An Aikido Journey: Part 7 by Peter Goldsbury
[Discuss this article (0 replies)]
[Download this article in PDF format]
In this installment I shall once more discuss aikido 'politics'. The
emphasis, however, changes from local and national 'politics' to the
international variety. I shall first focus on European aikido and save
international aikido and the I.A.F. for Part 8.
One consequence of the trips around the country to attend weekend
seminars with my instructor was that I became known outside my own
dojo and eventually became the secretary of the national
organization. This involved organizing occasional meetings of dojo or
area representatives, organizing the training seminars for visiting
instructors and, most important, organizing the annual summer
school. To organize this last event an organization was necessary on a
national scale, for it was far beyond the resources of any individual
dojo and it would have been uneconomic to invite a visiting shihan
from Japan to conduct a week's intensive training for just a few local
dojos.
During this period, I also visited aikido organizations outside the
U.K. and also attended meetings of larger aikido organizations in
Europe. This is an aspect of aikido 'politics' that someone used to
U.S. practice might find unusual, even difficult to understand. For a
start, the U.S. is a very large country and so international aikido
'politics', especially in the United States Aikido Federation
(U.S.A.F.) itself, is all but non-existent. There is some relationship
with aikido practitioners in Canada, but the U.S.A.F. is not part of
any larger continental grouping. Whether it should be grouped with
Mexico in a North American grouping was at one time a major political
issue, but this has now cooled somewhat. European perceptions are
rather different, as people in the U.K. organization found out. The
British have a love-hate relationship with the European continent and
were not well known for their attendance at training seminars held in
Europe. There was a resident Japanese shihan in the U.K., so trips to
Europe were nothing more than a few toes dipped in a large pond. The
Europeans, for their part, thought that British aikido was rather
insular and felt that British participation in a larger continental
grouping would be a more tangible demonstration of the 'harmony'
thought to be implicit in the name of the art. The British felt that
this was an unwelcome extension of the concept's meaning.
The British national organization was minimal and not particularly
efficient, in the sense that there was nothing much beyond a network
of satellite groups of dojos, clustered around a particular senior
instructor, and minimalist, in the sense that no additional
organization was thought to be necessary. Occasionally a newsletter
was produced and meetings were held when the chief instructor visited
a particular dojo in a satellite group. However, during my time as
general secretary we did give some attention to the question of
whether, and how, to become a legally constituted body. One important
factor was that Kanetsuka Minoru Sensei was professional. In other
words, his income was derived from aikido, but the fees paid by
members of the Ryushinkan Dojo in London were not sufficient and he
supplemented this income with the weekend seminars and also with
shiatsu. Thus it was necessary to provide a more structured and
reliable source of income and this meant that we had to consider the
question of a formal, legally binding relationship between the
organization and the chief instructor, or Technical Director, as he
was called. This proved extremely difficult. To become a limited
liability company under U.K. law meant that the shareholders (the
dojos) could dismiss the directors (the management committee, which
was fine) and especially the Technical Director. This last point was
resisted, on the grounds that such a relationship undermined the
traditional vertically structured relationship between Master &
Disciple, which was thought to be the fundamental relationship on
which that of dojo instructor & dojo member was based. When I left the
U.K. in 1980, this still had not been resolved satisfactorily and it
was left to my successor to deal with.
The need to become a legal body was also underlined by the moves being
made by the British government at the time to 'regulate' the martial
arts. The dojo waiver that is such a common feature of training here
in Japan is not binding in English law and so a person can sign a
waiver releasing an instructor or dojo member from responsibility in
case of injury -- and still bring a court action against that
instructor or member. Coupled with the ever-present phenomenon of
grand masters, sokes, and self-promoted 10th dans with obscure, or
downright false, lineage and credentials, the possibility of court
action resulting from serious injury during aikido training revealed
the need for some sort of insurance and also for some guarantee of
quality that can be provided by an organization tied to a larger
whole, especially if this larger whole involved the national or local
government and the Aikikai Hombu, which was considered to be the
'Mother House' of aikido.
Horizons Widened (2):
European Aikido 'Politics'
When I returned from the USA in 1975 and resumed training, the
organization to which I returned had changed its name. It was no
longer the Aikikai of Great Britain (A.G.B.), but the British Aikido
Federation (B.A.F.). The name change was consequent on the creation of
the International Aikido Federation (I.A.F.) and the Aikikai requested
all the organizations affiliated with it to switch from XXX
Aikikai to XXX Aikido Federation. I suspect that the reason
for this was to bring overseas practice into line with that in
Japan. Here in Japan the legal foundation was the Aikikai, as I have
explained earlier, but there was an extensive and growing network of
groups of dojos. These were local, especially based on prefectures or
regions in Japan such as Kanto or Kansai, or based on national and/or
local government networks, keiretsu groups of companies, or the
Japanese armed forces. Thus my very first aikido teacher had a close
association with a dojo centred on the Mitsubishi group of
companies. The second Doshu, Kisshomaru Ueshiba, also had a close
association with this dojo.
The ostensible reason for the creation of the I.A.F. was to unite all
aikido groups affiliated to the Aikikai. As a reason this has
impeccable credentials, even though it goes against virtually the
entire history of the martial arts in Japan. However, the actual
impetus came from a group of aikido practitioners in Europe, whose
interest in aikido stemmed from their earlier or concomitant training
in judo. It is well known that all the students of Morihei Ueshiba at
the Kobukan practiced other martial arts and judo had become very well
established by the time the first aikido deshi traveled to
Europe. It is not surprising, then, that some of these first deshi
were accomplished in judo and taught aikido to selected individuals
alongside their judo classes. What is surprising, however, is the fact
that judo outside Japan was growing increasingly competitive was not
seen as a danger.
The growing interest in aikido in Europe led to requests to the
Aikikai Hombu for resident teachers who were primarily
aikidoka, but the first such deshi to reside in Europe
established his network of aikido dojos firmly under the umbrella of
judo. Perhaps it was easier to make a good start and become relatively
well established by doing this, but this arrangement contained the
seeds of the discord that was to tear European aikido apart in the
1980s. Readers in the U.S. might best make sense of this situation by
imaging the present U.S.A.F. created under the aegis of a nationwide
network of flourishing judo organizations with increasingly powerful
representation on international bodies like the International Olympic
Committee (I.O.C.).
A cultural association of European aikido had been created and the
members of this association, which later became the European Aikido
Federation or E.A.F., informed the Aikikai Hombu of their plans for a
similar organization, but worldwide. A meeting was held in Spain in
1975, but by some deft negotiating spadework, the Aikikai ensured that
the inaugural Congress of the new I.A.F. was actually held in Japan
one year later.
As the general secretary of the national organization, I attended a
meeting of the E.A.F. in 1978. I was rather stunned by this meeting,
for it led me to reconsider why I was actually practicing the art. The
meeting, a general congress of the federation, was organized by France
and held in Nice and was attended not just by national delegates, but
by most of the Japanese shihan living in Europe. It was at this
meeting that I first perceived a major truth about postwar aikido:
that the Aikikai Hombu has allowed, almost encouraged, the spread of
aikido outside Japan, but that the Japanese shihan dispatched were not
equipped, either by the Aikikai or by their culture in general, to
approach other cultures from a position of equality.
The major issue at the meeting concerned the degree of autonomy to be
given by the Aikikai Hombu to a continental European grouping,
especially concerning the crucial questions of teaching, examining and
grading. The U.S. has had its shihankai for many years, so this
question has never been a real issue. In Europe the argument was that
the Aikikai Hombu was too far away to be aware of local conditions and
so needed to grant a larger measure of autonomy than would be
necessary in Japan.
The congress was interesting in many respects. First, it revealed a
significant split among the Japanese shihan. For practical purposes,
some acquiesced in the original idea to spread aikido in Europe under
the general aegis of judo, but others were resolutely opposed to it,
on the grounds that the two arts were fundamentally
different. Secondly, in addition to these fundamental differences, the
congress revealed additional -- and very wide differences of opinion
about how an aikido organization, especially an international aikido
organization, should actually work. The British favoured a minimalist
approach, with a nationally based organizational framework that was
only just sufficient to do the job, but others wanted a more
elaborate, continental-based organization. I think these differences
reflected wider political differences among E.U. member states
(Britain had not joined the E.U. at this time).
These differences came to a head between 1978 and 1980. One
organization in Holland wished to start a new aikido organization free
from the judo umbrella and this caused a major split on three levels:
among the member organizations of the E.A.F; among the members of the
directing committee of the E.A.F; and among the Japanese shihans
resident in Europe. The practical effect of the split was the de
facto creation of two groups, which still remain at the present
time. The effects of this split will be explored in the next
installment, concerning international aikido 'politics'.
[Discuss this article (0 replies)]
|