Author: Marcus Wan

Bio: Marcus is a Sociology student at Ryerson University & has been a student of the Martial Arts for over 15 years.

Abstract:  A submitted thesis revolving around karate, more specifically the philosophy of sanchin. 

INTRODUCTION

Martial arts are a craft, just like any other art. The difference with martial arts to a purely aesthetic field such as painting is that the first serves a practical purpose, fighting. More than physical training there are associated philosophies with different styles of fighting. In the style of Uechi-Ryu Karate, the two foundational philosophies are that of Budo, the way of war, and Sanchin, the three battles. This paper will focus on Sanchin as its theoretical basis. The three battles are Man vs. Himself, Man vs. Man, and Man vs. Society. The language stresses the word man as a generalization to mankind, this wording is rooted in a patriarchal tradition. The first battle is against oneself, it is hardest and the most important battle. This means to tame one’s ego, passions, learn self control, and discipline. These lessons are the bedrock of a martial artist. These lessons are idealized however. Wacquant says the same thing about the boxing culture, gyms try to seek total claims on their members, while rarely does anybody follow the rules to the letter (Wacquant 461).  The second battle and the third battle are similar because they can be represented as actually physical struggles, one on the micro level, and the other on a macro level. Like other social sciences, there are various interpretations on the meaning of Sanchin, this one was chosen because it is what I was taught, and it is also the most sociological interpretation. The first part of this paper will look at martial arts in relation to Becker’s work on the relativity of truth in the social realm, and characteristics of language. The latter parts of the paper deal the philosophy of Sanchin in comparison to other social theories. The main focus will be on the last two battles of Sanchin, the fight against man and society.

In chapters four and five of Telling About Society, Becker discusses the concepts of public language, private communities, and variations of interpretation. With every craft or representation of data there exist specific rules and regulations that go along with them. A public language is a means of conveying a message that can be easier to the general, untrained population (Becker 63). This is a very important medium as it is able to attract those who are interested in a specific craft, but not particularly knowledgeable about it. In relation to the martial arts, this is blatantly present in public demonstrations and exhibitions. It is very common for martial art schools to perform their skills in public to attract new students. However these performances must be captivating and not overly technical so that the average person can understand its significance. There are a variety of ways to demonstrate this, including: breaking stunts, agility stunts, and the most important of all; fighting. Breaking refers to any demonstration of strength through the breaking of objects, such as wooden boards, ice, or rocks. While within the trade there are know secretes and methods of how to break objects, to the public it appears as a good measure of the physical strength martial arts can provide. Western stereotypes associated with Karate often include repetitive board breakings, as if that is all the craft is about. Breaking stunts have become such a familiar performance to the west that it has almost become a standard of a martial artist’s skill. The very fact that breaking has penetrated western society as a stereotype reinforces that it is a public language. The same can be said about agility stunts, but to a lesser degree. Agility stunts include fancy impractical jump kicks and high kicking. Jump kicking is a stereotype that has entered the west largely impart by action movies. This is another public language martial arts use; it gives the audience big spectacular aerial kicks to convey skill because the audience presumes such aerial skills are actually associated with a marital artist’s skill. The last and most important example of public language is demonstration by sparing matches or fighting. This is the most convincing demonstration because it does not rely as heavily on the previous stereotypical preconceptions. A person does not necessarily need any knowledge of martial arts, or even to watch an action film to appreciate a fight. When they see a smaller fighter best a larger fighter, it is very convincing demonstration of martial skill. This can be done through a match between students, or (more rarely so today) an open invitation to the audience. The latter is much more convincing because it allows the audience to experience the practitioner’s skill first hand. Albeit these three methods are used within schools to judge a student’s ability to some degree, it is important to note that a martial artist’s skill is not limited to their ability to break objects, do fancy kicks, or even fighting. However these methods are repeatedly used in exhibition because it makes for a spectacle, an attraction to the untrained audience, a public language.

As mentioned above every craft has its own rules and standards, this is no exception for martial arts. A craft specific language is designed to convey data to those who are already trained in the craft, more so than public language ever can. Becker relates this to how Boyle avoided using math proofs and used a written format instead to attract more readers (Becker 63). However math proofs are much more effective in conveying the essence of his work, writing was chosen because it was easier to interpret by the public. This same scenario is repeated in martial arts. If fighting and stunts can be equated to a public language just like a writing format, then kata would be the equivalent to math proofs, a craft specific language. Kata are a set of techniques performed individually, with its own sequence, pattern, and cadence. To a martial artist, this is the core of classical martial arts, the foundational corpus of knowledge. Kata is a Japanese word, in Chinese it is Kun, the westernized translation is form. Regardless of name, kata are the medium of transmitting knowledge in nearly every classical Eastern martial arts. Like math proofs, kata are theoretical, they represent techniques against particular attacks. Kata are like theories because they are proposed methods and ideas to deal with a problem, they are not practical or tangible like a fight where the meaning is understood by everyone. This craft language restricts the true essence of martial arts from the public, and limits it to a small circle of people. Kata have been the primary medium of teaching for so long because it is able to sum up the spirit of a style into sets. To the untrained eye kata may appear to be similar to a dance, with very little practical value. This misinterpretation of kata by the public is deliberately exploited. It is a well known fact that martial arts hides secretes in kata by modifying techniques so that they look different in kata form than when it is used for practical purposes. For example, trips and throws are sometimes hidden in kata as large steps, or leg movements for aesthetic reasons. In every kata, every single move has its own purpose. This makes an interesting scenario because martial artists take advantage of the fact that the public will be ignorant to a craft specific language in order to maintain their secrets. Even within the karate community there are varying interpretations on the same kata, and levels of interpretation. Techniques can have a simple explanation to the beginner student, and a complex one for an advanced student. While the interpretation may different from the intent of the original creator of a kata, there is no essential right or wrong understanding, just opinions. This leads to the reoccurring theme Telling About Society: the subjectivity of truth.     

Outside of the hard sciences such as chemistry, physics, and biology, the idea of an absolute truth is a near myth. There are no absolutes in the social sciences or arts, everything can be argued. Truth is relative, it is dependent on what we know, and more over what we use the truth for (Becker 114).  This leads to something Becker says repeatedly “plenty good enough, knowledge good enough for what I want to do with it” (Becker 114). Every field has its own merits, and is good for a specific purpose. Similarly the question on interpretation in martial arts is subjective, there is no specific right or wrong, just what suits the individual best. This idea of a relative truth can be extended into the age old argument of which style is superior. Each style has their own unique characteristics, they focus on different aspects of fighting and principals, but again there is no superior or inferior, just different standards of construal. Some styles focus on punching, other on kicking, or on grappling. Each style is like their own interpretive community, people with long arms may choose a path of punching because it is more fitting for them. There is no such thing a superior style, there is only the superior fighter. A good martial artist is not measured by which style they study, but their level of study, how well they are in understanding their way.

The subjectivity of truth can be extended into everything in the social realm. Each field has its own professional standards, this is something taken for granted. Ruth Benedict explains how professional craft standards are not shared universally in the example of the Second World War when America fought Japan. War is a craft that is present in nearly every society, even societies isolated from the Western world. Like Russia in 1905, America was entering the war against a state with a modernized military but outside the Western cultural tradition (Lemert 267). This enemy was unlike any other America had fought in her past, they were completely alien. Standards such as Conventions of war accepted by the Western world can no longer be accepted as a universal truth, for Japan did not share the ideals of the Western world (Lemert 267). America declared war based on the aggression of the Axis. Japan declared war because they felt that there would be anarchy in the world as long as every nation had sovereignty (Lemert 268). To Japan, there was an order of hierarchy in the world, and it was their goal to establish an international hierarchy, one world under Japanese rule (Lemert 268). Another example in the difference in ideals is that the Japanese put their faith in spirit, while the Americans put their faith in objects (Lemert 269). America had a superior military in both size and armaments. Japan was not concerned by this because they relied on the spirit of their warriors, the superiority of the spiritual over the material (Lemert 269). This resolve is most evident with the use of kamikaze suicides. There exists a fundamental difference in ideology between the two warring states. The subjectivity of truth means that neither nation’s ideals are correct, they may be better suited for their individual goals, but neither is superior. In relation to the use of force on the micro scale, conflicts over ideals can lead to fights. On the macro scale, such conflicts can be disastrous, leading to full out war. This is the battle of man vs. society in Sanchin. Beliefs, opinions, and ideals are all subjective, they are the seeds of conflict, and physical force is only the vehicle. In this sense, without getting into philosophical teachings, martial arts are a way to cultivate force in preparation of conflict. From this perspective, force is an amoral device, a tool that can be used to spread, or defend against any subjective beliefs.

As mentioned before the ideal prototype of martial arts is not just a study on the use of force, but it is equally important to develop character. Philosophy cannot be separated from any classical martial arts training. I mention classical because modernized fighting systems such as the sport “mixed martial arts” or military combatives is amoral. These new systems focus purely on force, there is no, or not as much, focus on developing a practitioner into a moral, ethical, responsible human being, the goal is simply to learn how to fight effectively and efficiently. Classical martial arts such as Karate aims to tame one’s ego, and control animosity, it is never to be used to intentionally cause harm to another or do anything unjust (McCarthy 68). In this respect, when martial arts are latent with such philosophical teachings, the study of force is no longer an amoral tool. Borrowing a line from Uncle Ben in the Spiderman comics “with great power comes great responsibility”. The greater a martial artist become in fighting, the less reason he has to fight, unless under extenuating circumstances. On the micro sense in Sanchin, Man vs. Man, individual conflict should be avoided by the superior martial artist, not only because violence is unethical, but also because he understands the potential damage he is capable of inflicting on others. On the macro sense of Man vs. Society, if a state has a superior military (USA) there should be less reason for it to go to war, not only because war is tragic, but also because the state should know the devastation their military is capable of. The study of martial arts without actively fighting can be used as an effective deterrent against unwarranted aggression, simply because the opponent or enemy is aware of your might (McCarthy 69). The only exception in releasing knowledge into violence is for the cause of justice, the prevention of tyranny, and the spread of evil. One can argue that all three of these ideas are in itself subjective, but for the purpose of this paper, it will be defined as unjustified violence and oppression. In Man vs. Man, this can be a forceful violation of one’s agency and self determination. In Man vs. Society it is a forceful violation of a state’s sovereignty, an act of war. Therefore the study of force, coupled with philosophical teachings, is a necessary deterrent and preparation against evil, moreover it can be viewed as the duty of an individual or the state. Surprisingly the most convincing proponent of this idea that violent resistance (not violent aggression) should be a responsibility comes from theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. Previously the theologian was a supporter of pacifism, but later recanted his views in his work Moral Man and Immoral Society (Lemert 346). Niebuhr argues that by refusing to respond with force, the individual or the state is being irresponsible by operatively capitulating to tyranny (Bullert 2002). Non-violent resistance allows the spread of evil, which has no moral qualms about using violence to achieve its goals. These special circumstances can be exemplified by the extreme ideas of Hitler and the Nazis and the suicidal resolve of Japanese kamikaze bombers. When an enemy is determined enough to commit suicide just to inflict damage, the time for rationality and reasoning is over, so is the time for non-violent resistance. It does not matter that Nazis believe Aryans are genetically superior, or that the Allies believe in freedom and democracy, these are all subjective ideals. The determining factor of which ideal will be spread across the world rest purely on force. Relating back to Becker’s theme of relative truth, there is a Chinese proverb that is very fitting to the situation, “there is no first in literature, and there is no second in martial arts”. Literature being an aesthetic field is very subjective, no one can objectively argue which novel or poem is the best, it is dependent on the individual’s reception. However when it comes to martial arts it is more complex. It is true that there is no superior style, but there is the superior fighter. One can argue as much as they like about the greatness and advantages of their style, but they have to shut up when they lose the fight, because in more extreme circumstances, the loser dies. The fight however is not an accurate measure of the merits of a style, a fighter could be more experienced, trained harder, or even just bigger. The bottom line however is that an argument ends when you lose the physical fight, you are ultimately at the opponent’s mercy. Brining this back to the macro level, it is not about the correctness Nazism, Capitalism, or Communism, or any beliefs. An ideal can be equated to a style of martial arts, and the final test, the fight, is enlarged into warfare. If a state loses the war, it loses its sovereignty, the freedom to believe in what it chooses and the freedom. This does not make Nazism justified; it just means that the defeated state or individual is no longer in a position to protest. This is why Niebuhr stresses that non-violent resistance is irresponsible (Bullert 2002). The individual has a duty to defend his own agency and justice; this is core in the study of nearly all martial arts, just as the state has a duty to protect its sovereignty. There will be people like Hitler who can not adhere to rationality or reason and will impose their beliefs through violence, under such extreme situations, force is the only viable option. Furthermore Niebuhr argues that non-violent resistance can only be successful if the opponent has some degree of moral conscience (Lemert 346). Non-violent advocates like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were only successful because their opponent yielded (Lemert 346). Non-violent resistance is usually limited to domestic issues within a state, and can not work against an enemy with unyielding resolve.

The nature of force is discussed by Max Weber in his work What is Politics? There are two very important ideas Weber mentions. Firstly the state has the sole monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its territory (Lemert 111). “the right to use physical force is ascribed to the other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it” (Lemert 111). Secondly the state is a relation of men dominating men. A legitimate domination is the government, but in order for this domination to legitimate, it requires a certain degree of voluntary compliance from its citizens (Lemert 111). Going along with the first battle of Man vs. Himself, force resides in the individual, and cannot exist without the individual. Government institutions or police and military are comprised of individuals knowledgeable in the use of force. There cannot be an army with out the solider, and if the solider refuses to fight, there can be no army. All forms of violence stems from an individual’s will and spreads outwards, accumulating in force along the way. The book of five rings mentions “an excellently crafted weapon is incapable of acting of its own accord, it must be wielded” (Kaufman 8). The strength of a warrior resides in his heart, his resolve, for the same reason violence resides in the individual. One reason to study karate is to learn how to control the internal desire for violence, in the battle of man vs. himself. Warfare has evolved, from steel to lead but swords and guns are just tools, a medium for violence to manifest itself. One’s fist is the most basic tool of force because it is intrinsic, but once again, true force comes from within the individual. Thusly rather than Weber’s argument that legitimate force is delegated to individuals from the state, I counter that it is actually opposite. Force lies in the individual, and therefore it is the individual that grants the state the legitimate use of force. The state borrows force from its citizens, without them, the state is powerless. This is closely tied in to Weber’s second argument where legitimate domination is only possible with voluntary compliance. This is true because when we lend force to the state, it is voluntary and so our submission to government is also a voluntary compliance to a shared ideal. However it is very important to remember I only refer to power in the sense of physical force. There are other means of coercion and subversion, which are much more effective. Again violence is only justifiable in extreme situations. Martin Luther’s King method of non-violence is an example because it compels the heart, and appeals to the conscience of the oppressors (Lemert 348).

Ultimately physical force is important because it is the final argument, the last form of protest to oppression and tyranny. When forced is applied without consideration of ethics or morality, it becomes nothing more than a tool, a means to achieve the end for the individual or the state. However physical force in relation to martial arts is a different thing, the mental and philosophical cannot be divorced from the physical. At the very least this is the idealized prototype. The philosophy of Sanchin has various interpretations, as is the nature of all social sciences described by Becker. When Sanchin is understood as the battle of Man vs. Himself, Man vs. Man, and Man vs. Society, it becomes a constant struggle. The later two are the most sociological, it can be viewed as the same conflict, with the same principals, but one is on the micro scale of a fight, and the other on the macro scale of warfare. The battle with yourself is the hardest to explain in sociological terms because it is a personal experience akin to spirituality. As for the other two battles, martial arts is an effective deterrent against aggression, and a preventive measure against tyranny. Being a pacifist is a fatal flaw when the opponent knows not of honor or compassion. Just as Niebuhr describes violent resistance to oppression as a responsibility, so too are the martial arts, it is a duty to protect justice, and stop the spread of tyranny when push comes to shove.

Bibliography

Bullert , Gary B. (2002). Reinhold Niebuhr and the Christian century: World War II and the eclipse of the

                social gospel. Journal of Church and State, Retrieved December, 5, 2008, from

                http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3244/is_2_44/ai_n28932401/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

Kaufman, Stephen F. (Ed.). (1994). Musashi’s Book of Five Rings . North Clarendon, Vermont: Turtle

                Publishing.

Lemert, Charles (Ed.). (2004). Social Theory: the Multicultural and Classical Readings . Boulder,

                Colorado: Westview Press.

McCarthy, Patrick (Ed.). (1995). The Bible of Karate: Bubishi. Boston, Massachusetts: Turtle Publishing.

Wacquant, Loic (2005).Carnal Connections: On Embodiment, Appreticeship, and Membership. Qualitative

                Sociology . 28(4)