Ashamed of their motives?

[Black Bear]

I've talked about it here before. Many people who venture into the martial arts do so because they want to learn to protect themselves from interpersonal violence, and this includes learning fighting skills, skills of a violent nature. But I believe that in the MA community--and this has seeped into society in general--many of these people are made to feel ashamed of their motive. It's embedded in the messages they receive every day. "MA is NOT about fighting. It's an ART." "If you just want to defend yourself, buy a gun." "Those guys are only interested in fighting. They don't understand the real meaning of MA. I tell them to join a boxing gym."

So these neophytes will hedge: "Why do you do MA?" "Oh, a lot of reasons. I want to learn more about Chinese culture, I like the philosophy of it, it's a great workout, I like the people. Oh, and to learn sd."

Not to offend anyone, this is just my opinion: My opinion is that this is preposterous. Safety--including physical safety from violence--is a legitimate human need. People should not be embarassed for exploring how to meet that need. At our studio, it is at the forefront of what we do. We talk openly about violent incidents in the city, troubleshoot them, use them to illustrate principles. Everything is worked in relation to application against a violent assailant, and with a "just add dirt" mentality.

What about your studio? Is it a place where people feel comfortable about screening the tactics through the filter of practical application? What is the feeling in the group when there is mention of applying the skills to a violent, emergency situation?

Now I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with people wanting to preserve ancient martial cultures, kind of like an historical reenactment club. And of course, people who are doing that have the right to pick like-minded people to join them in what they're doing. But many of the people who are checking out your school are not interested in that (even if they tell themselves otherwise). Are you up front about the differences? Do you have auxilliary programs to assist with THEIR needs? (Not that I'm suggesting you have any obligation to do so.)

 

[Touch Of Death]

I've talked about it here before. Many people who venture into the martial arts do so because they want to learn to protect themselves from interpersonal violence, and this includes learning fighting skills, skills of a violent nature. But I believe that in the MA community--and this has seeped into society in general--many of these people are made to feel ashamed of their motive. It's embedded in the messages they receive every day. "MA is NOT about fighting. It's an ART." "If you just want to defend yourself, buy a gun." "Those guys are only interested in fighting. They don't understand the real meaning of MA. I tell them to join a boxing gym."

So these neophytes will hedge: "Why do you do MA?" "Oh, a lot of reasons. I want to learn more about Chinese culture, I like the philosophy of it, it's a great workout, I like the people. Oh, and to learn sd."

Not to offend anyone, this is just my opinion: My opinion is that this is preposterous. Safety--including physical safety from violence--is a legitimate human need. People should not be embarassed for exploring how to meet that need. At our studio, it is at the forefront of what we do. We talk openly about violent incidents in the city, troubleshoot them, use them to illustrate principles. Everything is worked in relation to application against a violent assailant, and with a "just add dirt" mentality.

What about your studio? Is it a place where people feel comfortable about screening the tactics through the filter of practical application? What is the feeling in the group when there is mention of applying the skills to a violent, emergency situation?

Now I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with people wanting to preserve ancient martial cultures, kind of like an historical reenactment club. And of course, people who are doing that have the right to pick like-minded people to join them in what they're doing. But many of the people who are checking out your school are not interested in that (even if they tell themselves otherwise). Are you up front about the differences? Do you have auxilliary programs to assist with THEIR needs? (Not that I'm suggesting you have any obligation to do so.)

Actualy the organization I belong to has built our entire system on what you have just described. We believe Martial artists are, in general, insecure and alieve that insecurity by training. This is definantly the case with adults; however, our goal is to rear children away from a fear based motivation and into a motivation based on simple awareness of danger and the understanding of what it takes to prepare. So, in effect traing would be based on attitude, logic, basics, and fitness; as would any other choice they made in there lives. I feel the study of another culture is a poor reason because people are fickle and interest will wain.
sean

 

[Jason Davis]

You are 100% correct. If you are learning a martial art you are learning how to protect yourself.

If all you want to do is learn about the culture and the history, go get a book it will save you alot of time and hard work. Besides what do people think martial arts is? In the most simplistic terms: Martial arts is the art of fighting, it is you can't argue with that. So no one should feel ashamed if all they want to learn how to do is protect themselves.

Me personally, I could care less about chinese history or culture and I practice all sorts of chinese arts so there it's not necessary.

no one should be ashamed for wanting to be able to protect themselves.

F.Y.I. :: For all those people who say that if you want to protect yourself go buy a gun, if you shoot somene that doesn't have a gun your going to jail. if you wait to see if they have a gun before you shoot them it's too late; it takes a lot longer to draw a gun and shoot than it does to pull a trigger. so their guns are pointless. a gun is only a gun if it is pointed at you; otherwise it's just a piece of metal.

 

[Makalakumu]

MA is one of those nebulous things that is hard to put your finger on. That is why we argue about it so much! In reality, MA is what it is. For you it may be fighting. For another it may be culture. For another it may be exercise. If you can say that your life is bettered by the art you practiced, then it must be worthwhile.

Besides, I think people always get bent out of shape regarding this sd/fighting component of MA. Believe me, its easy to over focus on this part and forget the Way if you know what I am saying.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

You're correct. Some people are indeed afraid to say that they take martial arts for self defense.

But then, many take it for a host of reasons other than self defense. While they might list s.d. as a legitmate criteria, they very well might be taking it for the fitness, the fun, the culture, whatever...or a combination of all the above. Most children don't take it so they can defend themselves. They might be into the fantasy of being a Ninja, but the playground bully isn't all that much of a terror for the middle class playground. Its different in other parts of the country, I realize.

I have one woman who is 73 and taking lessons. Self defense isn't a big thing for her. When she was growing up in Japan she always wanted to do martial arts...and they wouldn't let her. Now she's having a blast.

I stress self defense constantly. I find it makes many uncomfortable. They want to believe they can defend themselves, but don't want to consider the ugly truths attendant to such an event. But they listen. Hopefully they learn.

Regards,


Steve

 

[Black Bear]

unk and hhjh, I agree with both of you to some degree. There are all kinds of permutations. The scenario this thread is SPECIFICALLY intended to address is when the student is motivated by safety/combat concerns but MA instructors express (explicitly or implicitly) disapproval of this. I have a theory why this occurs.

Let us first distinguish guilt and shame. Guilt is internal; it is based on regret. Shame is external; it is based on disapproval. To “shame” is something that people do to one another. If one feels shame in the absence of someone “shaming” them, then this is the voice of the “superego”: one’s internalized voice of social approval and disapproval, NOT one’s “conscience”.

To shame someone is an act of social control. It is a means of modifying behaviour, like praise, reward, or punishment. By communicating disapproval of an act in a public way, one can reduce its occurrence, in accordance with organizational goals.

I suspect that often, martial arts students are “shamed” for being interested in fighting/sd/safety when the system, school, or group IS IN FACT UNABLE to meet their need in this area BUT, the school simultaneously wants to believe that they're effective in this area. Instead of helping them, or admitting their inadequacy to educate in this area, they hide their lack of ability by suppressing the overt show of interest in this area, using disapproval. This “takes the heat off” so to speak.

In service of this deception (and self-deception), a double message is sent in these kinds of organizations. On the one hand, it is unacceptable to question that the system/school will make you a better fighter/safer in the streets, etc. (To say that a martial art is ineffective is like telling someone they have no sense of humour, or that they have an offensive body odour. It’s hard to say politely, and you are never supposed to say this to your “betters”, especially when you’re a guest with no status within their Matrix, yet you want to be accepted into the group.) They'll SAY they're effective and provide self-defense skill training. On the other hand, the newbie is implicitly or explicitly discouraged from focusing on combatives/safety, being too inquisitive about street application, even though that is really the reason they’re there.

Again, this is NOT a condemnation of groups of people whose purpose is something other than sd, who are clear about this, and who do not try to bait and switch. There’s a kendo club in town. I may think they’re dorky, but at least no one’s kidding anyone else—or themselves—about what they’re doing there and why they’re doing it. Not in the sense that I’m talking about here, anyway. They know they’re "playing soldier". Nobody thinks it's sd. It’s xenophilia (anachronophilia?) with a spiritual flavour, and to be frank, escapism too. Nothing wrong with that, probably a good hobby for some people in modern, urban life. Who knows, it may have implications for racial harmony. So I'm not putting down people who don't do sd, so long as they're honest with it, and comfortable with themselves that way.

But I HAVE seen this sick pattern of behaviour in many, many schools.

There is a possible risk of the reverse problem, as some people have pointed out. But I have not seen it to take place. Those who focus on sd and are good at it, will usually be very up front that they do not teach "authentic", "ancient" whatever--anything, if indeed they don't. That is because they know it and accept it. "Traditionalism" is not a part of their "idealized self-concept"; that is, they don't "want to believe" they're traditional, or "wish to be" traditional. For the most part, they do not put down people who do TMA (some do, for instance some JKDC places, but they're another case study).

No, it seems to me more that "effectiveness" is something that most martial artists want to believe themselves to be aligned with, whether they can say so straight out or not. And that is why they can be funny about that.

Anyway, if this doesn't apply to you, there is no reason to take offense. If it doesn't apply to you, chances are you yourself already know what I'm talking about.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Ah. I see what you mean now.

I agree. There are some schools out there as you describe. They may or may not be able to meet the s.d. needs of their students. They can cover themselves by looking down on such an emphasis as being beneath them.

Sure. I've seen this.

I've seen the "xenophilia" you've described as well. I like the word you apparently invented, "anachophilia"...but it sounds a little too much like a sexual perversion for me to use it casually in conversation.


Regards,


Steve

unk and hhjh, I agree with both of you to some degree. There are all kinds of permutations. The scenario this thread is SPECIFICALLY intended to address is when the student is motivated by safety/combat concerns but MA instructors express (explicitly or implicitly) disapproval of this. I have a theory why this occurs.

Let us first distinguish guilt and shame. Guilt is internal; it is based on regret. Shame is external; it is based on disapproval. To “shame” is something that people do to one another. If one feels shame in the absence of someone “shaming” them, then this is the voice of the “superego”: one’s internalized voice of social approval and disapproval, NOT one’s “conscience”.

To shame someone is an act of social control. It is a means of modifying behaviour, like praise, reward, or punishment. By communicating disapproval of an act in a public way, one can reduce its occurrence, in accordance with organizational goals.

I suspect that often, martial arts students are “shamed” for being interested in fighting/sd/safety when the system, school, or group IS IN FACT UNABLE to meet their need in this area BUT, the school simultaneously wants to believe that they're effective in this area. Instead of helping them, or admitting their inadequacy to educate in this area, they hide their lack of ability by suppressing the overt show of interest in this area, using disapproval. This “takes the heat off” so to speak.

In service of this deception (and self-deception), a double message is sent in these kinds of organizations. On the one hand, it is unacceptable to question that the system/school will make you a better fighter/safer in the streets, etc. (To say that a martial art is ineffective is like telling someone they have no sense of humour, or that they have an offensive body odour. It’s hard to say politely, and you are never supposed to say this to your “betters”, especially when you’re a guest with no status within their Matrix, yet you want to be accepted into the group.) They'll SAY they're effective and provide self-defense skill training. On the other hand, the newbie is implicitly or explicitly discouraged from focusing on combatives/safety, being too inquisitive about street application, even though that is really the reason they’re there.

Again, this is NOT a condemnation of groups of people whose purpose is something other than sd, who are clear about this, and who do not try to bait and switch. There’s a kendo club in town. I may think they’re dorky, but at least no one’s kidding anyone else—or themselves—about what they’re doing there and why they’re doing it. Not in the sense that I’m talking about here, anyway. They know they’re "playing soldier". Nobody thinks it's sd. It’s xenophilia (anachronophilia?) with a spiritual flavour, and to be frank, escapism too. Nothing wrong with that, probably a good hobby for some people in modern, urban life. Who knows, it may have implications for racial harmony. So I'm not putting down people who don't do sd, so long as they're honest with it, and comfortable with themselves that way.

But I HAVE seen this sick pattern of behaviour in many, many schools.

There is a possible risk of the reverse problem, as some people have pointed out. But I have not seen it to take place. Those who focus on sd and are good at it, will usually be very up front that they do not teach "authentic", "ancient" whatever--anything, if indeed they don't. That is because they know it and accept it. "Traditionalism" is not a part of their "idealized self-concept"; that is, they don't "want to believe" they're traditional, or "wish to be" traditional. For the most part, they do not put down people who do TMA (some do, for instance some JKDC places, but they're another case study).

No, it seems to me more that "effectiveness" is something that most martial artists want to believe themselves to be aligned with, whether they can say so straight out or not. And that is why they can be funny about that.

Anyway, if this doesn't apply to you, there is no reason to take offense. If it doesn't apply to you, chances are you yourself already know what I'm talking about.

 

[markulous]

I've said it many a times and I will say it again: If you don't learn how to fight and spar it is not a MARTIAL art.

 

[TonyM.]

Curiously it seems the very intent, movement, tension and release nessesary for martial applications are the things we get the most healthy results from. I have seen Tai Chi practiced (in a studio down the street from me) with no visualization, no intent, no sense of enemy and no real and percieved. Chi was not strongly circulating and not going to the edges. As they were practicing slowly they were probably getting less benifit than they would from dance. There was no push hands or martial application taught. The same form with the missing aspects creates much power. I have seen it even in sloppy students. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it really behoves a person to do a little research and learn something practical rather than waste your time.

 

[Black Bear]

anachronophilia... I guess kind of like nostalgia, but nostalgia for a time that the individual never experienced himself.

Neologism--the extemporaneous inventing of new words--is one of the signs of normal, age-related dementia. A true fact.

 

[loki09789]

BB,
I see this in the 'family center' approach alot. I think they are using the martial arts as a metaphor for all those intangible qualities that come from martial arts training (health, mental/spiritual and physical, benefits that could be gained by just about any solid fitness/sport program) instead of the other way around.

When I taught children's classes at my school, I would tell parents that I focused on the self defense techniques and applications and that all that other stuff (phrased much more diplomatically to keep things nice and them paying me) was a residual by product of responsible training for a clear goal.

I think it is laughable that 'family MA centers' focus on spiritual/personal development, to the extent of using shame tactics for those who what to be able to be street effective, when they themselves will NOT say/know/understand that it is Buddhism/Zen/Christianity... that is the ruling thought system that they are using their art to pass on. If you want to teach morals and spirituality through MA, become a monk. If you are going to shame people for being motivated/interested in the combatives element, it is hypocritical to then put "SELF DEFENSE" on the door.

 

[Black Bear]

If you want to grow spiritually, read the scriptures (I won't tell you which scriptures you ought to read), pray to God, "help orphans and widows in their distress and keep from being polluted by the world". James 1:27 Then you'll grow. Every religion understands this, but the spiritually directionless society of the postmodern West has forgotten.

 

[Black Bear]

Okay, I just gave away which scriptures I read, but that doesn't mean I'm telling you what to read.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I've said it many a times and I will say it again: If you don't learn how to fight and spar it is not a MARTIAL art.

Some might be surprised by this, but I disagree with this statement.

Wu Shu doesn't practice fighting (not that I've seen), and yet I would categorize it as a martial art. Some say TKD isn't a martial art...rather a "martial sport"...yet TKD schools typically fight and spar meeting the above criteria.

If it has its roots in agonistic fighting systems, and has the qualities attributable to an art...its a martial art.

Now, if you wanted to state that the system in questions isn't a "fighting art", go for it. That would be far more specific and accurate, and easily arguable. To say a system isn't a martial art, though, is a waste of time and isn't at all productive. At best it makes you look like a quibbler, at worst you'll look like a stylistic bigot.


Regards,


Steve

 

[loki09789]

Some might be surprised by this, but I disagree with this statement.

Wu Shu doesn't practice fighting (not that I've seen), and yet I would categorize it as a martial art. Some say TKD isn't a martial art...rather a "martial sport"...yet TKD schools typically fight and spar meeting the above criteria.

If it has its roots in agonistic fighting systems, and has the qualities attributable to an art...its a martial art.

Now, if you wanted to state that the system in questions isn't a "fighting art", go for it. That would be far more specific and accurate, and easily arguable. To say a system isn't a martial art, though, is a waste of time and isn't at all productive. At best it makes you look like a quibbler, at worst you'll look like a stylistic bigot.


Regards,


Steve

Wushu is a 'hide in plain sight' fighting art because it was the only way for martial artists in Communist China to continue practicing after trad. training, and just about anything cultural was outlawed because it was counter to the communist ideal.

Wushu or Chinese opera training does include traditional fighting forms, some sparring - depending on the school, and acrobatics. Chinese opera students study Hung Gar, Shaolin animal systems... and other classic Chinese arts as a 'martial base' that they then combine with the acrobatic aspects.

Tai Chi, Capoeira... are arts that include fighting aspects to the training, but are more about cultural/spiritual perservation and development than fighting.

That isn't really the specific topic of discussion as much as the people practicing/teaching ANY art, regardless of style, who try to manipulate those who are seriously interested in SD, contact practicallity into thinking they are wrong.

 

[Black Bear]

Hasn't this forum determined time and again that it is pointless to try to impose one's definition of MA on others, and that we cannot tell people that X is an MA and Y is not?

That said, the way that hhjh uses the phrase, which is also how Paul used it, seems pretty reasonable to me, and seems to reflect its most popular usage.

We've had threads aplenty on this. It's tiresome.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I started MA specifically for SD; I was the only white kid in a Hawaiian ghetto, and every friday was "kill haule' day"...which meant find ME on the way home from school, and beat the crap out of ME...the only haule kid in school. Unfortunately, while the training was good at the place I trained, I had one of those instructors who said, "If I hear of you using this stuff I'm teaching you, I'LL kick your butt...we train to preserve peace, and to protect those who cannot or will not protect themselves. All you have to do to fulfill this duty is to survive, and that's what blocks, evasions, and curling up in a ball while covering your temples is for."

Continued to get beat up in school. What made it worse was when the locals found out I was in karate from some dojo-mates...
"come on...kick me, you *****".
"I'm not allowed".
Caused more problems.

Passage of time brought me from there, to another school where the instructor said, "what a stupid thing...why in the heck would you dedicate every spare moment to perfecting a razor sharp sword, and never use it? Would you buy a car, trick it out, and leave it in the garage? Don't go into overkill, but for pet's sake, don't stand there and let them hit you, either."

Was friggin liberating. One of the many bullies in late grade school who had been puching me in the stomach and stealing my lunch money for years swung, missed, got punched in the face & kicked in the ribs about 5-6 times, thrown on the ground, and stomped in the bread basket. That started a short trend of others testing their nettle against the kid that was supposed to be the easy target, but after similar endings, they just left me alone (which was fine with me).

Having been intimidated and shamed into not defending myself...having experienced guilt on the one or two occasions pre-liberation...I make it a point to teach my students that MA is for combat; not self-discipline, confidence building through task mastery, or tradition, but for making sure that when two combatants meet, you're the one who walks away. And if the technique doesn't lend itself to that objective, ditch it and train something else.

"Don't 'should' on me"

 

[Black Bear]

You a survivor, and you can free other minds. Right on KKK.

When will the idiots learn that allowing people to beat the tar out of another person for no good reason--including themselves--does not serve the interests of peace?

 

[markulous]

Some might be surprised by this, but I disagree with this statement.

Wu Shu doesn't practice fighting (not that I've seen), and yet I would categorize it as a martial art. Some say TKD isn't a martial art...rather a "martial sport"...yet TKD schools typically fight and spar meeting the above criteria.

If it has its roots in agonistic fighting systems, and has the qualities attributable to an art...its a martial art.

Now, if you wanted to state that the system in questions isn't a "fighting art", go for it. That would be far more specific and accurate, and easily arguable. To say a system isn't a martial art, though, is a waste of time and isn't at all productive. At best it makes you look like a quibbler, at worst you'll look like a stylistic bigot.


Regards,


Steve

The word Martial does mean fighting!

From dictionary.com
Martial: Of, relating to, or suggestive of war.

Obviously in wars you fight, therefore it means "of fighting". So no I am not a quibbler or a bigot, I speak the truth.

 

[Black Bear]

Dude, don't be obnoxious. You know perfectly well that English semantics doesn't work in such a straightforward fashion. Otherwise we could make the analogy:

olive oil ---> oil made from olives
mineral oil ---> oil made from mineral sources
baby oil ---> oil made from ???

To demand literal usage of words like martial arts is to divorce oneself from the people that language is supposed to facilitate communication with in the first place. We use the terms in a way that is understood by most people. A martial art could be an art with martial origins or parentage, even if there is only superficial, depictive resemblance to true "martial skills". We've been over this on several threads already.