Tweet
I often hear from my fellow martial artists that their art and the arts in general are not meant for fighting, but for "defense only." An interesting discussion of this idea is begining over at Tim Tackett's forum, but I thought I might start it on this FMA thread.
Here was my intial post on the subject from Tackett's forum (this was in response to regular poster, khand. For a complete review of every thing that has been said there go to self defense, fighting, and all that jazz... • Jeet Kune Do Talk
Khand,
Interesting post, excellent conversation starter.
I think this business about martial arts being only for defense is something of a modern notion, at least in the way it is most often packaged. I think many of these techniques were simply designed to win combative encounters regardless of the particulars of who started what with whom. Much of what we learn is either obviously of military/tribal descent, or distilled from such traditions. Muy Thai is a deriviative of Krabi Krabong its military forerunner. Judo/Brazilian Jiu-jitsu is derived from more brutal, and battlefield savy Japanese Jujitsu. Modern high school wrestling traces its roots back just as far to more combative applications.
Often these arts have historically been used to maintain status, and defend honor (an absolute necessasity prior to the state's monopoly on violence as a problem solver). If you live in a hunter gather society and you are male, you are vastly more likely to be murdered by another male than your contemporaries found living in modern industrial states. That is to say, prior to a state excersising police powers, and courts to settle disputes such arbitrations were handled, um...less tactfully. There is an excellent quote from Leo Gaeje on this where he says very deep things about the nature of conflict in such frontier places and before pre-western democratic processes. "You cannot afford to disrespect me. You cannot disrespect because of what I know, and because of what you know. The blade is the answer to such disrespects." This kind of mentality, of course, produces cycles of vendetta, but seems quite easy for our minds to fall into. Robert Howard, author of the Conan stories actually depicts this tendency among his heroes, the barbarians, quite acurately. Rudeness, and egregious disrespect is a product of modern civilization. Politeness ensues when everyone thinks everyone else will respond to slights, and insults with violence. (Go to a bjj/submission grappling tournament, or a Dog Brother's gathering to see this tribal concern with extreme politeness in action). So, historically, people have been taught to fight, and refined fighting, I think for a great many base reasons.
Miyomoto Musashi occupied much of his life dueling and killing people. I don't think anyone of us would say he was a poor martial artist. Among samurai he was scarcely alone in this endeavor. The ethos of defense only is, I think, relatively new, and makes sense only in the modern context of Western-industrialized democracies. At the very least the notion of defense has greaty narrowed. It makes sense now, but I don't think training martial arts helps cultivate the sensiblity to meet aggression with non-aggression. Legal ramifications are likely just as motivating of restraint as any training in martial arts. Probably more so. Perhaps less experience of cultures of honor are just as important. To most of the posters here, and speaking certainly for myself, it is difficult to imagine pulling a blade, or coming to blows over a percieved slight. However, in the modern well populated city, my status isn't going to be affected in any meaningful way, if someone cuts in line on me at starbucks. I won't ever see most of those patrons again, and any gossip they buzz about me will have little effect on my standing among my peers. Replace that with a tribal starbucks five to ten thousand years ago, where all the people I will ever know will hear about hw I let someone disrespect me while I was getting my pleistocene latte, and I bet I'd have to start throwing down, and feel duty and honor bound to do so. In fact I still feel such emotions, and my martial arts training has done little to limit the manifestation of such emotions.
I think this new focus and approach is a good thing, but I wonder if we can really expect martial arts to help with encouraging the better attitudes toward conflict resolution.
The floor is yours.
-Max
(Edit: I have to say I making a presumption here about the Dog Brother's gatherings based on video evidence. But my prediction is that respect will be on high and obvious display simply because the cost of disrespect may be catastrophically high in a room full of people who can fight. Anyone having actual experience of the gatherings should feel free to correct me if what I am seeing is not accurate.)
Here was my intial post on the subject from Tackett's forum (this was in response to regular poster, khand. For a complete review of every thing that has been said there go to self defense, fighting, and all that jazz... • Jeet Kune Do Talk
Khand,
Interesting post, excellent conversation starter.
I think this business about martial arts being only for defense is something of a modern notion, at least in the way it is most often packaged. I think many of these techniques were simply designed to win combative encounters regardless of the particulars of who started what with whom. Much of what we learn is either obviously of military/tribal descent, or distilled from such traditions. Muy Thai is a deriviative of Krabi Krabong its military forerunner. Judo/Brazilian Jiu-jitsu is derived from more brutal, and battlefield savy Japanese Jujitsu. Modern high school wrestling traces its roots back just as far to more combative applications.
Often these arts have historically been used to maintain status, and defend honor (an absolute necessasity prior to the state's monopoly on violence as a problem solver). If you live in a hunter gather society and you are male, you are vastly more likely to be murdered by another male than your contemporaries found living in modern industrial states. That is to say, prior to a state excersising police powers, and courts to settle disputes such arbitrations were handled, um...less tactfully. There is an excellent quote from Leo Gaeje on this where he says very deep things about the nature of conflict in such frontier places and before pre-western democratic processes. "You cannot afford to disrespect me. You cannot disrespect because of what I know, and because of what you know. The blade is the answer to such disrespects." This kind of mentality, of course, produces cycles of vendetta, but seems quite easy for our minds to fall into. Robert Howard, author of the Conan stories actually depicts this tendency among his heroes, the barbarians, quite acurately. Rudeness, and egregious disrespect is a product of modern civilization. Politeness ensues when everyone thinks everyone else will respond to slights, and insults with violence. (Go to a bjj/submission grappling tournament, or a Dog Brother's gathering to see this tribal concern with extreme politeness in action). So, historically, people have been taught to fight, and refined fighting, I think for a great many base reasons.
Miyomoto Musashi occupied much of his life dueling and killing people. I don't think anyone of us would say he was a poor martial artist. Among samurai he was scarcely alone in this endeavor. The ethos of defense only is, I think, relatively new, and makes sense only in the modern context of Western-industrialized democracies. At the very least the notion of defense has greaty narrowed. It makes sense now, but I don't think training martial arts helps cultivate the sensiblity to meet aggression with non-aggression. Legal ramifications are likely just as motivating of restraint as any training in martial arts. Probably more so. Perhaps less experience of cultures of honor are just as important. To most of the posters here, and speaking certainly for myself, it is difficult to imagine pulling a blade, or coming to blows over a percieved slight. However, in the modern well populated city, my status isn't going to be affected in any meaningful way, if someone cuts in line on me at starbucks. I won't ever see most of those patrons again, and any gossip they buzz about me will have little effect on my standing among my peers. Replace that with a tribal starbucks five to ten thousand years ago, where all the people I will ever know will hear about hw I let someone disrespect me while I was getting my pleistocene latte, and I bet I'd have to start throwing down, and feel duty and honor bound to do so. In fact I still feel such emotions, and my martial arts training has done little to limit the manifestation of such emotions.
I think this new focus and approach is a good thing, but I wonder if we can really expect martial arts to help with encouraging the better attitudes toward conflict resolution.
The floor is yours.
-Max
(Edit: I have to say I making a presumption here about the Dog Brother's gatherings based on video evidence. But my prediction is that respect will be on high and obvious display simply because the cost of disrespect may be catastrophically high in a room full of people who can fight. Anyone having actual experience of the gatherings should feel free to correct me if what I am seeing is not accurate.)
Comment