Origins of Karate
Origins of Karate
KARATE IN OKINAWA
Regardless of whether one adopts a stratified view of te versus Toudi, or otherwise, during the 19th-century the diverse variants of martial practice in Okinawa coalesced into two main schools of karate. Conventionally, these two styles were referred to as Shorin-ryu and Shorei-ryu respectively (Mottern 2001). At this time these practices were not seen as karate but rather still as Toudi, and the term karate was only circulated in Japan after a demonstration in 1916 by the Okinawan karate master, Funakoshi Gichin (Mottern 2001). From this perspective, the art of “karate” is taken to be quite clearly a creation of the 20th-century and suggests that karate is a relatively modern invention rather than an ancient martial art (Chan 2000). On the other hand, what has become known as karate may only have been recognized under that name in the 20th-century, whereas before, the 'same' practice went under the name of Toudi or te. Regardless of the name, the physical sequences of karate set it apart from the martial practices of Japan, making it a foreign martial art to the Japanese of the mainland. More importantly, it was the structural and procedural differences that karate, as a cultural practice developed in an Okinawan context, would have to overcome to successfully spread to Japan:
They taught karate informally in Okinawa
Karate on Okinawa was taught in an informal manner. Students were assigned tokuigata (individual forms) at the discretion of the instructor. No ranking system existed, so there were no established criteria for advancement. Students were either sempai (senior) or kohai (junior). No recognizable uniform (gi) was used. Karate was indiscriminately referred to as di, bu (martial arts), or Toudi. This individualism was alien to the Japanese concept of wa (harmony). Japanese martial arts were structured around the ryûha system propagated by the Dainippon Butokukai. A ryûha included an historical continuity, methodological transmission, and pedagogical style. (Mottern 2001: 235)
Here we see clearly some of the ways that Okinawan culture should not be historically equated to Japanese culture. Though the Japanese government has put considerable effort into conforming the Okinawan people to the ideals of the Japanese mainland (Morris-Suzuki 1996; Amdur 2001; Madis 2003), the two populations historically belonged to separate political entities with distinct cultural heritages.
It is true that today Okinawans share many beliefs, ideals and practices with the mainland Japanese, but at the beginning of the 20th-century, before many of the Japanese assimilation programs had been established, the Okinawan culture and the practice of karate would have appeared alien to the Japanese from the mainland. As Ko & Yang have remarked upon the transmission of Asian martial arts to the West, “In collectivist cultures, the self is construed in interdependent terms as a connected, relational entity that is expected to fit in by maintaining interpersonal relationships and group harmony. On the other hand, in individualistic cultures, the self is construed as an independent entity” (2008: 14).
Due to proximity and cultural exchange, it would be a mistake to assume that Okinawa was an “individualistic culture” in the same sense that Ko & Yang are using to describe Western cultures of the present day. Still, the intimate, pragmatic practices of Okinawan karate required fundamental changes to transition to Japan where they were ritualized, formalized and militarized. These modifications were not always carried out at the direct order of the Japanese government. Often, they were in response to the observations of individual Okinawan masters who felt that changes were necessary for the further dissemination of the art, including recognition of karate's legitimacy by the populations of mainland Japan (Mottern 2001). Itosu Anko and Miyagi Chojun were influential in the simplification of the system and its dissemination through the development of their series of Pinan and Gekesai dai kata, respectively. In 1901, Itosu introduced karate into the physical education program at the Shuri Jinjo Shôgakkô (Elementary School). “His continued efforts on behalf of karate eventually led to its being established as a part of the physical education curriculum throughout the Okinawan school system” (Mottern 2001:245). Though examples such as Itosu and Chojun illustrate the role of individual agency in modifying karate, the structural setting that the Okinawan art found itself in vis-a-vis the government and culture of mainland Japan should not be neglected.
very good job!
ReplyDelete