Aikido Article

8/14/2019 Aikido Article

1/21

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

24 (2000) 741761

Training in culture: the case of aikido education

and meaning-making outcomes in Japan

and the United States

C. Jeffrey Dykhuizen*

Lakeland College Japan

Abstract

This study investigated whether a relationship existed between instructional style and points

of emphasis in the training context of the martial art aikido and the perceptions which

practitioners of aikido generated for aikido-related concepts. The findings were gathered

within and compared across aikido training settings in two cultures} Japan and the United

States. Analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data gathered for this investigation

revealed several potent differences between the manner in which Japanese and American

aikido practitioners represented their understandings of aikido-related concepts. Differences in

the manner in which aikido practitioners in Japan and the United States represented their

understandings of aikido reflected the teaching emphasis observed in the respective cultures. It

was concluded that aikido instructors represented the values of their own culture in the

context of aikido training, and thus served as important mediating forces influencing the

meaning which practitioners generated for aikido. An additional finding revealed that in

neither culture were participants able to accurately represent how practitioners in the other

culture structured their understandings of aikido. It was reasoned that both cultural groups

generated faulty perceptions of how the other group understood aikido because theyutilized a similar pattern of projection, using their own meanings of aikido to represent the

understandings of practitioners in the other cultural group. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.

All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aikido; Cultural diffusion; Education; Cross-cultural studies; Psychology; Semiotics

*Correspondence address. 9320 Ravine Ridge, Caledonia, MI, 49316, USA.

E-mail address: [email protected] (C. J. Dykhuizen).

0147-1767/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 1 4 7 - 1 7 6 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 2 9 - 8


2/21

1. Introduction

When persons from different cultures come into contact, there is an inevitable

exchange of cultural elements. Generally, the meaning and function of a cultural artifactor practice is altered as it is transferred from one culture to another (Hunter & Whitten,

1976). Developments in transportation and communications technology in the

contemporary world have resulted in information being shared between cultures at

ever-increasing rates. It is therefore becoming increasingly important to have a clear

understanding of the process of information transfer across cultures. This study

investigated the process by which an artifact from one culture was received into another.

In the past several decades the Asian martial arts have become quite popular and

extensively practiced in the United States (Trulson, 1986). Several authors (Min,

1979; Back & Kim, 1984) have suggested that there are differences in martial arts

instruction in American and Japanese dojos (training halls). It has been argued that

the process of recontextualizing the martial arts into the culture of the United States

has resulted in new understandings of the martial arts (Columbus & Rice, 1991;

Trulson, 1986; Deshimaru in Wertz, 1984). The majority of the research which has

generated these findings, however, has involved hard, linear, combat-oriented

martial arts. Aikido, which was used as an example in this study, is a relatively new,

soft, spiritually based martial art.

1.1. The nature of aikido

Aikido is a soft, circular Japanese martial way which is commonly translated into

English as the way of harmony. In aikido, the goal of training is to generate a

balance of body, mind, and spirit (Ueshiba, 1984). This is accomplished by training

to centralize and extend ki or vital energy, and to coordinate it harmoniously

with the surrounding circumstances (Ratti & Westerbrook, 1973, p. 359). Aikidos

founder, Morihei Ueshiba, believed that violence and aggression could be guided, led

or turned aside by the harmonious coordination of spirit. The manifestations of this

principle can be observed in watching an aikido practitioner whirl and spin, leading

the aggressors force to a harmonious, non-violent outcome. From its inception,

aikido has emphasized a spiritual component (Ueshiba, 1984; Saotome, 1993), andthis emphasis has differentiated aikido from other, more combative martial arts.

Aikido was founded by Morihei Ueshiba in Japan in 1942 (Crawford, 1992;

Ueshiba, 1984) and it is practiced widely in Japan by persons of both genders and

various ages. Aikido was first introduced in the United States in 1953, and it is

currently estimated that there are approximately 1000 aikido dojos in the continental

United States (Pranin, 1991). Aikido has recently received attention due to the

success of Steven Segals movies.

1.2. Research questions

This study sought to clarify whether, and if so how the meaning of aikido was

altered in its diffusion to the United States. Although the investigation was broadly

C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741761742


3/21

contextualized within the field of cultural diffusion, it specifically explored the

relationship between the presentation and instruction of aikido, and students

understandings of it. Three interrelated research questions guided the inquiry.

(1) How is the instruction and practice of aikido in the United States different than

the instruction and practice of aikido in Japan?

(2) What differences, if any, exist between what aikido means to practitioners in the

United States and Japan?

(3) In what manner are differences in instruction and practice related to differences

in the meaning which aikido has to practitioners in different cultures?

1.3. Culture as a research variable

In this research project, as in many cross-cultural studies, culture entails some

sort of treatment or condition (Berry, Poortinga, Segall & Dasen, 1992, p. 220).

When culture serves as an antecedent or independent variable, individuals beliefs

and behaviors are dependent variables (Berry, 1980). By comparing the manner in

which aikido practitioners in Japan and the United States structured their

understandings of aikido-related concepts, this project compared the dependent

variables of different treatment groups.

The terms America (employed to parsimoniously refer to the United States) and

Japan were used in this project to refer to specific research settings, and not to entirenation-states. As pointed out by Berry et al. (1992), the contrast between large

cultural populations is rarely of more psychological interest than between the

people of two small groups within the two areas (p. 228). This investigation took

place within the socially constructed world within which specific groups of aikido

practitioners trained.

2. Methodology

2.1. Multiple case study design and mixed-methods methodology

A multiple-case study comparative research design using mixed methods was used

to conduct this investigation. The multiple-case study design accommodated an

essential feature of this study } across case analysis. Yin (1984) stated that in the

multiple case study design, the use of multiple sources of data aids in the generation

of more convincing and accurate findings. The comparative nature of the

investigations research design was facilitated by being structured within a format of

constantcomparative analysis (Glasser & Strauss, 1967).

Berry and his colleagues (1992) have stated that for cross-cultural comparative

studies, an important strategy is to use more than one method of measurement(p. 223). Both qualitative and quantitative data gathering and analysis strategies

were used in this comparative investigation. Data were gathered using in-depth

C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741761 743


4/21

interviews with participants (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992;

Yin, 1984), participantobservation (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Glesne & Peshkin,

1992; Yin, 1984), direct, structured observation (Yin, 1984; LeCompte & Preissle,

1993) semantic differentials (Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1957), and ademographic questionnaire. Berry and his colleagues (1992) have asserted that by

using more than one method of measurement, one can have more confidence in a

finding (p. 223).

2.2. Semantic differentials

The semantic differential (Osgood et al., 1957) is a quantitative tool which

measures the meaning of concepts. The semantic differential is a fitting tool to use in

gathering data cross-culturally, particularly between populations speaking different

languages. One reason for this is that the semantic differential utilizes the principles

of synesthesia. Synesthesia is the act of using descriptors from one sensory mode to

describe a sensation experienced through another sense. For example, when someone

says, Thats a hot suit. when referring to the color and style of someones outfit,

they are using the principles of synesthesia. Instruction in aikido uses a variety of

sensory modes to convey teachings} visual, tactile, aural, kinesthetic, etc. Because

practitioners acquire information about aikido from a variety of sensory modes, the

semantic differential was chosen as a tool to gather data on this topic.

The concepts measured in this study were deliberately selected for purposes of

comparison}

to compare the manner in which two different cultural groupsstructure the meaning of a shared activity, aikido. Concepts were also selected to

evaluate participants perceptions of how members of the other group perceives

aikido. The concepts whose meaning was measured were: (a) Ki is; (b) Aikido

is; (c) Aikido practitioners in the United States think aikido is; and (d) Aikido

practitioners in Japan think aikido is.

Twelve descriptive scales were used to generate a semantic differential for the four

concepts. The descriptive scales, comprised of pairs of polar adjectives, were selected

from scales published in Osgood et al. (1957). Scales were selected for use in this

study based upon several criteria, the primary criteria being that the scales were

relevant to the martial arts-related concepts under investigation. Additionally, scaleswere given selection priority if they had also been shown to account for a large

amount of variance in previous studies presented in Osgood et al. (1957).

2.3. Back-translation

In cross-cultural comparative studies translation is a factor which must be

addressed. This research project used the back-translation technique described by

Brislin (1980). In this study, back-translation consisted of a bilingual person

translating the tool from one language (English) to another (Japanese), after which

another bilingual person independently translated the tool back to the originallanguage. The first and third versions of the documents were then compared for

consistency. This technique has the advantage of decentering the material away



5/21

from the semantic bias of the original language. The result of the process of

decentering means that the research project is not centered around any one culture

or language (Brislin, 1980, p. 433). The questions used to guide interviews, as well

as the semantic differentials used in this study were back-translated.

2.4. Participants

All participants in the study were adult practitioners of aikido in dojos in Japan

and the United States. Several of the practitioners in each culture who participated in

this study were instructors. In each culture, data was gathered only from participants

who were native to that culture; for example, in Japan data was gathered only

among Japanese aikido practitioners, and in the United States only from American

practitioners. Data was not collected among non-Japanese aikido practitionerstraining in Japan, nor among non-Americans training in dojos in the United States.

2.5. Quantitative population

The quantitative population in this study consisted of aikido practitioners who

trained at dojos in the research settings, and who volunteered to participate in filling

out a semantic differential packet. One hundred twenty aikido practitioners training

at 12 dojos in the Japanese research setting completed the quantitative measures. In

the research area in the United states, 128 aikido practitioners training at nine dojos

participated in completing the forms. A minimum of 120 participants training ineach culture was required to maintain the statistical integrity of the semantic

differential.

2.6. Qualitative interview participants

In-depth, structured interviews with aikido practitioners were conducted in Japan

and the United States. The majority of interview participants were drawn from

among practitioners training in aikido dojos which served as the participant

observation sites in the study. After a minimum of two months of training withparticipants, individual practitioners were approached if their beliefs, attitudes

and training practices were judged to be representative of other individuals at the

same level of expertise training in dojos in that research setting. In this sense,

interview participants were selected purposively. In several cases, instructors

teaching at sites in the research area where systematic observation was conducted

were also approached for interviews. All practitioners who were asked volunteered

to participate in the interviewing process.

Interviews with Japanese participants were conducted in Japanese. Although the

primary researcher is functionally fluent in spoken Japanese, interviews in Japan

preceded with a native Japanese speaker present to ensure that the flow and focus ofthe inquiry was maintained. The interviews were audio-taped, translated in the case

of the Japanese interviews, and transcribed to text for analysis.



6/21

Participants possessed a variety of demographic characteristics and experiences.

Ten Japanese interview participants, eight males and two females, participated in

interviews between June and August, 1995. All were actively engaged in aikido

training at aikido dojos at the time the interviews were conducted. Their ages rangedfrom 20 to 55 years. One participant had been training for just over one year, while

two others had been training for over 40 years. Participants had aikido rankings

ranging from fourth kyu (pre-black belt ranking) to eighth dan (black belt ranking).

There were three instructors, all of whom were male, among Japanese interview

participants.

Seven participants, one of whom was female, were interviewed in the research area

in the United States. They ranged in age from 20 to 50. Their aikido experience

ranged from slightly less than one year to more than 25, and they had ranks ranging

from fifth kyu to fourth dan. Three of the participants in the United States were male

instructors. One had seven, one five, and the other three years teaching experience.

3. Findings

This section presents the findings of the study. The findings concerning the

instructional emphasis observed and experienced while training in aikido dojos is

presented first. This is followed by a section describing practitioners perceptions of

aikido-related concepts, and a comparison of these perceptions across cultures. The

implications of the findings are addressed in the discussion section.

3.1. Instructional style and content emphasis observed at the participant

observation sites

Participant observation was conducted on two sites simultaneously for a three

month period in the Japanese research area. Participant observation occurred at one

site in the United States for a total period of six months. Dojos were selected for

participant observation if they (a) provided training in Aikikai-affiliated aikido,

(b) granted access, (c) were accessible to the researcher in terms of commuting time,

and (d) were representative of aikido dojos in the research areas. For this investigation,participant observation included involvement in all aspects of training, maintenance,

and after training activities both inside and outside the dojo. Field notes were taken to

record observations, experiences, and conversations with informants which occurred

before, during, and after training sessions. The following section provides a brief

description of the teaching emphasis observed and experienced at each of the

participant observation sites. Pseudonyms are used to refer to all persons and places.

3.2. Participant observation sites in Japan

3.2.1. Akiyama dojoAkiyama dojo was a small dojo, both in size of training area and number of

students. Typically, 810 students trained during each of the three-night a week



7/21

classes. Classes were very structured, beginning with a bow to shomen (the front of

the dojo), continuing through a short meditation session, group warm-ups, and

specific instruction in and practice of aikido techniques. All activities at Akiyama

dojo, including partner selection and technique training, were scripted, evenritualized, and Akiyama sensei (teacher; instructor) insured that the behavioral

patterns were strictly adhered to.

Akiyama sensei placed emphasis on kokyu ho (breathing method) during training.

A seated, meditative version of the exercise was performed at the beginning and end

of each training session. During kokyu ho, Akiyama sensei instructed students to

keep their posture straight, their chins pulled in, and their breath slow: When

inhaling, concentrate on the incoming breath, bringing ki energy into your tanden

(center point), then hold it there. When exhaling, force ki out through every part of

your body; do not try to keep ki in your body. We were instructed to literally

watch our breathing (Fieldnotes, June, 1995).

Akiyama sensei also provided specific instruction on the proper positioning of

the hands, feet, and hips when performing aikido movements. For example, we were

told to hold the bokken (a wooden training sword) with our hands on the top of the

hilt, gripping only with the two smallest fingers. Hold the bokken straight in front of

you, the butt two fists from your hara (belly). He stated that the cut had to originate

in the hara, and that ki should flow through the bokken. He insisted that the only

way to get a smooth, fast, yet powerful cut was to concentrate kithrough the tip of

the ken (colloquial for bokken). The hips are also important, because speed and

power come from the hara (Fieldnotes, June 3, 1995). These comments exemplifyAkiyama senseis consistent emphasis on ki control and extension as it related to

coordinating breathing and bodily movement, as well as the precise manner in which

he gave specific instruction.

3.2.2. Sakamoto dojo

Sakamoto sensei, the instructor at the second participant observation site in

Japan, also placed emphasis upon aspects of spirit and energy in aikido, although

such imagery was employed in a context of educating toward practical applica-

tion of aikido principles and techniques to martial situations. Approximately

2530 practitioners participated in each of the twice-a-week training sessions. Iobserved that the aikido practiced at Sakamoto dojo was sharp, clean, and in many

ways harder than the aikido observed at the majority of dojos visited in the

Japanese research setting. Although demonstrations of and instruction in the

performance of specific aikido techniques was provided by Sakamoto sensei, the

practice sessions were less formally structured than at Akiyama dojo, and students

freely chose partners with whom they trained at mutually agreed-upon levels of

rigor.

Occasionally, individuals would receive personal instruction from Sakamoto

sensei during a training session. For instance, once while instructing me to work on

body movements, he told me to Move with your whole body, not just your feet.Dont show your opponent where you are moving, dont show him your heart. Feel

from hara (Fieldnotes, June 10, 1995). He continued giving individualized



8/21

instruction during pair-work, telling me to Look at the eyes (of your partner), only

at the eyes. Dont look at the weapon or your hands. Eyes. Capture the spirit of your

opponent (Fieldnotes, June 10, 1995). As his comment illustrates, although

Sakamoto sensei taught within a context which emphasized martial engagement, hedid occasionally refer to spirit to illustrate his instructional points.

3.3. The American participant observation site: White Hall dojo

At the American participant observation site, labeled White Hall dojo because

there was more than one regular instructor, there was an easily discernable script

of dojo procedures for activities (such as opening and closing class procedures,

partner selection, and technique demonstration). Unlike instruction in the Japanese

settings, however, there was no recognizable systematic approach to teaching specific

techniques or movements. This coincides with the two American instructors

descriptions of their teaching styles as idea-driven.

Both Frank and William, the two primary instructors at the dojo, taught from a

non-scripted, thematic framework which emphasized the basic principles of aikido.

As William stated during an interview: Usually for teaching, I just come in with an

idea. And we explore the idea, and we try to make as many connections as possible

with the various techniques based on an idea (Interview, November 8, 1995, p. 9).

Among the ideas around which training sessions frequently revolved at White Hall

dojo were: being centered, extension, establishing and maintaining a connection with

the training partner, and circularity.Additionally, both instructors placed emphasis upon the application of aikido

principles for martial effectiveness. For example, while giving an explanation to the

class, Frank stated that, Aikido must be able to work against anybody from any

martial art. Aikido is a martial art. Otherwise youre just dancing around and feeling

good (Fieldnotes, January 6, 1996). This statement reflects an instructional style

aimed at generating an understanding of aikido as a martial activity, and not

primarily as a practice designed for psychological or spiritual development.

White Hall dojo instructors rarely spoke of energy when providing explanations,

and they were never heard to mention ki during a training session. Instead, their

explanations generally focused on the principles upon which aikidos dynamicmovements were founded, as exemplified in their utilization of terms such as

centering, and connection. The instructors taught martial practicality in a

manner which did not deny, but certainly did not give primacy to, psychological or

spiritual considerations.

3.4. Practitioners perceptions of aikido-related concepts: integrated findings

from the semantic differential and interview data

This project utilized the constant comparative method (Glasser & Strauss, 1967);

analysis of interview and participant observation data were on-going throughout thestudy. The findings generated from the analysis of these data were integrated with

the empirical findings which emerged from the analysis of the semantic differential



9/21

data. The findings generated from the analysis of the semantic differential data

provide a structured representation of participants understandings of aikido-related

concepts, while the qualitative findings generate a fuller, more detailed description of

participants dynamic and personal understandings of aikido.A principle component analysis (factor analysis) with verimax rotation was

applied to analyze the semantic differential data. The data collected from aikido

practitioners in Japan and the United States were treated separately, and items

loading at 0.60 or higher were retained to represent the factors extracted from the

analysis. The findings are presented below.

3.5. Concept 1: Ki is

Ki is typically translated into English as spirit, mind, will, and intrinsic

or inner energy (ONeill, 1973; Ratti & Westerbrook, 1973). Three distinct factors

for ki is were extracted from the Japanese semantic differential data, while only

two factors were extracted from the American data. This indicates that Japanese

practitioners structured their understanding of ki in a more complex manner than

American practitioners.

An examination of the items comprising the factors for each group reveals further

differences in how members of the two cultural groups constructed meaning for the

same concept. For clarity, the items comprising a factor are not presented here as

polar adjective pairs, but as single adjectives, in accordance with the positive or

negative sign extracted during analysis. It should be also noted that the first factorextracted during analysis typically serves as the central factor around which the

meaning for a particular concept is structured. The first factor extracted from the

Japanese data consisted of the five items kind, graceful, peaceful, soft, and

rounded. These items connoted a sense of ethical fluidness, characterizing

harmony. The second factor consisted of the items strong, deep and active,

and the third factor of the items heavy and tenacious (Table 1).

The first factor extracted from data gathered among participants in the United

States consisted of the items cruel, ferocious, hard and tenacious. The

connotative quality of this factor was intrusive, even aggressive. No factor extracted

from the Japanese data carried a similar quality of meaning. The second factorcontained the items beautiful, graceful, strong, deep, tenacious, and

active. The two factors extracted from the American data seemed to exist on a

semantic continuum; a continuum which ranged from aggression, to a sense of

aesthetic movement.

The meaning of ki was less differentiated by the American aikido practitioners

than by their Japanese counterparts, indicating that American practitioners had a

less complex understanding of the concept. This is not surprising, as the kanji

(Chinese character) ki is found in words and phrases used everyday in Japanese

society; for example, the word for weather, tenki, contains the kanji for heaven

and ki. The analysis of the Japanese interview data also revealed that ki plays animportant role in Japanese participants conceptions of aikido. For example, a

female aikidoist stated, If you dont have harmonious ki, you cant do aikido



10/21

(Participant interview, June 29, 1995, p. 3). Not only does her statement illuminate

the central importance of the practice and philosophy of harmony to aikido,

but it contextualizes this idea in the concept of ki. For English speakers, however,

ki is a foreign concept. Although Americans training in aikido have more

opportunities to refine their understanding of ki than do non-aikido practicing

Americans, the lesser differentiation of the concept among American participants

may simply be due to their relative unfamiliarity with the concept. It was also

found that in the educational settings American instructors referred to ki lessfrequently during training sessions than did instructors teaching in the Japanese

settings.

Table 1

Results of the principle component analysis of the semantic differential data by culture (Concept: ki is)

Factors

1 2 3

Loadings

Japan

Beautiful/ugly 0.43 0.59 0.35

Kind/cruel 0.74 0.20 0.18

Graceful/awkward 0.81 0.25 0.20

Peaceful/ferocious 0.80 0.14 0.01

Hard/soft 0.85 0.23 0.01

Heavy/light 0.08 0.05 0.78

Strong/weak 0.40 0.63 0.15

Deep/shallow 0.16 0.85

0.06Tenacious/yielding 0.12 0.09 0.69

Active/passive 0.22 0.74 0.14

Complex/simple 0.14 0.39 0.50

Angular/rounded 0.81 0.13 0.04

Factors

1 2

Loadings

USA

Beautiful/ugly 0.35 0.72

Kind/cruel

0.76 0.37Graceful/awkward 0.26 0.72

Peaceful/ferocious 0.72 0.26

Hard/soft 0.72 0.20

Heavy/light 0.53 0.05

Strong/weak 0.25 0.64


Tenacious/yielding 0.69 0.03

Active/passive 0.19 0.67

Complex/simple 0.56 0.07

Angular/rounded 0.55 0.36



11/21

3.6. Concept 2: Aikido is

Among the concepts whose meaning was measured using the semantic differential,

the structure and connotative quality for the concept aikido is were the mostsimilar between cultural groups. Three factors were extracted from the semantic

differential data gathered in Japan, although one factor loaded above 0.60 on only a

single item. Three distinct factors were extracted from the American data. This

indicates that American practitioners understandings of aikido were structured with

slightly greater differentiation than their Japanese counterparts.

The slightly greater differentiation with which American participants structured

their understandings of aikido may be related to the difference between the

educational backgrounds of the two cultural groups. Analysis of the demographic

data revealed that American participants averaged a greater amount of post-

secondary education}

about three years for Americans, and one year for Japanese

participants. It is also interesting to note that 21.1% of American participants

held degrees at the masters level or above, while only 1.7% of Japanese practitioners

held degrees at a similar level. In addition, informants and interview participants in

the United States research setting reported having done a great deal of reading

about aikido philosophy, and many admitted having libraries of literature

about aikido } they actively studied about aikido in addition to training. As one

American instructor stated, aikido attracts people who are well-educated

(Fieldnotes, November 16, 1995). These findings may account for the slightly

greater complexity with which American participants structured their under-standings of aikido.

The first factor extracted from the Japanese data contained the five items

beautiful, kind, graceful, peaceful, and rounded. This factor is very

similar to the harmony factor for the concept Ki is. The first factor extracted

from the American data contained the items beautiful, graceful, and strong,

connoting a sense of powerful aesthetic movement.

The beautiful and graceful items around which practitioners training at

aikido dojos in both cultural research settings structured their understandings of

aikido may be accounted for by its universal representation as a means of personal

development emphasizing harmony. Aikido is consistently referred to in English asthe way of harmony (Ueshiba, 1984) (Table 2).

There were differences in nuance, however, between the second factors extracted

from the data gathered among the two cultural groups. The second factor extracted

from the Japanese data contained the items heavy, strong and active,

connoting a quality of strength and assertion. The second factor extracted from the

American data was comprised of the items cruel, ferocious, tenacious, and

active. These items connote a sense of wild, unrestrained aggression.

Although the structure of the meaning for both groups were similar, differences in

nuance were apparent. The differences between the manner in which the two cultural

groups constructed meaning for aikido become clearer through an examinationof the qualitative interview data. Among the distinguishing properties which

Japanese participants consistently used to characterized aikido were harmony, ki, an



12/21

emphasis on non-competition, and a recognition of aikido as an activity of personaldevelopment.

Harmony emerged from the Japanese interview data, as it did from the

semantic differential data, as the central and defining property of aikido for

Japanese practitioners. As one sensei stated, In aikido you harmonize with your

opponent. There are no unreasonable or excessive movements. You harmonize with

your opponent naturally (Interview, July 2, 1995, p. 1). Harmony, practitioners

asserted, is physically expressed in the circularity of movements in aikido, and the

movements exemplify aikidos philosophical position of unforced, naturally fluid

interaction.

Several properties which served to structure American participants under-standings of aikido also consistently rose to the theoretical surface during analysis of

the American interview data. These characteristic representations were: aikido as a

Table 2

Results of the principle component analysis of the semantic differential data by culture (Concept 2:

Aikido is)

Factors

1 2 3

Loadings

Japan


Kind/cruel 0.80 0.05 0.02



Hard/soft 0.56 0.33 0.22

Heavy/light 0.01 0.61 0.06


0.10Deep/shallow 0.51 0.47 0.03

Tenacious/yielding 0.13 0.07 0.89




USA


Kind/cruel 0.32 0.62 0.001



Hard/soft

0.15 0.32 0.65Heavy/light 0.17 0.48 0.29

Strong/weak 0.74 0.22 0.02

Deep/shallow 0.57 0.18 0.04







13/21

martial art, aikido as tradition, technique as philosophy manifest, and aikido as a

means of self-development. The most prominently represented property among

American participants descriptions of their understandings of aikido was a

recognition of it as a martial art. The central position of this property convergeswith the aggression factor which was consistently extracted from the American

semantic differential data. William, an instructor at White Hall dojo, was very

straightforward in describing his conception of the nature of aikido.

William: I think that, well first, aikido is a martial art, and I want there to be no

confusion. It is a martial art, and when youre starting to learn it you need to learn it

as a martial art. (Interview, November 8, 1995, p. 15)

The manner in which William expressed his understandings of the nature of

aikido exemplifies the emphasis on martial practicality found in training sessions in

the American settings. The practice of aikido in the research areas in the

United States was grounded in issues of physical defense against attack, and this

martial aspect emerged strongly from American participants representations of

aikido.

3.7. Concept 3: Aikido practitioners in the United States think aikido is

Three factors were extracted for this concept from the data collected from both

cultural groups. From the Japanese data, the first factor contained the seven itemsbeautiful, kind, graceful, soft, deep, complex and rounded, connot-

ing an sense of profound, gentle harmony. The second factor was comprised of the

items ferocious, heavy and tenacious, connoting a sense of persistent wildness

approaching aggression. The third factor contained the items strong and active,

connoting assertiveness.

The first factor extracted from the data gathered among aikido practitioners in the

United States contained five items: ferocious, hard, heavy, tenacious, and

active. This factor, central to structuring American practitioners understanding

of concept three, characterizes aggression. The second factor contained the items

beautiful, graceful, and deep, and the third factor loaded above 0.60 on thesingle item complex (Table 3).

Although the difference in the complexity of the meaning of this concept between

the two cultural groups was slight, the quality of the first and central factors

extracted from the data between groups was very different. Japanese aikido

practitioners structured their understandings of how American aikido practitioners

perceive aikido around a central factor of harmony, although there was a secondary

element of aggression. American practitioners structured their understandings of

how American aikido practitioners (the cultural group to whom they belong) per-

ceive aikido around a central factor of aggression. The quality which characterized

the first factor for each cultural group was polarized in the opposite semanticdirectionharmony for Japanese practitioners and aggression for practitioners in the

United States.



14/21

3.8. Concept 4: Aikido practitioners in Japan think aikido is

Three factors were extracted from the Japanese data for this concept, yet only two

clear factors were extracted from the American data. This indicates a differentiation

in the complexity of the structure of meaning } Japanese participants perceived of

Japanese aikidoists understanding aikido in a more complex manner than American

participants perceived Japanese aikidoists understanding aikido.

Factor one extracted from the Japanese data was comprised of six items:

beautiful, kind, graceful, peaceful, soft and rounded. Again, in com-

bination these items connotate harmony. The second factor contained the two items

heavy and strong, which express a feeling of strength or muscularity. The finalfactor contained the items deep and complex, connoting a sense of knowledge

or wisdom (Table 4).

Table 3

Results of the principle component analysis of the semantic differential data by culture (Concept 3: Aikido

practitioners in the United States think Aikido is)

Factors

1 2 3

Loadings

Japan


Kind/cruel 0.62 0.54 0.04



Hard/soft 0.77 0.40 0.05

Heavy/light 0.03 0.67 0.08

Strong/weak 0.18 0.25 0.80Deep/shallow 0.67 0.06 0.38





USA


Kind/cruel 0.50 0.53 0.12



Hard/soft 0.76

0.22 0.07Heavy/light 0.71 0.26 0.02

Strong/weak 0.36 0.57 0.45

Deep/shallow 0.02 0.74 0.03







15/21

For the United States data, six items comprised factor one: cruel, ferocious,

hard, heavy, tenacious, active, and complex. With the exception of the

item complex, this factor represents a sense of massive, invasive aggression, even

violence. The second factor, comprised of the items beautiful, graceful,

strong and deep, connoted sense of aesthetically distinguished, fluid power.

Hence, in addition to the wild aggression present in the first factor, a sense of wise

aesthetic was also connoted.

As was the case for concept three, the connotative directionality of the itemscomprising the first factor extracted from each cultural groups data existed at

opposite poles } harmony for Japanese, aggressiveness for the Americans. These

Table 4

Results of the principle component analysis of the semantic differential data by culture (Concept 4: Aikido

practitioners in Japan think aikido is)

Factors

1 2 3

Loadings

Japan


Kind/cruel 0.60 0.20 0.48



Hard/soft 0.79 0.14 0.05

Heavy/light 0.01 0.83 0.001

Strong/weak 0.28 0.68 0.20Deep/shallow 0.28 0.36 0.60





Factors

1 2

Loadings

USA

Beautiful/ugly

0.20 0.74Kind/cruel 0.71 0.34

Graceful/awkward 0.18 0.76

Peaceful/ferocious 0.80 0.31

Hard/soft 0.78 0.003

Heavy/light 0.71 0.17



Tenacious/yielding 0.66 0.06

Active/passive 0.67 0.26

Complex/simple 0.60 0.06

Angular/rounded 0.27 0.58



16/21

findings consistently emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data as well }

Japanese aikido practitioners structured their understandings of aikido around a

property of harmony, whereas American aikido practitioners represented their

understandings of aikido-related concepts with a property connoting aggressionand emphasized aikidos martial aspect.

4. Discussion

As the above findings make clear, the meaning generated to represent aikido-

related concepts was different between cultures. Within Geertzs (1983) theoretical

framework, differences in conceptual representation are affected by differences in the

contexts within which they were formed. For example, the symbols, gestures, words,

and explanatory examples which are available for use in describing an activity in one

culture are different from those available in another. Additionally, the elements

available for descriptive use are patterned differently between cultures. There are

many forces influencing the meaning generated to represent an activity in any given

culture} language, social structure, and mass media are obvious examples. In this

study, investigation was focused on discovering whether differences between the

instructional emphasis and explanatory methods utilized by instructors in the

Japanese and American settings existed, and, once discovered, upon examining how

these differences were reflected in practitioners representations of the properties of

aikido.

4.1. Instructors as mediators of culture in the meaning-making process

In the case of a physically and psychologically intimate activity such as aikido,

interpersonal interaction, including the language and manner of instruction and

practice, is an especially potent force affecting meaning-making. Rogers (1983)

stated that individuals are important channels of diffusion. As channeling agents,

aikido instructors are active in selecting and interpreting aikido techniques,

principles, and philosophy. Instructors are functioning within a single cultural

context while they represent aikido to their students, and are thus limited in thechoice of tools (words, modes of interaction, available explanatory examples) from

which they can draw. Instructors represent their interpretations of aikido to their

students from within the meaning-making system of the culture within which they

were socialized and function, and the values which predominate in that culture are

reflected in the instructors words and actions. In this manner, culture, channeled

through aikido instructors personal understandings and interpretations, is the

primary factor influencing practitioners perceptions of aikido and themselves as

aikido practitioners.

Given that the Western mind typically thinks of martial arts as a kind of Asian

version of such fighting sports as boxing or wrestling (Hershey, 1994, p. 53), it is notsurprising that factors connoting aggression were consistently extracted from the

analysis of the semantic differential and interview data gathered among aikido



17/21

practitioners in the United States. The aggression construct was prominently and

consistently used by American participants to describe aikido-related concepts.

America is generally understood as being a society within which violence is not

uncommon, and this conception is continually being reinforced by the medias dailyrepresentation of images of violence in its reports of occurrences in the United

States. In addition, the prominent use of the aggression concept by American

participants was almost certainly influenced by the manner in which martial arts are

typically represented in the mass-media in the United States, exemplified in the

recent popular and violent movies starring the aikidoist Steven Segal. Aikido

instructors in the American research setting, however, while recognizing and

teaching aikido as a martial art, were never observed to deliberately teach

aggression. A statement by Frank, an instructor at White Hall dojo, clarifies the

subtle usefulness of aggression:

I think that by studying aggression and resolution..., if all you ever do is deny

aggression, you know nothing about it. So by putting yourself in situations you can

study yourself. If I come at you with a shomen uchi(overhead strike) very, very easy,

very light, you can do a very easy non-aggressive ikkyo (a first-control technique).

But I turn up the heat, and start getting stronger, and harder and harder, and your

aggressive nature starts to rise to the surface. So now your practice is to learn to

loose that aggressive nature. (Interview, December 12, 1995, p. 10).

As Franks comment indicates, aikido was taught and practiced in the United

States research setting simultaneously as a martial art and form of personal

development. In such a setting, training occurs from within a context which neitherdenies nor encourages aggression, but rather utilizes it as a means for personal

development.

Instructors, working within a cultural framework which they and their students

are familiar with, serve to actively shape the patterns by which their students come to

structure meaning for concepts. American instructors for example, generated a

training atmosphere which emphasized martial practicality, and the analysis of

American practitioners perceptions of aikido-related concepts reflected the values of

this climate.

In Japan, instructors tended to emphasize social harmony, a cultural value which

was also reflected in the analysis of the data concerning Japanese participantsperceptions of aikido. In the training setting, this value became manifest in activities

such as the cooperative participation of all members during the after-training dojo

clean-up effort. Another aspect of this value was also represented by stressing that

the individual attempt to adapt him or herself to the situationto blend with the

various circumstantial forces } and not try to change the situation to fit his or her

intentions. The following example, observed while performing systematic observa-

tion at a dojo in the Japanese research setting, also illustrates the non-discursive,

kinesetic teaching style readily observable in Japan. The instructor, a female sensei,

noticed a pair of students having trouble while the class practiced the aikido

technique she had just demonstrated. She walked to the pair, stopped, and stoodnear them. She stood watching them slowly performing the technique. At a

particular point in their movements, she situated herself next to the student



18/21

performing the technique, and made her posture similar to his. Noticing the sensei,

they stopped in mid-technique. Then, while the students watched, she adjusted her

position. As the student adjusted his position to match hers, his training partner lost

his balance, and he followed through and finished the technique smiling. Bothstudents then sat down in seiza (a seated posture) and bowed to the instructor, who,

after performing a standing bow, continued wandering through the dojo, observing

pairs of students work. She had never spoken a word. (Fieldnotes, July 9, 1995).

The above examples illustrate how aikido instructors in both cultures reflect

cultural values in a manner which can serve to shape practitioners understandings of

aikido. The interpretive analysis of the findings from this study indicate that there is

an influential relationship between differences in the instructional emphasis in

Japanese and American aikido dojos and between-group differences in the structure

and quality of meaning for the aikido-related concepts.

4.2. A common pattern across cultures: consistency in speculating

about others thoughts

A within- and between-group comparison of the patterns of assigning meaning to

concepts three and four illuminates the assumptions made across cultures, and thus

addresses a deep and salient concern for the psychology of cross-cultural

interactions. As discussed in the previous section, cultural forces, represented within

and mediated through the instructional setting, exert an influence which can

reasonably account for differences in the structure and flavor of perceptions ofaikido-related concepts. A comparative examination of findings from concepts three

and four, however, indicates that the cultural context within which individuals

function also serves to mediate their perceptions of how persons outside of that

context understand a common activity.

An examination of the findings from the analysis of semantic differential data for

concepts three and four reveals that both Japanese and American participants

perceive that practitioners in the other culture understand aikido in the same way

which they think practitioners in their own culture understand aikido. Yet both

cultural groups, similarly assuming that the other group thinks as their group

does, are mistaken. Japanese practitioners perceive that both Japanese and Americanpractitioners think of aikido as centered around a construct of harmony, while

American practitioners perceive that both Japanese and American aikido practi-

tioners understandings of aikido was centered around a factor of aggression. These

findings indicate that what we believe an activity means to persons in different

cultures, and what it actually means to them can be quite different.

Aikidoists, like all persons functioning within a specific culture, interpret and form

meanings for activities within a cultural system. The meaning-making conventions of

the cultural system place conceptual limitations upon its members. Aikido practi-

tioners, enculturated into and training within a specific cultural setting, were unable

to accurately depict how aikidoists in another culture conceived of aikido}

theyassumed their counterparts understandings were the same as their own. This finding

supports the assertion that even when conceptualizing about a non-discursive, bodily



19/21

experienced cultural activity, people constantly think from the culture within

which they have been socialized and function. People tend to have difficulty in

conceiving how others may perceive of the same activity. Due to the difficulty, and

arguably the impossibility, of disembedding ourselves from the meaning-makingsystem of our primary culture, we assume that others perceive of a shared portion

of the world in the same way as we do. This finding, which emerged with clarity

and power, is important because it illustrates a common psychological pattern used

to generate conceptions of how persons from other cultural backgrounds perceive of

common activities. At a structural level, both cultural groups shared the speculative

pattern of assuming that their counterparts in the other culture understood the

concepts in the same way as themselves.

4.3. Cross-cultural assumptions of understandings for shared, non-discursive activities

The finding that both groups assumed that their counterparts training in the

other culture perceived of aikido in a manner similar to practitioners in their own

culture may be due to the non-discursive nature of training in aikido. Aikido is a

martial art, a bodily activity, and it is reasonable to assume that the physical

experience of training would be the same regardless of culture. My own training in

aikido dojos in both Japan and the United States, as well as reports by informants

who have trained in both cultures, necessitate the assertion that the bodily experience

of performing aikido techniques is virtually identical in both cultures. Donovan

Waite, a prominent American aikido instructor in New York who has trained underinternationally respected instructors in a variety of cultural settings, concurs. When

asked whether he observed the nature of aikido practice to change as he traveled

from culture to culture, he replied, The culture makes the practice different, because

its mentally different . . . . Aikido technique itself does not seem to differ from culture

to culture (Waite, 1996, p. 12). It is perhaps because practitioners assume that the

physical experience of performing aikido techniques is the same regardless of culture

that they think their counterparts in other cultures conceptualize aikido-related

concepts in the same manner as themselves.

4.4. Conclusion: Implications for education

The results from this investigation indicate that differences exist between the

instructional styles and points of emphasis in aikido dojos in Japan and the United

States, and that the meaning which aikido has to practitioners training in these two

cultural settings is quite different. A comparative analysis of the specific structuring

of the meaning of aikido-related concepts among practitioners in America and Japan

sheds light upon the results of the process of transferring knowledge across cultures.

Cultural activities are value-laden, and as the activities move from one culture to

another, the value changes. In the case of the example used in this study, newunderstandings for aikido were created within the cultural context of dojos in the

United States. American aikido instructors, functioning within a context of inter-



20/21

personal learning, were a central culture-mediating force influencing the meaning

which practitioners in that culture generated for aikido-related concepts.

The finding that practitioners in both cultures tended to think that their

counterparts in the other culture perceived of aikido in the same manner aspractitioners in their own culture has broad implications for education and training

in cross-cultural situations. There can, for example, be no certainty that an

educational practice demonstrated to be an effective teaching method in one cultural

setting will be effective in producing similar outcomes in other cultural settings. For

example, an instructional strategy which has been shown to be effective in generating

an understanding of a subject, say reading, in an educational setting in Argentina

may be perceived quite differently, and therefore be quite ineffective, in a classroom

in Morocco. The ineffectiveness of the strategy may not be due to any fault in the

technique, but rather to how it is perceived in the new cultural setting. School

children (and teachers) in Morocco may even learn to dread reading class as a result

of the indiscriminant implementation of an educational strategy shown to be

effective in Argentina.

Interpretation of the results of this study within an educational framework

illuminates the likelihood of our being far less effective in communicating meaning

cross-culturally than we assume. As educators, we must be careful in the

assumptions we make concerning shared understandings, even at the non-discursive

level: what we think we are communicating may be quite different from what is being

received. Cultures are sharing practices at a greater rate now than they have ever

before in history. The results of this inquiry indicate, however, that cultural groupswhich share the experience of a cultural activity do not necessarily understand or

represent the experience similarly.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Kenneth Cushner at Kent State

University, who provided valuable advice and suggestions on the construction of this

paper.

References

Back, A., & Kim, D. (1984). The future course of the Eastern martial arts. Quest, 36, 714.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segal, M. A., & Dasne, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research

and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berry, J. W. (1980). Introduction to methodology. In Triandis, & Berry, Handbook of cross-cultural

psychology: Vol. 2, methodology (pp. 128). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Triandis, & Berry,

Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 2, methodology (pp. 389443). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Columbus, P., & Rice, D. (1991). Psychological research on the martial arts: An addendum to Fullers

review. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 64, 127135.

Crawford, A. (1992,). The martial yen: American participation in the aikido tradition. Journal of Asian

Martial Arts, 1(4), 2843.

Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.



21/21

Glasser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research .

New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. London: Longman

Publishing Group.Hershey, L. (1994). Shotokan karate as non-discursive intercultural exchange. Journal of Asian Martial

Arts, 3(3), 5361.

Hunter, D., & Whitten, P. (1976). Encyclopedia of anthropology. New York: Harper & Rowe.

LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research ((2nd ed).).

New York: Academic Press.

Min, K. (1979). Martial arts in the American educational setting. Quest, 31(1), 97106.

ONeill, P. G. (1973). Essential kanji. New York: Weatherhill.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University of

Illinois Press.

Pranin, S. A. (1991). The aiki news encyclopedia of aikido. Tokyo, Japan: Aiki News.

Ratti, O., & Westerbrook, A. (1973). Secrets of the samurai: The martial arts of feudal Japan. Rutland, VT:

Charles E. Tuttle Co.Rogers, E. M. (1983). The diffusion of Innovations ((3rd ed).). New York: The Free Press.

Saotome, M. (1993). Aikido and the Harmony of Nature. Boston: Shombala Publications Inc.

Trulson, M. (1986). Martial arts training: A novel cure for juvenile delinquency. Human Relations,

39(12), 11311140.

Ueshiba, K. (1984). The Spirit of Aikido. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

Waite, D. (1996). Interview. Aikido Today Magazine, 10(1), 913.

Wertz, S. K. (1984). Review of the zen way to martial arts. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 11, 94103.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.


Aikido Article

Documents

Transcript of Aikido Article