Books on realistic violence and advice thereto abound. While most, if not all, of them, address the brutality and fear (or at least excitement) of self-defense scenarios, the social decorum not to fight back seems widely unaccounted for in them. By “social decorum” I mean this: A normal, rational human being is concerned with how his immediate society perceives him or her and is, on some level or another, invested in being in good standing with those around him or her. For this reason, when someone—some outliers excepted—is suddenly assaulted by another person, one’s initial instinct is to determine what one did wrong, what offense one committed to bring the wrath of another upon oneself. Suddenness is important to this equation, as it both deprives the recipient—let us say “victim”—of the processing time to determine what happened, and, having skipped several rungs on the ladder of escalation, infers an offense committed to have warranted—to have provoked—assault from another. Why else would there be a surprise attack, after all?
Let me say that another way: for sane and reasonable people suddenly assaulted, natural instincts to conform to social norms evoke an apologetic response. This is why self-defense is so difficult. This is also a large—and I believe ignored—part of the psychological trauma post-assault for the assaulted. One asks, “Why did they do that?” or, “Why did that happen?” Read: “What did I do wrong to deserve that?”
Targeted training to overwrite that response and/or sociopathy is excepted.
This is why the very person who would be easily beaten down by an assailant will rise to the occasion when defending someone else.
That bears repeating: It is easier to defend someone else than to defend oneself. That is the paradox.
(The subject and title of this article have nothing to do with an old English book by a certain Mr. Silver. Their titular likeness is a coincidence.)
Still not so sure? Consider these rhetorical scenarios:
1) A sane and reasonable adult woman is fishing for her keys to her apartment and is struck in the head from behind by an assailant. Listen to me, most women will cower at this point.
2) A sane and reasonable adult woman is fishing for her keys to her teenage son’s apartment he just moved into and he gets assaulted while they’re standing together. Most women will start swinging at the assailant at this point, even if the teenage son is stronger than she is. Conversely, the teenage son is most likely to elicit a deferential posture—i.e., he will apologize to his assailant while he’s trying to figure out what he did wrong, or while he weathers the punishment for it, imaginary though his offense may be.
We can repeat a similar scenario that’s less obvious, such as two adult men who are friends who go out to a bar. The outcome is usually similar.
Time for self-defense classes!
For a person wishing to prevail in such a situation, especially after having been in one and not prevailing, going to school to learn to fight is a sensible next course of action. Martial schools are all over the board with their curricula and how they approach teaching violence—if they actually teach it at all.
Enter “dojo syndrome”—an informal term describing one’s tendency to extend politeness, reserved for the training hall, to an earnest contest of violence (that is, a fight). Typically, it refers to habituating to sparring courtesy, being polite to one’s sparring partners, and attacking only lightly, then doing the same in a real fight.
But allow me to be more global with the term “dojo syndrome.”
In the vast majority of hand-to-hand Martial art schools, there is a large power gap between the students and the instructor(s) and a great deal of expected obedience. Obedience. Students basically aren’t allowed to do anything unless they’re told. The tendency of many schools to be babysitting services compounds that fact. Students learn decorum before they learn to fight. They wait for permission.
Given what I just wrote above about the conundrum of defending oneself, does this sound like they’re learning self-defense?
The trend is so bad that there is a term to differentiate Martial schools that actually focus on attacking and defending in a real contest of violence: “reality Martial arts.” That’s one of those sad terms, like “health foods,” where the adjective should be taken for granted, but no longer is.
Conduct yourself with behavior above reproach—chivalrously—and not in a way that makes people want to punch you in the mouth. This way, if you are assaulted, you will be certain that your assailant is in the wrong, and can skip to the business of setting it to right.
Train such that you are empowered, not obedient, so that when you need to stand up for yourself, you’re not waiting for permission. Your assailant will not give it to you.
Furthermore:
Stay away from instructors that demand your respect, instead of earning it from you.
Stay away from instructors who demand you shut up and listen, rather than encouraging free thought and challenging ideas—especially ideas presented by the curriculum or the instructor.
These instructors are teaching you to get your ass beaten if you’re ever assaulted, and have no right to claim that they teach self-defense. They are charlatans.
Martial Equestrian 