The definition of martial arts studies

Bibliographic Data

ID13020803
AuthorsPaul Bowman (0000-0001-9311-2391, Cardiff University, corresponding author)
Year2017
Volume0
Issue3
Pages6-6
Publication date2017-01-13
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueMartial Arts Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2057-5696 • E-ISSN: 2057-5696
PublisherCardiff University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.18573/j.2017.10092
OpenAlexW2571653680
LanguageEN
Citations received13
References cited26

This article argues against all forms of scientism and the widespread perceived need to define martial arts in order to study martial arts or ‘do’ martial arts studies. It argues instead for the necessity of theory before definition, including theorisation of the orientation of the field of martial arts studies itself. Accordingly, the chapter criticises certain previous (and current) academic approaches to martial arts, particularly the failed project of hoplology. It then examines the much more promising approaches of current scholarship, such as that of Sixt Wetzler, before critiquing certain aspects of its orientation. Instead of accepting Wetzler’s ‘polysystem theory’ approach uncritically, the article argues instead for the value of a poststructuralist ‘discourse’ approach in martial arts studies

Aesthetics · Art · Epistemology · Field (mathematics · Martial arts · Political science · Scholarship · Sociology · The arts · Value (mathematics · Visual arts · Computer Science · Law · Martial Arts: Techniques, Psychology, and Education · Mathematics · Philosophy

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access