I’m now in the third week of my Gracie Jiu Jitsu class. The fundamentals class meets Mondays and Wednesdays from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m., and with one exception I’ve scrambled home in time to get there. The exception was on the day I had my annual physical. The doctor noted some tendinitis in both wrists, especially the left one. She advised letting them rest for a few days, then make sure to ice them down before and after each workout, and also take a pain reliever like Aleve or Ibuprofin. I’ve followed that system and thus far it’s worked out well.
I had supposed I might keep track of specific techniques as I learned them, but beyond generalities like take downs, maintaining and passing the guard, etc., I’m still pretty clueless. The most pronounced thing I’ve noticed is that I still have a lot of trouble keeping in mind the various components of a given move. Luckily the other students have been very patient and supportive. And a number of them report that it took them about eight weeks to really catch on, which makes me feel better.
When I’m not actually practicing jiu jitsu I’ve spent some time learning about its history, and at some point I may write a post on that, especially the explosive emergence of Gracie or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu from relative obscurity to world prominence. For the moment, though, I want to focus on jiu jitsu as metaphor.
Media commentators occasionally use the term jiu jitsu to describe an instance in which one political party deploys a particular strategy and the other party neatly exploits it in such a way that it backfires. Or they will use it to describe how Al Qaeda has used the strengths of an open society against that society — such tactics were fundamental to the success of the 9/11 attacks. But the most common and sophisticated use of the term is in connection with nonviolent resistance.
In his classic study, The Power of Nonviolence (1934), Richard B. Gregg coined the term “moral jiu jitsu” to describe the principles undergirding Gandhi’s satyagraha as he had seen them operate in India. Martin Luther King, Jr. considered Gregg’s book one of five that most profoundly shaped his thought, and wrote the foreword to an edition published in 1960. (An abridged version of that edition is here.) Gregg argued that the use of physical violence by groups that seek to challenge a repressive order legitimizes a violent response by that order, and since that order usually has a far greater capacity for violent force, this is a losing strategy. A refusal to use violence, on the other, causes the repressive order to lose moral balance, in the same way that jiu jitsu causes an attacker to lose physical balance.
In 1973, political scientist Gene Sharp, termed by one commentator “the Clausewitz of nonviolent warfare,” published The Politics of Nonviolent Action. In it, he dropped “moral jiu jitsu” in favor of “political jiu-jitsu,” a phrase intended to encompass tactics that went beyond Gregg’s emphasis on the psychological effect of nonviolent resistance. The metaphor informs the entire book, and a key chapter is entitled “Political Jiu-Jitsu.” Its first paragraph defines the term:
Political jiu-jitsu is one of the special processes by which nonviolent action deals with violent repression. By combining nonviolent discipline with solidarity and persistence in struggle, the nonviolent actionists cause the violence of the opponent’s repression to be exposed in the worst possible light. This, in turn, may lead to shifts in opinion and then to shifts in power relationships favorable to the nonviolent group. These shifts result from withdrawal of support for the opponent and the grant of support to the nonviolent actionists.
In some respects, jiu jitsu — literally, “the science of softness” — is a somewhat odd martial art to use in connection with nonviolent resistance. Unlike many other martial arts, it has no associated philosophy, or Way. It originated as a technique of last resort for samurai rendered weaponless in combat, was later adopted by bandits and common criminals, and by the nineteenth century was considered little more than a grab bag of cheap tricks. When Jigoro Kano systematized jiu jitsu in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, he rejected the name in favor of judo (the Way of Gentleness), which had a definite philosophy associated with it.
Modern jiu jitsu, however, has no such Way. Indeed, when Helio Gracie developed Brazilian or Gracie Jiu Jitsu circa 1925, he unabashedly maintained that its goal was to prevail in street fights, and that has remained the hallmark of Gracie Jiu Jitsu ever since.
The use of the term “political jiu jitsu,” then, inadvertently raises a crucial question. Is it possible to employ nonviolence simply as a tactic, or must it be combined with a principled refusal to use violence even when violence might be an effective means to achieve the objective. Gandhi and King insisted on the latter. If that is indeed the case — if nonviolent resistance is unworkable apart from the rejection of violence in all circumstances, then a better term would be “political judo.”
Part 1 – Part 2 (coming)
13 Comments
12/7/41
This is the best post you could come up with…. typical.
“A refusal to use violence, on the other, causes the repressive order to lose moral balance, in the same way that jiu jitsu causes an attacker to lose physical balance.”
I want to note that this works particularly well with attackers whose moral balance can be lost.
People who believe that military force should be restricted to opposing force, while democratic approaches should take over when people can freely and nonviolently express their will, will be unbalanced when they are supposed to kill people who are only nonviolently expressing their political will.
But soldiers who lack that moral sense can do perfectly well at lethal crowd control when the crowd doesn’t shoot back. They are fine with killing political opposition leaders, or whole political parties.
So the challenge for the US military, if we are to face nonviolent resistance, is to eliminate that sense in our soldiers. Perhaps one approach is to point out that we live or die by our supply lines, and civilians who nonviolently block those supplies are a serious military threat. And take it in stages to get them feeling fine with killing random unarmed civilians.
Another aid would be to sort out the soldiers who would have qualms about killing nonviolent civilians and give them useful tasks where that isn’t needed.
Coincidentally, I’m in my second week of jiu jitsu, and it’s anything but non-violent. From what I’ve seen, it is fighting from the defensive, using the aggression and forward stance of your opponent to pull them into your guard, tie them up, and apply a submission hold. The attacker may think they have the upper hand and the position of dominance, but in jiu jitsu, that is usually a false sense. My instructor says that for every attack, there is a counter; the trick is knowing what it is, keeping calm, and acting quickly.
I know some champs in my class that prefer to fight on their backs. I’m 32 and about 200 lbs and I got rolled several times by a wispy 14 year old at 110 lbs in my first class. It’s technique, not brute force.
Great post! Political Judo probably is a more appropriate term.
Amory – Thanks for the compliment on the post.
You’re right that as a martial art, jiu jitsu is hardly nonviolent. As I’m sure you already know, it’s potentially lethal. Some of the submissions, if fully executed, would result either in breaking an opponent’s neck or cutting off blood flow to the brain long enough to cause death. Another possibility is to get into a position from which you can beat the crap our of someone while restricting or eliminating their ability to counterpunch.
It’s only in the metaphorical sense that jiu jitu can be applied to nonviolence.
Out of interest, what kind of sources are you looking at for BJJ history? I’m keen on the topic myself, and will scribble something up on my blog once I’ve got a decent list of reading material to go through.
There’s lots of stuff on the web, but in terms of books (along with Gracie Magazine, which often has bits of history, also on its website, http://www.graciemag.com) things seem a bit thinner on the ground: there’s Kid Peligro’s ‘The Gracie Way’, Clyde Gentry’s thorough MMA investigation ‘No Holds Barred’ and the excellent introduction to John Danaher and Renzo’s ‘Mastering Jujitsu’, but I’m not familiar with much else in the way of credible sources.
Slideyfoot – The most helpful source I’ve found thus far is Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Theory and Technique, by Renzo Gracie and Royler Gracie with Kid Peligro and John Donaher. Peligro and Donaher actually wrote the text; the Gracies demonstrate the various techniques in a detailed series of photos.
Part 1 contains a 26-page introduction to BJJ that includes a brief history. I’ve checked it against a couple of reference books from the early 1980s, neither of which even seem aware of BJJ but do discuss, for instance, Jigoro Kano, his systemization of jiu-jutsu and his adaptation of it to create judo.
Very interesting post and overview. However, I believe that in it’s present stage, Jiu-jitsu cannot be considered in the same context of the original usage by authors of the past(even as late as the 70’s). I believe that the rapid transformations that Jiu-jitsu has undergone in the last century and in our present century makes it impossible to answer the question in that context.
Although if viewed on a broader level, Jiu-jitsu can be viewed as non-violent if one recognizes that to avoid relative destructive violence one can use techniques to help deflect or defuse a situation without excessive aggression or response. In addition as any practicioner knows, passiveness in Jiu-jitsu can also be a trap…..
Finally got that history post up, though I’m always on the look-out for more sources:
http://slideyfoot.blogspot.com/1982/06/history-of-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-bjj.html
Prof. Grimsley, B.J. Hedger here. I had you for a few classes during my time at Ohio State. Anyway, I am very happy to see that you have begun some BJJ. It is a great way to exercise and learn some things that may prove useful in the future. Once you get running with BJJ, I’ll get you some info on a guy named Eddie Bravo who is a phenomenal Jiu-Jitsu practitioner who focuses on no-gi Jiu Jitsu. I hope all is well and if you have any questions about techniques or roadblocks that you may encounter in BJJ be sure to let me know…I know a thing or two about the game.
Interesting that you bring up Eddie Bravo: not somebody I would normally recommend to beginners, as I tend to be of the opinion that his stuff is better left til much later in your BJJ training. I find its best to concentrate on the fundamentals.
Having said that, had a great lesson yesterday from one of our purple belts who is very fond of Bravo, sticking to the more straightforward half-guard material you can see at the start of ‘Mastering the Rubber Guard’.
Speaking of BJJ beginner advice, reminds me to stick up my BJJ FAQ too:
http://slideyfoot.blogspot.com/2006/10/bjj-beginner-faq.html
Agreed that Eddie Bravo is more advanced and the fundamentals should be stressed but I feel that Eddie Bravo’s approach is more adaptable to “real world” situations. I don’t see a lot of people walking around wearing their gi.
Thank you for the link…great info!
Cheers: hope it proves useful!
Heh – I guess that depends on the climate where you live. Here in the UK, people will frequently be wearing coats, for example.
Not to mention that Bravo is far from the only person out there teaching no-gi: the place I train has regular no-gi classes, which is common at most BJJ schools (especially in the US, where there is the strong wrestling influence).
Then there are the numerous submission wrestling clubs, or indeed MMA, where unlike Bravo or BJJ schools, you learn how to incorporate strikes into your game.
Also begs the response that I don’t see a lot of people wandering around wearing their rash-guards and shorts. ;p
Personally, I’m of the opinion that training in a gi does not mean you’re suddenly helpless once you try out nogi: obvious examples would be the numerous ADCC champions who primarily train with a gi. For example, my instructor Roger Gracie, or Marcelo Garcia, to name but two.
Having said all that, self-defence isn’t really a concern for me: I train for sport, so the above is theoretical on my part. I’ve heard plenty of anecdotes about people choking out others using t-shirts and the like, but those are merely anecdotes.
I agree on all of your points…many are teaching no-gi nowadays. I think that if a school focused on only teaching gi BJJ then they may pigeon-hole themselves to those who are interested in MMA, no-gi grappling, etc
As for people walking around in rash guards and shorts…I think that is a lot closer to normal attire than a gi
And I agree totally. Someone like Marcelo will have no problem defending themselves without a gi in a real life situation…just like Bravo would be ok if he was walking do the street in London during the winter…
At the end of the day…as long as people are training and being good ambassadors to the sports…I’m a happy guy.
I am an MMA guy and have been training for years…it is great to see how far the sport has come and I think that all art forms have evolved with the sport. I’m not sure there would be this many people training BJJ, grappling, etc if it wasnt for the explosion of MMA, most notably, the UFC.
Anyway, happy training!