Blog Article/Post Caveat (Read First Please: Click the Link)
Article/post written in or around January in the year 2012, addendum’s/changes/adjustments will be in red.
In the past, 2012, I wrote the following article on testing in the dojo and today’s redux of the article I add in and strike some aspects to update the article to better suit today’s more modern view of karate and martial arts.
I read a recent post by Sue on "My journey to black belt" blog and it made me think that this question is extremely important. One reason this strikes a cord with me is in my "job" I am discovering that the economic crises we all encounter in today's climate may be due to a lack of a sense of humanity. In other words we in business tend to look at the bottom line and allow that to dictate how we change to become more "cost-effective." This more often than not means business does NOT even consider the "humanity" of the issue.
The bane of today’s dojo is about controlling larger numbers of students and gravitating from the original teaching model of Japan/Okinawa/China to our modern way of thinking and acting and controlling and “testing” that is more academia then the creative aspects of true martial ways. In our effort to provide the student with something substantive to see, feel and grasp we began to change the martial arts to fit that mold rather than to change our perceptions and ways to fit a truer model of martial arts mold. Even so, we tend to give a great deal of lip service to the historical traditional origins while staying with, “what we know already and that is the academic model of teaching like that in schools.”
The real clincher here is that this very effort to make karate a school oriented ‘watered-down’ version appropriate to younger adults in the early 1900’s has influenced and contributed to this very issue. We slowly take one of the four main principles of guidance in martial disciplines and either suppress it or eliminate it altogether, “philosophy.”
Once we begin to depend on enrollment, fees and other trappings we then have to, in most cases, sacrifice that which is the very corner stone of the disciplines so that we can maintain earnings, status and business as usual to maintain things rather than be humble and enlightened by adhering to an appropriate teaching methodology based not on the dojo’s success in business but the success of the individual student in learning, understanding and applying the appropriate skills in a way suitable to history, yet modernize, traditions, while creating new traditions, and socially-legal-moral enlightened attitudes, character and personalities that contribute rather than merely earn.
This equated to "testing for black belt" or just about any belt in any system be it karate-do, ju-do, aiki-do, ken-do, and so on. It also tends to leak into the more commercial aspects as well as the "school system" mentality, i.e. larger classes which equates more income, etc.
Even in the school systems today the testing tends to be outside the human person, i.e.
- can you add 2+2,
- do you know the capitals, etc.
We don't teach, i.e.
- how to be a good person,
- how to truly communicate,
- how to truly reflectively listen and most important
- how to avoid conflict.
Even those few courses on communications tend to teach the easier aspect, i.e. do step one when someone does this (sound familiar, like self-defense lessons). We don't teach how to train the mind for the adrenaline dump, now to manage anger, fear, etc.
Ok, when we test for a belt we tend to stick to
- the exactness of a technique,
- its form and its aesthetic aspects
What about function and how that function goes out the window due to the chaos of conflict. Why this happens, because it is most difficult to test for something you cannot see, grasp, or hear, it changes constantly and continuously in life.
Testing tends to be very restrictive. It is a form that is not allowed to fluctuate, change and adjust - it remains the same regardless. It does NOT consider the individual, the individuals creativity, the individuals cultural social belief systems and it does not take into any limitations of mind, body or spirit simply because those things cannot be quantified, tested and the same for all rather than for just the one. Is this actually beneficial for anything other than the form aspect, because in my mind it means nothing as to the combative/conflict/fense aspects of karate-jutsu.
When we have large groups and not enough qualified Sensei we tend to test everyone with the exact same criteria, this is not adequate, fair or just. Humans are all unique, different and have varying degrees of both physical and mental ability. It is not a disparity or handicap but rather an understanding that each person is "different" and that means, each must be evaluated "differently and in relation to that person only."
Example: Oral exam, I ask for the result of 2 to the power of ten. One person answers quickly the correct one while the other person is still computing. Does this mean the person who didn't answer quickly and correctly first is not qualified to compute and answer the problem.? Honestly, if that second person still discovers the answer and learns from it then when it comes time to call up that ability in the future it may mean they can then answer with greater ability, efficiency and proficiency.
In karate-jutsu a practitioner may need to take more time and greater effort to learn how to apply a technique in chaos but when it comes time to apply it in a combative situation, conflict, his encoding may be superior and thus applies it successfully. There is simply no possible way to test this, it is tested by fire the first time a person has to rely on it for self-protection!
Yes, this is just another hypothesis but my studies and research indicates that this is how the brain works when encoding. How it is encoded to make it work is far more important than being able to quote Musashi or Sung Su or to demonstrate in controlled seminar's a specific technique in response to a specific technique. But the question comes up, how do you test for that?
Well, you don't test for that but rather evaluate individually over a period of time. Many that try this already often say that when presented with the opportunity to test it is more of Sensei saying you are already, ready, and the test is a mere formality. While possibly true, more often than not, it is mere lip service once again in support of a business model rather than a martial model. There is a very good reason why teaching and learning is repetitive and takes a period of time with emphasis on continuous reinforcement for life. This is why it is more important to have a Sensei to Deshi ratio that will allow for Sensei to create a training and practice environment that is individual, unique and cohesive (Sensei+Senpai/Kohai relationship over time).
An alternative method of testing is better thought of as a "shugyo session,” where one is not tested for content, form or knowledge but rather the physical application of what they already know while under a great deal of physical and mental stress. It should be chaotic, unrehearsed and with absolutely no list of testing stuff at all. Impromptu, unexpected and not scheduled. Testing not in a group with a lead time but rather one day out of the blue one person is suddenly put into the fire where they either temper their steel or melt into the ground - either way it reflects not on that person but on you, the Sensei, for if they fail it is you who failed - not them.
This is one of those subjects that remains lost, it remains in contestable state of flux and it is always going to be one of those dissonant type of things rather than a true benefit to the student, the Sensei or the dojo proper BECAUSE it is flawed and tends to degrade the dan-i system that by the way is also flawed. The dan-i, or belt system, was a product of the need to denote within larger, harder to handle, groups so that one can readily see by the belt where a person stands in the system rather than a few students, the four-to-one ratio is best, who become well known to the others and the Sensei resulting in instinctively knowing when, what level and what level of mastery a particular person is at, at any one moment of time.
Yet, regardless, this contention of both rank and testing is a part of the modern martial systems for teaching much like the academia methods used in schools, colleges and Universities through out our modern cultural and social make-up. It is too ingrained and it would take a huge strong continuous effort to merely recognize it let alone allow appropriate change to take place and bring martial arts back, at least in essence, to its home traditional way of teaching, learning, understanding and applying the skill-sets, mental and physical and to spirit, necessary for mastery of the martial arts.
For reference and sources and professionals go here: Bibliography (Click the link)
No comments:
Post a Comment