Defintion problem in Martial Arts...

[Cruentus]

I have been humorously observing for a long time the definition problem we have in martial arts. Its been an ongoing problem since the common use of the term "martial arts" was introduced about 25 years ago.

We don't have clear cut ways of defining often used words. This becomes clear when on the internet, and watching two people argue over a topic, when it is clear that their definitions aren't the same.

Words like "tactics" "streetfighter" "Fighter" "combatives" "knifefighter" "master" "Grandmaster" and the list goes one and on and on...

We are still having a discussion over "warrior spirit" in this thread here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12959

I proposed a fairly decent definition, yet I can only get about half of everyone to agree with me. This is O.K. by me, as I am not married to MY definition, I just was offering an idea to see where it goes. I find this very humorous, as a term that is commonly used in martial arts isn't clear by any stretch.

How about the word "martial arts"? The mere origin of the word could cause controversy! If you don't believe me, introduce a discussion about the difference between "combatives'" and "martial arts", and see what happends!

At most, I try to make the best out of our definition problems. I try to be clear when I explain things, even if it means being wordy, so that people will know what I mean when I use certian terms.

I think the whole thing is very ironic and humorous, though!

Your thoughts!

:asian:

 

[Zoran]

Words are a social construct to express ideas. Since each person can have a different perspective, words tend to fail to express our thoughts to others that may have a different perspective from your own.

Martial Arts is really no more than a generic term that covers all forms of combat orietated sports and/or disciplines. But sometimes, martial arts can mean something entirely different to someone else depending on their personal perspective which is usually gained through some life experiences.

Other words can mean something different depending on who you ask. Morality, ethics, strength, love, war, and the list would go on and on.

In the long run, all the arguments and nit picking on semantics is really irrelevant. What matters is training and your enoyment of the art or style you participate in. These boards are really meant to open your mind to other possibilities and maybe gaining, if your lucky, a different perspective. If you agree, or disagree, is also irrelevant. What matters is being exposed to new ideas.

Now that I've had my say, someone is free to disagree with me if they like.

 

[Touch Of Death]

How about we say a martial art is the disciplined methods by which you train for combat.

 

[Black Bear]

PAUL, on my "is it still a MA if..." thread you proposed a definition of MA which I said I thought was pretty good. Now what did you think of mine, quite honestly?

 

[Makalakumu]

I need to find that article that described martial arts as nothing but suppressed homo-eroticism among males. hahahahaha It wouldn't take long for that thread to get locked!!!!!

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
I need to find that article that described martial arts as nothing but suppressed homo-eroticism among males. hahahahaha It wouldn't take long for that thread to get locked!!!!!

:rofl:

I think the main problem with the deffinition issues is that there are many different arts, and cultures crammed together in the term martial arts.

7sm

 

[Zepp]

Originally posted by Zoran
In the long run, all the arguments and nit picking on semantics is really irrelevant. What matters is training and your enoyment of the art or style you participate in.

Exactly.

 

[moving target]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
:rofl:

I think the main problem with the deffinition issues is that there are many different arts, and cultures crammed together in the term martial arts.

7sm

I agree. The two words, "martial" and "art" both have exsisted in the english language (and in some form or another other languages) for a long time. In other languages with other roots words have diffrent meanings, and just because they are translated into english with a meaning that seems most simular, that does not mean the two words have like roots, and as such it does not mean that the two words realy do end up meaning the same thing in two diffrent languages.

So in english martial art may litteraly mean war art, but not nessisaraly so in any other given language. And considering this relative ambiguity, It makes sence that an individual would impose their own meaning apon that given word.

Another problem in deffining such a word is people all to often (in my opinion) confuse the deffinition of a word with aspects of an art that they train. You ask "what does martial art mean?" and they think "what are the qualities of all the martial arts I have been exposed to?".

 

[Cruentus]

PAUL, on my "is it still a MA if..." thread you proposed a definition of MA which I said I thought was pretty good. Now what did you think of mine, quite honestly?

Sorry Black Bear...

Could you refresh my memory? What was your definition again?

Thanks!

 

[Black Bear]

Sorry Black Bear...

Could you refresh my memory? What was your definition again?

Thanks!

Well, it's on the "Is it still a martial art if..." thread. (if... it's not effective, that is) I raised the question whether something is a martial art if it cannot be used effectively in fighting. On the one hand, you have some tai chi studios where they don't have a clue as to the applications, but they figure it's good low-impact exercise that rolls the joints in good ways (which is true). Or, you could have a McDojang where they purport to teach things that can be used in sd, but really only do line drills, calisthenics, stretches, one-step sparring, and focus pads.

My conclusion was that we cannot be elitist about the way we use the term "martial arts" because if we do, we become isolated from the real world. We cannot use the word to communicate with people because we are not using it in the same way as they are.

So to put it short, my 80-some year old frail grandfather and grandmother do tai chi. They don't know much about applications, nor can they pull them off in a scrap. If they were to call it "martial art", I'd smile and go "great". If some 20-year-old first dan in Tae Kyur Dough or kuhroddy starts up a strip-mall McDojo or McDojang and says he teaches martial arts, I will say, "great". If someone calls knitting or hockey a martial art, I will not and say "sure". People are idiots, so why fight it? We use the words the same as the idiots so we can talk to them. My definition of martial arts is whatever the heck someone wants to refer to as "martial arts".

If someone asks me advice about training for fighting or sd and they say kuhroddy instead of karate, I'll say kuhroddy too. Why correct something as trivial as his pronounciation? He doesn't want me to help him understand Japanese phonemics. He wants to understand how to be safe.

If we insist on a solid semantic definition for MA as something that is effective in fighting, we paint ourselves into a corner. On the one hand, we get to say that "all MA are effective in fighting" because by definition they are. But could you really go as a guest to someone's studio for the evening, and at the end of it say, "I enjoyed myself, but I thought you said you do MA here. You don't do MA"? Are we prepared to get into endless debates over whether Method X (which is really diluted) is a martial art or not, because only 10, or 5, or 1% of the Method X schools teaches real combat? Personally, I'm not.

PAUL you had said something like that if it was combative or came from something combative it was a martial art, kind of like something could be "grandfathered in" so that no matter how crappy a "Method X" school was, it was still martial arts, because it was "Method X". This solves the same problem, without "giving up" on giving the word MA a meaning. It's probably more reasonable and correct. But I stick to my approach which allows pragmatics to run roughshod over semantics.

 

[Cruentus]

Black Bear...

Yes, I'd say I liked the way you put it!

I have an English and Pol. Sci. Degree, however, I am what is called a "descriptivest" rather then a "prescriptivest" when it comes to language. In other words I don't believe that there is one true correct way to speak the English language, as the prescriptivest believe. They believe that there is an ultimate "standard" when it comes to language. I believe that language and communication is always evolving and changing.

Example is what is called "martial art" today, was called "karate" or "kung fu" in the 70's. No matter what style you did, it was "karate" or "kung fu." Now, the word "martial art" is the common term. prior to about 1980, you couldn't find the word inthe dictionary.

The thing is, as martial artists, we need to define our own terms, and be clear about what these definitions are. The reason is because I could be talking about 1 thing, and I could be completely misunderstood because my audience isn't on to my definition of a term. An Example would be with the word "Tactics." This word is adequetly defined by the military, which coincides with the dictionary definition. Problem is, the definition is very vague when it comes to personal combatives or self defense. Some people believe that it encompases enviromental and conditional aspects of combat outside the martial art (terrain, available weapons, etc.), as well as aspects inside the martial art (timing, angling, footwork), where as I believe that aspects inside the martial art should be considered technical knowledge, and tactics would be more universal conditions and factors. So, if I am talking tactics to mean one thing with someone who means something else, we aren't going to be understanding each other unless we better define the term.

So I believe that in martial arts, we need to be careful as to how we define things. We don't all need to adhere to the same definitions, but we should at least be able to articulate with each other what we mean by certian words, and we should be able to accept it when someone elses defintion differs from our own.

Thats just what I think.
:asian:

 

[Black Bear]

"I have an English and Pol. Sci. Degree, however, I am what is called a "descriptivest" rather then a "prescriptivest" when it comes to language. In other words I don't believe that there is one true correct way to speak the English language, as the prescriptivest believe. They believe that there is an ultimate "standard" when it comes to language. I believe that language and communication is always evolving and changing."
Descriptivism is correct. English now belongs to the world. It is the universal acrolect of the neocolonialist era (excuse me if that stank, I just leaked a bit of my personal politics). In any event, unlike French, there is no "Académie Anglaise".

"Example is what is called "martial art" today, was called "karate" or "kung fu" in the 70's. No matter what style you did, it was "karate" or "kung fu." Now, the word "martial art" is the common term. prior to about 1980, you couldn't find the word inthe dictionary.
Ah, now I know! I laughed my head off some time ago when I saw an old book entitled "Kung fu: karate samurai-style". I mean, how many things can you find wrong with that? Now I realize that it was because those words did not have the same, clear definitions that they do today. With my short-sighted view of history, I fell into an elitist trap of my own! Still, from an etymology standpoint, it was still a stupid name.

"The thing is, as martial artists, we need to define our own terms, and be clear about what these definitions are. The reason is because I could be talking about 1 thing, and I could be completely misunderstood because my audience isn't on to my definition of a term. An Example would be with the word "Tactics." This word is adequetly defined by the military, which coincides with the dictionary definition. Problem is, the definition is very vague when it comes to personal combatives or self defense. Some people believe that it encompases enviromental and conditional aspects of combat outside the martial art (terrain, available weapons, etc.), as well as aspects inside the martial art (timing, angling, footwork), where as I believe that aspects inside the martial art should be considered technical knowledge, and tactics would be more universal conditions and factors. So, if I am talking tactics to mean one thing with someone who means something else, we aren't going to be understanding each other unless we better define the term.

So I believe that in martial arts, we need to be careful as to how we define things. We don't all need to adhere to the same definitions, but we should at least be able to articulate with each other what we mean by certian words, and we should be able to accept it when someone elses defintion differs from our own."
I agree, but I think that the word MA itself is resistant to having a good definition. Yours isn't bad.
:uhyeah:

 

[Cruentus]

"I agree, but I think that the word MA itself is resistant to having a good definition. Yours isn't bad.
:uhyeah:

You may be correct. Thanks for the compliment!