InYo:
Journal of Alternative Perspectives Nov 2007
Copyright
© LeRon James Harrison 2007. All rights reserved.
At
one time, the words “theory” and “theorem”
were strictly confined to the domain of jargon. Only scientists
talking about theories of relativity and evolution, mathematicians
speaking on theorems of algebra and calculus, and eccentrics
proposing conspiracy theories consistently would use these two terms
on a frequent basis. But now the term theory has entered into common
parlance and is used in any number of disciplines. To understand why,
one need only look at an example of this phenomenon. David Sklansky
opens his book The
Theory of Poker with
the following statement.
The
beauty of poker is that on the surface it is a game of utter
simplicity, yet beneath the surface it is profound, rich, and full of
subtlety. Because its basic rules are so simple anyone can learn
poker in a few minutes and novice players may even think they’re
pretty good after a few hours. From the expert’s point of view,
the veneer of simplicity that deludes so many players into thinking
they’re good is the profitable side of the game’s beauty.
It doesn’t take long for pool players or golfers to realize
they’re outclassed and to demand that a match be handicapped,
but losers in poker return to the table over and over again, donating
their money and blaming their losses on bad luck, not bad play.1
Sklansky’s theory of poker comes out of the
recognition that poker is far more complex than the rules may lead
one to believe. Sklansky, in his book, is attempting to describe
poker in all its complexity. From Sklansky we can see that the
popularization of the term “theory” reflects a growing
recognition by people in their respective fields of the complexities
in their fields and an attempt to address them.
Scholarship on martial arts, in light
of this phenomenon, is somewhat behind the curve. Largely it has
focused on exploring kinesiological and pedagogical issues, leaving a
void when it comes to formulating theory. That changed however when
Deborah Klens-Bigman put out her article “Towards a Theory of
Martial Arts as Performance Art.” As the title implies, the
article is an attempt to start thinking about martial arts in a way
akin to Sklansky’s thinking on poker. But as a starting point
for a theory of martial arts, it is rather problematic as
Klens-Bigman fails to move beyond a simplistic view of martial arts.
How and why she is unable to create a more complex view and theory of
the martial arts is what I shall explore in this essay. The theory
Klens-Bigman asserts has an underlying assumption that she is the
first to discuss the relationships among the concepts of performance,
art, acting, and martial arts. While that may be true, she is not the
first to discuss these terms individually or in tandem. When her
theory is read against other texts on these four terms, a number of
questions and challenges to her theory emerge. The fact that she
never considered these nor provides any possible response to them
constitutes the problems with her theory and the reason she is unable
to advance a more complex theory of martial arts.
At the opening of the piece,
Klens-Bigman gives the following definition of the term performance.
“[P]erformance actually has more to do with how we live our
everyday lives. Performance exists where any action is done in front
of an audience, even an audience of one, that is, one’s self.”2
The central assertion of this definition is that all martial arts are
a performance art as they are done in front of an audience. However,
there is another formulation of the martial art/performance art
relation. In his book On the Warrior’s Path, Danielle
Bolelli develops a typology of martial arts in order “to
provide a tool to help martial artists wishing to better see how a
certain style relates to all others.”3
His typology classifies martial arts into five categories:
Performance Art, Internal Art, Weapon Art, Self-Defense Art, and
Combat Sport. He gives the following definition for the term
“performance art”: “Performance Arts are those
martial styles that focus the majority of their attention on the
aesthetic appeal of the art.”4
He goes on to explain that only wushu and capoeira fit
his definition of performance arts; the remainder of martial arts
place only “some emphasis on aesthetic performance.”5
In light of Bolelli’s definition of “performance art”
and typology of martial arts, we are forced to raise questions about
Klens-Bigman’s assertions. Is the term “performance art”
really applicable to every martial art? If so, how valid is it to
create a theory of martial arts around her conception of performance
art? Klens-Bigman does not give any information that could provide an
answer to these questions. Her non-responsiveness in the face of
these questions is the first indication that performance art theory
does not address martial arts in a complex way.
Another sign of the non-complexity of
Klens-Bigman’s theory is that the concept of performance art is
not always as positive a term as she asserts. In his discussion of
performance arts Bolelli comments, “[i]nstead of being fighting
styles in the purest sense of the word, Performance Arts combine
gymnastics and martial arts movements, resulting in what is better
termed as a ‘martial dance.’”6
Bolelli’s statement is a very frequently heard criticism of
wushu. The late preying mantis master Brandon Lai made a
similar critique of wushu in an interview in Inside Kungfu
Magazine. “To me, an art like wushu is not
traditional. To be traditional you must be effective; wushu
has no power in their punches or their kicks. I don’t call this
a martial art. I don’t denounce it, but they will have to
change to be considered a martial art.”7
These comments illustrate the next challenge to the performance art
theory. The label of performance art in the mind of Bolelli, Lai, and
other martial artists is antithetical to the concept of martial arts.
They assert that martial arts are not fundamentally about
performance. So this raises another question that Klens-Bigman gives
no indication how she would answer: How do you turn the concept of
performance art into a positive term and still address the critiques
given by Bolelli et al
? It is after her definition of
performance that she makes her assertion about why martial arts are a
performance art. This is the point when the questions about the
theory cease and the challenges and contradictions in the theory
become apparent.
Klens-Bigman’s theory is not
always at odds with other writings. The French literary theorist
Gérard Genette has
this to say about “performance art”: “A first
feature distinguishing work[s] of performance… is that [works
of performance] are frequently produced collectively; this often
mobilizes a group of a certain size… to work together so
closely that it sometimes becomes impossible to sort out each
individual’s contributions to the whole.”8
Klens-Bigman says something similar to Genette in her discussion of
martial arts. “The whole class may perform kata together,
during which time the emphasis is less on technique than on creating
wa (harmony) among group members…. In this case the
emphasis is less on ‘self’ expression than group
expression.”9
But the synergy between Genette and Klens-Bigman ends there.
Genette’s concept of art is far different than Klens-Bigman. He
explains the title of his book The Work of Art in the
following way: “The work of art, then, refers to the
artwork for the nonce; later it will also come to designate more
ambitiously the work done by this work, which is of course the work
performed by art itself.” In the footnote to this statement,
G.M. Goshgarian, the translator of the book, explains “l’œuvre
de l’art, the French title of this book, suggest something
like ‘the work art does’; a ‘work of art’ in
the ordinary sense is une œuvre d’art.”10
Genette’s definition of art emerges from the recognition that
the phrase œuvre d’art has not one but two
connotations. The word œuvre literally means work;
thus the phrase has the idiomatic meaning frequently used to refer to
paintings on walls, statues in museums, etc. But there is also
the literal meaning of the phrase which points to “the work art
does.” Both have art as a common reference point but refer to
two different concepts. To make the distinction between the two
Genette labels the literal meaning l’œuvre de l’art
and leaves the idiomatic notion to œuvre d’art.
But in order to discuss art, Genette must examine both concepts as
the two are interconnected with art. This is what drives Genette in
his exploration of art.
There is a similar recognition
occurring in scholarship on sports. In his book Players All,
Robert Rinehart acknowledges
[c]ertainly
sports has always, to some extent, been
performance-based. But a real difference in contemporary sport is the
performer’s awareness of their performance; thus we see
athletes parodying their audience, turning the focus back on the
audience…. Likewise, the audience become[s] performers as well
as spectatorial presence.11
Rinehart realizes that the relationship between
athletes/performers and audience is not fixed; it can be and often is
in flux. Upon realizing this he pushes for “a sociology that
deals with people, not objects; complex, irreducible relationships,
not simplistic, reductionist, independent components; a sociology
that examines the conjectures of personal and public realms.”12
But we do not find statements like these anywhere in Klens-Bigman’s
theory. Largely, her theory is centered on art “as a means of
self-expression” and self-expression as “always
exist[ing] on some level.”13
But the lack of recognition of the fluid, interconnected nature of
relationships on Klens-Bigman’s part is driven by her use of
drama and acting theory.
At the beginning of the article,
Klens-Bigman gives the first discussion of martial arts in terms of
acting and theater.
[Richard
Schechner’s] analysis of the workshop as a site for
developing creative work can be used to examine dojo practice.
Schechner defines a workshop as a small gathering of people formed to
a common purpose in a specially designated space. The group
establishes an environment in which activities set off from normal
life can take place in an atmosphere of relative safety. As a result
of this protected environment, participants assume roles that are, to
a variable extent, separate from the participants’ everyday
lives. Schechner the professor becomes Schechner the director.
Participants from numerous walks of life become performers, and later
adopt the personae of the theatrical production in development.14
This quote reveals why Klens-Bigman does not see the fluid,
complex relationships that Genette and Rinehart do. To her, the space
that martial arts practice takes place in is firmly removed from the
normal word. Because of that the roles in that space are solidly
fixed and not in flux like Genette and Rinehart assert. She
reiterates this later in the piece. “Within the framework of
dojo practice, everyone has a role to play, from sensei to beginning
student. Students are respectful, and in general, do not question
what they are being taught. The rarefied atmosphere allows students
to take risks…. Everyone accepts the role-playing or they do
not study in the dojo.”15
Once she establishes the dojo as removed from the normal world and
possessing fixed roles for all participants, she turns to explaining
how these roles work by using the acting theory of Konstantin
Stanislavsky.
Stanislavsky
believed that a role’s physical actions should
reflect a sense of truth and the actor’s faith in them in the
performance of his or her role. For example, an actor in a romantic
role constructs his character’s actions in such a way that he
feels he is really in love with his leading lady onstage. Rendering
his part in such a way that he “believes” it, the idea is
that the audience will believe likewise. Is the iaidoka’s
technique real enough that if the scenario from the kata were to take
place, he feels he would win the contest? Can he “see the
enemy”? Performing kata using a scenario to impact truth to
action is a form of self-expression…16
With this, Klens-Bigman fully commits herself to seeing martial
arts as a performance by turning martial artists into actors and
seeing the movements in kata and practice as the fulfillment of a
role. However, Rinehart, who devotes a chapter of his book to
debunking this very train of thought in sports, would strongly
disagree. He opens the second chapter of his book with this
statement:
[S]ports
as a dramatic narrative [is] a linear, traditional,
restrictive, modernist, and ultimately hierarchical metaphor.
Constructors of sport as drama presume that a good story will create
a larger audience…. In contrast to this approach, most
athletes I have known have been too involved in the task at hand, in
the pragmatics to see any larger thread of storyline…. The
experience is in many cases cogent, yet not linear and dramatic.17
Rinehart here shows a number of things Klens-Bigman ignores when
she adopts acting and drama theory. Participation and experience are
forgotten in favor of self-expression, performance, and fulfillment
of set roles. Along with this, the thoughts of the martial
artist/performer are de-emphasized while the reception from the
audience is privileged. But the problems do not stop there. As
Rinehart explains later, “sports contests are not inherently
dramaturgical (indeed, it is questionable whether ‘everyday
life’ is inherently dramaturgical, or whether it is, much like
the self, “created and presented in the course of interactions
through discursive acts). [The] linear narrativity is imposed and
instilled into them by sport discourse.”18
Here he asserts that her reading of martial arts in terms of acting
theory and drama is in fact nowhere to be found in martial arts. This
is, in reality, something that Klens-Bigman projects onto martial
arts. Some might believe that there is no harm in Klens-Bigman’s
act of projection; Rinehart, however, does not. He goes on to state
the consequences of adopting the sports-as-drama model.
While
sports as drama as a ‘master narrative’ is rampant
in popular, personal, and scholarly discourse, reliance upon the
sport-as-drama metaphor limits research to narrative formations,
ostracizes the study of non-narrative formations, (re)creates
unexamined assumptions of linearity and causality in sports, and
perpetuates hierarchy [and] canonization…19
If we were, according to Rinehart, to follow Klens-Bigman’s
drama/acting theory we limit our view of all martial arts to see
everything in terms of that metaphor. Klens-Bigman herself does this
very thing at the end of her piece.
There
are many other example of martial arts as performance that I
have not addressed here. Tournaments present a very large and complex
avenue of performance research. Though I have primarily used Japanese
martial arts as examples, lion dancing and demonstration by gongfu
groups in New York’s Chinatown and Flushing neighborhoods
during Chinese New Year and other special occasion are also subjects
for continuing study.20
To Klens-Bigman, martial arts as dramatic performance is present
not just in Japanese martial arts but also in Chinese martial arts
and via tournaments present in Korean, Filipino, and other martial
traditions. She is “(re)creating” this onto other martial
arts, something Rinehart warns will happen. As far as ostracizing is
concerned, the notion of performance and the very things she
examines, as I said earlier, ignores the performer and his/her
thoughts because they may not share the same view. The hierarchy
aspect is present in her discussion of ranking, which also has the
potential of being “(re)created” in other martial arts
and being the source for ostracizing arts that do not possess a
hierarchy. Everything Rinehart discusses is inherent in
Klens-Bigman’s theory as she subscribes to the martial
art-as-drama metaphor.
The most comprehensive critique of
Klens-Bigman’s theory, however, is found in the late Pierre
Bourdieu’s book The Logic of Practice. In it he makes
the following statement.
Objectivism
constitutes the social world as a spectacle offered to an
observer who takes up a ‘point of view’ on the action and
who, putting into the object the principles of his relation to the
object, proceeds as if it were intended solely for knowledge and as
if all the interactions within it were purely symbolic exchanges.
This viewpoint is the one taken from high positions in the social
structures, from which the social world is seen as representation (as
the word is used in idealist philosophy, but also as in painting) or
a performance (in the theatrical or musical sense), and
practices are seen as no more than the acting-out of roles, the
playing of scores or the implementation of plans.21
As Bourdieu points out earlier in the book, objectivism “
sets out to establish objective regularities (structures, laws,
systems of relationships, etc.) independent of individual
consciousnesses and wills.”22
Klens-Bigmans’s theory, as I have said earlier, sets out to see
the dojo or practice area as being removed from the normal world and
governed by a set of fixed relationships. In doing so, she turns
martial arts into the very things Bourdieu states. It becomes a
spectacle, a representation, and a performance; this is all best
exemplified in her discussions of enbukai. “Enbukai are the
most consciously performative events of dojo-based martial arts,
involving martial artist as performers, a public audience, theatrical
spaces, lighting, costumes, and staging.”23
To Klens-Bigman this exemplifies everything that is right with her
theory; to Bourdieu, these same things exemplifies everything that is
wrong with it. The position that she adopts is “the position of
the ‘objective’ observer who, seeking to interpret
practices, tends to bring to the object the principles of his [or
her] relation to the object.”24
The position of the “objective observer” is the very one
Bourdieu describes in the first citation, the viewpoint high in the
social structures, and this is very position that Klens-Bigman
occupies and speaks from as she gives her theory.
Bourdieu later speaks of “a feel
for the game,” which has the same interconnected nature as
Genette’s notion of art and Rinehart’s discussion of
performer and audience in sports.
[T]he
“feel for the game” is what give the game a
subjective sense—a meaning and a rasion d’être,
but also a direction, an orientation, an impending outcome for those
who take part and therefore acknowledge what is at stake (this is
illusio in the sense of investment in the game…). And
it also gives the game an objective sense, because the sense of the
probable outcome that is given by practical mastery of the specific
regularities…25
I believe this concept is applicable to martial arts, so we can
change Bourdieu’s concept to a “feel for the art.”
But the fact remains that this concept is nowhere to be found in
Klens-Bigman’s theory. The reason why is that in taking the
objective view of martial arts and deeming them performance, she has
completely forgotten about the subjective aspects—the sense of
purpose, the investment of time and effort, and the goal(s) driving
the martial artist. Once she removes the subjective elements of
martial arts, she removes the possibility of the “feel for the
art” ever existing. Along with this, she has completely removed
the raison d’être (the reason for being) behind
martial arts from the picture. If there is no reason to practice, no
goals to achieve, and no investment towards improvement, then there
can be no rationale for staging any performance be it inside or
outside the dojo. The theory of martial arts as performance,
therefore, is a self-defeating argument at its core. Klens-Bigman’s
theory is problematic not only as it has overlooked all that Genette,
Rinehart, and Bourdieu point out but, as it is a self-defeating
theory, it does not further our knowledge and understanding of the
martial arts.
While Klens-Bigman’s theory is
not a good starting point for a general theory of martial arts,
reading it against Genette, Rinehart, and Bourdieu reveals three
principles that are necessary in creating a theory of martial arts.
-
Consider the
context of the terminology being used. There is nothing inherently
wrong with discussing martial arts in terms of art or performance as
Klens-Bigman attempts to do. The problems arise when she ignores prior
discussions of the same terms. No term is without a context and that
context has to be considered if we want to create a theory that applies
to martial arts.
-
Draw on
examples from various martial traditions, not just a familiar one.
If the goal of creating a theory of martial arts is to describe all
martial arts, their similarities and differences, we can only do that
through considering examples drawn from various martial styles. Looking
at Sklansky’s theory of poker, Sklansky does not limit himself to just
using examples from Texas Hold’em (which due to the so-called “poker
boom” has become the most popular version of poker) to illustrate his
theory. He draws examples from seven-card stud and draw poker as well
as games he makes up to show how his theory works. Likewise a theory of
martial arts should draw on examples from Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
and other martial traditions.
-
Discuss
martial arts in a complex manner. As Genette, Rinehart, and
Bourdieu illustrate, the relationships and actions involved in martial
arts are not capable of being confined to one simple definition. Even
the act of writing scholarship on martial arts often involves objective
and subjective trends as Bourdieu discusses in The Logic of Practice.
It has the objective nature of trying to show the rules and structures
involved, but at the same time there is a subjective element of a
reason or direction behind the scholarship. This is true even of
Klens-Bigman’s theory. Her objective work of laying out the structure
of martial arts as a performance art is driven by a subjective goal:
“Donohue has only minimally address an element of motivation for
martial art study brought in this chapter: the “art” aspect of martial
arts….”26
If this is true of the act of writing about martial arts, it is all the
more true of martial arts themselves.
These
three objective rules are driven by the subjective goal of avoiding
the mistake Klens-Bigman commits, a mistake that can be summed up
using a heuristic from Stephen Levinson: “What is simply
defined is stereotypically exemplified.”27
We encounter this heuristic every time a person refers to martial
arts in general as karate.
The goal of theory is to undo that kind of thought, to remove, as
Sklansky says, “the veneer of simplicity that deludes so many.”
But theory can only do so when it is not complicit in making that
very veneer. What I have presented by examining Klens-Bigman’s
theory and formulating the rules laid out above is a new course for
theorizing about martial arts to proceed down. It involves reflecting
on the complexities within the martial arts and trying to present
those complexities as honestly as possible. This course is one that I
believe will further our knowledge and understanding of the martial
arts as they are practiced today.
1
David Sklansky, The Theory of Poker (Las Vegas: Two Plus Two
Publishing, 2004), 1.
2
Deborah Klens-Bigman, “Towards A Theory of Martial Arts as Performance
Art.” In David E, Jones, ed. Combat, Ritual, and Performance:
Anthropology of the Martial Arts (Westport: Praeger, 2002),1.
3
Daniele Bolelli, On the
Warrior’s Path: Philosophy, Fighting, and Martial Arts Mythology. (Berkeley: Frog, Ltd,
2003), 118.
7
Michael J. Gonzalez, “Traditionalism: Will It Survive in America?” Inside
Kung Fu Magazine 24, no. 1 (January1997): 80.
8
Gérard Genette, The Work of Art: Immanence and Transcendence,
trans G. M. Goshgarian (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), 56.
11
Robert Rinehart, Players
All: Performances in Contemporary Sport (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1998), 8.
21
Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), 52. Emphatics are my own.
27
Stephen Levinson, Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized
Conversational Implicature (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000), 32.
Bibliography
Bolelli, Daniele.
On
the Warrior’s Path: Philosophy, Fighting, and Martial Arts
Mythology. Berkeley:
Frog, Ltd, 2003.
Bourdieu, Pierre.
The
Logic of Practice.
Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
1990.
Genette, Gérard.
The
Work of Art: Immanence and Transcendence.
Translated by G. M. Goshgarian. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1997.
Gonzalez, Michael J.
“Traditionalism:
Will It Survive in America?,” Inside
Kung Fu Magzine 24,
no. 1 (January 1997): 76-82.
Klens-Bigman, Deborah.
“Towards
A Theory of Martial Arts as Performance Art.” In Combat,
Ritual, and Performance: Anthropology of the Martial Arts,
edited by David E. Jones (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002): 1-10.
Levinson, Stephen C.
Presumptive
Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000.
Rinehart, Robert E.
Players
All: Performances in Contemporary Sport.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998.
Sklansky,
David.
The Theory of
Poker. 4th
ed. Las Vegas: Two Plus Two Publishing, 2004.
LeRon Harrison is a doctoral
candidate at the University of California, Irvine in East Asian
Languages and Literature, specializing in Japanese court poetry and
its appropriation .of Chinese poetics. He has a bachelor’s degree
from the University of California, Berkeley in Japanese Language and
Literature and a master’s degree from Indiana University in
Japanese Literature. He has practiced wushu
for ten years and taiji
for four. He is currently an assistant coach at the Taichi Wushu
Resource in Los Angeles, having won medals in both disciplines at
competitions in and around Southern California, and is now judging
events in the Southern California area.
Our
Sponsor, SDKsupplies