Discipline and Defiance podcast wake up call

Finlay wrote:

3. i have been conditioned to acommodate anyone who presents themselves as a teacher

That’s one of the big negatives when it comes to martial arts for self-defence. If taught in a militaristic or authoritative way it can condition the students to always submit to a person in authority; who may also be the most physically capable person in the room too. The student therefore gets conditioned to submit to the demands of authority figures and physically imposing people. Not good when we want our students to defy the will of criminals who seek to put themselves in a position of authority through physical means in self-protection! Aside from the many other problems with that style of “teaching”, it is undoubtedly helping to make the students into willing victims.

For those who missed it, I discuss discipline and defiance, how they interrelate and who we need both in this podcast:

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/discipline-and-defiance-practical-karate-podcast

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy wrote:

The student therefore gets conditioned to submit to the demands of authority figures and physically imposing people. Not good when we want our students to defy the will of criminals who seek to put themselves in a position of authority through physical means in self-protection! Aside from the many other problems with that style of “teaching”, it is undoubtedly helping to make the students into willing victims.

I'd love to see the evidence to support that.

'Militaristic training' helps us to drill the hard skills that need to be precise under pressure.  Of course, that has to be balanced by other skills that we apply in changing circumstances, using our own initiative.

There will always be some students - in any training environment - that react to orders but can't think for themselves, but to use the word 'undoubtedly' tars everyone with the same brush.   Perhaps 'it may make some students into willing victims' describes the potential drawbacks better.

I've certainly gained a lot from both styles of instruction, without confusing dojo training/sparring with a pub brawl..

Gary

Hi Gary,

I get where you are coming from and I don’t think I’ve made myself as clear in the post as I (hopefully) do in the associated podcast.

There is a need for a good coach to push a student beyond what they could achieve alone. There needs to be discipline in order to encourage the development of self-discipline. The coach who imposes discipline with the best interests of the student first and foremost and with the desire that that external discipline will be needed less and less as self-discipline is developed is one thing. And a positive thing at that. The “coach” who imposes discipline for ego gratification and who wishes to keep the student in a state of “permanent infancy” is another. It’s that kind of “unquestioningly submit to my authority coaching” that I feel will lead to the student submitting to others out side the dojo as they do within it.

The podcast is called discipline and defiance because I feel both are needed. I do think I do a good job of explain how I see the two being related in the podcast and that could be worth a listen for anyone reading this who remains unclear about what I’m criticising.

All the best,

Iain

Thanks for explaining Iain

I must admit I haven't heard the podcast due to a speaker malfunction I've been too lazy to fix, but seeing it explained like that makes perfect sense.

I take a lot when I'm instructing from my Fire Service training.  On the training school the basics were drilled endlessly by numbers until they became reflex.  You didn't need to think, you just did.  The instructors were pernickety in the extreme and very vocal (think "Full Metal Jacket" in a bad mood)  They didn't hold back on the abuse, but one explained later that if we couldn't pitch a ladder on the drill yard while being shouted at, there'd be even less chance in the middle of the night when people are screaming to be rescued.

Once you got through that stage and went operational the training on watch switched to a more 'scenario based' format, but any sloppiness in the basics meant reverting to drilling by numbers until they were back up to speed.

I approach coaching in a similar way and have been known to shout a bit if people aren't putting the effort in.  We need to think under pressure, so the ability to hear me but not be distracted is part of the training, just as I had with ladders etc.  Just to be devils advocate for a moment (apologies if you covered this in your podcast), surely if people have never been shouted at, that might also present a problem outside?  

I'm pretty convinced though that my students realise this is just to keep them sharp and thankfully I see no signs of training induced subservience.  When I shout I usually see narrowed eyes, increased focus and more impact.  I'm happy with that.

Best regards

Gary

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

surely if people have never been shouted at, that might also present a problem outside?

Absolutely. That would be the “defiance” element in the podcast. I agree totally that they need to be able to ignore intimation / simulated intimidation or “draw energy” from it.

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

I'm pretty convinced though that my students realise this is just to keep them sharp and thankfully I see no signs of training induced subservience.  When I shout I usually see narrowed eyes, increased focus and more impact.

I’m sure that your students know you are doing what you do to keep them sharp, increase focus and encourage impact. I also know that my instructors were doing the same, and I hope mine know when I push them it is to help them. I don’t think that will increase the likelihood of subservience at all as the increase in skill, combined with the knowledge that the instructor cares about their development, and that they can go further that they thought is likely to build self-confidence as opposed to diminish it. Pushing people to reach beyond themselves and to become more than they can are is what good instructors do.

Do you remember we once had a discussion where there was a video of students standing there while the instructor delivered full force kicks and punches? I’ve tried to find it, but can’t. It was a good illustration of the kind of thing I mean. The student is told to submit to the authority of the instructor and stand there and take it. One of the reasons why that is wrong is that the student is encouraged to submit to the exact same thing they would be told to stand up against outside the dojo. As I see it they are training people to be victims.

Thanks for ensuring I clarify where I’m coming from.

All the best,

Iain