What is an Internal Art?
Arthur Sennott Copyright 2000
The word “internal” is probably responsible for more misunderstandings and arguments in martial arts circles than anything else. In a group of people who all have the same idea and definition of what internal means, the words use can be a quick easy way of delineating certain things. However, as soon as people, who hold different definitions of that term, try to communicate with it, all hell usually breaks loose.
The prevalent use of the word “internal” in popular martial art culture comes from Chinese martial arts. It has become popular in recent years for people in almost any martial art to speak of the internal vs. the external. It is spoken of, as though it is a regular component of whichever martial art has chosen to co-opt the term. In reality of course they are borrowing the term and then attempting to “superimpose it upon whatever practices already exist within their art.
It should be noted that virtually everyone, who chooses to speak of the distinction between internal and external, manages to categorize their own art as either “internal” or “half external and half internal”. No one ever seems to bother to make that distinction, and then proudly proclaim their art as being external.
So before we can understand the reasoning behind misguided “borrowings” of the term, we first need to look at what the term means to Chinese martial arts.
In current Chinese Martial arts circles, their are generally 4 widely circulated theories of what this means.
Theory 1)
Internal systems place an emphasis on the cultivation and/or manipulation of Qi (energy), as being of primary (or at least high) concern. While external systems do not have this emphasis.
Theory 2)
Internal arts place an emphasis on a certain kind of coordinated, whole body power. This power is generated through specific types of body alignments and mechanics that are inherent to the individual art, and common across all internal arts. This type of movement is not inherent in external arts, though individual practitioners of a particular external art, may come to move that way.
Theory 3)
The idea of “internal-ness” refers to a specific mind set and attention to ones self in practice and performance. Internal arts are practiced with a hyper awareness of every nuance of ones motion. A reflection of this can be seen in the fact that most internal arts include slow motion performance, as part of their curriculum. One should only move as quickly, as one can move correctly, is a major thought in this theory.
Theory 4)
The word internal refers to arts whose creation is solely from “inside” China. External referring to arts whose origin is external to the borders of China. As the Shaolin styles are based on Buddhism (which comes from outside China), and as they are rumored to be based on movements that Damo brought from India, we can see why an extremely ethnocentric country like China, would call them external.
Theory 5)
Well, not so much a theory, as it related historical and documented background. The regular use of the term internal being used in a way that refers to what we now know as internal arts, was a custom started in the early 20th century. The term Nei jia (Internal Family) was propagated by Sun Lu Tang and a group of his peers. History suggests that this may have been an early “marketing ploy”, to which we all now, put way to much investment in.
Of these different theories, come most peoples ideas of what the word “internal” means in Chinese martial arts. Different “camps” of practitioners will tend to agree on one or a specific combination of more than one of the theories. Generally any given camp will tend to think of a “camp” that subscribes to a different theory, as being hugely uninformed and deluded.
