I’m from Chicago.
It’s a city that is not without the influence of organized
crime. Maybe you’ve heard.
When a legitimate business gets profitable, the mafia gets
interested. They move in on that business, squeeze it for “protection” money or
even take it over completely. The mafia isn't keen on doing any real, honest work, themselves, but they won’t
hesitate to steal from those who do some.
Starting in 1980, when I received my Fencing Master Diploma
from Maitre Jean-Jacques Gillet’s American Fencing Academy, and certification from the now-defunct
US Academy of Arms, and continuing
for all the years I was a member of the NFCAA – now the USFCA – I lobbied for
them to recognize, preserve and promote classical fencing (which was then known
simply as correct fencing!) as well
as other weapons such as the rapier, the smallsword and the longsword.
For several decades the USFCA (and it’s Tweedle-dum twin the
USFA) derided, denigrated, dismissed, disparaged, trivialized and insulted classical fencing, and sneered at the very notion that
fencing as a martial art could even exist. In their “coaches college” only the
three “modern” weapons used in competition were considered, solely and
exclusively, with Olympic gold medals the be-all and end-all of their efforts. The
USFCA is aptly named: The United States Fencing COACHES’ Association.
They are coaches training people to win at a competitive sport. They are not fencing masters, at least
not by the definition I was taught:
one who had the skill, knowledge and spirit to teach any person the correct use of any sword for any purpose. A fencing
master may sometimes function in the role of coach. But being a coach does not make
you a fencing master.
Over that same period of time, the “sport” of fencing devolved
into a meaningless and graceless game of electronic tag, bearing utterly no
resemblance to a “frank and courteous encounter” (a duel, that is), and played
by rude, screaming narcissists, for whom real fencers have long since grown
weary of apologizing. Thankfully, the numbers involved in this game are
starting to dwindle. With luck, it will cease to exist at all.
Meanwhile, Classical Fencing and “Historical European
Martial Arts,” (HEMA) have found something of a niche, and that niche is
growing. Clearly these people are
looking for something that the “Olympic fencing” game of poke-and-hope does not
provide --- and they are willing to
invest a fair amount of money in this pursuit. They are willing to pay for
equipment, and they are willing to pay for instruction.
Naturally, overnight “masters” spring up like mushrooms ---
or actually, more like “10th Degree Supreme Ultimate Grand Masters,”
first in karate, then kung fu, then ninjitsu, then hapkido, then aikido, in
accordance with what was featured in the latest, most popular action movie. (All
the same guys, mind you. Only the sign in the dojo window changed.)
And, naturally, now that there’s money to be had, the USFCA
is suddenly interested.
Now, out of the blue,
with no history of any prior involvement in, or support of classical
fencing or HEMA, the USFCA, like the mafia (only without the accents and the
snappy clothes), wants to take them over and siphon off whatever profits there
are to be had from the people who have rightfully earned them, to distribute
amongst their own pompous, plagiaristic and self-aggrandizing chosen few. They thus anoint themselves as the
arbiter of who is or isn’t “certified” to teach, form a committee for that
purpose and bestow lofty titles on themselves – all with no demonstration of
any expertise in the subject whatsoever.
Make no mistake, their next step is obvious: they will deride,
denigrate, dismiss, disparage, trivialize
and insult all those who do not possess USFCA certification, and they
will try to convince the public (that is, the market) that those not
blessed with the USFCA nod are incompetent charlatans who will put little Tom
and Suzie in peril of life and limb.
But it isn’t just about money.
It’s also about ego, power and, above all, CONTROL.
The USFCA, like an abusive spouse, craves control over every thought, word and
deed. Without that control, they
might be seen for what they are, as would the once beautiful and noble “sport”
of fencing which they enthusiastically helped to ruin.
Classical Fencing and Olympic fencing, you see, are not
two variations on the same theme, like two different flavors of ice cream. They
are not
different “styles” of fencing. (The former is fencing, the latter is not. What it is, I’ll leave it to you to figure out).
Classical Fencing and the “sport” called fencing are, in
fact, diametrically opposed and mutually contradictory both technically and
philosophically.
How could the organization that has led the charge against Classical Fencing for so long, now represent classical
fencing? It’s preposterous. Far be
it from me to suggest that the USFCA would know ethical conduct if they stepped
in it, but is there not just a teensie-weensie bit of conflict of interest here? Is the fox really qualified to certify
the security guards for the henhouse?
Those of us who are professional fencing masters, who make
our living teaching the true art, science and spirit of the sword, would be
well advised to wear wreaths of garlic around our necks to keep the USFCA at
bay until we can find out where they sleep during the day and stake them firmly
down in the coffin of absolute irrelevance they so deserve.
We need USFCA "certification" like a swimmer needs an anvil. What we could use is a loose association of independent professional
fencing masters who can agree on what a fencing master is and what you have to do, know and be, to be recognized as one by the rest of us. That’s assuming that there actually are enough professional fencing masters
out there to fill one of the larger booths at Denny’s. Personally, I can count the ones I know
of on one hand, and still have enough fingers left to deal off the bottom of
the deck. But you have to start someplace.
It would certainly be better than allowing the mafia to muscle in and take
over.
aac
Interesting that you should raise the notion of a confraternity of masters - I've raised it before, in varied venues to every professional fencing teacher I know, and I got the exact same reply from them all: NO.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I think I raised it in your forum, too.
There are precious few professional disciplines where its leaders, movers and shakers do not get together at least annually to share, discuss and fraternize. I realize that there exist a long and often sordid past between members of this cohort (the pro fencing instructor) - but geez, if this isn't the time to get over it all and move on then when will it be?
An unintended consequence of this refusal to participate is that fencers with resources, skill and experience are ignoring the drama and choosing to get on with it. I still believe that we can be a stronger community and maintain autonomy yet share and interact more.
Thanks for your comment, David. I agree that a professional association could be of benefit --- with a lot of IF's. On at least one occasion in the past a professional association extended memberships to "semi" professionals, who were also, unfortunately, given voting privileges. That was the death of the professional association. Once burned, twice cautious. What has to be agreed on as an a priori is 1) what is a professioal? and 2) What benefit can an association offer? What are your thoughts on it?
ReplyDeleteaac
Let me respond by asking what benefit there is to limiting such an idea to a "professional association"? and I am not being facetious - because the rift that exists between most "professionals" now is nearly absolute. Another consideration for this as a starting point is that WMA/HEMA/whatever is growing exponentially and even a large contingency of professional fencing instructors could do little to influence this swelling tide. Frankly, and I do not consider this contentious nor condescending, the future of our science is in the hands of its competency whether they be instructors or fencers.
ReplyDeleteMaestro Sean Hayes, a former student of yours I believe, once defined a fencing master to me as somebody who could not only teach the correct and effective use of the sword but also work positively towards teaching others who could do likewise. If that is true, then I respectfully ask that this be considered:
I have been fencing for 25 years and counting spending the last 16 of those teaching. The direct product of the last 13 years of my teaching can be seen in two other fencing organizations in two states, Wisconsin (lead by Charles Dobbs and Sean Newton - both second generation fencers and instructors of my program) and New Mexico (lead by Ryan Mank). At least 3 of my students have successfully tested and been certified by the contemporary panels of masters for the American Scuola Magistrale (currently directed by Maestro John Sullins). Concurrently, all of our fencers regularly place in the top 10 Classical competitive events - if not winning them outright.
My question is - not considering myself a professional fencing instructor (but willing as I often do to put my students up against the best of anybody's) - how could it be that my perspective could not be helpful in any organization? There are only two answers I can come up with - maybe you can suggest more.
The first answer is that I lack certification. This is a deliberate choice of my own. I do not want to be a fencing master and in some cases I know that doing so is simply paying for the privilege to call myself one. My fate, as it were, seems to be to focus on effective combat and increasing the fencing-IQ of the greatest number of fencers as I can. Consequently, I do not refer to myself as anything other than a fencer-instructor but my work also goes unnoticed except in light of the individual accomplishments of my fencers. Something I can't get upset over.
The second answer is that there is a personal dislike ostracizing me from participation. I've made some enemies in my day - again, nothing I'm terribly upset by. Friendship and trust are earned and I have an anachronistic tick requiring most people to knock 3 times. However, if this is in fact somebody's reason then it's clear that they are acting unprofessionally themselves and should be excluded from participation on similar grounds.
I suggest all this not as an apology for the state of things, but as a living example of how hurtful to the perpetuity of our art narrow definitions for what our fencing is can be for all of us. If one of your first requirements is to define a professional this becomes a very real problem.
To your second requirement may I humbly suggest simply that we all benefit from being a community - and not in a Gen X cyber realism kind of way but in an old fashioned, chthonic juxtaposition of bodies and steel. We shouldn't need any enticement other than one another's infectious love for what we do, and yet to this day it takes a workshop or a competition for people to justify getting together. I think this is shallow.
Once burned, twice shy - understood, but I've got confidence that you and I and those we know are stronger than that, a strength that ultimately looks forward rather than backwards.
Thanks for your comment, David.
DeleteFirst, I agree that personal antipathy that results in unfair treatment of anyone is highly unprofessional.
But there's more.
The trouble is that we aren't all in love with the same thing.
For example, I don't think I've ever had a student enter, let alone win, a competition. Couldn't care less. Not what I'm about. I'm more concerned with what my students do OFF the strip than on it. But at least one person has suggested that to be a "fencing master" you should have at least three students place in the top 10 at yada-yada-yada.
Moreover the interests of professionals who make a living from teaching are not necessarily the same as the interests of hobbyists who don't.
Lastly, I think an association should be of direct, demonstrable and practical value, and not just a mutual admiration society.
Being a good teacher isn't the natural result of teaching for a given length of time. It also requires particularized skills, and a certain body of knowledge. Experience alone guarantees neither.
Therefore I think it's reasonable to start a Professional Guitarists' association, for example, by establishing the criteria for membership. What is a "professional?" Those who get 100% of their income from playing? How about 75%? 50? 25? What if they only do studio work? Is it open to those who DON'T play guitar? What if they own a guitar it don't play it? What if they've only rote-learned one song? What if they play the ukelele but not the guitar? How about the lute or the vihuela? What if they only play in a garage band with and for friends? These folks don't all have the same perspective, or the same interests. See what I mean?
aac
I do see what you mean, at least as far as I am able from this vantage point.
DeleteHowever, you employ assumptions about the specifics. For example, there is nothing in your response which isn't true of my perspective either - yet you could use it as a way to differentiate yourself from me all the while never being true.
How do you know if "its the same thing"?
To focus on something like competition is to miss the mark entirely. We don't enter tournaments or compete to win or to stroke an ego. We do it because we are the ones who travel thousands of miles each year and pay for transport and accommodations, and play by everybody's rules, leaving behind our families because almost nobody reciprocates. You see what I mean? You can automatically dismiss the idea of competition if you like, but you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. In some cases, as I mentioned beforehand, your best chance of meeting somebody, of facing them in person, of putting a cyber identity to flesh and bone - is to actually go there. Sadly, even in the CF and HF and TF and WMA/HEMA/whatever community right now - when you show up its going to be either a tournament or a workshop that greets you at the door.
I hold occasional open sala days here in St Louis. For no other reason than fencers of all types to get together and fence. Hardly anybody takes advantage of that. Reality.
As far as who is a professional or not - I really couldn't care. If professional instructors have their own needs and concerns that could be served by meetings once in a while I suppose it would have happened already. If it were simply a matter of employment issues we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
On the other hand, with a broader scope in view, many of us think that we could all, pros and 'hobbyists' alike, benefit from greater interaction, not less. If you don't think so then it sounds like you fall into the NO category I mentioned before. And you wouldn't be alone.
But then, you raised the idea in the first place. Maybe your next move is to establish the criteria and see who fits?
Thanks again for your comments, David.
DeleteFor clarity, please stick with what I SAY and not what you think I must MEAN. If you're not sure what I mean, you're very welcome to just ask. :)
No, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. "Competition" -- in terms of noting a "winner" and a "loser" is counter-productive under almost all circumstances. It certainly is a means, not an end. For example, I sometimes get together with others to box. We go couple of rounds at an agreed upon intensity. We NEVER decide who won or who lost. We all learn, so we all win. I wasn't disparaging your participation because I don't know what role it plays for you. I was only stating my own perspective.
Part of the difficulty in organizing any get-together is that North America is a big place and people are quite spread out. As you say, travel is a big challenge in terms of time and expense, and not everyone can afford it -- I know I can't. I'm impressed that you are able to manage it.
Part of the problem with organizing professionals is that too few remain. As my Dad would say, "Looks like prostitution isn't the only trade that was ruined by amateurs." :)
Personally, I have no quarrel with those who "teach" for free. Who better than they should know what their teaching is worth? :)
Whether or not "interaction" would be beneficial depends on the nature of the interaction. A mugging is an interaction. Not sure both parties would find it beneficial. :)
I have found interaction with other professional teachers (not just "fencing" teachers) to be very beneficial (and I hope it was mutual!) Perhaps you could elucidate on the benefits you see from "greater interaction?"
The raison d'etre of any organization should be: what can we accomplish better together, than we can accomplish individually?
I'd appreciate it if you'd resist the urge to put me in any "category" at all. Contrary to your speculation, I am, and would continue to be, quite alone.
I did not really "raise the idea." The idea has bee floating around in the US for at least 50 years and worldwide, for much longer than that. It is not "(my) next move" to establish criteria for professionalism. I have neither the authority nor the responsibility for doing so outside my own salle d'armes. I will say, however, that I do NOT believe that "professionalism" is defined ONLY by whether or not you get paid.
Thanks again.
aac
AAC wrote, "For clarity, please stick with what I SAY and not what you think I must MEAN."
ReplyDeletePrecisely the line I was taking. I like to quote people, especially if they have expressed an idea better than I could have already.
AAC wrote, "Competition" -- in terms of noting a "winner" and a "loser" is counter-productive under almost all circumstances."
I quote you again, "For clarity, please stick with what I SAY and not what you think I must MEAN."
Competition comes in many forms & need not adhere to a shallow win - loss scenario.
AAC wrote, "Part of the problem with organizing professionals is that too few remain."
That is a problem, & may highlight the need for those that do to meet once in a while. It could also signal a call for a paradigm shift with respect to "professionals".
AAC wrote, "Perhaps you could elucidate on the benefits you see from "greater interaction?"
Without begging the question, you wrote, "I have found interaction with other professional teachers (not just "fencing" teachers) to be very beneficial" -- in what ways did you find it useful?
AAC wrote, "I'd appreciate it if you'd resist the urge to put me in any "category" at all. Contrary to your speculation, I am, and would continue to be, quite alone."
I have no need to categorize you, but am free to associate relationships that I observe. For example, on your website you use the pronoun "we" which could be an attempt to avoid a subjective tone, but it does tell the reader that there is a group speaking or being spoken for. Also, you mentioned the "other professional teachers" with whom you have interacted. I do not have to "categorize you" to observe that you include yourself among others.
In what way are you "quite alone". Is this a philosophical or ideological statement? Surely you are not literally & physically alone.
AAC wrote, "I did not really "raise the idea.""
With respect, yes you bloody well did, & I quote from your original blog entry:
"What we could use is a loose association of independent professional fencing masters who can agree on what a fencing master is and what you have to do, know and be, to be recognized as one by the rest of us."
In your blog entry you made that statement. Since my original reply was to what you had written & was in fact addressing your statement, you did in fact "raise the idea". Engaging in this kind of tetrapyloctemy may be the reason why "professional interaction" has diminished, like the Council of the Ents trying to get anything accomplished.
AAC wrote, "It is not "(my) next move" to establish criteria for professionalism. I have neither the authority nor the responsibility for doing so outside my own salle d'armes."
Yet you say, "Personally, I can count the ones I know of on one hand, and still have enough fingers left to deal off the bottom of the deck. But you have to start someplace."
This is taking a stand on the nature of what professionalism is & who fits it. Later on you wrote, "What has to be agreed on as an a priori is 1) what is a professioal?"
So you do & you don't. That's fine, but is rather duplicitous.
I'd like to quote you again to redirect the conversation, "What has to be agreed on as an a priori is 1) what is a professioal? and 2) What benefit can an association offer?"
Will you answer those questions clearly, in a way that we could refer to as your position on the matter? Also, I am very curious as to both your card dexterity & the "the ones I know of on one hand". Would you identify these professional fencing teachers for us? It would help us understand who fits your criteria & perhaps lead to a better understanding of what that means.
Sorry for the terse tone in the reply above, but blogspot limits comment characters to 4,096.
ReplyDeleteIt appears I'm not making myself clear. But as you note, David, this conversation exceeds the limits of this blog, Please feel to contact me privately -- assuming you can refrain from calling me "duplicitous." That's pretty much a conversation stopper.
ReplyDeleteaac