Proper title?

[isshinryuronin]

Wow, quite a discussion on titles. Some of the following has been touched upon by Chris Parker and Bill Mattocks, but I would like to highlight a couple of points, add a couple, and opine a little as well.

One of the problems is instructors being uninformed about their art and its history over the past decades and passing on their ignorance (probably not their fault) to their students. Another is ego or greed, instructors wanting to self-aggrandize (this is their fault) and giving themselves rank/titles, or as mentioned, joining associations that mutually pass out such things.

There was a time, less than a century ago, when karate had no dans. Renshi, Kyoshi and Hanshi were used to signify level of teaching licenses, originally given by a "non-denominational" committee of respected Okinawan masters. With the proliferation of styles and the lessening of central authority, such awards, including high rank, were handed out on a more "local" basis.

This last point has reached ridiculous proportions, IMO, as styles have fragmented into numerous organizations. My style is a good example of this. I find it regrettable, especially concerning the term "Soke." Many claim the title. Should a style have more than one? IMO, NO! I don't know who the first was to declare himself a "soke," in addition to Shimabuku Soke, (I've narrowed it down to two or three) but I'd like to give him a keri in the pants (just figuratively - these guys were tough.) If what that group teaches is different enough from the root style to have its own headmaster, change its name and declare a new style. While I disagree with the term "soke" in these instances, no disrespect of skill or dedication is meant for those holding this title.

Re: the term Sensei - Yes, it's just used to refer to a teacher. As to who can be called such in a given school, it's commonly up to the head instructor, or perhaps organization. In my Iaido dojo, one had to be 2nd degree, in my karate experience there has been no dan requirement. Bill's group seemingly has a different structure. OK. by me. While my master in Okinawa rates a red belt, he commonly wears plain black.

To me, all this is simply a matter of respect and humility.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I refer to my sensei even outside the dojo as 'sensei'. I think everyone does who is or was ever one of his students. It would feel very weird to me to address him by his given name. My wife calls him 'sensei' also. Many of us even refer to his wife as "Mrs. Sensei," although of course we all realize that's not correct. She, of course, calls him by his given name...

When my sensei asks me to do something, I say "Yes, sir," and I move quickly. That's probably the military training in me. He doesn't demand it, but I show that level of respect in the dojo and I hope it helps set an example for others.

I'm the same way with my primary instructor, even now (I haven't studied regularly under him for about 15 years). Somehow, it feels fine there, but I don't like it as much for myself. It's probably partly because of the very different approaches we take in how we train.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

basically, if someone joined before you, regardless of rank, they're your sempai... if you joined before them, regardless of rank, you're their sempai, and they're your kohai. Which means you can be higher rank, but still "junior" to someone, just because they joined before you

This is a usage note I wasn't aware of. An interesting bit of culture there.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Languages are fun... but I wouldn't describe "soke", "sensei" etc as "loan words". They're Japanese words being used in a Japanese context in relation to Japanese arts and Japanese application. That the people using them may be native English speakers really means little... they're not being used in English contexts. So it grates on myself when there is a lack of appreciation of the actual meaning as well... but I understand that the nuances get lost cross-culture, which leads to some rather... uh... less than accurate application.

Within styles that use very little Japanese, they become effectively loan words. NGA schools, for instance, typically have a couple dozen or so Japanese terms they've held onto. Nearly everything else is in English. I've learned over time that nearly every Japanese term we use is at least a little "wrong" by Japanese usage standards. They've just become the only terms we know for those things, so are effectively loan words at that point.

It's probably arguable that styles that still use a good bit of Japanese (especially those that know both Japanese and native terms for the same concepts), and those still linked back to Japan (so the terms they use are directly linked to Japanese usage), they're using them in a Japanese context.

Which brings up an interesting intellectual question: at what point does a word become a "loan word"?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You’re spot-on when you say usages change so why use them at all? We’re not Japanese and neither do we live in Japan (or wherever your art originates). Use ‘coach’ or… 🤔 ...’martial arts teacher-person’! OR…be absolutely accurate in their usage by reading-up or seeking guidance from a Japanese teacher. It’s not a ’gi’, it’s a ‘dogi’ or ‘keikogi’ OR ‘karoddy pyjamas‘!

In most of those cases, we have to use some word. If new folks have to learn the term, anyway, it doesn't much matter which they have to learn. I usually use NGA techniques as an example. Which means more to a brand new student: "kote gaeshi" or "front wrist throw". The latter has a couple of words they recognize, but I haven't found students link that term to the technique any better than folks who learn the Japanese term. And when the English term is too short ("The Drop") or too long ("2-hand Grip from the Rear, Throw to the Side"), the term is not very useful for communication, anyway - might as well be another language.

Same goes for things like "coach" ... I haven't been called that since my teens (when I coached kids' soccer). It's no less awkward to me than "master" (had a new student that used that for a while until he caught on). Any term feels odd until you get used to it, then none of them are.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My sensei is Japanese on his mother's side. He speaks Japanese.

In any case, the 'why use Japanese at all' argument isn't for me to decide. I'm a student and instructor at the dojo where I train, but it's not my dojo. If it was my dojo, I could make the rules. It isn't, so I cannot.

Even if I could, I like things the way they are and would not change them. I'm not even a little bit Japanese, but so what.

This is part of what I was getting at in another post. The new students will have to learn new terms, no matter what. The folks who aren't new already know the weird terms, so new ones would be weirder.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is a usage note I wasn't aware of. An interesting bit of culture there.

I always thought that the sempai / kohai roles were a bit more formal than just junior and senior. I have no authority on which to base this, but I thought the roles were more of a mentorship type thing. I am not a mentor to all my students, although I may be a role model (hopefully?). I have a student who I would consider my kohai, but none others at this time.

 

[Dirty Dog]

As others have pointed out, we almost certainly misuse at least some terms. In part I think this is due to not speaking the language, and in part because there are plenty of things in Korean (and I suspect other Asian languages) that simply have no direct translation, and you just have to do your best to convey the concept.
At one school, Sabumnim was used for the head instructor. Assistant Instructors were called Sabum. Now, in Korean, the -nim suffix is an honorific, used to signify respect. The closest literal translation of Sabumnim is "respected teacher". So calling the Assistant Instructor Sabum means 'teacher I don't respect'. Did it matter? No, not really. Within that school, people certainly were not trying to be disrespectful, and they knew what they meant by the terms.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I always thought that the sempai / kohai roles were a bit more formal than just junior and senior. I have no authority on which to base this, but I thought the roles were more of a mentorship type thing. I am not a mentor to all my students, although I may be a role model (hopefully?). I have a student who I would consider my kohai, but none others at this time.

That was my understanding, as well, and that (where rank existed of any sort), it would be respective of rank, not tenure.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That was my understanding, as well, and that (where rank existed of any sort), it would be respective of rank, not tenure.

I somehow had the idea that the kohai / sempai roles were also used outside of martial arts in Japan. Could be way wrong here.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, a bit to clarify and cover here...

Martial arts titles have always been very confusing to me and many times I've asked my own sensei what a particular title means. I have been "awarded" quite a few titles, most are still "head-scratchers" for me. My students often called me by my first name, which I was very comfortable with. And many called me Sir in class and some used that out of class.

Some years back in my semi retirement I found a school, in another state, and the grandmaster and I were the same rank, albeit in different arts. In class I called him "Sir" like everyone else. I just wanted a place to train and keep fit but he nevertheless registered me through Kukkiwan as a shodan in his TKD style. He became a dear friend and I sometimes taught specific skills at the school. He put my photograph on the wall among the other "official" school instructors and presented me with a - what he called a real - grandmaster's belt. Having moved again I do so miss the students and instructors there and of course "sir".

I studied/trained at another school owned by a friend but still called him Sir in class. Titles are a bit odd to me and it seems some of them are redundant. But the organizations I belong to, including USJA, have their own proprietary language.

This is likely a cultural thing, but I haven't heard of any school in Australia where calling anyone "sir" is considered normal, let alone standard... I've noticed on the boards that it seems to be an American thing, and is most prevalent in Korean arts. Not a positive or negative, of course, simply an observation that I find interesting as to the choices that different cultures use to express their concept of proper reigi (to introduce another Japanese term, ha!). Your first line is also rather interesting, considering your handle...

I’m big fan of the martial arts author, Dave Lowry. This chapter from his book, ‘Traditions’ is very interesting…

Traditions

The goals of the budo--the martial arts and Ways of Japan--lie in refining the body and spirit. The techniques, methods, and rituals of the budo can provide invaluable lessons for today's martial artists--and serve as guides to a well-lived life.In Traditions, Davy Lowry discusses unique aspects...

books.google.co.uk

Dave Lowry is one of the better writers around today concerning traditions and behaviour in Japanese arts explained for a Western (largely American) audience. His work is always highly recommended. He, like a few others (Ellis Amdur, for example), has almost equal time in modern arts (Aikido) and classical one (Yagyu Shinkage Ryu), giving him a wonderful overview of both approaches, as is evident in the essay linked.

What the essay's message is, to me, is based on the misunderstandings that can occur between cultures and generations... the fictional "Chief Instructor" didn't understand either context, and attempted to placate one while retaining another... and missed it entirely. As Dave says, it's fictional, but rather close to home for many such organisations... so a good warning for those who find themselves in this "in-between" situation.

I would ask how that applies to those of us who are simply students in a dojo, with no dynasty or directorships involved.

Are you sure that you're not...?

I'll put it this way: Japanese arts are not a democracy. They are a hierarchy, and are more related to a military structure than anything else. Even if you're just looking at your dojo, there is the instructor (sensei, hanshi, kyoshi, whatever term used), then there are the senior students and assistant instructors, then the intermediate students, then the beginners and juniors. And each have their own role, with the seniors guiding and, in a real way, protecting the juniors, the juniors listening and following the guidance, and attempting to adapt to the requirements of the school (in a way, giving over some of their personal ideals and sense of your own freedoms and choice), the teachers role is to transmit the teachings of the school... as a result, a teacher (in a dojo) can be seen as the "director", the dynasty then flows down through the seniors/assistant instructors, and so on... so, while the dojo might be friendly within it's membership, and the instructor might ask for input from others below them, at the end of the day, it's their dojo, it's their call...

The only way a "board" works is for organisational practices... maintaining standards across multiple locations, setting fees, that kind of thing. But, for the actual role of the dojo (imparting the schools teachings), it just doesn't work. It needs to be overseen by a single person, ideally at the top of the totem pole, as they have the best vantage point to see what needs to be taught when, and to who, and so on. This is the very reasoning of the whole iemoto/soke role in the first place.

Wow, quite a discussion on titles. Some of the following has been touched upon by Chris Parker and Bill Mattocks, but I would like to highlight a couple of points, add a couple, and opine a little as well.

Cool. I might then provide some more as well...

One of the problems is instructors being uninformed about their art and its history over the past decades and passing on their ignorance (probably not their fault) to their students. Another is ego or greed, instructors wanting to self-aggrandize (this is their fault) and giving themselves rank/titles, or as mentioned, joining associations that mutually pass out such things.

Absolutely agreed. I would add to that a degree a fair amount of apathy is a major factor... it's seen here all the time ("I'm not Japanese, why do I care how something is said, or used, or spelt"...). This factor, I feel, is the biggest issue... it then leads to the uninformed status of newer generations, as the previous one cared little, and took a very surface view of what they're actually training in, only caring if it "worked" (however they mean that), and losing a lot of important information relating to the subject itself, as well as allowing people to indulge in the ego aspect you're talking about... "You can't tell me how to use my own title, I can be whatever I say I am!" (an interesting case study is a notably problematic individual who, in the 70's, was a low/mid ranked karate-ka, created his own system of karate [that he misnamed, thinking he was calling it "The School of the Snake", but actually naming himself the "snake of the dojo"], gave himself the rank of 10th Dan, and the title of "Hanshi" [using the incorrect kanji], so he could then promote himself as the "highest ranked karate instructor in the US", and "the only 10th Dan ranked karate master", and so on... and the lack of education, due in no small part to the apathy in the community, was accepted as such. He has also done some atrocious "translations" of texts that he has no business even discussing, but that's another story...).

There was a time, less than a century ago, when karate had no dans. Renshi, Kyoshi and Hanshi were used to signify level of teaching licenses, originally given by a "non-denominational" committee of respected Okinawan masters. With the proliferation of styles and the lessening of central authority, such awards, including high rank, were handed out on a more "local" basis.

This is both correct, and a bit inaccurate... the first dan grades were awarded by Funakoshi around 1924, so we're just coming up on the 100 year anniversary (get the balloons ready!), however titles such as Renshi, Kyoshi, and Hanshi weren't used then either. For one thing, the title of Renshi didn't exist... it was originally called Seirensho, and would be renamed to Renshi around 1934. More importantly, karate was not considered a "Japanese" martial art, and was not brought into the Butokukai until the mid-1930's as well... so there's no reason for them to have used the titles of an association they were not a part of.

In fact, in the original application of such titles, the idea was that they came after dan grades were exhausted... the first set-up had dan ranks often going to Godan (5th dan) as a maximum... after which the shogo titles were used to differentiate seniority among the high ranked teachers. As a result, the shogo titles are an extension of the dan ranks, and would not have been employed prior to dan grades themselves. (Small note of interest... when Kano developed the application of dan grades, there were no kyu grades at all... they were developed for early kendo, without dan grades, to simply be the equivalent of dan in a different terminology so people would know what art was being referred to... it only took a couple of years until it was all restructured to make kyu grades the "student" ranks, and dan the "senior" ranks pretty much across the board...). But the point is that the dan (and kyu) came first... the first dan grade (in Judo) was in 1882/3, the first kyu grades (in kenjutsu, or gekken, later renamed "kendo") was in 1886... the first usage of Seirensho was in 1895, with Kyoshi and Hanshi coming into existence around 1902...

This last point has reached ridiculous proportions, IMO, as styles have fragmented into numerous organizations. My style is a good example of this. I find it regrettable, especially concerning the term "Soke." Many claim the title. Should a style have more than one? IMO, NO! I don't know who the first was to declare himself a "soke," in addition to Shimabuku Soke, (I've narrowed it down to two or three) but I'd like to give him a keri in the pants (just figuratively - these guys were tough.) If what that group teaches is different enough from the root style to have its own headmaster, change its name and declare a new style. While I disagree with the term "soke" in these instances, no disrespect of skill or dedication is meant for those holding this title.

There can only be one soke per system/branch... of course, if there are multiple branches, it is feasible that there could be multiple soke... but even there, most branches will acknowledge the soke as being the head of the "mainline", with others being shihanke or similar. Of course, there are always examples of multiple soke for (ostensibly) the same art... Tsutsui-soke is the soke of the "mainline" Takagi Ryu, Inoue-soke is the head of the Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Akimoto-soke the head of the Moto-ha Yoshin Ryu (itself a direct branch from the Hontai Yoshin Ryu), Hatsumi is the soke of the Mizuta-den Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Tanemura is the soke of the Ishitani-den Hontai Yoshin Ryu Takagi Ryu... these are all basically Takagi Ryu Jujutsu, with the separation within the last 3 generations (at most), but all are acknowledged as soke of their own lines. Then we have schools such as Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, with two different people claiming to be soke of the Seito (mainline) school... that particular case-study is quite involved, and obviously I have my own personal take on it, but it's not worth getting into here. This is leaving off schools where there is no soke (single head), such as Muso Shinden Ryu and Shindo Muso Ryu...

The biggest problem is the lack of understanding and appreciation of what soke actually refers to... the idea that it means "founder", for instance, is just wildly inaccurate... and leads to situations, such as we had here, where a person felt they were appointed as the head of a particular art in this country (Aikikai Aikido), so named themselves "soke"... a complete misrepresentation of the term, and one that lead to a great lessening of respect for that person in many circles, as it just came across as ego... or that it means "chief instructor", which is again, just inaccurate. The soke for Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, for instance, doesn't even train in the art, let alone teach it... instead, he appoints shihan to pass on the school. Then we have arts like Kashima Shinryu, where the soke hold the licensing authority, but the teaching is handled by the shihanke (Seki Humitake-sensei). So, the idea that the "best practitioner/teacher" is the soke, or that soke is even a technical rank, is completely off base as well... but that's how it is often seen, especially in the West, where "rank" equals "skill"... and "authority" equals "rank"... neither of which are the genuine case.

Re: the term Sensei - Yes, it's just used to refer to a teacher. As to who can be called such in a given school, it's commonly up to the head instructor, or perhaps organization. In my Iaido dojo, one had to be 2nd degree, in my karate experience there has been no dan requirement. Bill's group seemingly has a different structure. OK. by me. While my master in Okinawa rates a red belt, he commonly wears plain black.

To me, all this is simply a matter of respect and humility.

Yep, absolutely.

This is a usage note I wasn't aware of. An interesting bit of culture there.

Glad to help.

Within styles that use very little Japanese, they become effectively loan words. NGA schools, for instance, typically have a couple dozen or so Japanese terms they've held onto. Nearly everything else is in English. I've learned over time that nearly every Japanese term we use is at least a little "wrong" by Japanese usage standards. They've just become the only terms we know for those things, so are effectively loan words at that point.

I'd still disagree that they're "loan words"... but we'll get to that.

It's probably arguable that styles that still use a good bit of Japanese (especially those that know both Japanese and native terms for the same concepts), and those still linked back to Japan (so the terms they use are directly linked to Japanese usage), they're using them in a Japanese context.

Which brings up an interesting intellectual question: at what point does a word become a "loan word"?

Ah, now that's a good question.

A "loan word" is a word that originates in another language, but has become a part of the common lexicon of the new one, to the point that it's usage is understood by the majority of the second language's speakers. Examples would be "ciao", "aloha", ""grazie", and so forth. These examples have their own English equivalent, but some don't, such as "schadenfreude" from German, and are then classed as "imported concepts".

So, why would these imported Japanese terms (which can have English equivalents, as has been demonstrated) not be classed as "loan words"? Because they're not used in the context of English. I can greet someone at work by saying "ciao!", and it's understood in the context of greeting them, even if they don't speak Italian... but in a specialist situation, and culturally contextual area such as martial arts, such words are used in a Japanese context, even if the art has been removed from Japan for a while. They're explaining Japanese concepts, in a Japanese context, in a Japanese culturally-based environment.

I always thought that the sempai / kohai roles were a bit more formal than just junior and senior. I have no authority on which to base this, but I thought the roles were more of a mentorship type thing. I am not a mentor to all my students, although I may be a role model (hopefully?). I have a student who I would consider my kohai, but none others at this time.

Sempai/kohai relationships are not overly formal... they're ever-present, of course, but often just "under the surface". That said, they aren't as simplistic as "senior/junior", where there's a time or rank point where someone switches from one to the other... it's really about your relationship to others, in terms of how you interact with them. So, really, anyone who joined the dojo after you is your kohai... whether they're your student or not. What you may be getting at there is more what I would class as the "deshi" concept.

Essentially, "deshi" is a term for a student... while it technically applies to any student, regardless of how close they are, the most common application is of "apprentice", implying a closer relationship between the teacher and the particular student... there are other terms for students, each with their own implications (monkasei, uchideshi, etc), the main one to avoid is "gakusei", which basically implies a student at a school (high school, college/university etc). But, to look at a more "mentorship" role, deshi is closer to what you're describing. The only catch is that it also implies a personal student relationship... so if this is a junior student of your dojo, but not your personal student, then they're not your deshi either...

That was my understanding, as well, and that (where rank existed of any sort), it would be respective of rank, not tenure.

This is where it gets complicated, especially when a kohai is ranked above you... or your sempai is lower ranked... it can lead to a number of hierarchical problems, which can have senior practitioners leave when someone below them is promoted (often done quietly so as not to upset the dojo), and other situations. Of course, it can also be handled in-house in a number of ways that maintain everyone sense of face.

Where the problems arise is in the intersection of seniority, as we're now dealing with two different metrics... in simple terms, though, the higher ranked is still the higher ranked... but they need to be cognisant of the sempai/kohai relationship when dealing with people who would be their sempai... the sempai needs to be afforded respect, which means that they are within their rights to discuss things with the senior (ranked) person by approaching them as a senior... and they deserve the right to be heard... however, the higher rank is the one that can then make the decisions... it becomes a bit of a balancing act...

I somehow had the idea that the kohai / sempai roles were also used outside of martial arts in Japan. Could be way wrong here.

Nope, that's completely correct. It's most often expressed (and identified) in school, where your sempai are those in years above you, and kohai are those below you... but it also then extends throughout all Japanese social situations, including working in an office or other workplace, and so on. Probably the best way to think of it is as siblings... your older brother is always your older brother, even if you out-perform them financially and in finding success in life... but you'll always be their younger sibling.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So, why would these imported Japanese terms (which can have English equivalents, as has been demonstrated) not be classed as "loan words"? Because they're not used in the context of English. I can greet someone at work by saying "ciao!", and it's understood in the context of greeting them, even if they don't speak Italian... but in a specialist situation, and culturally contextual area such as martial arts, such words are used in a Japanese context, even if the art has been removed from Japan for a while. They're explaining Japanese concepts, in a Japanese context, in a Japanese culturally-based environment.

Good point. Some of them, however, aren't really explaining a Japanese concept any more. They're simply the names used for something that can also be described in English, but the Japanese term is the term of common use. "Shizentai" in NGA would be a good example. I have no idea what it means in a Japanese context, but it's used in NGA simply to mean "standing normally" (as opposed to being in a specific stance), and I assume that's at least related to the original meaning. The concept isn't Japanese (rather, not foreign to America), but the word origin is.

This is likely a cultural thing, but I haven't heard of any school in Australia where calling anyone "sir" is considered normal, let alone standard... I've noticed on the boards that it seems to be an American thing, and is most prevalent in Korean arts. Not a positive or negative, of course, simply an observation that I find interesting as to the choices that different cultures use to express their concept of proper reigi (to introduce another Japanese term, ha!). Your first line is also rather interesting, considering your handle...

It's pretty prevalent in Japanese arts in America, too - especially Karate and Judo, at least when I was involved in them. I think this is at least partly because much of the import of those arts came from armed service members who served in Japan after WWII, so were already used to calling people who outrank them "Sir". And it was also fairly common usage for polite speech in the US then (still exists, but less common), so it fit the formality.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey, Gerry.

Good point. Some of them, however, aren't really explaining a Japanese concept any more. They're simply the names used for something that can also be described in English, but the Japanese term is the term of common use. "Shizentai" in NGA would be a good example. I have no idea what it means in a Japanese context, but it's used in NGA simply to mean "standing normally" (as opposed to being in a specific stance), and I assume that's at least related to the original meaning. The concept isn't Japanese (rather, not foreign to America), but the word origin is.

Ah, but is it? Let's explore a bit...

I'm willing to bet that the shizentai position you use is likely an even stance, feet probably around shoulder width apart, or a bit closer, your hands held relatively relaxed either at your sides, or on your upper thighs, shoulders held back and relaxed, weight slightly towards your toes, head upright, perhaps with your chin slightly tucked in... overall, standing up straight, shoulders directly over your hips, hips directly over your heels/feet. Close?

This is often described as a "natural stance", or similar (for the record, the term means "natural [shizen] body [tai]"), although it's sometimes seen with one foot slightly in front, and the body somewhat angled... in Aikido terms, that's often named Hanmi (half [han] body [mi - implying more the torso than the entire of your physical being])... so I'm assuming you're differentiating it from that one. But the thing is, "natural" is a different thing from culture to culture... a "natural position" from a Japanese cultural understanding is actually a bit different to a "natural position" from a Western one, for a range of reasons. So, if you're teaching a Japanese-derived art, and you have something labelled as "natural position/body", then it behooves you to understand what that means culturally and contextually.

For example, in a Japanese sense, a "natural" way of standing will often be one of calm balance, taking up little space, without extending out in any direction. The hips tend to be kept relatively low (with a slight bend to the knees), as the movement form is done by driving with the hips. By contrast, a "natural" standing position to a Westerner will often be one of a shifted balance, with the weight held on one side of the other, as the power generation is often achieved by shifting the weight from one side to the other (the very Western "swagger"... think John Wayne, The Magnificent Seven, and so on). Hands are often held up closer to the hips, allowing for supporting your spine by bracing with your hand, whereas in Japanese approaches, that's not necessary.

There is also the influence of potential weaponry... the Western body position is influenced by the wearing of pistols or similar on the side of the hip, so the hands want to be close to that, and the shifted weight allows your hand to be closer to the weapon in order to access it faster... in Japanese culture, historically, the weapons would be also worn on the hips, but with the tsuka (handle) of the sword in towards the centreline of your body... as a result the aim is to bring the hands up directly along that centre position, which means that a more evenly weighted approach is required, as well as having the hands evenly placed and relaxed.

If you then look at how you move from that shizentai position, I'd suggest, if you're anything like most Aiki-derived arts, your first move is to bring your hands up centrally to engage with the incoming attack, as you step directly (commonly forward, but can be back, or even with a pivot), engaging the hips to drive the power in a direct line. This is only achievable, really, from this very Japanese position, one that exists because of the Japanese culture it comes from, and is defined by a Japanese term to describe it accurately.

So, while the idea of "natural", you may not think of as being "Japanese", the catch is that you're actually dealing with a Japanese expression of a particular concept... which probably has more far-reaching influence in what you do than you realise...

It's pretty prevalent in Japanese arts in America, too - especially Karate and Judo, at least when I was involved in them. I think this is at least partly because much of the import of those arts came from armed service members who served in Japan after WWII, so were already used to calling people who outrank them "Sir". And it was also fairly common usage for polite speech in the US then (still exists, but less common), so it fit the formality.

The early military membership bringing martial arts back from Okinawa and Japan after WWII explains that quite well... interesting! Thanks for the insight.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

This is likely a cultural thing, but I haven't heard of any school in Australia where calling anyone "sir" is considered normal, let alone standard... I've noticed on the boards that it seems to be an American thing, and is most prevalent in Korean arts. Not a positive or negative, of course, simply an observation that I find interesting as to the choices that different cultures use to express their concept of proper reigi (to introduce another Japanese term, ha!).

It's definitely a cultural thing. I can't speak for all the US, but in the northeast sir is a pretty common word to be used. If you're working in any professional capacity, that's typically the word you use to address a man who's name you don't know/can't easily look up (whether you're a cashier, security guard, IT worker, nurse etc.). It's also an easy way to get the attention of whoever's in charge in most activities. So it makes sense, culturally, to call the instructor of a MA sir in the dojo, as it's a polite identifier without much pomp.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hey, Gerry.



Ah, but is it? Let's explore a bit...

I'm willing to bet that the shizentai position you use is likely an even stance, feet probably around shoulder width apart, or a bit closer, your hands held relatively relaxed either at your sides, or on your upper thighs, shoulders held back and relaxed, weight slightly towards your toes, head upright, perhaps with your chin slightly tucked in... overall, standing up straight, shoulders directly over your hips, hips directly over your heels/feet. Close?

It's not nearly that defined. It's pretty much just not standing in any of the stances we teach, and not having a guard up. The general idea is there, though.

This is often described as a "natural stance", or similar (for the record, the term means "natural [shizen] body [tai]"), although it's sometimes seen with one foot slightly in front, and the body somewhat angled... in Aikido terms, that's often named Hanmi (half [han] body [mi - implying more the torso than the entire of your physical being])... so I'm assuming you're differentiating it from that one. But the thing is, "natural" is a different thing from culture to culture... a "natural position" from a Japanese cultural understanding is actually a bit different to a "natural position" from a Western one, for a range of reasons. So, if you're teaching a Japanese-derived art, and you have something labelled as "natural position/body", then it behooves you to understand what that means culturally and contextually.

That's rather my point. We don't teach it from that cultural context. It's just a shortcut for standing relaxed and not in any of our formalized stances. It doesn't carry any of the further description you give (except insofar as our approach to training ingrains those, so they become routine parts of standing). Some of the points you mention exist, but not in the concept of "shizentai" - they are within the concepts of movement (and, indeed, within the concepts of the formalized stances).

NGA (as taught in places I've seen it) is probably the most westernized of the aiki-derived arts. Indeed, in some areas some of the Japanese movement concepts blend with more western movement approaches. One of the most influential instructors from the early days of the art in the US was a golden gloves boxer first, and that influenced his movement and how he taught. Also, at the base of our movement, I believe there's a heavier Goju-ryu influence than is typically acknowledged (the person who brought it to the US - the only person who continued it after the founder's death - had rank in Goju before being exposed to NGA). I don't know enough about Goju to be certain or specific, but I suspect some of our difference from other aiki-derived arts comes from that influence.

The early military membership bringing martial arts back from Okinawa and Japan after WWII explains that quite well... interesting! Thanks for the insight.

Glad to contribute!

 

[isshinryuronin]

More importantly, karate was not considered a "Japanese" martial art, and was not brought into the Butokukai until the mid-1930's as well... so there's no reason for them to have used the titles of an association they were not a part of.

Aren't the above and below quotes contradictory?

first usage of Seirensho was in 1895, with Kyoshi and Hanshi coming into existence around 1902...

Some of the confusion/"inaccuracies" come from the fact that Okinawa and Japan were two different places karate wise, and followed somewhat different paths. And I tend to take an Okinawan perspective (OK to call me a Chauvinist). As you say, karate was not considered a "Japanese" art until the 1930's, even though Funakoshi (an Okinawan, but who by this time should be considered "Japanese" as far as karate is concerned) awarded the first black belt in 1924. It was an Okinawan art and they had their own way and identity, despite the presence of the Butoku Kai in mainland Japan (though Okinawans were represented.)

The breakdown of this organization during WWll perhaps contributed to Okinawa being slow to adopt the Japanese custom of dan/kyu, and only gradually came to widely use it after WWll, the process not really complete till the start of the 1950's. Prior to this, shogo titles were used.

But, I think, even these titles (and formal ranks) were not so important in the past (thus the lack of them till relatively "recent" times). The ingrained sense of respect, inherent in TMA, rendered an unvoiced, "unofficial" ranking system making materialistic belts and titles unnecessary. The hierarchy existed without them. The character, experience, knowledge and skill of the karate-ka told everyone all they needed to know.

The time period of 1920-1950 was very dynamic for TMA as new ways mixed with old, various specific karate styles evolved, MA organizations came and went, and the world itself changed. During this time period, masters of different styles met and worked together as MA brothers (more or less) with mutual respect, working for the common good of the (still small) karate community.

P.S. I agree, Chris, Dave Lowry is great at relating MA (and Japanese) culture in an entertaining anecdotal way. Also, thank you for the depth of knowledge you bring to this forum, and the serious discussion it generates.

 

[Buka]

In most of those cases, we have to use some word. If new folks have to learn the term, anyway, it doesn't much matter which they have to learn. I usually use NGA techniques as an example. Which means more to a brand new student: "kote gaeshi" or "front wrist throw". The latter has a couple of words they recognize, but I haven't found students link that term to the technique any better than folks who learn the Japanese term. And when the English term is too short ("The Drop") or too long ("2-hand Grip from the Rear, Throw to the Side"), the term is not very useful for communication, anyway - might as well be another language.

Same goes for things like "coach" ... I haven't been called that since my teens (when I coached kids' soccer). It's no less awkward to me than "master" (had a new student that used that for a while until he caught on). Any term feels odd until you get used to it, then none of them are.

I love being addressed as coach. If I could turn back the clock to my earliest teaching days, that's how I'd have students always address me.

I'm fortunate to have a lot of Martial friends back east, several of whom run dojos. They bust my balls so bad when I either teach there or stop in to visit. They'll have their students address me with titles I hate, and they know I hate them - my buddies, not their students - and they know how much it gets to me. Their students are doing just what their Instructor is telling them, and they're being very respectful.

Late in the night, when the students are leaving, I swear at my buddies and they laugh their butts off.

 

[Chris Parker]

It's definitely a cultural thing. I can't speak for all the US, but in the northeast sir is a pretty common word to be used. If you're working in any professional capacity, that's typically the word you use to address a man who's name you don't know/can't easily look up (whether you're a cashier, security guard, IT worker, nurse etc.). It's also an easy way to get the attention of whoever's in charge in most activities. So it makes sense, culturally, to call the instructor of a MA sir in the dojo, as it's a polite identifier without much pomp.

Ha, yeah, definitely a cultural thing... here, if you go around calling people you don't know "sir", you're often seen as being overly wiling to be subordinate to someone... not necessarily by elevating them, but more by lowering yourself. It is pretty much how we would imply a degree of pomp, really... to illustrate, I work in sales, and a few of my fellow salespeople tend to use the term "sir" when addressing anyone whose name they don't know yet (customers), mainly to be "professional"... but it doesn't really work, as it kinda comes across as trying to make the customer feel (undeservedly, in the customers mind) important, by being eager to lower themselves (the salesperson) below them. In other words, it smacks of false humbleness (not humility)... it's "putting on airs"... a deliberately exaggerated display... and can lead to a bit more of an awkward dynamic... my personal approach is somewhat different, ha!

But what's interesting is that these approaches are often far more informed by the culture of the person than, perhaps, even they realise... the more you're immersed in a culture, especially if it's the only one you've known, the harder it can be to recognise the influence it has on so much of your behaviour, action, word choice, and more. Within a culture, none of the cultural aspects merit much attention... they will seem perfectly normal, almost as if there's no other alternative that makes sense... and it's only by looking from outside it that you can see the cultural aspects with any clarity.

It's not nearly that defined. It's pretty much just not standing in any of the stances we teach, and not having a guard up. The general idea is there, though.

Assuming by "the general idea", you're saying that my description if relatively accurate, the question then becomes... where does that come from?

That's rather my point. We don't teach it from that cultural context.

Teaching the cultural context isn't overly common, so I'm not overly surprised by that... of course, that doesn't deny it's existence.

It's just a shortcut for standing relaxed and not in any of our formalized stances. It doesn't carry any of the further description you give (except insofar as our approach to training ingrains those, so they become routine parts of standing). Some of the points you mention exist, but not in the concept of "shizentai" - they are within the concepts of movement (and, indeed, within the concepts of the formalized stances).

So... by that reckoning, your movement is culturally influenced/based in Japanese concepts, which extend from the movement to even the "non-posture"? This is exactly what I was describing, for the record... cool.

NGA (as taught in places I've seen it) is probably the most westernized of the aiki-derived arts. Indeed, in some areas some of the Japanese movement concepts blend with more western movement approaches.

So, I've watched about three dozen videos of NGA, and to be honest, I don't see a lot of Western-derived movement... of course, I'm not seeing the whole system, so it's a limited observation, but I've tried to find as much "across the board" as I can find... some of the attacks are a bit more "Western", but not much more. Overwhelmingly, I see a lot of Aiki/Daito influenced/derived work, a good amount of Judo/Kano, and a bit of karate-based striking. Of course, this is purely an observation, not a critique or criticism, and obviously you'll know the system better than me.

One of the most influential instructors from the early days of the art in the US was a golden gloves boxer first, and that influenced his movement and how he taught.

Interesting. From the way you've described the organisation, how far do you feel that influence extended?

Also, at the base of our movement, I believe there's a heavier Goju-ryu influence than is typically acknowledged (the person who brought it to the US - the only person who continued it after the founder's death - had rank in Goju before being exposed to NGA). I don't know enough about Goju to be certain or specific, but I suspect some of our difference from other aiki-derived arts comes from that influence.

While the earlier training of someone can certainly have an influence on their expression of a later art, I feel that, if it's a major influence on the movement of a particular art, it becomes a new art... but that's a different discussion, of course.

Glad to contribute!

And thanks again!

Aren't the above and below quotes contradictory?

No... but I can see the confusion. I'll see if I can clear up what I was saying.

- The first Dan were awarded by Kano Jigoro in his new Kano Jujutsu around 1882/3 (after establishing it a couple of years earlier).
- In 1885, the first Kyu grades were awarded in Kenjutsu (later to be Kendo... not a specific ryu-ha. At this point, it basically referred to the Keishicho Police Kenjutsu, established around 1878). By 1887, Dan grades were adopted, with Kyu becoming "junior" grades.
- The Dai-Nippon Butokukai was then established in April, 1895, issuing the first Seirensho (later Renshi) in Kenjutsu in October.
- In 1902, the Butokukai created/established the further titles of Kyoshi and Hanshi, beginning to issue them from 1903.
- 1912, Funakoshi Gichin gives the first public demonstration in Japan.
- In 1916, a second demonstration series is held of Karate (known as Toudi or Te primarily).
- Funakoshi moves to Japan permanently in 1920.
- The first Dan grades in Karate are awarded by Funakoshi in 1924. Funakoshi also pushes the idea of changing the name to "Empty Hand" as opposed to "China Hand" in order to help the art assimilate into Japanese culture. There isn't a lot of support.
- In 1926, the name "Kendo" is officially adopted by the Tokyo Higher Normal school. This new name (taking over from kenjutsu and gekken [competition sword]) spreads around Japan.
- 1934 sees the title Seirensho changed to Renshi.
- 1936, the name of Karate is changed to "Empty Hand" as part of an effort to ingratiate it to Japanese society.
- 1937 adds the grade Rokudan (6th Dan) to the Butokukai.
- In 1942, the Butokukai comes under the control of military government, and the Kyoshi rank is renamed Tasshi (taken from the Tokyo Higher Normal schools creation of their own set of Shogo in 1930; Tokushi, Shushi, Tasshi).
- Following WWII, the Butokukai is forced to dissolve in 1946.
- The "spiritual successor" to the Butokukai, the Zen Nippon Kendo Renmei is formed in 1953, setting Dan ranks to Godan, with the Shogo titles to be awarded after that.
- Judo still (theoretically) ranked practitioners up to Judan (10th Dan), so in 1957, the ZNKR increased the upper limit to Judan as well.
- Finally, in 2000, the upper limit for rank is set to Hachidan (8th Dan), due to a number of factors, with Hanshi being the highest "rank" one could attain.

By contrast, karate's ranking history and usage of terminology/titles is basically as follows:

- Pre-introduction to Japan, there was no rank system, or title applied in Toudi/Te.
- In 1901, Toude is introduced to the school system in Okinawa, a trend that Japan would follow with Kendo and Judo some 6 years later. This is also the beginning of the "simplification" of Karate.
- 1912, Karate is introduced to Japan with demonstrations from Funakoshi Gichin. There are still no ranks or titles in Okinawan Karate, and no such thing as Karate in Japan (mainland).
- 1920, Funakoshi moves permanently to Japan, and begins to establish dojo. He continues the work of "simplifying" the art, removing much of the bunkai, as well as introducing jiyu kumite (sparring), at the request of his Japanese students (who were also students of Kendo and Judo).
- 1924, the first Dan grades are awarded. No titles are yet applied. No ranks or titles are used in Okinawa.
- Over the next 5 to 10 years, a number of other notable Okinawan Karate instructors move to Japan to establish dojo. Gradually, they also adopt the Dan grading system, as well as a variation of the Judogi and obi, and other trappings that are now familiar to karateka worldwide (bowing on entering the dojo, lining up in ranks, wearing a karate-gi, rank demonstrated by belt, and various Buddhist and Shinto aspects).
- 1936 sees a "meeting of the masters", where the efforts to raise Karate's popularity and acceptance in Japan lead to a number of changes, most notably changing the kanji to read "Empty Hand". At this point (in fact, even up to after WWII), Karate is seen by the majority of Japanese society as a "foreign" art, and is looked down as being suited for thugs and criminals.
- 1945 onwards sees the US Military occupation of Japan and the Ryukyu Islands, leading to increased exposure of Karate to the US servicemen and women.
- While the Shogo titles were being used, as Karate was still seen very much as a "foreign" art, they didn't use the titles until after WWII from anything I've been able to find... there is no definitive account of the original usage that I've been able to locate.

As you can see from this list, I was discussing both the development of the ranking and shogo titles, and comparing that with the development of ranks in karate, aiming to highlight that, no, karate did not use the title "Renshi" (or any other) prior to Dan grades... in fact, they would only apply those much later... as they simply didn't have ranks or titles at all... and "Renshi" didn't exist in any form.

Some of the confusion/"inaccuracies" come from the fact that Okinawa and Japan were two different places karate wise, and followed somewhat different paths.

While that's true, the inaccuracies I was mentioning stem from being, well, inaccurate.

Here's a really interesting read I quite enjoy covering a number of aspects of karate's history... it's a bit of a longer read, but definitely worth it: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=jca

And I tend to take an Okinawan perspective (OK to call me a Chauvinist). As you say, karate was not considered a "Japanese" art until the 1930's, even though Funakoshi (an Okinawan, but who by this time should be considered "Japanese" as far as karate is concerned) awarded the first black belt in 1924. It was an Okinawan art and they had their own way and identity, despite the presence of the Butoku Kai in mainland Japan (though Okinawans were represented.)

Well, yes... that's essentially what I said... of course, the Japanese acceptance of karate was even later, but essentially, it was being pushed as a "new" art in Japan in the 30's...

The breakdown of this organization during WWll perhaps contributed to Okinawa being slow to adopt the Japanese custom of dan/kyu, and only gradually came to widely use it after WWll, the process not really complete till the start of the 1950's. Prior to this, shogo titles were used.

I don't think that the breakdown of the Butokukai had much to do with it, honestly... it was more about an effort to bring themselves in line with the way the art was developing in Japan itself. But, no, they did not use shogo titles. I have found no evidence of them being used at all in Okinawa prior to the 50's, and multiple accounts (including in the dissertation linked above) emphasising that there were no ranks or titles in Okinawa at all.

But, I think, even these titles (and formal ranks) were not so important in the past (thus the lack of them till relatively "recent" times). The ingrained sense of respect, inherent in TMA, rendered an unvoiced, "unofficial" ranking system making materialistic belts and titles unnecessary. The hierarchy existed without them. The character, experience, knowledge and skill of the karate-ka told everyone all they needed to know.

Well, they weren't important mainly as they didn't exist... so there's that. Your observation of the ingrained sense of respect and relative status/position is pretty much correct... the Okinawan approach was far more "individualistic" than in Japan... so that lead to a very different structure for the teaching and developing a student's understanding and approach, with each student often having a very "personalised" education.

The time period of 1920-1950 was very dynamic for TMA as new ways mixed with old, various specific karate styles evolved, MA organizations came and went, and the world itself changed. During this time period, masters of different styles met and worked together as MA brothers (more or less) with mutual respect, working for the common good of the (still small) karate community.

The majority of that development stemmed from various masters emigrating to Japan from Okinawa, and an Okinawan response to these Japanese trends. Of course, much of what are now considered "Traditional Martial Arts" were created in that time period (and just after) as well.

P.S. I agree, Chris, Dave Lowry is great at relating MA (and Japanese) culture in an entertaining anecdotal way. Also, thank you for the depth of knowledge you bring to this forum, and the serious discussion it generates.

No problem. Thanks for your serious approach to the arts as well... always appreciated.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So, I've watched about three dozen videos of NGA, and to be honest, I don't see a lot of Western-derived movement... of course, I'm not seeing the whole system, so it's a limited observation, but I've tried to find as much "across the board" as I can find... some of the attacks are a bit more "Western", but not much more. Overwhelmingly, I see a lot of Aiki/Daito influenced/derived work, a good amount of Judo/Kano, and a bit of karate-based striking. Of course, this is purely an observation, not a critique or criticism, and obviously you'll know the system better than me.

Most of what you can find on the internet is going to be the grappling techniques, which are as you describe (as is the movement). They are also largely from one side of NGA, where I see less westernization in the movement. The branch evolved under Steven Weber shows more influence from boxing (he was a boxer before he got into JMA), though not consistently so. It's a matter of relative influence compared to other styles, rather than anything huge.

All that said, what I was referring to about it being westernized is the loss/degredation of Japanese cultural elements. Our bows are less formal, we have very little Japanese language, there's no real shomen to most schools (just a semblance of one, but classes don't orient to it as I've seen in other arts), and frankly the bowing is both informal and a bit sloppy compared to what you'd see, for instance, in Aikido. And the understanding of the Japanese concepts (aiki for one) is much departed from the origin.

 

[geezer]

Our KJN is very Korean, so in class he expects me to be called Master or Sabumnim or Sir. All Dan holders are Sir or M'am. Kids call all adults Sir or M'am. Outside of class, I'm Mark. And frankly I've never once "corrected" anyone who didn't use titles in class. It's just not something I consider all that important.

Juan, my gardener is very Mexican, so ...on the job he always addresses me as Don. Probably because I'm paying him, and I'm a lot older, ...and I'm a teacher ... and in the village he came from that was considered high status. Not like here in Arizona. Here teachers are nobody. But I gotta admit being called Don Esteban makes me feel important ...like el mero patrón. Also, sometimes he calls me maestro. That´s sounds good too.

My WC students call me Sifu, although with Escrima, I'm leaning a bit more toward coach these days. As long as it's honest, and there's mutual respect, it really doesn't matter too much to me.