Proper title?

isshinryuronin

Master of Arts
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
1,871
Reaction score
2,032
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
This doctoral dissertation was interesting. Thanks for posting it. It brought up some good cultural considerations and questions. That said, I have some comments regarding a few (6) of the author's points, addressed in the order they appear.

1. Following the Satsuma invasion (1609), "...there were many routes for Japanese martial art practice and implementation to enter the Okinawan culture and lead to the development of te..."

Two issues here: The first is that the use of the word "culture" implies a widespread commonality, while, in fact, (at least by early 1800's) much of MA knowledge was restricted to what should be called a "subculture" of the Peichin and/or military. The second is regarding "te," the indigenous fighting style of Okinawa. While he correctly hints that various S.E. Asian influences likely made their way to Okinawa, I believe there is little/no evidence how much of it was Japanese. For that matter, we really don't know much of what te actually was!

2. Concerning the Japanization of karate, "The system was reduced to punches, blocks, kicks and weapons." Kobudo, as an integral part of karate, especially Japanese Shotokan, was mostly a fairly recent recent thing, post-dating most of Funakoshi's efforts in Japan, really starting to be a thing thanks to Taira Shinken, the Okinawan "collector" of traditional weapons kata. While several masters, including Funakoshi, were trained in weapons, their teaching was mostly a separate track from karate.

3. Funakoshi was instrumental in organizing Japanese university karate clubs, whose members, according to one of his students, "...knew only kata, it was the only thing Master Funakoshi taught them...we all really needed the combative aspect that karate lacked." So, competitive sparring was introduced. "This presented a departure from the kata centric nature of karate as performed in Okinawa until that time."

Japan lacked the combative aspect, due to its now public education focus - it was much alive in Okinawa. What was missing in Okinawa was the competitive sport aspect. Rigorous two-man combative drills were still a staple there.

4. "Is karate then, as practiced in Japan, a Japanese martial art, rather than an Okinawan martial art?...then, can the karate conducted in the USA be considered an American martial art?" Good question.

To answer it, I'd propose the following consideration. There is no doubt Okinawa made its mark having originated karate. Japan made its mark as well, adding the "do" to it by incorporating more philosophical elements, making it into a sport and adding structure and curriculum. Has America contributed enough to karate as practiced here to call it an American martial art? IMO, this is debatable.

5. A working thesis of the article is, "...that karate coming to be practiced in Japan was a process of negotiation." In other words, Okinawa did not impose it on Japan, nor did Japan expropriate it. For reasons well explained in the article, it was a two way street for mutual benefit. What was not mentioned was that the Okinawan masters were not homogenous in their opinion of this negotiation. Some of them who initially supported it later lamented the changes the Japanization of karate effected, seeing Okinawan karate "modernized" into a lessor thing from their viewpoint.

6. I was struck by the fact that the author's long list of references is much lacking in the writings of Japanese and especially Okinawan masters who actually played a part in all this.

Many of these points can be topics for further discussion or debate. I did not intend here to criticize this work - it was a worthy effort - but to critique several points where I felt not enough "completeness" of the thought was included. But, then again, views of the art (even mine ;)) are subjective.
 

frank raud

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
696
Location
Ottawa, ON
Recently saw a facebook post where someone referred to his instructors as Shihan Hanshi "X" and Shihan Hanshi "Y". Have never seen double titles used before, and thought this belonged here as a no no.

In the Facebook post, instructors are not referred to as X and Y. I left their names out as it is not relevant to the point I was making about the double titles.
 

isshinryuronin

Master of Arts
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
1,871
Reaction score
2,032
Yes, titles can be very confusing, compounded by individuals/groups who appropriate such terms without really understanding their significance, or worse yet, bestow these titles on themselves, which completely renders them meaningless.

The best I can explain them in terms of my understanding is as follows:

Hanshi, along with Kyoshi and Renshi, are Shogo titles, awarded by the style's master or organization (or a broader quasi-governmental body) as a ranking of teaching recognition and authority to promote. (Hanshi being the highest and Renshi being the lowest.) These titles are awarded with age, rank, and time-in-grade in mind, but are not fully dependent on any one of these considerations.

(Side note) - One often sees stripes on a black belt denoting dan rank. Looks very impressive on a higher dan's obi, like an admiral in the royal navy. But, if you see an older black belt that everyone defers to and yet has only 1, 2, or 3 gold stripes on his belt, be aware that these stripes are not showing low dan rank! A number of traditional Okinawan styles do not use belt stripes for dan rank, but rather to show Shogo level. One gold stripe indicating Renshi (the wearer possibly being a 5 dan) and three gold stripes denoting Hanshi (likely an 8 or 9 dan. Do not confuse this guy with a lowly third degree.)

Shihan seems to be a more general and less formal term of respect to an esteemed sensei. I am not aware of any certificate or license that is given out "bestowing" such a title, unlike the Shogo titles described above. I personally see little use for it. The esteemed sensei I know are happy with just being called "sensei."

The Shogo titles are NOT used as a form of address when speaking to one who holds it. As for "Shihan," I have heard it used as a form of address, but not sure if that's the rule. It may be just something the speaker chooses to use to show respect to a particular sensei. A sensei would never require its use, however.
 
Last edited:

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
29,976
Reaction score
10,535
Location
Hendersonville, NC
Yes, titles can be very confusing, compounded by individuals/groups who appropriate such terms without really understanding their significance, or worse yet, bestow these titles on themselves, which completely renders them meaningless.

The best I can explain them in terms of my understanding is as follows:

Hanshi, along with Kyoshi and Renshi, are Shogo titles, awarded by the style's master or organization (or a broader quasi-governmental body) as a ranking of teaching recognition and authority to promote. (Hanshi being the highest and Renshi being the lowest.) These titles are awarded with age, rank, and time-in-grade in mind, but are not fully dependent on any one of these considerations.

(Side note) - One often sees stripes on a black belt denoting dan rank. Looks very impressive on a higher dan's obi, like an admiral in the royal navy. But, if you see an older black belt that everyone defers to and yet has only 1, 2, or 3 gold stripes on his belt, be aware that these stripes are not showing low dan rank! A number of traditional Okinawan styles do not use belt stripes for dan rank, but rather to show Shogo level. One gold stripe indicating Renshi (the wearer possibly being a 5 dan) and three gold stripes denoting Hanshi (likely an 8 or 9 dan. Do not confuse this guy with a lowly third degree.)

Shihan seems to be a more general and less formal term of respect to an esteemed sensei. I am not aware of any certificate or license that is given out "bestowing" such a title, unlike the Shogo titles described above. I personally see little use for it. The esteemed sensei I know are happy with just being called "sensei."

The Shogo titles are NOT used as a form of address when speaking to one who holds it. As for "Shihan," I have heard it used as a form of address, but not sure if that's the rule. It may be just something the speaker chooses to use to show respect to a particular sensei. A sensei would never require its use, however.
The limited places I've seen "shihan" used, it was used as sort of an elevated form of "sensei" (sometimes to denote instructors whose focus is on developing instructors, rather than general students), and "sensei" was seen as appropriate for them, as well.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,920
Reaction score
7,475
Location
Covington, WA
Which brings up an interesting intellectual question: at what point does a word become a "loan word"?
Pretty much as soon as the term is used by people to refer to something derived from or evolved from the original term. If you are training with a bunch of dudes in whoville aim a native whovillesque fighting style, and you use a term, it is not a loan word. However, the point where you bring that style back to your native land, start your own offshoot of the style and teach it to people who are not whovillites, it’s no longer the original style.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,920
Reaction score
7,475
Location
Covington, WA
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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



And thanks again!



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.



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



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...



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.



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 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.



No problem. Thanks for your serious approach to the arts as well... always appreciated.
It might have more to do with being a sales person than whether sir is being used. You do have a very polished sales pitch.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,920
Reaction score
7,475
Location
Covington, WA
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. :p

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. :)
I like this. Sometimes honorifics, titles or whatever are more about making the other person comfortable than you. In some cases, it’s a lot of trouble to get people to not use a term, and it can end up being more awkward than if you just ignore it.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,920
Reaction score
7,475
Location
Covington, WA
Interestingly, I came across this, very relevant article on martisl art’s language.
I really enjoyed this article, though it was a little long to read before my first cup of coffee. :) It's a slightly different conclusion on the same phenomenon I had mentioned. High level, what he and some of the people in his comments are referring to, by wanting to learn Japanese and better understand the origin of the loaned terms, is authenticity. A lot of conflict stem from folks who argue that their TKD is authentic, even though it is no longer closely associated with a Korean organization.

I will also add that I see no issue with styles that are not authentic, provided it's not disrespectful. This idea some seem to have that styles that are more authentic are somehow better is just silly. This seems to be a very big deal in some (not all) CMA and JMA. I don't know, but am curious whether it's a bigger deal to those who aren't Chinese or Japanese training in their respective countries, more concerned with being authentic.
 
Last edited:

Gyakuto

Senior Master
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2020
Messages
2,176
Reaction score
1,780
Location
UK
It seems that ‘ancient’ MA, that is, those founded in excess of, say, 100 years ago, seem to be more accepted as ‘authentic‘ than newer arts. It’s like saying an old single malt whisky is better than a blend of newer spirits. I knew a ‘professor of Whisky’ from Herriot Watt University who said this was cobblers!
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,920
Reaction score
7,475
Location
Covington, WA
It seems that ‘ancient’ MA, that is, those founded in excess of, say, 100 years ago, seem to be more accepted as ‘authentic‘ than newer arts. It’s like saying an old single malt whisky is better than a blend of newer spirits. I knew a ‘professor of Whisky’ from Herriot Watt University who said this was cobblers!
Better or worse in whiskey/whisky is very subjective. To the topic at hand, though, it would be like making a single malt scotch... in Washington State. Micro-distilleries are popping up all over the place in the USA. I got the impression when we were traipsing around the UK a few years ago, that it's the same over there. I was astounded at the sheer variety of gin available, which is a reasonable place to start as gin is much faster to produce. Often, a new distillery will cut their teeth with white liquors while they build an inventory (and some skill) distilling brown liquors that take time.

But I digress. Back to the point, when an American distillery brews a single malt, like the Westland flagship one here that I really like, it isn't scotch. It might be more or less authentic to a scotch, but because it's not distilled in Scotland, it will never be "scotch."
 

Latest Discussions

Top