Martial Arts and the Problem of Definition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Martial Arts and the Problem of Definition”

This is an important and timely article dealing with the problem of definition in scholarly treatments of martial arts. It is both well-written and, to a large extent, persuasive. It will certainly be of interest to many readers of Philosophies, and to readers generally sympathetic to a philosophical approach to martial arts. I recommend publication with minor revisions to address the following comments:

• Table 1, listing various definitions of martial arts, is extremely helpful. However, there are a few concerns worth addressing:
  • It isn’t obvious that all of these quotations are meant to be definitions: Martinkova and Parry, for instance, is offered more as a characterization distinguishing martial arts from what they call warrior arts and martial paths as well as close combat and martial sports. Note the that at 459 the author(s) characterize Martinkova and Parry as offering this as part of a classification system and explcitly not a definition. There are also two different “definitions” from Cynarski and Skowron. Are both proposed by them as definitions? The Nakir, likewise, doesn’t seem to be a definition so much as an acknowledgement that the meaning of the term has changed over time.
  • Similarly, many of these are clearly offered as different kinds of definitions, and the author(s) should note this. Some are essentialist, other ostensive, stipulative, etc., quite in line with the article’s proposal.
  • The list of definitions is described (at 71) as suggesting “several, often contradictory themes”. But some definitions are notably broader and more inclusive—even of the other definitions!—than others. Such variations should be noted. Some definitions are abstract enough to subsume much if not all of the finer-grained typology given in the diagram at 137. See also the related point below about line 150 below.
• Line 51: Another possibility is that the Japanese arts just happen to coincide with most of the contributors’ interests and expertise.
• Line 144: This claim should be qualified. Perspectivism is only one of several options here.
• Line 150: Note that the blind men describing different parts of the elephant implies that at a certain level of abstraction, we can correctly describe the whole elephant, seemingly in line with essentialist definitions.
• Lines 163–166: The exclusion of Western combat sports and hybrid fighting systems does not apply to all the definitions of martial arts listed. Some plausibly or intentionally include such examples (e.g., Woodward, Lorge, Holt).
• Lines 296–297: As this is a tendency, not a necessity, it should be noted that essentialist definitions may have imprecise and/or flexible boundaries.
• Line 305: See point above about 163.
• Lines 387–388: But essentialist definitions of martial arts in terms of, say, practices, allow for such evolution. A particular martial art can change substantially without imperilling the (presumed) timelessness of what constitutes a martial art in general. Do the author(s) imply that martial arts may have, say, nothing at all to do with fighting at some point? Do essentialist constraints not apply in some sense generally?
• Lines 441–443, 452 on: Note that “‘diaeresis’, or division/distinctions” is no less plausible a culprit for the exclusion of combat sports and fighting systems than essentialist definitions.
• Lines 476–477: If definitions “should be used as systems of analysis rather than absolute concepts”, why couldn’t we simply use any of the listed definitions from Table 1—even the essentialist ones—in this way? So, is it definitions that are essentially “essentialist” or is it rather how they are interpreted and used?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is well-referenced with one exception, it does not mention Donn F. Draeger in any way. Many of the more recent scholars, for example Bowman, disregard Draeger; however, he was the first in the West who wrote academic books about martial arts studies, also discussing martial arts terminology and their definitions, at least regarding Japanese martial arts. Therefore, the author needs to add some content regarding Draeger.

The definition of the term 'martial arts' is mostly a problem in the English language, since in the East Asian languages (Chinese, Korean, and Japanese) always a variety of terms existed. Maybe the author could also expand a little in this way.

Lastly, the introduction needs to clearly state the aim and the necessity of the study. Furthermore, at the end of the introduction  an outline of the study in necessary.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attachment and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf