Dear E-Budo Members:
Without a lot of preface, let me suggest to you that we come up with a more sophisticated classification of koryu and gendai arts. Why? Because the current classifications are too problematic, and too vague.
Generally speaking, as we all know, koryu arts tend to be classified as pre-Meiji arts, or pre-1868, that have maintained a strict (or conservative) adherence to the teaching and transmission of the curriculum. Gendai arts are generally classified as post-Meiji arts designed for a modern world (i.e. emphasis on mass instruction, unarmed "street combat," sport, or spiritual and philosophic instruction). Furthermore, gendai arts tend to be liberal in their approach to instruction and transmission, to varying degrees.
My contention is that while this framework provides at least a line of demarcation between gendai and koryu arts, upon further analysis the line blurs, and eventually becomes nonsensical.
For example, why is a koryu art classified as a koryu art? Is it the timeline? Well, sort of. Pre-Meiji arts that have maintained their curriculum in a fairly static fashion are anachronistic to a certain extent. Sword fighting is a rare occasion these days, but not unheard of. Naginata-duels, however. . . unfortunately, even more rare . But is this why the art is a koryu? Because it is an anachronism? I think not (more on this later).
Then, is it the conservative nature of the koryu arts? Not really. While koryu arts are by definition conservative, this character is by no means exclusive to them. Furthermore, to put this in terms of simple logic, while conservatism is a necessary function of koryu arts, it is not sufficient. A= quality 'x'; B= quality 'y'. If A+B=C, then if follows that A or B alone does not = C.
Well, then, is it the emphasis of koryu arts? Again, sort of. Koryu arts are conservative, and thus maintain a curriculum centered ("frozen" is too strong a word) in an older time. They are fragmentary reflections of a very different age, and thus focused on a type of warfare almost unheard of today. But this simply returns us to the paragraph above on anachronism. Do we really feel that the main difference between koryu and gendai arts is a function of combative style? Some may. Again, I think this misses the mark.
What about all the accoutremants of koryu arts? Is the main difference the fact that koryu arts generally (though not always) do not use dan/kyu rankings, that progression in the art is generally recognized by the granting of a scroll indicating a level of proficiency rather than a colored belt? Of course not. Gendai arts could just as easily switch back to this older system, but this doesn't make them koryu, right?
Right! I submit to you that the main difference between koryu and gendai arts is a state of mind, an overall philosophy that governs the instruction, the dissemination and the transmission of the relative arts.
All of the characteristics listed above that differentiate koryu from gendai arts are epiphenomena. They are not the reasons for the difference, but the visible result of the difference. We use Meiji as a baseline because that is when a radical departure in thought (not just in the martial arts, obviously) occurred in Japan.
I leave it to the Forum to argue what, precisely, defines this difference in philosophy. I don't want to suggest any one thing at this point, but what they might be are obvious, I think, from the epiphenomena listed above.
What I do want to argue is that if what I am saying is correct (and I don't presume to be), then the ultimate conclusion is that the definition of koryu must be broadened. Unless one believes that a philosophical perspective is determinatively tied to a particular time, place or culture (which I don't believe), then it is possible for a martial art, in any timeline, to be considered koryu.
Now, hold on a minute, friends! Put your fangs away for a moment. Let me say that the definition of koryu need not necessarily be broadened, but perhaps fragmented, dissassociated, split up into more refined elements. Specifically, two elements.
Here is my suggestion:
The definition of Koryu arts should be split up into:
1) Traditional arts: These would be arts strictly defined as "old-style"/koryu Japanese arts, period (period). As such, any pre-Meiji art that has maintained its curriculum into the modern age would be classified as a koryu art. No art, no matter how closely related or influenced by a pre-meiji art, would be included here. This definition focuses only on time, not philosophy or curriculum. Thus, its primary function is for historical analysis and classification.
2) Classical arts: This would be a broader category encompassing both koryu, gendai, and transitionary arts. The focus in these arts is precisely on philosophy, teaching and transmission. Inlcluded under this definition would be any art that adheres to whatever becomes accepted as defining the Classical philosophy of martial arts. Thus, modern arts may fall under here, but not under the Traditional category. Similarly, many Traditional arts would fall here as well, but many might not. There are a lot of good arguments for making this separation. Anyone who has studied "koryu arts" knows that not all "koryu" are the same. Now we have a rational method of delineating between them.
3) Modern arts: This category stands alone, outside the two listed above. All arts that are post-Meiji (and thus not Traditional) and not Classical (as defined above), would be considered Modern. These are arts that maintain a modern philosophy of teaching and transmission. Included here are, of course, judo, aikido, karate-do, etc.
These definitions would provide, I believe, a better method of classification, and a clearer basis for analysis and argument. For example, someone claims an art is thousands of years old but can't prove it? Well, how is it taught? What is the pedagogy, so to speak? How is the art passed on? What is the basis for determining progress and excellence? etc, etc. Perhaps you can't prove the art to be Traditional, but it may clearly be Classical.
Also, these categories would help clear out some of the confusion of words such as "traditional martial arts," "classical martial arts," "koryu martial arts." Before, they all could have been considered synonymous, or not, or sometimes. Now, they would be distinct categories with clearly different meanings.
Hopefully, we can get some thoughtful commentary on this framework. Maybe it needs to be modified, clarified, or even discarded.
Carry on, Brothers and Sisters.
Cheers,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland