Friday Academic Review Thoughts: Lozovyy's Article: The Paradigm Shift in Karate and the Question of its Martial Origins.

his blog serves as a platform for critical analysis and scholarly discussion, aiming to deepen our understanding of the evolution of karate and its implications for martial arts education and practice.

Citation: Lozovyy, Anatoliy. "Karate Sports Disciplines from the Spotlight of the Paradigm Shift of Japanese Combat Systems: Analytical Study." Journal of Kinesiology and Exercise Sciences 101, no. 33 (2023): 30-37. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0016.2851.

Anatoliy Lozovyy's article, 'Karate Sports Disciplines from the Spotlight of the Paradigm Shift of Japanese Combat Systems: Analytical Study', is centred around a detailed examination of karate's evolution. His main argument is that karate, originally part of the 'Bugei' (military training) paradigm, has progressively moved away from its martial origins, evolving through the 'Budo' phase to integrate into the 'Sport' paradigm fully. Lozovyy's categorisation of karate into three distinct forms—Style Karate (Traditional Karate), General Karate, and Sports Karate (Olympic Karate)—provides a compelling framework for understanding the transformation of karate over time. However, certain assumptions about karate's classification as a martial art, particularly its supposed military origins, warrant further discussion and critique.

Lozovyy's framework is built on the idea that karate began as a practical combat system designed for life-or-death encounters like other Japanese martial arts. It gradually became an educational tool for civilians and became a globalised sport. He claims, "Each transition of combat systems to a new paradigm was another step away from the original mission and military tradition," positioning modern karate as a diluted version of its former self, stripped of its martial essence and redefined for entertainment and competition.

While this narrative of evolution is supported by Lozovyy's vast practical experience and research, it is essential to question whether karate ever truly belonged to the 'Bugei' paradigm in the first place. The assumption that karate was once a battlefield art is, at best, debatable. Historically, karate was developed in Okinawa, drawing from Chinese martial traditions and local self-defence techniques, primarily for civilian use rather than military application. This historical context sheds light on the true origins of karate, offering a more informed perspective. There is little to no historical evidence to suggest that karate was ever employed by samurai or used in formal military contexts. Instead, it has functioned as a personal defence system for unarmed civilians. Therefore, while Lozovyy's argument hinges on karate's supposed battlefield origins, this assumption may only partially be accurate, but it provides a deeper understanding of karate's roots.

This critique opens a broader discussion on what constitutes a "martial" art. If we define "martial" strictly as a system developed for warfare, then karate, with its civilian origins and lack of documented battlefield application, may not meet this criterion. Lozovyy's characterisation of karate as part of the "Bugei" paradigm thus seems problematic. However, if we expand the definition of "martial" to include systems used by security services, law enforcement, or other governmental bodies to maintain public order, then karate's inclusion within the martial realm becomes more plausible. In this broader context, karate has indeed been employed by various police and security forces, both in Japan and internationally, fulfilling a protective role even if not directly linked to warfare.
Lozovyy's discussion of karate's transition from the "Budo" to the "Sport" paradigm is one of the most compelling aspects of his article. He convincingly argues that the modernisation and globalisation of karate have transformed it into a sport that prioritises entertainment and spectacle over traditional martial values. He notes that sports karate, mainly practised under the Olympic framework, has been "cleared of traditional and national features" in favour of a more globalised, standardised approach that aligns with Western ideals of competition. In this process, karate has been reshaped into a discipline that, while technically a combat sport, bears little resemblance to its traditional roots. Protective equipment, point-based scoring systems, and the emphasis on technical performance over combat realism signify this shift.

However, Lozovyy's critique of Sports Karate as a mere 'game' that has lost its connection to traditional martial values oversimplifies the issue. Many practitioners of Sports Karate continue to engage deeply with the philosophical and spiritual elements of the discipline, even as they participate in competitions. While it is true that the rules and structures of Sports Karate prioritise safety and entertainment, this does not necessarily mean that the traditional elements of karate have been entirely erased. A more nuanced exploration of how different forms of karate coexist and interact within the modern landscape, rather than positioning them as fundamentally opposed, can deepen the audience's understanding of the complexity of karate's evolution and encourage critical thinking.

Moreover, Lozovyy's reliance on interviews with high-ranking masters such as Takayuki Kubota and Hirokazu Kanazawa, while offering valuable insights, may not fully capture the diversity of experiences and perspectives within the global karate community. The cross-pollination of techniques and training methodologies between Style, General, and Sports Karate complicates Lozovyy's neat categorisation. Many practitioners move fluidly between these forms, drawing on elements of tradition while engaging in modern competitive practices. This dynamic and interconnected nature of karate's evolution intrigues Lozovyy's strict paradigm-based framework. Acknowledging this diversity is essential to make the audience feel included and respected in the academic discourse.

In placing his article within the broader academic discourse on martial arts, Lozovyy builds on the work of scholars like Donn Draeger, who argued that the core of martial arts lies in their military function, and I. Martinkova and J.M. Parry, who have classified martial arts based on their purpose and societal role. However, Lozovyy's insistence on karate's martial origins may be oversimplified. While Japanese martial traditions have undoubtedly influenced karate, its origins as a civilian defence system and its later adaptation as a tool for physical education challenge the idea that it was ever a true battlefield art. By acknowledging this complexity, Lozovyy's analysis could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how martial and civilian influences have shaped karate, thereby engaging the audience in a more nuanced discussion.

In conclusion, Lozovyy's article provides a valuable framework for understanding the evolution of karate through the lenses of tradition, modernisation, and globalisation. His categorisation of karate into Style, General, and Sports forms offers a clear structure for analysing its diverse manifestations. However, the assumption that karate can be unequivocally classified as a 'martial' art is open to debate, particularly considering the lack of historical evidence linking karate to military applications. A more flexible interpretation of the term 'martial' and a deeper, more nuanced exploration of the overlaps between these forms would enrich Lozovyy's argument, offering a more comprehensive and intellectually stimulating view of karate's place in the modern world.

Here is the Japanese language summary:
アナトリー・ロゾヴィーの論文『日本の武道体系におけるパラダイムシフトの視点から見た空手のスポーツ競技：分析的研究』は、空手の進化に関する詳細な検討に焦点を当てています。彼の主な議論は、空手が「武芸」（軍事訓練）のパラダイムの一部として始まり、武道の段階を経て、最終的には「スポーツ」のパラダイムに統合されるまでに、武道の起源から徐々に離れていったというものです。ロゾヴィーは、空手を「スタイル空手」（伝統的空手）、「一般空手」、「スポーツ空手」（オリンピック空手）の3つの明確な形に分類し、時間をかけて空手がどのように変容してきたかを理解するための説得力のある枠組みを提供しています。しかし、空手が武道と見なされるという前提、特にその軍事的な起源に関する仮定には、さらなる議論と批評が必要です。

ロゾヴィーの枠組みは、他の日本武術と同様に、空手が生死をかけた戦いに備える実践的な戦闘システムとして始まり、その後、民間人の教育ツールとして利用され、ついには国際化されたスポーツへと変化していったという考えに基づいています。彼は、「武道体系が新しいパラダイムに移行するたびに、元の使命や軍事伝統からさらに離れていった」と主張し、現代の空手を、武道としての本質を失い、娯楽や競技として再定義された形として位置づけています。

ロゾヴィーの論文は、空手の武道としての位置づけやその歴史的背景について、より広範な議論を提起する重要な貢献をしており、空手の現代的な発展をより深く理解するための新たな視点を提供しています。

OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (4o) [Large language model]. https://chatgpt.com/c/a1636308-5306-43f6-9a4a-b1453ab82961

---