Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
24 (2000) 741–761
Abstract
This study investigated whether a relationship existed between instructional style and points
of emphasis in the training context of the martial art aikido and the perceptions which
practitioners of aikido generated for aikido-related concepts. The findings were gathered
within and compared across aikido training settings in two cultures } Japan and the United
States. Analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data gathered for this investigation
revealed several potent differences between the manner in which Japanese and American
aikido practitioners represented their understandings of aikido-related concepts. Differences in
the manner in which aikido practitioners in Japan and the United States represented their
understandings of aikido reflected the teaching emphasis observed in the respective cultures. It
was concluded that aikido instructors represented the values of their own culture in the
context of aikido training, and thus served as important mediating forces influencing the
meaning which practitioners generated for aikido. An additional finding revealed that in
neither culture were participants able to accurately represent how practitioners in the ‘‘other’’
culture structured their understandings of aikido. It was reasoned that both cultural groups
generated faulty perceptions of how the ‘‘other’’ group understood aikido because they
utilized a similar pattern of projection, using their own meanings of aikido to represent the
understandings of practitioners in the ‘‘other’’ cultural group. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
0147-1767/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 7 - 1 7 6 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 2 9 - 8
742 C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761
1. Introduction
When persons from different cultures come into contact, there is an inevitable
exchange of cultural elements. Generally, the meaning and function of a cultural artifact
or practice is altered as it is transferred from one culture to another (Hunter & Whitten,
1976). Developments in transportation and communications technology in the
contemporary world have resulted in information being shared between cultures at
ever-increasing rates. It is therefore becoming increasingly important to have a clear
understanding of the process of information transfer across cultures. This study
investigated the process by which an artifact from one culture was received into another.
In the past several decades the Asian martial arts have become quite popular and
extensively practiced in the United States (Trulson, 1986). Several authors (Min,
1979; Back & Kim, 1984) have suggested that there are differences in martial arts
instruction in American and Japanese dojos (training halls). It has been argued that
the process of recontextualizing the martial arts into the culture of the United States
has resulted in new understandings of the martial arts (Columbus & Rice, 1991;
Trulson, 1986; Deshimaru in Wertz, 1984). The majority of the research which has
generated these findings, however, has involved hard, linear, combat-oriented
martial arts. Aikido, which was used as an example in this study, is a relatively new,
soft, spiritually based martial art.
Aikido is a soft, circular Japanese martial way which is commonly translated into
English as ‘‘the way of harmony’’. In aikido, the goal of training is to generate a
balance of body, mind, and spirit (Ueshiba, 1984). This is accomplished by training
to centralize and extend ‘‘ki’’ or vital energy, and to coordinate it harmoniously
with the surrounding circumstances (Ratti & Westerbrook, 1973, p. 359). Aikido’s
founder, Morihei Ueshiba, believed that violence and aggression could be guided, led
or turned aside by the harmonious coordination of spirit. The manifestations of this
principle can be observed in watching an aikido practitioner whirl and spin, leading
the aggressor’s force to a harmonious, non-violent outcome. From its inception,
aikido has emphasized a spiritual component (Ueshiba, 1984; Saotome, 1993), and
this emphasis has differentiated aikido from other, more combative martial arts.
Aikido was founded by Morihei Ueshiba in Japan in 1942 (Crawford, 1992;
Ueshiba, 1984) and it is practiced widely in Japan by persons of both genders and
various ages. Aikido was first introduced in the United States in 1953, and it is
currently estimated that there are approximately 1000 aikido dojos in the continental
United States (Pranin, 1991). Aikido has recently received attention due to the
success of Steven Segal’s movies.
This study sought to clarify whether, and if so how the meaning of aikido was
altered in its diffusion to the United States. Although the investigation was broadly
C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761 743
(1) How is the instruction and practice of aikido in the United States different than
the instruction and practice of aikido in Japan?
(2) What differences, if any, exist between what aikido means to practitioners in the
United States and Japan?
(3) In what manner are differences in instruction and practice related to differences
in the meaning which aikido has to practitioners in different cultures?
2. Methodology
A multiple-case study comparative research design using mixed methods was used
to conduct this investigation. The multiple-case study design accommodated an
essential feature of this study } across case analysis. Yin (1984) stated that in the
multiple case study design, the use of multiple sources of data aids in the generation
of ‘‘more convincing and accurate’’ findings. The comparative nature of the
investigation’s research design was facilitated by being structured within a format of
constant–comparative analysis (Glasser & Strauss, 1967).
Berry and his colleagues (1992) have stated that for cross-cultural comparative
studies, ‘‘an important strategy is to use more than one method of measurement’’
(p. 223). Both qualitative and quantitative data gathering and analysis strategies
were used in this comparative investigation. Data were gathered using in-depth
744 C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761
interviews with participants (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992;
Yin, 1984), participant–observation (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Glesne & Peshkin,
1992; Yin, 1984), direct, structured observation (Yin, 1984; LeCompte & Preissle,
1993) semantic differentials (Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1957), and a
demographic questionnaire. Berry and his colleagues (1992) have asserted that by
using more than one method of measurement, ‘‘one can have more confidence in a
finding’’ (p. 223).
2.3. Back-translation
from the semantic bias of the original language. The result of the process of
decentering ‘‘means that the research project is not centered around any one culture
or language’’ (Brislin, 1980, p. 433). The questions used to guide interviews, as well
as the semantic differentials used in this study were back-translated.
2.4. Participants
All participants in the study were adult practitioners of aikido in dojos in Japan
and the United States. Several of the practitioners in each culture who participated in
this study were instructors. In each culture, data was gathered only from participants
who were ‘native’ to that culture; for example, in Japan data was gathered only
among Japanese aikido practitioners, and in the United States only from American
practitioners. Data was not collected among non-Japanese aikido practitioners
training in Japan, nor among non-Americans training in dojos in the United States.
3. Findings
This section presents the findings of the study. The findings concerning the
instructional emphasis observed and experienced while training in aikido dojos is
presented first. This is followed by a section describing practitioners’ perceptions of
aikido-related concepts, and a comparison of these perceptions across cultures. The
implications of the findings are addressed in the discussion section.
classes. Classes were very structured, beginning with a bow to shomen (the front of
the dojo), continuing through a short meditation session, group warm-ups, and
specific instruction in and practice of aikido techniques. All activities at Akiyama
dojo, including partner selection and technique training, were scripted, even
ritualized, and Akiyama sensei (teacher; instructor) insured that the behavioral
patterns were strictly adhered to.
Akiyama sensei placed emphasis on kokyu ho (breathing method) during training.
A seated, meditative version of the exercise was performed at the beginning and end
of each training session. During kokyu ho, Akiyama sensei instructed students to
keep their posture straight, their chins pulled in, and their breath slow: ‘‘When
inhaling, concentrate on the incoming breath, bringing ki energy into your tanden
(center point), then hold it there. When exhaling, force ki out through every part of
your body; do not try to keep ki in your body’’. We were instructed to literally
‘‘watch’’ our breathing (Fieldnotes, June, 1995).
Akiyama sensei also provided specific instruction on the ‘‘proper’’ positioning of
the hands, feet, and hips when performing aikido movements. For example, we were
told to hold the bokken (a wooden training sword) with our hands on the top of the
hilt, gripping only with the two smallest fingers. ‘‘Hold the bokken straight in front of
you, the butt two fists from your hara (belly)’’. He stated that the cut had to originate
in the hara, and that ki should ‘‘flow through the bokken’’. He insisted that the only
way to get a smooth, fast, yet powerful cut ‘‘was to concentrate ki through the tip of
the ken (colloquial for ‘‘bokken’’). The hips are also important, because speed and
power come from the hara’’ (Fieldnotes, June 3, 1995). These comments exemplify
Akiyama sensei’s consistent emphasis on ki control and extension as it related to
coordinating breathing and bodily movement, as well as the precise manner in which
he gave specific instruction.
instruction during pair-work, telling me to ‘‘Look at the eyes (of your partner), only
at the eyes. Don’t look at the weapon or your hands. Eyes. Capture the spirit of your
opponent’’ (Fieldnotes, June 10, 1995). As his comment illustrates, although
Sakamoto sensei taught within a context which emphasized martial engagement, he
did occasionally refer to spirit to illustrate his instructional points.
At the American participant observation site, labeled White Hall dojo because
there was more than one regular instructor, there was an easily discernable ‘‘script’’
of dojo procedures for activities (such as opening and closing class procedures,
partner selection, and technique demonstration). Unlike instruction in the Japanese
settings, however, there was no recognizable systematic approach to teaching specific
techniques or movements. This coincides with the two American instructors’
descriptions of their teaching styles as ‘‘idea-driven’’.
Both Frank and William, the two primary instructors at the dojo, taught from a
non-scripted, thematic framework which emphasized the basic principles of aikido.
As William stated during an interview: ‘‘Usually for teaching, I just come in with an
idea. And we explore the idea, and we try to make as many connections as possible
with the various techniques based on an idea’’ (Interview, November 8, 1995, p. 9).
Among the ‘‘ideas’’ around which training sessions frequently revolved at White Hall
dojo were: being centered, extension, establishing and maintaining a connection with
the training partner, and circularity.
Additionally, both instructors placed emphasis upon the application of aikido
principles for martial effectiveness. For example, while giving an explanation to the
class, Frank stated that, ‘‘Aikido must be able to work against anybody from any
martial art. Aikido is a martial art. Otherwise you’re just dancing around and feeling
good’’ (Fieldnotes, January 6, 1996). This statement reflects an instructional style
aimed at generating an understanding of aikido as a martial activity, and not
primarily as a practice designed for psychological or spiritual development.
White Hall dojo instructors rarely spoke of energy when providing explanations,
and they were never heard to mention ki during a training session. Instead, their
explanations generally focused on the principles upon which aikido’s dynamic
movements were founded, as exemplified in their utilization of terms such as
‘‘centering’’, and ‘‘connection’’. The instructors taught martial practicality in a
manner which did not deny, but certainly did not give primacy to, psychological or
spiritual considerations.
This project utilized the constant comparative method (Glasser & Strauss, 1967);
analysis of interview and participant observation data were on-going throughout the
study. The findings generated from the analysis of these data were integrated with
the empirical findings which emerged from the analysis of the semantic differential
C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761 749
data. The findings generated from the analysis of the semantic differential data
provide a structured representation of participants’ understandings of aikido-related
concepts, while the qualitative findings generate a fuller, more detailed description of
participants’ dynamic and personal understandings of aikido.
A principle component analysis (factor analysis) with verimax rotation was
applied to analyze the semantic differential data. The data collected from aikido
practitioners in Japan and the United States were treated separately, and items
loading at 0.60 or higher were retained to represent the factors extracted from the
analysis. The findings are presented below.
3.5. Concept 1: Ki is
‘‘Ki ’’ is typically translated into English as ‘‘spirit’’, ‘‘mind’’, ‘‘will’’, and ‘‘intrinsic
or inner energy’’ (O’Neill, 1973; Ratti & Westerbrook, 1973). Three distinct factors
for ‘‘ki is’’ were extracted from the Japanese semantic differential data, while only
two factors were extracted from the American data. This indicates that Japanese
practitioners structured their understanding of ki in a more complex manner than
American practitioners.
An examination of the items comprising the factors for each group reveals further
differences in how members of the two cultural groups constructed meaning for the
same concept. For clarity, the items comprising a factor are not presented here as
polar adjective pairs, but as single adjectives, in accordance with the positive or
negative sign extracted during analysis. It should be also noted that the first factor
extracted during analysis typically serves as the ‘‘central’’ factor around which the
meaning for a particular concept is structured. The first factor extracted from the
Japanese data consisted of the five items ‘‘kind’’, ‘‘graceful’’, ‘‘peaceful’’, ‘‘soft’’, and
‘‘rounded’’. These items connoted a sense of ethical fluidness, characterizing
harmony. The second factor consisted of the items ‘‘strong’’, ‘‘deep’’ and ‘‘active’’,
and the third factor of the items ‘‘heavy’’ and ‘‘tenacious’’ (Table 1).
The first factor extracted from data gathered among participants in the United
States consisted of the items ‘‘cruel’’, ‘‘ferocious’’, ‘‘hard’’ and ‘‘tenacious’’. The
connotative quality of this factor was intrusive, even aggressive. No factor extracted
from the Japanese data carried a similar quality of meaning. The second factor
contained the items ‘‘beautiful’’, ‘‘graceful’’, ‘‘strong’’, ‘‘deep’’, ‘‘tenacious’’, and
‘‘active’’. The two factors extracted from the American data seemed to exist on a
semantic continuum; a continuum which ranged from ‘aggression’, to a sense of
aesthetic movement.
The meaning of ki was less differentiated by the American aikido practitioners
than by their Japanese counterparts, indicating that American practitioners had a
less complex understanding of the concept. This is not surprising, as the kanji
(Chinese character) ‘‘ki’’ is found in words and phrases used everyday in Japanese
society; for example, the word for weather, ‘‘tenki’’, contains the kanji for ‘‘heaven’’
and ‘‘ki’’. The analysis of the Japanese interview data also revealed that ki plays an
important role in Japanese participants’ conceptions of aikido. For example, a
female aikidoist stated, ‘‘If you don’t have harmonious ki, you can’t do aikido’’
750 C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761
Table 1
Results of the principle component analysis of the semantic differential data by culture (Concept: ki is)
Factors
1 2 3
Loadings
Japan
Beautiful/ugly 0.43 0.59 ÿ 0.35
Kind/cruel 0.74 0.20 ÿ 0.18
Graceful/awkward 0.81 0.25 ÿ 0.20
Peaceful/ferocious 0.80 0.14 ÿ 0.01
Hard/soft ÿ 0.85 ÿ 0.23 ÿ 0.01
Heavy/light 0.08 0.05 0.78
Strong/weak 0.40 0.63 0.15
Deep/shallow 0.16 0.85 ÿ 0.06
Tenacious/yielding ÿ 0.12 ÿ 0.09 0.69
Active/passive 0.22 0.74 0.14
Complex/simple ÿ 0.14 0.39 0.50
Angular/rounded ÿ 0.81 ÿ 0.13 ÿ 0.04
Factors
1 2
Loadings
USA
Beautiful/ugly ÿ 0.35 0.72
Kind/cruel ÿ 0.76 0.37
Graceful/awkward ÿ 0.26 0.72
Peaceful/ferocious ÿ 0.72 0.26
Hard/soft 0.72 ÿ 0.20
Heavy/light 0.53 ÿ 0.05
Strong/weak ÿ 0.25 0.64
Deep/shallow ÿ 0.15 0.73
Tenacious/yielding 0.69 0.03
Active/passive 0.19 0.67
Complex/simple 0.56 ÿ 0.07
Angular/rounded 0.55 ÿ 0.36
(Participant interview, June 29, 1995, p. 3). Not only does her statement illuminate
the central importance of the practice and philosophy of harmony to aikido,
but it contextualizes this idea in the concept of ki. For English speakers, however,
‘‘ki’’ is a foreign concept. Although Americans training in aikido have more
opportunities to refine their understanding of ‘‘ki’’ than do non-aikido practicing
Americans, the lesser differentiation of the concept among American participants
may simply be due to their relative unfamiliarity with the concept. It was also
found that in the educational settings American instructors referred to ki less
frequently during training sessions than did instructors teaching in the Japanese
settings.
C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761 751
Among the concepts whose meaning was measured using the semantic differential,
the structure and connotative quality for the concept ‘‘aikido is’’ were the most
similar between cultural groups. Three factors were extracted from the semantic
differential data gathered in Japan, although one factor loaded above 0.60 on only a
single item. Three distinct factors were extracted from the American data. This
indicates that American practitioners’ understandings of aikido were structured with
slightly greater differentiation than their Japanese counterparts’.
The slightly greater differentiation with which American participants structured
their understandings of aikido may be related to the difference between the
educational backgrounds of the two cultural groups. Analysis of the demographic
data revealed that American participants averaged a greater amount of post-
secondary education } about three years for Americans, and one year for Japanese
participants. It is also interesting to note that 21.1% of American participants
held degrees at the master’s level or above, while only 1.7% of Japanese practitioners
held degrees at a similar level. In addition, informants and interview participants in
the United States research setting reported having done a great deal of reading
about aikido philosophy, and many admitted having ‘‘libraries’’ of literature
about aikido } they actively studied about aikido in addition to training. As one
American instructor stated, aikido ‘‘attracts people who are well-educated’’
(Fieldnotes, November 16, 1995). These findings may account for the slightly
greater complexity with which American participants structured their under-
standings of aikido.
The first factor extracted from the Japanese data contained the five items
‘‘beautiful’’, ‘‘kind’’, ‘‘graceful’’, ‘‘peaceful’’, and ‘‘rounded’’. This factor is very
similar to the ‘‘harmony’’ factor for the concept ‘‘Ki is’’. The first factor extracted
from the American data contained the items ‘‘beautiful’’, ‘‘graceful’’, and ‘‘strong’’,
connoting a sense of powerful aesthetic movement.
The ‘‘beautiful’’ and ‘‘graceful’’ items around which practitioners training at
aikido dojos in both cultural research settings structured their understandings of
aikido may be accounted for by its universal representation as a means of personal
development emphasizing harmony. Aikido is consistently referred to in English as
‘‘the way of harmony’’ (Ueshiba, 1984) (Table 2).
There were differences in nuance, however, between the second factors extracted
from the data gathered among the two cultural groups. The second factor extracted
from the Japanese data contained the items ‘‘heavy’’, ‘‘strong’’ and ‘‘active’’,
connoting a quality of strength and assertion. The second factor extracted from the
American data was comprised of the items ‘‘cruel’’, ‘‘ferocious’’, ‘‘tenacious’’, and
‘‘active’’. These items connote a sense of wild, unrestrained aggression.
Although the structure of the meaning for both groups were similar, differences in
nuance were apparent. The differences between the manner in which the two cultural
groups constructed meaning for aikido become clearer through an examination
of the qualitative interview data. Among the distinguishing properties which
Japanese participants consistently used to characterized aikido were harmony, ki, an
752 C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761
Table 2
Results of the principle component analysis of the semantic differential data by culture (Concept 2:
Aikido is)
Factors
1 2 3
Loadings
Japan
Beautiful/ugly 0.69 0.27 0.02
Kind/cruel 0.80 ÿ 0.05 ÿ 0.02
Graceful/awkward 0.79 0.14 0.10
Peaceful/ferocious 0.78 ÿ 0.13 ÿ 0.13
Hard/soft ÿ 0.56 ÿ 0.33 0.22
Heavy/light ÿ 0.01 0.61 0.06
Strong/weak 0.13 0.79 ÿ 0.10
Deep/shallow 0.51 0.47 0.03
Tenacious/yielding ÿ 0.13 ÿ 0.07 0.89
Active/passive 0.19 0.74 ÿ 0.02
Complex/simple 0.02 0.47 0.44
Angular/rounded ÿ 0.78 ÿ 0.20 0.22
USA
Beautiful/ugly 0.77 ÿ 0.16 0.21
Kind/cruel 0.32 ÿ 0.62 0.001
Graceful/awkward 0.79 ÿ 0.03 ÿ 0.10
Peaceful/ferocious 0.16 ÿ 0.74 ÿ 0.17
Hard/soft ÿ 0.15 0.32 0.65
Heavy/light ÿ 0.17 0.48 0.29
Strong/weak 0.74 0.22 ÿ 0.02
Deep/shallow 0.57 ÿ 0.18 ÿ 0.04
Tenacious/yielding 0.07 0.64 0.37
Active/passive 0.29 0.62 ÿ 0.23
Complex/simple 0.07 ÿ 0.02 0.80
Angular/rounded ÿ 0.51 0.20 0.30
Three factors were extracted for this concept from the data collected from both
cultural groups. From the Japanese data, the first factor contained the seven items
‘‘beautiful, ‘‘kind’’, ‘‘graceful’’, ‘‘soft’’, ‘‘deep’’, ‘‘complex’’ and ‘‘rounded’’, connot-
ing an sense of profound, gentle harmony. The second factor was comprised of the
items ‘‘ferocious’’, ‘‘heavy’’ and ‘‘tenacious’’, connoting a sense of persistent wildness
approaching aggression. The third factor contained the items ‘‘strong’’ and ‘‘active’’,
connoting assertiveness.
The first factor extracted from the data gathered among aikido practitioners in the
United States contained five items: ‘‘ferocious’’, ‘‘hard’’, ‘‘heavy’’, ‘‘tenacious’’, and
‘‘active’’. This factor, central to structuring American practitioners’ understanding
of concept three, characterizes aggression. The second factor contained the items
‘‘beautiful’’, ‘‘graceful’’, and ‘‘deep’’, and the third factor loaded above 0.60 on the
single item ‘‘complex’’ (Table 3).
Although the difference in the complexity of the meaning of this concept between
the two cultural groups was slight, the quality of the first and central factors
extracted from the data between groups was very different. Japanese aikido
practitioners structured their understandings of how American aikido practitioners
perceive aikido around a central factor of harmony, although there was a secondary
element of aggression. American practitioners structured their understandings of
how American aikido practitioners (the cultural group to whom they belong) per-
ceive aikido around a central factor of aggression. The quality which characterized
the first factor for each cultural group was polarized in the opposite semantic
direction–harmony for Japanese practitioners and aggression for practitioners in the
United States.
754 C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761
Table 3
Results of the principle component analysis of the semantic differential data by culture (Concept 3: Aikido
practitioners in the United States think Aikido is)
Factors
1 2 3
Loadings
Japan
Beautiful/ugly 0.73 ÿ 0.02 0.29
Kind/cruel 0.62 0.54 ÿ 0.04
Graceful/awkward 0.82 ÿ 0.28 ÿ 0.08
Peaceful/ferocious 0.55 ÿ 0.61 ÿ 0.06
Hard/soft ÿ 0.77 0.40 0.05
Heavy/light ÿ 0.03 0.67 0.08
Strong/weak 0.18 0.25 0.80
Deep/shallow 0.67 ÿ 0.06 0.38
Tenacious/yielding ÿ 0.14 0.72 0.10
Active/passive ÿ 0.05 0.02 0.90
Complex/simple 0.70 0.47 0.04
Angular/rounded ÿ 0.69 0.56 0.15
USA
Beautiful/ugly ÿ 0.08 0.76 0.23
Kind/cruel ÿ 0.50 0.53 0.12
Graceful/awkward ÿ 0.23 0.60 0.004
Peaceful/ferocious ÿ 0.69 0.46 ÿ 0.19
Hard/soft 0.76 ÿ 0.22 0.07
Heavy/light 0.71 ÿ 0.26 0.02
Strong/weak 0.36 0.57 ÿ 0.45
Deep/shallow ÿ 0.02 0.74 ÿ 0.03
Tenacious/yielding 0.83 ÿ 0.08 0.01
Active/passive 0.71 0.21 ÿ 0.13
Complex/simple 0.14 0.18 0.84
Angular/rounded 0.32 ÿ 0.57 ÿ 0.23
Three factors were extracted from the Japanese data for this concept, yet only two
clear factors were extracted from the American data. This indicates a differentiation
in the complexity of the structure of meaning } Japanese participants perceived of
Japanese aikidoists understanding aikido in a more complex manner than American
participants perceived Japanese aikidoists understanding aikido.
Factor one extracted from the Japanese data was comprised of six items:
‘‘beautiful’’, ‘‘kind’’, ‘‘graceful’’, ‘‘peaceful’’, ‘‘soft’’ and ‘‘rounded’’. Again, in com-
bination these items connotate harmony. The second factor contained the two items
‘‘heavy’’ and ‘‘strong’’, which express a feeling of strength or muscularity. The final
factor contained the items ‘‘deep’’ and ‘‘complex’’, connoting a sense of knowledge
or wisdom (Table 4).
C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761 755
Table 4
Results of the principle component analysis of the semantic differential data by culture (Concept 4: Aikido
practitioners in Japan think aikido is)
Factors
1 2 3
Loadings
Japan
Beautiful/ugly 0.72 0.20 0.11
Kind/cruel 0.60 ÿ 0.20 0.48
Graceful/awkward 0.76 0.15 0.07
Peaceful/ferocious 0.72 0.14 ÿ 0.07
Hard/soft ÿ 0.79 ÿ 0.14 0.05
Heavy/light 0.01 0.83 ÿ 0.001
Strong/weak 0.28 0.68 0.20
Deep/shallow 0.28 0.36 0.60
Tenacious/yielding ÿ 0.39 ÿ 0.15 0.51
Active/passive 0.47 0.54 0.24
Complex/simple 0.03 0.22 0.65
Angular/rounded ÿ 0.78 ÿ 0.13 ÿ 0.10
Factors
1 2
Loadings
USA
Beautiful/ugly ÿ 0.20 0.74
Kind/cruel ÿ 0.71 0.34
Graceful/awkward ÿ 0.18 0.76
Peaceful/ferocious ÿ 0.80 0.31
Hard/soft 0.78 ÿ 0.003
Heavy/light 0.71 ÿ 0.17
Strong/weak 0.19 0.65
Deep/shallow 0.12 0.71
Tenacious/yielding 0.66 ÿ 0.06
Active/passive 0.67 0.26
Complex/simple 0.60 0.06
Angular/rounded 0.27 ÿ 0.58
For the United States data, six items comprised factor one: ‘‘cruel’’, ‘‘ferocious’’,
‘‘hard’’, ‘‘heavy’’, ‘‘tenacious’’, ‘‘active’’, and ‘‘complex’’. With the exception of the
item ‘‘complex’’, this factor represents a sense of massive, invasive aggression, even
violence. The second factor, comprised of the items ‘‘beautiful’’, ‘‘graceful’’,
‘‘strong’’ and ‘‘deep’’, connoted sense of aesthetically distinguished, fluid power.
Hence, in addition to the wild aggression present in the first factor, a sense of wise
aesthetic was also connoted.
As was the case for concept three, the connotative directionality of the items
comprising the first factor extracted from each cultural groups’ data existed at
opposite poles } harmony for Japanese, aggressiveness for the Americans. These
756 C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761
findings consistently emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data as well }
Japanese aikido practitioners structured their understandings of aikido around a
property of ‘‘harmony’’, whereas American aikido practitioners represented their
understandings of aikido-related concepts with a property connoting ‘‘aggression’’
and emphasized aikido’s martial aspect.
4. Discussion
As the above findings make clear, the meaning generated to represent aikido-
related concepts was different between cultures. Within Geertz’s (1983) theoretical
framework, differences in conceptual representation are affected by differences in the
contexts within which they were formed. For example, the symbols, gestures, words,
and explanatory examples which are available for use in describing an activity in one
culture are different from those available in another. Additionally, the elements
available for descriptive use are patterned differently between cultures. There are
many forces influencing the meaning generated to represent an activity in any given
culture } language, social structure, and mass media are obvious examples. In this
study, investigation was focused on discovering whether differences between the
instructional emphasis and explanatory methods utilized by instructors in the
Japanese and American settings existed, and, once discovered, upon examining how
these differences were reflected in practitioners’ representations of the properties of
aikido.
practitioners in the United States. The ‘‘aggression’’ construct was prominently and
consistently used by American participants’ to describe aikido-related concepts.
America is generally understood as being a society within which violence is not
uncommon, and this conception is continually being reinforced by the media’s daily
representation of images of violence in its reports of occurrences in the United
States. In addition, the prominent use of the ‘‘aggression’’ concept by American
participants was almost certainly influenced by the manner in which martial arts are
typically represented in the mass-media in the United States, exemplified in the
recent popular and violent movies starring the aikidoist Steven Segal. Aikido
instructors in the American research setting, however, while recognizing and
teaching aikido as a martial art, were never observed to deliberately teach
aggression. A statement by Frank, an instructor at White Hall dojo, clarifies the
subtle usefulness of aggression:
‘‘I think that by studying aggression and resolution..., if all you ever do is deny
aggression, you know nothing about it. So by putting yourself in situations you can
study yourself. If I come at you with a shomen uchi (overhead strike) very, very easy,
very light, you can do a very easy non-aggressive ikkyo (a first-control technique).
But I turn up the heat, and start getting stronger, and harder and harder, and your
aggressive nature starts to rise to the surface. So now your practice is to learn to
loose that aggressive nature. (Interview, December 12, 1995, p. 10).
As Frank’s comment indicates, aikido was taught and practiced in the United
States research setting simultaneously as a martial art and form of personal
development. In such a setting, training occurs from within a context which neither
denies nor encourages aggression, but rather utilizes it as a means for personal
development.
Instructors, working within a cultural framework which they and their students
are familiar with, serve to actively shape the patterns by which their students come to
structure meaning for concepts. American instructors for example, generated a
training atmosphere which emphasized martial practicality, and the analysis of
American practitioners’ perceptions of aikido-related concepts reflected the values of
this climate.
In Japan, instructors tended to emphasize social harmony, a cultural value which
was also reflected in the analysis of the data concerning Japanese participant’s
perceptions of aikido. In the training setting, this value became manifest in activities
such as the cooperative participation of all members during the after-training dojo
clean-up effort. Another aspect of this value was also represented by stressing that
the individual attempt to adapt him or herself to the situation–to blend with the
various circumstantial forces } and not try to change the situation to fit his or her
intentions. The following example, observed while performing systematic observa-
tion at a dojo in the Japanese research setting, also illustrates the non-discursive,
kinesetic teaching style readily observable in Japan. The instructor, a female sensei,
noticed a pair of students having trouble while the class practiced the aikido
technique she had just demonstrated. She walked to the pair, stopped, and stood
near them. She stood watching them slowly performing the technique. At a
particular point in their movements, she situated herself next to the student
758 C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761
performing the technique, and made her posture similar to his. Noticing the sensei,
they stopped in mid-technique. Then, while the students watched, she adjusted her
position. As the student adjusted his position to match hers, his training partner lost
his balance, and he followed through and finished the technique smiling. Both
students then sat down in seiza (a seated posture) and bowed to the instructor, who,
after performing a standing bow, continued wandering through the dojo, observing
pairs of students work. She had never spoken a word. (Fieldnotes, July 9, 1995).
The above examples illustrate how aikido instructors in both cultures reflect
cultural values in a manner which can serve to shape practitioners’ understandings of
aikido. The interpretive analysis of the findings from this study indicate that there is
an influential relationship between differences in the instructional emphasis in
Japanese and American aikido dojos and between-group differences in the structure
and quality of meaning for the aikido-related concepts.
experienced cultural activity, people constantly ‘‘think from’’ the culture within
which they have been socialized and function. People tend to have difficulty in
conceiving how others may perceive of the same activity. Due to the difficulty, and
arguably the impossibility, of disembedding ourselves from the meaning-making
system of our primary culture, we assume that ‘‘others’’ perceive of a shared portion
of the world in the same way as ‘‘we’’ do. This finding, which emerged with clarity
and power, is important because it illustrates a common psychological pattern used
to generate conceptions of how persons from other cultural backgrounds perceive of
common activities. At a structural level, both cultural groups shared the speculative
pattern of assuming that their counterparts in the ‘‘other’’ culture understood the
concepts in the same way as themselves.
The finding that both groups assumed that their counterparts training in the
‘‘other’’ culture perceived of aikido in a manner similar to practitioners in their own
culture may be due to the non-discursive nature of training in aikido. Aikido is a
martial art, a bodily activity, and it is reasonable to assume that the physical
experience of training would be the same regardless of culture. My own training in
aikido dojos in both Japan and the United States, as well as reports by informants
who have trained in both cultures, necessitate the assertion that the bodily experience
of performing aikido techniques is virtually identical in both cultures. Donovan
Waite, a prominent American aikido instructor in New York who has trained under
internationally respected instructors in a variety of cultural settings, concurs. When
asked whether he observed ‘‘the nature of aikido practice’’ to change as he traveled
from culture to culture, he replied, ‘‘The culture makes the practice different, because
its mentally different . . . . Aikido technique itself does not seem to differ from culture
to culture’’ (Waite, 1996, p. 12). It is perhaps because practitioners assume that the
physical experience of performing aikido techniques is the same regardless of culture
that they think their counterparts in other cultures conceptualize aikido-related
concepts in the same manner as themselves.
The results from this investigation indicate that differences exist between the
instructional styles and points of emphasis in aikido dojos in Japan and the United
States, and that the meaning which aikido has to practitioners training in these two
cultural settings is quite different. A comparative analysis of the specific structuring
of the meaning of aikido-related concepts among practitioners in America and Japan
sheds light upon the results of the process of transferring knowledge across cultures.
Cultural activities are value-laden, and as the activities move from one culture to
another, the value changes. In the case of the example used in this study, new
understandings for aikido were created within the cultural context of dojos in the
United States. American aikido instructors, functioning within a context of inter-
760 C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761
Acknowledgements
References
Back, A., & Kim, D. (1984). The future course of the Eastern martial arts. Quest, 36, 7–14.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segal, M. A., & Dasne, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research
and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Introduction to methodology. In Triandis, & Berry, Handbook of cross-cultural
psychology: Vol. 2, methodology (pp. 1–28). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Triandis, & Berry,
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 2, methodology (pp. 389–443). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Columbus, P., & Rice, D. (1991). Psychological research on the martial arts: An addendum to Fuller’s
review. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 64, 127–135.
Crawford, A. (1992,). The martial yen: American participation in the aikido tradition. Journal of Asian
Martial Arts, 1(4), 28–43.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761 761
Glasser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. London: Longman
Publishing Group.
Hershey, L. (1994). Shotokan karate as non-discursive intercultural exchange. Journal of Asian Martial
Arts, 3(3), 53–61.
Hunter, D., & Whitten, P. (1976). Encyclopedia of anthropology. New York: Harper & Rowe.
LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research ((2nd ed).).
New York: Academic Press.
Min, K. (1979). Martial arts in the American educational setting. Quest, 31(1), 97–106.
O’Neill, P. G. (1973). Essential kanji. New York: Weatherhill.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University of
Illinois Press.
Pranin, S. A. (1991). The aiki news encyclopedia of aikido. Tokyo, Japan: Aiki News.
Ratti, O., & Westerbrook, A. (1973). Secrets of the samurai: The martial arts of feudal Japan. Rutland, VT:
Charles E. Tuttle Co.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). The diffusion of Innovations ((3rd ed).). New York: The Free Press.
Saotome, M. (1993). Aikido and the Harmony of Nature. Boston: Shombala Publications Inc.
Trulson, M. (1986). Martial arts training: A novel ‘‘cure’’ for juvenile delinquency. Human Relations,
39(12), 1131–1140.
Ueshiba, K. (1984). The Spirit of Aikido. Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Waite, D. (1996). Interview. Aikido Today Magazine, 10(1), 9–13.
Wertz, S. K. (1984). Review of the zen way to martial arts. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 11, 94–103.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.