THE NATURE OF KARATE (Karate)

                                                 THE NATURE OF KARATE 

Though often viewed as a only a system of physical sequences, for many practitioners karate is not only a bodied practice but also, “exists within a framework of ideas, knowledges, beliefs, and practices drawn from the cultures in which it appears” (Krug 2001: 395; see also Donohue 1993; Friman 1996; and Ashkenazi 2002).  To many, the practice of karate is not merely the acquisition of physical skill and ability but also a path to self-improvement and an identification to a cultural and symbolic practice as a component of their self-identity (Donohue 1993). 

Even when Keenan remarks that “Martial arts can easily be taken out of their East Asian context, shorn of all spiritual or humanistic value, and practiced merely for athletic prowess or street-smart fighting” (1989: 285), he does so with the implication that something is lost in the process.  Such a shift is not merely a slight modification of practice, but a change so dramatic and fundamental that it transforms the entire enterprise- divorcing it from its antecedent irrevocably, and creating something different.  This poses the question “what can be changed in a cultural practice before it is no longer a variant, but rather an entirely different practice all together?”  

If, as Donohue contends, “Martial arts organizations are... essentially symbolic vehicles in that they enmesh participants in a constellation of actions and ideas which create a sense of identity and community” (1992: 88), then we are faced with the possibility that though remarkably able to adapt to new cultural surroundings, such a symbolically intermeshed practice runs the risk of quite easily becoming ungrounded in its 'original' culture.  The central importance of such symbolic, structural and procedural practices, as they relate to this paper, are predicated upon the understanding that karate is the expression of cultural ideals that typify Okinawan culture.  To inspect this claim requires a properly framed understanding of the proposed origins of karate, and the historical setting in which the practice arose. 

  Origins of Karate 

The origins of the art known as karate were not recorded in detail, but we are offered some information through oral tradition and occasional written references.  From the fragments gathered, an official, though contested, narrative has emerged:  

Karate is a creole of practices that were combined together on the island of Okinawa.  Originally referred to as te, karate combined indigenous fighting techniques with knowledge and practices from China, Japan and possibly from Thailand, the Philippines and other countries in the area.  However, the major influence was Chinese. (Krug 2001: 396)   

According to this most inclusive of theories (including the possibility of influences from India, Korea and other countries as well as those listed by name), karate is an amalgamation of practices and techniques, from all corners of Asia, that were incorporated into the Okinawan art of te. In contrast, Mottern contends, “Karate should not be confused with te.  The original name for karate was Toudi, or Tote (Tang hand), denoting its roots in the Chinese martial arts” (2001: 366).  Though the connection of Toudi with Chinese martial arts is well established, it is believed by some commentators that te had a distinct cosmogony, springing from interactions between the Okinawan ruling class and feudal Japan (Mottern 2001).  

Toudi and te may have shared the islands of Okinawa, while remaining distinct, stratified and separately connected to China or Japan respectively.  Alternatively, they may have been sister disciplines that borrowed from the same sources and intermingled as they co-developed in the Ryukyu Islands.Though the definitive lineage of the art that became karate is contested, the interaction and cross-pollination of combat practices in the region is one phenomenon that almost all commentators agree led to the coalescence of karate (Donohue 1993; Krug 2001; Mottern 2001; Madis 2003).  It should be remembered that there was trade and travel between all three kingdoms (Ryukyu, China, and Japan) and that, in such interactions, cultural practices were shared in addition to trade goods.

From its outset, karate was not merely the product of one nation or one culture, but rather the outcome of interactions in East Asia between groups sharing frequent and prolonged contact.   Though this suggests that karate is a practice separate from culture, such an assumption would be a mistake.  That karate was drawn from many sources does not diminish the importance of place when we speak of the formation of karate.  An intangible cultural item like karate is not created by a certain culture (in this case the Okinawans) out of whole cloth, but is rather drawn from sources both in that culture's history and in the exposure that particular culture has to other ways of doing.

Though karate did not spring wholly formed on the Ryukyu Islands, it is not necessary for it to have done so to be considered an Okinawan cultural practice.  The question of ultimate genesis misplaces the importance of a cultural practice on its origin rather than on its relation to the society and culture in which it is practiced.  Through whatever channels it traveled, karate became an Okinawan cultural practice when it was recognized by that culture as indicative of their group identity- when it could successfully bear, transmit and embody their conceptions of shared identity

d identity.   It is this relation to Okinawan society, rather than its origin within that society, that makes karate an important piece of Okinawa's intangible cultural heritage.  This relationship is constituted by the overlaying of cultural beliefs and process onto the apparatus of the practice (i.e. the human body), and its limitations (Csordas 1990).  This combination of objective parameters and subjective motivations creates meanings and purposes within karate that are unique to Okinawa.  But this does not foreclose the possibility of other ways of conducting the practice in different cultural settings.