Style of No Style:
Published: 9/23/2010
By Spencer sensei
Today it is easy to find any type of martial arts school or style that might appeal to a potential student. It is similar to shopping for a car based upon color and body style. A few years ago, I had a conversation with a karate instructor that wanted to rent the facility where I teach karate. I ask, “What style of karate do you teach?” After a long pause the instructor said, “I teach karate…. karate” So, I decided to broaden my query and ask, “Is your karate Japanese, Okinawan, Korean, or Chinese?” Another long pause and she said, ”No… just karate.” My guess is she was trained in an eclectic American form of karate. These eclectic styles became very popular in the sixties and seventies, and some instructors use Bruce Lee’s philosophy of, style-of-no-style, as justification for leaving tradition behind. In the sixties my generation questioned everything. A karateka with four or five years of training could began teaching non-traditional karate believing that tradition bogged down their creativity. All martial arts styles are built upon the founder’s philosophy of how to fight, but sifu Lee’s style-of-no style opened the door to the eclectic karate movement.
The sixties were a time of tuning in, turning on, and dropping out. In the very things used to describe that period we see a great paradox. I can best describe it as a time of confusion wrapped in passion. Young people were seeking their own identity by shaking off what they believed to be the repressive yoke of their parents. Many times, they threw the baby out with the bath-water and were later forced to make the same mistakes as their parents. More often they refused to acknowledge their mistakes and expounded on their failure as though it were a virtue. The sixties left a stench on American life that we still feel today. My generation was a failure. We will not admit we were wrong, yet we caused more damage to family structure than we can ever repair. My generation still longs for a cause, so we can once again wrap ourselves in the narcissistic delusion that we are still flower children, but in reality, we are simply a sadder version of Don Quixote in search of a windmill. Out of the sixties tumultuous environment came a young man, from the University of Washington, who changed the face of the martial arts forever. His name was Bruce Lee. He gave us what appeared on the surface as martial arts without walls.
Bruce died at the age of thirty-two. Most of his theories and philosophies were developed in his early twenties, and some of these were damaging to traditional martial arts. Many of his statements condemned traditional martial arts, and implied they were prison like or at best an impediment to the martial arts student’s growth. His now famous “style-of-no-style” philosophy has given license to anyone that wants to open their own school of martial arts regardless of their credentials. They simply create their own style or call it by a generic name like karate, kung fu, or MMA. Mix some fortune cookie philosophy with a year of training and in the seventies, you had a new style. Today it is even easier. Mix some high school wrestling with kickboxing and you have a mixed martial arts school. One website I looked at stated, “In fact it (MMA) has its roots in a martial art developed by none other than Jun Fan a.k.a. Bruce Lee. Dana White, president of the MMA even acknowledges the martial arts icon as the father of the MMA.” Ms White can say this because the core of style-of-no-style is to focus on actual combat believing that kata or prearranged forms did little to advance a student’s understanding of fighting. If you flush tradition completely your derivative is anything goes street fighting. A byproduct of this philosophy when loosely interpreted removes the instructor’s obligation to the public to not give a potentially deadly weapon to someone too immature to control it. Since Bruce Lee is not here to defend his quotes, we cannot say this meaning is rightly or wrongly interpreted. Conversely, there are instructors with over forty years of teaching and training, holding the rank of seventh dan or higher in multiple disciplines, which try to legitimately create their own style or system, and meet with raised eyebrows from the traditional community. I’m not a diehard traditionalist. I do believe there is no room for something new, but I also believe that you must have the credentials to justify your creation. Bruce had trained in Wing Chun, since his early teens, prior to the creation of Jun Fan kung-fu, and though he had great martial arts insight, I believe if he had grown older his philosophies would have also evolved along with his kung-fu. No one can fully explain what sifu Lee meant by “style-of-no-style.” Only Bruce Lee understood the totality of the concept. We can see that Jun Fan kungfu is passing the test of time. A legitimate course change in the concept of a style must pass the test of time, and Jeet Kun Do is flourishing as the cult of personality surrounding its’ founder is diminishing. Bruce Lee was young man when he developed his martial arts philosophies, and sadly we will never know the full extent to the meaning of his style-of-no-style.
The philosophy of style-of-no-style is also a paradox within Sifu Lee’s martial arts development. If we use Bruce’s life as a template, we can see that he did not follow this path. We can examine this with a simple cursory observation of his life. Of course using his life as a template is a violation of his philosophy because we will be giving his kungfu boundaries. Had he lived longer, maybe he would have better articulated this thought. Upon examination what we see is that Bruce Lee had a strong foundation in traditional kung-fu. It was out of this foundation that Jun Fan kung-fu was born. He did not one day say to himself I think I’ll teach kung-fu and then proceed to hang up a sign advertising for students. His innovation was born of past knowledge. My belief is that Bruce was speaking to the advanced student and not the novice when he philosophically expounded upon style-of-no-style. After decades of study, no matter the style you train in, your karate or kung-fu becomes personal. Your personality and increased knowledge changes your martial art slightly and sometimes profoundly. This is what I believe Sifu Lee meant by style-of-no-style. Once you’re rooted in the system of your choice, you need to expand your knowledge and learn other fighting arts adding what you find is useful, to your personal martial art, while stripping away technique that is not. This makes your personal karate or kung-fu better but does not mean that all your past knowledge must be discarded. What works for me may not work for you, and to enable one of your students to build their personal art means they initially must follow some entrenched path before they have the tools to decide what needs to be in their arsenal. Bruce’s life shows that it was out of traditional training that he was able to create and refine Jun Fan kung-fu.
Style-of-no-style, in my opinion, can be applicable in different ways. Each advanced student is as different as a fingerprint, and they cannot be pressed into single mold forever. Reading John Sells book Unante The Secrets of Karate, we see that the founders studied the Okinawan systems first and then went to China to further develop their karate. They were rooted first. When I speak of an advanced student, I speak of black belt or equivalent level student. Two years training and a green belt do not give you the foundation to begin your exploration. There are systems that forbid their students from studying other martial arts. They claim it is to maintain the styles purity. It makes you wonder what contamination they fear. I know of one organization that strives to keep Isshin Ryu exactly the way it was taught by Tatsuo Shimabuku. If a memorial tribute to Shimabuku sensei is the student’s goal, this is okay, but after three decades of training I believe the student will find himself/herself limited and bored. Exploration is growth. Exploration feeds innovation and innovation feeds creativity. Stifle exploration and you kill creativity. Study of multiple disciplines is style-of-no-style in my opinion. Remove the walls of your tradition, and let your advanced students grow and be unique.
If an instructor is teaching a specific style of kung-fu or karate, they should stay within the boundaries of that system. Adding your personal karate into a curriculum can be confusing, to a beginning student, especially if they move away and resume their training elsewhere. Adding your personal karate can be an introduction into style-of-no-style but try not to confuse the beginner. If you do teach information outside the fences of your traditional system, the student should be informed that what they’re learning was not part of the original tradition set-up by the master. Adding your personal karate to the mix can be a bit of fresh air to your advanced student. Do not allow the beginning student the flexibility to train simultaneously in multiple disciplines until they have mastered one. Their knowledge is too limited for them to make solid choices about what does or does not fit the category of life preservation. Once they’re rooted and can through dialog break down the nuances of their training, then they should be encouraged to explore other arts. This does not mean that their newly found insight should be brought back to the dojo floor because this too could confuse beginners, but sharing with other advanced students can be thrilling, and it begins to build the dojo without walls construct. Keep the beginning student on the path or within the style that has developed over decades or centuries until they’re ready to move on.
As a martial arts instructor it boils down to determining what is it that you want to teach. Students come to a dojo or school for many reasons, but what goes on inside the walls of that training hall is the responsibility of the instructor. All schools must teach discipline. Many will teach a respect for another culture, and the martial traditions of the past. These are all good things, but in the end most students want to be able to defend themselves. Bruce Lee was once asked, “What is your favorite technique.” His reply was simply,” The one that hits you.” Any system is good when at the end of the day your advanced students can effectively defend themselves. I believe stepping outside your tradition can make them even more affective, but this dojo without walls concept is up to each individual instructor. Don’t let your fear of inadequacy limit your student’s growth.
Allowing a student to train outside your specific expertise can be challenging. It is like watching a baby bird fly for the first time or watching your toddler take his/her first steps. They may return with countless questions, or they may not return at all. One of my most rewarding moments, as a karateka, was when one of my first students told me how much he appreciated what he had learned from my teaching, and how disappointed he was with what he had experienced in other martial arts schools. He is still on his personal journey unfettered by the adherence to the tradition that I trained him in. Maybe this is what sifu Lee meant by style-of-no-style. Let me reiterate a novice student should not seek training outside their original tradition. It may be a decade before they’re mature enough to compare their foundational training to another style that is simply new and different. Bruce trained in Tae Kwon Do, Tang Soo Do, Pilipino martial arts, Judo, boxing, and jujitsu. His martial art was not Wing Chun when he died it was an amalgam of his life experiences. I hope my students embrace my concept of style-of-no-style and grow beyond my instruction in martial arts as-well-as growing beyond life’s limitations.