Before Shu: Myth, History, and the Problem of Martial Arts Tradition

​Bibliographic Entry
Roe, Augustus John. Myths, Legends, Archetypes and Stereotypes in Martial Arts. YMAA Publishing, 2023.

Personal Reflection
Augustus John Roe's Myths, Legends, Archetypes and Stereotypes in Martial Arts intervenes in a persistent yet insufficiently examined problem within martial arts practice: the misrecognition of myth as history. In doing so, the article makes a valuable contribution to the interdisciplinary field of martial arts studies, while also drawing implicitly on key insights from sociology and historiography. Its central claim—that much of what practitioners inherit as "tradition" is mediated through oral transmission, narrative embellishment, and modern reconstruction—demands serious consideration from both scholars and practitioners.

Roe begins by situating the widespread civilian practice of martial arts as a relatively recent historical development, emerging not from a continuous need for combat but from periods of relative peace and stability. This framing challenges the assumption of direct continuity between premodern fighting systems and contemporary practice. In this respect, Roe's argument aligns with the revisionist work of Paul Bowman, who has demonstrated that "martial arts" as a coherent category is itself a modern cultural construction rather than an unbroken inheritance.

The article then distinguishes between myth and legend as modes of transmission. In conditions of low literacy and informal instruction, martial knowledge was frequently preserved through oral storytelling, rendering it susceptible to exaggeration, reinterpretation, and symbolic embellishment. Figures such as Zhang Sanfeng or Bodhidharma, therefore, operate less as historically verifiable individuals and more as narrative constructs that encode ethical, spiritual, and technical principles. Roe is careful not to dismiss these narratives outright; rather, he recognises their pedagogical function within martial cultures.

From a sociological perspective, this positions martial arts traditions as systems of collective meaning-making. In terms consistent with Émile Durkheim, such narratives function as "collective representations," sustaining shared values and group cohesion. More precisely, they operate as socially constructed systems of legitimation, shaping what is accepted as authentic, authoritative, or valuable within a given community. Myth, in this sense, is not simply falsehood but a mechanism through which meaning is organised and transmitted.

Roe develops this further through the concept of archetypes, drawing on Carl Jung's framework. The recurring figures of the hero, the mentor, and the creator emerge not only in fictional narratives but also in the retrospective construction of martial arts founders and masters. Over time, these archetypes harden into stereotypes, influencing how practitioners perceive legitimacy. The preference for instructors who conform to preconceived images of mastery illustrates how narrative forms can produce subtle yet pervasive exclusion within martial arts communities.

Historically, the article reinforces the now well-established view that martial arts traditions are dynamic rather than static. The twentieth-century globalisation of martial arts—through military exchange, cinema, and popular culture—did not merely disseminate existing systems but also actively reshaped them, both in the West and in Asia. This complicates any appeal to authenticity grounded solely in lineage or antiquity, and instead points towards a more contingent and constructed understanding of tradition.

The significance of Roe's argument becomes particularly evident when considered through the lens of Shu–Ha–Ri (守破離) within Budo (武道). Properly understood, Shu (守) is not passive imitation but disciplined preservation—something rendered impossible when the tradition itself is misrecognised. What Roe ultimately exposes is that many practitioners attempt Ha (破) and Ri (離) without ever having meaningfully achieved Shu. If the foundational stage is built upon unexamined myth, stereotype, or retrospective invention, then subsequent attempts to "break" or "transcend" risk perpetuating distortion rather than achieving mastery.

In this respect, the article offers both a critique and a corrective. It does not call for the rejection of myth—indeed, it recognises its enduring pedagogical and cultural value—but rather for its proper contextualisation. Tradition must be understood as a layered construct in which symbolic narratives and historical realities coexist but are not interchangeable.

While Roe's analysis is persuasive, the article would benefit from a more sustained engagement with non-East Asian traditions, where similar processes of myth-making and narrative construction are equally evident. Such an expansion would further strengthen the claim that these dynamics are not culturally specific but structurally inherent to the transmission of embodied practices.

The implications for the field are clear. There is a need for continued interdisciplinary research that bridges martial arts studies with sociology, anthropology, and critical historiography. At the level of practice, instructors bear responsibility for how knowledge is framed and transmitted, ensuring that myth is presented as symbolic rather than empirical truth. For practitioners, the task is one of intellectual discipline: to engage with tradition critically, without either naïve acceptance or dismissive rejection.

The task, therefore, is not to abandon tradition, but to interrogate it—rigorously, historically, and without illusion. Only then can movement from Shu to Ha to Ri represent genuine development rather than the repetition of inherited misrecognition.

This review is dedicated to Miyase Sensei (先生), whose teaching—only now partially understood—continues to inform my practice and reminds me that what is given is not always immediately recognised.
​
本稿は、Augustus John Roe の論文を検討し、武道（武道）における伝統理解の問題を論じる。著者は、武術の「伝統」が神話・伝説・語りの再構成によって形成されてきたことを指摘する。これらは文化的意味や倫理を伝える一方で、ステレオタイプや誤認を生み出す側面も持つ。本稿はこれを守破離（守破離）の観点から再考し、真の修行はまず「守」における批判的理解を前提とするべきであると主張する。伝統を無批判に継承するのではなく、歴史的・社会的文脈の中で再検討する必要がある。