18 posts / 0 new
Last post
Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture
Good manners in self-protection

Hi All,

In the recent “Martial Virtues” podcast I touched upon how good manners and good character have a bearing on self-protection. I thought that particular aspect may make for a good thread as it’s a “do / jutsu” crossover point that I don’t see talked about very much. I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts and views on this.

The development of virtue and good character has always been an intrinsic part of karate. Even before the “do reformation” we can see this being expressed in important documents such as the Bubishi and Matsumura’s “7 virtues of Bu”. For example:

Soken Matsumura: “The genuine study of the martial arts is infused with self-control, virtue and the development of a calm nature. A person who studies the martial arts like this will be virtuous and will be capable of waiting with a clam heart while the immoral destroy themselves. They will be loyal and will never do anything that will cause disharmony.”

Bubishi: “The true essence of martial arts does not lie in being a hero, but instead in developing patience, sincerity and honesty such that you can be of help to others … You should be a man of dignified appearance , exhibit kindness and be considerate to the needs of others.”

While there are wide-ranging benefits to the individual and the society of which they are part in the development of virtue, I think it is also worth discussing the practical self-protection benefits.

As well as emphasising the need of have external awareness to avoid the actions of enemies, I think there is a strong case to also emphasise the need for internal awareness so we don’t make enemies where there were none before! There can be no doubt that behaving badly makes people want to punch you!

I’m not talking about the pre-determined actions of the criminal here; who decided well ahead of time they are going to use violence for personal gain or gratification. That’s a separate issue. What I’m talking about is escalating a situation / causing a situation through bad behaviour. There is no moral justification for people choosing to use violence when they feel slighted, but the reality is that some people will be feel “provoked” into using violence if they feel they have been treated badly or disrespected.

To give a very basic example: If I were to accidentally bump into someone then good manners would dictate that I admit my fault and offer my apologies. My good manners could therefore deescalate that situation as it is immediately clear no offence was intended and I respect the person I have unintentionally wronged. If I were to offer no apology, then the person may feel affronted and, if they are volatile in nature, that could escalate to violence. Worse yet, if I were to exhibit bad manners and blame the other person for my error while refusing to offer any apology, it would inflame the situation yet further.

Good manners can therefore be a form of “pre-emptive de-escalation”.

We can’t reason with the unreasonable, and some people will seek violence no matter what. However, there are undoubtedly some people who will become violent simply because they feel wronged by bad behaviour. Good manners therefore remove that potential source of violence.

If we unintentionally do something that inconveniences another, then we apologise and make it right. If there is a queue, then we wait our turn. If someone is speaking, we don’t interrupt them or talk over them. If someone shows a kindness, then we acknowledge it. If someone has a differing view to us on a given topic, we show them respect and make our case calmly and without seeming to be judgemental. If we don’t know someone that well, then we should not act as their close friends may act toward them (don’t be overly familiar). And so on. Fail to act as we should and it can result in harm to one’s reputation, irritation, and perhaps even violence if the person on the receiving end of our bad manners lacks self-control and has a volatile nature.

I wonder if this aspect of self-protection is overlooked too much? Generally we see lots of emphasis on physical skills (arguably too much), awareness, escape, etc (which aren't empasised enough), but little on how to not be the kind of person people want to punch. Surely this is a hole in a truly holistic self-protection skill set.

In some quarters of the martial arts there is an inadvertent trend toward a “bad-ass-ary” which mistakenly thinks that being aloof, arrogant and “taking no s###” (i.e. the ego must be indulged even if that means engaging in violence) are intrinsically part of being “tough”. The reality is that exhibiting such a dismissive and unforgiving persona can make one more vulnerable to attack and hence is bad self-protection. It also exhibits a fragility of character.

Is there a risk that some will “throw the baby out with the bathwater” by rejecting or underplaying the character development aspects of karate by lumping it in the problematic aspects of “do” (i.e. form without function, non-functional practises such as three-step and five-step sparring, etc.)?

Surely good manners and an intent to develop character must be a fundamental part of any practical approach; regardless of whether one chooses to use the label “do” or “jutsu”?

I hope this makes for an interesting thread and I look forward to exploring this topic with everyone.

All the best,

Iain

Gavin J Poffley
Gavin J Poffley's picture

It is often said in these modern times that the traditional Japanese martial arts place a ridiculous emphasis on formalised etiquette and indeed, in a modern context, much of the external formality is obsolete (yes, even in Japan!) but if you look at the context it was developed in then it all makes absolute sense and can be viewed as exactly this kind of preventative self protection. 

As a member of the samurai class, when practically everyone in your daily interactions with your peer group is required by law to train with and carry deadly weapons and allowed to use them to legitimately settle personal grievences (not free reign to kill who they want but a legal precedent for duels), then it becomes vital to have a mutually understood code of behaviour which allows you to obviously express a lack of hostile intent and defuse misunderstandings.

Basically the stakes were much higher than for the average modern day person in a developed nation. Of course people can get injured or killed in a careless bar fight or argument turned violent and a hardcore criminal element would very much bring weapons to such, but it is quite a different prospect to knowing that everyone around you is more than capable of killing you in an instant if circumstances go against you. A much greater familiarity with and understanding of violence that led to a more fundamental approach to avoiding it perhaps.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Gavin J Poffley wrote:
it is quite a different prospect to knowing that everyone around you is more than capable of killing you in an instant if circumstances go against you. A much greater familiarity with and understanding of violence that led to a more fundamental approach to avoiding it perhaps.

Good points! I’m reminded of the Robert E. Howard (creator of “Conan the Barbarian”) quote:

“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”

All the best,

Iain

Katz
Katz's picture

Another practical aspect for good manners : It is much easier to defend a case where you have been polite than when you have been cursing, insulting the other person, or generally being a d*ck...

I like the way you present things, though, Iain. It is hard to offend if you are really following good manners, whatever the subculture you are in. You can be seen as a wuss, a weirdo, or living in another century (sadly), but not offending, really. There are of course exceptions, I'm sure, but I'd think not too many.

Kim
Kim's picture

I think you're absolutely correct that the good manners and etiquette that are part of the "do" part of training do have a strong part to play in self-protection.  But I think it's important to note that this would be primarily in the cases of social violence (using Rory Miller's social/asocial distinctions).  I think a lot of what gets lumped together as etiquette are things like being humble, being quiet, doing as you're told, losing your ego, and other things that can absoltuely deescalate social violence, which is much more common for young males.  

But I think we'd be wise to recognize that this doesn't solve all types of violence, and this attitude can backfire in predatory violence, or social-gone-toxic situations that are more likely to happen to females. In cases like that, it would be much more important to break social scripts, stand up for yourself, and not do as you're told.  But that mindset is contrary to the traditional culture of martial arts "etiquette".  

So, I completely agree that not being the kind of person that people want to punch can go a long way to not getting punched.  But I think it's also important to recognize the students that we have, what types of violence they may be likely to face, and give them strategies to identify, avoid, and deescalate those situations.  Particularly for young males, the advice you've been discussing in this thread would be very valuable advice.

Ian H
Ian H's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Good points! I’m reminded of the Robert E. Howard (creator of “Conan the Barbarian”) quote:

“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”

I'm reminded of something you said ... if memory serves you even quoted the Conan Creator there too ... in your "Viking Self Defence" podcast.  A very good point.  (Once you get past the Hollywood hokum and the dime-store-novel hoopla, and get down to the real history, there are lots of stories that come from the "old west" of prospectors, miners, drifters and the like who would kill at the drop of a hat for a perceived slight.)

I forst came across this general idea in the works of Marc MacYoung ... I don't think I can quote his words exactly here without tempting the censors, so I'll pass on this link ... http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/preattack.html ... as a good summary (with bad words a'plenty ... )   The first time I read the general idea on his website (can't find the exact page so no link, sorry) it came in the form of (and I think he was quoting someone else) the general principle:

"The word "a##h###" never forms part of a sucessful de-escalation."  I may have got the exact bad word wrong, but you get the idea.  

Andrzej J
Andrzej J's picture

Great topic. So let me throw some fuel on the fire.

Good manners are not only important in self-protection (by making you less 'punchable'), but they are life-enhancing - one of Iain's criteria for a good martial art - in that they make it easier and more enjoyable to function in society. They should definitely be emphasized in martial arts training for those reasons alone.

When that does not happen, other forces can come into play. Young people are intensely competitive and their insecurities drive them to feel a constant need to prove themselves. This can be exacerbated by a culture that promotes 'alpha male' behaviour, with its constant desire to establish dominance in social situations (often just as a way to attract girls). Blend that with martial arts training and you can end up with a guy like 'War Machine' - a.k.a. Jonathan Koppenhaver - the MMA fighter now serving time in Nevada for assault and attempted murder after beating his girlfriend so badly she was left with 18 broken bones.

I'll freely admit my familiarity with MMA is fairly superficial - but it's precisely its lack of a tradition of 'warrior ethics', respect and courtesy that has always put me off, combined with articles I see such as this one:

http://www.xojane.com/issues/mma-culture-can-be-deadly-for-women-and-im-...

and this one:

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/12/he_sawed_off_my_hair_with_a_dull_knife_t...

Now these pieces may be biased - I have no idea, so feel free to set me straight about MMA culture.

My point is simply that courtesy and respect for others should always be considered essential to martial arts training. For the sake of martial arts students and for society as a whole.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Kim wrote:
I think you're absolutely correct that the good manners and etiquette that are part of the "do" part of training do have a strong part to play in self-protection.  But I think it's important to note that this would be primarily in the cases of social violence (using Rory Miller's social/asocial distinctions).  I think a lot of what gets lumped together as etiquette are things like being humble, being quiet, doing as you're told, losing your ego, and other things that can absoltuely deescalate social violence, which is much more common for young males.

But I think we'd be wise to recognize that this doesn't solve all types of violence, and this attitude can backfire in predatory violence, or social-gone-toxic situations that are more likely to happen to females. In cases like that, it would be much more important to break social scripts, stand up for yourself, and not do as you're told.  But that mindset is contrary to the traditional culture of martial arts "etiquette".

Absolutely! There is this old podcast that touches on these issues:

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

I hopefully also framed that in the first post:

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I’m not talking about the pre-determined actions of the criminal here; who decided well ahead of time they are going to use violence for personal gain or gratification. That’s a separate issue … We can’t reason with the unreasonable, and some people will seek violence no matter what.

I would also say that a person good character should not be willing to allow themselves to be harmed. It would therefore not be “good manners” to fail to adequately deal with / neutralise the potential effects of the bad behaviour of others.

This extract from the Virtues Podcast would seem to be relevant:

Notice how Matsumura is clear that the virtues of the martial arts must be not only be good for the individual, but also the society of which they are part. For example, a true martial artist must not only have a peaceful nature, but must also maintain peace, harmony and order within society.

This returns us to the original meaning of “virtue”. One could be claim to be peaceful by refusing to engage in conflict. However, if refusing to engage in that conflict would permit those who were violent in nature to harm and oppress others - i.e. destroy peace and harmony and cause chaos – then one would not be virtuous by taking a passive stance of “peaceful” inactivity.

I think Matumura does a good job in highlighting the qualities we want in the individual alongside the contributions to society we would want that individual to make. Someone who is peaceful in nature, who understands the reality that violence may be required to ensure peace, is virtuous. Someone who is violent in nature is not virtuous. And someone who is peaceful in nature, but lacks the courage to act for peace, is also not virtuous. Once again, this takes us back to the link between virtue and valour. It’s perhaps also worth noting that the word “valor” has its origins in “someone of worth” or “someone possessing virtue”.

The seeming contradiction between being individually peaceful, but while also being prepared to use violence to maintain peace is brilliant summed up by akido teacher Yuki-yoshi Takamura:

“A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence … The true warrior who chooses to be a pacifist is willing to stand and die for his principles. People claiming to be pacifists who rationalize to avoid hard training or injury will flee instead of standing and dying for principle. They are just cowards. Only a warrior who has tempered his spirit in conflict and who has confronted himself and his greatest fears can in my opinion make the choice to be a true pacifist.”

So good manners and “meekness” (where that is the only option we have) are not the same. There will definitely be times where the right thing to do will be to be 100% clear that an individual’s actions will to be indulged or tolerated. That is not impolite if the person is attempting to manipulate us.

In the Virtues Podcast I talk about how the virtue cannot be divorced from its objective:

Virtue is also not something “meek and mild” or simply passively adhering to a list of prohibited actions. To be truly virtuous was always seen as requiring individuals to act strongly, bravely, decisively and always with the greater good at the forefront of your mind.

It also requires thought. Loyalty can be thought of as virtue, but what if one is being loyal to a destructive cause? Soldiers are told to follow orders, but they are also held personally accountable if they follow orders deemed to be unethical or unlawful.

Honesty is a virtue too. However, to use a much used example, would it be morally right to be honest and say to Nazi troops that you were sheltering Jews from persecution? It’s obviously not. The right thing there would be to be “dishonest” and protect the innocents under your care.

True virtue sometimes requires nuanced decisions and can’t be reduced to a tick list. We need to keep the objectives in mind.

The objectives of good manners are primarily to ensure pleasant and productive interactions with those around us; and secondly, to avoid antagonising the volatile in nature. If we have a situation where a person is committed to being unpleasant and harmful, then the objectives of good manners are rendered moot. The person is going to be a source of harm no matter what, and hence it is not impolite to refuse to be manipulated. The “social contract” has been broken and hence no longer applies.

There is no universal solution and each situation need to be dealt with on its own merits. Good manners can help us avoid some types of violence, but it would be a mistake to say that it will solve all types (hopefully I made that clear in my first post) and it would also be a mistake to say that because it won’t solve all types of violence it has no value.

Good thread this :-)

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Andrzej J wrote:
I'll freely admit my familiarity with MMA is fairly superficial - but it's precisely its lack of a tradition of 'warrior ethics', respect and courtesy that has always put me off, combined with articles I see such as this one:

I’d personally not see this as a MMA vs TMA thing. I can point to quite a few “traditional martial artists” who are currently serving time for terrible crimes. I also know of many MMA practitioners who display the kind of gentleness and humility that we’d all like to see associated with martial arts of all types. It would therefore be inaccurate to say that TMA has a monopoly on virtue, ethics and manners. That’s not been my experience.

You could make a case to say good character is a more firmly stated goal in TMA, but it does not follow that it is more effective in delivering the goods in that regard. This quote would seem to be relevant:

Karate aims to build character, improve human behaviour, and cultivate modesty; it does not, however, guarantee it.” – Yasuhiro Konishi

It is possible that a “macho” environment can become be a breeding ground for misogyny – that environment having no true understanding of the genuine nature of “manliness” – so there are sure to be some MMA practitioners and gyms that are problematic in that regard, but TMA is also not free from those issues either. A read through the text of the old masters can revel some very worrying attitudes toward women.

As example, Kyan was known to be a regular visitor to prostitutes and encouraged his students to do the same: “To be a true martial artist training in karate is not enough. One must also associate with prostitutes and get involved in drinking competitions.”

Matsumura was also very misogynistic in his writings: “Having just a technical knowledge of the martial arts is like a woman; it is just superficial and has no depth.”

I could bring forth many other examples too. It would therefore be mistake to say TMA is without its “problematic personalities” and unacceptable attitudes (past and present). It would therefore be wrong to say TMA is the “light side of the force” with MMA representing the “dark side”. Both approaches have their good and bad examples.

I like some of the things Matsumura said, but I’m obviously not going to take all he says as if he were an “infallible guru”. The attitude he expresses toward women is totally wrong and unacceptable. He is not devoid of failings because he is a TMA practitioner. Likewise, I’m not going to say all MMA practitioners are violent misogynists because of the evil Jon Koppenhaver.

I would also be a fair observation that, today, there is much more equality in the martial arts with female instructors and practitioners being every bit as much respected as their male counter parts (although there is still remains room for improvement as martial arts are still male dominated pursuits). You could also make a case that, in recent years, it is MMA who has lead the way in this regard due to the skills and abilities demonstrated by Ronda Rousey, Holly Holm, etc. It was not that long ago that I can recall TV debates about the “brutality” of female boxing and how “unfeminine” it was. There’s been a cultural shift in recent years and there can be no doubt that strong and skilled women such as Rousey have done great things for female martial arts.

Most people are good people. Most martial arts (TMA and MMA) are positive people trying to lead a positive lifestyle. There will always be “bad apples” and unacceptable views held by some, and we should reject them as such.

I would suggest that the goal, for all stripes of martial arts, must be to emulate the best and reject the worst in all that we do: technically, functionally, and morally.

All the best,

Iain

Kim
Kim's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

There is no universal solution and each situation need to be dealt with on its own merits. Good manners can help us avoid some types of violence, but it would be a mistake to say that it will solve all types (hopefully I made that clear in my first post) and it would also be a mistake to say that because it won’t solve all types of violence it has no value.

Couldn't agree more!  And I do think it was clear in your first post, it's just something I wanted to elaborate on a bit.  I think that tends to get missed by a lot of people (at least a lot of people I interact with), and I think that distinction needs to be made as to what will de-escalate different types of violence (not all violence is created equal).

But related to your original topic, I think that this is defintely one of those areas that ties in nicely to Funakoshi's Niju Kun - particularly "Don’t think that what you learn from karate can’t be used outside the dojo."  I think we often enforce the etiquette in training, and too often you see people with great etiquette in the dojo who forget that as soon as they step out the door.  I think that the etiquette is one of the parts of training that we can take from the dojo and use in our everyday lives, and that we will see a vast improvement in our lives in doing so.  And I like this thread that brings it all together - it's not just following the etiquette just to be a good person (though that's important), but also having good manners as a form of self-protection. 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Kim wrote:
I think that distinction needs to be made as to what will de-escalate different types of violence (not all violence is created equal).

I like the phrase “not all violence is created equal”! I may use that :-) I agree and it’s back to defining goal and context again.

All the best,

Iain

Kim
Kim's picture

Feel free to use it!  ... and yeah, it's context, context, context (I feel like I've heard that somewhere before).  :-) 

Andrzej J
Andrzej J's picture

Apologies if I picked on MMA somewhat, Iain  - I do believe that traditional martial artists can learn a great deal from some MMA fighters. But I think you nailed my point when you wrote:

"You could make a case to say good character is a more firmly stated goal in TMA ..."

That's exactly what I was driving at. I don't honestly know how many karate dojos recite their Dojo Kun at the end of every training session any more. But when I started training back in the 80s, we did, and when I trained in Tokyo early last decade, we did. Of course you're also correct when you say:

"...but it does not follow that it is more effective in delivering the goods in that regard. This quote would seem to be relevant: “Karate aims to build character, improve human behaviour, and cultivate modesty; it does not, however, guarantee it.” – Yasuhiro Konishi"

But the basic rules of behaviour outside the dojo are laid out in the Dojo Kun, and an instructor can cultivate a training environment where those rules are treated seriously. My first instructor was very hands-on in this respect - any sign of bullying or rudeness in the dojo was immediately dealt with, with anything from punitive push-ups to a knockdown-rules fight against Sempai himself. There was also the threat of being expelled from the dojo, or of being demoted in grade if you failed to live up to the standards expected of you. The discipline was, I suppose, a bit militaristic in that respect - but it made things clear-cut. You earn your grade, your respect your seniors and you do not bully, in or out of the dojo. For that reason, I'm still a believer in the somewhat hierarchical system found in TMA.

Since you brought up Conan the Barbarian, I'll bring up Spider-Man: 'With great power comes great responsibility.' To me, that idea is reflected in the Dojo Kun, as well as in the code of chivalry (for medieval knights) and in bushido (for samurai). You've acquired a deadly skill, so you have to be correspondingly more courteous in society. (This, to me, elevates the idea of Karate-Do above purely technical Karate-Jutsu ...)

Boxing has traditionally had the Queensberry rules, which, although they only strictly apply in the ring, are based on an underlying sense of fair play. But as time has gone by, that element of pre-fight posturing and intimidation ('First you beat the mind, then you beat the behind") has become the norm - which we also saw in the face-off between Rousey and Holm at their weigh-in last week. I guess there's also the element of showmanship there which encourages that kind of behaviour - audiences love a grudge match - but it's not exactly a great attitude to have when you're out in society.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Andrzej,

That’s a very good post which makes some great points. I’d defiantly agree that character development is more overtly stated goal in TMA and the dojo kun is an example of this. You’re right that you tend not see this in MMA gyms, and even the TMA schools who don’t have dojo kun / formal reciting of it (mine doesn’t) still have expected behaviour (in and out of the dojo) which is non-negotiable.  

Andrzej J wrote:
Since you brought up Conan the Barbarian, I'll bring up Spider-Man: 'With great power comes great responsibility.' To me, that idea is reflected in the Dojo Kun, as well as in the code of chivalry (for medieval knights) and in bushido (for samurai).

Love Spider-Man! Totally agree with what you are saying and I state similar things in the “Warrior Ethics” podcast:

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/martial-virtues-and-warrior-ethics

Andrzej J wrote:
Boxing has traditionally had the Queensberry rules, which, although they only strictly apply in the ring, are based on an underlying sense of fair play.

Traditionally boxing was “the noble art of self-defence” so it too had a character development aspect i.e. the cultivation of character and moral principles.

Andrzej J wrote:
But as time has gone by, that element of pre-fight posturing and intimidation ('First you beat the mind, then you beat the behind") has become the norm - which we also saw in the face-off between Rousey and Holm at their weigh-in last week. I guess there's also the element of showmanship there which encourages that kind of behaviour - audiences love a grudge match - but it's not exactly a great attitude to have when you're out in society.

That’s a good observation that I’d not considered. Marketing does require a good “narrative” and it does help if a fight is seen to be the culmination of that narrative. That’s pretty much how every action movie ever made ends so there is no doubt it appeals to something in the human psyche.  I can therefore see why fight promotors and fighters use that. It tends to fall away post fight though, when we may see the truer nature of the fighters shine through:

 http://www.mmafighting.com/2015/11/19/9761856/holly-holm-dont-bash-ronda-rousey-because-most-wouldnt-even-have-the

You do make a great point that the pre-fight posturing could be seen, by the uninitiated, as the “normal way” in which fighters conduct themselves i.e. “Fighters bad-mouth people and are dismissive and arrogant.” I’d not thought of that before, but you are right. There’s therefore a danger that that behaviour could be aped away from “pre-fight entertainment” in an environment where such behaviour is potentially dangerous and can lead to legal difficulties. A great point!

All the best,

Iain

Ian H
Ian H's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

The seeming contradiction between being individually peaceful, but while also being prepared to use violence to maintain peace is brilliant summed up by akido teacher Yuki-yoshi Takamura:

“A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence … The true warrior who chooses to be a pacifist is willing to stand and die for his principles. People claiming to be pacifists who rationalize to avoid hard training or injury will flee instead of standing and dying for principle. They are just cowards. Only a warrior who has tempered his spirit in conflict and who has confronted himself and his greatest fears can in my opinion make the choice to be a true pacifist.”

I remember hearing that quote in your podcast, and it "struck a wrong note" with me ... although the podcast in general was one I really enjoyed.  

I think Takamura has fallen into a false dichotomy, assuming that all who profess pacifism are either battle-tempered warriors or cowards.  I can understand his disdain for those who cloak their cowardice or indolence with claims of pacifism, no problem there.  

To me, a "pacifist" is one who has decided that he will not engage in hostilities, and who is prepared to bear the consequences of that decision.  There is no requirement that he wait until he has honed his warrior's skills before he makes that decision ... indeed, making that decision before training can be seen as a better time to make the dedication to pacifism: he is committing not only to not fighting, but to not being able to fight.  

... not that I personally sympathise with the pacifist approach, mind  you,  Misguided though they may be, I can still respect someone who has the courage to act upon his convictions.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Ian H wrote:
I remember hearing that quote in your podcast, and it "struck a wrong note" with me ... although the podcast in general was one I really enjoyed.  

I think Takamura has fallen into a false dichotomy, assuming that all who profess pacifism are either battle-tempered warriors or cowards.  I can understand his disdain for those who cloak their cowardice or indolence with claims of pacifism, no problem there.  

To me, a "pacifist" is one who has decided that he will not engage in hostilities, and who is prepared to bear the consequences of that decision.  There is no requirement that he wait until he has honed his warrior's skills before he makes that decision ... indeed, making that decision before training can be seen as a better time to make the dedication to pacifism: he is committing not only to not fighting, but to not being able to fight.  

... not that I personally sympathise with the pacifist approach, mind  you,  Misguided though they may be, I can still respect someone who has the courage to act upon his convictions.

Takamura was talking about Akidoka specifically so – while I see your general point – the part about not learning to fight does not apply to what he said. Because they are Aikidoka they have already made a decision to study martial arts. I think that needs to be kept in mind to get the context of the quote. As an extension of that, my podcast was on “martial virtues” so I say the same applies. 

I’m also totally with you that not all pacifists are cowards. They can indeed be people of strong conviction who are taking a stand for that they believe to be true. History has also shown us that there can be severe consequences for declaring pacifism; so it’s not to be seen as the “easy option”. There can also be no doubt that pacifism / non-violence has proved, on occasion, to be an effective way to cause much needed change (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc).

For me, to assume that war or violence is always the answer is wrong. However, to assume it is never the answer is also wrong. Both can lead to the unnecessary suffering of innocents. As I said in the podcast, we always need to keep in mind the objective of our actions relative to the reality of the situation. There are times when it is moral to fight, and there are times when it is moral not to fight.

And I think this takes us back to the core point; which is admittedly a philosophical one open to personal viewpoints: Can the decision not to fight be a moral choice if it is the only option available? Surely not, because there is no “choice” and hence no decision. Further to that, is the decision not to be able to fight (one step back) a sound moral choice if that “absolutism” has the potential to leave evil unopposed? 

I always liked the saying, “A true warrior fights, not because he hates the enemy in front of him, but because he loves those behind him.”

To me it’s is what motivates the violence that is key. Are we using violence for gain, to cause pain, to enslave, etc? Or are we suing violence to protect the greatest number from that?

There is a moral case for both violence and non-violence and which option we choose will depend on the specific circumstances. But we need to be in a position to make that choice. Maybe not as individuals, but certainly as a society. We need our warriors who can effectively use violence, and we need to have the wisdom and courage not to fight if that is what will ensure the greater good. If those warriors refuse to fight in all circumstances, due to an inability to fight, then we have huge problems because in those circumstances we can’t make the choice to be pacifists as there is no choice to be made. I think this is what Takamura is saying.

All the best,

Iain

Ian H
Ian H's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Takamura was talking about Akidoka specifically so ... We need our warriors who can effectively use violence, and we need to have the wisdom and courage not to fight if that is what will ensure the greater good. If those warriors refuse to fight in all circumstances, due to an inability to fight, then we have huge problems because in those circumstances we can’t make the choice to be pacifists as there is no choice to be made. I think this is what Takamura is saying.

Ahh ... he was talking specifically about people who had already signed up to be martial artists.  That make a lot more sense.  Thanks for the clarification.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Ian H wrote:
Ahh ... he was talking specifically about people who had already signed up to be martial artists.  That make a lot more sense.  Thanks for the clarification.

The full quote would have been more helpful in retrospect :-) Apologies for the misunderstanding that resulted. Here is the full quote:

“Some aikido teachers talk a lot about non-violence, but fail to understand this truth. A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence. He chooses peace. He must be able to make a choice. He must have the genuine ability to destroy his enemy and then choose not to. I have heard this excuse made. “I choose to be a pacifist before learning techniques so I do not need to learn the power of destruction.” This shows no comprehension of the mind of the true warrior. This is just a rationalization to cover the fear of injury or hard training. The true warrior who chooses to be a pacifist is willing to stand and die for his principles. People claiming to be pacifists who rationalize to avoid hard training or injury will flee instead of standing and dying for principle. They are just cowards. Only a warrior who has tempered his spirit in conflict and who has confronted himself and his greatest fears can in my opinion make the choice to be a true pacifist.”

The full thing does show he is talking about trained martial artists and warriors as opposed to all people.

All the best,

Iain