24.03.2013 Views

Martial Arts Of The World - Webs

Martial Arts Of The World - Webs

Martial Arts Of The World - Webs

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

xvi Introduction<br />

the sword” in European tradition; the use of knives, trips, and tackles in the<br />

“weaponless kicking art” of capoeira; the spears and swords (and kicks) of Chinese<br />

“boxing” (wushu); and the no–holds (or weapons)– barred nature of<br />

Burmese thaing compel a reformulation of the distinctions among martial arts<br />

that have informed our popular conceptions of them.<br />

In this context, even the notion of “art” is problematic. First, the term may<br />

be used simply as a means of noting excellence, as a reference to quality rather<br />

than attributes. A more serious issue, however, arises from the fact that, in Western<br />

European culture, we commonly draw distinctions between art and life, the<br />

aesthetic and the utilitarian, work and sport, and art and science. <strong>The</strong>se Eurocentric<br />

distinctions break down in the face of Thai ram dab, Indonesian pentjak<br />

silat, and Brazilian capoeira, which are at once dance and martial exercise, and<br />

have been categorized as both, depending on the interests of commentators who,<br />

with a few notable exceptions, have been outsiders to the traditions.<br />

In addition, attempts to comprehend the nature of “martial art” have been<br />

further obscured by distinctions between self-defense/combat and sport (itself a<br />

culture-bound concept). George Godia characterizes the lack of fit between the<br />

contemporary category of sport and the physical culture of traditional societies<br />

well. “To kill a lion with a spear needs a different technique and different training<br />

than to throw a standardized javelin as far as possible. Spearing a lion was a<br />

duty to the young moran [Masai warrior], and different from a throw for leisure,<br />

enjoyment or an abstract result in terms of meters, a championship, or a certificate”<br />

(1989, 268). Perhaps for the same reasons, both our mechanisms for converting<br />

combatives (i.e., combat systems) to sports and for categorizing them<br />

cross-culturally frequently have fallen short of the mark.<br />

<strong>The</strong> present volume does maintain some working parameters, however.<br />

<strong>Martial</strong> arts are considered to be systems that blend the physical components of<br />

combat with strategy, philosophy, tradition, or other features that distinguish<br />

them from pure physical reaction (in other words, a technique, armed or unarmed,<br />

employed randomly or idiosyncratically would not be considered a martial<br />

art). While some martial arts have spawned sports, and some of these sports<br />

are considered in this volume, the martial cores of such activities rather than the<br />

sports per se are emphasized. Also, entries focus on those martial systems that<br />

exist outside contemporary military technology. Thus, topics include Japanese<br />

samurai (despite their part in the Japanese armies in earlier centuries), American<br />

frontier gunslingers, and nineteenth-century European duelists (despite their use<br />

of firearms), as well as the sociocultural influences that have led to changing<br />

fashions in modern military hand-to-hand combat.<br />

Moreover, this volume is not instructional. Rather, it strives to present clear,<br />

concise descriptions of martial topics based on sound research principles. In an<br />

effort to ensure this, the overwhelming majority of authors are both academics<br />

and active martial practitioners.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!