11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture
Loyalty in the dojo

Listening to Iain recent interview on Whistle Kicks Martial Arts Radio, reminded me about my old article on loyalty, and different approaches In dojo's around the world. I had a pleasure to meet instructors who always encourage to search outside of our style. Also I met people who desperately was trying to block their students from attending any events outside their group. My thoughts on the subject below.

http://wp.me/p4DDnu-e5

Kind regard

Les

Phattkev
Phattkev's picture

I would have thought it's like anything else. If your instructor is confident that you are being taught correctly, then I'm sure they will be fine with exploring new stuff. If, conversely, they don't have that confidence, they would be worried you will find that out and find better instruction elsewhere. 

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

Hi Phattkev

You are right insecurity is a big part in trying to stop students to explore other possibilities, but not always sometimes instructors getting bit possesive and treating students like property. I seen this in UK. 

Kind regards

Les

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

It’s easy to twist most virtuous things into things which harm and control. Loyalty to those who have done right by you is undoubtedly good. It’s in our own interests, and the interest of the group / society to which we belong, for us to support those who support us. To care for those who care for us.

Once a relationship is no longer reciprocal then it is harmful. In societies past, the person who contributed little but took lots was considered detrimental to the health of the group. If you were not loyal (i.e. you put your own short-term self-interest ahead of the wider interests of the group) then that would be harmful to the whole group and untimately everyone in that group.

The leader of the tribe needed to be loyal to the group. He or she would ensure that the group's interests were served and their needs met. The members of the tribe needed to be loyal to the leader and other members. That way everyone plays their part in a way that benefits all.

If the leader only cared about themselves, then they are being disloyal to the group, and hence, in time, they can expect disloyalty in return (history is full of examples of this). Conversely, if a group member was disloyal to the wider group, then the group would be disloyal in return (i.e. banishment, outlawry, imprisonment, etc).

Loyalty –  just like honour and respect – are therefore reciprocal in nature. To receive loyalty, we need to be loyal ourselves.

In the dojo, the instructor should be loyal to his students (i.e. care about their needs and interests), and then they can expect loyalty in return. It cannot be demanded. There is an obligation to be met by all involved. The price of loyalty is loyalty.

I wrote about this in more depth in the Martial Virtues & Warrior Ethics podcast:

https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/martial-virtues-and-warrior-ethics

When discussing the “eight of the virtues of Bushido” (from Nitobe Inazo's 1899 book “Bushido”) I wrote the following on Loyalty:

Loyalty

To me, this means fulfilling your obligation to the group such that the group of which you are part can thrive. No regard for the collective whole is ultimately problematic because if the group suffers; all the members of the group suffer.

We need to be able to count on people in the same way others know they can count on us. Loyalty is important for both the individual, the group and society.

However, it is important not to confuse loyalty with unthinking slavishness.

Nitobe wrote that, “Bushido did not require us to make our conscience the slave of any lord or king … A man who sacrificed his own conscience to the capricious will or freak or fancy of a sovereign was accorded a low place. Such a person was despised as a cringeling, who makes court by unscrupulous fawning or as a favourite who steals his master's affections by means of servile compliance.”

So the loyalty we are taking about is not sycophantic nor does it require us do what we personally feel to be wrong.

A good leader will ask for honesty in order to best serve the group (which is why honesty is pretty much a universal virtue). They will not ask for people to “tow the party line” under the false guise of loyalty. Such false loyalty harms the group.

The individual within the group must also know that if the group takes the wrong direction then the group, and all its members, will suffer. So true loyalty to the group can also be found it refusing to support the group, when you believe them to be headed in a harmful direction, and going with your own conscious and working to get them to change direction.

There is a related old-English term called “frith”. It’s not in use anymore, but it refers to a state of social relationships that are conducive to peace, stability, security and prosperity. The modern word “friend” is cognate with "frith" i.e. a friend is someone you are in frith with. A harmonious and healthy society / tribe would be said to be "in a state of frith”.

There was an acknowledgment that everyone had both rights and obligations; and when all rights were accorded, and all obligations met, then everyone was better off. I think we’ve lost sight of that these days … which is probably why the word for it has fell out of use.

Loyalty, honour and respect would be accorded to all who contributed to the firth of the group. Heroes and leaders were the ones who did the most for the firth of the group; and so they would get the lion’s share, but they would never lose sight of the fact their position was dependent upon their significant contribution to the frith of the group. They had their individual loyalty, honour, respect and prosperity because they made great contributions to the wellbeing of the group.  

If they did lose sight of that, then the frith was broken and the group would quickly see them replaced (exiled or killed) with a leader who did contribute to the frith. Demanding loyalty, honour, respect and prosperity while not contributing to the firth would have one labelled as dishonourable and disloyal. You’d be thought of as cowardly too because you were avoiding the work, responsibility and risk that no true leader would shirk.

Loyalty is a reciprocal virtue found when individuals are committed to each other’s welfare and prosperity; and in turn their own welfare and prosperity as part of the group. It’s like a web connecting all within the group. If any individual – leader or member – disconnects from that web in favour of short term self-interest over the long-term health and wellbeing of the group, then the remainder of the group has no obligation to show loyalty to those whose selfish actions and inactions are harmful to the whole.

If we want loyalty we need to show loyalty. Then we are showing true warrior ethics.

All the best,

Iain

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

Hi Iain

thanks for in depth reply,

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Loyalty –  just like honour and respect – are therefore reciprocal in nature. To receive loyalty, we need to be loyal ourselves.

In the dojo, the instructor should be loyal to his students (i.e. care about their needs and interests), and then they can expect loyalty in return. It cannot be demanded. There is an obligation to be met by all involved. The price of loyalty is loyalty.

Very true

Iain Abernethy wrote:

There is a related old-English term called “frith”. It’s not in use anymore, but it refers to a state of social relationships that are conducive to peace, stability, security and prosperity. The modern word “friend” is cognate with "frith" i.e. a friend is someone you are in frith with. A harmonious and healthy society / tribe would be said to be "in a state of frith”.

There was an acknowledgment that everyone had both rights and obligations; and when all rights were accorded, and all obligations met, then everyone was better off. I think we’ve lost sight of that these days … which is probably why the word for it has fell out of use.

Loyalty, honour and respect would be accorded to all who contributed to the firth of the group. Heroes and leaders were the ones who did the most for the firth of the group; and so they would get the lion’s share, but they would never lose sight of the fact their position was dependent upon their significant contribution to the frith of the group. They had their individual loyalty, honour, respect and prosperity because they made great contributions to the wellbeing of the group.  

If they did lose sight of that, then the frith was broken and the group would quickly see them replaced (exiled or killed) with a leader who did contribute to the frith. Demanding loyalty, honour, respect and prosperity while not contributing to the firth would have one labelled as dishonourable and disloyal. You’d be thought of as cowardly too because you were avoiding the work, responsibility and risk that no true leader would shirk.

Loyalty is a reciprocal virtue found when individuals are committed to each other’s welfare and prosperity; and in turn their own welfare and prosperity as part of the group. It’s like a web connecting all within the group. If any individual – leader or member – disconnects from that web in favour of short term self-interest over the long-term health and wellbeing of the group, then the remainder of the group has no obligation to show loyalty to those whose selfish actions and inactions are harmful to the whole.

If we want loyalty we need to show loyalty. Then we are showing true warrior ethics.

Never heard of this word before, but I like it. Shame that moder society have moved away from this type of values. Luckly there are exeptions, hope that the frith will return in the future. 

I wish I could put my thoughts it to the writing like you do :)

Kind regards 

Les

Marc
Marc's picture

According to Wikipedia the Orford English Dictionary defines "frith" as "peace; freedom from molestation, protection; safety, security".

That sounds pretty much like the word for us who like to stay safe from harm. I must admit, it's not as easy to pronounce as the Japanese word 平安, that we know so well as "Heian" or "Pinan", but it is shorter! :)

So 出入平安 ("chūrù píng'ān") to you all, or better:

MAY THE FRITH BE WITH YOU!

Sorry, this post might have drifted a bit off-topic, but I had to grin when I saw the connection.

A note for all German readers out there: The Old English word "frith" has the same root as the German word "Frieden".  

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Leszek.B wrote:
Never heard of this word before, but I like it.

Me too! It stuck with me when I first stumbled across it because it describes something so important and yet often lacking in the modern world.

Leszek.B wrote:
Shame that modern society have moved away from this type of values. Luckily there are exceptions, hope that the frith will return in the future.

I hope so too.

Leszek.B wrote:
I wish I could put my thoughts it to the writing like you do :)

I’m glad you don’t! I like your articles and we need people who can get to the point a lot quicker than I do ;-)

Marc wrote:
According to Wikipedia the Orford English Dictionary defines "frith" as "peace; freedom from molestation, protection; safety, security".

That sounds pretty much like the word for us who like to stay safe from harm. I must admit, it's not as easy to pronounce as the Japanese word 平安, that we know so well as "Heian" or "Pinan", but it is shorter! :)

Good observation! They would seem to be expressions of similar ideas.

All the best,

Iain

J Coder
J Coder's picture

Loyalty is a good thing but when you demand it, it is a bad thing! Many years ago I was in a karate organization that demanded loyalty to the point where it was almost like a dammed cult! The chief instructor was looked upon as a god. The underling senseis were always trying to one up each other to gain favor of the shihan god! I will not name that organization but I will say it was the largest Shito-ryu organization in Washington state back in the day. What I find very refreshing is when attending Iain's seminars we simply address Iain by his given name rather than his title. I have a tendancy to do the same thing. It kind of keeps things low key.  I think when someone is really locked into a particular style without the ability or desire to look beyond what they are currently doing they are limiting their abilities for growth. It is worse yet when an instructor doesn't allow his students to look outside of his realm. Karate is karate and the style doesn't really make that much difference to me. I'm currently training in Shudokan and Shito-Ruy side by side. If someone were to ask me what style my karate is I would probably call it Shuri-te because that pretty much covers the whole spectrum. At the end of the day karate is karate. 

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

J Coder

Well said, Karate is karate. When I started my jurney with my teacher, what he said stuck with me and I do that with my students. When I entered the dojo for the first time and asked about training Sensei teaching the class said to me" Try my class, then go to the next dojo try their way then visit one or two other ones and then choose the one which is best for you" I did and his was the best for me and still is 20 years later, becouse of him I'm a wrestling instructor, have competed in Judo done Brazilian Ju Jitsu and Boxing. Everywhere I wanted to go and try he have encourage me and still does. We need more teachers like that :)

Kind regards

Les

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

J Coder wrote:
Loyalty is a good thing but when you demand it, it is a bad thing! Many years ago I was in a karate organization that demanded loyalty to the point where it was almost like a dammed cult! The chief instructor was looked upon as a god. The underling senseis were always trying to one up each other to gain favor of the shihan god!

Not good. That’s why I feel true loyalty is reciprocal. The leader works hard in the best interest of the group, and the group in turn supports the leader in that endeavour. Everyone contributes and everybody wins. If “loyalty” is demanded – and therefore the leader has his own self-interests first and foremost –  then it’s not loyalty they are asking for but subservience.

As you say, that is one sign of cult like behaviour i.e. seeking inappropriate loyalty to the leadership or leader. Opposing critical thinking is another related one. None of it healthy. True loyalty is good and healthy. Faux-loyalty is harmful and controlling.

As regards trying to one up each other for the favour of the head of the group … Nitobe’s quote would seem to be appropriate:

Bushido did not require us to make our conscience the slave of any lord or king … A man who sacrificed his own conscience to the capricious will or freak or fancy of a sovereign was accorded a low place. Such a person was despised as a cringeling, who makes court by unscrupulous fawning or as a favourite who steals his master's affections by means of servile compliance.

So it seems there was no true loyalty there; in either direction. You did well to find leave and find a healthier group.

All the best,

Iain

Gwelanmorrep
Gwelanmorrep's picture

These posts led me to recall a couple of quotes I like… first, from Sister Corita Kent’s Rules for Students and Teachers: ‘Rule One: Find a place you trust, and then try trusting it for a while’.  (There are more rules which Google will turn up if you’re interested).  For me, this is about putting yourself in the hands of a school and sticking with it when the going gets tough.  Keep shifting from one to another and you’ll keep getting stuck... and probably in the same place.

Of course, the trick is finding the right school.  Here’s a yardstick, adapted from work by Dr Alexander Berzin:  The teachers need to be in a healthy relationship with their own teachers and peers beyond their own school.  They need more knowledge and skill in the art than their students.  They must have effectively applied their skills in relevant contexts, e.g. training, competition and everyday life.  They must set inspiring examples by having: ethical self-discipline, emotional maturity and stability, sincere concern to benefit the student, patience in teaching, lack of pretence and hypocrisy.

I’m also remined of something said by Maizumi Roshi: ‘You have to swallow the whole fish, and then spit out the bones’.  I really like this.  I think he means that you can’t pick and choose from all over if you’re looking to grasp something substantial but that having dived deep you’re in a position to make your own calls about what to hang on to.