The Politics of Martial Arts
How To Choose An Organization
By
Gary Lescak
There is a great deal of literature on the relationship between politics and martial artists; the clans and classical ryu of feudal Japan, the Boxers in China, and the Japanese military of the WWII era are all examples. The subject about which you find very little straight information is the politics of martial arts.
The stories of men embarking on a quest to find a martial arts master living as a hermit on a remote mountainside are stories from a bygone era and are probably more fiction than fact. More likely, the bulk of our martial knowledge has probably come from more organized sources such as the classical Japanese ryu. In contemporary society, the vast majority of martial artists find that the instructors available to them are usually linked in some fashion to a larger group. This usually translates to mean a national or international organization which, like nations, are political entities.
In any given martial art today, you will find more than one organization dedicated to perpetuating their version of that art. The reasons for the existence of multiple organizations are differences that fall into three general categories: (1) technical, (2)philosophical, and (3) personality. Within each of these areas, the points of most importance to the individual martial artist are the commonalities between himself and an organization.
Therefore, what follows is an attempt to convey some of the ideas that one should examine when viewing the fundamental cornerstones of any organization. By doing this I hope that individuals who practice any martial art will develop a spirit of critical inquiry in regard to their membership in any organization. One of the best ways to accomplish this is to compare and contrast some of the main approaches to be found in modern organizations.
The first question any thinking martial artist should ask himself in reference to an organization is: What is in it for me? This is not a selfish question; this implies a certain perspective. Specifically, you understand that organizations exist (or should exist) to serve their members, not to serve the organization itself or an elite leadership.
This means that you should choose your organizational membership based upon your personal compatibility in terms of goals, philosophy, values, and personalities with those of the organization and its leadership. What follows are some thoughts on what I deem of importance in these areas related to martial arts.
We are living in the most exciting time yet in man’s history. The new millennium has drawn everyone’s attention to one concept: change. It has forced everyone to stop, examine their surroundings, to reevaluate their life and their philosophy of life and renew their commitments to their chosen path. This is a good thing.
The mat is a microcosm of the world around us; the lessons you learn on the mat are the lessons of life. If the only constant is change, then an organization should reflect the change around us. Does yours?
There are many traditions and traditional ways associated with martial arts. The point the contemporary martial artist must understand is that there are two general categories for these traditions: (1) those that bear directly on the attainment of martial skill, and (2) those that exist for a societal purpose. In the first case, we find the passing down of tried and true techniques and training methods; methods and techniques proven effective over time.
A traditionalist and his organization in this sense is actively interested in preserving, adding to, and being a part of that tradition. In the second case, we find traditions rooted in a feudal culture that evolved to stratify and solidify a hierarchical social order; some trappings of this past will always remain as they are entwined in the very fabric of the cultures from which many martial arts evolved. We see these trappings in many martial arts class rituals. Most importantly, what we want to examine and question is blind adherence to these traditions (keeping everything a big secret, for example) that might impede our progress in learning instead of helping it.
"Traditionally," many individuals studied one style of martial art, believed that was the best and one true way, became a master of that style and called it quits. Many people still do that today.
Others realized that no system is perfect and complete within itself; that’s why they broke out of the narrow confines of one culture’s martial traditions and studied in different styles and traditions. These people were non-traditionalists; they were pointing the way to the future, not providing all of the answers. Who do you want to be like when you grow up?
This approach and one’s understanding and interpretation of it have an impact today in many ways; two examples follow. In many styles there are claimants to the title of "true inheritor" of these systems; this always begets controversy. To what end? Does this give us a better product? These kinds of claims are merely self-serving; this ties into the point of blind traditionalism that impedes our progress. Let’s look at the other side of the coin for our second example.
Outside of techniques and training methods, are there other traditional values worth keeping? Yes. Respect for one’s teachers is a fundamental tenet in martial arts; when we bow to a picture of a founder at the beginning of class, we not only recognize him as the originator of a particular style, but we also recognize him as a symbol. We are acknowledging and showing our respect for all of the many generations of men who have come before us; spending their lives learning and teaching so we could have that knowledge brought to us today. Giving those teachers the credit they deserve is a mark of respect. There are men out there who claim someone else’s style for themselves; giving it their own name but using someone else’s system without giving him credit; doing this, they discredit themselves.
All this points to one conclusion; the true value of our definition and distinction of traditional lies in its open-minded philosophy, not in the specifics of techniques; and this implies other philosophical ideas.
The first is that we are not saying that there are a finite number of techniques in martial arts, handed down from the mountain by one individual, and carved in stone for all posterity with us as the sole keepers and dispensers of knowledge. There are those out there that think this way.
By saying that techniques can be improved upon and by saying that no man has seen everything, we establish an organization that exemplifies the belief that martial art is a dynamic, living/breathing entity capable of growth and change (i.e. being adaptable, flexible). Grow up to be like whom?
In terms of organizational philosophy, what will best take us in this direction: a true confederation, that is, a loose grouping of independent individuals who are serious, dedicated martial artists with the main goal of providing a teaching/ sharing network of senior martial artists; or a rigid hierarchy with no room for change?
Conclusion
The organization I see is a grouping of individuals who accept their individual responsibility within the group as we all work toward our common goal: perpetuation of the art. This approach also has implications that differentiate us from other groups. For example, the senior practitioners have the responsibility of teaching their students how to learn and how to lead. We are not interested in producing and controlling a group of automatons, we are interested in producing top quality martial artists capable of facing and defeating trained, professional fighters.
This means at some point, like a parent, the leadership has to relinquish control, let go and have faith in the people they have helped along the way. In practical terms, that means this organization is not interested in telling individual instructors how to run their schools, and this point includes one of the biggest control issues in martial arts: ranking. I can rant at length about this topic, but I’ll be brief.
Ranking is merely an acknowledgement by your teacher of your accomplishments. How ridiculous then, does it seem to have a triumvirate of stooges issuing a rank that does not even know the person they are ranking? Some organizations do this. The reason: they have no faith in the people they have promoted in the past.
All that I have written has been meant as merely a beginning, or starting point, for your own personal discussions. Take these ideas and apply them to different organizations and individuals and find your own answers and your own home.