What defines "Traditional"?

[Bob Hubbard]

What is a "Traditional" art?
What makes an art a traditional one, and what makes an art a modern one?
Can an art be both traditional and modern, or are the terms mutually exclusive?


What is the "Traditional" way of finding a teacher?
....gaining acceptance?
....developing mastery?
....gaining promotion?
....becoming a leader?
....becoming -the- master?


People have long argued over the term 'traditional'. I think....it needs to be defined.



So, any one up for what promises to be a possibly heated topic?

 

[exile]

What defines `traditional?' Mass consensus, I'd say.

Take Taekwondo. These are the facts: a massive review of its history, based on the work of Burdick, Henning, Capener, and a number of other historians basing their conclusions on what evidence exists rather than romantic longings and fantasies, has established that at the time the Kwan founders went off to Tokyo to learn MAs, there was nothing being taught in Korea that was remotely connected with anything particularly ancient in the way of fighting arts on the Korean peninsula, or even harmless foot-wrestling games popular in the early-to-mid 19th c. The only arts practiced in secret in the hills, by this point, were probably Japanese—the jiujutsu that was taught by Japanese MAists in occupied Korea around the turn of the century, but then forbidden during the teens and 20s as the Japanese sought increasingly to disarm their subject colonies as part of the increasing militarization of attitudes on the main islands. The Kwan founders went to Japan in the 30s, came back with Shotokan and Shudokan karate and tried to open dojangs during the war, and finally managed to during the Korean War era. It was at this point that what is often called `traditional' TKD was born (see, for example, Doug Cook's recent book, titled... what a surprise! ... Traditional Taekwondo). But what is traditional about it? It was a Koreanization of Japanese modifications of an Okinawan synthesis of indigenous te grappling/manipulation techniques, samurai budo practice and Chinese chuanfa, itself no older than Bushi Matsumura and already seriously modified by Gichin Funakoshi, Choki Motobu and other expat Okinawan karateka in Japan. And by the early and middle 60s, `traditional' TKD was already undergoing modification, under pressure from anti-Japanese attitudes and international sporting ambitions, in the direction of the martial sport—radically distinct from anything like an effective combat art—that would culminate in Olympic TKD.

A similar story can be told for Japanese karate. And cases like this make me wonder just what useful semantic content the term `traditional' conveys. I see the word as, potentially, a potent component of the mystification rampant in the MAs, with phony, completely invented lineages and flim-flam based on bad etymologies, bad history and fantasy-based agendas.

But maybe this isn't all that surprising. A lot of things in a lot of other domains are regarded as `traditional' which turn out to be relatively recent inventions or innovations. I suspect `traditional' is mostly a marketing term, intended to make us feel good about something someone else is trying to sell. Caveat emptor.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Today's "Traditional" is yesterday's "Modern" and todays' Modern is tomorrow's Traditional. History is a continuum that is constantly moving forward. Those are terms of distinction without difference that seem important to some today but in a decade will seem a bit blurred and in a century will seem inseperable

Everythng you hold dear as 'where I have arrived' will soon by nostalgia or even naivette.

 

[MJS]

Traditional

1 a

: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable <the bulk of traditions attributed to the Prophet -- J. L. Esposito>
2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4 : characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>

Modern

1 a

: of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : [SIZE=-1]CONTEMPORARY[/SIZE] b : of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time
2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : [SIZE=-1]UP-TO-DATE[/SIZE]
3 capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the present or most recent period of development of a language
4 : of or relating to modernism : [SIZE=-1]MODERNIST[/SIZE]

Going off of these I'd say that a traditional art is one that has not changed and does not accept change. Things are set in stone, so to speak. A modern art is one that has made changes, accepts change and is up to speed with the current times.

Can an art be both? I'd say yes. If you kept the original foundation of doing things but used that to update a move, technique, etc., you would have both. Many traditional arts tend to be rigid in their stances. You could take the basic idea of that stance, making it more relaxed therefore making it modern.

Mike

 

[Andrew Green]

What is a "Traditional" art?

In the context of martial arts, and how it is generally thought of, I'd say it has more to do with the mindset it is approached with then anything.

An art can be 5 years old, and follow the "traditional" pattern. Techniques and training methods are set, curriculum well defined, things don't change much.

It can also be 100 years old and non-traditional. Wrestling or boxing for example follow that non-traditional pattern.

And for a lot of people it really comes down to Traditional = Asian, which is kind of odd, but in conversation usually that seems to be what it comes down too.

Personally I think it is a poor way of dividing martial arts as a whole. SPecific arts ok, you can have traditional karate vs sport karate. But where does Wrestling, a very old, very traditional sport, but doesn't fit the "traditional" framework as most people mean it?

Of course you can have traditional wrestling vs non-tradiotional (pro), but the term traditional means different things in different systems, I don't think it can be applied across martial arts as a whole.

 

[jks9199]

Well... When I was at VMI, we learned that "traditional" was anything done once in a row!

I'd say that the differentiation between "traditional" and "non-traditional" martial arts is format and structure. Non-traditional training is less structured and less formalized; it ofen lacks any sort of ranking system, and it's often less consistent across schools or gyms in how it's practiced. Traditional martial arts are much more consistent across the style (one TKD or BBT or Shotokan school is much like another), and has a more formalized ranking structure -- even if there are few external trappings of that rank.

Of course, I think it's a safe bet that if the only guy teaching it is the guy who invented it... It's not traditional. LOL

 

[Bob Hubbard]

How old does something have to be to be 'traditional'?

 

[exile]

SPecific arts ok, you can have traditional karate vs sport karate.

I think the distinction is often used this way. But really, what's being contrasted is SD-oriented vs. competition-oriented.

The way it actually does work leads to some odd consequences. Take stances. We think of low stances in karate as being traditional, with the high stances of say Olympic TKD being an illustration of `modern' changes because of competition practice. But actually, it's the high stances that were part of the traditional `rootstock' of karate, the Okinawan styles. It was in Japan that the vogue for very low stances in kata performance took hold; in that respect, the modern hight competition TKD and sport karate stances have more in common with the older Okinawan practice than the standard Shotokan style does. That kind of thing nicely illustrates the seriously deceptive nature of the way the `traditional/modern' distinction works...

 

[Andrew Green]

I think the distinction is often used this way. But really, what's being contrasted is SD-oriented vs. competition-oriented.

yup, in karate, not just competition, you also get the McDojo variaties as well.

But SD vs Competition isn't it, because those RBSD guys running around in combat boots and camo pants that make the Lone Gunmen seem tame when it comes to paranoia are certainly not traditional

 

[tshadowchaser]

being accepted into a school by the master then "paying your dues" for a long time before you even start to learn.
Blood, sweet, and tears are/where all part of the learning as well as pain and long long time in stances till you could not do them wrong if you tried.
Rank came by when the master decided it did and that was never fast.
You earned the respect of your brothers/sisters through hard training and dedication to the system
Cleaning the floors of the school or cleaning around the masters house was all a part of being in the school
Your pride came from the knowledge you gained and the comradeship of your elders, and the occasional smile of the master
You practiced hard and long and did not brag to the world how great you where

just a couple of the things that I think of as traditional

 

[Steel Tiger]

How old does something have to be to be 'traditional'?

How old does something have to be before it is considered traditional? I don't know, maybe one generation of unchanged content. I'm qualifying this with "unchanged content" because the definition of tradition mentions only,

"the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, etc from generation to generation esp. by word of mouth or by practice."

There is no requirement for the information to remain unchanged. However, in the MA world it is generally understood that traditional suggests unchanged or perhaps even unchanging.

Now, coming from a traditional CMA which is based on the Yi Jing (Book of Changes)I find the idea of unchanging a little strange. What I teach has the same content as what my teacher taught me but it is not the same. My teachers school is called Yu Shi Dao (Jade Snake Way), my school is called Bai Hu Dao (White Tiger Way). They aren't the same because my teacher and I are different people, physically and mentally.

There also seems to be a general trend toward the ancient. In the MA world old is better, seemingly. Its not true of course, but it sells memberships if people think they are gaining the wisdom of the ancients. Traditional is usually equated to old. And something old is stronger. Stronger is more legitimate and speaks with greater authority. As Exile pointed out traditional TKD is considered to be from about the early '50s, the time of the fearsome TKD used during the Korean War. Bob asked how old does something have to be to be traditional, well about 50 years it seems.

My own art bagua is a very good example of a MA being connected to something very old to give it credibility and authority. The modern form of bagua is probably no more than 200-300 years old but it is connected to the Yi Jing (Book of Changes) is probably at least 2500 years old. Now that's authority!

I hope that this didn't ramble too much to be followed.

 

[exile]

How old does something have to be before it is considered traditional? I don't know, maybe one generation of unchanged content. I'm qualifying this with "unchanged content" because the definition of tradition mentions only,

"the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, etc from generation to generation esp. by word of mouth or by practice."

There is no requirement for the information to remain unchanged. However, in the MA world it is generally understood that traditional suggests unchanged or perhaps even unchanging.

You're right, ST. A little bit of continuity in transmission goes a long way. In the West, nothing seems to endure for much longer than a decade; after that, it becomes too unexciting to go on with. So a whole generation of something, even modified, which is then transmitted to the next generation... that is very unusual.

Now, coming from a traditional CMA which is based on the Yi Jing (Book of Changes)I find the idea of unchanging a little strange. What I teach has the same content as what my teacher taught me but it is not the same. My teachers school is called Yu Shi Dao (Jade Snake Way), my school is called Bai Hu Dao (White Tiger Way). They aren't the same because my teacher and I are different people, physically and mentally.

There also seems to be a general trend toward the ancient. In the MA world old is better, seemingly. Its not true of course, but it sells memberships if people think they are gaining the wisdom of the ancients. Traditional is usually equated to old. And something old is stronger. Stronger is more legitimate and speaks with greater authority.

I'm wondering, in view of what you're saying, to what extent the view we in the West have of `traditional' isn't really skewed by the kind of implicit militarism of Japanese karate, which is in some ways the paradigm Asian MA we think of. I supect the Chinese take on this is very different—maybe (quite?) a bit more experimental and `bottom-up' as vs. the `top-down' model of karate that incorporates all that feudal mystification (which we probably find so appealing because of the resonances that Japanese feudalism—warlords, castles, gentry-warriors, heraldry, cult-of-the-sword, fealty-unto-death, etc. etc.—find in our own romantic invocations of heroic mediævalism).

As Exile pointed out traditional TKD is considered to be from about the early '50s, the time of the fearsome TKD used during the Korean War. Bob asked how old does something have to be to be traditional, well about 50 years it seems.

Two generations, in short. Yes. You don't actually see the thing in one generation. But two generations gives you that sense of eternal history! That seems on the right track.

My own art bagua is a very good example of a MA being connected to something very old to give it credibility and authority. The modern form of bagua is probably no more than 200-300 years old but it is connected to the Yi Jing (Book of Changes) is probably at least 2500 years old. Now that's authority!

It's damned hard to find anything that's genuinely three centuries old in the MAs. So bagua has about as good a claim as can be imagined, practically speaking.

I hope that this didn't ramble too much to be followed.

Didn't ramble at all, ST! Right on target, IMO...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

so, something younger than my son (he's 16 btw) wouldn't be "traditional"?



What about forms and techniques? Would that define the differences?
I dunno.
Traditional arts have patterns and forms.
But, so do modern arts. I've seen enough grappling, catch-wrestling, and BJ to see they too have patterns and forms. They are just much shorter, and less 'refined'. String together 10 or so of those techniques though, and suddenly, you have a 'form'...just like in a traditional art.

Interesting, ne?

 

[Steel Tiger]

I'm wondering, in view of what you're saying, to what extent the view we in the West have of `traditional' isn't really skewed by the kind of implicit militarism of Japanese karate, which is in some ways the paradigm Asian MA we think of. I supect the Chinese take on this is very different—maybe (quite?) a bit more experimental and `bottom-up' as vs. the `top-down' model of karate that incorporates all that feudal mystification (which we probably find so appealing because of the resonances that Japanese feudalism—warlords, castles, gentry-warriors, heraldry, cult-of-the-sword, fealty-unto-death, etc. etc.—find in our own romantic invocations of heroic mediævalism).

I think our perception of a 'traditional' Asian art is more than just skewed by, not just Karate, but all the gi-wearing Japanese arts (ie not including sumo which has a rather different cultural position and emphasis). It is a positive taint which has been reinforced time and again by film and media. Such arts were really the first to which a wider western audience was exposed. Just recently I watched Enter the Dragon again. It was strange to see a film about essentially Chinese characters and Chinese martial arts so full of karate gis.

The whole perception of traditional MAs as being serene endeavours that take place in beautiful teak buildings with rows of young students in perfect unison has its basis in Japan (and even there this is the perfect pipedream). But that is the image that is so often used to portray a traditional MA.

I think you are right this taps into a desire for heroic medievalism, both European and Japanese. Those wonderful stories of Roland and Musashi fighting one against many but are ultimately successful because of their martial prowess.

Its easy to forget the truth in face of these forces. In China most skilled martial artists were not serene school masters, they were hard men who sought to test their skills against others, through challenges and security-style work. There is a certain degree of romantic appeal in this but not nearly enough. So those traditions are forgotten in favour of more appealing constructs.

Yes, I think that we, in the western world, have thoroughly accepted a samurai-influenced paradigm of traditional martial arts. But I also think that this is changing and other views or traditions are re-emerging.

 

[qi-tah]

My own art bagua is a very good example of a MA being connected to something very old to give it credibility and authority. The modern form of bagua is probably no more than 200-300 years old but it is connected to the Yi Jing (Book of Changes) is probably at least 2500 years old. Now that's authority!

I hope that this didn't ramble too much to be followed.

The thing i find interesting about ba gua is that it's founder, Dong Hai Chuan, taught a different vesion of it to each of his students, which in turn tailored thier teaching to their students etc. So the art evoled before even one generation was past. So far i've been taught three different "old 8 palms" sets which are all classified under Cheng style ba gua - and the differences between them seem quite substantial too.

I guess the CMA thing would look really very codified and unchanging from the outside looking in... all those forms! But the forms are really just the shell to contain the goodies, ie. the apps. If you start messing about with the apps a little then you start to get preferences for certain combinations, and all of a sudden you start vaguing out in forms and somehow splicing two different forms together without thinking. Very embarassing in class, but it's all part and parcel of cracking the shell i guess. The longer i train, the more i realise how fluid, even informal CMA can actually be.

Ack... sorry about digression... so would i consider ba gua a "traditional" MA? Sure. As ST points out, it's about cultural links. Ba gua is just another branch on a tree with pretty deep roots.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

They both have these two qualities but place the emphasis on one.

Traditional=Philosophy then science
Modern=Science then philosophy

I think.
The old ways are the old ways no matter what martial art you take.

 

[Steel Tiger]

so, something younger than my son (he's 16 btw) wouldn't be "traditional"?



What about forms and techniques? Would that define the differences?
I dunno.
Traditional arts have patterns and forms.
But, so do modern arts. I've seen enough grappling, catch-wrestling, and BJ to see they too have patterns and forms. They are just much shorter, and less 'refined'. String together 10 or so of those techniques though, and suddenly, you have a 'form'...just like in a traditional art.

Interesting, ne?

Forms and techniques? For sure they are an important defining aspect of traditional MAs. I think that modern arts are in the process of developing their traditions. BJ is a traditional Japanese art which has left behind many of its older aspects. The one I find interesting is MMA. The many schools teaching this 'style' are in the process of putting together the training techniques and 'forms' that in 50 or 60 years will be part of the tradition of the art.

I don't think this process can be avoided. Its part of the way we humans learn and pass on information, especially physical knowledge. I have a number of very old Chinese manuals which border on the incomprehensible because I do not follow the traditional learning practices that were prevalent when they were written (there also may be some problems with translation). The knowledge was different so the approach was different. It is the same for traditional and modern arts now, they approach the same thing in a different way.

 

[MJS]

How old does something have to be to be 'traditional'?

I would say OLD!! Looking at my description, one quote states that its something that has been passed down from generation to generation. There are traditions that my family has on the holidays. These are things that have been happening since my Mom was a child.

so, something younger than my son (he's 16 btw) wouldn't be "traditional"?



What about forms and techniques? Would that define the differences?
I dunno.
Traditional arts have patterns and forms.
But, so do modern arts. I've seen enough grappling, catch-wrestling, and BJ to see they too have patterns and forms. They are just much shorter, and less 'refined'. String together 10 or so of those techniques though, and suddenly, you have a 'form'...just like in a traditional art.

Interesting, ne?

Yes, I'd say those are traditional in their own right as well.

Mike

 

[Bob Hubbard]

In looking at several different arts, I'm actually seeing more than 2 designations.

You have the "dead" arts. These are the ones that people do, simply to preserve the knowledge. They are done with the intent to be as close as humanly possible to the instructor, and personal innovation is not allowed or discouraged. These often include obsolete weapons and training for concepts very unlikely to ever happen today. (ie mounted samurai). These tend to be the strictest, with elaborate traditions, ceremony and costumes (uniforms), with strict ranking structures and students knowing their place in things.

You have "transitional" arts. These are arts which have their roots in the "dead" but rather than seeking to be exactly as was, look at things today and modify techniques to be more applicable today. These are a bit more relaxed than the "dead", but most will still follow traditions and rules of the older lines.

You have "modern" or what most consider "mixed" arts, where old techniques are often experimented with, and modified or discarded as needed. They tend to be more technique oriented and often will focus on a specific issue in a problem-solution methodology. You will not find techniques done for the sake of doing them. Training here one will often wear whatever works, as they will often focus either on sport fighting, or street fighting concepts.

Then there are the ones that fit between the cracks of these 3.

The one truth I see here, is that whatever is 'modern' today, will evolve to a more organized structure tomorrow, and 50 years from now be listed as "old" and "traditional" as a new generation seeks to make their mark and find that "right thing" we are all searching for.

 

[exile]

Forms and techniques? For sure they are an important defining aspect of traditional MAs. I think that modern arts are in the process of developing their traditions. BJ is a traditional Japanese art which has left behind many of its older aspects. The one I find interesting is MMA. The many schools teaching this 'style' are in the process of putting together the training techniques and 'forms' that in 50 or 60 years will be part of the tradition of the art.

I don't think this process can be avoided. Its part of the way we humans learn and pass on information, especially physical knowledge. I have a number of very old Chinese manuals which border on the incomprehensible because I do not follow the traditional learning practices that were prevalent when they were written (there also may be some problems with translation). The knowledge was different so the approach was different. It is the same for traditional and modern arts now, they approach the same thing in a different way.

In thrashing around through some very, very old threads for entirely different purposes, I ran across the following absolute gem post from John Bishop, which I think bears both on the general question and on the specific point that ST makes (and which is also sounded in various posts by Bob and others in the thread):

Here are the founding dates of some popular martial arts:

Japan

Shotokan 1921
Shito Ryu 1930
Wado Ryu 1939
Aikido 1942
Shorinji Kempo 1946
Shukokai 1950
Kyokushinkai 1951
Koei-kan 1952
Renbukai 1964

OKINAWA

Matsubayashi Shorin Ryu 1947
Isshin Ryu 1954

Korea

Chung do kwon 1945
Tang Soo Do 1945
Chang moo kwon 1946
Tae Kwon Do 1955
Hapkido 1950's-60's
Hwarang do 1960
Kuk Sul Won 1966

America (and it's territories)

Danzan Ryu 1930's
Kara-ho Kempo 1940's
Kajukenbo 1947
American Kenpo 1950-60's
Karazenpo Go Shin jitsu 1958
Lima Lama 1968
Shaolin Kempo 1971

Martial arts have always evolved. And more systems are being developed in these countries all the time.
So the big question is; how old does a system have to be? And where does it have to come from before it's considered "traditional"?

(http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...unding+dates+popular+martial+arts:#post433769)

This is of course the current topic, and it's interesting to see how the question posed at the end of John's message is still engaging (troubling? frustrating?) enough to warrant a new try at coming up with some answers, or at least some guidelines for talking about what traditional/modern really are all about.

One approach to John's point is to make dark references to the naïveté of going by the official founding date of these arts, when clearly the arts in question have been around for thousands of years, often practiced in secret in the hills... and then you get the rubbish about Bodhidharma and the Shaolin Temple. Alas, claims along these lines typically cannot present a single bit of serious historical evidence for the ancientness of the art in question. Every time competent MA historians sit down to study the actual documentary record, their detailed critiques show that there is no more basis for `traditional' MAs as the generation-to-generation offspring of genuinely ancient MAs than there would be for the claim that Nylon was a mineral created in the earth's crust during the formation of our solar system 4.something billion years ago.

Given the evidence tucked into John's post cited above, the term `traditional' applied to modern MAs seems to me to involve one of two things: either a cynical marketing ploy, based on the limitless credulity of the MA mass audience, or an earnest effort to separate (i) fighting systems predicated on the assumption of a violent, untrained, totally uncontrolled CQ assault from (ii) martial sporting contests with greater or lesser degrees of entertainment value operating under highly controlled conditions and prohibition of the most dangerous and effective moves possible for both attack and defense. It's a valuable and important distinction, but `traditional/modern' seems to me the wrong instrument to use in making it.