Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
With deliberate one-sidedness (and a broad reference to Amdur, Goldsbury, Hobsbawm & Ranger) I would like to make the proposition that speaking of tradition in aikido is an unneccessary obfuscation that serves to cloud issues rather than clarify them. Let's just do without it.
First of all, Morihei Ueshiba himself was an innovator. If he had been a traditionalist, he would have studied a koryu and remained there. Instead, he expanded and revolutionised the practice of Takeda Sokakus Daito Ruy (which, as Ellis Amdur argues in HIPS, was quite probably an innovation itself). Also, in his spiritual quest, he joined a new religious movement (not an old one), and even went beyond that in his later years. To my knowledge, there are no indications that Ueshiba himself wanted or furthered the creation of a „traditional" canon of aikido. Second, the giants amongst his close personal students were mostly innovators themselves -- for the simple fact that Ueshiba's practice was too multi-faceted (and in parts even obscure), too complex, and his teaching too unstructured to lend itself to simple copying. Even Saito Sensei states quite clearly that he himself structured (and thus „traditionalised") what he was taught by Ueshiba. Ueshiba simply had no clear practice to copy. Third, as Keith Larman pointed out in another thread, the spread of aikido was such that „tradition" would mean something completely different in different parts of the world. In Scandinavia, Nishio Sensei's aikido could be called tradition, in Britain Kenshiro Abe's. On the US West coast, ki aikido is tradition, in Germany that came quite late. In France, tradition could be Tadashi Abe's take on aikido. There is no universal tradition in aikido. That many claims to tradition - from the Scottish bagpipe, sponsored as a nationalist symbol against the Irish harp, to South German "traditional" carnival, institutionalised in many places by the folklorising Nazis - are made to legitimise invention has really been common knowledge in historical research since the eighties. Why should aikido be any different? Tradition is often just a way of saying my lineage is better than yours. Tradition is often just a way of claiming unquestioned authority. Tradition is often just a way of glorifying the old days. Whoever came up with tradition was an innovator. What exactly do you mean when you speak of tradition in aikido? The future of aikido is not „tradition" -- or is it? Thoughts, opinions, objections? |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
|
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
Would you make a similar judgments about other martial arts or ways, apart from Daito-ryu and aikido? Judo and kendo obviously come to mind here, as do some koryu bujutsu, such as Kashima / Katori Shin / to Ryu. All good wishes for 2011. PAG |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
meant "unneccessary" of course. |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
I lack knowledge about those arts - though I am following some discussions on German forums about tradition and innovation in Judo. Those debates are very interesting, but overshadowed by a dichotomy between competitive sport vs. martial art, which we mostly dont have in aikido. So the traditionalists there claim to go back to the roots of Jigoro Kano's Judo. I would tend to claim they are re-inventing Judo though, with a lot of conscious and unconscious references to MMA in fact. But then, my knowledge of Kano and what he intended is very limited. Good wishes for the New Year N |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
|
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
I've always felt M. Ueshiba, and others, trained in a rigorous traditional manner before striking out on their own and becoming innovative. Having that solid, "standardized" background where core basics (like "spiritual" and self development....we are talking "do" not "jutsu" after all) creates a base from which one can eventually start making the art their own. I've always felt those who try to start their training where the greats finished, risk pursuing a hollow practice of the art that only plays lip service to its original intent; growth and self-development, vice actually developing these attributes through the struggle and difficulties that must be overcome in traditionalism-based training. But that's what I pursue in my training...I say whatever training one feels is the equivalent worth of their time and money is just fine for them. Everyone trains for their own reasons, after all.
|
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
I think obfuscation is necessary. BTW, have you read Green "Sense in Nonsense: The Role of Folk History in the Martial Arts" in Martial Arts in the Modern World or Inoue Shun "The Invention of the Martial Arts: Kanō Jigorō and Kōdōkan Judo" in Mirror of Modernity: Invented Traditions of Modern Japan.? |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Interesting. I have had a few students from another dojo come into our dojo and tell me "I practice traditional Aikido. You don't really do Aikido, rather what you do is Hawaiian Aikido." To be honest this really insults me and my school. So I try to practice what my Sensei taught me by asking them to explain to me what is the difference between traditional Aikido and our Hawaiian Non-Aikido. I cannot get a straight answer from these people. I realize this is an idea and an attitude being passed on by their sensei, very unfortunate.
What we try is to preserve the Japanese Traditions that are a part of Aikido. IMHO Aikido is a moving concept not a rigid set of techniques. I have experienced many arts and the concepts are the same. Even in the hard style striking arts, once you get past the kata and forms, you need to expand to find the techniques within the techniques. Find the block within the strike, and the strike within the block. If you are perfecting the kata or form for the sake of the kata, then I think you're missing the point. |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
i think the spirit behind the thoughts of the OP is good--aikido is an alive art and thus it necessarily should have room to grow... but, it seems immensly important to put oneself through the same training as the person(s) who we hold up as models. im always pondering this "tradition" thing, and i imagine i always will....while innovation is good, i shudder at the thought of someone walking into a dojo and saying "it's great that you guys have been training like this for so many years, but after you allow me to join, i think ill go ahead and follow my own model that i just thought of..." |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
Thanks! |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
Is rigourous structured training necessarily "traditional"? Or is it maybe just what a good teacher in a credible lineage teaches as basics, regardless of "tradition"? What I am contemplating is, sort of, the side-effects of the use of the word tradition. Or, in a different perspective again, is shu-ha-ri a one generation thing, or does it involve several generations' tradition? |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
:cool: Happy New Year to all. |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
IMHO, simplistically, saying I have no tradition would mean I have not history, no lineage, no established path I am following lead by those who came before me.
I am not that talented or innovative (or egotistical) to think it starts with me or that I could come up with this stuff on my own.. Tradition is not an unnecessary obscurity, but an appreciated clarity. |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Nicholas:
I think you have an interesting point. I would further it by saying that we must be careful to distinguish which meaning we're using when we say traditional. We can talk about our Aikido as being part of the Aikido tradition meaning we're saying we come from a defined lineage that goes back to the founder of Aikido. As you pointed out (and as I mentioned elsewhere) those traditions tended to have different "nodes" along the way depending on who introduced Aikido in various locations. The second meaning of "traditional" is subtly different. Some use the word to signify a claim of "correctness" of authenticity with what was "actually" being done by O-Sensei. This is quite a different usage of the term. The prior usage implies that the "lineage" simply goes back to Ueshiba Morihei. The latter usage implies that there is some "way" that is in fact more correct or more authentic than others. This latter view of course begs a lot of questions of how you define such a thing. I wouldn't challenge tradition in the prior sense. It is in essence a term used somewhat similarly to saying one has a lineage that can be verified and traced back to the founder. The latter sense is a loaded usage of the term which carries implications of correctness, right/wrong, validity and authenticity independent of lineage. The latter involves a series of value-judgments about what is correct, what is right, etc. Of course there may very well be value in discussing the latter case as well. And I think that is an ongoing discussion and lately the work of Mr. Amdur as well as Dr. Goldsbury are shedding a tremendous amount of light on those points. So... A "traditional" form of aikido (first sense -- lineage) may not be accepted by all as "traditional" (the latter sense - doing what it is perceived that the founder was *really* doing). All that said, to those who dismiss much of Aikido as not being traditional in the latter sense, I really don't have much to say or argue about as any disagreement is really about the very nature of what Aikido *is* or *was* or *should be*. I think that is an open question and there are sincere people who believe very different things for very good reasons of their own. So I'm left in a weird limbo. I feel that that Aikido morphed into a wide variety of things and continues to do so. *I* personally have some very strong opinions about what it *should* be, but I don't begrudge those who are following different paths themselves. I've said it many times -- the biggest strength of Aikido was its ability to reach far and wide gaining tremendous popularity. But at the same time that is its greatest weakness -- it became virtually all things to all people. Back to work for me. Enough deep thoughts for one day. :) |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
|
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
|
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Hi Nicholas,
The future of Aikido being tradition or not? I would say you look at the various aspects of your Aikido and see which parts are tradition and which parts are innovations. Do you wear traditional Aikido Gi or an Hakama? You may get innovative and wear a hat as well. Do you call the names of the techniques in japanese? Why? Do you bow? The point is I guarantee you will keep certain traditions no matter how innovative you feel you are being and I also guarantee you will innovate no matter how traditional you think you are being. I think you probably disagree with people becoming too robotic or like sheep rather than what you said. (Just my opinion) Hope this is added food for thought. Happy new year. G. |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Tradition is passed from one generation to another either by direct transmission, like those that trained directly with O'Sensei, or indirectly by those that train with someone that trained directly with O'Sensei or with someone who trained with someone who trained with O'Sensei and so on. Most of us are in the latter. For those of us who did train directly with O'Sensei we have to rely on what our sensei shares with us. This is from their interpretation, their understanding of what they learned from their sensei who taught them from their interpretation and understanding of what they were taught. I think it can be like playing the telephone game sometimes.
I beleive I teach traditional martial arts at my dojo but I am sure that I do not teach in a traditional manner at all times. |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Any time "traditional" comes up I have to wonder at which tradition; How far back do they mean? Every tradition changes somewhat over time, some more slowly than others. Tradition is just the name we give to describe the things that were done before us; innovation is just the name we give to things we didn't know about before their invention (e.g. When my dad was a kid, he invented the bow and arrow; he was innovative for his situation, despite the fact that the concept had existed for thousands of years elsewhere).
Space flight innovative? I heard about some stuff that happened long long ago in a place far far away that makes our space flight look a bit weak.:D |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
There are traditions in the Japanese culture that Aikido was created in and some try to obeserve these traditions as a part of Aikido. The martial art of O'Sense is an eclectic modern art with no traditions. David |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Tradition is something passed on...... things do get added, changed, chucked out, in the course of time......
It's a bit like names. The "traditional" thing is to pass it on to your offspring, unless they hate your guts and get it changed...... ;) :D |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
As O'Sensei took in a number of live-in students in the different phases of his life, each of these students took back with himself the "tradition" with O'Sensei imparted at that particular stage in his life. The "tradition" which each student took back would then be different. In my opinion, Aikido has not real tradition. It is understanding, practising & passing on its Essence that really matters. |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
This question has so many ramifications.
Koryu is usually considered a "living museum piece" - inviolate, unchanged. Some are maintained that way. Others, however, are not. I have participated in the renovation of old kata, and the creation of new kata in two ryu. I've seen other ryu do the same. When I practice outside, (sometimes in the rain and the ground gets wet), we usually wear shoes and street clothes (just as the bushi did back when kimono and hakama were street clothes. But what point is too much? I use weapons made of woods the Japanese never used, and construction methods the same (laminated spears of vera wood, for example). But "improving" a kusarigama by changing the chain to piano wire, for example, just seems wrong. When one asserts that one is attempting to train in "combatively sound" methods, then what is one doing with weapons that were archaic 500 years ago? At what point would my Araki-ryu no longer be Araki-ryu? Shall I replace bokken with aluminum baseball bats? If not, why not? To be quite honest, it's hard to explain why not? The maintenance of tradition (the clothes, the etiquette, the roots in Japanese culture) circumscribes the art in a way that enables one to use kan - a kind of intuitive sense - to say, "that's not x-ryu." I remember when I was detailed to revive some kusarigama kata for Toda-ha Buko-ryu, and after a year, showed them to Nitta sensei, and she said, "Buko-ryu rashiku-nai n desu ga . . ." which mean, "It somehow doesn't have the essential quality of Buko-ryu." It took me another half-year to extinguish what she correctly perceived as subtle contaminants from Araki-ryu. Paradoxically, the kata were, in some senses, stronger in the original version, but the latter version contributed to the development of technique throughout ALL the techniques of the school in a way that the former did not. Aikido Nicholas, in his original note, outlined the critique on tradition well. But here is the problem. Yokomen-uchi, Shomen-uchi, tsuki, etc. Ushiro-dori (double wrist grab from behind), ryote-mochi (two hands on one wrist grab), etc. If one says, "Well, we don't need the keikko gi and hakama, and the bowing in and the Japanese formalism, then why the impractical attacks, which are very culture bound. [I think that if one did abandon all of that, you'd have something like Systema]. However, if my theory of HIPS is correct, then the formalism is, in fact, necessary. Those particular attacks and techniques are for the purpose of a) softening all the joints, as Ueshiba M. stated b) developing the kind of ki/kokyu that Ueshiba M. manifested. In a way, the cultural formalism creates, for both non-Japanese and Japanese a feeling of being "somewhere else," outside of day-to-day life, with it's considerations of street boxing and aluminum baseball bats. It becomes a kind of a laboratory, where one can possibly study "something else," that is only possible when one abandons the logic of the modern day exercise physiology, combat sport world. Terry Dobson retorted to other uchi-deshi, who criticized him for training with Wang Shu Chin, "I don't want to be Osensei's student. I want to BE Osensei." Maybe, just maybe, the tradition is necessary to make that possible. . .. to be sure, there are other ways of training in internal strength, but Morihei's particular amalgam of skills may require tradition. Ellis Amdur |
Re: Challenging notions of "tradition" in aikido
Quote:
Of course, that would assume one studies with a teacher who embodied all that, which in Koryu may be the norm, but in aikido, for reasons discussed very often, is rarely the case. Thanks, everybody, for a very interesting discussion, and all the best for your life and training in 2011. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:00 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.