Still learning the tools of the trade when it comes to SNS - hopefully the new layout is less clutter than the last
cheers
​J

As a professional teacher and part-time researcher I know the values of models, strategies and other heuristics when trying to make sense of the complicated world of learning. Of course academic  learning is both ontological and epistemological and therefore the need for a framework to understand past and help formulate future learning is vital. Likewise, as a social scientist I can use a plethora of data collection approaches but when I start to make sense of this data I need a sense making paradigm, commonly referred to as a methodology.

It is along this line of reasoning that I offer the following in relation to the teaching and by extension learning of karate, or indeed any classical budo.

While most budo offer official teaching licenses, dig deep and you will find a pedagogy rooted in rote learning. I do not know of a ryuha/system that grants such licenses where an actual understanding of how we learn and teach is expected. Rather, it seems the assumption that you learn as you go along and then pass it along to the next generation. Given the historical and cultural milieu out of which most of modern budo emerged this is understandable. However, pedagogy has over the past 100 years undergone significant development.

Let me start with a statement by the founder of the karate ryuha I study. In an 1979 publication put out by the North American body overseeing the promulgation of Chito Ryu there, ascribed to Chitose-sensei, is the statement: 'The old masters never left us clear instructions on what the kata's meant'. While, I have been unable to verify if this statement is actually Chitose's the sentiments expressed resonate with his contemporaries such as Mabuni, Funakoshi and both Choki's.

If this utterance is true then the argument going forward must be how can we make sense of the soul (i.e. kata) of karate without an empirical framework. More importantly, I would argue, without such a framework to enable exploration, kata remains a form of physical exercise, bereft of any true self-defense principles aside form how to defend against a reverse, straight punch and a forward thrust kick. Maybe an odd lapel or wrist grab also.

In Chito Ryu it is true we have set bunkai for kata but these bunkai form a very basic explanation of what the kata means. The vast majority of the techniques in our kata are not explained thus. There is a suggestion within the official NiSeiShi bunkai that all may not be as it seems, for example there are elbow strikes where none appear in the kata.

Then we also have, what I believe has been misguidedly passed on a separate GoShinJitsu or 2 persons self-defence drills. Indeed to anyone truly delving into the meaning of Chito Ryu kata these drills offer insights into an alternative interpretation of the kata. But then it stops. That is, the data which we are left with (i.e. the kata)remain complex and unexplored suggesting perhaps something else lies within their depth. We have returned to Chitose's quandary - if the old masters did not leave us the answer then how to we 'make sense' of the kata. This was a point I reached about NiDan level and have spent the past 20+ years trying to solve. Thankfully my work as an academic offers a suggestions and it lies in using a methodology to understand the data.

Using such an approach the kata are the raw data and the methodology I use has been that developed by karate researcher and writer Patrick McCarthy, Hanshi. Using his work in translating the Bubishi and exploring other systems of self defense McCarthy developed his HAPV (Habitual Antics of Physical Violence - see https://zanshinkai.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/habitual-acts-of-physical-violence/) and suggest that it was these acts that kata originally sought to answer. The McCathy HAPV theory, which I believe is actually a "Law' in the scientific sense, accounts for the various poses, hand techniques and other items possible in kata.

Kata, as a training device for 'fighting' bears little relevance to the modern point or full contact karate tournament. However, under the McCarthy Law it doesn't have to, as it wasn't designed for that purpose. It does nonetheless account for kata that addresses a no-holds barred, rich self-defence heritage that includes many anti-social actions that was banned when it came from behind the veil of secrecy and into the Okinawan school system in 1904 or so. Spitting, twisting, strangulations, gouging, head-buts etc were all removed from the modern karate curriculum at this time, as it purpose underwent radical rejigging.

Furthermore, looking at kata as data in need of a methodology, encourages deeper growth both in understanding and passing on the learning that is karate, Kobudo or social science. It liberates the practitioner while also holding them to account. It moves ryuha on from their potential stagnation and adoration of an individual into a richer experience and level of respect for what is ultimately the human condition.

So my 32nd year in karate is coming to a close. It has been an exciting year - one of modulated ups and downs. However, it was a year in which once again, I focused on karate and Kobudo. Watching the unfolding of discussions on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, there is excellent research being done to shed light into those areas of this tradition which millions of us worldwide do. 

Nevertheless, in essence, what I do not see emerging is a shared meaning of what is karate. Aside from the use of uniform, itself open to interpretation, and general use of Japanese terminology, what constitutes karate remains open to the interpretation of the individual instructor. That the industry of karate is a multibillion-dollar one that remains, for the most part, unregulated no doubt contributes to the opaqueness of the term. 

Below, I informally present a few ideas around sign-post we may use to identify what constitutes authentic karate, as defined by historical context. Given the inclusion of karate in the Olympics (and its exclusion from future ones), the end of this years seems appropriate to consider the above.

The key markers are:

Karate must be grounded in self-defence. Any form that deviates beyond this principal as a founding stone cannot be considered karate. While testing one's mettle through competition may be helpful, it cannot be the essence of what is done.

Karate should have its roots traceable to Okinawa. Karate is not only a form of self-defence; it is also a cultural artefact of Okinawan history. Any system which does not have a lineage to Okinawa cannot indeed be considered karate. It may be a highly effective form of self-defence or sport such as Japanese Kempo, kickboxing or other, but cannot be considered  'karate'.

Karate must be a focus on empty hands and as such, should utilize all aspects of what empty hands can entail and do, including throws, chokes etc.  An over-focus on the clenched fist is not historical karate as it limits the ability of one to self-defence.

Part of the karate experience must involve Kobudo. Historically the two were unified and supplementary. 

Kata must be utilized as a primary vehicle for enabling self-defence learning. However, caution here and also a bit of controversy as kata must not merely be taught as a static form. Instead, its underlying principles and individuals nuances must be explored by student and teacher together.

You will note that I have left off 'essential' items such as character development, use of Keiko go or even a dan system. As these were later additions or, in the case of character development, utilized to develop an individual perspective defined by space/place, they may not be essential to karate as a form of self-defence.

Of course, as a Catholic, a teacher and a human being, I believe all we do should develop our character and as such karate can serve as a vehicle. However, such power given to karate must be done cautiously, especially when the teacher has exposure to the young or the easily influenced.

From my years in karate I know this list can expand, contract etc. but what I am proposing is to start a conversation where we can at least begin to consider karate as a discipline worthy of academic exploration and consideration. To do this, we must first define our terms.

I wish you all a healthy, balanced and joyous 2020. Keep your foot on the floor and your Kiai active!

One of the great benefits of international education is the ability to work in an environment with people who come from various educational backgrounds. 

A good friend of mine, Theodor is a trained Romanian physicist, a fantastic footballer and a genuinely great mind/soul/body embodiment. While Teo heads up our Science program and I work in a few roles we still find time to catch and chat about 'stuff', usually on the morning tea break. Recently, we have been discussing God, the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics and the need for an observer - yes, this is usually the kind of stuff we chat about. However, this past Friday, we had a conversation about our mutual concerns around the lack of 'freedom' and 'exploration' we now both see in education. 

Universities, although becoming more open to social and economic clientele have arguably redefined themselves as work-place preparation; a situation exacerbated by the ranking of them, along business model lines. Part and parcel of this movement have been a lack of pushing the new frontier of our knowledge. This mindest has filtered down to secondary education. In a 'publish or perish world' reproducing and revisiting established knowledge is a safer bet than going out on a limb, and such a mindset is likely to embed itself in the minds of students. 

If we explore academics and what is being produced, we find a reproduction of more in-depth explorations of items we have known about for a century or so. My field, education, is still being driven at a basic level by the theories of Piaget, Vygotsky and Dewey all of who are dated. Likewise, Teo's field of astrophysics is delving into the frontiers already known such as QM, but not actively seeking out new ones. While there is no denying the excellent benefit in going deeper - surely it is time to explore new frontiers? 

What aspects of knowing do did we need to uncover? Given present trajectories, the whole area of ethics and moral development of our collective species requires work. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. 

​The access to and speed of knowledge and its production have, arguably, outstripped our ethical growth; to say nothing of our ability to meaningfully process this knowledge. To know is not to understand, but to understand is to know. We can make choices about our now and our future - surely freeing up the current generation to push new frontiers is necessary, timely and ethically imperative?