"For fragmentation is now very widespread, not only throughout society, but also in each individual; and this is leading to a kind of general confusion of the mind, which creates an endless series of problems and interferes with our clarity of perception so seriously as to prevent us from being able to solve most of them...The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion."This quote speaks directly I believe to the problem of Okinawan karate today (and other martial arts as well). It can be seen in the way that the kata are taught to the students without knowledge of function and in the way that we are taught basics (kihon) without knowledge of how that fits into the kata. The karate researcher and writer from Hawaii, Charles C. Goodin also makes a good point about fragmentation in his article, The Why of Bunkai: A Guide for Beginners:
"Once the movements of a kata are identified as specific techniques, the meanings become fixed. A 'block' has a certain meaning, as does a 'punch'. A stance has a certain configuration and weight distribution. A dynamic process is reduced to a series of still photographs."I know for myself now when I train how difficult it is to get my mind out of thinking, "Okay now I'm blocking" Or, "Now I'm kicking". In our dojo, whenever we went through the kata, it was almost a given that any movement we did that resembled a "block" or a "punch" was referred to as a "block" or a "punch". In retrospect, practicing the kata in this way severely limits an understanding of the totality of what could be possible. I have read that other martial artists criticize karate for its impractical movements. I would have to agree considering how we were taught in my dojo. The karate that was taught to me was better suited for demonstrations and tournaments than it was for self-defense.
SIDE NOTE: To the credit of my Sensei however, I don't recall there being the advertising words "self-defense" painted on the glass window outside the dojo. So it was only my assumption that I would be learning "self-defense" when I entered that dojo. But I mean that's a strong assumption you know? It makes sense. I wasn't looking for a school to teach me how to "fight". My understanding of "fight" means, "Okay motherfucker, you insulted my momma. Let's go!". So I don't think you need to go to a dojo for that. But "self-defense" is more like, "Oh, you insulted my mother? That's okay. Your insults do not disturb my mind. But please don't lay an aggressive or violent hand upon me or I shall be forced to use my well practiced technique on your face."
What I'm trying to point out here in this post is that the Newtonian world view of separately existing parts no longer applies. Another quote, this time from Margaret Wheatley herself:
"Until recently, we really believed that we could study the parts, no matter how many of them there were, to arrive at knowledge of the whole. We have reduced and described and separated things into cause and effect, and drawn the world in lines and boxes." (pg. 27)So the effect that this worldview has had on karate is to make it a "dead karate". No life, no character. Soul-less. All students are required to practice the same basics, the same techniques, kiai at the same time, and then repeat to infinity. My Sensei often said to us after class though that he would have liked to teach us all individually because we were all at individual levels, but then how would he be able to hold class then? He'd be focusing only on one or two students to the detriment of the others. So business-wise that would not be viable; other students would get jealous, complain about favoritism and then quit; then there's like one or two students left and who's gonna pay the rent? But teaching-wise? I think that model would be essential. The same goes for the public school classroom. The students, despite their obvious individuality are having their small round heads pounded into even smaller square holes. Enough students are successful in this model that we are able to point to them as proof that this method works. This then implies that the other students are just not trying hard enough or are somehow not "smart" enough. In the dojo, I definitely felt like the student in both the "not trying hard enough" and "not smart enough" categories. Yes, I could do the basics the same if not better than other students. But when it came to the free-jazz improvisation of kumite for example, I was lost man. I felt stupid. My Sensei often joked that I was a "punching bag" in kumite. I kept asking myself, "What's going on here? I'm doing the basics pretty well, and yet when it comes time to apply that to kumite, it's like a huge disconnect". I mean, I recognize that it's not only my unfamiliarity with sparring, the fear of getting hit, poor understanding of timing and distance and other similar factors that contributes to this "punching bag" quality. But I always felt like I was smart enough to understand how things worked and that's what led me to become so frustrated with my training because I didn't know exactly what was not working! I always put the blame on myself for my perceived lack of skill. Little could I have imagined at the time that I was locked into a pedagogical model that was making it inherently difficult to have clarity on my so called "problems".
Elbow SMASH!
- Hiji Até
No comments:
Post a Comment