with respect? And not in some fancy language, either. Maybe I've lost my tiny, but laast time I checked, "teacher,' was sujpposed to be aabout the highest title anybody could aspire to...

Again: my consistent experience in college has been that the folks who demand titles are pompous phonies. I believe we should save the fancy terms for occasional, ceremonial occasions.

It's America, guys. We started the country with getting rid of the clowns who demanded titles and all that they imply.

Just arguin'...thanks.

 

[D_Brady]

Very well put sir, You can buy the title( If I join your orginizeation with all my schools you'l promote to what?) or just give it to your self as so many have , but if your not regarded as a teacher than what do you really have. People keep talking about students leaving them, but how many of you left a teacher who was still teaching you what you were looking for.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by D_Brady
You can buy the title( If I join your organization with all my schools you'll promote to what?)

Brave man! Everyone knows it .. not everyone will say it!

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by D_Brady
People keep talking about students leaving them, but how many of you left a teacher who was still teaching you what you were looking for.

I agree completely! If you are showing them something...why would they leave?

 

[Brother John]

If you don't know what to call your instructor, ask.
If you can't ask, use respect and follow what others of similar rank do.
Above all, ASK.
Your Brother
John

 

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Being something and requiring a certain form of address are two different things, just for openers.

So what? You have two doctors. One prefers that you call him "Dr. Smith," while the other prefers that you call him "Bob." Neither is wrong, they just have different preferences.

I'd still like to hear an argument that makes sense about using the term, "master," in a modern and democratic society, especially given all the patriarchal baggage that goes along with the term.

I already gave you one, if you choose to ignore it or disagree with it that's up to you. The use of the term does not necessarily have anything to do with whether or not you're living in a modern democratic society, or "patriarchal baggage." It's possible -- and, I'd argue, more often than not likely -- that a martial arts master prefers the title "master" for the same reason that your doctor might prefer the title "doctor." If someone spends a lot of time and hard work reaching a certain level of proficiency in the field he or she has chosen, and prefers that his students/patients/whoever recognize the work by using a specific title when addressing him or her, it's just a personal preference.

And this isn't even considering all the fake, "masters," out there, who have thouroughly debased both the term and the concept.

As well it shouldn't, given the fact that the existence of quacks who don't deserve to use a stethoscope in no way invalidates the legitimate use of the title "doctor."

And what, exactly, is the hell wrong with calling somebody by their name, thinking of them as your teacher, and addressing them with respect?

Nothing. One instructor's preference to be called "master" does not indicate that there is anything wrong with calling another instructor by their name if that is his or her preference. You might notice that the reverse is just as true.

It's America, guys. We started the country with getting rid of the clowns who demanded titles and all that they imply.

Oh please. Aside from the fact that this statement isn't even true -- the last time I saw Bob Kerrey on a Sunday morning talk-show I seem to recall the hosts referring to him as "Senator Kerrey" and not "Bob" -- jingoism is usually a poor excuse for an argument.

Rich

 

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
but laast time I checked, "teacher,' was sujpposed to be aabout the highest title anybody could aspire to...

Just FYI, teacher translate into spanish as either "profesor" or "maestro". Teachers at secondary school have dropped the second term and now favor the first one....

 

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by SingingTiger
So what? You have two doctors. One prefers that you call him "Dr. Smith," while the other prefers that you call him "Bob." Neither is wrong, they just have different preferences.
..
Rich

That's maybe the reason Brother John says "ASK"
Btw, even if he/she tells me to call him/her master, I'd only call him/her master if I feel they deserve it... and try to find another teacher asap.

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by SingingTiger

Oh please. Aside from the fact that this statement isn't even true -- the last time I saw Bob Kerrey on a Sunday morning talk-show I seem to recall the hosts referring to him as "Senator Kerrey" and not "Bob" -- jingoism is usually a poor excuse for an argument.

And Mr. President, Vice Pres, Mr. Secretary, Monsignor, Bishop... duh dah duh dah duh dah.

As well it shouldn't, given the fact that the existence of quacks who don't deserve to use a stethoscope in no way invalidates the legitimate use of the title "doctor."

:rofl: That was good!

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, don't shift the terms. I wrote "requires:" it's different from, "prefers." When I'm teaching English, I tell my students that I'd prefer to be called, "Robert;" if they're uncomfortable with that, the formal address is, "Dr. Robertson." And I explain that part of learning to read/write well involves learning different forms of address for different audiences and situations...but if I were to require "Doctor,' or "professor," well, it'd be jerky of me. And I'm sorry, but it has been my consistent experience since 1977 that only pretentious a-holes insist on titles. Without exception, every since professor I've had or met who deserved the highest respect--and not just in my estimation, either, but in terms of their education, work, and general importance--was a, "Hi. I'm Ed," or, "Hello, I'm Barbara," person.

Your point about "Senator Kerrey," is worth examining, though it's important to remember that it was clowns like Nixon who stuck us with a lot of this, "Hail to the Chief," baggage, and the trappings of the Imperial Presidency. A "Senator," is indeed what he is, a name for a position to which he was elected. It's a formal situation, too, so of course he gets the formal title.

But we know what a Senator is; and even if you think the guy's a joke, the argument's the same as in the military: you salute and respect the uniform and the rank, not the man, if you can't stand the guy. Moreover--and unlike the martial arts in America--there's no argument (no intelligent argument, anyway), about whether or not the title is deserved. You've got the degree or you don't; you've been elected or you haven't. Al Gore isn't called, "president," because he didn't get enough electoral votes; according to American rules democracy, he ain't President.

There is no equivalent of that in martial arts, with some exceptions.

And I still find it revealing that there don't seem to be example of women demanding this "Master," horsepuckey, which would be perfectly appropriate if we were all at Shaolin...five hundred years ago.

And I still say that some of this stuff involves some very anti-democratic longings on the part of Americans. A big chunk of what's wrong--and probably unfixable--in present-day martial arts, too, circles this particular drain. Not just that phony maasters aboundd, but that we want them.

 

[GouRonin]

To top it all off, you will not find almost anywhere so many out-and-out liars of station, than in the martial arts.

 

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
First off, don't shift the terms. I wrote "requires:" it's different from, "prefers."

If a teacher is requiring something of a student, it is because that something is what the teacher wants (prefers). The only real difference is that the teacher-student relationship is more likely to be severed in one case than the other; that doesn't materially change the fact that, at the core, we're talking about a preference on the part of the teacher.

if I were to require "Doctor,' or "professor," well, it'd be jerky of me.

Not necessarily. That's not to say that you're not a jerk, I really couldn't say. But stating your preference as to how your students should address you -- and making it a requirement for continuing the association, as long as it's voluntary on both sides -- wouldn't make you a jerk.

Your point about "Senator Kerrey," is worth examining, though it's important to remember that it was clowns like Nixon who stuck us with a lot of this, "Hail to the Chief," baggage, and the trappings of the Imperial Presidency.

Nonsense. I believe the president was referred to as "President Whoever," senators were referred to as "Senator Whoever," the Secretary of State was referred to as "Secretary Whoever," etc., long before Nixon came along. If you've got some evidence to indicate that prefixing the person's name with the office started in Nixon's day, I'd like to see it; if you're referring to something else with your comments about the " 'Hail to the Chief' baggage" and "Imperial Presidency," please explain.

A "Senator," is indeed what he is, a name for a position to which he was elected.

I'm sure that you'd also agree that prefixing a judge's name with "Judge," even if the judge was appointed and not elected, would be similarly valid, so the fact that the person was elected really has no bearing. We're still talking about whether or not it's reasonable for someone to prefer (request, require) that they be addressed by a title which they call their own, regardless of whether the title was due to an election, or an appointment, or a doctorate being handed out, or a test administered by some martial arts organization. Getting back to the specific point at hand, I still say that it's perfectly reasonable for a teacher of a martial art to request that he or she be called "master."

Moreover--and unlike the martial arts in America--there's no argument (no intelligent argument, anyway), about whether or not the title is deserved.

"No intelligent argument, anyway." Aren't you the guy arguing against pomposity?

Anyway, you seem to be trying, once again, to make the point that whether or not a title is deserved in some instances has some bearing on whether or not the title is valid in any instance. Again I'd point you to a quack, and ask whether or not his use of the title "Doctor" invalidates your doctor's use of the title.

And I still say that some of this stuff involves some very anti-democratic longings on the part of Americans.

I guess we'll just have to disagree there. I find the idea almost laughable.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Roughly in reverse order:

First, it is instructive to look at the little trick the ACLU pulls every July 4th...they xerox the Bill of Rights, present it to people on the street as a petition, and guess what? Half the folks going by don't recognize it, and won't sign it. Then there's the old Stanley Milgrim experiments, that everybody reads about in Psych 1...I could multiply examples, but if you honestly think there are no anti-democratic impulses in the Land of the Free, you need to start looking around a bit.

Second, gee. I knew senators were called Senators. I just didn't see why you'd wnt to pick Bob Kerrey as an example, given that he typically comes across as extremely unpretentious...so I figured I'd stick in a Republican. Nixon--you know, Enemies List Dick. He's also the guy who tried to get a White House Honor guard dressed up in unforms out of, "Duck Soup."

Last: I'm still not seeing any discussion of the main points here. But I will bet you a dollar--and I haven't bet on anything since I put five on the Colts aagainst Joe Namath--that if we surveyed every martial arts studio in the US, we would find that an overwhelming majority of obvious fakes, charlatans and manipulating bastards called themselves, "master." Along, of course, with all the guys who come out of traditions, and exemplify lineages, where this makes some sense.

And I still want to know what it is that makes, "master," necessary, or even useful, in day-to-day training here in the New World. I don't wear a suit and tie every day when I teach, I don't wear robes every day I'm in school.

I think this whole "mastery," thing says more about the goals of a lot of folks in the arts than anything else. But I guess that's because I don't believe in mastery, any more...

It is interesting that you should claim, "request," and "require," are the same, in this context.

Thanks; it's an interesting discussion, and I'm certainly thinking about your arguments.

 

[Michael Billings]

You know something weird gentlemen? I have never, ever, in real life, ever heard someone called "Master" or even requesting or insisting he be called that. I this just a Taekwondo (TakeOne'sDough) thing?

There was a "Master Yi" here in Austin in the mid to late 80's - and he had a TV ad running. I believe he was a Tukong Wu Sul "founder" from Korea. But never having met him, I do not know that this is what he "required". Is it really that prevelant?

I do remember cards from my grandmother being addressed to Master Michael Billings, but this was the diminuative form of Mister (which is derived from Master.)

I figure if someone is demanding that title, if anyone does, must be insecure about deserving it ... . I have had students address me this way and actively discouraged it. I have been introduced as their "Master", and corrected it with others. Jack of all trades, master of none ... that's me. But I believe that you may be entitled to call yourself that due to having "mastered" something, or through perfection of your trade, you may deserve the title. Think of a Master shipwright (builder) or master wood worker. There are master masons (stone workers), not to be confused with 32nd degree Master Masons ... not the same thing at all. Master electricians probably make more money than me ... or not, but I have never heard a master plumber being called Master.

It is not a racial slur unless you are making it one, nonetheless it is not my preferred title. I like "Student of Kenpo" or "Senior Instructor in the Art", but who on earth would want to be called that everytime someone opens their mouth? Not me. I have accepted the honorific of Sifu or Sensei from students who just have to have a label. These are usually high ranking students from other systems switching over ... and I try to break them of the habit gently, and I am like Robert in that my name is good enough for me, 1st or last. I never heard Mr. Parker calling himself a Master, rather he would say "Hi, I'm Ed" or "Ed Parker".

I know there is a cultural issue regarding any man being another's master, then there is the religous interpretation of Christ as being our Master. I will not touch this, as various religions world-wide refer to "Masters", and not just Judeo-Christianity.

But I just can't quite get around being Master Billings. Would you like to be called Master Mac for your honorific, or Master Bob? At least it is a little catchier than just my last name. I don't quite get the strenuous objection to the title of "master", if you don't like it, don't use it. But try to entertain a less ethnocentric perspective and acknowledge that "master" is an honorific in many cultures, and not limited to martial arts. Zen masters, those who have demonstrated or live a life of shibumi, or are masters at chess or go, etc. are introduced as Master So and So.

A Master's in academia does not entitle you to be called master, although you may eventually reach a level of mastery that is evident to all. If you do not tout it in front of others, rather it is acknowledged as a sign of respect for the individual or their accomplishments, it is much more meaningful.

This issue keeps showing up periodically, and I rather be entertained by some of your stories about alleged "Masters", who are maybe fooling themselves as much as pulling the wool over their student's eyes. Got any good ones guys?

Oss,
-Michael

 

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
if you honestly think there are no anti-democratic impulses in the Land of the Free, you need to start looking around a bit.

Your hypothesis seems to be (and I'm quoting here), "some of this stuff involves some very anti-democratic longings on the part of Americans." If you honestly think that my challenging that hypothesis indicates that I believe that there are no anti-democratic impulses in society at large, you need to stop reading things between the lines that simply aren't there. Of course such sentiments exist -- though I don't think your ACLU example exposes them any better than the "master" discussion, since having encountered pollster-types at the grocery store I'd argue that most responses that they would term "negative" have more to do with inconvenience and apathy than with actual "anti-democratic" sentiments.

I just didn't see why you'd wnt to pick Bob Kerrey as an example

More reading between the lines: I picked Kerrey because his was the first name that came to mind. Take Clinton, or any conservative senator, the argument's the same.

Nixon

I'm sorry, none of that gives me any idea why you brought him up in some apparent attempt to argue that the practice of using a title in front of a government official's name started during his presidency.

I'm still not seeing any discussion of the main points here.

Question in original post: "What do you call your teacher?"

Later post by RCastillo: "I address my higher ups by Mr. , and Master, as in Master Tracy when I've visited him."

Response from GouRonin: "I will never refer to any man or woman as "Master."

That's the main point that I was discussing, sorry you missed it.

if we surveyed every martial arts studio in the US, we would find that an overwhelming majority of obvious fakes, charlatans and manipulating bastards called themselves, "master."

I don't agree that the conclusion is foregone, but even if it is, the existence of a quack. . . Oh well, I guess we'll have to disagree on that point as well.

And I still want to know what it is that makes, "master," necessary, or even useful, in day-to-day training here in the New World.

Necessary? I don't think it is, but then I don't think the term "doctor" is necessary, either: as you said, you either are, or you aren't. Useful? I don't know, a show of respect? A handle other than "hey"? A desire to differentiate between student and teacher?

I'm glad I'm on a first-name basis with my instructor. But if he went by "master," well, that would just be his preference.

Rich

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Mr. Tiger:

OK, let me try this one last time. To begin. When you refer to somebody's argument as, "almost laughable," I think it fair to read this as a claim they're wrong. Since you expressed these sentiments in regard to my remark about nostalgia, feudalism and regressive tendencies in American life, I guess I assumed you thought there weren't any. Sorry that I allowed myself to get annoyed by your tone there and elsewhere, but in re-reading I think that was reasonably-well justified.

I am glad to hear that you agree about at least some of the obvious anti-democratic stuff.

I'll skip the politics; however, it is worth noting that with some fairly-ugly exceptions, the Republicans have been the ones into pretensions and titles and the Democrats have been the down-home, folksy crooks....

It may be fair enough to find this a bit far afield; I don't, but what the hell.

More importantly--no, it ain't just a matter of personal preference, and all opinions are equally good. At some point, there's certainly going to be a line you wouldn't cross--"Hello! Mein namen ist Hans! But I vill be your Fuehrer, und you vill address me as such!"--and the "master," bit is where I draw the line.

After all, we already have "Mr." and "Ms." We have "sir," and "ma'am." They're pretty much the same things--so why's "master," so important?

I see that I've not been clear. Let me try again on another point...there's a difference between a title that denotes an earned rank or position where the criteria are clear and the same for everybody--"Sergeant," "Doctor," "Senator," etc.--and titles such as "master," which (to repeat myself) are in the martial arts seldom based on anything like an official titles (Senator), and earned rank in an organized structure (Sergeant) a position won through work in a clear, ordered educational structure (Doctor). When they are, I guess it's no big deal. I still wouldn't, though as it happen I started martial arts with people who simply didn't use such titles, and it's never been an issue.

By the way, I just took another look at my 1st degree BB certificate. Following Mr. Parker's lead, the descriptions of the various ranks that Larry Tatum wrote never identify anybody as a master. There're "instructors," of various kinds and levels, there are "professors," there's an "Associate Master," (8th degree) and a, "Master of Arts," (9th), but there ain't no Master.

I see the problem this way: students coming to martial arts are looking not only for technical mastery, but something else, something indefinable. They're looking for the development of their character, for one thing, I'd say. "Master," denotes not just something about technical knowledge, but also about achievement in maturity--and I guess I'd rather not be around somebody who has to assert this with a title, rather than shutting up and showing it with their actions.

Oh well, what the hell. I actually think Mr. Billings has a pretty good point--the whole thing's kinda theoretical anyhoo, because I just haven't had to deal with these guys.

I think I'll shut up now--with one last note. Everything isn't just a matter of opinion. Sure, everybody's entitled to their opinion, their belief--but this does not make them correct. This is true of all kinds of popular opinions about scientific realities, too...

 

[Sigung86]

Hi Bob,

just a point here, and I may be off base posting this late in the discussion, however ...

I do think that there are probably more underlying causes for people in the Martial Arts, or anywhere else for that matter, to use titles than simply democratic tendencies vs. non-democratic tendencies.

As our society has aged it has become apparent (at least in my skewed vision of society) that we, for the majority, are more dependent on leaders and authority figures to make our decisions for us. We fully expect the government, the churches, the schools, the police, the doctors, Sears, J.C. Penney, etc. to take responsibility for what we do, and how we think in our lives. We appear (again, in my paradigm) to be giving up our rights to self determination. View the amount of unquestioning support for the patriot act. Further, view the number of people who fully expect the government to take over and drive virtually every portion of our daily lives as a society. View how we are quick to blame the schools and teachers for the shortcomings of our children.

That particular mental state requires that we validate those who make the decisions (for right or wrong) with titles. Titles, really, are the way that we differentiate between the people we don't care about and the people who impress us most or who appear to have the most authority... They are labels and gentle identifiers. We need identifiers, badly. How often when you are meeting people for the first time, do they find out very early on, just exactly what you do for a living? Most people need a tag ...

There is also, probably, much to be said for the mentality of people who come to the Martial Arts. I had a student who left me a number of years ago, because I was not formal enough in my classes. He came, joined the school, then showed up for classes with a shaved head, bowing, scraping, and toadying all over the place. He also wore a jing-mo (white with black frog ties). It was as if he had watched and lived every episode of Kung Fu, and Kung Fu, The Legend continues. When I pulled him into the office, after several classes like that, to talk to him and indicate that this wasn't a 500 year old monastary, he took umbrage at our lack of "discipline" and left. He ended up studying under a "Master" Lee, a 9th degree World Champion, and Grand Master of Tae Kwan Do.

I think that often times, again in the martial arts, but not limited to them, people expect some pomp and ceremony. It is, after all, Eastern or Oriental in origin ... And many people get so hung up on the mysticism and titlature, that it is an integral part of their training.

I always have to laugh when I meet someone new (not in my school) and they eventually find out that I am a Kenpo instructor. There is always the same awe or pseudo-awe, and "fear" and the same silly questions ... Can you break bricks ... Is breaking ice possible .. etc. etc. etc. And this is in the 21st Century, an era of enlightenment. People, tyros if you will, come to the Martial Arts with many preconceived notions and expectations, many of them invalid, otherwise we wouldn't lose students, who haven't become deadly killers in six months. :lol:

I personally don't like those titles, but with damn near 40 years both in and at the arts (for accuracy here), I have come to expect that people need them, at least until they get their feet on the ground. Some people never give them up. There was a "World Champion" 9th degree (same one mentioned above)... My wife and I went to brunch at a restaurant on a Sunday Morning some years back. He showed up at said restaurant with three or four of his senior students. They "made way" for him, pulled his chair out and held it for him, got his breakfast from the buffet, after determining his desires and sat, not eating, until he began.
:rofl:

Scarey, but apparently, necessary to his group of hanger-ons. And I think, after watching this for some years, that they are the rule rather than the exception.

No... There are much deeper seated needs for the title thing than simply a political statement or condition. I agree with you that it is unnecessary, but I don't think we will ever get rid of it... I don't let my students do it, but many do... If people are willfully giving over control in their lives, to any extent, they need, or think they do, the titles, pomp, ceremony, etc. to validate their decisions.

Just some more thoughts, and again, my apologies for chiming in late here.

Take care, and be well.

Dan Farmer

 

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by SingingTiger
But stating your preference as to how your students should address you -- and making it a requirement for continuing the association, as long as it's voluntary on both sides -- wouldn't make you a jerk.

It's not voluntary if it's a requirement, and there's people, like me, who feel really unconfortable when somebody requests being called master. If he says "I'd rather be called Master Doe, but you can call me John" I can then choose how to call him. But nonetheless, if I ask first how he prefers to be addressed is because I don't mind how to address him.

 

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Since you expressed these sentiments in regard to my remark about nostalgia, feudalism and regressive tendencies in American life, I guess I assumed you thought there weren't any.

But I didn't. I made the remark in regard to your comment about using the term "master" pointing to anti-democratic sentiments. That was it. Anything else you wrote in the thread regarding nostalgia, feudalism, etc., was not expressed in that comment, so was not addressed by my response.

The only reason I argue the point now is that, based on the posts you have made on this board that I have read, I think you do a lot of (inaccurate) "reading between the lines." And my choice of the term "laughable" was deliberate, as I believe you used the same term to describe some arguments -- I think mine were included, though you didn't enumerate -- in a different thread.

no, it ain't just a matter of personal preference, and all opinions are equally good. At some point, there's certainly going to be a line you wouldn't cross

The two are not mutually exclusive. In other words, yes, it is a matter of personal preference, and yes, there is a line I wouldn't cross. Your example is a good one. It appears that we would both decline to call someone "fuehrer," so there is no debate; apparently, you would decline to call someone "master," while I would not, and that's the whole point of this friendly debate.

There're "instructors," of various kinds and levels, there are "professors," there's an "Associate Master," (8th degree) and a, "Master of Arts," (9th), but there ain't no Master.

That's an interesting footnote, but not really important to the discussion. It only pertains to one instructor; moreover, the fact that the title "Associate Master" is used but "Master" is not seems somewhat silly to me: in most professional areas, "Associate X" implies the existence of "X," as well it should.

Sure, everybody's entitled to their opinion, their belief--but this does not make them correct.

Unfortunately, my perception is that you believe that anyone who holds an opinion that differs from yours is, de facto, wrong, regardless of the topic, and that because their opinion differs from yours, it's not even reasonable. Maybe my perception is inaccurate, but that's what it is.

I'd say this horse is pretty well dead.

Rich

 

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
It's not voluntary if it's a requirement.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the requirement was voluntary -- which would be a contradiction in terms -- I meant to imply that the relationship was voluntary, as the teacher-student relationship is: the student can walk away whenever they choose, and the instructor can choose to expel the student.

Rich