Politics in Aikido

A view of politics in Aikido : my experiences from the pen of Arthur Crown


Aikido, the way of spirit and harmony. What better martial way to further the advancement of the human spirit, both in terms of ethical and moralistic behavior.

However

Human nature being what it is, someone always wants to be a big fish in a small pond and usually at the expense of others.remember,a big fish in a confined pond is unlikely to grow as fast as a fish in larger waters, you could run the risk of being stunted in your development. Also in times of drought your small pond is more likely to dry up rather not so with the safety of the river. You also have fewer places to escape to in times of trouble. The small fry have a greater chance of being consumed by the large fish,
I believe that in the long term everyone comes off worse assuming, of course, that the people involved wish to advance in Aikido. I have know many people who have left the Art due to the encroachment of politics on their practicing and subsequently their spirit.
All organizations require people to run it, be they elected-or self appointed. Sometimes they seem to have an over-inflated sense of righteousness, especially when their own organization is seemingly attacked.

The main ways that an organization can be attacked is usually in the form of a takeover, or a breakaway group is formed. As Aikidoka we are taught that the best way to defend ourselves from an attack is not to be in the position so that any launched attack is going to hit, that is we move (off the line) or out of harms way.
At a higher level we should try to always be in such a position the attack would never be tried in the first place. So coming back to the higher level dealing with an attack, prevention is always better the cure.
For an organization to allow itself to be in the position whereby an attack is launched, then they have failed to use preventative measures or use these measures correctly. Then as so often happens they resort to tactics of force, in the Aikido world this means that a person, or group ,is banned from practice or meetings so as not to allow the “uncontaminated body” to become infected. Attempt then can be made to discredit so that any further “Contamination” can be limited.

Cure or cause

So who is the most ethical, the person who perceives a wrong and then tries to do something about it or the person who just will not accept that something MAY be wrong and thus tries to cure the root cause before drastic action has to be taken. Take for example the heavy smoker, as is commonly recognized smoking is not good for your health. If the smoker stops early enough, there may be little harm done. Later on, if still smoking, their health may worsen; minor aliments begin to build up. Even now, stopping would remove many of the problems. As you can plainly see, this progress into some fatal disease could have been prevented by self-monitoring and also addressing the root of the cause.
So if there is a little niggle from someone who is obviously concerned about something in the union, then it should be looked into.

Perhaps forethought could prevent demise hmmmm

cua 2008