Martial Arts and the Problem of Definition

Abstract

“Martial arts” is a popular phrase in popular and academic discourse but notoriously difficult to define. This article addresses the challenge of defining martial arts, demonstrating the multifarious and sometimes contradictory nature of how the term is conceived in different contexts. Consulting a range of perspectives, the article is critical of essentialist positions in locating a permanent set of features common to all martial arts because definitions under such positions fail to consider these practices’ fluidity, hybridity, and historical evolution. Instead, the article advances a more pragmatic and contextual definition of martial arts, appealing to nominalism and diaeresis to build context-specific definitions appropriate for particular analytical or practical purposes. Acknowledging the diversity and complexity inherent in martial arts, the article suggests that scholars and practitioners can move beyond strict classification and engage in more fruitful discussions regarding these practices’ history, culture, and philosophy. Lastly, the article promotes a more inclusive and dynamic system that recognises both traditional and modern forms of martial arts without being constrained by the strictures of essentialist definitions.

1. Introduction

“‘When I use a word’, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less’. ‘The question is’, said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things’. ‘The question is’, said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all’.”.

[1] (p. 81)

In a much-cited article, Donohue and Taylor [2] claim that “‘Martial arts’ is a term useful for the general public, but not for serious scholars of these systems (unless they are referring to the stereotyped ideas of the general public)” (p. 13). We think that this is not the case (at least not at this time of writing), as “martial arts” is still a very commonly used term in the scholarly literature, and its popularity has grown considerably during the last decade or so1. The emergence and nomenclature of specialist journals, such as Martial Arts Studies, Ido movement for culture. Journal of martial arts anthropology, and Revista de Artes Marciales Asiáticas2, corroborate this claim.

Martial arts resist easy definition. The term has been widely used in popular culture, academic discourse, and martial practice, yet it remains contested and elusive. Nonetheless, there exists a recurring discourse revolving around martial arts as though a common comprehension is universally acknowledged. This means that while it may be difficult in principle to establish definitions for martial arts, conversations about them occur quite as a matter of fact. This challenge in defining multiple practices is not only an issue of martial arts as many disciplines with a wide range of practices clustered under one term tend to face. One recent example of this definitional challenge can be seen in the impressive collection by Priest and Young [3], which includes contributions from numerous philosophers engaged with martial arts. Their conceptions of “martial arts” vary significantly, and the editors acknowledge this difficulty:

“One important philosophical question about the martial arts is how to characterize them. This is a hard and non-trivial question. Should Tai Chi be included? Should war-gaming? … We do not need to address this issue here. We will finesse it by sticking to some paradigm cases”.

[3] (p. 9n)

These paradigm cases are drawn predominantly from Japanese “Budō” systems (e.g., Karate, Judō, Kendō, etc.). Does this mean that Japanese systems are paradigmatic of martial arts? This article examines the use of definitions of martial arts and explores alternative solutions to what seems to be a perennial problem.

2. Results

2.1. Definitions

It is frequently claimed that definitions are important in research, communication, and even classification because they offer an understanding of words that help discuss issues clearly and with less vagueness [4]. The primary position states that, without definitions, the essence of words is left to individual interpretation, which may create a lot of confusion and inconsistency of use. Schiappa [5] contends that definitions are not merely linguistic instruments but also fulfil a rhetorical and political role, shaping discourse and influencing perspectives. So, it is interesting how many significant works in the emerging field of “martial arts studies” [6] do not even try to define martial arts [2,3,7,8]. Others, however, try. Here is a selection (see Table 1).

Table 1. Definitions of “martial arts”.

Definition	Source
“A martial art can be briefly defined as a set of knowledge about body movements that is intended to help an individual wound, kill and/or capture opponent(s) and/or defend himself against any type of physical attack”.	Shishida and Flynn (2013) [9]. p. 29
“Martial arts are ancient forms of combat, modified for modern sport and exercise”.	Woodward (2009) [10], p. 40.
“The martial art is a kind of traditional sport which is theoretically based on Chinese culture and its basic contents is attacking method, and the main forms of it are routine, grapple and excises”.	Chengyan (2010) [11], p. 89.
“Martial arts are codified systems and traditions of combat practiced for a number of reasons such as self-defense3; military and law enforcement applications; competition; physical, mental, and spiritual development”.	Cynarski and Skowron (2014) [12], p. 52.
“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”.	Lorge (2012) [13], p. 2.
“Martial Arts are complex systems of combat which have been transferred from one generation of Martial Artists to another through codified curriculums of techniques, forms, drills, and exercises”.	Martial Devotee (2021) [14], unpaged.
“At their most basic level, the martial arts are nothing more than ways to prevent someone from harming or killing you. At their highest aspirations, the martial arts are paths to self-knowledge and the expression of beauty”.	Petrotta, G. (2009) [15], unpaged.
“A historic category of flawless methods of unarmed combat fights and use of weapons combined with a spiritual element”.	Cynarski and Skowron (2014) [12], p. 63.
“Martial arts encompass religious, traditional, ethical, and dance concepts, suggesting a transformation in the theoretical meaning of the term”.	Nakir (2015) [16], p. 13
“Martial arts can be defined as systematic bodies of knowledge, belief, and practice that are associated with methods of attack and defense against human adversaries and their extrahuman allies”.	Green and Svinth (2010) [17], p. 331
“martial arts are systematic fighting styles and practices as ways of embodying wisdom”.	Holt (2023) [18], p. 4.
“When it comes right down to it, martial arts are about one thing, fighting. And regardless of how much one philosophizes about developing character and walking in peace, if he’s a true warrior he began by learning to fight, and he will spend the rest of his life honing his combat skills”.	Morgan (1992) [19], p. 62
“A martial art is an imaginative, adaptable system of physical human fighting techniques designed in order to deal with perceived problems in combat and society”.	Jennings (2023) [20], p. 8
““Asian martial arts”… the originally Chinese, then East Asian, and now global traditions of usually unarmed personal combat”.	Allen (2015) [21], p. ix
“Martial arts are educational activities practised for the purpose of improvement in fighting through acquiring traditional martial techniques, but also emphasising self-development (of skills, character, moral virtues, etc.). They emphasise adherence to moral principles and codes of conduct, and also draw ideas from philosophical, religious or educational teachings”.	Martínková and Parry (2016) [22], p. 151.

Table 1. Definitions of “martial arts”.

Definition	Source
“A martial art can be briefly defined as a set of knowledge about body movements that is intended to help an individual wound, kill and/or capture opponent(s) and/or defend himself against any type of physical attack”.	Shishida and Flynn (2013) [9]. p. 29
“Martial arts are ancient forms of combat, modified for modern sport and exercise”.	Woodward (2009) [10], p. 40.
“The martial art is a kind of traditional sport which is theoretically based on Chinese culture and its basic contents is attacking method, and the main forms of it are routine, grapple and excises”.	Chengyan (2010) [11], p. 89.
“Martial arts are codified systems and traditions of combat practiced for a number of reasons such as self-defense3; military and law enforcement applications; competition; physical, mental, and spiritual development”.	Cynarski and Skowron (2014) [12], p. 52.
“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”.	Lorge (2012) [13], p. 2.
“Martial Arts are complex systems of combat which have been transferred from one generation of Martial Artists to another through codified curriculums of techniques, forms, drills, and exercises”.	Martial Devotee (2021) [14], unpaged.
“At their most basic level, the martial arts are nothing more than ways to prevent someone from harming or killing you. At their highest aspirations, the martial arts are paths to self-knowledge and the expression of beauty”.	Petrotta, G. (2009) [15], unpaged.
“A historic category of flawless methods of unarmed combat fights and use of weapons combined with a spiritual element”.	Cynarski and Skowron (2014) [12], p. 63.
“Martial arts encompass religious, traditional, ethical, and dance concepts, suggesting a transformation in the theoretical meaning of the term”.	Nakir (2015) [16], p. 13
“Martial arts can be defined as systematic bodies of knowledge, belief, and practice that are associated with methods of attack and defense against human adversaries and their extrahuman allies”.	Green and Svinth (2010) [17], p. 331
“martial arts are systematic fighting styles and practices as ways of embodying wisdom”.	Holt (2023) [18], p. 4.
“When it comes right down to it, martial arts are about one thing, fighting. And regardless of how much one philosophizes about developing character and walking in peace, if he’s a true warrior he began by learning to fight, and he will spend the rest of his life honing his combat skills”.	Morgan (1992) [19], p. 62
“A martial art is an imaginative, adaptable system of physical human fighting techniques designed in order to deal with perceived problems in combat and society”.	Jennings (2023) [20], p. 8
““Asian martial arts”… the originally Chinese, then East Asian, and now global traditions of usually unarmed personal combat”.	Allen (2015) [21], p. ix
“Martial arts are educational activities practised for the purpose of improvement in fighting through acquiring traditional martial techniques, but also emphasising self-development (of skills, character, moral virtues, etc.). They emphasise adherence to moral principles and codes of conduct, and also draw ideas from philosophical, religious or educational teachings”.	Martínková and Parry (2016) [22], p. 151.

It must be acknowledged from the start that this is a rather “loose” collection. The quotations provided in Table 1 are not part of a cohesive definitional set. Instead, they display a variation in how martial arts is defined. Some definitions focus on capturing the essential features of martial arts [9,17], while others offer context-dependent definitions for the sake of communication [12]. Several statements are descriptive or ostensive, pointing to historical examples and practical uses [13]. Others might not be considered strict definitions at all; instead, they offer classification systems that embody programmatic or prescriptive intentions [22], aiming to guide both practical and conceptual distinctions. We have chosen to include this broad range of accounts because it offers readers insight into the concept’s inherent “slipperiness” [23] or, viewed differently, highlights the diversity and richness of scholarly contributions to its understanding.

Despite these cautionary notes, we maintain that this (limited and flawed) list presents us with a problem. The list above suggests several, often contradictory, themes.

So, what are martial arts?

Combat Systems: Martial arts are codified systems of combat for self-defence, military, and law enforcement.

Tactical and Adaptive Systems: Martial arts are evolving methodologies for solving combat and societal challenges.

Sport and Exercise: Martial arts are competitive and fitness-oriented practices with structured rules.

Traditional and Cultural Practices: Martial arts are historical practices tied to cultural heritage and identity.

Global and Transcultural Practices: Martial arts are dynamic traditions with global influence and adaptation.

Holistic Development: Martial arts are paths to physical, mental, and spiritual growth.

Artistic Expression: Martial arts are performative and creative practices blending combat and art.

Embodied Knowledge: Martial arts are systems of knowledge expressed through physical movement and lived experience.

Religious and Ethical Systems: Martial arts are moral, spiritual, and ethical development frameworks.

This is an indicative list and is neither comprehensive nor authoritative. Indeed, extending this typology (interpreting “definition” a little more liberally) would not be difficult. For example:

Martial Arts as Therapeutic Practices: Martial arts are methods of physical rehabilitation, trauma recovery, and mental health treatment [24].

Martial Arts as Educational Practices: Martial arts are distinctive forms of physical education and educational tools for teaching values, respect, teamwork, self-discipline, etc. [25]4.

Martial Arts as Political and Resistance Practices: Martial arts are statements of political defiance and means of preserving culture, granting the ability for communities to stand up to suppression, colonisation, and the loss of culture [26,27,28].

This typology of definitions (see Figure 1) and the various classifications proposed by Bolelli [29], Cynarski [30], and Martínková and Parry [22] are superficially similar. Certainly, they share an acknowledgement of the multifaceted nature of martial arts. But our aims are fundamentally different. This framework does not aspire to comprehensiveness. Rather, it illustrates the conceptual diversity in how martial arts are understood in various contexts. Additional types could likely be identified with more time and research, reflecting the further nuances in the discourse. In contrast, the models proposed by Bolelli [29], Cynarski [30], and Martínková and Parry [22] aim for a systematic classification of martial arts systems. Martínková and Parry [22] acknowledge the limitations in their organisation of categories—close combat, warrior arts, martial paths, martial arts, and martial sports—alongside minor sub-categories such as martial training, martial therapy, and martial dance. However, their goal remains to capture the range of activities called “martial arts” accurately, creating a coherent model that, in principle, aspires to completeness. Similarly, Bolelli’s [29] categories—performance arts, internal arts, weapons arts, self-defence arts, and combat sports—attempt to provide a definitive structure to martial arts practice. Cynarski’s [30] General Theory of Fighting Arts and Humanistic Theory of Martial Arts likewise seek to encompass the essence of martial arts through interdisciplinary analysis, treating them as systems that can be categorised in terms of pedagogy, culture, and sport. Our ambition is much more modest: to demonstrate the inherent challenge facing any attempt to define martial arts due to the great variety of proposal accounts.

The typology’s diversity reflects a fundamental epistemological challenge: how we define martial arts when they are inherently diverse and inevitably shaped by the writer’s background5. Philosophers refer to perspectivism to explain this phenomenon—the idea that knowledge and perception are always bound to the interpretive frameworks of those observing [31]. (Before proceeding, we should acknowledge that perspectivism is not the only framework capable of explaining definitional diversity. Alternative philosophical approaches offer equally valuable insights. Constructivism, for instance, posits that categories are socially constructed and historically contingent. Pragmatism, in contrast, prioritises utility and context-specific adequacy over fixed conceptual boundaries, while conventionalism underscores the role of shared linguistic norms and discursive practices in shaping meaning. Yet, despite their theoretical divergences, these perspectives collectively reinforce the importance of intellectual humility in definitional debates. Each recognises that definitions are inevitably situated, provisional, and influenced by scholarly or cultural priorities—even as some remain more analytically productive or illuminating than others). Recognising this predicament does not imply that all definitions are equally valid. On the contrary, some perspectives are more insightful, well reasoned, and useful than others. However, it does point to the value of humility and openness in discussions of martial arts. A vivid example of this is captured in the Buddhist parable, “The Blind Men and the Elephant” [32]. The men who are blind describe the elephant as a snake, a tree, and so forth, based on the limb of the elephant that they feel. Each of their explanations falls short as none of them see the entire creature.

2.2. Explicit and Implicit Definitions

Before moving on, it is important to acknowledge that not all accounts of the martial arts are stated as boldly as those discussed so far. Priest and Young [3] decline to define martial arts explicitly, choosing instead paradigm cases, which are those cases that fall unambiguously within the term’s common usage [33]. In doing so, they assume that readers possess an intuitive and shared understanding of the subject. Thus, by focusing on some systems and omitting others, they implicitly define martial arts through the contours of their analysis. Their focus primarily on East Asian traditions, such as Judō, Karate, and Kung-fu, suggests a framework prioritising formalised, tradition-bound, and often philosophically oriented martial arts. Similarly, Bowman’s [7,34] work constructs a boundary around martial arts by emphasising their performative, spiritual, and combative dimensions, largely through their representations in media and cultural discourse. This focus tends to marginalise more utilitarian fighting systems that do not carry the same aesthetic, ritualistic, or narrative weight in popular culture. So, while these writers refuse to state their definitional positions explicitly, their implicit boundaries shape the broader discourse, implying what counts as legitimate.

This unspoken boundary setting is particularly significant because it determines the limits of academic engagement, reinforcing particular traditions while leaving others underexplored or excluded. Unlike Meyer [35] or Holt [18], who explicitly articulate their criteria for inclusion and exclusion, Priest [3], Yang [24], and Bowman [7] do so more subtly, making their assumptions less visible and, therefore, harder to challenge directly. This suggests that definitions are somewhat unavoidable, whether we like them or not! The question is, what sort of definitions help us?

2.3. Essentialism

Essentialist definitions aim to identify the necessary and sufficient characteristics that define a given concept. They seek to establish a core set of attributes that all martial arts possess, distinguishing them from other activities. These definitions assume that martial arts share an intrinsic nature that can be objectively identified. As we have seen, it might include specific training methods, codified techniques, philosophical underpinnings, or a recognised lineage or historical tradition.

Holt [18] offers an explicitly essentialist definition based on a dual conception of martial arts as “systematic fighting styles and practices as ways of embodying wisdom” [18] (p. 14). This definition emphasises both the combat and philosophical dimensions of martial arts. So, martial arts must integrate fighting skills with broader philosophical and ethical traditions; they are not merely about combat efficiency: “any systematic fighting style, including combat sports, may count as a martial art insofar as it embodies wisdom by improving practical fighting skills” [18] (p. 14). Holt’s description of martial arts is essentialist because it seeks to identify the core, constant features that a martial art must possess. By concentrating on universal features, Holt presumes that these features are common to all martial arts regardless of their specific cultures and developed practices.

Another approach comes from Meyer’s [35] “Six-Attribute Model”, which seeks to classify martial arts based on six defining characteristics. His approach is unusual insofar as he uses a novel, empirical methodology6:

• Embodied Human Combat—the core of martial arts involves direct, embodied combat between practitioners.
• Unarmed or Cold Armament—martial arts primarily involve unarmed techniques or non-firearm weapons.
• Doctrine of a Master Reality—a systematic framework of techniques passed down through tradition or structured pedagogy.
• Fight Culture Identity—a strong connection to specific cultural or philosophical traditions that shape the practice.
• Systematisation Through Trial and Transmission—a defined system of techniques refined over generations.
• Autoimmunity—a self-regulatory aspect ensuring internal consistency and discipline within martial arts practices [35] (p. 129).

Meyer’s model attempts to provide a universal framework for defining martial arts, distinguishing them from other combat-related or athletic practices. By emphasising systematisation, tradition, and embodied combat, his essentialist definition seeks to capture the fundamental nature of martial arts in a structured way.

The appeal of essentialist definitions of martial arts is their promise of making sense of what is a contested concept. Such definitions try to give a precise presentation of its necessary and sufficient features. However, the value of such an endeavour is undetermined. While it could foster a shared understanding and discussion of martial arts, it might also mask their inherent complexity and diversity. The next section examines this question.

2.4. Problems with Essentialist Definitions

2.4.1. The Problem of Rigidity

Essentialist definitions ignore the nuances of martial arts by imposing rigid constraints that stifle innovation, the integration of new techniques, and the overall social and technological evolution of the system. These hindrances also prevent martial arts scholars and practitioners from progressing in understanding the true nature of modern martial arts. This, however, has never been the case, as history teaches [17]. Martial arts have been subjected to enormous changes caused by societal changes, military evolution, and cultural shifts. From being associated with military drills, where martial techniques had to be made for the effectiveness of the battlefield, the art has evolved into self-cultivation, sport, and even a symbol of national identity as traditional bustles subsided and technology took over. This is evident in the evolution of Tai Chi [13], Taekwondo [36], and Judō [37]. It was also a central strand of the scholarship of Donn Draeger, often called the father of Asian martial arts research [38] who mapped an evolution of Japanese martial arts from classical bujutsu (martial techniques) fighting methods, to the modern budō (martial ways) sports, via classical budō and modern bujitsu [39,40,41]. The movement from largely practical law enforcement and military training to Kendō, Judō, KLarate-dō, Aikidō, and so on, produced not only new expressions of combat, but also new ambitions, such as self-cultivation, competitive sport, personal protection, health, and spiritualism [42]. This evolution is captured well, if not entirely accurately, by Draeger:

“The desire for self-protection gave way to one of self-perfection”.

[39] (p. 24)

By trying to categorise martial arts into rigid definitions, essentialist definitions place an idealistic captivity on martial arts that disregards its history.

2.4.2. The Problem of False Dualisms

Essentialist definitions bring with them false dualisms. Dichotomies, such as between “traditional” and “modern”, “Asian” and “Western”, “art” and “sport”, or “authentic” and “McDojo”, create artificial oppositions that obscure functional and historical ambiguities. For example, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is frequently framed as a “modern” martial art due to its 20th-century emergence. Yet, its techniques and philosophies track directly to traditional Japanese Jujutsu via Kodokan Judō [17]. Conversely, despite its popular portrayal as an ancient, indigenous Korean martial art, Taekwondo emerged in the mid-20th century, with its early founders having trained in Karate during the Japanese colonial period (1910–1945) [36]. The “hwarang myth”, which linked Taekwondo to an elite Silla Dynasty warrior class, was later incorporated to reinforce its historical legitimacy [43].

The notion of “invented tradition” is applicable here. Hobsbawm [44] refers to them as practices that seek to have some historical continuity but, in reality, are modern inventions created to achieve social, political, or cultural objectives. Numerous martial arts forms have been “constructed” to serve nationalistic or ideological purposes. For example, the samurai spirit was developed into a “Bushido” moral code in part to justify the imperial expansion during the Meiji era [45]. Likewise, the standardisation of Wushu in China was an attempt by the nationalist government to unify martial arts as a means of state-sponsored physical education and propaganda, devoid of regional characteristics [46]. The further globalisation of martial arts has exacerbated this phenomenon as Karate, Taekwondo, and Kung-fu have all been transformed into sporting disciplines for tourism and entertainment rather than self-defence [13]. This phenomenon reveals the competing forces of historical continuity and modern change, showing how tradition is transformed and constructed over time.

Dualisms do not merely divide concepts into distinct categories; they frequently establish a power dynamic that assigns value, status, or legitimacy to one term while marginalising the other [47]. This hierarchical tendency privileges certain practices, traditions, or perspectives while dismissing or devaluing those not aligned with the “preferred” category. For example, in the context of martial arts, the dualism of traditional versus modern often elevates traditional practices as more authentic or culturally significant. In contrast, modern forms, such as sport-based forms or self-protection systems, are portrayed as relatively crude or lacking in depth (see Xi [48], for an empirical examination of this topic). Similarly, the East versus West binary romanticises Asian martial arts as spiritually profound and historically rich while framing Western approaches as trivial, utilitarian, or mere spectacles of violence. This leads Cynarski [49] to assert boldly, “the unquestionable superiority of the noble, traditional ways. The far-Eastern martial arts, representing the way of non-aggression and overcoming one’s weaknesses, counteract the cult of force and violence” (p. 1). This is a highly selective caricature of both Asian and Western fighting systems.

These hierarchies are not merely theoretical; they have tangible effects on how martial arts are taught, studied, and perceived, influencing which practices are deemed legitimate or worthy of respect. By constructing such divisions, dualisms do not simply categorise; they rank, reinforcing exclusionary narratives that shape access, recognition, and legitimacy within martial arts discourse, reinforcing dominant narratives while marginalising alternative practices. However, “Authenticity is an argument for the value of a particular practice or way of practising rather than a historical artifact” [13] (p. 7). Ultimately, the presumptions underlying these dualisms are simply false. Change, adaptation, blending, and hybridisation are the norm in martial arts, not the exception. Accounts of martial arts as unchanging lineages over centuries are often little more than myths or marketing and serve to promulgate an illusionary idea of martial arts, often shaped by ideological biases, particularly Orientalist and nationalistic narratives [50,51].

2.4.3. The Problem of Inside/Outside

One of the most significant issues with essentialist definitions is their tendency to impose rigid in/out classifications, arbitrarily determining which martial arts are legitimate while excluding others based on narrow, fixed criteria [13]. As this is a tendency, not a necessity, some essentialist definitions may have somewhat fuzzy or permeable boundaries. Nonetheless, the attempt to find necessary and sufficient conditions can still perpetuate binary thinking that fails to account for the fluidity and hybridity of martial arts traditions, often giving recognition to some forms while overlooking others. For example, defining martial arts solely as systems of physical combat disregards disciplines such as Tai Chi, which has come to be associated with health, meditation, and internal energy cultivation rather than direct combat. Similarly, sport-based martial arts such as Olympic Taekwondo and point Karate are sometimes dismissed as lacking seriousness despite their evident technical and strategic complexity [36]. Even boxing, despite its long cultural and historical roots, ethical codes, and foundational role in the evolution of all contemporary pugilistic practices, is frequently dismissed for the philosophical and codified structures associated with East Asian martial arts, or relegated to a mere “combat sport”, lacking the qualities and values of a real martial art [49].

This rigid categorisation extends beyond theoretical discussions, influencing real-world perceptions of legitimacy within martial arts communities, institutions, and even popular media. Traditionalist martial arts schools often assert their authenticity and authority through lineage-based legitimacy, reinforcing the exclusionary boundaries against hybrid styles or modern adaptations. For instance, MMA is frequently excluded from martial arts discourse, particularly by those who argue that it lacks the philosophical and historical traditions seen in arts such as Karate, Kung Fu, or Judō [8]. However, historical evidence challenges these claims, revealing that many so-called traditional martial arts were products of synthesis, adaptation, and reinvention. Jigoro Kano’s Judō, for example, was a deliberate reconstruction of classical Jujutsu, combining various styles into a modern system designed for education and international sport [52,53]. Some scholars have even suggested that Judō’s heritage can be traced even further to European sailors who brought wrestling to Japan. Gleeson [54], for example, who lived for a time with Kano’s son, reported that Kano was fascinated with Cornish (English) wrestlers, who would demonstrate their skills on the Tokyo quayside. Similarly, Taekwondo, now globally recognised as Korea’s national martial art, was strategically branded and restructured in the 20th century to distinguish it from Karate [36]. These cases illustrate how martial arts evolve through state influence, globalisation, and commercial adaptation rather than emerging as static, pure traditions [20].

Furthermore, the myth of authenticity often obscures the ways in which martial arts have historically borrowed from and influenced each other. The notion that traditional martial arts exist in a pure, unaltered state is contradicted by extensive historical evidence demonstrating their continuous transformation. For instance, Kung Fu cinema and popular culture narratives have significantly shaped the global perceptions of Chinese martial arts, sometimes reinforcing the myths of monastic purity and mystical origins [34]. In reality, many famous martial arts figures, from Bruce Lee to Khabib Nurmagomedov, have actively combined techniques across disciplines, reflecting a long-standing tradition of hybridisation and pragmatic adaptation [21]. Acknowledging this complexity and fluidity might encourage a more inclusive and dynamic framework that accounts for both traditional and modern expressions of combat and movement arts.

2.4.4. The Problem of Infinite Regress

Another fundamental issue with essentialist definitions is the infinite regress of “What is X?” questions. When seeking the essence of a concept, any definition can itself be questioned, leading to an endless cycle of definitional inquiry [55]. This problem highlights the impracticality of essentialist approaches, as they provide no clear stopping point for understanding concepts (to stop the descent into an infinite regress, the arguer must arbitrarily decide “that is enough” at some point). Instead of yielding clarity, they generate further ambiguities, making it difficult to establish meaningful discourse.

Holt’s [18] attempt to define martial arts as “embodied wisdom” seems destined to lead to infinite regress. While his proposal is intriguing, it immediately raises the question: what is embodied wisdom? Holt does not explain, but even if he did, his new definition merely creates a new problem: what is (new term introduced)? Instead of clarifying the matter, this strategy merely shifts the problem onto a new set of terms, requiring further explanation and resulting in an unending chain of definitional queries. A similar criticism can be levelled at Green’s definition of martial arts as “systematic bodies of knowledge, belief, and practice associated with methods of attack and defence against human adversaries and their extrahuman allies” [17] (p. 331). Neither of the key terms—"bodies of belief” and “systematic bodies of knowledge”—is self-evident, so they demand another level of explanation (and this is not to mention the meaning of “extrahuman allies”7!). So, each attempt to refine the definition simply postpones the inevitable surrender to arbitrariness, circularity, or dogmatism.

Ultimately, the problem of infinite regress highlights the need for a more pragmatic and context-sensitive approach to defining martial arts. Instead of searching in vain for the essence of the massively multifaceted concept of martial arts, scholars and practitioners should focus on functional and flexible definitions that serve specific analytical or practical purposes. By acknowledging martial arts’ contingent and evolving nature, discourse can move beyond fruitless definitional debates and toward more substantive discussions of history, practice, and meaning.

2.4.5. The Problem of Mythologising

Essentialist definitions are often premised on an illusory account of martial arts (in general) and specific martial arts (in particular) as unchanging. The assumption that martial arts exist as timeless, unaltered traditions overlooks their continual adaptation to cultural, technological, and geopolitical shifts. Martial arts have frequently been reinvented to serve ideological, nationalistic, or commercial interests [36,56]. For example, Moenig and Minho [36] highlight how Taekwondo’s official history was shaped by nationalist motives, omitting its historical connections to Japanese Karate and instead portraying it as an indigenous Korean martial tradition. This case demonstrates how martial arts can be reinterpreted or invented to suit ideological and political needs. Similarly, the Japanese codification of Judō and Kendō in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was part of a broader state-led effort to define Japanese martial identity [13]. Many of these systems have been presented as part of a continuous tradition, even though they have undergone significant modification. Such mythologisation within essentialist definitions obscure the historical transformations and technical innovations in martial arts practice [57,58,59]8.

The mythologising process often involves elevating legendary figures and master–disciple lineages, exaggerating the continuity and antiquity of martial arts traditions. Foundational myths about Bodhidharma introducing martial arts to Shaolin monks, secret warrior societies preserving lost fighting techniques, and invincible Silat warriors persist despite a total lack of historical evidence [13,27]. These myths serve to legitimise certain martial arts traditions while obscuring their development as fluid, evolving practices. The romanticisation of martial arts as unchanged systems of combat also ignores the reality that techniques and strategies shift in response to new weapons, training methodologies, and competitive formats [34].

Scholars can better understand their evolution and adaptation by treating martial arts as historically contingent rather than fixed traditions. Recognising historical change as an inherent part of martial arts practice disrupts essentialist assumptions and highlights the dynamic processes that shape martial arts over time.

3. Discussion

3.1. Two Cheers for Definitions

While the previous sections have criticised essentialist definitions, it is necessary to recognise that some sorts of definitions can serve important functions in academic and practical discourse. Post-structuralist critiques, such as that presented by Bowman [7], argue that definitions are inherently unstable, constructed, and contingent. While this critique is useful in exposing the limitations of rigid categorisation, it can also lead to an extreme form of relativism where concepts become so fluid that they lose any utility. Meaningful discourse and practical applications become difficult if definitions are endlessly deconstructed and undermined.

Others argue that definitions, while imperfect and limited, may still be necessary for specific purposes, such as empirical research. Without some level of conceptual clarity, discussions risk descending into ambiguity and incoherence. For example, a review of the outcomes of participation in martial arts or an interview study with instructors should stipulate what exactly will count as “martial arts” in these contexts [27]. This does not mean that definitions must be essentialist. On the contrary, they are necessarily context specific, pragmatic, and open to revision. Is it possible to retain definitions without disappearing down the essentialist rabbit hole?

3.1.1. Nominalism

The philosopher, Karl Popper [60], provides an alternative to essentialist definitions: nominalism. He argues that definitions should not attempt to capture the inherent nature of a concept but should instead function as flexible conventions that facilitate structured inquiry. Unlike essentialism, which assumes that categories must reflect a deep, unchanging reality, nominalism treats definitions as practical devices that help organise knowledge and guide research. In other words, definitions are tools rather than final truths. They are created and modified to serve particular intellectual and practical purposes, making them adaptable to different contexts [4]. In martial arts studies, a nominalist approach suggests that definitions should be tailored to their specific disciplinary or methodological setting. So, a historian defining martial arts may prioritise historical development and lineage, whereas a sports scientist may focus on biomechanics and performance [61]. These definitions are not competing claims to absolute truth but pragmatic models that serve distinct needs. Definitions are provisional, and permanently so.

This approach has significant advantages. It allows for interdisciplinary collaboration by acknowledging that different perspectives may require different definitions [6]. It also avoids the restrictive boundaries imposed by essentialist classifications, which can exclude or marginalise certain practices that do not fit a rigid definitional structure [62]. By adopting a nominalist perspective, we can focus on the practical utility of definitions rather than engaging in disputes over their supposed intrinsic correctness [60]. By recognising that definitions are constructed rather than discovered, nominalism offers a more flexible and interdisciplinary approach to defining martial arts. This shift moves away from static conceptualisations and embraces a pragmatic, research-oriented, and context-dependent framework for understanding martial arts.

3.1.2. Diaeresis

Alongside nominalism, Popper [60] proposes utilising “diaeresis”, or division/distinctions. In a letter to his friend Hayek [63], he wrote, “definitions are attempts to lay down some ‘absolute’ meaning of a term in advance” (p. 105)9. In contrast, diaeresis holds that a concept’s meaning is always ad hoc and pertains to the current problem under discussion. So, instead of asking, What are martial arts?, a diaeretic approach asks, How can martial arts be meaningfully classified based on practical distinctions in this specific instance? This allows us to talk about martial arts based on their most relevant characteristics in the current context, such as purpose, function, cultural context, or technical composition. Both Martínková and Parry’s [22] and Bolelli’s [29] classification systems can be understood as instances of diaeresis, as they seek to systematically divide and categorise martial arts into distinct groupings based on specific criteria. By employing taxonomic differentiation, these frameworks aim to impose order and clarity onto the conceptual complexity of martial arts, distinguishing between combat systems, philosophical traditions, performative arts, and competitive sports. The aim is not to reveal the true nature of martial arts but instead provide a stipulative framework for talking about its diverse contextual manifestations. These classifications allow for structured discussion without imposing essentialist constraints. The virtue of thinking like this enables us to acknowledge continuity and change within martial arts traditions while discussing different aspects, such as the expressed purpose (for Martínková and Parry [22]), stylistic characteristics (for Bolelli [29]), or something else. There is no “right” or “wrong” classification. They each seek to organise the vast array of systems and traditions in meaningful or useful ways and offer structured analytical tools. It should be acknowledged that, when used in an overly prescriptive way, classification systems can be counter-productive if they place rigid taxonomical boundaries and stifle the fluidity and historical movement of martial arts. Insofar as these systems are useful, they require humility and flexibility; they should be used as systems of analysis rather than absolute concepts.

Diaeresis does not avoid the charge of exclusionary boundary drawing. However, there are reasons for considering differences worth noting between diaeresis and essentialist definitions. As a method of division, diaeresis is frequently, if not always, analytically and provisional and temporary. It seeks to distinguish for the purposes of discussion or conceptual analysis and usually carries with it an awareness of its own contingency and context dependence. Essentialist definitions, on the other hand, typically assert context-free criteria for membership in a defined category. In the context of martial arts, essentialism usually operates prescriptively, defining what does and what does not count as a “true” martial art; diaeresis is more often descriptive. Although both approaches may lead to exclusion, essentialist definitions are more likely to present exclusion as authoritative. Diaeresis, when reflexively applied, may foster pluralism as it makes differences apparent without the necessity of firm boundary drawing. So, it is not whether or not some definitions are inherently flawed, but how they are used. Definitions premised on some fixed essence risk becoming exclusionary, even dogmatic. In contrast, when those same definitions are applied with interpretive flexibility—as heuristic or analytical devices—they can illuminate aspects of martial arts practice without asserting rigid boundaries. The problem lies not with the essentialist form per se, but with essentialist deployment.

Since there is an almost infinite number of ways in which a finite collection of items can be grouped [60], the potential combinations of classification systems are enormous. Take, for example, Judō, which Martínková and Parry [22] include in the “Martial Arts” category (“educational activities practised for the purpose of improvement in fighting through acquiring traditional martial techniques, but also emphasising self-development (of skills, character, moral virtues, etc.)”). (p. 151). Bolelli [29], however, puts Judō in both his “Grappling” sub-category of “Combat Sports” (“those martial arts that focus their practice on some forms of sparring”) (p. 145) and “Internal Arts” (“exploiting the opponent’s weakness, of not opposing force against a superior force, and of relying on proper technique and good body dynamics more than on muscular strength”10) (p. 136). These do not limit the classification, and Judō could—depending on the context of the discussion—be grouped with “Budō”, “Japanese Martial Arts”, “Olympic Sports”, “Gendai Budō (Modern Martial Ways)”, “Self-defence”, and so on. Instead of debating whether Judō is truly a martial art, a diaeretic approach classifies it based on its relevant characteristics within the context of the specific discussion, allowing for more focused analysis. Doing so, we remain open to constructive discussions of supposedly borderline cases (Krav Maga, Boxing, Capoeira), new developments (MMA, Jeet Kune Do, Point Karate), and any number of other systems that might fall outside the boundaries of mainstream constructions. In each of these cases, we suggest, inclusivity trumps exclusivity.

4. Conclusions

Defining martial arts is challenging, with writers offering a dazzling variety of conceptualisations. Navigating this challenge is like steering between Scylla and Charybdis: on one side, the monster of rigid boundary drawing threatens to trap us in narrow, exclusionary definitions; on the other, the whirlpool of relativism risks dissolving the concept into meaningless fluidity. We understand the appeal of clear and confident definitions, but perhaps we should accept—and even embrace—the messiness. By adopting a more flexible, pragmatic approach—drawing on tools like nominalism and diaeresis—we can appreciate martial arts in all their variety without becoming bogged down in definitional disputes. This way, we can celebrate both ancient traditions and modern hybrids, combat sports, and meditative practices without worrying too much about whether they all count as martial arts. After all, as Humpty Dumpty might say, the question is not what “martial arts” means—it is which is to be useful—that is all. And in a field as rich and evolving as this, maybe it is better to keep the conversation open.