Soo Shim Kwan 水心館수심관

In this essay, I’d like to appropriate an idea from the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan to understand martial arts practice. One of Lacan’s pivotal ideas, which crystallized over many years, is that of the Imaginary-Symbolic-Real. I believe that this idea could function as a good framework to think about the martial arts, similar to previous frameworks I’ve used, such as the Musul-Muye-Mudo paradigm and the low variables to high variables (or abstract to concrete, or low-resolution to high-resolution) sparring drill paradigm. An assumption in this essay is that the ultimate goal of a martial art is preparation for surviving real violence; i.e. self-defence. There are of course many other goals that martial art systems may have, which were not taken into account in this essay. Also keep in mind that my discussion of Lacan’s ideas is cursory and is adapted to my discussion of the martial arts; for a more in-depth explanation of Lacan’s Imaginary-Symbolic-Real I recommend further reading. (This YouTube-video gives a good introduction.)

(Please note that this essay is in the process of being expanded into an academic article, and may therefore not be copied.)

Imaginary

Imaginary refers to how we imagine ourselves and others to be.

Lacan’s idea of the Imaginary is equated with the mirror stage in child development, when an infant (between about 6 months and 18 months of age) starts to recognize that it is the object it sees in the mirror. This, the psychoanalysts argued, is when the Ego is formed, and resonates with Freud’s concept of Identification. The child looks up at its parents and siblings and identify in them an ideal Ego, a kind of future Ego it hopes to become. The “mirror” can therefore be understood symbolically, so that there need not be an actual mirror; the child may see themselves “reflected” in other children or elders. In his later thought, Lacan did not restrict the mirror-stage only to the infant but extended it into adulthood.

I propose that in the martial arts, the Imaginary is the image we have about what a martial artist is—what someone who is practicing martial arts is like. Note that I’m emphasizing both the act of martial arts (object) and the person engaging in martial arts (subject).

In modern times, this image is highly influenced by popular media. The “image” of a martial artist may be based on the myths of the Zen-like samurai, the Shaolin monk-warriors, and characters in film: Daniel Larusso and Mr. Miyagi in Karate Kid, Jean-Claude Van Damme’s depictions of Frank Dux and Kurt Sloane, the many characters played by Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Donnie Yen, and more recent action stars the likes of Tom Hardy and Jason Statham. Of course, the imagined martial artist need not stay within the realm of Hollywood and Chinese cinema but can also be based on combat sport athletes from WWE to UFC. Finally, for most martial arts initiates, their most immediate image of what a martial artist is, is often their personal martial art instructors (and seniors). It is not for naught that the Korean term for instructor (sabeomnim) literally translates as a teacher to be imitated (literally: “teacher-model”).

A screen-grab from the action-fantasy kungfun film
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny

In all these cases, we have a type of idealization of the “martial artist.” In other words, a fantasy. Sometimes martial art instructors (“masters” and “grandmasters”) may unfortunately promote the fantasy of themselves, but often it is simply the students who idealize their instructors. This idealization results from perceiving, and correctly so, the big gap between their own skill level compared to the level of their instructors. The “gap,” which at first may seem quite insurmountable, causes the student to put the instructor on a pedestal. The imaginary ideal functions as a goal to strife for, and while it may be a fantasy, it is not wholly bad. Fantasies are inspirational, hence martial arts philosopher Allan Back, at a Taekwon-Do conference, presented a paper in favour of the myths in martial arts. The fantasy of flying martial artists fighting while airborne in Oriental myths and legends, as well as in cinema, may have been the inspiration behind the development of spectacular aerial kicks seen in Taekwon-Do demonstrations and such as competitions as the Red Bull Kick It extravaganzas.

There is, of course, the danger that the fantasy may be mistaken for reality. Many new martial artists are lured into taking up a martial art by Hollywood depictions of a lone hero single-handedly beating up a gang with hardly a bruise, or other impossible feats. Such a false sense of prowess is naively dangerous.

Real

On the other end of the spectrum is Lacan’s Real. It is a bit tricky to give a simple definition of what Lacan meant by the Real, but for our purposes I propose we understand it simply as that which objectively is, before any interpretation. In other words, reality before it is filtered by our senses and worldviews. This means that the Real is never fully knowable, because our subjective interpretation skews objective reality. Furthermore, the Real is too complex to be fully understood.

For our discussion on martial arts, we will refer here to what happens during a real combative encounter: What is a real fight like? How do trained practitioners really act during a violent encounter? How do untrained people act in these situations? How is the human nervous system affected by stress and adrenaline during a violent conflict? How are muscle control and coordination affected during a life-threatening encounter? How is competition fighting different from street fighting strategically and psychologically? How is a dual (street fight, squabble at the pub, brawl on the playground) different from a predatory criminal attack on an unsuspecting civilian?

A victim of a necklacing -- burnt alive
Image Source

Many of these questions can be—to some degree—studied and there are professionals in military, security, and defence occupations who have taken the pains to research such questions. The problem remains, however, that even when we have analyzed the data, the subjective “lived” experience is different from person to person, and from violent encounter to violent encounter. One simply can’t predict all the variables that come into play during a violent encounter. One can’t know when exactly you will be attacked, whether the floor will be hard or slippery, whether it will be dark, whether there will be weapons involved, how many attackers you will face. At best we can hope for an approximation of likely possibilities.

Symbolic

Lacan’s Symbolic refers to all the societal institutions and systems that are in place to fulfil the Imaginary and attempt to bridge the gap towards the Real. For example, in a country that sees itself as a safe democracy, such systems may include the government and judiciary that ensures regular elections. In the Natural Sciences it is the theories and hypotheses used to try and explain natural phenomena.

In the martial arts context, I propose that the Symbolic is the martial arts system. The martial arts system functions as a paradigm for understanding and preparing for the Real. The system ought to help disillusion the martial arts initiate from the Imaginary. As the practitioner is training in the martial arts system, they learn to distinguish between the Imaginary and the possible Real. They learn that the cinematic depictions of martial arts are often simply fantasy. Yet, they also realize that the amazing abilities of their instructors are not supernatural, but the result of hard, persistent, and very long training.

Conclusion

In summary, a good martial art system has several important functions.

First, it dispels the falsehoods of the Imaginary. Whenever a martial art system promotes false ideas of what a real violent encounter is like, or even impractical strategies for fighting, it is failing to dispel falsehoods in the Imaginary.

Second, however, a good martial art system engages the Imaginary in a productive way to inspire the student to grow beyond themselves (their current physical ability) towards an ideal. Mastery in the martial arts may result in a practitioner doing feats that appear fantastical; however, this the result of years of hard work and dedication. When a practitioner sees their instructors do such skills, it can inspire the practitioner to want to achieve the same level as the instructor. Therefore, the Imaginary has an important motivating function.

Third, a good martial art system provides a path for preparing for the Real. There should be a proper pedagogy (syllabus) in place that can guide the practitioner from being completely unprepared for real violence, to be reasonably prepared for the Real. Being absolutely prepared for the Real is impossible, because the Real is impossible to fully predict and comprehend. Even the most experienced combatant does not have a 100% success rate all the time. A real fight is simply too chaotic and unpredictable. Nevertheless, one can prepare to improve your chances as much as humanly possible. A good martial arts system should have a progressive syllabus that aims towards the most likely success. (Consider my essay on a pedagogy that progresses from low variables-high abstraction to high variables-low abstraction.)

Finally, because it is impossible to definitively prepare for the Real, the ultimate training goal is a type of unattainable idealism. This is where the Imaginary plays an important function. The Imaginary provides an idealistic goal—that goal for perfection of technique that is striven for in traditional martial arts. Without this strive towards an ideal, the martial artist could never aim high enough to prepare for the impossibility of the Real. Preparing for the Real is impossible and achieving the perfection projected by the Imaginary is also impossible. Yet it is the strive towards the Imaginary, the strive towards an impossible ideal, that best prepares the martial artist for the Real.

There is much that can be learned from this incident in which an MMA fighter killed a body builder.

News Report

1. They have now both lost their lives. The MMA guy is sure to go to jail for manslaughter. And for what? An insult? This seemed to have been just an ego fight between two "tough guys". At any point, one of them could have swallowed their pride and walked away. He (the MMA dude or the body builder) may have been taunted as a coward for walking away, but that is nothing compared to the eventual consequences. Now we have a dead tough guy and a jailed tough guy that will probably be incarcerated for most of his life, and the end of both of their athletic careers.

2. The kick -- what we in Taekwon-Do call a reverse turning kick -- is one of our strongest kicks because of the spinning momentum. My instructor has often called it a deadly kick, and it was clearly not hyperbole.

3. The myth that high kicks are not effective in a 'street' fight is simply that; a myth.

4. Size does (not) matter. There is no question that size matters. But a trained fighter (in this case the MMA guy) can still do serious and even lethal harm to an untrained big guy (the bodybuilder).

5. Just because it is a combat sport, doesn't mean it is not effective "on the street". MMA, like other combat sports, can be used effectively against untrained people.

6. But combat sport, and also other forms of combat training, doesn't necessarily make for good, civilian appropriate self-defence. A civilian defense system can sometimes provides alternative and more civil responses than simply breaking someone's skull.

7. Sadly, I suspect with the increased popularity of MMA and UFC, we are likely to see more and more of these "accidents". As more people start to train in fighting techniques with the main goal of gaining a knock out (or "tap out"), and without a moral emphasis and an encouragement of "control", we are likely to see more young, ego-driven, testosterone hyped thugs (a title they probably embrace as part of their tough guy image), beating up (and sometimes killing) other people, for no sensible reason apart from their pride. Even Rickson Gracie, one of the pioneer MMA athletes who retired undefeated from the sport suggested that MMA gives a bad example, an "extreme sport without a code", often lacking humility and respect. Of course, there are exceptions, but as a combat sport, it is ultimately only about winning using violence.

8. The MMA guy's follow up to go beat up his opponent on the floor was clearly inappropriate; however, it was also simply part of his sports training. That is what one does in MMA. If someone falls you follow them to the ground and you continue to beat them up until the referee stops the fight. The lesson here is that one tends to perform how you train. A valuable lesson, albeit a sinister way to for us to see it.

9. One difference between how traditional martial arts (focussing on civilian self-defence) and a combat sport is practiced: in the traditional martial art the practitioner is usually taught to defend and then retreat. Once the assailant has fallen, the "defender" would retreat, away from harm, rather than follow them to the floor to break their skull. This was not an "assailant-defender" situation, but because we usually perform how we train, I hypothesize that a traditional martial artist would have reacted differently once his opponent had fallen. I'm not saying that in traditional martial arts we do not teach to follow up, but there is usually a different emphasis -- one of offensive-defence, rather than only offense.

10. Finally, in traditional martial arts, practitioners are required to practise a level of "control" which puts the moral responsibility on them -- but in full contact combat sport the onus is on the referee so that the practitioner does not have to think about the hassle of "control" and "ethics" and such bothersome moral considerations. There are many ways to differentiate between a traditional martial art and a combat sport or general combat system. One definite difference is that traditional martial arts contemplate ethical considerations beyond simply sports rules and fair play. Good traditional martial arts usually actively teach some form of ethical code based on a particular philosophical worldview. And this incident between professional MMA fighter Anar Ziranovshows and the now deceased power lifter Andrey Drachev shows us why.

The ultimate goal of pre-arranged sparring is to drill two important skills: attaining superior positioning and simultaneous defence-and-attack (SD&A). Acquiring the ability to always attain superior positioning and apply simultaneous defence-and-attack is no easy task, and requires a systematic learning schema, which will be the topic of this post.

Let’s start by discussing the value of superior positioning and of simultaneous defence-and-attack in turn. Although I think it is obvious why we need to practise these skills, it may be worth it to just review these concepts in case you may not be familiar with them since the ITF Encyclopaedia sadly doesn't discuss them in detail. Nevertheless, they are part and parcel of the ITF Taekwon-Do pedagogy and their importance is touched upon in the ITF Encyclopaedia.

The concept of positioning is often discussed under the concepts of “distance and angle” in ITF Taekwon-Do. Good positioning should do two things: take you off of the opponent's line of attack, and position you so that you can perform an easy and effective counter-attack that doesn't require any further set-up (i.e. no additional steps or positioning adjustment required). We call this advantageous positioning, in which you have both avoided the attack—you are not on the line of attack—and you are in a position for economical and effective counter-attack. Although there is much value in advantageous positioning, the ultimate aim of ITF Taekwon-Do is not merely advantageous positioning, but superior positioning (or a “position of superiority” as it is referred to in one instance in the ITF Encyclopaedia). Superior positioning has you in an advantageous position, but also has your opponent in a disadvantageous position. If your appoint is in a disadvantageous position, it means that he cannot easily attack you from that position and is so positioned that he cannot easily defend against attacks towards openings in his defence. If you have superior positioning you have the advantage of being in a relatively safe position with regards to your opponent and you also have easy access to certain of your opponents vital spots, while your opponent is in a disadvantaged position and will find it relatively difficult to protect his openings and perform immediate counter-attacks without repositioning.

Now let’s look at the concept of simultaneous defence-and-attack. A (self-defence) scenario is usually considered to have two participants: the attacker and the defender. From the very start, the attacker has the advantage because he has the element of surprise and has taken the initiative—he is in control of the action as he is the acting agent. In other words, the defender is re-acting and is therefore innately one-step behind the attacker’s action. Consider the following thought experiment: two people engage in a fight, but each are allowed only one “technique” per move. The attacker’s first move is to attack with a punch. The defender’s first move is in reaction to the attacker’s attack, so he defends the attacker’s punch with a forearm block. The attacker is allowed to perform his second move and now he kicks towards the defender, who in turn blocks the kick with his second move, and so on. In this scenario the defender will always be “defending,” and it is highly likely that the defender will eventually fail at appropriately blocking an attack and will get hit. While this hypothetical situation is very stylized (and is quite similar to the basic forms of pre-arranged step-sparring), it retains the essence of what often happens in a fight between an “attacker” and a “defender.” The solution to this problem is to switch the roles from being the re-active defender to becoming a defending-attacker, who no longer acts re-actively, but takes control of the action. The method for switching those roles is simultaneous defence-and-attack (SD&A).

Unfortunately the ITF Encyclopaedia doesn't provide a single term for both superior positioning and SD&A. Thankfully, in a recent blog post Rory Miller, a renowned self-defence instructor, discussed similar concepts that he combined under the term “Golden Move.” According to Mr. Miller, a Golden Move should (1) injure the threat, (2) protect yourself, (3) improve your position, and (4) worsen the threats position. These are all the things I spoke about above, but succinctly summarised. With a bow to Rory Miller I will henceforth apply his “Golden Move” term to refer to ITF Taekwon-Do's goal of superior positioning and SD&A.

As I mentioned earlier, consistently applying the Golden Move takes great skill; therefore, the ITF Taekwon-Do system—when properly taught—uses pre-arranged sparring drills to guide the practitioner along a path towards that goal. [Read my related post: "Prearranged Sparring: Definition, Purpose, and Value".]

At the lowest level is the first pre-arranged sparring drill: three-step sparring. This basic drill is used to make the defender aware of simple martial art concepts such as the attack line and centre line. The attacker attacks the defender with three—usually linear—attacks towards the defender's centre line, while giving three steps along the straight attack line. The defender is expected to defend against each attack towards his centre line with a basic block. This is the basic level where the practitioner starts to learn about simple attacks and choosing appropriate blocking tools to defend against attacks.

The beginner is also introduced to simple distances of attack-and-defence and at this level much focus is placed on keeping an appropriate safe distance between attacker and defender. Only the most elementary consideration is given to positioning at this stage. The defender is instructed to use the normal retreat reflex, to simply step backwards, away from the attacker’s attacks. However, the defender must maintain a close enough distance in order to apply a simple counter-attack towards the opponent's centre line after the three-step attack is completed. These various initial principles become the building blocks from which the Golden Move will later be taught. After several months of three-step sparring, the practitioner moves on to two step sparring which is introduced at the 7th grade level.

In two step sparring there is usually still no SD&A; however, the attack lines become more diverse as a greater variety of attacks are introduced. For instance, the attacker might attack with a straight punch and then follow up with a turning kick, which has a different attack trajectory. Such changes in the attack lines forces the defender to transition away from positioning based solely on the retreating-reflex. The defender should now also make use of side-steps and other foot-shifting techniques to not only get off of the attack line, rather than merely retreating, but also stay within an appropriate distance from the attacker in order to be able to launch an effective counter-attack. Emphasis is on advantageous positioning. Again, after an adequate time of two-step sparring practice, the practitioner moves on to one-step sparring, while still reviewing two-step sparring.

One-step sparring is introduced at 6th grade level. It is in this drill where the practitioner will eventually transition from mere advantageous positioning practice to superior positioning. Initially the attack is still first blocked and then followed up with a counter-attack towards a vital spot immediately afterwards. However, after some training there also occurs a transition from this segmented defence followed by a counter-attack to actual SD&A; for instance doing a block and a counter-attack at the very same time. A typical example may look as follows: the attacker throws a right punch towards the defender. The defender steps at a 45° angle towards the inside of the attacking arm, and performs a simultaneous fore-arm block with his left arm, and strikes with his right elbow towards the attacker's left temple. While such a defence is good, it is not yet a Golden Move because being on the inside of the attacker means that he can relatively easily defend against your attack and can also easily counter-attack. Another response to the attacker's punch may be to step to the outside of the attacker's right punch, and this time blocking his arm with the right forearm and doing a simultaneous counter-attack with a left elbow strike. In this scenario, since you are on the outside of the attacker and it is much more difficult for him to defend and counter-attack, the defender has achieved a Golden Move.

It is in one-step sparring where the Golden Move in various manifestations is most pertinently practised, and it is therefore the reason why it is the most frequently practised step-sparring drill by higher level Taekwon-Do practitioners. There exists many variations of one-step sparring to increase the difficulty of this exercise. For instance, the initial attack may be completely unscripted, and also the attacker need not stand in front of the defender, but start the attack from any position, such as from the defender's flank or even rear.

A quick side-note with regards to the idea of SD&A. There might be an erroneous assumption that SD&A means that the move should always include an actual simultaneous block with a counter-attack, but this is not necessarily the case. The “defence” in SD&A need not be a block, but can simply be some form of foot-shifting, side-step or dodge that clears your body of the attack. “Protect yourself,” to use Rory Miller's term, can of course mean to literally block the attack, but it can also mean to simply move out of the way of the attack. An example of such a SD&A against someone doing a front kick towards you might be a dodging turning kick—the dodge functions as the defence that gets you off of the attack line, while at the same time allowing for a counter-attack (the turning kick). SD&A involving such dodging techniques, or even flying techniques, are often practised by higher level practitioners.

While one-step sparring is a pinnacle drill because it focuses on the Golden Move, it’s limit on the number of attacks (i.e. just one step, and attack) that the attacker can perform is unrealistic.

To move beyond this limitation there are two additional “dynamic context” drills. The one, which is not so common any more, is known as pre-arranged free sparring. An example is one-step free sparring: there is still an initial attack by the attacker against which the defender has to perform SD&A, but if superior positioning is not attained—in other words, if the opponent is not at a disadvantaged position—then the attacker is at liberty to also defend and counter-attack, to which the defender should then re-establish superior positioning and apply SD&A. The earlier step sparring drills can also be practised as dynamic context drills and instructors often create different dynamic context drills depending on the principle they want their students to practise.

The other more common dynamic context drill in ITF Taekwon-Do is known as semi-free sparring, and is introduced at 5th grade level. Semi-free sparring doesn’t have any pre-arranged number of steps (attacks) that the attacker is confined to. The drill is concluded once the defender has performed a proper counter-attack. Semi-free sparring is most valuable when the defender focuses on the Golden Move. Unfortunately, since many people are not properly taught to progressively work towards striving for the Golden Move, their semi-free sparring becomes simply a form of point sparring, resembling tournament sparring, rather than a self-defence drill. It is the case that semi-free sparring is indeed used as a transition exercise in preparation for tournament sparring. While there is nothing wrong with using semi-free sparring as a stepping-stone for tournament sparring, the original purpose as a self-defence preparation drill must not be neglected.

Finally, of course, is free sparring (aka traditional sparring) that is traditionally introduced at 4th grade level. (Free sparring is not to be confused with tournament sparring.) Free sparring has very little prescriptions, and allows both attacker and defender a full arsenal of techniques for attack and defence. Free sparring is a very important drill, however it is not to be confused as an actual self-defence drill because it assumes that both fighters have “agreed” to the dual. There is therefore no “defender,” defending herself against an assailant. This doesn’t mean that free sparring doesn’t contribute much to the progressive learning curve of the practitioner. Because free sparring has the least amount of restrictions and the most amount of chaos, it does resemble a real combative encounter better than most step sparring drills. It therefore requires the practitioners to constantly improvise over an extended period of time—whereas the step sparring drills hampers such continuous need for improvisation.

Nevertheless, the step sparring drills, and particularly one-step sparring, represent the ideal that the martial arts strive for, namely the Taoist goal of efficacy, often promoted as the idea that a single technique (the Golden Move) should effectively end the conflict; or as the ITF Encyclopaedia puts it: “the ultimate goal of Taekwon-Do in real combat is to win the victory with just a single seasoned blow” (Vol. 5, p. 108).

Related Reading:

"Prearranged Sparring: Definition, Purpose, and Value".

Teaching self-defence skills to people is always a tricky business because it is difficult to say what will work or not. Sometimes I teach a particular skill to students, and while it might work for nine out of ten of the students in the class, there might be one person struggling with it. I can walk them through it, and they might get it the technique to work under guidance, but when they do it by themselves they just fail to get it right. Generally I avoid overly complicated techniques for self-defence training, keeping in mind adrenalin dump and the loss of fine motor coordination during a violent conflict. Therefore, I don’t think the “fault” lies in the technique, but is more likely just that the particular skill just doesn’t come naturally for that particular student.

Now, another instructor, convinced of the effectiveness of this particular technique will insist that the student practice it repeatedly until they “get” it. I’m of a different opinion. If the technique doesn’t work for a person with a certain degree of “naturalness” at the student’s current level of proficiency, then the technique is even less likely to work in a stressful context. Also, I don’t want students to become fixated on one particular technique. Of course, we do try and practice particular techniques and try and improve their efficiency, but I seldom hammer on just one technique as the ultimate (i.e only) self-defence skill for a specific situation. Instead I try to provide students with a skill set—a series of related options that are founded on particular martial principles (for example, positioning). I may teach a few techniques and principles and then tell the students to experiment and find what they find to work for them against different opponents. Without being prescriptive, I then comment on what they come up with. For instance, if what they are doing puts them in a vulnerable position (rather than an advantageous position and the opponent in a disadvantageous position) I would point that out and make some suggestions or have them come up with an alternative.

The problem is simply that a violent encounter is dynamic (i.e. chaotic) with only limited predictability. Fixating on one technique, and insisting that it should work is limiting and unrealistic. The ability to quickly adapt and find other solutions is a much more important skill than doing something because that is how their instructor taught them.

Paradoxically, when I started teaching this way I at first threw out all “pre-arranged” drills because I believed they were unrealistic and there is no use in teaching things that are unrealistic. I didn’t make students memorize any sequences or specific combinations. I just taught principles, but not particular techniques and expected them to come up with their own combinations within a dynamic context. What I found was that students could not apply the principles in coherently effective ways. They simply didn’t have the “vocabulary” – an appropriate arsenal – to deal with the situation. I soon realized that for beginners there is much value in fully pre-arranged sparring drills, even though they are unrealistic. Pre-arranged sparring drills are a great tool for teaching a “vocabulary of fighting”. Once the student already built up some arsenal of appropriate techniques and combinations, should one decrease the abstraction (by adding more “reality”).

When taught properly, ITF Taekwon-Do is supposed to provide a continuum that facilitate a progression from high-abstraction, low variable practise to low-abstraction, high variable practice. In other words, at first things are predictable while students get to practice particular techniques and strategies. Then the abstraction level is decreased, and the variables are increased. Things are less predictable and the student needs to literally think on their feet. The more variables there are the less prescriptive do I as the instructor get. Ultimately I have to give free reign to the student and allow them to do whatever works for them in that situation.

Facilitating such a progression from high abstraction, low variables (very prescriptive pre-arranged drills) to low abstraction, high variables (unscripted drills) can be difficult, particularly when you have students who are at very different levels. For instance, in a recent class I had one black belt (2nd Dan), a blue belt, a yellow belt, and white belts. They are all at different places along the continuum. Making sure that each one is practicing (and reviewing) appropriately at their level requires some nifty pedagogic negotiation on the instructor’s part. The instructor often has to improvise his or her lesson to fit the dynamics (levels) of the class that can change on any given day.

Nevertheless, this part of the class—working along the continuum with the aim of self-defence—is what Taekwon-Do is for me. If Taekwon-Do is—as it defines itself—“the Korean Art of Self-Defence” [호신예술]—then working towards self-defence is ultimately what all training boils down to.

Image Source

The gym in Seoul, Korea, that I am associated with, in other words, where I am an instructor, provides a good spectrum of training. At 'The Way' Martial Arts & Fitness we offer Taekwon-Do (ITF for adults and WTF for children) augmented with Hapkido, an amateur MMA program, and Cross-Fit training. The MMA program contains two types of classes: stand-up fighting classes based on Boxing, Muay Thai, Kickboxing and ITF Taekwon-Do; and ground-fighting classes based on Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Yusul (Korean jujitsu).

I'm one of the primary instructors for ITF Taekwon-Do and Hapkido and also occassionally help out with the grappling class. However, while I sometimes join the stand-up fighting classes, there are certain exercises, particularly those from Boxing and Kickboxing that I opt out of; in particular, I refuse to practise in the slipping, and bobbing and weaving drills.

Don't get me wrong, I think Boxing (and by implication I include here the hand techniques of Kickboxing) is very effective, and even for street fighting purposes people with a good foundation in boxing can often handle themselves very well (although they often break their hands which are not used to the impact of an unpadded fist on a naked skull, but that is besides the point). Some of the fighters I know personally and would not want to fight are trained foremost in Boxing.

There is very little one can do to improve on the offensive techniques in boxing. There are basically only four offensive techniques in boxing: the jab, the cross, the hook and the uppercut. Boxing has pretty much mastered the mechanics of these techniques and I don't mind training in them. And when I do, I am reminded of my instructor who often said: "Taekwon-Do is firstly Boxing." It is, however, in the defensive techniques of Boxing that I feel ill at ease, particularly those techniques that tilt the spinal alignment from the straight posture where the head is over the centre of gravity and the shoulders, hips and feet are in equilibrium.

The video above demonstrates the defensive method
of slipping and rolling (or weaving) used in Boxing.

Within the close fighting context of Boxing as a combat sport the defensive techniques of slipping and weaving is valuable. It allows one to avoid attacks without losing ground, which is a sensible skill if your aim is to stay withing the close fighting range.

However, for me specializing in a traditional martial art fond of kicking and with a self-defence focus, I find slipping and weaving contra-productive to the types of skills I wish to engrain. Firstly, slipping and weaving makes sense in a fists-only context, but the moment you bring leg attacks (kneeing and kicking) into the equation, slipping and weaving just becomes dangerous. You are in effect lowering your head towards the opponents knees or kicks! Not wise. With the exception of kickboxing, if we can apply the term "martial arts" to include kickboxing, I cannot think of any other martial art that trains in kicks and also slipping and weaving. (An exception may be Capoiera, but there is diffferent dynamics at play in this Brazilian fighting-dance.) Even a long established combat sport like Muay Thai does not use slipping and weaving as primary defensive movements.

Also, slipping and weaving requires you to shift your head's position away from its prime balance position over the centre of gravity. The traditional martial arts puts a lot of emphasis on keeping correct posture and ensuring a balanced position. The head is almost always kept directily over the centre of gravity and the shoulders and hips are usually in line and balanced relative to the knees and feet. Once a person has his head positioned away from its primed balanced position, take downs and throws become much easier.

In ITF Taekwon-Do, my base style, I can think of maybe five fundamental techniques where the posture is not erect. Considering that ITF Taekwon-Do allegedly containts over 3000 techniques, that should speak volumes about the principle of keeping an erect, well-balanced posture. My other training in Hapkido and Taekkyeon puts similar emphasis on keeping an erect posture and I can assume the same for many of the other styles I had dabbled in.

Of course, it is necessary to mention that there is good slipping and bad slipping. Good slipping is only the slightest amount of tilt and movement that allows the opponent's fist to miss its target (your head); then there is bad slipping which is an exaggerated bend in the posture. For a good exposition on both good slipping and bad slipping, read "How to Slip Punches" at ExportBoxing.Com.

And so, whenever I join the stand-up fighting class at my gym, I train in most of what the class has to offer, but deliberately sit out whenever slipping and weaving is practised. Again, I don't doubt the value of these defensive motions in the confined context of competition sparring where hand techniques and close range fighting is preferenced. ITF Taekwon-Do athletes have incorporated some of these bobbing weaving motions for tournament sparring and within this confined context there might be value at the close fighting ranges and since knee kicks, grabbing and throwing are illegal in ITF tournament sparring, some of the dangers that slipping (particular of the bad type) presents, are less worrisome. For other contexts and particularly the self-defence contexts, exercises that compromise erect posture, and therefore optimum equilibrium, are not the types of exercises I want to ingrain.

I'm submitting this as a very late contribution to a recent Blogging Carnival on Women's Self-Defence. Unfortunately other priorities did not allow me to be part of the planned Blogging Carnival date. Regardless, I hope that this short essay may add some value to the discourse of Women's Self-Defence.

You can find links to the official contributions to this blogging carnival here.

...ooOoo...

Every two weeks I host a martial art workshop. Generally I facilitate the workshops myself, but often I also get other instructors to present it. I try to keep the workshops different and interesting in order to get as wide an audience of martial artists to interact with each other as possible. After these bi-weekly workshops the participants usually enjoy a meal together at a local restaurant and just get to know each other better. During one such a conversation, one of the participants, a female who had recently been in a potentially violent situation, said that the reason she decided to join the workshop was in order to learn to defend herself. The particular theme of the workshop for that day was Basic Hapkido Principles and she wanted to know if I think she should take up Hapkido or Taekwon-Do (knowing that I teach both), since she is feeling somewhat unsafe at the moment.

Image Source

Knowing that her need for self-protection is an immediate one, I told her that she would be better off taking a focussed self-defence seminar, and then, at least for the short term, taking up a non-traditional system such as boxing, kick-boxing, Muay Thai or amateur MMA classes. Incidentally the gym I teach at has an amateur MMA (stand-up fighting and grappling) program as well, but that was not the reason I made the suggestion. There are many other things that self-defence advice should include, particularly "soft-skills" such as building awareness, but when all else fails some fighting skill is prudent and acquiring some martial art skills are imperative.

The question is, why did I as a nearly 20 year practitioner of traditional martial arts and long time instructor of Taekwon-Do tell her not to take up a traditional martial art but instead take up a combat sport? Don't I believe that traditional martial arts are good for self-defence? Actually, I think that traditional martial arts, when taught with the correct emphasis, can be excellent vehicles for acquiring self-defence skill. The problem is that traditional martial arts take a long time to become proficient at. If your only goal is to gain some fighting skill in a relatively short time, then taking up a combat sport, I believe, is better.

Image Source

For a majority of women the biggest hurdle in acquiring self-defence skill is their conditioned (or natural?) aversion to offending or hurting another person and also their acceptance of being “oppressed”. Often, my biggest struggle as a martial art instructor with women is getting them to do their techniques with realism. And just because they can do it with a sense of reality on a target pad or punching bag, doesn't mean that they will do it with the same, albeit, controlled realism on their training partners, for fear of hurting the other person. Getting them to forego their fear of not being ladylike is a surprising but difficult obstacle for many women. If nothing else, combat sports for example Boxing, Kickboxing or Muay Thai, force a person to very quickly get used to “hurting” other people. At the same time, the high frequency of contact during practise also forces the student to get used to getting hit, getting used to “violent” contact. These two skills—being used to aggressive contact and the willingness to “hurt” someone else—are crucial ingredients for self-defence and the rate at which you acquire these skills are generally much higher among combat sports than traditional martial arts. For example, in a typical combat sports class one may start basic sparring even from the first class. In a traditional martial art it is often the case that the student is guided into sparring over an extensive period.

Image Source

Personally I still believe that in the long run properly taught traditional martial art training is a better option to prepare one for self-defence scenarios as it teaches a variety of skills preparing one for a variety of scenarios. A combat sport limits the type of techniques one may use because of the rules of the sport. A traditional martial art, on the other hand, may include many "illegal" techniques such as elbow and knee strikes, eye gauging, biting, throat and groin attacks, and so on. However, if a woman has not overcome her aversion to punching a person, she is even less likely to bite or scratch at the eyes. While combat sports are limited in technique, the faster forging of a fighting spirit is probably the biggest value for a person wishing to gain self-defence ability. Often merely putting up a spirited fight may dissuade the attacker from further action. Violent crimes tend to be performed by criminals picking on easy targets. Many a person have defended themselves by shear determination, not by martial art skill. It is this fighting spirit that contact sparring can develop and such sparring experience will happen much quicker in, say, a kick-boxing or MMA gym, than in a traditional martial art gym.

It is for this reason that if somebody where to ask me, what “style” should I study in order to protect myself in a short time, that I advise them to take up a combat sport, as I did with the women that posed me that question recently. This, of course, must be done in conjunction with at least an introductory course in realistic self-defence.

Image Source

On the other hand, if one want to learn a strong foundation with a variety of ingrained techniques that can by applied in an array of different situations, I would definitely suggest a good traditional martial art school that has proper emphasis on self-defence training. Traditional martial arts also have a variety of fringe benefits, including the progressive and increasingly difficult goals (be they short term belt exams, breaking more boards, learning more difficult techniques), that set up regular victories over a long period to recondition a person into establishing a good self-worth. One's sense of self-worth is probably one of the greatest impulses to carry oneself in a confident manner; in other words, carrying one self in such a way that you communicate that you are not an easy target. But one needs to be careful: I believe it is better to train at a mediocre sport combat gym, than train at a poor traditional martial art school, for at least at the sport combat gym you will get exposure to contact sparring, while at a poor traditional martial art school you are likely to gain mere illusions of proficiency.

I wrote my previous post, on the potential value of martial arts training for ostracised Korean children, specifically as a contribution to the first Anti-Bullying Blogging Carnival, organized by Colin Wee from Joong Do Kwan Tae Kwon Do in Australia. For this carnival several martial art bloggers set out to contemplate the topic of bullying and contribute to the anti-bullying discussion.

Bullying is often dismissed as mere child's play. This is quite unfortunate as many children that are bullied suffer severely--physically and emotionally. It is particularly this latter type of scarring that often goes unseen, but which potentially leaves life long scars. It is for this reason that this topic deserves our contemplation, especially within the martial arts circles, for I believe that the martial arts have the potential to bring hope and healing to victims of bullying. Read more about the carnival by clicking on the logo above.

I'm happy to mention that my contribution received an "Outstanding Submission" Award for "Most Eye-Opening Discussion". I am, of course, only one voice in the discussion. Each carnival submission brings a unique take on the topic and for anyone interested in anti-bullying I highly recommend you to read the other submissions as well. Below are a list of the other contributors to the Anti-Bullying Blogging Carnival with links to their submissions.

Colin Wee -- Joong Do Kwan Tae Kwon Do: "There Was This Bully . . ."
Dr. Bruce Clayton -- Shotokan's Secret: "Neatralizing Bullies"
Vaughan Jackson & Theodore Kruckzek -- Okinawan Karate-Do Institute: "Starting on the Path" / "Teaching Kids"
Charlie Wildish -- Bunkai Jutsu: "Are Traditional Martial Arts Any Use to Somebody Who Is Being Bullied?"
Michele Apsokardu -- Just a Thought: "Karate Provides Options"
Lori O'Connell -- Pacific Wave Jiu Jitsu: "Standing Up to Bullies"
Scott Phillips -- Weakness with a Twist: "Teaching Without Teaching"
Neil Hall -- London Chinatown TKD Wellbeing: "Bullying and Self-Esteem"
Rick Matz -- Cook Ding's Kitchen: "Bully Medicine"

Image Source

There is a phenomenon in Korea known as “wangtta.” The word is used as both a noun—a person is said to be a wangtta—and an adjective—a situation is described as wangtta. I will use the term primarily in its noun form, as it is easier to grasp within the English idiom and from a Western paradigm. Simplistically, a wangtta is usually a child that is an outcast from his or her peer group. As an outcast the wangtta may experience various forms of bullying, including verbal and physical abuse. However the most common and severe form of bullying for the wangtta is ostracism, a complete disregard for the person—literally treating the wangtta as if he or she doesn't exist.

While ostracism can be terrible for any child, in a group-oriented society like Korea the effect is especially severe. Like any group-oriented society, being part of a group is fundamental to the person's sense of value, and so being ostracised is cause for terrible shame. In fact, it is not unheard of for Korean children that are treated as wangtta to commit suicide. This is a tragic, but very real occurrence in Korea.

So what anti-bullying, i.e. anti-wangtta, strategies has the martial arts to offer?

In this context anti-bullying self-defence techniques are only somewhat relevant because the real abuse is not as much physical as emotional. For these children being physically abused is paradoxically sufferable. Accounts I heard of Koreans having suffered being bullied says that one just have to take it and wait it out. Eventually somebody else will become the wangtta and the focus will shift away from you to someone else. The paradox here is that if one is physically bullied, it means that your existence is actually still somewhat acknowledged. You are not yet completely ignored, you are not yet treated with utter disregard, as if you do not exist. Like a child so hungry for attention that even negative attention would suffice, the physically bullied child is often willing to endure it. It seems that the most dangerous form of bullying in the group-oriented society is to completely ostracise the child, for it is often these children that are so lonely that they kill themselves. Wanting to be acknowledged, having ones existence recognised, is so enduring to the Oriental psyche that it forms a prominent motif in many children's animation. I think, for instance, of the famous Japanese manga and anime series Naruto, in which one of the main driving forces for the main character is to be recognised and accepted by his village and peers. Naruto's journey from an outcast to an accepted and acknowledged member of society forms a crucial motif to the plot, and I believe this is part of its popularity not only in its native Japan, but also here in Korea. Of course, although I believe ostracism to possibly be the worst form of bullying for the Korean child, it would be ungrounded to downplay the awful effects of verbal and physical bullying altogether.

In my opinion the greatest thing that the martial arts can provide the ostracised child is a community, a group to belong to. I guess it is possible that the child may be ostracised even within the dojang, but with the close interaction of the observant and caring instructor, opportunity for bullying is much less. Furthermore, a sense of “group” is often inevitable in martial art training. Even when a child is ignored by other members, activities such as pattern training, where everybody moves on the count of the instructor, creates a synthetic group. In that moment of synchronised movement, all the members act as one group, which includes even the ostracised child. Other partner work activities such as pre-arranged sparring further enhance a sense of “group.” A child that may in other circumstances ignore the wangtta is in the dojang forced to interact during the partner exercises under the watchful eye of the instructor. Furthermore, many martial artists can testify how the dojang has become a second “family” and even people that may not have anything in common outside of the dojang are bonded by the commonality of their shared recreation. The “sacred” space of the dojang often acts as catalyst for friendships that may not have formed under other circumstances. Hopefully the dojang could provide the ostracised child with similar relationships that many of us have received from our martial arts training. If nothing else, at least the dojang can provide an alternative space for the child—away from school or other negative environments—where he or she is not the wangtta.

Furthermore, it is often the more shy and timid children that are bullied. While martial art training may not change ones personality (it won't necessarily make an extrovert of an introvert), it does seem to make one more comfortable in one's own skin. Feeling comfortable in your body—aided by the ability to move with agility and grace—undoubtedly has a positive effect on one's self-esteem. The slow but constant progression in ability, skill and rank becomes a new standard of judgement for the child. Even the most inept child will, through constant training, progress in skill and rank. Respect for rank is part and parcel of the dojang, so the child that are shunned outside of the dojang receives—although it may be superficial—respect and acknowledgement from lower ranking students inside the dojang. As the child's self-esteem improves it often causes a series of ripples: the child feels more confident, and as a result looks more confident, which lessons the likelihood of looking like an easy target to be bullied, and may potentially cause the bullying to stop.

While I do not dismiss anti-bullying self-defence techniques which the child may possibly learn during martial art training, I think the real value of martial art training for an outcast (a wangtta) is found in the sense of community that a dojang can provide. The dojang is potentially a new (“safe”) space for the child to become part of a “family” of fellow martial art practitioners. The training and progression in the martial art also provides the child with another criteria of judgement—one that is not arbitrary, but based on a syllabus to whom everyone is held. With consistent training the “wangtta” can prove him or herself and move to a position of respect. This, and the positive affects of physical training, has the potential to build the child's self-esteem, which in turn lessens the likelihood of being victimized.

I'm certain that such positive effects are just as relevant in individual-oriented societies as in group-oriented societies.

I've used the phrases “Civilian Defence” and “Civilian Self-Defence Systems” a couple of times on this blog before, particularly during the recent controversial post “Why Taekwon-Do Is Not Good for Self-Defence” and its follow-up. I think that before I can continue my argument, I need to clarify what I mean by “Civilian Defence,” and what I understand a “Civilian Defence System” to be.

Civilian Defence

Image Source

For me¹ “civilian defence” refers to the principles, strategies and techniques employed by civilians, as opposed to (military) combatants, to defend themselves within a civilised context; in other words, in a society where the rule of law is generally upheld—thus not in the contexts of war or anarchy. Civilian defence is purposed to defend (the members of) civil society from uncivil elements and to uphold the laws that keep such a civil society in place. In the context of war, civil laws are to a degree suspended, i.e. martial law; and during a state of anarchy, civil laws are ignored or non-existent. However, in a civil society a civilian defending him or herself has to do so within the bounds of the law governing the society he or she lives in. Breaking society's expectations of civility, even for the purpose of self-defence, may result in prosecution. While a civil society allows self-defence, it does so with certain conditions.

A “civilian defence system” is the system of principles, strategies and techniques taught, followed and practised by a fraternity (e.g. club / martial art style) of civilians with the intend to defend themselves within the conditions provided by civil society.

A Civil Society²

Image Source

What do I mean by a “civil society”? Simply, it is a society where there is a rule of law governing on the basic principles derived, in part, from the Silver Rule: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” In short, “Harm None.” In a civil society this rule is even extended to criminals and to your attackers. The law will allow you to defend yourself, but only to a degree; certain conditions apply. Use of violence by a civilian is frowned upon in a civil society . While the use of violence for the purpose of self-defence is typically permissible within the confounds of the law of a civil society, it is restricted. For instance, your use of force in self-defence may not be “excessive”; that is, you are not allowed to use any more violence and/or physical force than is absolutely necessary to dissuade the immediate threat and unless you can prove serious threat to life and limb, you cannot cause grave harm or long-term harm to your attacker. Were you to break your attacker's knee or maybe grope out an eye ball, law will probably look very unfavourably upon you, even if the attacker “deserved” such reaction from you.

The law sees all acts of violence as illegal. When you use violence in order to defend yourself, you are also doing something illegal. However, this unlawful action is temporarily permissible in order to protect your own “life and limb” or that of a third party. To legally use violence in self-defence, as Mr Eades pointed out in his article, it must be in a response to a criminal attack upon you (or a third party). Furthermore, your defensive reaction must be both a reasonable and necessary response directed against the attacker. In other words, most people in this civil society should agree that it was a reasonable reaction. Breaking someone's knee for slapping you in the face is not a reasonable response. Also, your reaction must be “necessary to avert the attack”; this means that if there is another option available to you to have prevented choosing a violent defensive response, you are obligated to take it. That means that if an intoxicated guy drunkenly swings a punch at you and you can comfortably sidestep and avoid the attack, then that is probably a more suitable action than stepping in and doing an elbow strike to the guys temple, followed by two knee strikes to the gut!

A civil society, therefore, is a society based on the Silver Rule and requires civil behaviour. Even in your dealings with an aggressor, the law in a civil society still requires from you a certain degree of civility—your self-defence is only legally permissible provided you keep certain conditions.

Civilian Self-Defence Systems

A military combat system and a civilian self-defence
system differ in principle, strategy and technique.

A civilian self-defence system caters for civilians wanting to protect themselves, while adhering to the conditions of self-defence required by the law. A military combat system centres almost exclusively around very hard, brutal and even lethal techniques. A civilian self-defence system cannot be based solely on the same arsenal of techniques. A civilian self-defence system may indeed be lethal; however, it must provide a broad spectrum of techniques, including a wide section of techniques that are not unnecessarily brutal. In should include a “soft” alternative. In other words, a civilian self-defence system must include principles, strategies and techniques that provide “civil” solutions to a violent attack, if possible.

Furthermore, a civilian self-defence system is highly contextual. What is “civil” behaviour in one culture is not necessarily “civil” behaviour in another culture; also, the threats and likely types of attacks and criminal profiles differ widely in different places. The type of civilian self-defence training that Koreans in South Korea with its extremely low crime rate and absence of guns require are drastically different from South Africa with its high crime rate and an abundance of guns and other weapons.

Non-Ideal Civilian Self-Defence Systems

As I argued before, original Taekwon-Do does not provide such “civil” solutions, primarily because of its military origin. For this reason, original Taekwon-Do is not a good civilian self-defence system. I am not saying that Taekwon-Do cannot be a good civilian self-defence system. It can be. However, it requires a re-evaluation of its original purpose; i.e. a rethinking of its principles and strategies. It also requires an augmentation of its original arsenal of techniques.

Shastar Vidya -- Image Source: BBC

While I believe that original Taekwon-Do, like Krav Maga, is not a good civilian self-defence system because of its military roots, it does not follow that I believe simply any traditional system is unequivocally a good alternative. Take Shatar Vidya, the traditional Indian martial art that focusses on traditional bladed weapons. There is practically no way one can use this art with its spears and swords and other weaponry for everyday civilian self-defence. The mere carrying of those weapons in public are likely illegal. (Then again, this style also developed from a military context, even though it is practised as traditional martial art now.)

Aikido -- Image Source

Just because a martial art is traditional style that did not develop from a military context does not by default make it a good civilian self-defence system, either. Take Aikido for instance. One would be tempted to think that because Aikido is so overtly “civil” it is the perfect civilian self-defence system. Unfortunately Aikido's lack of hard techniques (deficiency in basic guards, blocks and strikes), shows it to be as limited in scope and application as a fully offensive military combat system like Krav Maga. The solution is not replacing one extreme with another extreme, but rather a blend of hard and soft, offensive and defensive principles, techniques, and strategies.

Image Source

I also believe that most traditional martial arts, even though they have a wide arsenal of techniques, may still be bad civilian self-defence systems because of the principles and strategies that are not focussed on modern contextual realistic self-defence scenarios. Take for instance my article: “I Don't Like Your Self-Defence”. Most martial art schools do not teach proper self-defence, and while the martial arts themselves may have the potential to be effective civilian self-defence systems, the way they are taught make them poor self-defence systems. In fact, most martial art schools are not self-defence focussed. Instead they are health focussed, like most Tai-Chi groups; or sport focussed , like Judo, WTF, or MMA gyms; or focussed on character building and discipline for children, like most Karate and Tang Soo Do schools; or disciplines for ascetic development like most Aikido and Shaolin centres. Any martial art club where the principle focus is on health, sport, character building, and ascetic development, or other such martial art related aspect, will inevitably neglect true self-defence training. It is merely a case of priorities. If self-defence training is not the first priority, then it is obviously a lessor priority. Determining if something is a priority is, at least in part, decided upon how much attention it receives.

Footnotes:

1. The first time I heard of the concept of “civilian defence systems” was, I think in 2007. It was during my annual trip in South Africa—I was hanging out with a friend of mine, James Reader, a psychologist and host of creativity workshops. James explained to me this concept, as he understood it from his instructor, Bob Davies, a renowned Karate instructor from KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. I hoped to meet with Master Davies at the time, but was told that he was on a sabbatical of sorts for ascetic purposes, and not meeting with anybody. My return visits in South Africa never afforded me the time to look Master Davies up. My interest in the idea of “civilian defence” made me research it online, where I discovered the blog of Dan Djurdjevic, who wrote an extensive post on the topic.

2. The keen (ITF) Taekwon-Do practitioner will note the correlation between “civil society” and what General Choi Hong-Hi, the principle founder of Taekwon-Do, called “Moral Culture” (ITF Taekwon-Do Encyclopaedia, Volume 1, p. 45-68). In his treatise on the topic, Gen. Choi quotes Confucius: “to promote the sense of morality one must treat others with faithfulness and sincerity based on righteousness, and to eliminate completely vicious thinking.”

In preparation for my continued discussion on Taekwon-Do's value for civilian defence, I pulled the following article by Mr David Eades from the archives of The Sidekick¹ -- Issue #5, December 2006.

Taekwon-Do and the Law: The Legalities of Self-Defence
By David Eades

Image Source

Although different approaches to self-defence are covered in the dojang, seldom is the legal consequences contemplated. In this article by Boosabumnim David Eades he looks at the legal requirements for self-defence to stand up in the South African courtroom. This is the first in a series of articles centred on the theme: Taekwon-Do and the Law. – Editor.

The nature of Taekwon-Do opens the door to serious legal concern, in the next few articles I will attempt to discuss these issues and contemplate the possible legal situations that may arise both in and out of class. A responsible practitioner should be aware of his or her abilities and the consequences that may flow from using the art.

It is important to understand when criminal liability arises so I will discuss this first and then lead onto the topic of self-defence. To commit a crime the State must prove that there was a:

1. Voluntary human act or omission
2. that is unlawful,
3. intentional,
4. and committed by a person capable of committing a crime (capacity).

From the above it is clear that only humans may commit criminal acts and in certain situations it does not require a person to act, e.g. a parent has a duty to protect his/her child. The act must further be in breach of some law thus making it unlawful. You cannot be prosecuted for a law that does not exist or only existed after you committed the crime. Except for killing a person you may only be found guilty if you intended the consequences that occurred (even if you did not directly intend the consequence but only foresaw that they may occur), however for culpable homicide the court will accept negligence. As a Taekwon-Do practitioner your knowledge of the human anatomy and how to cause damage is heightened and the court will take this into account when determining whether you had the necessary foresight to have intended the consequences that occurred. Generally children below 14 years and people not capable of understanding their actions cannot commit a crime as they do not understand what they are doing, this strictly falls into the scope of intention.

Self-defence is a justification to committing a crime, basically you are saying, “Yes, I did commit a crime, but it was justifiable as it is in the defence of my own legally protected interests.” The self-defence action therefore renders the unlawful actions lawful.

To act in “legal” self-defence it must be in response to:
a) an attack,
b) upon a legally protected interest,
c) that was unlawful.

Therefore, the attack must have commenced or have been imminent against a person’s property, ‘life and limb’ or a third party. The attack must also be unlawful; therefore, the defence does not work against lawful infringements such as a lawful arrest.

Consequently the defence must be:
a) necessary to avert the attack,
b) a reasonable response, and
c) directed against the attacker.

In South African Law there is no absolute duty to retreat, however as Taekwon-Do students who are aware of their ability to cause damage this should generally be a first response. The best form of defence is to avoid the situation; however, there are certain situations where a person is placed in a situation where self-defence is the only option. If the attack has finished, self-defence will not justify one’s actions. The defence must also be proportional to the attack. This does not mean that if your attacker pulls out a knife you cannot pull out a gun, rather if your life is clearly not in danger you cannot in a response to an attack kill your attacker. The court will look at your actions and decide if your action was reasonable, therefore it is a subjective test that does not require strict liability. Finally, the defence must be directed at the attacker and not a third party. (An attack at a third party may be justified under the grounds of necessity but that is another article for another issue.)

Here are a few examples of when one cannot act in self-defence:

X, in attempting to rob Y, attacks Y but shortly thereafter realises he cannot overpower Y and abandons the attack. If while walking away Y attacks X, Y cannot claim that she was acting in self-defence because the attack had finished.
X, Y’s unruly but harmless friend, starts ‘play fighting’ with Y. Y cannot claim she was acting in self-defence if she causes serious damage to X because the defence was not proportionate.
If X approach Y but does not pose a serious threat, Y cannot pull out a gun and shoot X. The response must be reasonable to the attack. However if Y can prove that she reasonably felt that her life was being threatened by X she may rely on self-defence.
Where X attacks Y and Y throws a stone at X in self-defence, but misses and hits Z, a passer-by, Y cannot rely on self-defence to validate her actions. However, she may rely on necessity or the fact that she lacked the intention to cause Z harm.

In assessing whether a person acted in self-defence the court will look at the above factors and decide if the person acted reasonably or not. Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty and in all criminal cases the State must prove your guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, so it is more likely that you will be found innocent than guilty (unless you are guilty). If it turns out that the person did act in self-defence her actions will be seen as lawful and she will not be criminally liable.

In writing this article, I have relied heavily on Burchell, J. Principles of Criminal Law. 3rd Ed. Juta, Cape Town.

---

Footnote 1: The Sidekick was a quarterly eZine I edited for the SA-ITF. Because we did not receive enough regular submissions it was decided to suspend it indefinitely. The research and consequent articles I would have contributed to The Sidekick I now submit to Totally Tae Kwon Do magazine every month.

To my surprise a recent post in which I argue that Taekwon-Do is not a good system for civilian defence opened up a can of worms on a martial art forum. Actually it is not really surprising as the post was intended to be somewhat controversial. I am after all saying that the “Korean Art of Self-Defence” is not good for self-defence. What was surprising is not that people are talking about it, but rather who is talking about it. I would have thought that primarily Taekwon-Do people would take offence, but it seems like it is some people in the traditional martial art community in general, rather than the Taekwon-Do community in particular, who is taking offence. And coming to my defence are Taekwon-Do practitioners, but also practitioners of other traditional martial arts; including in part Dan Djurdjevic, a fellow blogger and martial artist to whom I have referred to on a number of occasions here on the Soo Shim Kwan blog.

You can see the thread where the discussion is happening here.

I decided that I'm not going to engage in the conversation on the thread. Not because I don't like such discussions, but rather because of the lack of time at present to devote to it on a forum. (Forum discussion usually span days and I'm in the middle of Midterm exams requiring me to grade a multitude of papers for at least two weeks.) Also, the post I wrote is part of a larger series of posts (at least in my mind) that started with “What's the Difference Between Taekwon-Do and Hapkido?” and continued with “Techniques: when serious harm is not intended”. Since I'm still in the process of building my argument through these posts I don't want to argue my case just yet as I'm still exploring it for myself.

Back to the thread I mentioned: What I have garnered from the discussion there is that I might be misunderstood to say that Taekwon-Do (and by implication all traditional martial arts) are too dangerous for self-defence because every traditional technique is so potentially lethal. To this I have to reply both yes and no. I will not speak for other traditional arts like for instance Karate, because I'm not a Karateka. I'm speaking solely now for (ITF) Taekwon-Do. Yes, I think that original Taekwon-Do, which I called “authentic”[1] Taekwon-Do in the mentioned post, is not appropriate for civilian defence, because, yes, it is/was too lethal.

The Taekwon-Do pagoda (monument) at
the military base on Jeju Island where
"original" Taekwon-Do was developed as
part of the 29th Infantry Division in the 1950s.

Taekwon-Do—contrary to what the South Korean marketers would have you believe—is not 2000 years old. It did not start as a traditional martial art. While original Taekwon-Do does have roots in primarily Shotokan Karate and some Taekkyeon, as well as some other styles, it's primary development occurred in the 29th Infantry Division of the South Korean Army. At that time it's purpose was as a military combat system. The immediate context was World War II and the Korean War—this is what it was developed for: as a system of hand-to-hand combat to be used in the types of wars of the time. Those involved in developing it were war veterans and some of them, for example Major Nam Tae-Hi, had actual hand-to-hand combat experience on the battlefield. It was later applied and battle tested during the Vietnam War. This is the context of Taekwon-Do's development—actual real war. There are different sources you can read up on this. The one I like the most is A Killing Art: The Untold History of Tae Kwon Do. (I'm looking forward to read Master George Vitale's recent doctoral thesis on the history of Taekwon-Do.)

Centre: Major Nam Tae Hi, teaching Taekwon-Do
to the Vietnamese Military in the 1960s.
Image Source

In its original form, Taekwon-Do was excessively hard and not appropriate for civilian defence. The type of training involved is also not something that most normal civilians would wish to endure. Practically all of those original masters are suffering from serious arthritis, terrible knee and / or hip joint problems and other ailments that can be directly linked to the harsh type of training they partook in. Original Taekwon-Do, as practised in the early South Korean military, was not meant for civilian use. Taekwon-Do only later became a traditional martial art taught to civilians; the moment it started being taught to civilians it started to change.

The other point I made in my post was that Taekwon-Do as it is mostly taught today is nothing like original Taekwon-Do. It is something that is terribly watered down and it too is not appropriate for civilian self-defence, not because it is necessarily too dangerous; rather the opposite. In this watered down state, what is taught as “self-defence” is usually unrealistic. (See: “Why I Don't Like Your Self-Defence”.) It is furthermore not good as a civilian defence system because unlike many other traditional martial arts it does not have a fully developed arsenal of “control” techniques. While control techniques are not the only valuable techniques for civilian defence, they definitely are one important set of techniques for civilian defence.

The reason Taekwon-Do does not have a proper arsenal of control techniques is because it was not originally meant as a civilian defence system—it was meant as a military combat system. The original control techniques that Taekwon-Do could have inherited from the styles (e.g. Karate and Taekkyeon) it developed out of were mostly dropped because such techniques were not considered effective for military combat. Remember that a military combat system is an infantryman's last resort. It is used when your artillery failed. You don't use it to control the enemy, like a policeman might do with a petty-criminal, you use it in a desperate act of defence in which it is quite likely that you will die, lest you eliminate the enemy soldier directly in front of you as swiftly as possible.

A photo of Hapkido "founder" Choi Yong Sul with
students in 1951. While Taekwon-Do was developing
in the military, Hapkido was being established outside
the military; i.e. as a civilian martial art.
Image Source

The other thing that prevented Taekwon-Do from building up an arsenal of control techniques is that another martial art entered the civilian scene while Taekwon-Do was still focussing on the military scene—Hapkido; and unlike Taekwon-Do, Hapkido was at the time almost exclusively preoccupied with control techniques. Early Hapkido (known as Hapki-Yoosool) was for all intends and purposes basically Japanese jujitsu—more specifically, Daito Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu. This earliest form of Hapkido had practically no strikes or kicks. These only came later. I'm hypothesizing that while Taekwon-Do filled the military combat niche back then, Hapkido filled the civilian defence niche. No wonder that when Taekwon-Do did become a system taught to civilians in Korea it evolved into something wholly different—a sport, in the form of WTF taekwondo [2]—for that was the obvious remaining niche [3]. Hapkido techniques were assimilated into Taekwon-Do, but this obviously occurred later.

For Taekwon-Do to function as a proper civilian defence system requires a number of things. I mentioned some of those things in the previous post. For one, it must take account of what is currently taught as self-defence and admit that it is not very reflective of reality. Also, it needs more “soft” style techniques. This is what I'm currently researching—the soft techniques in Taekwon-Do and how they can be used for civilian defensive purposes. The specific type of techniques I'm currently preoccupied with is pushing techniques.

I'm not saying that Taekwon-Do cannot be used for (civilian) self-defence. It can. However, the current thing that is most commonly taught as “self-defence” in many Taekwon-dojang is not appropriate for actual real life self-defence. Neither is a complete return to Taekwon-Do's military combat roots. The solution is to be found some place else and will also require the adoption of “foreign” techniques. Many instructors have already done so (as have I), so some people reading this post may actually have no idea what the whole fuss is about.

Finally, I'm speaking of “civilian self-defence” contextualised within a relatively “civil society.”

Footnote 1: I used the term “authentic” Taekwon-Do in the previous post, rather than “original” Taekwon-Do. The reason is because of the many splits in Taekwon-Do many people are claiming to teach “original” Taekwon-Do. What I am actually trying to say when I use “authentic” or “original” Taekwon-Do with in the context of these post is that early form of Taekwon-Do that developed within the 29th Infantry Division of the South Korean Army in the 1950s.

Footnote 2: The taekwondo currently taught to soldiers in general in the South Korean military is not the original actual combat focussed version that it once was. Now it is a version of Kukki/WTF taekwondo and soldiers are actually awarded Kukki/WTF black belts during their military service. Soldiers in special force units, for instance the South Korean navy seals learn a different and much more effective hand-to-hand combat system.

Footnote 3: There is actually another remaining niche, an ascetic one. In Korea the most iconic martial art focussing on asceticism is probably Seon Moo Do (Zen Martial Way), practised at two or three Buddhist monasteries in South Korea. There is, however, no mainstream martial art with a clear ascetic focus in Korea, in the same way as Aikido in Japan. Most all Korean martial arts have some ascetic components, ITF Taekwon-Do slightly more so than most, but it is not so heavily focussed that one could call them true ascetic martial arts, and none really fill the ascetic niche. Unlike Japan that is a mostly secular society and an ascetic martial art like Aikido may actually fill some “spiritual” need, Korea is not as secular. Both Christianity and Buddhism are very active in South Korea, so that an ascetic search is more likely to be catered for by religion than martial arts.

Soo Shim Kwan 水心館수심관

Pages

06 August 2018

An Application of Lacan’s Imaginary-Symbolic-Real for Martial Arts Practice

Imaginary

Real

Symbolic

Conclusion

23 August 2017

Lessons to be learned from an unfortunate death

14 December 2014

The Golden Move and ITF Taekwon-Do's Pre-Arranged Sparring

07 November 2014

On Teaching Self-Defence Drills

01 September 2012

Why I Don't Train in (Kick-) Boxing

02 August 2012

Thoughts on Women's Self-Defence

14 April 2012

Anti-Bullying Blogging Carnival

12 April 2012

The Potential Value of the Martial Arts for Ostracised Korean Children

22 November 2011

Civilian Self Defence

14 November 2011

Taekwon-Do and the Law

18 October 2011

Why Taekwon-Do is Not Good for Self-Defence -- Some Clarifications