In self defense, a good training is above all based on a good structure. This includes hitting your targets (so as not to anchor false distances in your motor memory), mimicking potential reactions, not being too indulgent with your partner, etc.
But precisely when it comes to indulgent behavior comes the subject of the limits of self defense in the face of survival. These are two diametrically opposed principles when it comes to street fighting.
Table of Contents
Is self defense too violent?
Anyone who sees a self defense training for the first time might think that the coaches encourage their learners to be radical in their responses. Breaking limbs, gouging out eyes, exploding genitals, and so on. How violent!
Indeed, it’s quite different from traditional martial arts discourse which is rather polite. So yes, and there is a clear split between these two universes.
In martial arts, combat is addressed along with moral values, extreme codification, and a kind of spirituality. Indeed, this discipline is very codified, especially during competitions. And this also applies to the attacks.
Punches are clean, controls are privileged, technical perfection is an ideal to reach, in short an aesthetic is sought in traditional martial arts, even a certain lifestyle. All this often happens at the cost of truly efficient techniques.
Ironically, MARTIAL arts were first intended to be practiced for a completely different purpose…
Of course, this varies according to the styles, and especially according to the instructors.
Unfortunately in our society we only consider the myth of destructive martial arts, of black belts who are great masters of their art and who prove invincible. This is the result of the media broadcasting chimera that people believe in without taking a step back.
Still this postulate results in an awkwardness when people who have never been confronted to genuine violence hear a self defense discourse which is much more radical and devoid of aestheticism.
Indeed, it is no longer a question of codified striking distances, linear punches or 360° jumping kicks. self defense basically advocates simple techniques, even messy ones if necessary, but with maximum efficiency. And among these techniques, we find of course maximum incapacitating strikes, and therefore very violent ones.
But as “violent” as this teaching may seem, its only purpose is to prepare the learners to real attacks which are themselves of a rare violence. As I often tell them: “You don’t respond to a knife attack with a bunch of flowers”. Realistic teaching must therefore match the actual situation on the ground. It’s all about logic.
The idea is that, by familiarizing them with violent situations, they will not be left helpless and dumbfounded if they find themselves in such a situation since they will be on a somewhat familiar ground.
It’s a blessing in disguise.
But if self defense advises fighting fire with fire, how can this state of mind go together with self defense?
The law of the jungle
In an ideal world, honest citizens would not have to fear the enforcement of law since we could assume that it benefits the victims.
But as things stand, laws can be interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, on a case-by-case basis, and two strictly identical cases can be judged in two very different ways, creating a feeling of legal insecurity for citizens who do not know where they stand in terms of self defense. What is legal? What is not? As it stands, hardly anyone can decide the question!
This is a highly controversial subject that we will not comment on too much, but the fact remains that “Victims of assaults can, under certain conditions (when the assailants file a complaint first, for example) be taken to court because of the damage inflicted to the assailants.”
This is a sad reality that everyone must consider, which adds to the stress of victims who have reacted “disproportionately”.
However, self defense keeps on repeating ‘break your aggressor’s knees”, “gouge his eyes out”, “dislocate his shoulder”, and so on.
Needless to say that this seems totally irreconcilable with the French conception of self defense which encourages non-violence as much as possible and sanctions overly aggressive ripostes.
This is the main tension between theory and practice, and everyone needs to be aware of the dangers of making either choice.
This is why a coach shall also educate about the seriousness of these choices.
We are constantly told to run away at every opportunity, but there are situations where this option is impossible and we have to choose between submission and fighting back.
In the first case, your life is threatened, so you may die. In the second case, your freedom is threatened because you may potentially face a backlash from the judges.
It’s up to everyone to fix their priorities where they desire, but self defense is meant to help the learner get prepared for this choice. Given that submission only requires rolling up in a ball and waiting, teaching self defense can logically only be dedicated body and soul to the second option, i.e. the riposte.
For it to be decisive, it has to be violent. Being too complacent, too gentle with an aggressor who wants to harm you will necessarily backfire since your strikes won’t put him out of harm’s way.
This is a fact that no one can deny.
In short, everyone makes up their own mind about self defense. In the end, the reaction to an aggression can only be summed up in two ways: to let it happen or to defend yourself when you cannot escape.
Since self defense consists of defending oneself or others, it becomes easier to understand that survival is favored in the training session, not pacifism.
The aim is not to create hordes of bloodthirsty learners, but rather to accustom them to violence on the one hand to reduce their chances of freezing in a situation of intense stress, and to offer them an additional option on the other hand, namely to fight back, something everyone will be free to do or not, with full knowledge of the facts.
