Traditional Politeness

[AngelaG]

I have no problems with etiquette, which includes bowing, using the term sensei and any thing else. There is precious little respect in the world today, so anywhere which promotes it is a good thing for me. However respect needs to work both ways and if people are being made to feel belittled or being chewed out for missing a bow then it becomes little more then a system of formal bullying and ego massage.

A bow to a new partner symbolises mutual respect and a willingness to work hard and with consideration to each other. It's no different to a handshake and there does not need to be any big ceremony about it... bow and then get on with it. If a partner can not be bothered to bow it would show bad attitude and would make me wary of working with them. Yes we could use a handshake but a bow is a nod to the oriental past, and is one of the aspects which tend to make up TMA, and to be honest if starting on the opposite ends of a mat can be a lot easier.

After any pressure testing or sparring I and the other person I instruct with also ask that the students shake hands, just to show there's no hard feelings etc.

[random]

One of the reasons that some people don’t like bowing is the simple act of lowering ones neck onto the block, which is what one does when one bows from the hip (as apposed from a court bow from the neck). A hand shake shows no humility, whereas a bow does.

[paulhe]

Whenever I am teaching at my own dojo or on courses I always emphasise that the bow is performed out of striking range, then both sides step forward into range on the 'Yoi'. The bow is like an agreement to cross swords as it were, to bow within range of your opponent is dangerous. At that stage no agreement has been made.

[whitewarlock]

What do you want out of the martial arts?

Really, that's what this discussion is about. Traditional politeness does not exist, in the expressed sense. We are from different countries, and thus our traditions of politeness are not dependent upon the 'ettiquettes' of another country, but upon the ettiquettes of our own.

If a particular school presents a large degree of 'foriegn' ettiquette, without also presenting the culture in depth, then they are being shallow and false. They are including it because it is what has been shown to them as 'part' of the martial art they are studying (or because it helps sell the product), yet they hold not actual 'respect' to those actions of ettiquette. It is as much saying, "because we perform a few Japanese rituals, we're legitimate." Yet this, in and of itself, shows the incredible degree of ignorance (or exploitiveness) maintained by such schools.

The origins of the martial arts is myriad. It has been birthed and rebirthed in a thousand places, under a thousand flags, over the past ten thousand years (likely more). It is a 'formal' study of the arts of war, via hand-to-hand combat, melee weapons, missile weapons, tactics, strategies, anatomy, sociology, etc. No single nation, or individual, has the RIGHT to claim it as their own, or to associate the 'ettiquettes' of their country to the arts. We have individuals who have presented insightful means to study the arts but, there and again, it is an expression of the arts, nothing more.

It is the Japanese 'presented' martial arts that show the most ettiquette, the most 'foriegn' words, although Korean arts have followed suit. This is not a definer of the arts from Japan, for Okinawan arts have repeatedly been presented in such a fashion. It is a definer of a nation's insistence upon pushing their pride, their ego, upon others.

Some have attributed it to attempting a 'handicap' to learning, so as to ensure those of their own nation have an advantage. This may or may not be true, but it does make a degree of sense, in that by your studying 'foriegn' words to define actions, that when translated mean exactly what the actions look like, you are dealing with a hesitation of action through the process of mental translation.

Some have argued, here and in other forums, ettiquette and courtesy are necessary to instill humility. However, the martial arts, as a whole, is not a humble endeavor. As well, the presentation of 'traditional politeness' is not about ensuring practitioners maintain humility. It is, as has been indicated, mostly a process of ensuring egos are assuaged and top dogs remain... top dogs.

And therein lies yet another... can of worms.

[whitewarlock]

One has argued that there is so little respect these days, yet those who present actions of foriegn ettiquette in classrooms, are not necessarily the problems. In the cases where they are, these same students will perform these foriegn rituals and yet still show disrespect to other students, to their instructors, to people outside of the class.

Politeness is a 'display' of respect. Ettiquette is a formalized expression of politeness. Performing 'shallow' activitiies does not instill the concepts associated with respecting other people. This is birthed by understanding there is consequence to every action. I.e., acting like a tough guy works great, until one day... someone opts to take a crow bar to the back of your noggin'.

Without a respect for consequence, 'tradition' and 'ettiquette' mean nothing. Even with respect for consequence, they mean little more than psuedo-expressions of respect. And, tradition should not play into this, for what can be construed as polite in one century, can very well be construed as disrespectful in another. Indeed, without a 'clear' understanding of the ettiquettes presented, one may very well perform them incorrectly, and thus show disrespect, rather than respect.


Note: the bow commonly presented in various dojos is done incorrectly. One should 'not' show the top of their head to their instructor or their opponent. Traditionally, this is construed as an insult, an exagerration of politeness with the specific intent to mock.

[searcher2]

whitewarlock said:

Note: the bow commonly presented in various dojos is done incorrectly. One should 'not' show the top of their head to their instructor or their opponent. Traditionally, this is construed as an insult, an exagerration of politeness with the specific intent to mock.

Says who? My Iaido instructor tells me that the formality is to show the back of the neck to a senior training partner as the utmost sign of respect. He was graded to Nanadan in Japan. I take it that he knows what he's talking about.

[random]

I think Bruce Lee has a lot to do with this myth about not showing the top of the head. In Enter the Dragon he berates a young student for not always keeping his eye on the opponent. I have always been told that the junior student should bow lower than the senior student and that showing the back of ones neck is actually a sign of deep respect, after all one could easy loose ones head.

[whitewarlock]

You are one up on me, as i do not even know what a nanadan is.

As to your manner of query, it is somewhat deprecating, which i find 'surprising' from a moderator of the forum. Regardless, my sources were many, which is one manner in which i come to conclusions (i.e., i don't just take the word of 'one' practitioner). I will, nonetheless, look into this further as i'm more than willing to find out i was misinformed.

But, an aside. As i indicated earlier in this post, i found your query deprecating. Moreso, i found it detracting, especially considering i was referring to the "top of the head" and not the "nape of the neck." Nonetheless, if you have an opinion, in agreement or in contest, to what i posted... it would be nice of you to present your thoughts rather than bringing excess attention to my 'note.' It is not what i had in mind when i posted. I.e., i was attempting to encourage discussion on the topic at hand, not tangentialize on an esoteric that was used merely as an example.

[searcher2]

WhiteWarolock
I'm sorry if I have offended you. The nature of a chatroom/forum means that it is hard to hear the inflection in a writer's "voice". I have no wish to cause you offence.
A nanadan is the holder of a seventh degree in their Japanese art. Some would say shichidan, but this is less polite.

My answer and question of your note, is, however, based on the way you wrote your post.
Your note followed the line of an instruction and correction to forum members who might not be as well versed in etiquette as yourself. As people have a habit of repeating what they have been told we have a responsibility to question things we find mis-leading. If you are going to give definitive statements about the reigi of the traditional martial arts then you ought to cite your sources.

My place as a moderated has never been used because most people take the conversational tone and are non-confrontational. It is an honour to be listed as a moderator which I thank Angela (the site's creator) for - but at the same time I post and reply in the manner that I talk to people. Some people don't want to talk to me just as I am sure that there are some people who do not want to talk to you. I realise that I jumped into an ongoing conversation without any fore-knowledge of the participants, but I did so to challenge a statement that could be mis-construed.

My defensiveness in answering has a lot to do with the way that you have taken exception to my observation. I didn't challenge you on a personal level, I just inquired as to where you heard this information in your note.
If one were to expose the nape of the neck to a partner/senior before them then the very nature of the bow means that they would also show the top of the head.

In no way do I think that you have been lied to, just that there are different schools of thought, even amongst the Japanese. What is right amongst University students is not thought of the same way amongst the upper classes.

It's back to the whole "don't take your eyes off your opponent" thing, isn't it? What respect or trust is shown between two practitioners if they can't turn their eyes down when bowing. I'm not going to bow to an attacker in the street, but I will bow to someone who has something to show me or who allows me to practice on them (thus presenting me the gift of experience).

Didn't mean to be rude, didn't mean to be "in-your-face" about your note. Still haven't heard anything to make me think it's rude to show the top of the head when bowing.

[random]

I don’t find Seacher2’s reply at all insulting to anybody, unless one is over sensitive. I always thought one should be prepared to offer evidence for a statement made, if it has not already been given. Especially if it is a definitive statement.

I have trained in many lodges in many places and there have been as many different interpretations as to how and why one should bow. The important thing to remember is why we bow, I have often seen a quick cursory bow-almost a court bow-which doesn’t really convey anything except a brief nod to the past or another culture.

[whitewarlock]

Random, just to clarify, "deprecating" does not translate to mean "insulting." searcher2's initial query was a short, "says who?" which i took to be a tad curt. Searcher2, you clarified your intention and i appreciate it. Unfortunately, the discussion continues to be pulled away from topic at hand so i would like to give this tangent a rest, after a few brief thoughts:

I am not motivated to do a one-upsman comparison of sources*, nor am i inclined to believe that just because someone became an expert in a martial art they are, by default, also an expert in historical ettiquette, and thus, by default, a credible source. This is not to say i do not respect the comment presented by your instructor, any less than i would respect the longtime practitioners i've practiced with/under who have given similar, or contrasting, insights. The problem lies within expertise on this particular topic, and not on expertise in a related, but not altogether same, topic. And while i am aware that iaido practitioners obtain 'more' study in ettiquette than many other martial art practitioners, this does not give assurance that what they studied is, indeed, historical. Considering the commercialism of samurai caste studies that has occurred over the last few centuries, the reliability of such things must be differed to historians specializing in Japanese culture. As well, it should be considered the modern aspects of bowing and how they are perceived in today's Japan.

But, moreso, it should be noted that Japan is not the only nation that 'historically' included bowing as a means of acknowledgement, respect, or subordinance. In this, there are differences on use, interpretation, and presentation.

And while it may be a lengthy tangent for us to discuss, it is still a tangent to these discussions, and one that has thoroughly buried in obscurity my initial posts that actually dealt with the topic at hand. Thanks, but no thanks.

* Eiko Ikegami's Bonds of Civility provides detailed pages on bowing, as it pertains to its historical development, via political constraints of a nation in dire need of a friggin' enema, in case anyone is interested.

[AngelaG]

I think this highlights the importance of how we put things across. If we make absolute comments, even as an aside, then perhaps we should be aware that we may well be picked up on them; and I, for one, fully endorse people requesting sources to back up comments. There is a problem within the martial arts that people sometimes parrot what they have read or been told, and therefore as a group of educated forum members I feel it is our responsibility that we do not spread any more unsubstantiated myths.

In fact I remember a massive hoo-ha not so long ago on another forum where I was aggressively demanded that I back up a comment I made, and despite the fact that I felt the tone was very aggressive, the person in question was fully backed up by other members and indeed I received many personal messages berating me for daring to suggest that the person in question should moderate their tone, and that I should provide evidence.

Some of what we talk about is little more than guesswork, but if it is purely one's opinion then perhaps this needs to be made more clear, and if it is fact based on research the sources should be made clear. That way we can make sure that the information we are spreading is of high quality.

As a little aside I have always made it clear that the moderators on here are people I highly respect, both because of their character and because of their attitude towards the martial arts. I have never hidden the fact that these people are given a preferential treatment, because they are taking their time to help me moderate these forums, and thus help everyone else by providing a high quality martial arts data resource. This is true of any forum I have ever been on. This does not mean that they cannot be debated with, but rather that one should take care to debate the actual topic at hand, rather than any facets of their character. Based on recent events I would much prefer this policy to be spread across the whole member base, so that we can continue to ensure friendly, non-hostile martial arts discussion, with no personal issues entangled within.

Many thanks for your continuing endeavours in aiming to make Karate Resource the best martial arts forum out there.

[whitewarlock]

Oh geesh, we continue on with this tangent?

On this new tangent: In your earlier experience, Angela, the premise to your argument was the allegation of evidence. When you failed to provide that evidence, dismissing the need to present such, you essentially indicated the readers were to accept your argument based on evidence you were not willing to allow others to scrutinize. This was the 'bad form' alleged by those who approached you publicly, and in private. However, your incident differs substantially from this particular incident, on two parts:

1. To clarify, once again, it was not the issue of being questioned, or even about being requested to provide 'proof,' but of the manner in which it was requested (i.e., "Says who?").

2. My post did not require substantiation, nor was it dependent upon the side-note later included. I.e., it was not 'based' on my side-note, and thus the overemphasis on such is inappropriate and was distractive. It disrupted the flow of the discussion and curtly diffused the points i was attempting to present.

In hindsight, it would have been better had i not presented the 'sidenote.' However, hindsight was not available to me when i posted and i had not considered, at that time, the possibility someone would jump all over it. I should have, seeing as it was essentially presenting a "you've been doing it wrong bub" sort of scenario. But, i didn't, and that's that.

Now, to 'a few' of the sources that are being made such a big deal of in these discussions:

I have, in my silly little collection that i've read, over 150 martial art and Asian studies books, including a few on ettiquette/protocol, military/caste formalities, and essays on various Eastern historical/socio-political esoterics. Many of the martial art books present substandard or blatantly incorrect information on bowing ettiquette, and are starkly contrasted by the more indepth scholarly essays.

To exacerbate this are all the modernists, both Asian and European, who perform bows incorrectly. As noted in a few writings, Asians as a whole have lost touch with the intricacies of bowing, having adopted modern eclectic variations, thus making the assumption someone born and raised in Japan, China, or Korea is going to know how to bow, is a great way to learn the wrong way.

Okay, the perfunctory name-dropping. I include only the names of those individuals i 'clearly' recall discussing the ettiquettes of bowing, as well as just a few of the books in which it was noted, and a link or two. Unfortunately, most of my books are in storage and i am not at home to peruse the books i do have, thus i am unable to confidently point out which books, and in what pages, specifics of this have been indicated. As well, i do not remember everyone i've discussed this with, although i'm sure i would find a few links to earlier discussions of mine on the internet, should i be inclined to research my own research any further:

Grandmaster Tri Thang Dong (Ten Shin) - Deceased - www.balona.com/tri.html

Master Rich (last name private) - instructor of san soo kung fu (tsoi li ho fut hung ga) - privacy maintained

Master Rick (last name private) - instructor of sil lum (shoalin) kung fu - privacy maintained

Professor Richard Francis - instructor in danzan ryu and tanemura ryu jujitsu - Aijukikan - www.geocities.com/aijukikan/index.html

Eiko Ikegami's Bonds of Civility

Jigoro Kano's Judo

Rob Redmond's article, Respect the Principles of Etiquette

F. Darren Smith's article, To Bow or Not To Bow

An excerpt from Mr. Smith's article regarding the 'standard' bows presented in dojos:

"Allowing the head to bob, especially allowing the chin to come to the chest, exposes the nape of the neck to the kamiza and/or shinden. This is very poor form and impolite."

My side-note was specifically in regards to what people do 'wrong' when it comes to bowing, for the express purpose of giving example to an issue that is core to these discussions. And that is, most everyone practicing the arts, including very high ranked practitioners, do not actually know the intricacies of 'foriegn' ettiquette. They run with what they've been told, and it becomes lore... or myth. Thus, my argument is that we should stick to what we know, rather than ritualize things, in mock fakery of foriegn ettiquette, for the purpose of adding so-called traditionalism as a selling tool.

Now, is it possible we can return to the discussion at hand?

[AngelaG]

WW, it is the nature of forums everywhere that one cannot pick and choose the nature of where the topic decides to go. As long as it stays vaguely in the right ball park and of a Martial Arts nature then I, as admin, am happy for the thread to run its course whilst people feel there is something left to debate within.

Show me a forum where every thread stays completely on topic and I'll show you a forum with only 1 member

[Aefibird]

whitewarlock said:

Now, is it possible we can return to the discussion at hand?

As the thread was/is about traditional politeness then surely bowing comes into that topic area? One of the areas that separates so-called traditional MA's from so-called modern or mixed MA's is the use of the bow. Therefore correct way to bow comes under "tradtional politeness" does it not?