PDA

View Full Version : Are we really sure what is gendai?



ivica
7th November 2004, 10:32
I know the definitions of what is Koryu and Gendai budo, but I was writing a few essays about the subject and it is my conlusion that we need a new "demarcation" line. Meiji reformation is definitely not so good. Recently I have seen "old gendi" and similar phrases. My jujutsu school is really gendai (meaning, created some 15 years ago) - but I can hardly think of judo as of gendai, since it is more 120 years old now. What do you think of this?

Ivica Zdravkovic, MD
Shinbukan Dojo Serbia,
http://ivicaserbia.tripod.com

Katsujinken
7th November 2004, 13:29
Dr. Zdravkovic,

So why do you think that the Meiji is not a good demarcation period for Gendai arts?

Anyway I would class Aikido, Judo, Japanese Karate and many Japanese Ju Jutsu styles such as Hakko Ryu all as Nihon Gendai as they are founded on older arts and have been adapted for the modern period (Meiji).

Whilst I would classify those styles founded in the West on the basis of those Gendai styles as Gaijin Goshin Gendai.

Regards

ivica
7th November 2004, 15:54
My reasoning is that there are also other very important events in history that have affected development of certain Japanese budo arts. For example, 1882 is a good year for demarcation, because it is a breaking point in the history of jujutsu - as well as judo. Also, WW2 was more than important...

Lots of gendai arts today are organized pretty much like koryu (e.g. Hakko Ryu).

I would avoid use of Gaijin Gendai because there are many cases where we have Japanese people living in the west and creating their gendai styles. For example, Okazaki sensei of Danzan Ryu, or Obata sensei of Shinkedo, etc.

Best regards.

Ivica Zdravkovic, M.D.
Shinbukan Dojo, Serbia
http://ivicaserbia.tripod.com

Katsujinken
7th November 2004, 23:05
1882 is in the Meiji and the organization of Ju Jutsu and formalisation of Judo is in my humble opinion a reflection of events that took place in the Meiji. If its a post war martial art then why not say post war Gendai.

As regards Gaijin Gendai Goshin I would obviously not apply these to Japanese people only Non Japanese (Gaijin) thus Okuyama's Hakko Ryu though founded in 20th Century in Japan would be Nihon Goshin Gendai, where as Danzan Ryu would be Nihon Goshin Gendai as it was formed by a Japanese on the basis of Japanese martial arts (So not Gaijin) even if he was not in Japan at the time.


Regards

Walker
8th November 2004, 18:09
Shin Gendai Budo! :D

cxt
10th November 2004, 19:41
Ivica

I think you will run into the same set of problems no matter what "defination" you choose to develop.

It will be too broad for some and too narrow for others.

That being the case I pretty much feel that current usage works pretty well for most folks.

It also has the advantage of having been in use long enough for the meaning to be pretty standard.

It has the added advantage of being the defination of choice (more or less) amoung the folks whom actually developed said arts.

Course if you have a better one you could always post it, I'm sure that folks here would enjoy the discussion.

Chris Thomas

ivica
10th November 2004, 20:33
Actually, it is not my "invention", I believe my friend from Colorado, Brett Denison sensei defined it the first: we should not just observe Koryu ("ancient") and Gendai ("modern") arts, we should include word "dento" - or "traditional" too. With this word, some modern schools will be either dento gendai - modern, new, and still traditional - like Judo, Hakko ryu jujutsu, Danzan ryu jujutsu, Nakamura Ryu Batto jutsu - or even Swedish Jujutsu Kai, for example, WHILE on the other side, there will be many systems which are only gendai, but are not dento, or in English - are not traditionally oriented at all - such woud be Brazillian "Jiu jitsu", or many other martial arts where people don't use Japanese reiho, Japanese terminology and are mixing Japanese techniques with Chinese and Korean techniques, and with their own "inventions", in creating (IMHO) silly mixtures called "American Kempo Ju-Jitsu", or God knows how...

All koryu once were gendai. Not all gendai are dento. Ony those gendai that are dento will (maybe) some day become koryu... At least that's how I see it.

cxt
10th November 2004, 20:55
Ivica

So then what would be "traditional?"

"Traditional" back to 1880?

"Traditonal" back to 1701?

Could a school be koryu and NOT "traditional?"

Whast qualifiers would be used to make the designation as to what would be considered traditional?

Method of dress?
Use of Japanese?
Direct links to a legitimate Japanese koryu?

Whom would get to decide?

I am asking these questions from an academic standpoint.

Not questioning anyones validity of anyones art.

Like I said, any defination I can think of has the same set of weaknesses as the currently used one.


Chris Thomas

CEB
10th November 2004, 20:56
Traditional is what Sensei says traditional is.

Katsujinken
10th November 2004, 21:06
Dr. Zdravkovic,

I think the idea of Dento Gendai is a good one, but should we include Judo as Dento Gendai alongside say Hakko Ryu and Danzan Ryu. The latter two styles that you mention I would agree are Dento Gendai they are based on traditional systems and although I know we could say that Judo is it does seem to have evolved a long way away from its original purpose and kata's in most though, I will admit, not all instances.

However I am not sure that some Gendai will eventually become Koryu though. I personally and academically would prefer that the term Koryu be applied to pre-Meiji arts. Just as I would prefer the term Nihon or Nippon Gendai to be applied to Japanese arts that emerged since Meiji.

However having said that there are, as I am sure you know, some Meiji arts that often seem to claim Koryu status. But of course its all academic. But on the whole I agree with what Chris states, what ever definition you employ will be too broad for some and too narrow for others.

As for your point about silly mixtures and inventions personally I do not think that anybody in the martial arts can really invent anything that has not already been invented already somewhere down the line.

Regards

ivica
10th November 2004, 21:20
I would also add that there are other "breaking points" in the history, equally or more important than Meiji reformation. Aside from Kodokan foundation, WW2, or foundation of Dai Nippon Butoku Kai, one of the most important dates is the beginning of Edo period (or Tokugawa shogunate). It is more than obvious that the arts originated in relatively peaceful times of Edo era are different than the ones ( real "ancient" ryuha) that are developed mostly from the experiences and for the purpose of battlefields. So, once more: what is "ancient"? In couple more decades, judo will be more than ancient. Even jujutsu styles created by white people in Europe and Northern America in late 1960's will be old. "Shin". "gendai", or use any other Japanese word will be pretty inapplicable for systems that exist 50, 60 or 100 years.

So - I believe there is a bit smarter distinction we should look for: are the "modern" or "new' arts similar with "classical" budo (there's a new word - I don't speak Japanese, how do you say "classical"?), where "classical" would have a "taxonomic" implication of something that has same or similar characteristics - budogi, Japanese terminology, reiho, same or similar waza and heiho, etc. Most "gendai" and Edo styles of jujutsu would be in the same "class" - while the armored jujutsu (yoroi kumiuchi) will obviously belong to another class (that's real "ancient"), and on the third side, the "ultra modern" schools where people don't use reiho, or/and don't use Japanese terminology, or/and are mixing jujutsu with boxing and wrestling and taekwondo (and you name what else) - would be non-classic, or really modern, or new (gendai?)

I believe the koryu vs. gendai classification was made in time with not so many new schools, systems or styles being created almost every day throughout the worlds. This classification is becoming more and more improper, especially for well established and quite old schools, systems, styles and arts, that exist for last 70, 90, or 100 years.

It is not my job to redefine the word "koryu", but some influential scholars should really find a better way to classify ancient bujutsu, old budo, and new budo and bujutsu.

Ellis Amdur
10th November 2004, 21:21
Koryu doesn't mean, "older than now," or "old enough that there are several generations." It indicates that the art was created in a particular historical context. Japan was largely in isolation. There was little input of theories of modern warfare (hence any developments within ryu, or in the creation of new ryu focused on what was actually used.) Additionally, there was no thought to Western theories of physical education - something that profoundly influenced Jigoro Kano. There was no focus on competitive sports (although there were shiai and competition), and no nationalization of forms (judo, kendo, etc.) There was, due to little to no contact with boxing or karate, any of the punches and kicks which are now, quite reasonably incorporated in gendai martial arts. There was little to no "salvationist" training (a la aikido, Hakko-ryu, Shorinji-kempo, lots of iaido).

In short, koryu is a very good adjective to describe martial arts as beling created in a particular era, and therefore possessing certain criteria and lacking others. Some speak of sengoku-bugei or koryu, to distinguish from Edo-koryu- not as an insult, but because one can discern real differences in the pre-1600, and post-1600 arts.

Toyama-ryu, Shinkendo, Hakko-ryu, and any number of other arts, whether they have menkyo, use old weapons, or any other aspect, do not qualify merely because they were created too late, but because they have many aspects in their training and curriculum which would never appear in a koryu.

Which leads to the final point. Why change adjectives - because this is all it is - a descriptor, a short-hand way of designating something so that the educated person instantly understands a bit about it. If, however, one utterly eroneously assumes that koryu denotes something better, and that gendai means "inferior," then of course one would want to change things. But this, as so much, seems to be a semantic question that would leave most Japanese bewildered. Meiji is when modernity hit Japan. Gendai means modernity, or, if you will, Western/international/cosmopolitan influence.

Finally, how about if one were to create a new budo using only the criteria of the pre-Meiji period. How about that! Wouldn't THAT be a koryu? (No, and not only by definition). This is sort of like composing a piece in the style of Bach or Mozart - an exercise for any student of composition. No matter what technical expertise one displays in this, such pieces never are played in concert. They are self-conscious, "as if" studies - and therefore lack the freshness of spontaneous composition that emerges as reaction and revolution to what went before.

However, if anyone on e-budo wants to call their martial art by some new neologism, like "dento gendai" (which sounds quite odd in Japanese, by the way), knock yourself out. We non-Japanese have successfully reworked the word "soke," "shihan," and most recently, I read, "taishi." Problem is, if you ever go to Japan, you will see misused English (called Japlish) everywhere. Often hilarious. Seems kind of a shame that serious martial artists will appear, to the Japanese practitioner, as ridiculous as we find dweeby Japanese advertising copywriters.

ivica
10th November 2004, 21:39
Some speak of sengoku-bugei or koryu, to distinguish from Edo-koryu.

Exactly my point. Mr. Amdur. Do you agree that There is (at least) same difference between Sengoku-bugei and Edo kory as is between Edo-koryu and (hahaha, whatch this:) "post-Meiji gendai"?

I am sorry if you misunderstood me, I was not proposing the use of "dento gendai", nor I have the knowledge of how to combine it in Japanese - I just said that this adjective "gendai' basically does not mean much without 'dento" or "not-dento" addition.

Anyway, nice to have your input - and also thanks to all the rest for participating in this thread.

cxt
10th November 2004, 21:54
Ivica

As you say above "gendai does not mean much without dento or not dento addition."

I ask again, how do you define "traditional?"

What set of qualifiers do you consider relevent to making such a "dento or not dento addition?" Or perhaps distinction?

I think that problem is also not new.

To dip into karate.

I know some karate-ka that prefer to have their art termed "traditional" which in their use of the term means "Japanese Shotokan"

And I know some guys that use the term "classicial" which means (to them) ONLY pre 1920's Okinawan karate.

Don't know if I am making sense here.

But unless "dento" can be pinned down somewhat, not sure that the distinction really matters.

Chris Thomas

CEB
10th November 2004, 22:17
It doesn't

Katsujinken
10th November 2004, 22:28
Ivica,

You state that:
'some influential scholars should really find a better way to classify ancient bujutsu, old budo, and new budo and bujutsu'.
Scholars such as? Anyway didn't Don Draeger do this with his volumes:
Classical Bu Jutsu and Classical and Modern Budo whilst at the same time creating that confusing distinction between Jutsu and Do.

As an Academic I do not see how reclassifying things will help anybody. Although there may be breaking points in the history of martial arts other then the Meiji I do not see why we should be employing these Western reductionist and arguably DeCartesian type distinctions onto something created by a culture other than our own. Some would call this ethnocentrism, that is imposing our views about them on them believing that our view about them is right even if it does not correspond to their views about themselves. This old perspective on things is now somewhat outdated.

I totally agree with Mr. Amdur states 'Why change adjectives... some arts will simply never be Koryu', and I also agree that Gendai implies what it means.

As for Dento, there is a group called Dentokan that practises Gendai arts based on Toyama Ryu and Hakko Ryu.

Regards

ivica
11th November 2004, 14:34
When I say "budo scholars", I am referring to the same type of experts like late Don Draeger. I believe there is quite a number of such people, people with international reputation and academic knowledge. You, Mr.. Norman, are quite right that DeCartesian approach to something that is different from our culture is not very beneficial, yet, I tend to believe that budo is a complete martial science, and therefore, it should have precise taxonomy, nomenclature, etc. Thanks for info on Dentokan, I know the group.

In response to what (or whom) I consider traditional - the simplest answer would be - traditional implies respect and practice of older rules and methods. In a small example, when you paint something "in a traditional manner" - than it means you reproduce some old technique, design or procedure, trying to get the result of resemblance, or trying to remind others of something you find interesting, valuable or aesthetically attractive.Traditional, in a most superficial example, is wearing a budogi, whilst the "non-traditional" is wearing "stars and stripes". Traditional is calling the strike gyaku tsuki, while the "Non-traditional" is calling it "cross". Traditional is performing Tachi rei, while the "nontraditional" is shaking hands, or saying some "hip hip hurray" thing instead. Traditional is calling your teacher sensei, non traditional is calling him "coach". And so on.

Or maybe there is another word we could use: orthodox?

:) Just kidding. I really didn't mean to start any "revolutionary" important topic. My simple question was: do some "gendai" arts really deserve to be called "gendai" - being already so old. I obviously got the answer - leave it all as it is. OK.

In budo

chrismoses
11th November 2004, 17:48
I agree completely with Ellis' comments. I think most people have better things to do than to classify what it is they or others do. I bring up the fact that Shinto Ryu is a gendai art simply for the sake of clarity, I do not want anyone to think that I am representing the art as something other than it is, and since there are several koryu that also have Shinto Ryu in their name this helps. The only consistent thing you can say about an art by whether or not it is koryu is when it was founded. The line in the sand makes a lot of sense given the drastic changes in Japanese society due to the Meiji restoration. It kind of bugs me to see gendai arts trying to imply that they are 'like koryu.' There is enough variation in true koryu arts that the statement 'like koryu' is nearly meaningless.

This article (http://www.shinyokai.com/jujutsu.htm) written by David Maynard and posted on the Shinyokai site does make some nice distinctions about koryu jujutsu that may be relevant to the discussion.

kroh
21st January 2005, 16:59
Wow...really thought provoking thread Ivica...

Now what I wonder is once all the lines are drawn and the dust settles and we have definitve labels for the art forms... At what point do they stop being Japanese and start taking on the identity of the "host country" once they jump the puddle.

When I was comming up, Japanese martial arts and their instructors were very precise in making sure the techiques, etiquette, and in some cases basic conversations took place in the root language (nihon-go). Some years ago I had the oporrtunity to study with some really great aikido-ka. Technical names all in Japanese, etiquette the same way, but the conversations and questions all occoured in English. Another Aikido class i took recently with Dianne Loraine (fun seminar) had much of the ciriculum in English.

So my point is just like when some of the Okinawans went over to China and brought back some of the info they would use in creating what would eventually be Karate-do, at what point do we as (insert nationality of choice, American, Serbian, Brazillian, Canadian, Etc...) take what we have learned and put it on our own terms. Now I know that many of the truly important terms and sayings don't directly translate to some foreiners (words such as do/jutsu or cultural enigma's like do/dao). But as far as I was told ( my Current instructor is a highly ranked practiioner of Uechi-ryu Karate-do) in Okinawa, those movements and principles brought over from China are still taught in Japanese. Shorinji Kempo (lots of Chinese methodology applied to Japanese technichal strategy) is as far as I know is still taught in Japanese.

I know some people who have dropped all foreign terminology ( they use Mr and Mrs/Ms. intead of the honorific "sensei" and all technical names were brought over to English). There are even some systems in my area who are no longer wearing keikogi.

What do the Japanese feel about the subject of koryu/Meiji/gendai ?


Regards,
Walt

shinbushi
21st January 2005, 23:45
Originally posted by ivica
I consider traditional - the simplest answer would be - traditional implies respect and practice of older rules and methods....
Traditional is calling the strike gyaku tsuki, while the "Non-traditional" is calling it "cross". Traditional is performing Tachi rei, while the "nontraditional" is shaking hands, or saying some "hip hip hurray" thing instead. Traditional is calling your teacher sensei, non traditional is calling him "coach". And so on.
Yes but boxing and wresling for that matter are older than many Japanese gendai arts. So you mean old and Asian.