Self-defense without violence?

[Tetsutaka]

"self-defense without violence is impossible."

That is a very dangerous and irresponsible notion. Anyone who does not think that running for one's life is an adequate self-defense has never had his life truly threatened.

...unless there is a technique for running away violently that I have not learned yet...

------------------
Houston Haynes (http://home.nc.rr.com/houstonandjulie)
"You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."

[Gil Gillespie]

An E-budo member writing in another thread recently stated that "self-defense without violence is impossible." How do you see that, since by definition self-defense responds to a physical attack?

More importantly this writer continued on to state that "Aikido is only a philosophical system with exersise. . ." once again attacking the art for its supposed lack of combat effectiveness.

Since self-defense may be impossible without violence, Aikido teaches that it is possible without destruction. Aikido techniques have a battlefield genesis that O-Sensei humanized. (Irimi nage was designed to break the neck. Shiho nage was designed to destroy all three joints in the arm with one crank. The list goes on.)

I find the above criticism of Aikido to be threadbare and myopic. But of course I'm an Aikidoka. Whaddaya think?

[Chuck Clark]

The philosophical ideal, as I understand aikibudo, is to take whatever violent energy (intent) that an aggressor has, blend with it taking your energy (intent) that is powerful and efficient but not violent which then has the sente (initiative)and "solves" the problem by doing as little harm as possible.

Violence is in the intent/spirit of the person, not inherent in powerful technique.



------------------
Chuck Clark
Jiyushinkai Aikibudo
http://www.jiyushinkai.org

[Kolschey]

"self-defense without violence is impossible."
Like any generalisation, the above statement does not make any distiction about the circumstances of the presumed attack. Your options are going to be directly related to the specific attack, environment, prescence or abscence of weapons, physical condition of the defender etc. I believe that self defense without violence is a good ideal to work towards. Unfortunately, not all situations make this feasible as a likely outcome. Hopefully, with sufficient training, we can tip this balance towards more positive outcomes, or avoidance of hazardous predicaments. Some days, you may not be so fortunate. I would very much like to hear the opinions of those members who are involved in law enforcement, as this balance must be a recurring theme in their line of work.

------------------
Krzysztof M. Mathews
" For I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me"
-Rudyard Kipling

[This message has been edited by Kolschey (edited 06-15-2000).]

[kenkyusha]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gil Gillespie:
An E-budo member writing in another thread recently stated that "self-defense without violence is impossible." How do you see that, since by definition self-defense responds to a physical attack?
[snip]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well,

This assertion seems based on the falacy that self-defense begins at the moment of violent encounter. This is not only false, but kinda foolish (at least IMO puffing self up in all the arrogance my age can muster). Evidence (and its more than just anactodal) has bourne out that most criminals target marks... training by definition should improve awareness enough to make (insert art here)-ka unattractive.

Be well,
Jigme


------------------
Jigme Chobang
Kenkyusha@bigfoot.com

[Ruairi Quinn]

I was walking down the street a few months ago. Ahead of me were two kids, both boys. One of them was pulling on the others arm and pushing him and trying to illicit a response. He got bored of this after a few minutes and demanded to know why his friend wouldn't fight back. The other boy turned around and goes : 'my mother says that violence is the last refuge of the incompetant'.

Even today, I was looking at a book by a self-defence guru called Geoff Thompson. His latest book, after a string of titles advocating a tought 'real world' regimen is called "The Art of Fighting without Fighting". It's about avoidance, de-escalation and ways to otherwise walk away from a dangerous situation.

Most of the posters above have taken this approach: I think we can all agree that real self-defence is more than just physically fighting back after things have already gone bad. But I do wonder if we aren't bashing the person who orginally made the quote: perhaps they chose their words poorly, and meant to say something like to really train to defend yourself against an agressor you need to have experienced hard training that simulates pressure conditions on or off the mat.

[Aaron L. Seay]

A quick or sudden movement all by itself can be considered "violent". If you are attacked, you may have to move quickly and suddenly. I don't think it (violent)necessarily refers to going overboard by stomping the head after they're down, but it could include that.

I've heard some people say that the essence of mushin is just to perform your technique to the best of your ability --- you don't worry about inflicting damage, you don't worry about trying not to damage...these types of thoughts will probably screw up your technique and get you killed. So, you get attacked, you react appropriately, and if the end result appears to have been violent, then that's just where the chips fall.

------------------
Aaron L. Seay

[Mike Collins]

Violence is irrelevant.

Violence only describes the physical manifestation of energy, i.e. a violent wind, a violent firestorm, a violent flood, a violent push. There are times when, through superior positioning and body movement when violence on the part of a defender may not be necessary, and times when it is necessary.

The thing that makes Aikido what it is, is the absence of resistance. Violence as a mindset is a form of resistance to harmony. To determine to "do violence" to someone is to determine to break from harmony. Violent energy may or may not be appropriate, violent intent is not ever appropriate to Aikido.

God, I am profound, aint I?

[DJM]

Well said (everyone above!).
I think self-defense need not include violence, assuming by this we mean physical violence, since the attack begins with intent. If we can treat this intent in the same way we treat a physical attack we can avoid any form of violence. i.e. Tenkan and Irimi can both be used socially as well as physically, and this should be the first part of your Aikido to be used 'against' someone - even if that fails and you end up having to deal with the threat physically you have shown intent to use a minimal amount of force, of violence..
One question I would like to pose - do people consider a 'threat of force' to be an apropriate response, if no other non-physical response works, in that it's still being as non-physically violent as possible, or is the potential for it to 'escalate' the situation too great?
Thanks
David
p.s. Yep, very profound Mike http://216.10.1.92/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Poetry of Birds,
A Thousand Voice Melody,
Dancing on the Waves
-- David Marshall

[Matthew W. Luedke]

David,
My thought would be that, in a situation where no other non-physical remedy can be found, the "threat of force" becomes kind of a moot point--if things have escalated that far, the person you're interacting with will be intent on a fight irrespective of the threat of force they face. Further, as your question suggests, it would probably further aggrivate the situation, and make it a matter of pride for the aggressor, evoking a response such as: "Oh, you steppin' up to me?" While, apparently, there are budoka who have such a strong martial spirit that they can cow any opponent with their presence, I've yet to meet someone like that, and if you're facing someone intent on fighting, nothing short of that kind of spirit (or blatantly superior firepower) will stop the situation from progressing (and the problem with superior firepower is that it can star an "arms race"). As you suggest before, a social Tenkan or Irimi would probably the best way to "win" a fight, that is to say, stop it before it starts. So far as I know, the best method of self defense, violent or nonviolent, is to not put yourself in a situation where you must defend yourself.


------------------
Matt L.
"Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it."-René Descartes

[Paul Schweer]

Hello Gil,

The statement “…self-defense without violence is impossible" makes a couple of assumptions about my Aikido training: first, that Aikido isn’t violent; second, that I’m trying to learn self-defense.

It’s hard to imagine that anyone who regularly trains at Shindai would think that the application of Aikido principles doesn’t include violence. Nage might look all centered and relaxed, but what uke is experiencing looks pretty dagone violent to me!

But really, this isn’t the point. I don’t study Aikido to learn self-defense. I’m looking for the best possible outcome not just for me, but also for those I interact with. Actually, I think that “…a philosophical system with exercise…” isn’t a bad explanation of what we’re doing. If you attack me, I don’t have to hurt you. I can instead let you resolve your own attack in the hope that this is a better choice for both of us. I’m teaching my body what I want my mind to think.

It’s hard to imagine trying to explain this to someone criticizing Aikido for not being “combat effective.” If that’s what he sees… well, then that’s what he sees and Aikido probably isn’t for him. Hopefully he’ll find his way somewhere else doing something else. Meanwhile, I’ll see you at the dojo.

Best to you and yours,

Paul



[This message has been edited by Paul Schweer (edited 06-19-2000).]

[Joseph Svinth]

If you throw away ego and vanity then there is soon less need for the temper tantrums known as "self-defense". Therefore the allusion may be to emotional self-defense rather than physical.

------------------
Joe http://ejmas.com

[This message has been edited by Joseph Svinth (edited 06-19-2000).]

[will szlemko]

Hi all,

Violence is an extremely tricky thing to pin down. A baseball player swinging the bat at a fast ball is not generally considered violent, but the same swing directed at someones head is probably considered violent. By the same principle if a person tries to punch my nose I may consider this violent but, if I realize he is only trying to punch the space where my nose is (at the moment of initiation) then by simply removing my nose from this space the action is rendered no longer violent (since hitting air is not typically considered violent). This at least takes care of one side of the violence issue, unfortuneately if things degrade to this level then we have already passed many stages of violence. Also consider the following: at work a psychotic came in and was threatening one of the workers with a gun (in his mind this is not violent behavior) by my becoming verbally abusive (linguistic violence)he not only quit threatening her but offered an apology and bought her a bouquet of flowers. (I have known this man for many years and he responds only to what others see as threatening behavior, similarly he thinks that to make others respond to him he must threaten them) He did not see my language as violent but others around us did. So from the perspective of the patient and myself this was not a violent encounter but from the perspective of those observing this was violence nearing it worst. In this case I was engaged in self defense (not myself) but without violence (from at least 2 perspectives).

will

[George Ledyard]

Originally posted by Kolschey

"self-defense without violence is impossible."
Like any generalisation, the above statement does not make any distiction about the circumstances of the presumed attack. Your options are going to be directly related to the specific attack, environment, prescence or abscence of weapons, physical condition of the defender etc. I believe that self defense without violence is a good ideal to work towards. Unfortunately, not all situations make this feasible as a likely outcome. Hopefully, with sufficient training, we can tip this balance towards more positive outcomes, or avoidance of hazardous predicaments. Some days, you may not be so fortunate. I would very much like to hear the opinions of those members who are involved in law enforcement, as this balance must be a recurring theme in their line of work.

------------------
Krzysztof M. Mathews
" For I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me"
-Rudyard Kipling

[This message has been edited by Kolschey (edited 06-15-2000).]
What is this person calling violence? If it anything that creates pain and / or injury to an opponent then I would basically agree that self defense without violence is impossible. But that is not the definition I would use. I would say that self-defense which places value on the health and life of the opponent is not really violent.

One of the really unique aspects of Aikido from a technical standpoint is that in our art you are placing the opponent in an untenable position from which he can recognize this fact. He is offered one “out” which is to submit or take a fall, whatever. (Kali has something of the sort when it takes an interaction into the “bargain” position. In other words you’ve got him but you stop at that point to let him abandon his attack and submit) But no other art places so much emphasis on this as Aikido.

That said, the circumstance determines how an attack manifests. If one is attacked by a drunk and you take him down and pin him but otherwise attempt not to harm him, he may be injured but the act was not violent in that you purposely used less force than was legally mandated and the intent to injure wasn’t there. If an attack is made with lethal intent i.e. with a knife or firearm and the result is that you render the subject unconscious or execute a breaking technique as part of the defense, is that violent? Legally you were justified in doing whatever was necessary to stop the attack. You are legally able to use deadly force to counter the attack and protect yourself. So if you intentionally take the added risk of responding with a level of force that is not as high as the attacker, I would maintain that you are not being violent although the energy of the defense may have some destructive result. Still it is done with the respect for life of the attacker in mind.

If an attacker fails to respond to the fact that the defender has left him an “out” and consequently is injured by his own violent intention and his inability to let go of it, is the defender being violent? O-Sensei’s instruction to act in loving protection of the world includes yourself. This is not a Gandhi – esque philosophy that advocates self-sacrifice. People who advocate weakness as morality forget that it is precisely passivity and weakness that permit the opposite energy. The Jews in Germany, the millions sent to the Gulag, all without raising a hand in their own defense, were in a sense co-dependent with their tormentors. They allowed their own persecution. Aikido is about balance more than anything else. If you say that Aikido is about natural energy then it is useful to remember that the universe is in a constant state of creation and destruction. There is no value judgment placed on the destructive energy, as it is required for creation of the new. It is only in human endeavor that we encounter value judgments being placed on these energies and their uses. We have morality and ethics precisely to guide us in the use of these energies. But it is not natural to decide that creation is better than destruction or vice versa. Both are integral parts of the universe. It may be that it is required to manifest destructive energy in order to restore a balance, to save life, protect those that represent the creative process. It is no more moral in most situations to allow yourself to be killed than to kill the attacker. In either case you have the same result: one killer and one killed. You do an attacker no favor when you permit him to incur the karma of killing another. The idea is to find a way to stop the attack. In Aikido it is the ideal to accomplish that with attention to minimizing the injury that results. But that concern must be met by a matching energy of self-preservation on the part of the attacker so that his desire to injure you is superceded by his desire not to be injured. Then he will abandon his attack. But if he is intent on your destruction and will not abandon his attack, even when your technique has revealed his essential opening, then the restoration of balance might be the destruction of the attacker. Hakuin Zenji would maintain that attachment to the results of action determine whether or not the karma of that action attaches to the doer. Defense in Aikido is precisely about not having that attachment. We are seeking a return to balance.

[Gil Gillespie]

Whew, George! Pretty amazing post! I think I'll be returning and rereading that one at times. I know now why you are so well respected in the Aikido community. The depth and eloquence of your writing added a real apark to my good-night visit to E-budo.

I like your view of destruction being part of creation. The Hindu deity Shiva destroys the universe only so that it may again be created. Statues of Shiva show a dancing image (hmmmmmm, isn't Terry Dobson's book entitled "It's Like Dancing?) against an open background of a halo-like circle. I understand this to be a part of balance. My sensei has emphasized forever that Aikido is all about restoring harmony (balance) to the situation. Uke determines hard or soft with his attack, which you described beautifully.

I have also shared the great honor to learn Aikido from Saotome Sensei through his fine cadre of instructors here in central Florida.

Nice to meetchu. Again, great post!

[George Ledyard]

Originally posted by Tetsutaka
"self-defense without violence is impossible."

That is a very dangerous and irresponsible notion. Anyone who does not think that running for one's life is an adequate self-defense has never had his life truly threatened.

...unless there is a technique for running away violently that I have not learned yet...

------------------
Houston Haynes (http://home.nc.rr.com/houstonandjulie)
"You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."
Don't take this to mean that I don't think running away is not the correct response at certain times but I would like to point out a couple of things. First, running away is a form of preclusion. In other words it is actually a way of avoiding the need to actually defend yourself. It is usually only possible to do this before a physical confrontation actually starts. It is a useful strategy when a good line of retreat is open and safety lies where you are retreating to. That usually means that you are retreating to a place where someone else can use superior force to protect you. Without that, any attacker with strong intention will hunt you down and kill you anyway. So what most people are really advocating when they say to run away from an attack is that they are passing on the responsibility of dealing with the violent intentions of that aggressor to another (usually law enforcement). That may make you safe nut it didn’t exactly handle the issue. You just didn’t have to get your hands dirty (someone else will though).

Also, if you are already under attack it is almost impossible to break away and escape. If you read Grossman’s book “On Killing – The Psychological Cost of Teaching Men to Kill” you will find that he says that historically the majority of the deaths on the battlefield took place after one side or the other broke and ran. When man is exhibiting psuedo-predatory behavior as when he engages in combat, those running away are perceived in one way, as prey. Once an attack is on, assuming that the attacker has strong intention, the only safe place to go is directly to the center. Anything else is a form of retreat and will be defeated by a strong attack.

People who make a virtue out of running away are victims looking for a place to be victimized. Running away may be strategically the correct thing to do at a certain moment. But it also needs to be backed up by the ability to go to the center without hesitation if required. Otherwise it is just another form of imbalance that permits aggressive behavior to win. Look at Chamberlain in the thirties. A rational, non-violent man with the very best of intentions. And completely ineffectual when dealing with an enemy of strong aggressive disposition. Don’t make a value out of running away, it is just another technique that exist in your tool box to be used judiciously.

[Kolschey]

Mr. Ledyard,

I would very much like to say how glad I am that you have joined this thread as your writing has definitely given me a new understanding of the subject. I find your perspective on the danger of running to be quite interesting.
I certainly agree that many Aikidoka have an overly passive approach to their own defense that can sometimes border on martyrdom. Some people refuse to consider the possibility that another person may want to harm them seriously enough to endanger their life. For those who want to diminish the possibility of physical confrontation to an absolute minimum, it would seem that one must train extensively to enhance one's spirit so as to either develop a heightened awareness of " disturbances in the force" as it were, or be able to project a strong enough attitude that others will be disinclined to attack. What is ironic is that the only people I have met who demonstrate either of these capabilities are also very much prepared to engage with force if the situation requires. In regards to the fight or flight issue, my randori has not reached a level where I believe I could feasibly engage multiple attackers in a real world scenario. What do you see as effecive mechanisms for dealing with more than one assailant?

[George Ledyard]

Mr. Kolschey,
Assuming that we are talking about real fighting where the intention to injure or kill is clear (not stupid male "affective" violent behavior usually caused by the presence of Alcohol") then randori is two components. First, your movement must make it difficult for more than one attacker to reach you at a time. The more space you have for maneuver the better. It is almost always a necessity to use atemi extensively. Sometimes, if the first person you touch goes down decisively the rest back off (though not as I stated before if their intention is strong). Peyton Quinn, who is the most experienced person I know at utilizing Aikido in real fights, said it's amazing how effective an iriminage is when you bounce their head off the bar. A bit earthy a perspective for most Aikido people but a necessary one if we are talking real world.

Second, unless you are going to kill or maim these attackers then the whole point of every move you make in the randori will be to set up an unimpeded line of retreat. It might seem funny that I say this after my previous posting about not retreating but in a situation in which you are outnumbered there are two choices: even the odds by systematically removing members of the attacker group or running.

If they are intent on pursuing you then the retreat simply becomes a form of "draw" allowing you to use very large movement to separate attackers from the main body of the group so that you can deal with them individually. It's the same concept as done on the mat, but you are now using whole city blocks or whole buildings as your sphere of movement. Mostly, as I stated earlier, your preference is to get to a position where superior force is brought to your side as in find a cop or get to a place that is so public that the attackers choose to break off.

If you have followed some of the mass attack scenarios that have happened in New York lately you can imagine how scary this could be. With a mob you have no choice but to use your movement to escape. At the very least you need to reestablish a position where a group of that size can't get at you more than a couple at a time. I would refer you to the famous fight Musashi supposedly had with the members of one sword school out to restore the schools honor after he had beaten some of their best swordsmen in duels. He supposedly had a running battle out in the countryside with as many as eighty members of the school. It was vividly depicted both in the fictional biography of Musashi and the Samurai Trilogy movies.

Anyway, hopefully you avoid situations in which you need to have this kind of knowledge. If you stay away from males drinking alcohol, you are far less likely to encounter these kids of situations.


[Edited by George Ledyard on 06-25-2000 at 09:57 AM]

[Kolschey]

Mr. Ledyard,

Again I thank you. I do try to avoid some of the situations you have mentioned. Having dealt with some rather dangerous drunks in less than ideal circumstances ( One of them was a Second degree black belt in a legitimate school of martial arts ) I have learned firsthand the old adage that discretion is the better part of valour. Indeed, I am sometimes amazed at the hazards some people will endure for entertainment. One fellow I knew went to a rave in Chicago where a disenfrachised individual was threatening people in the parking lot. His buddy went outside to deal with this disturbance and was promptly confronted with a loaded gun. On hearing this story I found myself thinking "Good heavens! This is an illegal
and unsupervised gathering of children and drug dealers in an abandoned warehouse and you find yourself surprised that someone brought a gun?!? What would you do if your friend got himself shot?!" Speaking of hazards, I was wondering how one may learn to better profile various situations for possible threats.It seems that in a dojo environment, we are not dealing with many of the ambiguities of environment and circumstance that would confront us in a real world situation. Is this something that can be taught, or is it something learned mostly from experience?

[DJM]

I'd like to start by agreeing with Gil, it was a wonderful post George, one with which I agree wholeheartedly..
I'd like to cover one aspect of this discussion here, which I've been mulling over this afternoon..
While I think most people would agree that running away is one of a number of tactical options open to the Aikidoka, both in it's use to help deal with multiple attackers and as a simple 'run for the hills' retreat mechanism, I feel that the second option is one which a responsible Aikidoka should, perhaps, avoid.
I'd like to suggest that the capable Aikidoka (of which I am not yet one) has a responsibility to stop the situation with a minimal intensity, which includes a responsibility to not run away purely because that would stop the violence towards you.. The drunken bloke who's spoiling for a fight is likely to have one, and someone could get seriously hurt in that fight which could have been resolved with much less intensity by the Aikidoka.. Likewise the committed attackers, mentioned above as separate from a drunken guy, may well involve bystanders, in the event you're a quick enough runner to evade them.
Also, in the sense of running for overwhelming force to back you up, that could very well be using a sledgehammer to crack eggs - people (other than yourself, and your attackers, who can de-escalate the situation at any time by surrendering..) are much more likely to be hurt in the high intensity situation that develops.

Obviously there are instances where no matter what you do people are going to get badly hurt, but if by acting you have a chance to reduce the number of injuries, or fatalities, surely you have a responsibility to do this? Even at the risk of your own life, I would argue..

To quote, from Winston Churchil I believe (but could be wrong), "All that is needed for evil men to flourish, is that good men do nothing.."

Peace,
David

[Kolschey]

Interesting moral question that. While I would prefer to resolve a situation without the danger of escalation, there are several reasons why I would still be inclined to call opon an ouside intermediary such as a police officer.

Physical aspects

Much as I would like to project myself in the mold of a hero, I recognise that I have only been training for a short while in Aikido ( Less than five years ) While my technique may be sufficient to resolve some situations effectively, I cannot help but wonder whether I am prepared to deal with a serious attacker who may be my superior in size, strength, or just plain ol' streetfighting experience. Indeed, one of the resons why many martial arts teachers emphasise a need for prudence in using your skills is that you never know who you are dealing with. One man I know who was a well trained Karate student earned a bullet in his leg which resulted in serious damage to his tibia and required extensive reconstructive surgery. This was his reward for attempting to disarm a gunman. While I do not relish the idea of drawing a police officer or other autority into a hazardous situation, I must nonetheless recognise that they are better trained and equipped to deal with potential violent offenders. Particularly if there are several of them or they are possibly carrying weapons. If I felt that I was capable of, or prepared for the responsibility of intervening in or resolving many violent situations then it would behoove me to apply for police training and undertake a career in law enforcement. That is not to say that I will turn a blind eye to circumstances where I might be able to effect positive outcome. I am also prepared to act in defense of my family, friends and loved ones. I simply don't feel that the police will be any happier to arrive at a scene in order to wait for the coroner to inspect my dead body. " What happened here, Dave?" " Looks like this guy tried to scrap with 'Icepick' Robbins... What a mess." :(

Legal Issues

One of the other issues that sets the police apart from your average martial artist is that they are empowered by law to employ force. Towards that end, they are equipped with weapons and tactics which the state deems appropriate.
They are trained to make judgements based on variable circumstances and act acccordingly. If the consequences are adverse, such as an accidental shooting or a complaint of excessive force, they are part of an organisation that often will help to coach them through the subsequent investigation and any trial that arises. Having been involved in a deposition due to a simple traffic accident, I am not enthused by the idea of finding myself being gently ground through the gears of a criminal investigation or lawsuit because I found myself unable to resolve a situation that I should have walked away from and instead found myself doing grevious harm to another person in my attemt to "stabilise" the situation. Quite frankly, if the prosecuting attourney has any reason to believe that you could have avoided a violent outcome by taking to your feet and making like Roadrunner, you will be likely to find that your life becomes a waking nightmare for months on end as you are dragged through cross invesigations and depositions. I am not intersted in paying for other people's dental bills if I can possibly avoid it.
I definitely do not want to risk a manslaughter trial unless the life of someone very close to me is directly threatened. While the police may be inclined to support a clear circumstance of self defense, or protection of an obvious victim, a person who plays hero will recieve a rather cooler reception if the outcome is not a peaceful one, or the situation is ambiguous.

This is not to say that those who have sufficient experience should not work to the best of their abilities to stabilise or disarm volatile situations. If there is a real danger that somone else is about to be harmed if there is not some intercession, then perhaps may be appropriate to take the role of attempting to resolve the situation. My commentary is simply intended to suggest that there may be some very serious risks and responsibliities involved.