11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dustin
Dustin's picture
Torii Gates in the Dojo

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on having Torii Gates put up in a dojo? Some say they are disrespectful while others say they are fitting for the dojo.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Can’t say I know that much about the Shinto religion, but my understanding is that the Torii gates are there to mark off a space deemed sacred i.e. temples, shrines, etc. It would therefore strike me as odd to have them at the entrance to a western dojo, if the gate was being used in its traditional sense, because Shinto is not the dominant religion and the dojo is not deemed a sacred space. That said, here is the west the Torii gates are deemed aesthetically “Japanese” so they could be used to provide a “Japanese look” and not in their original religious way. I’m not sure how Shinto practitioners would feel about that, but I would understand if it was deemed disrespectful.

One step away from the religious style gate would be to avoid the colour red (main colour for Torii gates) and copying verbatim the traditional design. You could have something that shares the aesthetic, but to the educated eye was clearly not a Torii gate in the religious sense.

I could be wrong here, but I recall that people are not supposed to walk through the gate at the mid point? I believe that point of the gate is reserved for the gods. Humans are therefore supposed to walk through the gate to one side or the other. A set up that demands people walk thought the middle (i.e. used as a door frame at the entrance to the dojo) is therefore not something you’d ever see on such a gate in Japan.

Personally, it’s not something I would do; even if the traditional colours and design was avoided. The reason being is that I don’t want people of other religions feeling uncomfortable. While less likely in the west, I’d also don’t want to take the risk of upsetting followers of Shinto because of my cultural ignorance. In my view, karate is for practitioners of all religions and none. I’d therefore avoid anything that would erode that by introducing anything that could be deemed as being religious or “spiritual” in nature.

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture

For what it's worth, as a student, I am only interested in being taught some of whatever martial art they teach at the school I'm visiting / attending.

If I want to learn about Japanese culture or religion, I'll read books, and maybe save up my pennies to go to Japan. A bit of pseudo-oriental culture is of course to be expected in the dojo. It provides a convenient mechanism to nurture the respect that is essential in a hall full of people that are learning to hurt other humans, should the need arise. Things like bowing to the instructor, bowing in and out etc all help develop the attitude that we treat the hall and our fellow students and teachers with respect and care. It helps us to not get careless and hurt as a result.

Beyond that however, given the very limited time most of us have to train, I'd like to be sure that in that limited time, I'm getting the best martial arts training I can. If the hall starts to feature too much in the way of symbolism and ornamentation, I must admit I would start to wonder if I'm being taught practical martial art or something else.

Dustin
Dustin's picture

Thanks. I visited a dojo that had one up, at first thought it was pretty neat looking until I started looking up exactly what they are. I agree with you Iain that I could definitely understand how someone could take offense at it even if you changed the color and tweaked the design.

Josh Pittman
Josh Pittman's picture

The "bit of pseudo-oriental culture" that was strictly enforced in my previous federation drove me crazy. Why are we Americans (there are no other nationalities represented, to my knowledge) pretending to be partially Korean, I would ask myself. The partial nature of the culutral appropriation makes it even more senseless. We only emulated certain parts of the culture, and for no very good reason. Why should I want to know the Korean names for techniques, for example, when they really and literally just describe the technique (front kick, low block, etc.)?

I gather that some really enjoy the cultural exposure and the aesthetic and that some Japanese practicioners learn a lot of the art from the names of techniques. But in my mind a lot of martial arts aesthetic corresponds to thoughtlessness and tastelessness. A rather postmodern Western thoughtlessness, perhaps.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Josh Pittman wrote:
We only emulated certain parts of the culture, and for no very good reason.

I’ve dropped a lot of the cultural baggage when it comes to my practise and teaching. The two main reasons being: (1) I teach in the west and my students prefer a culturally appropriate structure. (2) Once you spend a little time in Japan, it becomes startlingly clear just how far off most western approximations of Japanese culture are.

That said, I do understand the appeal of certain elements of Japanese martial culture and the associated aesthetic. That may be part of the attraction of martial arts for some and I would have no problem with people seeking that if it is. I’d just say that it needs to be done thoughtfully and done right.

Josh Pittman wrote:
Why should I want to know the Korean names for techniques, for example, when they really and literally just describe the technique (front kick, low block, etc.)?

I have mixed feelings on this one and we tend to use the English and Japanese interchangeably. The Japanese can be useful for me when working with people who don’t speak English. If we both know the Japanese names, then the limited common terminology can help a little. However, the downside is that Japanese terminology can add a layer of unnecessary confusion when a common language is in place. It’s also sometimes used by people to show how “clever” they are (ego over effective teaching). The bottom line is that no one ever won a fight with terminology :-) As I say, I do see both sides and have mixed feelings on it.

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Josh Pittman wrote:

Why should I want to know the Korean names for techniques, for example, when they really and literally just describe the technique (front kick, low block, etc.)?

The same goes for Japanese terms in karate, judo, etc.

My answer would be: If you have no need for the foreign vocabulary, then drop it and use the respective terms from your own language.

But here are some good reasons, I think, it is helpful to know and teach the terms from the language your art originates from:

a) Communication. Doctors use latin terminology for body parts and many deseases, as do biologists for names of plants and animals. Philosophy and theology use a lot of German terms, because they have been well defined historically by German speaking philosophers. It makes sense to use them even in other languages because then everybody knows exactly what you are talking about.

b) Reference. Many books have been written on karate. Using the original names for techniques or katas makes it easier for the reader to refer to the descriptions in the books. Especially when you read books in a foreign language it is helpful when you recognise a familiar term. Even more so if you try to read material in the original language or watch videos with explanations in a foreign language.

c) Clarity/Precision. Because of people like M. Nakayama (for Shotokan karate) and others, we have very well defined descriptions of what the many technical terms mean and how exactly the techniques should be performed. So when I use the name of a certain technique it is very clear what I'm referring to.

These three points are of course intertwined.

I would suggest to at least familiarise oneself with the original terms to a certain degree for the purpose of international communication, reference and clarity/precision.

Furthermore, it makes a lot of sense to not only learn the words but to also know the meanings of the words. Of course this is where it comes full circle, because the meanings of the words are in most cases nothing but translations.

All the best,

Marc

Josh Pittman
Josh Pittman's picture

Marc wrote:

c) Clarity/Precision. Because of people like M. Nakayama (for Shotokan karate) and others, we have very well defined descriptions of what the many technical terms mean and how exactly the techniques should be performed. So when I use the name of a certain technique it is very clear what I'm referring to.

This strikes me as the most convincing reason to retain original terms, and I would argue that it's the real reason for Latin, Greek, and German in science and philosophy. It may be that calling a rear-hand punch a "cross" imports connotations and uses from Western boxing and distorts the intended meaning of the Japanese term. And, I use some Japanese and Korean terms for words I simply don't have vocabulary for, like bunkai. Sure. But that's not always the case, I wouldn't think...I don't see any difference between a front push kick and a teep, for instance.

About internaional communication: it may be that Japanese practicioners have an advantage here. I learned Tae Kwon Do from a Korean, and the terms for techniques I learned then differed greatly from the terms I learned later (from an American) in Tang Soo Do. They're both Korean arts, but for some reason their terms don't correlate. It must be different across the Japanese styles.

I want to clarify that I wouldn't suggest changing the names of forms. I pretty much see those as proper nouns.

Thanks for your responses, Josh

Heath White
Heath White's picture

I think using the Japanese/Korean names for techniques made sense when there were a lot of first-generation teachers from Japan or Korea in the west.  In that case, it facilitates communication.  However, Koreans don't use Japanese terminology and Japanese don't use Okinawan terminology, so at this point I do not really see a reason for westerners to use Korean or Japanese terminology on a regular basis.

I might feel differently if I had cause to do a lot of  international interaction in martial arts.

Anf
Anf's picture

The thing about the Korean or Japanese names for things is that we're probably saying them completely wrong anyway. A Korean person might look at us completely blank if we say something in what we believe to be Korean. Same for Japanese or any other language.

It's much the same when a Chinese or Indian person speaks to us in the English they've learned off their Chinese or Indian teacher. Until they've clocked up a good many hours speaking with people who's first language is English it can be very difficult to understand what they are trying to say. I have no doubt the converse is true, especially when our only exposure to a foreign language is in a class that has nothing to do with linguistics.

I think if ever there was a good reason to adopt Japanese or Korean terminology in class, it was marketing. People want to believe that they belong to a niche 'in' group. This is not exclusive to martial arts. It's in everything. The teenagers on skateboards have their own uniform, etiquette and language, as do the middle aged office workers that have discovered mountain biking. The football fans all choose a multinational corporation to give their money to so that they can be in a particular clique. Martial artists are the same, with our uniform and language and rules of etiquette that are kind of common between systems and styles to some extent, but there's always inter style or even inter club rivalry, even though our etiquette forbids us from acknowledging it. The use of a particular lingo, our own local interpretation of that lingo, is a great tool for maintaining that clique and differentiating our brand from others.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Heath White wrote:
I do not really see a reason for westerners to use Korean or Japanese terminology on a regular basis.

I can certainly see understand that viewpoint. As I say, no one ever won a fight with terminology. Shakespeare famously wrote that, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” and I think we can agree that a punch my any other name would do just as much damage.  

Heath White wrote:
I might feel differently if I had cause to do a lot of international interaction in martial arts.

The internet age means that all martial artists have much more interactions – international and domestic – than they did. Because the “native terminology” is so widely used, there is an argument that knowing it can help facilitate discussion. For example, pretty much all experienced martial artists know what the words like Bunkai, Kumite, Poomsae, Sinawali, Chi Sau, etc refer to. It can therefore be argued that there is an even greater need for being familiar with an even wider range of terminology if we wish to converse with a wider range of martial artists.

I can see validity in both viewpoints. For me, I won’t use terminology for its own sake and I prefer keeping things simple; however, terminology does help me converse with others and hence there is a need for me – as some who spends a lot of time interacting with martial artists of all stripes and from all corners of the globe –  to be familiar with it.

All the best,

Iain