CONTRIBUTOR

Sixt Wetzler studied religious studies, Scandinavian literature, and

medieval history at the universities of Tbingen, Reykjavk, and
Freiburg. He is currently finishing his PhD on The Martial Arts of
Medieval Iceland: Literary representation and historical form. Wetzler
is a member of the board of spokesmen of the commission Kampfkunst
und Kampfsport (Martial Arts and Combat Sports) in the dvs (German
Association for Sports Sciences) and works as curator for Deutsches
Klingenmuseum (German Blade Museum) in Solingen, with a focus
on the European fencing tradition. His research interests lie on the
comparative study of martial arts as an anthropological constant,
European martial arts, and blade fighting systems in general. Wetzler
has published several articles on martial arts related issues, and is
among the highest ranked European practitioners of Pekiti Tirsia Kali,
a Filipino martial art.

MARTIAL ARTS STUDIES AS

KULTURWISSENSCHAFT
SIXT WETZLER
a possible theoretical framework

DOI

ABSTRACT

10.18573/j.2016.10016

This essay deals with some of the key theoretical issues of martial
arts studies: the definition of martial arts, the possible objects
of research, adequate methods, and the search for an applicable
theoretical framework. After a very short introduction to
the German-speaking martial arts studies (from whence the
following ideas derive), the differences between Anglophone
cultural studies and German Kulturwissenschaften will be briefly
shown. The text will then discuss the problem of normative/
object-language arguments in martial arts studies, and follow
with a critical assessment of terminological distinctions between
terms like martial arts, combat sports, etc. As an alternative, a
very wide working definition of martial arts will be proposed,
as well as five dimensions of meaning ascribed to martial arts
practice, which can help analyzing any given martial arts style.
In a next step, the various actualizations of martial arts, from
body images to cultural contexts, will be grouped into classes
of phenomena. Then, Itamar Even-Zohars polysystem theory
(devised for the study of literature) will be introduced and its
applicability to martial arts studies demonstrated. Finally, a short
discussion will highlight the method of scientific comparison.

KEYWORDs
martial arts studies, martial arts definition,
cultural studies, multidisciplinarity,
Kulturwissenschaft, polysystem theory,
comparative method

CITATION
Wetzler, Sixt. 2015.
Martial Arts Studies as
Kulturwissenschaft: A Possible
Theoretical Framework,
Martial Arts Studies 1, 20-33.

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

Introduction

precisely, the Kulturwissenschaftliche Perspektive). The questions this

perspective engages are those of the forms in which martial arts exist,
their development, the meanings practitioners ascribe to them, how
they are embedded in their cultural contexts, and so on. The ideas
presented here derive from the authors experiences at the German
conferences.

In this article, some of the theoretical, terminological, and

methodological issues of martial arts studies shall be discussed and a
possible theoretical framework presented. These basic approaches were
derived from discussions within the German-speaking martial arts
studies (or Kampfkunstwissenschaft) community.1
A German-speaking network of researchers in the field of martial arts
and combat sports has developed in parallel to the emergence of the
English language martial arts studies literature.2 The turning point in
this development was the 2011 founding conference of the Kommission
Kampfkunst und Kampfsport (Commission for Martial Arts and Combat
Sports) within the Deutsche Vereinigung fr Sportwissenschaft (German
Association for Sports Science). An interdisciplinary endeavour from
the beginning, the Kommission has worked in the last four years to
collect the various, often very heterogeneous academic approaches
towards the subject that have been made in Germany, Switzerland, and
Austria since the late 19th century. Annual conferences have been held
since 2011, and four conference volumes have been published so far.3
Martial arts studies research within the Kommission Kampfkunst und
Kampfsport can mainly be divided into three branches: first, educational/
pedagogical perspectives and health care, both physical and mental;
second, historical, anthropological, and sociological perspectives; and
third, movement sciences and training theory. This article is geared
towards the second branch, the cultural studies perspective (or, more
1
Theoretical and methodological issues were first presented in English
as a key questions lecture at the Martial Arts Studies Conference held 10-12 June
2015 at Cardiff University. This lecture, in turn, was based on the article Vergleichende
Kampfkunstwissenschaft als historisch-kulturwissenschaftliche Disziplin. Mgliche
Gegenstnde, ntige Quellen, anzuwendende Methoden [Wetzler 2014a]. The English article
at hand is a revised and expanded version of this earlier German text.
2
For the most recent and detailed discussion of if and how martial arts studies
can be understood as a field, see Bowman [2015: 1-54]. Herein, Paul Bowman writes: If
martial arts studies is to blossom into a field a discrete field of academic study this
will not just happen, as if naturally. Rather, martial arts studies must be created. [Bowman
2015: 4] And he argues that the self-conscious elaboration of such a field that is currently
taking place should proceed in full awareness of the stakes and critical potentials of such
elaboration and construction [Bowman 2015: 2]. I hope that this article can be a small
step in both directions: in further creating martial arts studies as an academic field and in
critically reflecting on our own constructions.
3
For a detailed description of the current state of martial arts studies in
Germany, see the Kommissions website (http://www.sportwissenschaft.de), especially
the article The Development and Current State of Martial Arts Studies in Germany
[Wetzler 2015] which first appeared on Benjamin Judkins blog Kung Fu Tea (http://
chinesemartialstudies.com/).

martialartsstudies.org

On the one hand, the Kommission Kampfkunst und Kampfsport has been
successful in uniting a significant number of the German-speaking
researchers active in the field. On the other hand, it became apparent
that we are in need of a theoretical framework to guarantee the quality
of future work.4 So my aim here is to examine how to integrate the
different approaches into a coherent, meaningful field of research,
instead of a loosely connected collection of individual projects. My
proposal is that three basic questions have to be considered: First,
what are the objects that martial arts studies can or has to deal with?
Second, what are the sources that martial arts studies needs to take
into consideration? Third, what methods could be used by martial arts
studies researchers to approach these objects and sources?
This article suggests answers to these questions. More specifically, it
will address two of the main problems encountered in the discussions of
recent years. The first of these relates to the clarity of object-language
versus metalanguage and the problem of terminological pitfalls
(whether we use terms like martial arts, combat sports, self-defence,
etc.). I will then argue for an open description of the concept of martial
arts. This concept will be described as a network of different dimensions
of meaning ascribed to martial arts practices. These are actualized in
various classes of phenomena that, at the same time, are the objects to be
analysed and the sources from which to draw our information. Finally, a
theory will be proposed that may help us to understand and explain the
concept of martial arts in its complexity, and a method briefly described
by which its unique dimensions of meaning and classes of phenomena can
be approached.

4
The 2015 conference, held from September 30th through October 2nd at
the University of Mainz, dealt with theoretical and methodological questions, especially
with the difficulties of defining subject and field. The results will be published in 2016.
The conference title Martial Arts Studies in Germany Defining and Crossing Disciplinary
Boundaries was decided on in 2014, before Paul Bowman announced the title of his book
Martial Arts Studies: Disrupting Disciplinary Boundaries [2015]. However, the similarity is
no coincidence, but instead reflects the very nature of our field. A fruitful, monodisciplinary
approach towards martial arts is hardly conceivable much less desirable.

21

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

Cultural Studies and Kulturwissenschaften

their political credo 7 [Musner 2001: 263]. The key subjects of

Kulturwissenschaften, on the other hand, are memory, symbol,
system, or mediality. Their central methods are philology,
hermeneutics, and historiography, while cultural studies are more
concerned with discourses and cultural practices and less with their
historical meaning [Musner 2001: 266].

Before explaining theory and methodology, a few words on the

similarities and dissimilarities of the concepts behind Anglophone
cultural studies and German Kulturwissenschaften are needed. I myself
was not aware of these differences when I travelled to the first Martial
Arts Studies Conference in Cardiff in June 2015, and some of the
descriptions and methods of my English-speaking colleagues were at
first difficult for me to follow. It was only after the conference that
I was made aware of a lucid article that Lutz Musner had written on
the problem [Musner 2001], and I believe that a short summary of his
observations may foster a better understanding between Anglophone
and German martial arts studies.5
Even though Kulturwissenschaften may best be translated into English as
cultural studies, Musner makes clear that the two approaches are not
the same. Instead, he calls the two disciplines ungleiche Geschwister, or
uneven sisters [Musner 2001: 261], and he writes:
Cultural studies developed in post-war England as a sociopolitical project, while German Kulturwissenschaften were
motivated by academic politics. The first are [or try to be] a
political project sui generis, while the second are a process of
innovation, which refers to academic subjects and originated
from undeniable symptoms of a crisis of the humanities.6
[Musner 2001: 262]
Musner then points out that the social and cultural marginalisation
experienced by minorities, immigrants, women, and sexually
discriminated [communities] played a central role in the formulation
of theories in English-speaking cultural studies, and that the critical
approach towards marginality, discrimination, and the corresponding
self-images is a key topos of cultural studies and essentially defines

5
The direct relevance of the discussion for our work is demonstrated by the fact
that Musner explicitly mentions Meaghan Morris as a leading cultural studies scholar and
quotes her book Too Soon, Too Late: History and Cultural Studies [1998]. Morris in fact
gave one of the keynote lectures at the 2015 Cardiff Martial Arts Studies conference. Thanks
to Eric Burkart for pointing out Musners text to me.
6
Die Cultural Studies enstanden im England der Nachkriegszeit als ein
gesellschaftspolitisches Projekt, die Kulturwissenschaften hingegen in Deutschland
und aus einer wissenschaftspolitischen Motivationslage heraus. Die einen sind oder
versuchen zumindest ein politisches Projekt sui generis zu sein, whrend die anderen ein
fcherbezogenes Innovationsverfahren sind, das aus unbersehbaren Krisensymptomen der
Geisteswissenschaften heraus entstanden ist. All translations from German to English by
the author.

22

However, both approaches seem to be connected by a Band der

Komplementaritt, a bond of complementarity. This means that,
while Kulturwissenschaften provide a deeper understanding of history,
memory, and tradition, cultural studies focuses more on the experiences
of social marginalisation and friction [Musner 2001: 269]. These
things are not mutually exclusive, of course. On the contrary, once the
methodological differences are understood as mostly a language barrier,
this barrier can be overcome, and the results of one approach can
fertilize the other. This is equally true for the sub-disciplines of Englishspeaking martial arts studies and German Kampfkunstwissenschaft.
My own scientific take on martial arts is firmly rooted in German
Kulturwissenschaften or, more precisely, in Religionswissenschaften
(religious studies) as coined by authors like Burkhard Gladigow, Jan
and Aleida Assmann, or Hubert Cancik. These academics developed
their theories in the study of pre-Christian Mediterranean culture and
religion, and they fit Musners analysis very neatly.
In light of this, we shall now turn to the aforementioned problems:
object-language versus metalanguage and terminological pitfalls.

Object-language versus Metalanguage

This is a problem that should be self-evident, but my experience
suggests that it has yet to be addressed. Some of the contributions
to martial arts scholarship in recent years reveal the extent to which
many authors feel obligated not only to their own academic discipline
but also to the respective styles of martial arts that they study. In some
cases, this has led to misunderstandings within the community. We
were encountering, so to speak, a twofold interdisciplinary language
barrier, caused by the fact that researchers approach the scientific object

7
So spielten im weiteren Verlauf die gesellschaftlichen und kulturellen
Marginalisierungserfahrungen von Minderheiten und MigrantInnen, von Frauen und
sexuell Diskriminierten eine wesentliche Rolle in der Theoriebildung. Die kritische
Auseinandersetzung mit Marginalitt, Diskriminierung und damit korrespondierenden
Selbst-Bildern ist ein wesentlicher Topos der Cultural Studies und bestimmt ihr eigentliches,
ihr politisches Credo.

Autumn 2015

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

martial arts from the implicit perspectives of their own academic and
martial arts backgrounds. This problem became most evident when
contributions worked with the terms and concepts of the objectlanguage and tried to elevate them to appropriate descriptive tools of a
metalanguage [as in the case of qi].

understanding of the term martial art is why most readers would

expect to find articles on topics like aikido or Ronda Rousey in
this journal, but not articles on ballet or Lance Armstrong. In this
respect, it is the pre-scientific bias that first enables us to create and
develop martial arts studies. Readers may wish to check their own
understanding: Is Shotokan karate a martial art? Is judo a martial art?
What about taijiquan and Olympic fencing? Or possibly MMA and krav
maga? How about the ritualized fencing of German student fraternities,
arranged hooligan brawls, and combat shooting with handguns? Even
if classifying some of these things as martial arts may seem counterintuitive, all of them include aspects that could be analysed as topics of
martial arts studies.

Such problems, however, are not new to the discourses of the

humanities. A look at religious studies can serve as an example.
This discipline had to struggle for decades (and, in some parts of
the academic community, is still struggling) to eliminate normative
assumption from its methodology [Gladigow 2005: 41-42]. The strict
distinction between religious studies and theology can serve as a model
for martial arts studies. In other words, our task is not to describe, for
example, how the qi flows, but rather, how certain practitioners of
internal Chinese martial arts believe the qi flows.

Terminological Pitfalls:
Martial Arts, Combat Sports, and Self-Defence
Those who argue within the frame of their own styles object-language
are often the same people who have no difficulty in deciding which
movement traditions qualify as proper martial arts and which do not.
However, this issue too is not at all easy to adjudicate. The criteria that
define one movement system as a martial art and disqualify another are
hard to establish and even more so in an intercultural context. Since
the term martial arts is widely used in colloquial language, everyone
brings along an intuitive understanding of what it denotes. As with all
general terms, at the core of this intuitive semantic field lies a group of
phenomena that most people would agree to call martial arts without
giving it much thought. But the field becomes less and less clear towards
its edges, where we find phenomena whose classification as a martial art
can be disputed.
The common assumption (also among scholars) of what the term
includes often seems also to subsume the field of combat sports.
Note that so far no one seems to have felt the need to call for an
individual discipline of combat sports studies. 8 Indeed, our intuitive

8
However, sometimes both terms are used to denote the field, as in the case for
example of the International Martial Arts and Combat Sports Scientific Society that has held
several international conferences on the topic over the last few years (www.imacsss.com), or
by the aforementioned German Kommission Kampfkunst und Kampfsport. While in German
Kampfsport is the more widely used term, both words stand in singular, in contrast to their
English correspondents. This is noteworthy insofar as the singular implies even more so a
sense of homogeneity between the different styles.

martialartsstudies.org

As we take the step from colloquial language to scientific discourse, the

question arises: How can we define martial arts? The problems involved
in defining ones own subject are well known in the humanities, and
they certainly apply to martial arts studies. Religious studies have
never reached a generally accepted definition of religion, political
sciences struggle to define politics, and so on. Nevertheless, these and
other sciences are able to work on their respective fields and produce
results. The same is true for martial arts studies. On the one hand, the
search for the perfect, unifying definition can inspire understanding
and self-reflection. Yet it must be acknowledged that such a search
hardly ever reaches its goal. It therefore makes more sense, and is much
more practical for the daily work of the martial arts studies scholar,
to assume a minimal definition of the field. Such a definition has to be
wide enough to encompass a heterogeneous multiplicity of phenomena
without becoming so general as to include each and every possible
thing. On the basis of such a minimal definition, the phenomena
identified as relevant to the topic can then be analysed individually and
according to their form, content, and meaning, rather than by checking
whether and how well they fit into predefined, superimposed moulds.
One possible minimal definition that might serve this purpose is that
proposed by Peter Lorge in his book Chinese Martial Arts: From Antiquity
to the Twenty-First Century [2012]. Confronted with the historical,
geographical, and phenotypical vastness of his topic, he writes:
I define martial arts as the various skills or practices that
originated as methods of combat. This definition therefore
includes many performance, religious, or health-promoting
activities that no longer have any direct combat applications
but clearly originated in combat, while possibly excluding
references to these techniques in dance, for example.
Admittedly, the distinctions can be muddled as one activity
shades into another. In addition, what makes something a
martial art rather than an action done by someone who is

23

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

naturally good at fighting is that the techniques are taught.

Without the transmission of these skills through teaching,
they do not constitute an art in the sense of being a body
of information or techniques that aim to reproduce certain
knowledge or effects.9
[Lorge 2012: 3-4]
Three addenda have to be made: First, methods of combat should be
understood as all methods for the wide continuum of physical struggle,
from convivial wrestling and controlled force application in retention
scenarios to fighting with lethal intent. We may assume that methods
of combat on all levels of force and violent intent have always existed
alongside each other. (Also, the historical primacy of combat over
dance movements might be often difficult to prove.) Second, Lorges
emphasis on transmission fits the historical report, but it should maybe
be softened to the concepts of reproducibility and systematization.
Though it may have been the historical exception (if it ever happened
at all), the martial arts hermit training his fighting skills in solitude
atop the mountain is at least imaginable. His systematized skills could
also be counted as martial arts. Third, transmission and teaching are
in themselves terms whose scope has to be discussed. If, for instance,
visual learning counts as transmission, that would classify the fighting
movements copied by school kids from computer games also as martial
arts skills even more, since modern games use motion capturing
of professional martial artists for their programming. Taken to the
extreme, this leads to the question of whether completely ineffective
movements, copied without proper tuition but wrapped in martial arts
imagery, have to be counted as martial arts. Is everything a martial art
as long as the protagonist understands it as such?10
If we accept the proposed minimal definition and the addenda, we
can re-assess the terminological and methodological problems that
accompany any attempted distinction between martial arts, combat
sports, and self-defence.
A popular distinction heard among both outsiders and martial artists
alike defines the martial arts as oriented either towards tradition/
philosophy or self-defence. This separates them from competitive

9
Compare another recent definition proposed by Alex Channon and George
Jennings: Thus, our fundamental criteria for inclusion within the MACS [Martial Arts and
Combat Sports] model here involves the requirement of some form of orientation towards
improving/measuring martial or combative abilities regardless of how this is lived out
in actual practice [Channon and Jennings 2014: 4].
10
Martin Meyer has raised this question in his lecture on the kamehamehaproblem at the Kommission Kampfkunst und Kampfsports conference 2015; see the
forthcoming conference volume for a written version (http://goo.gl/cd12J3).

24

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

combat sports. Within the martial arts community additional terms are
in use, often by practitioners of self-defence systems. With them, they
intend to emphasize their purely realistic approach: terms like practical
self-defence, hybrid systems, combatives, and CQC [close quarter
combat] systems can be found. The tripartite distinction martial arts
combat sports self-defence, employed by practitioners, is mirrored
in the triadic model which Alex Channon and George Jennings have
used in their article Exploring Embodiment through Martial Arts and
Combat Sports: A Review of Empirical Research:
Thus, we have adopted the aforementioned term martial arts
and combat sports [MACS], which we propose be used as an
inclusive, triadic model encompassing competition-oriented
combat sports, military/civilian self-defence systems, and
traditionalist or non-competitive martial arts, as well as
activities straddling these boundaries.
[Channon and Jennings 2014: 4]
All these distinctions are as helpful as they are deceiving. For although,
on a first glance, many of the better known standard martial arts can
be classified into one of the three categories, a closer look reveals how
poorly the categories depict reality. If we take, for example, Shotokan
karate, as one of the most widespread styles of martial arts, we can
see that the very same style can either be trained as traditional art, as
competition sport, or as street self-defence, depending on teacher
and school. In most schools, it will encompass all three categories.
Furthermore, the category traditionalist or non-competitive martial
arts is explained by Channon and Jennings as traditionalist, mindbody disciplines, or Eastern movement forms, such as kung fu and
taijiquan [Channon and Jennings 2014: 3].11 This definition quickly
unravels and proves to be more of a hindrance than a help. Movement
forms from the acrobatic performances of the Beijing opera to martial
arts-inspired folk dances in pencak silat and even meditative practices
like kyudo would have to be included, and this without even addressing
the problem of invented traditions. In a global perspective, the Eastern
component should be dropped altogether, as martial arts exist and have
existed in all corners of the earth.
Finally [at least in the German-speaking martial arts studies], the
constructed dichotomy Kampfkunst versus Kampfsport has helped to
institute imagined differences in the social value of respective styles [see
Leffler 2010]. Brought forth mostly by protagonists of Japanese budo
disciplines sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly true martial

11
Channon and Jennings, in turn, borrowed the term from David Brown and
Aspasia Leledakis article Eastern Movement Forms as Body-Self Transforming Cultural
Practices in the West: Towards a Sociological Perspective [2010].

Autumn 2015

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

arts allegedly aim for the perfection of ones self and are of greater value
than primitive agonistic combat sports. Whereas there might indeed be
differences in the applicability of martial arts for pedagogical or health
care reasons, such normative judgements are wholly unacceptable from
the perspective of Kulturwissenschaften.

When Mas Oyama, the founder of kyokushin karate, raised the

question What is Karate? with the title of his book in 1966, and faithfully
answered it himself in his 1972 book This is Karate, he could only do so
as a practitioner. In other words, in object-language. In metalanguage,
martial arts studies should classify all those styles as karate that call
themselves karate. Their dividing lines are where their practitioners
perceive them to be. For many devoted practitioners, this approach
might seem too generous towards invented styles and traditions. But it
can represent the various modes of tradition, transmission, and copying
that exist in the martial arts more faithfully than any superimposed list
of criteria for an individual styles authenticity. Furthermore, it can
easily cope with the fact that a large part of the existing styles derive not
from a single origin but are syncretistic by nature.

The insufficient descriptive value of a terminological distinction

between martial arts, combat sports, and self-defence, and the
normative undertones this distinction often carries, are strong
indicators that it is not in fact useful for the pursuit of martial arts
studies. Thus, an alternative shall be proposed: Instead of trying to
establish discernible sub-categories, all phenomena that fit the above
minimal definition should be subsumed under the term martial arts.
This would reflect both the aforementioned intuitive understanding of
the term martial arts as well as actual academic reality; combat sports
studies or self-defence studies are safely embedded within martial arts
studies. In other words, martial arts is chosen to denote the field of
study as it is most widely used. However, convenience is not the only
reason for this decision. Another is the terms long history. It stands in
line with similar expressions, from the European Middle Ages onwards,
when close combat practices were called ars, e.g., ars dimicatoria, and
counted among the court arts. Art, in this context, does not bear the
meaning of creative expression of the human mind but of skilful
execution of a difficult action. As such, it spilled over into several
European vernaculars during the Middle Ages. The proposed use of the
term martial arts, then, is neither new nor arbitrary. It has its roots in a
centuries-old convention.
Martial arts shall thus be used here as an umbrella term, allowing
us to speak about the totality of our topic. In contrast to this general
expression, we can use the word style to denote an individual tradition,
imagined as a coherent entity from the inside, and more or less clearly
distinguishable from the outside. Examples may include wing chun,
Turkish oil wrestling, or the medieval Liechtenauer school of fencing.
While other terms, like system or tradition, could also be used, style
is preferred here for being less prone to misunderstandings in the
ongoing discussion. This, however, provokes the next problem: Where
exactly are the borders between one style and the next? How big can [or
must] a style be? What are the parameters to define a style?
To take a look at a prominent example, should we subsume all
incarnations of karate as one style? Or is Shotokan one style, and
kyokushin the next? Or are the various sub-divisions of Shotokan
and kyokushin our units of analysis? Or is a style any individual
interpretation of one school, one teacher, or even one student?

martialartsstudies.org

Making ourselves aware of such definition problems is fundamental for

martial arts studies. They do not come as a surprise. The humanities
face similar difficulties in all fields. The question presently under
consideration What is martial arts? is of the same quality as, for
example, the questions, What is folk music? What is mannerism? What
is magic? Such difficulties are not flaws that need to be repaired, but
a result of the complexity of our topic, where all clear cut distinctions
must remain lexical illusions.

Dimensions of Meaning
Instead of creating boxes to put the existing styles in, we could rather
search for common, recurring qualities in the martial arts. A discussion
of a given style can then analyse how these qualities are fulfilled, and
to what degree. Five common qualities of the martial arts shall be
proposed here, which will be called dimensions of meaning ascribed to
martial arts practices, or for short five dimensions. When presented to
other scholars, the five dimensions of meaning have sometimes been
misunderstood as a solid structure into which specific martial arts can
be forced.
This is the opposite of what I want to achieve. For, firstly, I would
not claim that the list is definite. Other dimensions may be devised.
Secondly, it is not a collection of necessary or sufficient conditions
that define a movement system as a martial arts style. And not every
style must actualize all five dimensions. The list is nothing more than
a tool that could help us to take recurring patterns of martial arts into
perspective, and to describe a given style more adequately. The five
dimensions that I propose are the following:

25

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

Dimension 1: Preparation for Violent Conflict

The preparation for hostile physical conflict, in civilian and military
contexts, with the aim of protecting ones own physical integrity,
destroying the opponents capacity to do harm, and compelling him to
ones own will. As important as the actual increase in physical capacities
is the function as a psychological coping strategy, to deal with the fear
of possible or imagined violence.

as illusions, just like any evolutionism that proclaims a teleological

development of the martial arts towards ever more effective fighting
systems [Amberger 1999: 2].

Dimension 2: Play and Competitive Sports

The convivial practice of physical struggle, within set rules and frames,
but usually without the intent to physically destroy; such practice can be
done for fun, or for the prize of winning a competition.
Dimension 3: Performance
The display of martial techniques and combat skills before an audience;
for example as part of a ritual, for entertainment purposes, or as selfallocation within certain social contexts. Of course, the audience can
also be the practitioner him- or herself. The dimension of performance
is often perceived as a symptom of corruption of true martial arts,
where efficient technique is blurred by movements only performed
to please the audience. This is another notion of object-language that
should not spill over into our work. The dimension of performance is
actually the rule rather than an exception in the history of martial arts.
Dimension 4: Transcendent Goals
This wide area comprises the connections martial arts have to
spiritual and philosophical practices. Also included are their intended
pedagogical uses to educate or form the character of the practitioners,
and their function as connection to (imagined) otherwise unreachable
entities of (martial) culture (e.g. our medieval forefathers/the samurai/
the special forces). Transcendent goals can be openly stated trademarks
or implicit agendas.
Dimension 5: Health Care
This is the use of martial arts for prophylactic and/or therapeutic
purposes, mostly in physical but also psychological contexts.

For martial arts studies, these five dimensions should stand

equally beside one another. From a perspective of cultural studies/
Kulturwissenschaften, Mexican show wrestling something like the
quintessence of Dimension 3: Performance can be just as valuable a topic
as Chen-style taijiquan, or World War II CQC training. This will also
help to denounce any notion of original, pure, or more true martial
arts. These categories may be important within the mythic thinking
of object-language, but on the meta level, they have to be discarded

26

Of course, there are no solid boundaries between these five dimensions:

they will overlap in several places. Nevertheless, they may help to
sharpen our view of the martial arts. Any given style can be analysed
according to these five dimensions, and their functions within cultural
contexts can be described. Only then does it become possible to discuss
various styles at the same time, and compare them side by side.12

Classes of Phenomena
The forms and degrees to which a given style fulfils one or more of
the five dimensions are not self-evident. They have to be deduced
from the actual phenomena that construct the styles existence. For
the researchers convenience, these phenomena can be arranged into
classes. The classes display varying degrees of abstraction and will be
presented here in order, from most tangible to abstract. Since many
of the phenomena are not exclusive to a single style, they can be put
into context both vertically and horizontally. Vertically, they represent
part or all of the actualizations and the repertoire of a single style.
Horizontally, they represent features of martial arts which are shared by
several styles. They can be the object of comparative analysis (I will say
more on this below). In a third dimension, depth, the historicity of all
these phenomena has to be taken into account.
Some classes of phenomena are as follows. Again, this list is not definite:
The Body: As obvious as it may sound, martial arts are physical activities.
The human body is the foremost tool with which they are expressed,
and also the canvas on which practitioners paint their martial selfimage. Often, a style implies a certain ideal body type, both for athletic
and aesthetic reasons. Attitudes towards the body can thus be discussed
on practitioner and style levels.

12
A question often raised here is, Why did the martial arts lose most of their
significance in the West while they thrived in the East? Apart from the ignorance vis--vis
historical developments in both East and West betrayed by this question, a possible
explanation for the strong position of the Asian martial arts might be that they were more
successful in fulfilling the five dimensions of meaning, thus solidly integrating martial
arts into contexts that, in the West, have become dominated by other cultural systems, like
medicine, theatre, firearms, esotericism, the gymnastic movement, etc.

Autumn 2015

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

Movement/Techniques: The most obvious yet also the most difficult class
to understand and describe. As Eric Burkart has recently pointed out,
martial arts skills, being body techniques and tacit knowing, can only
be communicated interpersonally to a certain degree. For a complete
understanding, the re-enacting, or re-living with ones own body is
inevitable [Burkart 2014: 259-260].13

Media Representation: Many styles possess written accounts of

their teaching. At the intersection of material culture and teaching
methodology, such writings can be approached from the perspectives
of, among others, linguistics, literature, history, art history, or training
sciences. On the other hand, the absence of written accounts can attest
to a secretive tradition of techniques, or a certain dynamic approach
to teaching. In modern times, written accounts stand alongside
photographic and cinematographic depictions of martial arts. Their use
as teaching material is not necessarily the dominant purpose. Often,
self-promotion seems just as important (see YouTube). In a further
step, the use of martial arts in other genres of media is to be taken
into account, most notably for entertainment from Chinese Wuxia
literature to martial arts cinema or beat-em-up computer games.

The methodological problems are obvious: How can I be sure that my

tacit knowing is congruent with that of another person? How much
training is necessary to understand a technique? Can movements
be understood from the outside, and does it make sense at all to
extract them from their styles context? Researchers cannot perform
movements that the practitioners of a style train for years and hope
for the same bodily sensation. And since many researchers are trained
martial artists themselves, there is the imminent danger of interpreting
new movements through the lens of ones own style. However, these
problems do not prohibit the study of this class of phenomena, nor are
they an excuse to avoid it. If anything, they encourage an even greater
degree of self-reflection.
Tactics/Concepts: Tactics and concepts are the premises that guide the
selection of techniques on a functional level, and their application. A
single technique, like a wrist lock, may be found in dozens of martial
arts all over the world. However, when and how to apply it might be
judged very differently. Tactics and concepts reflect the area in which a
given style is used, and its risk assessment. What would make sense in
one combative environment, and would therefore be highlighted in one
style, might be dysfunctional in another one.
Weapons/Materiality: The material perspective is of the greatest
importance in martial arts studies. The widespread assumption that
martial arts have always and everywhere been mainly empty hands
combat systems does not fit the historical evidence. At least where
Dimension 1: Preparation for Violent Conflict is a prime motive, the use
of weapons is the rule, not the exception. Understanding a styles
movements and concepts cannot be achieved without understanding
of the physical properties of its weapons. Furthermore, the weapons
symbolic value is often a defining part of the practitioners self-image.
The sword as a paramount symbol in human culture has to be pointed
out especially. Beyond weaponry, we must consider the information
that other objects carry, both on practical and symbolic levels: clothing,
training equipment, the training area, etc.

13
... als Krpertechniken [...] und als implizites Wissen (tacit knowings) jedoch
nur bedingt intersubjektiv kommunizierbar. Zum vollstndigen Verstndnis ist fr Dritte
immer der Nachvollzug, das Nacherleben mit dem eigenen Krper notwendig.

martialartsstudies.org

Teaching Methodology/Learning Process: The secret is not the technique,

but how the technique is given to the student, a martial arts saying
goes. Even though various styles may share identical applications of
certain martial arts techniques, the same styles can vary dramatically in
their methods of anchoring these techniques as tacit knowing in their
students. Often, didactic theory and its practical implementation can be
described precisely.
Myths/Philosophy: Myths are understood here as the explicit narratives
that create the world that their narrators perceive, lay the foundations
for their interaction with the world, and legitimize this interaction.
Thus, they authoritatively regulate the manifold arrays of social life
[Assmann and Assmann 1998: 180].14 Especially important are the
founding myths told in many styles [Wetzler 2014b]. Related to the
myths, but not the same, are explicit and implicit philosophies. As
ideological frameworks, they answer questions on the necessity and
meaning of training, the importance of martial arts in the practitioners
lives, and also attitude towards violence and the value of physical and
psychological integrity. While mythic narrations are presented in word,
picture, and movement, philosophies sometimes have to be deduced
from the internal discourse and external presentation of a style.
Social Structures: The quality of martial arts as knowledge imparted from
one person to another leads to their shape as networks of interpersonal
relations and dependencies. The dichotomy teacher-student generates
hierarchies that are fundamental for the organisation of many styles.
Such bilateral relationships are accompanied by complex relations
between more or less experienced co-students, grandmasters, and
other teachers of the same style. The analogy to a family tree, as used in
Chinese martial arts, can be useful as a conceptual parallel even if coined
by the object-language. The individuals privileges and duties within

14

Die vielfltigen Ordnungen des sozialen Lebens verbindlich zu regeln.

27

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

such structures, and the ensuing social dynamics within a style, are two
of the eminent subjects for research.

powerful factor among the latter [Even-Zohar 1990: 4]. To EvenZohar, literature as well as other cultural systems have to be perceived
and described as polysystems:

Wider Cultural Context: Any style is a product of the culture surrounding

it, and both stand in reciprocal relation. Martial arts can be perceived as
a system promoting stabilization or even dangerous divergence. They
can be used as vehicles to convey desired social values. They can be of
central or peripheral interest to a culture. Especially were martial skills
are an integral part of the self-fashioning of social elites, this cultural
context has to be taken into account for an adequate description of a
style. Also, the connections between several styles that exist within one
cultural system have to be considered.

A semiotic system can be conceived of as a heterogeneous,

open structure. It is, therefore, very rarely a uni-system but
is, necessarily, a polysystem a multiple system, a system of
various systems which intersect with each other and partly
overlap, using concurrently different options, yet functioning
as one structured whole, whose members are interdependent.
[Even-Zohar 1990: 11]
In this respect,

All these phenomena serve both as objects and sources for martial arts
studies. In the study of historical European martial arts, for example,
considerable linguistic, codicological, and art historical work has been
undertaken on the medieval and early modern fight books. In these
cases, they were the object of study. However, when the movements
and techniques of medieval European fighting are analysed, the same
books become the main sources for research.

Polysystem Theory and Comparative Approach

It is apparent that the common denominator of the issues touched
upon so far is their fluid aggregate state the impossibility of drawing
clear-cut boundaries and finding solid definitions. We have noted so far:
the lexical illusion of martial arts vs. combat sport vs. self-defence;
the problem of defining a martial arts style as an individual entity; the
problem of most styles syncretistic nature; the overlaps between the
five dimensions of meaning ascribed to martial arts; and the shifting of
the classes of phenomena between being objects and sources of study.
Consequently, we need a theoretical framework that is properly able
to deal with the slippery nature of martial arts as a scientific topic.
As pointed out earlier, martial arts studies is not the first scientific
endeavour to encounter this kind of problem. It is worth taking a look
at the theoretical work that has been done in other academic fields and
the results they provide.
One theory that seems extraordinarily well-suited to martial arts studies
is the polysystem theory coined by Itamar Even-Zohar [Even-Zohar
1990]. On the basis of Russian formalism of the early 20th century,
Even-Zohar devised a theory for the study of literature that conceived
of literature and literary texts not as an isolated activity in society,
regulated by laws exclusively [and inherently] different from all the
rest of the human activities, but as an integral often central and very

28

the term polysystem is more than just a terminological

convention. Its purpose is to make explicit the conception of
a system as dynamic and heterogeneous in opposition to the
synchronistic approach. It thus emphasizes the multiplicity
of intersections and hence the greater complexity of
structuredness involved.
[Even-Zohar 1990: 12]
Even-Zohars theory has been adopted and fruitfully so by literary
studies, especially concerning questions of translated literatures, in
language studies, and other disciplines. Mutatis mutandis, it can also be
applied to martial arts studies.
Polysystem theory is complex, and can hardly be summarized in a few
words. However, some examples may demonstrate how aptly it can
describe martial arts as dynamic, ever-changing entities, dependent
contingent upon their cultural context.
In many countries of the world in the 21st century, several martial arts
exist side by side. With clubs and schools of different styles in every big
city, they compete for practitioners, reputation, and resources. How do
these systems stand in relation to each other, and to the surrounding
cultural systems? Even-Zohar writes that:
Systems are not equal, but hierarchized within the polysystem.
It is the permanent struggle between the various strata
which constitutes the (dynamic) synchronic state of the system.
It is the victory of one stratum over another which constitutes
the change on the diachronic axis. In this centrifugal vs.
centripetal motion, phenomena are driven from the centre to
the periphery while, conversely, phenomena may push their
way into the centre and occupy it. However, with a polysystem
one must not think in terms of one centre and one periphery,

Autumn 2015

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

since several such positions are hypothesized. A move may take

place, for instance, whereby a certain item (element, function)
is transferred from the periphery of one system to the
periphery of an adjacent system within the same polysystem,
and then may or may not move on to the centre of the latter.
[Even-Zohar 1990: 13-14]
Transferred to the development of the Asian martial arts in Western
culture within recent decades, this means: The total realm of the martial
arts is the polysystem in question, which can itself be understood as a
system within the ultimate polysystem culture. The cultural meaning
of the polysystem martial arts is not monolithic, but instead consists
of several systems that each have their own relevance within the
polysystem. Such systems might be use for self-defence or preferred
way of combat for the silver screen, while the items that occupy these
systems are the individual martial arts styles.
To clarify with an example: Upon its arrival in the West, karate was
perceived mostly for the Dimension 1: Preparation for Violent Conflict,
and thus at the centre of the system self-defence. However, it has been
driven to the periphery of self-defence by other styles, especially by
wing chun, which was then in turn driven from the centre by krav
maga. Regarding the perception of Dimension 2: Play and Competitive
Sports, karate was again driven from a centre, this time of the category
tough combat sport, in this case by kickboxing, which was replaced by
Muay Thai, which was replaced by MMA. However, not all is lost for
karate. When the style held the centre of the self-defence system, it also
had a connotation of being a pastime for bullies and hooligans. While
losing the centres of those systems karate was able to gain ground in
the systems including martial arts for pedagogical purposes and selfperfection by Eastern practices (both systems obviously representing
Dimension 4: Transcendent Goals), whose centres it shares today with
other Japanese budo styles, along with yoga, qigong, and various
meditation practices in the second case.
On the other hand, this model also makes us aware that martial arts
may have to compete with other items of the surrounding culture
for the centre of one or the other system for example, regarding
Dimension 2: Play and Competitive Sports and Dimension 3: Performance,
Brazilian capoeira competes against parcour which competes against
breakdancing in the system hip athletic underground youth movement
culture.
How and if a style can possess the centre of a system or polysystem
depends on the way it is perceived by the surrounding culture:

martialartsstudies.org

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

As a rule, the centre of the whole polysystem is identical with

the most prestigious canonized repertoire. Thus, it is the group
which governs the polysystem that ultimately determines the
canonicity of a certain repertoire. Once canonicity has been
determined, such a group either adheres to the properties
canonized by it (which subsequently gives them control of the
polysystem) or, if necessary, alters the repertoire of canonized
properties in order to maintain control. On the other hand,
if unsuccessful in either the first or the second procedure,
both the group and its canonized repertoire are pushed aside
by some other group, which makes its way to the centre by
canonizing a different repertoire. Those who still try to adhere
to that displaced canonized repertoire can only seldom gain
control of the centre of the polysystem; as a rule, one finds
them on the periphery of the canonized, referred to (by the
carriers of official culture) pejoratively as epigones.
[Even-Zohar 1990: 17]
To set this in context with the example above: the group which
governs the polysystem martial arts in the West may be identified as
modern media culture, with the currently undisputed dominance of
MMA. Today, MMA is the point of reference against which pop culture
reads most other martial arts. Traditional techniques would never
work in the cage, one often hears, and even Bruce Lees skill has to be
re-assessed when internet boards discuss whether he would have been
a successful UFC fighter. Pejoratively referred to as epigones, on the
other hand, describes well the MMA worlds view of the attempts of
traditional karate practitioners who suddenly interpret the movement
of their forms as blueprints for ground fighting.
Even-Zohars polysystem theory provides an excellent foundation for an
approach that aims to understand the martial arts dynamic complexity.
Applying the theory to the field can be a remedy for the essentialist
pitfalls or oversimplifications that sometimes emerge. Glancing through
the theory with both the history of martial arts and current martial arts
studies in mind will lead to several striking insights. Some quotes from
Even-Zohars text may serve as further examples:
Thus, not only does [the polysystem theory] make possible
the integration into semiotic research of objects (properties,
phenomena) previously unnoticed or bluntly rejected; rather,
such an integration now becomes a precondition, a sine qua
non, for an adequate understanding of any semiotic field. This
means that standard language cannot be accounted for without
putting it into the context of the non-standard varieties ... the
polysystem hypothesis involves a rejection of value judgments
as criteria for an a priori selection of the objects of study ... No

29

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

field of study, whether mildly or more rigorously scientific,

can select its objects according to norms of taste.
[Even-Zohar 1990: 13]
This quote corresponds to the call for the abandonment of normative
assumptions and object-language earlier in this article. The researcher
has to refrain from being simultaneously a critic. And it demands that
we also take into consideration the smaller, non-mainstream styles of
martial arts.
Even-Zohar calls the totality of actualizations of a given system its
repertoire. Concerning the production of repertoire, he writes that:
the relations which obtain within the polysystem do not
account only for polysystem processes, but also for procedures
at the level of repertoire. That is to say, the polysystem
constraints turn out to be relevant for the procedures of
selection, manipulation, amplification, deletion, etc., taking
place in actual products (verbal as well as non-verbal)
pertaining to the polysystem.
[Even-Zohar 1990: 15]
Another strength of polysystem theory when applied to martial arts
studies is that it not only provides a terminology to describe the
relations of styles between each other and to the surrounding culture,
but also considers the conditions under which they produce the
items listed above under the classes of phenomena. This provides a
background to many observations made by martial arts studies scholars.
Consider, for example, the following quote from Lorge:
Because almost all martial arts in China and outside share a
mostly identical palette of individual strikes, stances, and other
techniques, what distinguishes one style from another is which
techniques are not used, how techniques are combined, what
forms [designated patterns of techniques] one performs, and
the emphasis given to certain techniques over others.
[Lorge 2012: 207]
The selections of techniques noted by Lorge are not simply based on
functionality, as many practitioners themselves believe, but result from
internal processes which are typical, according to Even-Zohar:
It is this local and temporal sector of the repertoire which
is the issue of struggle in the literary (or any other semiotic)
system. But there is nothing in the repertoire itself that is
capable of determining which section of it can be (or become)
canonized or not, just as the distinctions between standard,

30

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

high, vulgar, or slang in language are not determined by the

language repertoire itself, but by the language system i.e.,
the aggregate of factors operating in society involved with the
production and consumption of lingual utterances. It is thus
these systemic relations that determine the status of certain
items (properties, features) in a certain language.
[Even-Zohar 1990: 18]
The polysystem theorys model of canonicity can help to analyse how
techniques or concepts from one style are integrated into another one.
This can happen either as static canonicity, where a certain text is
accepted as a finalized product and inserted into a set of sanctified texts
literature (culture) wants to preserve [Even-Zohar 1990: 19; substitute
text with technique and literature with style]. Or it happens as
dynamic canonicity, where
a certain literary model manages to establish itself as a
productive principle in the system through the latters
repertoire. It is this latter kind of canonization which is the
most crucial for the systems dynamics. Moreover, it is this
kind of canonization that actually generates the canon, which
may thus be viewed as the group of survivors of canonization
struggles.
[Even-Zohar 1990: 19]
An example for such a dynamic canonization might be the
dissemination of the technique known as the double-leg takedown in
the wake of the UFC, influencing many self-defence styles. Prior to that
they had before often neglected ground fighting to a large degree.
These examples shall suffice for now. Hopefully, they demonstrate
the value of polysystem theory as an approach to martial arts studies.
However, no theory can do more than prepare the ground for
research, and all need fitting methods to bear fruit. One method that
can easily be applied to our field, and that fits organically with EvenZohars models, is that of scientific comparison (as used, for example,
in religious studies). It lends itself well to analysing the adjacent and
competing styles within a martial arts polysystem, and can also provide
understanding of martial arts as a general part of human culture. This
is especially promising when dealing with similarities between martial
arts phenomena that never stood in direct contact with each other (e.g.
martial arts instructional manuals in medieval Europe and China).
Comparison is a standard, intuitive way of dealing with seemingly
similar phenomena. However, it is advisable to sharpen the tools of
comparison, as Oliver Freiberger did in his article on comparison
as method and constitutive approach in religious studies [2012]. To

Autumn 2015

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

Freiberger, the aim of a comparative study is not to show the identity

of different phenomena thus defining their postulated true core
but instead to analyse similarities and analogies regarding a certain
aspect. In regards to a different aspect, the phenomena may well be
different [Freiberger 2012: 210].15 He emphasizes the epistemological
problem of how one can know before one compares things that they
belong to the same category at all [Freiberger 2012: 206].16 While
he admits that pre-categories are inevitable, Freiberger urges us to be
extremely cautious with them (in the following quotes from his text,
please substitute martial arts for religion):

Freiberger demands a study of quantitative criteria, which measure an

item by its position and effect within a tradition [208], while at the
same time admitting that such positions and effects can be contested
over time within a given tradition.19 This is, obviously, a variation of
Even-Zohars model with other terms. Contrary to quantitative criteria,
Freiberger rejects qualitative criteria that is, those criteria which want
to establish the true features or position of a given tradition. Such
criteria are normative, and aim to establish the results of a comparison
before the comparison has been made. Of course, it is only suitable
to compare those phenomena whose position and function in their
respective system is properly analyzed. This demands familiarity with
the cultural context of a martial arts style, and the necessary scientific
methods to approach the phenomena that shall be compared.

Asking where such pre-knowledge comes from, we will get

back to associative and subjective constructions In most
cases, the religious tradition that a researcher knows best
will give the frame of reference The danger is to look for
something in another religion that, even if it exists there, has a
completely different meaning, position, or relevance. 17
[Freiberger 2012: 206]
His solution to this problem is constant oscillation between definition
of terms and comparison. In the field of tension between these two
poles, knowledge will be gained:

Though not the only applicable method, the critically reflected

comparison, as described by Freiberger, yields very good results when
applied to martial arts, and answers to the heterogeneity of the field.

Conclusion

16
Woher man vor dem Vergleich wei, dass die Gegenstnde, die man
vergleichen wird, berhaupt in dieselbe Kategorie gehren.

One aim of martial arts studies is to observe, understand, and interpret

martial arts in their various representations, their development,
form, and cultural meaning. To achieve this, martial arts studies has
to find ways to deal with the multifaceted and highly dynamic nature
of martial arts on horizontal and vertical axes. They have to widen
their perspective to a degree where the totality of the martial arts is no
longer perceived through the lenses of normative or oversimplified
assumptions, which were derived from a single style, or a single family
of styles. This defines the horizontal axis. Instead of assuming clear
cut categories of martial arts [e.g., martial arts vs. combat sports], the
field should be approached without predetermined conclusions. The
various classes of phenomena through which a given style is actualized,
from dominant body images to its interaction with the surrounding
culture, have to be analysed with the methods of the relevant academic
disciplines. This describes the vertical axis. The historicity of any given
style or phenomenon introduces a third dimension to the coordinate
system.

17
Geht man nun der Frage nach, woher dieses Vorwissen eigentlich stammt,
landet man letztlich wieder bei assoziativ-subjektiven Konstruktionen Meist bildet
diejenige religise Tradition, die den Forschern am besten vertraut ist, den Bezugsrahmen
Es besteht die Gefahr, dass man in anderen Religionen nach etwas sucht, das dort selbst
wenn man es findet eine ganz andere Bedeutung, Stellung oder Relevanz besitzt.

Once styles and/or phenomena have been arranged on the horizontal

axis, the method of scientific comparison can help in understanding
them. However, the difficulties of integrating the diversity of martial
arts into a coherent, comprehensible total have to be faced via a fitting

The starting point for a comparative study can be a definition

of terms (as wide and open as possible) to isolate the topics of
the study; and a result of the comparison will be a modification
and precision of the terms. These more precise terms can
then be the basis for a further comparative study [which] will
prevent the essentialisation of terms.18
[Freiberger 2012: 207-208]

15
Identitt von Phnomenen festzustellen womit ihr postuliertes Wesen
bestimmt wrde sondern vielmehr hnlichkeiten und Analogien von Erscheinungen
im Hinblick auf einen bestimmten Aspekt zu untersuchen; im Hinblick auf andere Aspekte
mgen sich die Erscheinungen durchaus unterscheiden.

18
Der Ausgangspunkt einer Vergleichsstudie kann also eine (mglichst weite
und offene) Definition der Begriffe sein, die den Gegenstandsbereich der Studie eingrenzen;
und als Ergebnis des Vergleichs kann die Begrifflichkeit modifiziert und przisiert werden.
Die so przisierten Begriffe knnen wiederum der Ausgangspunkt fr eine weitere
Vergleichsstudie sein, aufgrund derer die Definitionen wiederum modifiziert werden. Eine
solche kontinuierliche gegenseitige Befruchtung von Begriffsbestimmung und Vergleich
verhindert eine Essentialisierung von Begriffen und Vorstellungen.

martialartsstudies.org

19
Quantitative Kriterien, die einen Gegenstand nach seiner Stellung und
Wirkung innerhalb der Tradition bemessen.

31

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

theoretical framework. The polysystem theory of Itama Even-Zohar

has been proposed in this article for its ability to deal with the dynamics
of martial arts especially in the modern world, and for its capacity to
include results from a wide range of academic disciplines. Also, it can
easily integrate the different degrees to which a given style fulfils the
proposed dimensions of meaning ascribed to martial arts practices.
Martial arts have fascinated mankind for thousands of years, and have
been a part of human culture ever since. They have been able to change
their forms constantly and to adjust to new historical situations and
cultural challenges. Only an open, truly multidisciplinary approach can
hope to adequately describe a subject as complex as this. Aspiring to be
more than a mere collection of results from unconnected disciplines,
martial arts studies has to meet this challenge.

32

Autumn 2015

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES

Martial Arts Studies as Kulturwissenschaft

Sixt Wetzler

References
Amberger, Christoph J. 1999. The Secret History of the Sword: Adventures
in Ancient Martial Arts. Burbank, CA: Multi-Media Books.

Lorge, Peter A. 2012. Chinese Martial Arts: From Antiquity to the TwentyFirst Century. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Assmann, Jan and Aleida. 1998. Mythos, in Handbuch

religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe IV: Kultbild-Rolle, edited by
Hildegard Cancik-Lindemaier, Hubert Cancik, and Burkhard Gladigow,
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 179-200.

Morris, Meaghan. 1998. Too Soon, Too Late: History in Popular Culture.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Bowman, Paul. 2015. Martial Arts Studies: Disrupting Disciplinary

Boundaries. London and New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Brown, David and Aspasia Leledaki. 2010. Eastern Movement Forms
as Body-Self Transforming Cultural Practices in the West: Towards a
Sociological Perspective, Cultural Sociology 4.1, 123-54.
http://doi.org/d8qp4x
Burkart, Eric. 2014. Die Aufzeichnung des Nicht-Sagbaren.
Annherung an die kommunikative Funktion der Bilder in den
Fechtbchern des Hans Talhofer, Zweikmpfer: Fechtmeister - Kmpen Samurai. Das Mittelalter 19.2, 253-301.
http://doi.org/8w5
Channon, Alex and George Jennings. 2014. Exploring Embodiment
through Martial Arts and Combat Sports: A Review of Empirical
Research, Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics 17.6, 773789.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem Studies, Poetics Today 11.1,
available at: http://goo.gl/jk50IJ

Musner, Lutz. 2001. Kulturwissenschaften und Cultural Studies: Zwei

ungleiche Geschwister?, KulturPoetik 1.2, 261-271.
Oyama, Mas. 1966. What is Karate? New York: HarperCollins.
Oyama, Mas. 1972. This is Karate. Tokyo: Japan Publishers Trading Co.
Wetzler, Sixt. 2014a. Vergleichende Kampfkunstwissenschaft als
historisch-kulturwissenschaftliche Disziplin: mgliche Gegenstnde,
ntige Quellen, anzuwendende Methoden, in Menschen im Zweikampf:
Kampfkunst und Kampfsport in Forschung und Lehre 2013 Schriften der
Deutschen Vereinigung fr Sportwissenschaft 263, edited by Sebastian Liebl
and Peter Kuhn, Hamburg: Feldhaus, 57-66.
Wetzler, Sixt. 2014b. Myths of the Martial Arts, JOMEC Journal 5,
available at: http://goo.gl/VP8OLA
Wetzler, Sixt. 2015. The Development and Current State of Martial
Arts Studies in Germany, Kung Fu Tea, available at:
http://goo.gl/PsEMkA
Zarrilli, Phillip. 2010. Performing Arts, in Martial Arts of the World:
An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, edited by Thomas Green and
Joseph R. Svinth, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 605-608.

Freiberger, Oliver. 2012. Der Vergleich als Methode und konstitutiver

Ansatz der Religionswissenschaft, in Religionen erforschen:
Kulturwissenschaftliche Methoden in der Religionswissenschaft, edited
by Stefan Kurth and Karsten Lehmann, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fr
Sozialwissenschaften, 199-218.
Gladigow, Burkhard. 2005. Religionswissenschaft als Kulturwissenschaft.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Leffler, Thomas. 2010. Zum Verhltnis von Kampfkunst und
Kampfsport, in Kmpfen-lernen als Gelegenheit zur Gewaltprvention?!:
Interdisziplinre Analysen zu den Problemen der Gewaltthematik und den
prventiven Mglichkeiten des Kmpfen-lernens, edited by Harald Lange
and Thomas Leffler, Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verl. Hohengehren,
171-190.

martialartsstudies.org

33

martialartsstudies.org
twitter.com/MAstudies

To discuss publication or to submit

a paper please contact:
[email protected]

MARTIAL
ARTS STUDIES
EDITORS

EDITORIAL ADVISORY PANEL

Paul Bowman
Benjamin N. Judkins

Oleg Benesch University of York

Stephen Chan SOAS
Greg Downey Macquarie University
D.S. Farrer University of Guam
Adam Frank University of Central Arkansas
Thomas A. Green Texas A&M University
T. J. Hinrichs Cornell University
Leon Hunt Brunel University London
Felipe P. Jocano Jr University of the Philippines
Gina Marchetti Hong Kong University
Meaghan Morris The University of Sydney
Daniel Mroz University of Ottawa
Meir Shahar Tel Aviv University
Dale Spencer Carleton University
Douglas Wile Alverno College
Phillip Zarrilli Exeter University, Emeritus

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
Kyle Barrowman

b n d

ABOUT THE JOURNAL

Martial Arts Studies is an open access journal, which means that
all content is available without charge to the user or his/her
institution. You are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute,
print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal
without asking prior permission from either the publisher or the
author.

b n d

The journal is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Original copyright remains with the contributing author and
a citation should be made when the article is quoted, used or
referred to in another work.

Martial Arts Studies is an imprint of Cardiff University Press,

an innovative open-access publisher of academic research,
where open-access means free for both readers and writers.
cardiffuniversitypress.org
Journal DOI
10.18573/ISSN.2057-5696
Issue DOI
10.18573/n.2015.10013

Martial Arts Studies

Journal design by Hugh Griffiths