by Lynn Reafsnyder
This is a question
that seems always to be on peoples’ minds and there are
as many definitions as there are instructors. Many will
call their arts something-jutsu or
something-dō and never really understand what they
are saying.
To begin to understand
these terms we must go to the kanji, or
character, used for each. In the reference Kanji and
Kana by Hadamitzky and Spahn, the kanji for Jutsu
is defined as art, technique, means or conjury. The
kanji for DŌ, [TŌ], michi:
means street, way or path. Right away we can see that
there are some differences in meaning.
It is clear that the
use of -jutsu indicates the concept of an art or
something that implies the use of a technique. In other
words, physical actions. On the other hand, -dō makes us
think of a direction or way of thinking; it is a more
cerebral connotation.
Of course, it is not
all that simple, but let’s take a look at what these
simple definitions mean when applied to what are usually
called martial arts (bujutsu) these days. First,
let’s make it clear that “martial” actually means
military. Thus martial arts are military arts. Here we
can see that anything that does not emphasize actual
fighting must by elimination be something else.
When an art is used in
combat, whether on the battlefield or by someone who is
under attack, the nature of the art, of necessity, must
be that of actual physical techniques. If, however, the
art is intended for competition or exercise we should no
longer consider it a martial art. If the art is
exclusively for social or personal improvement, again,
it should be defined as something other than a martial
art.
So it seems the key
here is the term, martial.
Can we find a suitable
word to replace the martial in martial art? That
something is either an art for use in real fighting, or
it is not, is too narrow a definition. Some arts I don’t
consider martial can be used with limited effectiveness
by a few especially skilled practitioners, should they
become involved in a fight. While I may get some
argument on this statement, I believe that although
modern aikidō is based on a martial art (the jūjutsu of
the Daitō-ryū) it really can’t be defined as a
martial art. Most forms of modern aikidō fair very
poorly as fighting arts. I consider most modern aikidō
to be more properly termed a form of exercise (and
excellent in that regard), or a system of philosophy,
but not really a martial art.
What about those arts
we refer to, in general, as karate? Here we see people
punching and kicking at each other, but does the
activity qualify as a martial art? The fact is, many
forms of karate are actually sports and are designed for
competition. There are still some styles of karate
intended to be combat systems, and we should term those
systems designed for combat karate-jutsu.
How about arts like
jūdō? Clearly, today’s jūdō is not a fighting art, but
in fact a sport. In comparisons between the original
form of jūdō and today’s form we can see marked
differences in the art. While it is not a martial art
these days, at one time it was, because it was derived
from jūjutsu and arts employed by civilian police in
Japan.
So, should we label
those arts we define as non-martial arts as dō
forms? Not really. We find ourselves missing a piece of
the puzzle. As noted, dō means “a way or path,”
which implies a personal search or direction. The fact
is that any martial art (bujutsu), when fully
lived by someone for their entire lives, may in some
cases become a dō — for that individual. Today, if an
art has the -dō after the name we can consider that the
emphasis of that art is no longer combat but rather
personal or social development (as found in modern
aikidō).
Does all this mean
that sport arts should have some other term? Not an easy
question. I think we should give some consideration to
this possibility, however. A good beginning would be to
remove the term martial from any description of
any art intended for social or competitive use, and
limit use of that term to those few arts today that
truly emphasize application in combat. (Which would be
only a handful, though once again we get into the
problem of what each system, or even instructor, would
define as combat.)
As can be seen, the
question of the use of the term jutsu or dō
is complex and rooted in the dichotomy of tradition and
modernism. Perhaps what we should do is use “jutsu” with
those arts clearly descended from fighting arts and that
still emphasize the combat reality of their arts, and
use “dō” for those arts which are descended from “jutsu”
arts, but which today are used for sport and personal
development.
We must also
distinguish non-traditional, non-Japanese arts
(developed, say, in the last 75 years) that emphasize
combat through use of different, non-Japanese
terminology.
If an art is intended
for sport, personal development, or simple exercise, the
term martial should not be used.
A simple enough
concept perhaps, but marketing still seems to get in the
way. If all of us in the various traditional arts were
to make an effort to maintain such a stance perhaps, in
time, some changes will take place.
