There is a growing belief that we as a North American society are above the need for any form or expression of violence. This apprehension to violence comes from the fear of extreme violence as has been apparently on the increase over the past couple decades with the increase in US gun related tragedies. The unfortunate thing is that these extreme examples create a multi-tiered problem, not the least of which is comparing gun related violence to knife and unarmed related violence.
Although a utopian world in which violence was no longer necessary would be an ideal, humanity has not yet advanced beyond its base responses. So, the question posed above remains: In today’s apparently modern world, is there still a need and place for Martial Arts training?
To be able to look at this question, we must look at:
a) the historic viewpoints regarding the use of force,
b) some roots to the modern anti-violence stance,
c) the legal rights of individuals regarding self-defence and;
d) the training regimens and the potential benefits.
Historically, developing civilized societies have subscribed in some way to what Thomas Hobbes defined as the Social Contract – that participants in a society have agreed either implicitly or tacitly to the suspension of their some of their freedoms to the ruling authority in return for the protection of other rights and freedoms. Usually the first and foremost of these suspended freedoms is the freedom to act in a violent manner, which becomes legally restricted in return for other freedoms such as that of free speech, etc.
The only authority allowed to use violence is the ruling authority, which then doles out limited allowances for some actors or agencies to act on the ruler’s behalf.
Training in the skills related to combat would then also be curtailed to those in the professions related to the defence of the region under the ruler’s authority, and all other practices would be restricted or otherwise forbidden. We can see this throughout history with restriction to own weapons or participate in activities that could be construed as being martial in nature.
This suspension was arguably one of many that led to the development of ‘polite’ society – the willing suspension of a persons ability to cause harm or take what they want in return for the security of a defense system and moderation of an economic system to name a few. Admittedly this practice was not perfect as there was corruption on the part of the delegated authorities, and civilians were still targeted by foreign militaries… The expectation of protection was still there.
Modern society still has this contract, although legal authority augments it; a set of laws stating individual rights and freedoms to which the governing structure are to honour. Essentially these laws are a codified social contract, detailing delegations of authority to agencies as well as delineating a member of societies rights and freedoms.
The governing body still sets the rules that are to be abided by, and through their delegation of authority allow certain agencies to use force as allowed within the limits of this delegation – such as military activity as directed by the governing body, and policing agencies while engaging in their duties.
A person can reasonably expect to be protected by policing authorities should the situation warrant it, and nationally a country can expect to be defended by its military (instead of being attacked by it, as is sometimes the case in non-democratic countries). The apparent need for personal knowledge of martial skills appears to be reduced according to the legal authority/social contract model; but any reasonable person who read that would have balked at the statement, realizing that this is not the world that we live in.
So where did society develop the modern aversion to violence? This is a very subjective topic, but arguably it has developed as a consequence to the perception that the social structures will protect the individual to the point that the individual no longer needs to know how to defend themselves, etc. Or perhaps is a consequence of the perception of an external locus of control – that the policing and legal authorities will deal with any situation that comes before them. The perception that an individual no longer needs to defend their family or property as monetary protection systems (insurance) will cover loss while policing authorities will seek out and prosecute the offending parties.
It could be as a generational escalated response to the atrocities experienced by veterans of the wars of the previous century, where successive generations are pressured to ‘find a better way’, etc.
It could also be from the assumption that humanity has grown to such a level that its animal instincts no longer exist… Ultimately, it is arguable that there isn’t a single answer. What exists in modern North American society is a definite aversion to violence, with a myriad of grey areas…
You could ask almost any member of North American cultures if violence is ever right and you would receive almost as many answers as people that you have asked. But the themes that you will discover will likely fall into the “with provisions” explanation – Most will state that violence is not necessary, except in certain circumstances such as in self-defence. Violence is eschewed, yet the creation of a grey area borne out of necessity seems to be required. Why?
Because not everyone is exempt from the potential of a violent encounter…
In Canadian society there is a cloud that blurs the understanding of the rights of the individual in the realm of self-defence – the stories heard from various word-of-mouth sources about a person who is attacked, defends him or herself and is later charged by the original assailant – and is found guilty. Or a house is broken into and the homeowner is charged for defending their property, etc. The sources of these stories are never clarified, and are the realm of urban legend, yet they still impact the mindset of the population. Couple this with the esoteric nature of the legal realm, and you have confusion mixed with anecdote to create a blurry concoction of misunderstanding.
Without going into the specifics or a long explanation of individuals’ rights in Canada, let it be said that essentially every person has the right to defend him or herself through the use of “an appropriate level of force” if in a conflict they did not instigate or provoke.
The major question from this is “What is an appropriate level of force?” This is where the legal authorities spend a lot of time arguing, but there are expectations of civility in certain situations. For example – a burglar breaks into a Canadian home without any weapons nor any threat of violence. The homeowner could opt to detain the burglar but could not use lethal force, nor (arguably) force that would cause bodily harm. As well, if the burglar is retreating and was pursued out of the house whereupon they were tackled to the ground and suffered a major injury – this would not likely be considered “an appropriate level of force” and the homeowner could be held liable.
A burglar carrying a gun and brandishing it against the homeowner is a different situation altogether, and lethal force could arguably be justified, as the existence of the threat against the homeowner’s life is immediate.
Keep this thought in mind, as we will return to it at a later point.
Historically Martial Arts were learned out of necessity. Regardless of the extra benefits that Martial Arts training are believed to provide (especially elaborated in the Oriental practices), the training itself was necessary for the defence of people’s families and homes. The conflicts that came about then are very similar to what someone may encounter now, with the major difference being that the threat of lethal response was significantly higher in the past compared to modern time.
The training of a skilled warrior caste was common in many cultures, given authority to exercise violence in pursuit of the leaders aims. The practice of non-authorized martial training was typically prohibited by these very same leaders for a variety of reasons, and consequently most Martial Arts training went underground for generations. In many cultures, the transmission of these skills became nepotistic, with familial lines protecting these styles through the years.
The revelation of oriental martial arts to the Western world is believed to have been against the wishes of the leading families, but this is conjecture and hearsay. What has happened over the past forty years, the appeal to train in the martial arts has been consistent – but what has changed is the ‘sales-pitch’.
The focus of the pitch in the early years of oriental martial arts in North America was about physical development and the ability to defend themselves, and secondary benefits that training could provide being considered more of a by-product.
In today’s society, the primary focus of the initial ‘sales pitch’ is on these secondary benefits – personal betterment, self-discipline, respect for self and others, and physical fitness to name a few. Other more esoteric benefits are believed to exist, and other posts will discuss some of them, but these are the result of long-term training. Ironically it is through long-term training that a practitioner may develop these attributes and skills, but it is through the practice of violence-associated activities that a practitioner may attain these things.
Do Martial Arts still have a place in modern society? Arguably yes; and in some ways, it is more necessary now than in the past.
Every person has the right to defend him or herself against the potential threat of violence, and even though modern society has developed distaste for violence, it still exists. People still get mugged, raped, beaten up out of jealousy, fear, difference, etc.
Is it practicable to expect an external agency to protect every individual? Arguably no. And with this impracticality comes a requirement for an internal locus of control – the requirement for a personal capability to defend one’s self.
The issue regarding “an appropriate level of force” then comes forward once again. The laws in Canada already exist to allow individuals to act in self-defence, but the understanding of the limitations is not as common as it should be. The question of how an appropriate level of force could be determined by a reasonable person in the heat of a conflict rears its head.
If someone has never been in a conflict they are not likely to know the extent to which they can act and are likely to, when confronted with a real threat, use more than an appropriate level of force.
After years of training, a practitioner is more aware of their personal capabilities and an understanding of techniques and the levels of force they require. A skilled practitioner is capable, through practice and training, to quickly determine the threat level presented and respond in kind. Through this training a practitioner also learns how to recognize the developing stages of conflict and can ameliorate them prior to the escalation – they can stop a fight before it happens, or recognize the symptoms and leave the area… or provide defence to someone who wouldn’t otherwise be able to.
This same training teaches a practitioner about their own body, their strengths and areas that require development, and also about their personal strength of will and mental capabilities. A practitioner learns how to defend him or herself and later can apply these skills to the defence of others, and recognize the situation as it develops and react in an appropriate level.
Admittedly this is presented from an idyllic view, but it is through ideals that we direct our focus… in hopes of bringing the ideal to life.
Thoughts?
