Here a Soke, There a Soke, Everywhere a Soke

[W.Bodiford]

The Japanese term *sôke* seems to generate a great deal of confusion, not just among people who lack Japanese-language skills but among Japanese people themselves. In different contexts the term acquires different meanings and connotations. For this reason, when writing about *sôke* in English (or, rather, when arguing about its meaning) it is useful to distinguish the ways that this word has been used in different historical, commercial, legal, and contemporary contexts.

The expert on this subject is a Japanese scholar named Nishiyama Matsunosuke. A brief English-language summary of his research can be found in the translator's introduction, pages 4--5, to *Edo Culture: Daily Life and Diversions in Urban Japan, 1600--1868* (1997; translated by Gerald Groemer; Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press). Detailed explanation can be found in his Japanese-language works: (1) *Iemoto monogatari* (Iemoto stories, 1956; Tokyo: Sangyô Keizai Shinbunsha), (2) *Gendai no iemoto* (Contemporary Iemoto, 1962; Tokyo: Kobundô), (3) *Iemoto no kenkyû* (Researches in the Iemoto System, 1982; Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kôbunkan). This last book is the classic study in the field. All Japanese scholars who write about *sôke* begin with Nishiyama's 1982 study.

Since classical times in Japan there always have existed families that exercised exclusive commercial control over the production and distribution of certain crafts and manufactured goods. In most cases those families maintained their monopolies through the protection and patronage of local nobles or the royal court. These families operated much like corporations with many branches and other affiliated groups operating together. Even if proper male progeny did not exist economics demanded that the main family line must always continue since the monopoly power rested with that family alone. If necessary, therefore, another male from one of the affiliated groups would be brought in and designated as heir to succeed to the head of the family. The heir, whether related by blood or adopted, was responsible for maintaining the unity of the corporate families, maintaining their commercial monopoly, and maintaining their good relations with their patrons. The main family itself, as a multi-generational entity, and the head of the family both were called *sôke*. In Chinese *sôke* (*zongjia*) originally referred to the main lineage within a clan that was responsible for maintaining the ancestral temple for the entire clan. In Japan, like China, *sôke* assume the filial duties of ancestor rites, but the term implied stronger commercial overtones than religious ones.

During the Tokugawa period many types of artistic and cultural activities, not just commercial enterprises, came under the domination of familial guilds that exercised monopoly or near-monopoly power over the performance of those arts and endeavors. Actors in Noh or Kabuki theater, practitioners of tea ceremony or flower arranging, performers of musical instruments like *koto* or *shakuhachi*, and participants in many other popular pastimes could learn their crafts or skills only from instructors who had been licensed by one of a very limited number of these familial guilds. Because the familial guilds enjoyed monopolies, they earned money from every single person throughout the entire country who participated in their particular type of craft or art. Gerald Groemer (cited above) neatly summarizes the commercial powers of these familial guilds:

*quote*

1. Rights regarding the art --- for example, the right to secrecy, the right to allow or prohibit performances, rights over the repertoire or the set forms (*kata*) of an art.
2. Rights concerning the teaching, transmission, and licensing of the art.
3. The right to expel or punish members of the school.
4. The right to dispose of costumes, ranks (pseudonyms), and the like.
5. The right to control equipment or properties used in the art.
6. Exclusive rights to the income resulting from the preceding five items.

*end quote*

Let me emphasize that the above rights all were possessed by just one or two or three familial guilds that enforced their rights throughout the entire kingdom. Nishiyama argues that from the mid-18th century on these guilds provided a government-regulated medium for the distribution of cultural knowledge that allowed people assigned to different levels of society (nobles, samurai, lower warriors, townsmen, merchants, wealthy farmers, rural warriors, etc.) to interact with one another on near-equal footing. Historians have labeled the social structures created by the familial guilds the *iemoto seido* (iemoto system). In Tokugawa-period texts the terms *iemoto* and *sôke* were used interchangeably. Both words could be used to refer to the main lineage within a guild or to refer to the person who is the current head of that lineage.

After 1868 when Japan became organized as a modern state, the government formally recognized the legal rights of *iemoto* (a.k.a. *sôke*) to control the copyright of all musical scores, theatrical plays, textbooks, and artistic works produced by members of their guilds. In this way the terms *iemoto* and *sôke* acquired strict legal definitions. To maintain their copyrights guilds had to register with the government as legal entities. At the same time they lost the ability to enforce commercial monopolies over the teaching and practice of their crafts.

Before 1868 martial arts never were controlled by an *iemoto* or *sôke* structure. This is the reason why there exists so many different schools (*ryûha*) of martial arts. Different styles and lineages proliferated because the ruling authorities never would allow any single martial entity to exercise monopoly control throughout the land. In every generation there always existed martial students who broke away to start their own schools with their own secret teachings and their own repertoire of kata. When they issued diplomas they did so by their own authority without paying license fees to any larger organization. In contrast to the wide diversity of martial schools, only a limited number of schools of Noh or Ikebana or Tea Ceremony (etc.) could exist because the monopoly power of the *sôke* prevented any rival schools from being created. In short, the ability to found new schools constitutes a repudiation of the *sôke* power. If there are new schools, then there is no *sôke*. If there is a *sôke*, then there are no new schools.

Osano Jun argues that the first marital art in Japan to adopt a *sôke* system was the Kodokan School of judo (see his *Zusetsu Nihon bugei bunka gairon*; Illustrated Overview of Japanese Martial Art Culture, 1994; Tokyo: Fûyôsha). Osano could be right. The Kodokan set the standards not just for members within one training hall in one location but for all participants in judo throughout the nation. The Kodokan defined the art, it controlled licensing and instruction, and it established branch schools that maintain permanent affiliation with the headquarters. If the Kodokan does not recognize something as being "judo," then it is not judo. Therefore, there is no such thing as a new school of judo. All of these elements constitute essential characteristics of traditional *sôke* in Tokugawa-period Japan. In actual practice, however, no one ever refers to the Kodokan as the *sôke* of judo. The term seems out of place with judo's emphasis on modernity. After analyzing the term in this way Osano goes on to suggest that present-day use of the label *sôke* by practitioners of small koryu traditions not only is incorrect but reveals an ignorance of traditional Japanese culture.

Osano's strict historical understanding probably is too strict. He overlooks the legal changes in the status of *sôke* that occurred after 1868. Nowadays no *iemoto* (a.k.a. *sôke*) can enforce monopoly control over the practice of their traditions. Anyone can teach tea or flower arranging or anything else whether they licensed by one of the traditional schools or not. In this open environment, the traditional schools distinguish themselves from up-start rivals by pointing out that they constitute the direct heirs to a long familial history (whether fictional or real). *Iemoto* or *sôke* simply happen to be the usual terms for designating the main lineage in which a craft or art has been handed down. Therefore these words have become a part of common usage when discussing families who traditionally have possessed a proprietary knowledge of a craft or art. This social or popular use of these terms denotes a historical past, not a present-day commercial or legal monopoly.

Consider, for example, the case of Kashima-Shinryu. In his books and articles the current head of Kashima-Shinryu, Seki Humitake, uses the label *sôke* as a designation for the Kunii family. He uses this term as a way of honoring the role the Kunii family played in preserving Kashima-Shinryu traditions. Down to the time of Seki's teacher, Kunii Zen'ya (1894--1966), Kashima-Shinryu had for a long time been passed down from father to son from one generation of the Kunii family to the next. The modern use of the label *sôke* simply acknowledges that legacy. In the writings of Kunii Zen'ya and in the scrolls preserved within the Kunii family, however, the word *sôke* cannot be found. Kunii Zen'ya never referred to himself or to his family as the as the *sôke* of Kashima-Shinryu. He simply signed his name. In writing out copies of the old scrolls (these copies would be handed out as diplomas), though, he usually would add the words "Kunii-ke sôden" before the title of the scroll. For example, if he copied an old scroll titled "kenjutsu mokuroku" he give it the title "Kunii-ke soden kenjutsu mokuroku." In this example, the original title simply means "kenjutsu curriculum" while the longer version means "the 'kenjutsu curriculum' transmitted within the Kunii family." Used in this sense of "transmitted within a family" the term *sôke* seems perfectly reasonable. Of course it is not meant to imply the existence of some kind of commercial monopoly.

Now, I would be the last one to condone the use of obscure Japanese terminology to describe American social practices for which perfectly acceptable English words already exist. I cannot imagine how any non-Japanese could call himself a "soke" except as a joke. At the same time I must say that I cannot regard this term with any special reverence either. During the Tokugawa-period *sôke* designated a commercial system of hereditary privilege that took advantage of the ignorance of ordinary people for financial gain. Perhaps teachers of commercial martial art schools in America who adopt the title "soke" for themselves are more historically accurate in their usage than they themselves realize.

[Robert Reinberger]

A gem. A real gem. Thank you very much for that one, Mr. Bodiford.

Thinking of another recently started thread: every time I realize what level of knowledge and information is available here at e-budo.com, I really doubt if I should contribute about anything here. But, on the other hand, didn't our twaddle "provoke" Prof. Bodiford to this contribution?

Regards,
Robert

[MarkF]

Robert,
Absolutely. Could not have put it better.

Prof. Bodiford,
This is going to be saved as most complete description, and most accurate, I've heard. That I am a judoka means all the more to me.:)

Thank you,

[Yamantaka]

Dear Mr. Bodiford,

What can I say that hasn't been said already? Excellent text! I couldn't have access to you personally so I'm asking here in the List for your authorization for translating and including it in my own list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aikido-lingua_portuguesa ), where I usually include posts and texts by recognized authorities on martial subjects and japanese culture as, for instance, Wayne Muromoto, Meik Skoss, Stanley Pranin and Karl Friday.
It would be an honour for me and for my list, if you could authorize this translation of your text.
Waiting for your answer
I'm truly yours
Ubaldo Alcantara - Owner/Moderator
Aikido List in Portuguese Language

[Ruediger]

Prof. Bodiford,

as already written, this is an excellent post.
I also want to ask you if you would give me
the permission to use your post on my own website. My website is in german language only, but to avoid mistakes in translation, i would use the post in the original language.

The URL for my website is http://www.budo-nyumon.de

Thank you for your time

Regards

[Edited by Ruediger on 02-17-2001 at 09:48 AM]

[Diane Skoss]

Prof. Bodiford,

Any chance I could get permission to post your soke message as an article at Koryu.com? Perks include a bio squib and links to your choice of further reference sites. Let me know... and thanks!

Cheers!

[Karl Friday]

Originally posted by W.Bodiford
Before 1868 martial arts never were controlled by an *iemoto* or *sôke* structure. This is the reason why there exists so many different schools (*ryûha*) of martial arts. Different styles and lineages proliferated because the ruling authorities never would allow any single martial entity to exercise monopoly control throughout the land. In every generation there always existed martial students who broke away to start their own schools with their own secret teachings and their own repertoire of kata. When they issued diplomas they did so by their own authority without paying license fees to any larger organization. In contrast to the wide diversity of martial schools, only a limited number of schools of Noh or Ikebana or Tea Ceremony (etc.) could exist because the monopoly power of the *sôke* prevented any rival schools from being created. In short, the ability to found new schools constitutes a repudiation of the *sôke* power. If there are new schools, then there is no *sôke*. If there is a *sôke*, then there are no new schools.

I just want to add a minor--albeit important--quibble/clarification to an otherwise excellent post:

Will's treatment of this topic seems to at least partially confound what I think ought to be understood as two distinct constructs: the idea of what might be called the "soke system" and that of a "soke (or iemoto) + natori system." I would argue (actually, I guess I already have, in *Legacies*) that bugei ryuha had the former, but not the latter.

Whether or not the term "soke" itself was used in reference to bugei ryuha prior to the Meiji period, the family soden traditions and the license & rank systems that developed during the Edo era do amount to a "soke system" (meaning proprietorship over a package of teachings vested exclusively in the hands of one individual per generation) albeit without the natori component (networks of authority across political lines or networks of branch schools) found in arts like ikebana, chanoyu, or Noh. While bugei ryuha didn't license and promulagate branch schools on the natori pattern, they DO seem to have PROHIBITED them. That is, they do appear to have made efforts to stop unauthorized use of a ryuha name, which amounts to affirmation (in the negative) of much the same sort of proprietary rights to artistic/intellectual property claimed by other arts. Certainly it was not the case that any student, or even any "graduate" (recipient of menkyo kaiden) was free to claim to teach xyz-ryu under that name. Ryuha headmasters did have designated successors. Other "graduates" appear to have had the right to advertise their affiliation with the ryuha, but not the right to pass that right on to their own students.

That is, bugei ryuha were like ryuha of other arts in their concept of proprietary possession or transmission of the tenets of their arts. The key organizational difference was the absence of branch schools and the use of the term "soke" itself among bugei schools, prior to the modern era.

Mr Bodiford,

Very illuminating discourse on the history and use of the iemoto or soke terms. Really the best I have ever read.

I however have several questions for you

If....

An individual of western birth was chosen by a Japanese family head as a yoshi or adopted son for the purpose of maintaining a specific family tradition could the term be properly applied to his position? These passages seems to support this:

_________________________________________________________________


“If necessary, therefore, another male from one of the affiliated groups would be brought in and designated as heir to succeed to the head of the family. The heir, whether related by blood or adopted, was responsible for maintaining the unity of the corporate families, maintaining their commercial monopoly, and maintaining their good relations with their patrons. The main family itself, as a multi-generational entity, and the head of the family both were called *sôke*.”

(I believe a system similar to this was utilized by samurai caste families when no male heir was available because family property and land was only traditionally inherited by males. - TT)

“*Iemoto* or *sôke* simply happen to be the usual terms for designating the main lineage in which a craft or art has been handed down. Therefore these words have become a part of common usage when discussing families who traditionally have possessed a proprietary knowledge of a craft or art. This social or popular use of these terms denotes a historical past, not a present-day commercial or legal monopoly.”

“Used in this sense of "transmitted within a family" the term *sôke* seems perfectly reasonable.”

__________________________________________________________________

The reason I ask is because of this statement from your excellent post:

“ I cannot imagine how any non-Japanese could call himself a "soke" except as a joke. “

I happen to know an individual of western birth that does meet the generally accepted criterior of a legitament “Soke” depending of course on some hairsplitting of the definition.

In 1986 I happen to meet Don Angier, who used the term “soke” not as a indicator of any rank but sort of as an inherited administrative position for Yanagi ryu Aiki Bugei.
Don claimed to have been adopted as a yoshi and inherited Yanagi ryu from Yoshida Kenji, the son of the enigmatic Yoshida Kotaro. I must admit to some suspicions concerning his claim until I had the chance to examine photographs, film footage and then later confirm the authenticity of certain other technical information related to Daito ryu with Stan Pranin of Aikido Journal Magazine.

Any lingering suspicions were dashed on a trip to Japan in 1992 when I personally witnessed Kondo Katsuyuki’s recognition of Don Angier as the inheritor of Yanagi ryu Aiki Bugei and the Yoshida family martial traditions. Given that Kondo Katsuyuki was a personal student of Yoshida Kotaro and was currently the technical heir (menkyo kaiden) to Daito ryu, I took this as final confirmation.

So, I’m not trying to be a jerk but am genuinely interested in your definition of his position. See the credentials of Don Angier have been put thru the ringer and not been found wanting by some pretty heavy hitters including some prominent Japanese. What would you consider his position if not a “soke”. Seriously interested.

Thanks again for the excellent post.

Toby Threadgill

P.S. My past teacher Takamura Yukiyoshi received a Menkyo Kaiden in Shindo Yoshin ryu from within his own family and later in life began his own ryuha. Until his death he eschewed all of this title silliness and simply preferred “sensei” .

[Robert Reinberger]

Profs. Friday and Bodiford,

while we are at it, I would like to add some questions, if I may.
While bugei ryuha didn't license and promulagate branch schools on the natori pattern, they DO seem to have PROHIBITED them. That is, they do appear to have made efforts to stop unauthorized use of a ryuha name, which amounts to affirmation (in the negative) of much the same sort of proprietary rights to artistic/intellectual property claimed by other arts. Mr. Draeger, in 'Classical Budo', wrote on page 109: 'Ushu Tatewaki founded what would become the Yagyu Shingan Ryu in pre-Edo times. Some generations of headmasters later, in the Edo period, when Takenaga Naoto received official permission from Yagyu Tajima no Kami to name his ryu the Yagyu Shingan Ryu, the martial curriculum was changed.

That seems to be a perfect example of allowance to use a certain name as opposed to 'efforts to stop it's unauthorized use'. How should we interpret this? Is it the proverbial exception, that is proofing the rule?
Ryuha headmasters did have designated successors. Other "graduates" appear to have had the right to advertise their affiliation with the ryuha, but not the right to pass that right on to their own students.Strictly speaking, that reveals the present situations in Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu as well as in Daito Ryu, to name two well known examples, in a different light. Regarding MJER, a lot of people seem to think, that the several Kongen no Maki holders that were students of Oe Sensei had established legitimate branches. In Daito Ryu, the Takumakai, Kodokai and the Sagawa-line are regarded legitimate branches at least.

Should that examples be considered as legitimate, valid evolution of those parts of the Soke/Iemoto seido that were adopted into the Bugei/Budo Ryu-ha in modern times, or do that useages of the original schoolnames constitute a questionable practice, provided, that there is no formal permission from the 'official' body?

Regards,
Robert

[Karl Friday]

Originally posted by Robert Reinberger

Mr. Draeger, in 'Classical Budo', wrote on page 109: 'Ushu Tatewaki founded what would become the Yagyu Shingan Ryu in pre-Edo times. Some generations of headmasters later, in the Edo period, when Takenaga Naoto received official permission from Yagyu Tajima no Kami to name his ryu the Yagyu Shingan Ryu, the martial curriculum was changed.

That seems to be a perfect example of allowance to use a certain name as opposed to 'efforts to stop it's unauthorized use'. How should we interpret this? Is it the proverbial exception, that is proofing the rule?

I don't know much about the specifics of this case (Meik Skoss is the man to ask about Yagyu history), but it seems to involve something fundamentally different from the sort of thing Will and I are talking about. What Naoto seems to have received was permission to use the Yagyu family name in the name of his school. This isn't the same thing as receiving permission to teach the Yagyu family's Shinkage-ryu at a satellite location--which is what the natori system adopted by ikebana and chanoyu ryuha involved. As far as I know, the Yagyu Shingan-ryu was and remained completely independent of the Yagyu Shinkage-ryu and of Yagyu family control.

Under the natori system, heads of branch schools operate under a kind of franchise sort of arrangement, in which the ryuha head retains complete authority over the curriculum and over all students of the system, whether they study at the "headquarters" or at a branch somewhere. No bugei ryuha is known to have established this sort of system prior to modern times. Rather than being set up in satellite schools of their own, to teach under the auspices of the central dojo, bugei students who mastered their ryuha's curriculum were essentially graduated--given certificates of mastery (menkyo kaiden) and set off on their own. Such students were henceforth completely independent of their teachers and their teachers' organization.

The meaning of "branch" is therefore different in the case of pre-Meiji bugei ryuha from what it means in chanoyu. In the latter, a "branch" is a subordinate part of a larger organization, teaching as a proxy for the ryuha headmaster. All ranks and licenses issued to students under this arrangement are given under the authority and in the name of the headmaster. In the bugei (prior to modern times), a "branch" is really a new ryuha, with no formal residual ties to its parent school. Thus while schools of Noh or flower arranging established branches, bugei schools simply branched--again and again with each generation, which is why there are/were so many bugei ryuha out there (vs. only two or three schools of chanoyu).

My last post does, BTW, over-simplify the control-of-name issue a bit, in the interest of making a point. As a practical matter, bugei masters had only limited ability to control unauthorized use of their ryuha names (just as they do today), since (as Will explained) they didn't enjoy the kind of gov't/legal recognition of their property rights that heads of ryuha in other arts did. In practice, the only recourse open to a bugei instructor who found someone fraudulently claiming connection to his lineage was physical intimidation (which was, BTW, illegal under shogunal and most domain law). Moreover, bugei instructors didn't always name a clear successor, and sometimes gave more than one student permission to style themselves instructors of xyz-ryu. And other students often used close variations of their teacher's style names for their own schools. The combination of these factors is the reason there are so many ryuha with similar names and so many ryuha that style themselves ___-ryu ___-ha.

[Robert Reinberger]

Prof. Friday,

thank you for the clarification.

Cordially,

Robert Reinberger

[Patrick McCarthy]

Dear Prof. Bodiford,

Echoing the request of Diane Skoss, I too would like to ask your permission to post this splendidly informative explanation in our quarterly journal. May I have your permission?

Cordially

[Tom Douglas]

Pretty interesting etymological/historical thread. Now that I'm at the end of it, I'm going to get a glass of hot sake and go soke my feet.

Sorry. I just had to get that in. ;- )

Tom Douglas

[Yamantaka]

Please, can anybody help me? I'm trying to contact Prof. William Bodiford to ask his permission to use his Iemoto article but until now I've been unable to do that.
He has no e-mail available. I've written to his University without success. And I asked Mr. Lindsey for help. No avail...
Any ideas what can I do except asking for Mafia's help? :((
Yamantaka

[pgsmith]

Here is Professor Bodiford's email address from the UCLA faculty website. I feel funny about posting it here, but you seem sincere in your desire and it is public information. If I am in error, I apologize.

bodiford@ucla.edu

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by pgsmith
Here is Professor Bodiford's email address from the UCLA faculty website. I feel funny about posting it here, but you seem sincere in your desire and it is public information. If I am in error, I apologize.

bodiford@ucla.edu

YAMANTAKA : Thank you, my friend! I tried that and it didn't function...???

[Ruediger]

Before i asked Prof. Bodiford here on e-budo for his permission to post his article, i did a quick search on Google, searched for -- William Bodiford --
I found also the above listed e-mail address, but - Ubaldo has mentioned it - it didn't work properly, my mail came back immediately. Maybe it's an old address :(

regards

[MarkF]

While I know I will be called old fashioned, it may be that you should write on paper and put in a self-addressed stamped envelope which I am told one can get on line now.

The problem seems to be in patience. Considering the man is a teacher (very basic stuff here folks), write him at UCLA (he hasn't hidden that, nor could he if he wanted), his Department, and wait. He may write and he may not, but I don't see any other solutions.

If he wanted his email public, he would have not used the "hide email" feature.

I've received things indirectly without really asking him. I considred it a gift and left out his name and/or where he teaches, as I think he has made that pretty clear.

I know I'm not the most patient person in the world, but I've got files full of amazing written material, most of which I only asked a general question, or someone has gifted me with some great feats of the quill.

Write and relax. God knows time is precious, but sometimes we are rewareded.

Disclaimer: Ok, I'm sitting on pins and needles myself, and if I hadn't been so embarrassed about it as kid, I'd have no more nails to chew.:)

[Ruediger]

Mark,

i don't think you're "old fashioned", but...(yeah, here it is...:) )

...the first thing i've done..., i looked at Prof. Bodiford's e-budo profile, but no e-mail address was listed there.
...second thing i've done..., i considered to post my question for permission here on e-budo, but because Prof. Bodiford is not regular here on e-budo i tried to find out his e-mail address and then to ask him directly via e-mail (for me, e-mail is not different from a handwritten letter, but maybe that's just because my work is full of that "stupid computer things" - i'm an admin in a NT/Unix Network :) ...so maybe i'm just "to deep" in that kind of *@$%& :) ...and i also apologized in my mail that i used this way to contact Prof. Bodiford ).
as written above, the mail came back to me, because the mail address is - maybe - "out of order", so i decided to post my question here on e-budo. That's my story in short..., but you're right, there are other ways to ask...

regards

[MarkF]

[i]Originally posted by Ruediger[i]
because Prof. Bodiford is not regular here on e-budo

Hi Ruediger,
I apologize if my post came off as flippant and sarcastic (well, the sarcasm was genuine, though.;) . I don't know the man personally or by way of the Internet, or by surface mail, although I do have his address which is pretty much as it is in his sig block, I have been gifted with some of his "doodles."

I agree about Interent email, BTW. Sometimes, it is possible to have a conversation in fairly real time, and other times, it is the same.

I just thought that if the email is hidden, then he wants to be written the old way. I doubt he would hold back if one makes the effort to write, and that is what I meant.

Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding, to everyone. Upon reading it, I did sound more cynical, sarcastic, and flippant than usual.:D

Regards,

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by MarkF
[i]Originally posted by Ruediger[i]


Hi Ruediger,
I apologize if my post came off as flippant and sarcastic (well, the sarcasm was genuine, though.;) Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding, to everyone. Upon reading it, I did sound more cynical, sarcastic, and flippant than usual.:D

Regards,

YAMANTAKA : No sorries, man! After all, auto-critique is good for the soul...:shot:

[W.Bodiford]

I apologize to everyone who could not find my e-mail address. It is not included in my e-Budo profile since any UCLA e-mail address can be found simply by checking UCLA's electronic directory (just follow the links from UCLA's homepage). This method is the most reliable, as UCLA technicians will up-date their own directory any time they modify their e-mail servers (which happens from time to time).

I am surprised that so many people have expressed an interest in reproducing this message on their own Internet sites. Before granting permission to anyone first I want to revise the original message. I need to correct typos, add HTML tags, and revise the content in several places to address issues such as the ones raised by Karl Friday, Toby Threadgill, and Robert Reinberger. I cannot complete these revisions today. Therefore, I ask you to please be patient. In the mean time, I have a question: Is there any advantage to having this kind of short essay appear in more than one web site? If not, then I think I should pick one well-established web site and ask everyone else to link to it.

Now, let me try to respond to some of the other issues.

In my original message I tried to distinguish between at least five completely different (yet related) meanings or patterns of usage associated with the term sôke in Japanese history: (1) as an ancient religious term referring to the head of family that maintains the ancestral temple for all other associated families within a larger clan; (2) as a classical commercial term referring to the head of a manufacturing lineage that possesses exclusive trademarks and marketing privileges, both of which are maintained through the patronage of local lords; (3) as a professional term used during the Tokugawa period for the head of an artistic lineages that possess monopolies over the performance, instruction, and licensing of certain special skills, monopolies which were enforced by the ruling authorities; (4) as a modern legal term for the successors of number 3 and who hold copyright over certain texts and artifacts that have been handed down from their ancestors; and (5) as a modern non-legal designation sometimes used to recognize and honor the special contributions of certain family lineages in maintaining their own special traditional arts and skills.

In the extant documents, as far as I know, the term sôke is associated with martial arts only in sense number 5. Of course it is possible to use the term sôke as an analytical concept or intellectual construct and argue that premodern martial art lineages shared certain key features with the sôke system. I believe that this is what many modern academic authors, including Karl Friday, have done. I am not in fundamental disagreement with them, but I was trying to discuss sôke usage in descriptive, not analytical, terms.

I especially want to reinforce Karl's remarks concerning the efforts of each lineage to maintain control over their own good names and reputations. When I wrote, "If there are new schools, then there is no sôke; If there is a sôke, then there are no new schools," I certainly did NOT mean to imply that just anyone could found a new martial school or that just anyone could claim to teach in the name of some pre-existing martial school. Likewise, when I wrote that modern-day usage of sôke in reference to martial lineages "denotes a historical past, not a present-day commercial or legal monopoly" I meant "monopoly" in the sense of one group controlling all public access to a commodity without meaningful competition from competitors. In other words, monopoly in these sense of Microsoft Windows with Bill Gates, Jr., as sôke. Even though the Apple computer operating system does not enjoy the same monopoly power as does MS Windows, Apple still controls its own software and will still sue anyone who copies it without permission.

Actually, a better modern American analogy to the Tokugawa-period sôke systems might be found in the world of dance. I say "might" because I know nothing about dancing. In the following analogy I will use the names "Arthur Murray Academy" and "American Ballet Theatre" as ideal types (i.e., representatives of certain general principles even if some of the details are wrong).

In America today almost every town has an Arthur Murray Academy (AMA) that teaches ballroom dancing. Anyone can go to Arthur Murray in one location and take identical lessons as taught in any other location. Every AMA not only gives lessons, but also issues diplomas. And every diploma issued by every AMA everywhere in America includes fees that go back to an Arthur Murray headquarters. This kind of commercial network resembles a sôke system. If Arthur Murray held copyright to all ballroom dance steps and enjoyed a monopoly on the teaching of all ballroom dances, then they would practically identical to the Tokugawa sôke system. The successive CEOs of the Arthur Murray company would constitute the sôke lineage.

Completely unconnected and unrelated to the world of ballroom dancing there also exists private companies of classical dance like the American Ballet Theatre. It exists only in one place and trains only dancers who spend time studying in that one place. There are no branch ABTs in local towns. Therefore, ABT is the opposite of a sôke system. Nonetheless both Arthur Murray and ABT alike deny the right of anyone else to use their good name without permission.

If someone who has trained at an Arthur Murray Academy (or trained somewhere else) decides to open his or her own branch academy, then he or she need merely apply for permission with the main headquarters, sign a contract, and pay the required fees. It is very simple. The owner of the new AMA does not need to be especially skilled or to introduce anything new; he or she merely teaches the standard AMA steps according to the standard AMA teaching methods.

If someone who has trained at the American Ballet Theatre wants to open his or her own school of ballet, it is much more difficult. Use of the ABT name would be out of the question. In order to attract students, at the very least, he or she must have established a reputation within the dance world as being of extraordinary skill. That skill must be acknowledged by colleagues at the ABT itself. Moreover, he or she must offer something new or different or better. Then, he or she would have to work over a long period of time to establish a reputation as a teacher.

Most new schools fail, while the ABT continues to produce productions and dancers of exceptional quality. Because the ABT has endured it is possible for historians of dance to describe its successive generations of head choreographers (George Balanchine, Agnes De Mille, Jerome Robbins, etc.) as having endowed the ABT with a unique artistic heritage and direction. They might even compare their qualities of leadership and artistic control with the way that CEOs direct business enterprises. In this sense the head choreographers share certain characteristics with the successive CEOs (i.e., sôke lineage) of the Arthur Murray Academies. Nonetheless, the commercial structure and public goals of the two types of organizations are completely different.

If someone opened a local school of ballroom dance and called it an "Arthur Murray Academy" without permission, then that school would soon be closed down and the proprietor would face legal penalties. AMA is a large organization with so many branches in so many places that they would soon notice if their name was being used without proper authorization.

If someone opened up a new school of ballet and fraudulently claimed association with the American Ballet Theatre, then that person might or might not get into trouble. Certainly such false claims would be readily exposed if made in any large city. In a small town, however, people might be happy to have access to any kind of ballet teacher without bothering to check on credentials. The ABT is not a large organization. It does not have branches across the country. It might not notice if some one in an remote town misused its name. Nonetheless it would never condone such misrepresentation and fraud.

In Tokugawa-period Japan many forms of theater, dance, crafts, and artistic skills were controlled by commercial networks headed by sôke that operated similar to the above "Arthur Murray ideal type." Legal authorities enforced the monetary rights of sôke in ikebana, chanoyu, or noh (etc.) Martial arts usually were taught within smaller organizations characterized by wide diversity of structures and goals. These smaller organizations themselves enforced their rights by threat of violence and by religious sanctions. Violence, of course, was illegal. Tokugawa dictated that both sides to any violent confrontation must be punished regardless of who initiated the action or who was right or wrong. For this reason, violence usually consisted of anonymous threats and surreptitious attacks in dark streets and back alleys.

Religious sanctions were the preferred method of maintaining legitimacy. This is how they were enforced from about 1700 onwards. Anyone who wanted to start a new martial art school would, at the very least, he or she must have established a reputation among other warriors as possessing extraordinary skill. That skill also must be acknowledged by the teacher under whose eyes that person had trained. Use of that teacher's name or of the name of that teacher's lineage, however, might or might not be granted. Moreover, this new martial art school must offer something new or different or better. The founder of the new school would write out a notice in which he asserted all of the above information and in which he listed the school's name and its goals. He would pay a woodcarver to inscribe this notice onto a large wooden plaque. Then he would present the plaque to the main temple or shrine in the area (along with a donation of money). The people in charge of the temple or shrine would not accept the plaque until after they had investigated this person's claims. They would ask local people who could vouch for him and they would request letters of recommendation from other towns. They also would seek permission from any other martial schools to which they already had ties. Once the temple or shrine accepted the plaque and hung it up in a public location, the new school would open. All its students would regularly worship at that temple or shrine, would donate money to it, and would participate in special martial performances there. If the temple or shrine did not accept the plaque, then the school would not open.

Sometimes violence and religious sanctions operated at cross purposes. There was a very famous incident when Chiba Shûsaku (1774--1855) first tried to found his martial academy. Chiba had studied two different styles (orthodox Ittôryû in the Nakanishi lineage and Hokushin Musôryû) which he combined together with some of his own innovations. In 1825 Chiba offered a plaque to the Ikaho Shrine (present-day Gunma Pref.) in which he proclaimed his new Hokushin Ittôryû. The shrine evidently had agreed to accept the plaque since Chiba had established a reputation as an excellent duelist. At the last moment, though members of the locally strong Maniwa Nenryû objected. They threaten violence unless Chiba move out of the area. The exact details are unclear, but some how or other Chiba withdrew his plaque, left the area, and avoided a violent confrontation. If Chiba had allowed himself to be drawn into a fight, even if he had won he would have lost because the authorities would have punished him. Then he never would have been able to open his own school. (There is an even more interesting footnote to this story. In 1927 Nikkatsu made a movie about the life of Chiba Shûsaku. Supposedly this movie included one scene at the Ikaho Shrine in which Chiba defeated the head of the Maniwa Nenryû in a duel. When members of the Nenryû found out about the movie they stormed into Tokyo, went to the headquarters of Nikkatsu and threaten to beat up the company president, the movie director, and anyone else they could get their hands on. Nikkatsu finally got rid of them only by agreeing to turn over all copies of the movie's negatives ---- which the Nenryû members then took to a local temple and burned. This footnote shows that even as late as the 1920s martial lineages vigorously objected to any perceived insults to their honor and would defend it with violence.)

Neither the threat of violence nor religious sanctions could always reach outside of a local area or particular region. Most martial organizations were small and local. Of course famous names were stolen and false credentials manufactured. This is one reason why there are so many martial lineages with the words "ittô" and "shinkage" in their names. Some of them were related, but even the illegitimate ones could bask in the glory of a very prestigious name (as long as they stayed in remote areas, were not too bold, and did not get caught).

The case of the Yagyû Shinganryû, whether true or not, demonstrates that names were to be borrowed only with proper permission. In other words, as said by Karl, martial schools (and all other organizations for that matter) made efforts to stop unauthorized use of their names.
According to Yagyû Shinganryû scrolls sometime around 1600 a person from Sendai named Takenaga Hayato (a.k.a. Jikinyû) traveled to Edo where he became an acquaintance and, eventually, a friend of Yagyû Munenori (1571--1646). Takenaga already had formulated his own martial system called Shinganryû. Munenori was so impressed by Takenaga's abilities (so say the documents) that Munenori granted him permission to preface the name of his style with the extremely prestigious "Yagyû" name. I do not know of any academic research regarding this story and have no opinion as to its validity. Even if this story were not true, the fact that it would have been manufactured shows that people would not have accepted use of the "Yagyû" name by people not related to the Yagyû family without some kind of cover story asserting official permission.

I know nothing about Don Angier nor about his possible use of the sôke label. I cannot comment about him. Let me write about someone else instead. One of my former college roommates is a yôshi. He was born and raised in Arkansas, has bright red hair, and has lived in Japan continuously since around 1980. He was adopted into a Japanese family to become the male successor and to continue the family name. This means that both he and his children are known by his wife's family name and that both he and his children are responsible for performing proper ancestor rites on behalf of his wife's parents and on behalf of their ancestors. I cannot imagine this old friend coming back to America. He has his heart in Japan. It is his home. But if he were to ever come back to America, I especially cannot imagine him going around and telling people: "Hey, I'm a yôshi." This word is totally meaningless in American society. On the other hand, I can imagine him explaining to certain friends and family members that his status as an adopted son in Japan entails special responsibilities that are not expected of adopted sons in American society. As part of his explanation he might say that the connotations of the Japanese word yôshi differ from the connotations of the English term "adopted son," and so forth. Once his friends and family members begin to understand these connotations they might occasionally refer to him with the word yôshi when talking among themselves. Nonetheless, it would be idiotic if they introduced him to non-Japanese as: "My friend, the yôshi."

Now, yôshi at least is a word that is understood by ordinary Japanese people and by foreigners who speak Japanese. In contrast, the label sôke is not understood by most Japanese. Unfortunately it causes confusion and it has been used to inflate the status of people who do not know what it means or how it is used. If I had a friend who became a yôshi in a Japanese family that possessed sôke control over a traditional art, then I would advise my friend to avoid using the term sôke when speaking in English and simply use the word "successor" instead. It is a lot easier to say: "I have been designated the successor to an established lineage," than to try to explain the term sôke (as my own long-winded explanations so amply demonstrate).

[Yamantaka]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by W.Bodiford
[B]I apologize to everyone who could not find my e-mail address. It is not included in my e-Budo profile since any UCLA e-mail address can be found simply by checking UCLA's electronic directory (just follow the links from UCLA's homepage). This method is the most reliable, as UCLA technicians will up-date their own directory any time they modify their e-mail servers (which happens from time to time).

YAMANTAKA : I did that but unfortunately couldn't get access to you.

I am surprised that so many people have expressed an interest in reproducing this message on their own Internet sites. Before granting permission to anyone first I want to revise the original message. I need to correct typos, add HTML tags, and revise the content in several places to address issues such as the ones raised by Karl Friday, Toby Threadgill, and Robert Reinberger. I cannot complete these revisions today. Therefore, I ask you to please be patient. In the mean time, I have a question: Is there any advantage to having this kind of short essay appear in more than one web site? If not, then I think I should pick one well-established web site and ask everyone else to link to it.

YAMANTAKA : I agree with your proposal and, with all due respect, would suggest Diane Skoss's website (www.koryu.com). From there, I could get it and put it on my site, with a translation, side by side.
I'm not surprised so many people enjoyed your text. It touches on a subject of much interest to MA practitioners and explains many things about the Iemoto system in some arts (as Aikido, for instance).
Thank you very much for your attention and good will and accept my best regards.
Yamantaka

[Robert Reinberger]

Originally posted by W.Bodiford
...
I am surprised that so many people have expressed an interest in reproducing this message on their own Internet sites. Before granting permission to anyone first I want to revise the original message. I need to correct typos, add HTML tags, and revise the content in several places to address issues such as the ones raised by Karl Friday, Toby Threadgill, and Robert Reinberger. I cannot complete these revisions today. Therefore, I ask you to please be patient. In the mean time, I have a question: Is there any advantage to having this kind of short essay appear in more than one web site? If not, then I think I should pick one well-established web site and ask everyone else to link to it.

Now, let me try to respond to some of the other issues
...Dear Prof. Bodiford,

thank you very much for the further explanations, as well as for the interesting additional details and informations you provided.

Regarding the interest in your text, I'm not surprised that many people appreciate those academical points of view and historical facts you've made available, regarding a subject and term, that is used by an increasing amount of people in sometimes remarkable ways, today.

The only advantages of having it appear at several sites, I could imagine, are

a) the benefit of having it not lost if something happens with the only site it is on;

b) avoiding of copyright problems when linking the essay, located at that one site, to one's own site;

c) the questions regarding translations into other languages may be answered more easy, if the original text could be made available as well.

However, that may not be issues, and if permission will be granted to one site only, I would second Mr. Alcantara's suggestion to choose Koryu.com.

Sincerely,
Robert

[Devon Smith]

Prof. Bodiford,

By any chance might the words "Kaiso Hokokusai" be used to describe the petition of a shrine by an individual for acceptance of a plaque? Sorry, I can't provide the kanji, only the romanji.

Thanks for taking the time to share your insight, and thanks in advance for any comment you might have.

Devon

Mr Bodiford,

Thankyou so much for your time, effort and the response to my inquiry. I appreciate it very much.

I found the analogy concerning your friend in Japan who is a "yoshi" both humourous and relevant. I basically concur with everthing you implied.

I also agree with those who believe that the website at koryu.com would be the most appropriate place to post your excellent discussion on the iemoto/soke system. I'm sure Meik and Diane will be excellent stewards of this information.

Thank you again for the time and effort at providing us all with such a wealth of information.

Sincerely,

[Karl Friday]

Originally posted by Jim Kass
http://www.bushido.org/~whfsc/whfsc.html

and even more........Soke!

http://www.mararts.org/systems/index.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6471/

and another one!

http://www.kiyojuteryu.org/

http://www.jukokai.com/


Are these great or what? One has added a new category of martial art mastery dubbed "Great Grandmaster"--presumably to distinguish the guys who can actually make their hands glow red from the ordinary Grandmasters, who can now be found in most malls across America. Another has a category called "apprenticed grandmasters," for those of high aspirations but lesser egos, I suppose. And another has one affiliate calling itself the "Kamisama Bushi Kan" (God's Samurai Hall) . . .

Personally, I'm holding out for the title the Monkey King in Journey to the West demanded (and got) from the Jade Emperor: Great Sage, Equal of Heaven . . .

[W.Bodiford]

I wish to thank everyone once more for your interest in my essay on "soke." I also wish to request that you please refrain from reprinting the essay or from copying it. As mentioned above, I was not completely satisfied with the wording of some sections.

I have decided to revise my essay for Diane Skoss at Koryu Books. The revised version will be much, much better. Please wait for that one.

Thank you,

[Diane Skoss]

Hi all,

Actually, Dr. Bodiford has been kind enough to agree to include an essay on the question of the word soke in our upcoming book, Keiko Shokon, Classical Warrior Traditions of Japan. When the book comes out (probably August), I'll also post the complete essay on the web site at Koryu.com.

Cheers,

Diane Skoss

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Diane Skoss
Hi all,
Actually, Dr. Bodiford has been kind enough to agree to include an essay on the question of the word soke in our upcoming book, Keiko Shokon, Classical Warrior Traditions of Japan. When the book comes out (probably August), I'll also post the complete essay on the web site at Koryu.com.
Cheers,
Diane Skoss

HURRAH!
Yamantaka :toast:

[mdheiler]

Okay, I just have to play devil's advocate (sort of). I just skimmed through much of the discussion, without reading it too closely. However, it seems from this thread and from elsewhere in the world, words tend to mean whatever society wants them to mean. Therefore, I propose that we accept and support all of these individuals use of the term soke, with the understanding that for its use in America, it is defined as "really bad American martial artist who invented his own style, because he/she was unable to master any style of known historical background."

- Michael D. Heiler

[Richard Elias]

I would have to disagree.

[dakotajudo]

Originally posted by Richard Elias
I would have to disagree.

With what, and why?

If in response to the suggestion by Michael D. Heiler that soke means "really bad American martial artist who invented his own style, because he/she was unable to master any style of known historical background.", I agree this may be a little harsh, since there are some apparently competent martial artists refer to themselves as 'soke'.

Soke in this context may be as amusing to Japanese as inappopriate English usage is to Americans (for example, see http://www.satoko.com/humor.htm )




Peter

[Richard Elias]

"With what, and why?"

With the statement you mentioned.

My teacher is Don Angier, an American who inherited a Japanese martial tradition. He has been practicing the same art since the 1950's and is quite talented. He did not make up the art, though he may have advanced and contributed to it, that is his responsibility as the caretaker of the art. He does not use his art and his "title" to attract students, in fact, other than seminars he does not teach publicly at all. He does not make people call him soke as it is inappropriate. In the dojo we usually call him Don, sensei or sir.

Now granted, most of those using the title soke are not truly soke. But that shouldn't redefine the term. I feel that if you are going to use a term from another language, especially in reference to something that is supposed to be from their own culture, you should use the term in the manner that it was intended. Or use a different term. But that is just my opinion. Obviously not everyone feels the same, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There are some that need all the trapings, the fancy gi, the blackbelt with all the stripes, the oversized certificates on the wall above the trophies. And for those that are attracted by such those types of teachers are great. If a student of the martial arts is only going to look at the surface and believe only what he is told and not do his own studying. Then he will get what he earns and will never know the difference anyway. One that is truely worthy of studying the arts seriously will learn the difference. Some people are just not supposed to get it. For those few others that do the real thing is out there if you find out where to look.
Not everyone who studies martial arts is a martial artist.

Sorry, I got carried away there. I'll be quiet now.

[Walker]

What’s next?
Outcome based Physics, Engineering?
Certainly Outcome Based Martial Arts are the norm.

Whatever....

[Joseph Svinth]

Agreed, there are several legitimate sokes in the land. Nevertheless I would strongly encourage anyone thinking of paying for instruction under a "soke" to conduct some serious investigations of his claims. Why? Well, according to this site, you find that of 3000 applicants, only 20 passed muster as soke: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6471 . This suggests that the odds of finding a real soke in the midst of all these self-proclaimed masters is at least 150 to 1. And the odds go way up if you discount the claims of any of the folks on that list.

Therefore it would be easier, I think, to sign up for kendo or judo lessons at the local YMCA, and probably provide you with better instruction on average, too.

[Jerry Johnson]

See if I am getting this Soke thing straight. The Prof. says, basically, it's a title that really wasn't used by the Samurai, and is a modern martial arts term. A term which really is a title, e.g. CEO. which is administrative and not referring to skill, and is not widely and restrictive in its use, correct? If so, then people are making a mountain out of a mole hill about the Soke thing. That is people who claim they are in MA are 1)Overkilling on the misuse of the title to their benefit. 2) Using the title to impress others and denote themselves as being the most skilled, where clear cut boundaries are not drawn in legitimacy. Which again is to their benefit. Again a misuse. 3) Putting more weight and stress on the title then it deserves, again misusing it. 4) the ones with no doubt or gray area, not misusing the title and using it correctly at board meeting, and who may never refer or speak the word Soke and yet run their group in that tradition of monopolies. Which the title of Soke is a private matter and hidden away on a scroll some where at the most. And at the most Soke really doesn't mean much. I guess the Japanese people never heard of it, and if they do it makes them laugh.

Now someone please correct me, cause this is really getting confusing. I am at the point where if someone ever utters the word Soke in any context I am writing it off as too weird and something I am not being involved in. Unless I am convinced otherwise, i.e. a dance group, or Geshia.

[Joseph Svinth]

Jerry --

That explanation is clarity itself. Thanks!

[MarkF]

Originally posted by Richard Elias
the fancy gi


Agreed, Richard. No argument, especially with the last two posts, but if one is going to use the word, should it not be at least grammatically correct and/or complete?

It's *dogi*, not gi , dammit.;)

Mark

[Richard Elias]

Sorry. :smilejapa

Actually, I thought it was keikogi.

[MarkF]

Well, OK if you want to get technical....:smilejapa

Mark "Typing while still wearing his *judogi*" Feigenbaum

[Joseph Svinth]

I believe both constructions are correct, as both refer to clothing put on in the course of practicing or rehearsing something. Thus judogi, karategi, etc., are also correct.

The reason, as I understand it, is that "gi" is not a noun (e.g., "sports wear"), but instead a form of the verb kiru, meaning "to put on" (as in to put on clothes). Thus a noun is required for the construction to be a word.

That said, "gi" could quite possibly become a loanword meaning karate or judo uniform, as certainly enough super sokeys use it that way.

Joe,

"That said, "gi" could quite possibly become a loanword meaning karate or judo uniform, as certainly enough super sokeys use it that way."


How about "super sokey dodogi"

( Oh, and course these always come with the accompanying 378 different patches and must be worn with a red & white masters belt 4 inches wide! ) :)

Tobs

[Greg Jennings]

Originally posted by Toby Threadgill

How about "super sokey dodogi"

( Oh, and course these always come with the accompanying 378 different patches and must be worn with a red & white masters belt 4 inches wide! ) :)

Tobs

Trivia and somewhat off topic but couldn't resist:

Heard about a fellow at a recent karate tournament here that showed up in a black karategi with red piping, a number three on the breast and "Goodwrench" down one sleeve.

He did a bang up job and took second in the open weapons kata division.

Regards,

[Jeff Hamacher]

Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
I believe both constructions are correct, as both refer to clothing put on in the course of practicing or rehearsing something. Thus judogi, karategi, etc., are also correct.
without any other "attachments", the terms "keikogi" and "dogi" are both correct. and yes, Joe, compounds such as "judogi", etc., are also correct.
The reason, as I understand it, is that "gi" is not a noun (e.g., "sports wear"), but instead a form of the verb kiru, meaning "to put on" (as in to put on clothes). Thus a noun is required for the construction to be a word.
"-gi" is really only acting as a suffix, and cannot act as a stand-alone part of speech. it is a modification (the linguistic term for which i've forgotten) of the stem for the verb "kiru", where the phoneme "ki" becomes "gi", as in the japanese for swimsuit, "mizugi", a combination of the characters for "water" and the above mentioned wee beastie.

it's also interesting to note that in many cases, the character that appears for "-gi" is not for "kiru", but rather for "koromo", meaning "robe", such as those worn by Buddhist/Zen monks.
That said, "gi" could quite possibly become a loanword meaning karate or judo uniform, as certainly enough super sokeys use it that way.
man, almost as bad as "harey-karey" instead of "harakiri", or "kamakazi" instead of "kamikaze".:laugh: strangely enough, many japanese use the term "wear" as a loan word meaning "non-japanese clothing", and try to use it (erroneously) in their english conversation. wonder if there's any connection?;)

sorry for the nitpick, but i just had to get in there. and i'm so pleased that Prof. Bodiford's essay will appear as a feature at Koryu. if ever there was a group of articles marked as essential FAQ reading at E-Budo, this would be one of them.

cheers, jeff hamacher

[Don Cunningham]

I had to back up a bit to follow this, but I have often heard the simple term "gi" used by Japanese to verbally refer to martial arts practice clothing. It was more common for judogi, but I have even heard it in reference to the kendo top, typically called a "keikogi." It may be proper Japanese grammar (per Mark, Jeff, and Joseph) to use it only as a suffix, but colloquial usage doesn't always conform to strict grammar rules in any language. For example, many of my Japanese colleagues would exclaim "Nani?" instead of the grammatically correct "Nan desu ka?" when inquiring about something. [Sort of like "What?" or "Huh?" instead of "What is it?" or "What do you mean?"]

I am no language expert, certainly not even close to proficient in Japanese, but I did notice a tendency to use simple words, what appeared to be almost madeup words, especially between males. Maybe Japanese females also use such terms when talking between themselves, but they typically used more formal Japanese when conversing with the opposite gender. Some men also switched to more formal grammer when addressing women, but many males were not so considerate.

Another example that comes to mind is the use of "hamako" as a reference to someone who is a native of Yokohama. I think the literal translation is something close to "Child of Yokohama," but then it would seem more appropriate to use "Yokohamako," but I've never heard that used instead. A comparison might be "Edoka" for a native of Tokyo, since Edo is the original city name.

Just my two cents worth. I look forward to any further clarification those more knowledgable about the intricacies of the Japanese language might offer here.

[dakotajudo]

I took a Japanese friend for a drive this spring, When she got in my car, she saw my niece's judo uniform in the back seat. She asked if that was my "dogi".

I also found it interesting that she referred to Yawara's favorite throw as "ippon seoi", instead of the "seoi nage" that I usually hear here.

Peter

[Jeff Hamacher]

Originally posted by Don Cunningham
... I have often heard the simple term "gi" used by Japanese to verbally refer to martial arts practice clothing. It was more common for judogi, but I have even heard it in reference to the kendo top, typically called a "keikogi."
i'm a little surprised by that, since i assumed that japanese students of martial arts would be taught correct terminology (my kendoka wife fixed my former bad habit of using the term "gi"), but then who knows?
It may be proper Japanese grammar (per Mark, Jeff, and Joseph) to use it only as a suffix, but colloquial usage doesn't always conform to strict grammar rules in any language. For example, many of my Japanese colleagues would exclaim "Nani?" instead of the grammatically correct "Nan desu ka?" when inquiring about something. [Sort of like "What?" or "Huh?" instead of "What is it?" or "What do you mean?"]
an excellent point. a linguist may still argue that a one-word expression is a grammatically complete sentence, but it's true that everyday use of a language is not bound by the rules of perfect grammar.
I am no language expert, certainly not even close to proficient in Japanese, but I did notice a tendency to use simple words, what appeared to be almost madeup words, especially between males. Maybe Japanese females also use such terms when talking between themselves, but they typically used more formal Japanese when conversing with the opposite gender. Some men also switched to more formal grammar when addressing women, but many males were not so considerate.
i think that has more to do with sociolinguistic concerns than it has grammar per se. as with any language there are various levels of formal and informal expression. it just happens that in japanese a speaker chooses those levels according to somewhat stricter codes of sociolinguistic behaviour, at least traditionally. differences in age, gender, seniority within an organization, or social position all affect the way one person speaks to another. as well, the uchi-soto (inside-outside) relationships between speakers have a big influence, too. and think about all the ways that english gets "reworked" in common use: "whaddya gon' do 'boutit" instead of "What are you going to do about it", or "noamsain?" instead of "(Do you) know what I'm saying?" what you thought were made-up terms could just be these kinds of colloquialisms.
Another example that comes to mind is the use of "hamako" as a reference to someone who is a native of Yokohama. I think the literal translation is something close to "Child of Yokohama," but then it would seem more appropriate to use "Yokohamako," but I've never heard that used instead. A comparison might be "Edoka" for a native of Tokyo, since Edo is the original city name.

it's pretty much the same deal as saying "L.A." rather than Los Angeles, or saying "N'Awlins" instead of New Orleans. truncations like that are common in many languages. people from my hometown of Toronto used to refer to it as "T.O.", an obvious rip-off of the L.A. example. toronto's also had some more colourful nicknames, among them "The Big Smoke", and decades ago when it was just coming into its own as a city, it was known as "Hogtown".

to make a short story long, i agree with your basic point, Don. languages are living animals, and grammar or no grammar, people use them in the most extraordinary ways. take care and read you later.

cheers, jeff hamacher

[MarkF]

Actually, I find that judogi or dogi runs off the tongue a little easier than gi, but Jeff is right, as is Don, though what you may hear is not always what is said.

I speak fluent Spanish, and while living in Mexico I found more than a few English terms which had no equal in Spanish, said as it was in English, but phonetically correct for Spanish.

Example: Clipboard = kleep or kleepbord. Normally if all ready inferred, it is Kleep. One I especialy love from the border states of Mexico, is "Que dice su watcho?" "What does your watch say?" Now that is a classic and is even appreciated as a joke the further south you go

Business = beeznus, as in como te va el beeznus? (How goes the business) Same here, and if the Spanish, negocio is inferred, it becomes beeznus. Others are Puch for Push (empuje), Chance =Chance, pronunciation completely different, but it is used in place of the Spanish as in Chance=Opertunidad. Dame chance=Give me a chance or minute or any other exclamation meaning the same thing. Or Vamos a ver becomes simply "a ver" meaning Let me see, or dejame a ver, or a ver, literally "let me see." Closet is "closet." I won't go into the swearing as some have this idea that swearing in Spanish is weak. Well, I've got news for you, I've heard ones there which wouldn't be used in Spanish language pornography.

So how did the English slang for head guy or gal become honcho? Doh!

But in sentences or exclamations where the entire parts of each word isn't heard, it doesn't mean it wasn't said, sorta like M and N in Japanese. Kempo is kenpo, but most couldn't tell the difference without the training.

We play with words such as jutsu and jitsu, and which is correct, but coming up in the sixties, Jigoro Kano was pronounced with the accent on the first syllable in Jigoro, sounding more as Jigaro, and many times was spelled this way. I've also heard it in Japanese movies pronounced that way, so which is it? (rhetorical).

Even today, in many judo clubs jujutsu is simply juts.
*******

The idea, I think, if we are going to use a foreign language in everyday speach even if it is strictly a question of terminology, it probably should be said correctly.

But then, why is Japanese any different from Spanish, or Italian, etc.? It isn't. So if not, shouldn't the word Vamoose be taught as Vamos or Vamanos?
******

Well, that was fun. I bet the debate or those like it go on forever, as certain words become part and parcel of English just as English has become same in so many other languages and I'm not going to question it, at least anymore. It is just too complicated to go backwards.

Mark (Jewish name is Moishe)

[Don Cunningham]

my kendoka wife fixed my former bad habit of using the term "gi"
First, I think Jeff has articulated the language issues much better than I could have ever done. However, I found this particular comment very interesting. While I was in Japan, I found my colleagues were often more concerned about my "proper" use of Japanese than they were when talking between themselves. I would often find my own phrases being corrected by the same people that I originally overheard use them.

For example, the term "meshi" is a rather crude reference to food, but I would often use it, maybe when asking about what is for lunch. It never failed to elicit a correction. Yet, the same person who corrected me would use the term in rather the same way without any notice from others.

I've noticed native English speakers doing the same thing to ESL speakers. They will correct their grammar or pronounciation according to the rules as they learned them in school, but won't think twice about bending or even breaking the same rules when talking with others. I've found myself mildly admonishing my Japanese friends to use "proper" references when it is really quite socially acceptable to use slang or colloqualisms under the circumstances. It must be a inherent desire to help, but it can seem quite irritating when you're on the receiving end.

Jeff, I thank you for the clarifications. Now where the heck were you when I was puzzling over all this in Yokohama? It sometimes seemed the language inconsistencies were just bizarre enough that I thought I was having flashbacks from some of the recreational medications I took during the '60s.:confused:

[Kimpatsu]

Professor Bodiford wrote:
Osano Jun argues that the first marital art in Japan to adopt a *sôke* system was the Kodokan School of judo... Osano could be right. The Kodokan set the standards not just for members within one training hall in one location but for all participants in judo throughout the nation. The Kodokan defined the art, it controlled licensing and instruction, and it established branch schools that maintain permanent affiliation with the headquarters. If the Kodokan does not recognize something as being "judo," then it is not judo. Therefore, there is no such thing as a new school of judo.
Similarly, there is only one Shorinji Kempo, but its founder is called Kaiso, not Soke. Again, with SK as with Judo, the emphasis is on modernity. I wonder if that has any bearing on the decision not to use soke?

[Kimpatsu]

Here I was explaining why just "gi" is wrong in another thread, only to find Jeff Hamacher has beaten me too it here!
Just one point that hasn't ben clearly addressed: Keikogi means "training wear" and dogi means "garb of the way," so you must theoretically be practicing a "do" Such as judo or karatedo to use "dogi." Having said that, we still say dogi in Shorinji Kempo (nary a "do" in sight). Also, when I was at Kyoto University, I had a language professor who claimed that you can't use "ka" as a suffix to mean "one who does..." unless it is preceded by "do," so "judoka" is acceptable, and "karatedoka" is acceptable, but "karateka" is not. All the Japanese I know, however, say "karateka" without a second thought. This professor also claimed to know 5,000 kanji, but we all figured that was debatable, too...
Best to all,

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Here I was explaining why just "gi" is wrong in another thread, only to find Jeff Hamacher has beaten me too it here!
Just one point that hasn't ben clearly addressed: Keikogi means "training wear" and dogi means "garb of the way," so you must theoretically be practicing a "do" Such as judo or karatedo to use "dogi." Having said that, we still say dogi in Shorinji Kempo (nary a "do" in sight). Also, when I was at Kyoto University, I had a language professor who claimed that you can't use "ka" as a suffix to mean "one who does..." unless it is preceded by "do," so "judoka" is acceptable, and "karatedoka" is acceptable, but "karateka" is not. All the Japanese I know, however, say "karateka" without a second thought. This professor also claimed to know 5,000 kanji, but we all figured that was debatable, too...
Best to all,

Dogi and keikogi are pretty much interchangeable in common usage, especially because Japanese don't usually make as much about the difference between "do" and "jutsu" suffixed arts that non-Japanese often do.

I've never heard "gi" used as a stand-alone in Japan (someone mentioned that they had), although there are a lot of weird contractions that younger people use, so I wouldn't rule it out. Still, linguistically speaking it would be incorrect usage.

"Ka" doesn't require a "do" in order to be used, otherwise you wouldn't have "geijutsuka" (artists), "shashinka" (photographers), or "shosetsuka" (novelists). The suffix does, however, imply a certain level of professionalism (as in earning a living through that activity, as opposed to being a hobbyist, which is the category that most martial artists probably fit into), so I probably wouldn't use it, for example, for myself - no matter that I have been training for some time.

Best,

Chris

[carl mcclafferty]

Toby:
Being Texans we have to be careful about telling students to go get their "dogi", they might come back with something that moos. LOL

For everyone else:
As far as red/white striped obi: I have Baba Sensei's Judo Shihan obi here in El Paso, he asked me to keep it until he retired from the military this year. Of course he received it at an official function in Tokyo (it says so on his belt and the box it came in), he only wears it to official functions/special occassions when its proper (not on the floor), he's 55years old (not 20) and, he's not so arrogant as to be believe he can be a soke of his own style of judo. Noted that we are best friends or he would never have handed it to me, so maybe I'm being silly defending a great judoka. But sometimes it okay to have one and we shouldn't have our students automatically yell "soke fraud" when we see one on someone at an official function. It might proved rather interesting if you stepped on the mat with him sometime later. ouch, uch, ouch, ouch. LOL

Carl McClafferty

[Cady Goldfield]

Carl,

Is that judo shihan obi the equivalent of being awarded an honorary doctorate in academe? Sounds similar.

Cady

[carl mcclafferty]

Cady:

To quote Yamada Sensei "Shihan Menkyo is something that can not be asked for, it can only be given; you can't test for it and can't pay for it"
He also said its traditionally given by the "Head of Style" not by testing in front of some board. Unlike an honorary doctorate, which can be given to someone that's never attended the school, its more of a title to someone who works hard within the style but has shown his heart and lifelong effort to be extra-ordinary in the eye of the head of style. I believe that someone could reach to the highest technical level menkyo in an art and not have received a Shihan Menkyo. I suppose it could happen at a young age (20s/30s), but I've never seen it.

Japanese practitioners seem to look for guidance from the recipient, seem to accept with respect a Gaijin that receives one from the head of style. Unfortunately many 20/30 year old gaijin claim their Shihan status received from some "western martial arts board" as a rank promotion, which its not. This denigrates the rarely given award and gives those who receive the title legitimately, from a head of style, a soiled name. This makes many to keep such a Menkyo to themselves, to keep from being tarnished along with the others. Unfortunately we (Americans) should celebrate our countrymen's effort and the good light that puts us in, but we can't because we don't know. I believe many wouldn't believe the person anyway, since it rarely happens even to Japanese practitioners.

Sorry to be so long winded Cady but its one of my pet peeves. The process might be different in other koryu but the meaning's the same. PS I rewrote this four times to take out the hurtful words.

Carl McClafferty

[Cady Goldfield]

Thanks for such a clear explanation, Carl, and I'm sorry if I opened a can of worms for you. Obviously, this form of recognition has a much deeper significance than an honorary degree. It isn't surprising that for each rare person who is awarded such recognition, there are 100 or even 1,000 who covet such an honor for personal advancement or self-validation, and who would exploit a title for personal gain.

Cady

[Diane Skoss]

Hi all,

As promised, the complete and expanded version of Will Bodiford's disquisition on the use and abuse of the term "soke" is available at Koryu.com (and of course, in our new book, Keiko Shokon). Visit http://koryu.com/library/wbodiford1.html to read the final text.

Cheers!

Diane Skoss

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Diane Skoss
Hi all,
As promised, the complete and expanded version of Will Bodiford's disquisition on the use and abuse of the term "soke" is available at Koryu.com (and of course, in our new book, Keiko Shokon). Visit http://koryu.com/library/wbodiford1.html to read the final text.
Cheers!
Diane Skoss

YAMANTAKA : And I'm very proud for what I believe was the first suggestion to Prof. Bodiford to publish his excellent essay in the Koryu.com page and in KEIKO SHOKON, the spectacular new book by Diane Skoss :

[QUOTE]
"W.BODIFORD : In the mean time, I have a question: Is there any advantage to having this kind of short essay appear in more than one web site? If not, then I think I should pick one well-established web site and ask everyone else to link to it.
YAMANTAKA : I agree with your proposal and, with all due respect, would suggest Diane Skoss's website (www.koryu.com). From there, I could get it and put it on my site, with a translation, side by side.
I'm not surprised so many people enjoyed your text. It touches on a subject of much interest to MA practitioners and explains many things about the Iemoto system in some arts (as Aikido, for instance).[END QUOTE]

By the way, Diane, can I do the translation and put the essay in my website - www.yahoogroups.com/group/Budovirtual ? Of course, I'll need to get also Prof. Bodiford's authorization but I don't think he'll deny it.
Best

[Don Cunningham]

I wonder if Will Bodiford would like to be an expert trial witness in my upcoming defense against Rod Sacharnoski's libel suit? Does anyone know how to contact him?

[George Kohler]

Bringing this back to life.

This is from a person that claims to have been in Japan for 13 years.

Soke means holder of more than one school, and Iemoto is holder of one.

Has anyone heard this before?

[Diane Skoss]

The person is either misinformed or misunderstanding the situation. Neither soke nor iemoto have absolutely specific-consistent-across-history meanings. They have generally accepted meanings, but the terms are often used quite loosely. It's like most things in Japanese culture; context is everything!

An expanded version of Will Bodiford's thoughts on the matter can be found in Keiko Shokon (http://koryu.com/store/ks3.html).

Cheers!

Diane Skoss

[George Kohler]

Thank you, Mrs. Skoss!

Regards,