Poll: Is aikido violent?

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[AikiWeb System]

AikiWeb Poll for the week of December 15, 2002:

Is aikido violent?

I don't do aikido
Yes
No


Here are the current results (http://www.aikiweb.com/polls/results.html?poll_id=144).

[mike lee]

Aikido is never violent — but I am.

[jaxonbrown]

no. violence only comes from passion. no passion or emotion means no 'violence'.

[Bruce Baker]

In the present form of teaching and practice Aikido is not violent.

There is the capacity to be violent with exteme predjudice ... but most of us keep that in our back pocket as we practice.

Mike Lee ... my mommy says not to play with you, you are too mean!

It took a few minute for me to compose myself after reading your post ... it totally left me helpless with laughter, good one.

[Williamross77]

It's all in your mind Mike...

[SeiserL]

IMHO, Aikido is non-violent, but people can be. Especially if they are filled with pain, fear, and ignorance.

Until again,

Lynn

[Brian H]

no. violence only comes from passion. no passion or emotion means no 'violence'.
A sociopath would likely not feel much or any emotion or passion, but still use great violence to achieve a goal. So, yes there is "passionless violence." Sociopaths aren't "non-violent," they just don't give a crap about the consequence of there actions.

To me, Aikido fully recognizes its violent nature. Both uke and nage focus there practice on finding ways to avoid harm amid violence. The net result can be an extremely violent confrontation, but no harm, both on the attack and defense.

In the first month of study, I learned all sorts of things that could readily be used to harm or kill another. However, I do not study Aikido to make these techniques more deadly or dangerous. Instead, I study to make them more effective. The windows of opportunity created by my technique get larger and the need to harm an attacker in order to survive likewise diminishes.

Someone snapped a photo of me being thrown once. The throw was a completely routine exercise in ukemi and while it was a “cool” throw, I thought little of it. After class, my friend showed me the picture on the screen of his camera and I was shocked to see myself inverted and flying through the air.

Is that violence?

No, not really, but only because I was among friends who wished me no harm.

[JW]

I am I mistaken or mislead, or was the art of Aikido founded as a way of non-violence?
I thought the O-sensei quote was:

"Aikido is non-violence."

Of course this idea as much as any other is subject to the inevitable cultural spiral of semantic re-digestion into alternative definitions and stuff, but how can 35-or-so years bring this much change (over 25% say aikido is violent)?
Or are people in this world not ready for non-violence?

--JW

[DaveO]

In my opinion, Aikido is a tool, not in itself violent, but capable of being used for violence. Given the circumstances, one can use Aikido in a non-violent way, i.e. to tenkan past an attacker and out of his range, or in a violent way, i.e. using kaitenage to drop him forcefully on his head - a potentially fatal technique.

So, Aikido in itself is not violent, but one can use it for violence if one chooses.

[mattholmes]

I think any method or system for teaching has to be somewhat artificial. Probably this is the same for Aikido. I think Aikido, as a way to become in harmony with the universe, is not violent. However, I think the physical techniques practiced in dojo could be characterized as violent. For me, it's this paradox that makes training interesting.

[YEME]

its not the product, its the end user.

[Mr. P]

IMHO, Aïkido contains what you want.

It can be violent when you're filled by fear and anger. I practiced once while I was full of frustration :disgust: . All that I remember is my friends saying : "Ouch ! What has he just eat ?!"
I was simply scaring them :eek: .

It can be practiced softly and calmly. I remember when I first practice with my senseï. I hit as hard and as fast as I could, but (it make me shy :blush: ) I was never able to touch him. It was like punching water.
After all, power is you could surely break your enemy but you don't.

I think a (good) aïkidoist is a mirror of his (her) enemy. If the enemy is violent, he would suffer his own violence. If the enemy is non-violent, he would suffer nothing because I don't see why I'd fight with him :p .

I know it's like playing words :confused: but I think Aïkido can be violent. I voted it was not because its goal is to make peace :ai: ...

[REK]

Aikido is never violent-- but I am.

Its not the product, its the end user.

Aikido is a tool.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Are people in this world not ready for non-violence? -- Our species is not capable of universal non-violence.

[MikeE]

I like to think that any "violence" in Aikido is wrought upon the attacker by the intesity and voracity of their attack.

What the attacker puts into it, is what they get back. (Very Karma-ish)

In Aiki,

[bogglefreak20]

Aikido, as I understand it, is in it's heart a non-violent art (I ommit the word "martial" consciously). Violence, however, has become a part of some schools, that claim to teach so-called "real-life" Aikido. I'm referring to a dojo in my country, not to dojos outside Slovenia - I have no intention of insulting anyone (feel free to comment, anyway).

The sensei at this particular dojo used to train in the dojo I'm currently visiting, got to 3. kyu, didn't manage to brake the wall of relaxation, hence quit, gave himself the rank of master nad started teaching something that can at best be described street-fighting. I don't mean to criticise, but would like to hear your coments on the subject.

Personaly I regret that a fine art like Aikido has to suffer such unwanted, unnecessary and arbitrary modifications.

With respect to Aikidoka around the world,

Miha

[Williamross77]

I would leave the Dojo imediately unless you want to learn his "art" which only HE is a master of.. sounds scarry to me...

but hey it's a free country "i think" and if people like it who's to say, but if you want Aikido, even practice at the lowest level with kyu ranks is still preferable to a class of free for all street tactics with no KI principles.

[Thalib]

Miha Sinkovec-san, your story has many similarities with my country and with many martial arts within my country.

Especially after all those mixed martial art competitions started entering the scene, a lot of people here wanted quick fixes to be a master. Makes me sad sometimes.

[diesel]

Merriam Webster:

1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE

3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE

4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

By the merriam webster defination I would probaly say no. We are using force to not injure or abuse our attacker. But.. I'll pose this.. O'Sensei said Aikido is 90% atemi, 10% technique.

Is atemi violent? A punch to the jaw, a strike to the wrist to deflect a punch, a shihonage to redirect a beer bottle from a shomen. Your definition of violence vs my definition of violence. I think we also see this between different styles of aikido.

Here is the way I interpret aikido. Aikido is the art of peace. You cannot have peace without violence. Yin and yang.

By redirecting aiki in attacks, we are being violent. But we are hopefully taking out opponent to a point where he is subdued without us having to break him. Leading to a not as violent end to the situation.

My .02.

Cheers,

Eric

[Bryant Pierpont]

IMHO, Aikido is controlled violence. One cannot throw another to the ground and not see it as a violent act. However, done in aiki, we stop the violent act of an aggressor by using controlled force/violence and (in a perfect world), no one is injured.

[JW]

Now I see why O-sensei was sad that "nobody was following his aikido."

The question was not whether you are violent or whether the skills you learn in aikido class allow you to do violence.
The question was "is aikido violent."

Fortunately as long as the techniques of the art of aikido are transmitted the way they were intended (and it seems this IS currently the case most of the time, from what I've seen), then Ueshiba's message is still alive. I hope it survives long enough.
--JW

ps:
Within the constraints of the medium (interaction of people in a physical conflict in which all but one intend to hurt the target) of this art, aikido completely embodies non-violence. Atemi is not an excuse for violent attacks and throwing and pinning are NOT violent, considering that to do aikido throws and pins you have to pass up the opportunnity to really destroy the uke..

[Bronson]

Is a hammer violent?

Bronson

[JW]

Is a hammer violent?

Bronson
Aikido is not a tool, it's a philosophy, a way of human interaction, and an artistic system of expression. It's not something you use--it's a way to follow.

I've always liked your sig quote. I thought you would agree that aikido encourages and teaches how to choose non-violence.
--JW

[Bronson]

I thought you would agree that aikido encourages and teaches how to choose non-violence.

I do. I also like how it offers me the ability to be decidely violent...IF I SO CHOOSE.
Aikido is not a tool, it's a philosophy, a way of human interaction, and an artistic system of expression. It's not something you use--it's a way to follow.

To be quite honest I don't see the difference. A philosophy is a tool to help you live your life the way you choose. Dance is a system of artistic expression and I would say that dancing is a dancer's tool for expressing themselves...same with aikido. As for the way, I feel that what I study isn't nearly as important as how I study it. I feel that the benefits of deep, intense study can be had by studying just about anything...deeply and intently. I choose aikido, other choose tai chi, or calligraphy, or dance, or karate....these are then the tools that are used to follow the way.

I really think we agree on this we just choose to use different words (tools) to express it. I still stand by my hammer analogy though. A hammer can be used to build low cost housing or a baby's crib. It can also be used to smash someone's head in. In the end it's the intent of the person wielding the hammer that's important.

Oh well, it's late and I'm rambling :)

Bronson

[JW]

I understand what you mean about the hammer. The reason I disagree is that I think that a way is different than a tool.

A spoon is a kitchen tool. A style of cooking, which could be described in a book and practiced in lots of kitchens around the world, is an art. Lets say the style of cooking happens to be a way of making cakes. Then somebody posts on cakeweb forums "is our way a way of making pasta?" Well a good cake maker may make a great lasagna if he uses lasagna stuff instead of cake stuff, but so what--he has ceased to practice cake-waza. He is off on his own, using well-refined skills do something that is not cake making.

Aikido is how to resolve conflict in the LEAST damaging way possible. This is the OPPOSITE of violence. If you choose to unnecessarily pound someone out of malice, then you are NOT doing aikido--I don't care how much it looks like any aikido technique.

"Aikido is non-violence" and "aikido is the manifestation of love" cannot describe a simple tool--they describe a way of thinking and a way of feeling. In this way of thinking, violence is the enemy.
--JW

[aikilouis]

Aikido is the transformation of violence into peace. The opponent has a hostile intention, and wants to use violent ways (smashing your head, for ex.) to achieve his goal. The accomplished aikidoka does not oppose his own strength to his adversary's. He attracts him to guide him "softly" to a situation where violence will not be of any use (pinned by ikkyo, for ex.) and where he will have to give up his initial intention and to relax.

IMHO, Aikido is not a tool, because a tool does not transform its user : it just serves his purpose regardless of his ethical value. On the contrary Aikido is a philosophy of mind and body, and brings the practitioner to reconsider his ways and reasons of acting (ethics) towards non-violence.

[mike lee]

It took a few minute for me to compose myself after reading your post ... it totally left me helpless with laughter, good one.

Damn! My intention was to scare the bejesus out of you — NOT to make you laugh! It seems that I've failed once agian. :rolleyes:

Let's see if this works: "Come to Jesus Bruce. Make Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior."

There. Did that work?

[Brian H]

Aikido has a lot of merit as a self defense system. The emphasis on moving to a "safe" place, then executing one of the many useful techniques is wonderful.

A skill Aikidoka would likely fair well when confronted by an aggressor of a different tradition. In no small part, because the Aikidoka would likely seek to avoid violence all together, but still resolve the issue at hand.

However, what if there was a confrontation between two Aikidoka? What would happen?

Aikidoka practice is to throw and be thrown without causing or incurring harm.

I think that if the two Aikidoka's judgement were clouded by the passion or the moment, they would just have to work it out when they were to tired to carry on the fight.

[mike lee]

However, what if there was a confrontation between two Aikidoka? What would happen?

I would grab a bokken and beat the fool senseless. :freaky:

[Bruce Baker]

Mike Lee, You are reducing me to tears, now if I can get this stich out of my side from laughing ... You have to train with John Johnson in Baltimore sometime, he has the same kind of banter during practice that leaves the rest of the class in wonderment why I am laughing while I am being thrown or tapping out.

Oh, Well.

Clarity of mind.

You must not be attached to emotions even though you have them, you must not be attached to life even though you cherish life, you must be clear of attachments that would cloud your mind or slow the reflexes of your body as you respond in either word or deed to maintain the non-violent peace of society.

Which means, no matter what kind of weapon, tool of destruction, be it a physical weapon or merely words/deeds, it is the person makes it happen, and the person who next to him/her who let's it happen. The darkness of ones mind determines if they will have the advantage to be victorious or be burdened by that darkness.

The moral dilemma of allowing a violent act to be performed verses having the capability to know how to be violent is but another moot point when practicing aikido. We practice to improve body and mind to attain a clarity to discern from the darkness and the clarity.

Indeed, it never Aikido that is violent, that is just a name for the practice we do. It is a description for movements, techniques, and manner of martial arts ... how could Aikido ever be violent?

So, yes ... Aikido can never be violent, it is the practitioner who makes that choices
Enough with hammers, grenades, and atom bombs mentality of describing these object being violent, as it is the use of them in particular situations that becomes the words/deed that makes up violent.

When inanimate objects become animate, because of robotics and computerized personality traits, or are used, then, of course, violence will ensue.

Put those analogys of inanimate objects to bed, please, please, puhh-lease!

[one4k4]

I believe aikido is non-violent as well. I also tend to think that violence is in the eye of the beholder. Similar to love, just the other end of the spectrum. Unless you love violence, but if that's the case we have an entire institute here on the Hospital's campus for you. Padded walls, everything.. But, aikido in general, I think is very non-violent in that the people who practice, practice because they'd like to know how to redirect anger, attacks, and violence without necessarly having to be violent themselves.

[Bryant Pierpont]

I'll modify my answer to maybe. The online Webster defines violent as

Main Entry: vi·o·lent

Pronunciation: -l&nt

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin violentus; akin to Latin vis strength -- more at VIM

Date: 14th century

1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>

2 a : notably furious or vehement <a violent denunciation> b : EXTREME, INTENSE <violent pain> <violent colors>

3 : caused by force : not natural <a violent death>

4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <a mental patient becoming violent> b : prone to commit acts of violence <violent prison inmates>

Sudden intense activity - yes.

The other definition - no.

But isn't everyone really saying the same things...in so many different words?

[Ta Kung]

I really hate it when people use quote from dictionarys as answers! I'm not angry with you, Bryant (your case is different). But your post made me start thinking about another messageboard, where people did this ALL the time. It sucked. I've finaly forgotten about it, and now it's back to haunt me again. Arrrghh! :)

Sorry, just had to get that out of my system. :)

[happysod]

I fail to believe we could ever get good ol Joe public to believe any martial art is non-violent, no matter how many dictionaries we use.

I admit it, I voted yes! Mainly because although the intentions in aikido may be intrinsically non-violent, although I've met many practitioners I'm not sure qualify, I'm not convinced the execution normally is (nikkyo anyone).

I do find it interesting that the most vociferous arguments are by the "its not violent" group (with the notable exception of the ever dependable Mr Lee).

[mike lee]

vociferous

SYLLABICATION: vo·cif·er·ous

PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: v-sfr-s     KEY

ADJECTIVE: Making, given to, or marked by noisy and vehement outcry.

OTHER FORMS: vo·cifer·ous·ly —ADVERB

vo·cifer·ous·ness —NOUN

SYNONYMS: vociferous, blatant, boisterous, strident, clamorous These adjectives mean conspicuously and usually offensively loud. Vociferous suggests a noisy outcry, as of vehement protest: vociferous complaints. Blatant connotes coarse or vulgar noisiness: “Up rose a blatant Radical” (Walter Bagehot). Boisterous implies unrestrained noise, tumult, and often rowdiness: boisterous youths. Strident stresses offensive harshness, shrillness, or discordance: a legislator with a strident voice. Something clamorous is both vociferous and sustained: a clamorous uproar.

:D

Sorry Patrik — I just couldn't resist. (I must be a very bad man.) But I learned a new word today!

[JW]

Well I guess it's been discussed to death. time for a new poll.
Anyway my last thoughts:

I've always thought of the sudden intesnse activity as coming from uke's attack, with aikido being the part where that activity calms down to peacefullness (nage first rises to the intensity of the attack but promotes peace by remaining calm). And yes I realize sometimes nage must initiate but that does not contradict the above at all.

Also it was the weirdest thing in concept, but thanks to Patrick Cassidy sensei I now have seen The Non-violent Nikkyo. Really cool stuff. I am convinced that no matter how violent some people are, aikido itself remains non-violent.

Well thanks for reading and thanks for writing, this has been one interesting poll.
--JW

[sanosuke]

its not the product, its the end user

agreee, being a flexible martial art aikido is depending on the practitioner in applying the art. although two people comes from a same art the outcome can be different.

In my personal opinion aikido is not bound by 'violent' or 'soft' alone. Aikido gives its practitioner more option to deal with his/her attackers compared to other martial arts. depending on situation and mood, a soft aikidoka can turn violent on certain situations and vice versa. Besides, what does 'violent' mean here? Is it the Steven Seagal style aikido, or when a person attacks you you just avoid and let him bang himself to a wall?, both of them can be considered violent, I think....

[Alfonso]

I like to think Aikido allows an expression for violence that can be safely handled through nonviolence. As Uke the feeling I try for is violence in the attack, an emotional discharge (pheromones even?) which Nage can ride safely down.

To me Aikido transforms society because it tames the killers, not because it makes killers out of the tame. It tames them by allowing an constructive expression of violence.