Henning, Stanley

China Review International
Volume 6, Issue 2, pp. 319-332 (1999)

Recommended

In this article, the author, Stanly Henning takes on a critic's role in evaluating the published works of scholars on the subject of Chinese martial arts. It is his opinion that a lack of focused attention and effort in proper research have led to an increase in scholarly works that mislead and misconstrue the truth about original purpose of Chinese martial arts.

The author devotes much of his discussion to addressing the misunderstandings particularly surrounding Chinese boxing, or shoubo. For Henning, too often academics take boxing out of its true environment as a military hand-to-hand combat skill, and seek to apply some form of philosophical or spiritual aspect that isnt feasible or historically accurate. In fact, Henning applies this argument to many forms of Chinese martial arts. He also argues against comparisons made between Chinese boxing and Western boxing, as the former was never developed with the intent of being a sport. Throughout the remainder of the article, he addresses other faux pas made by scholars in their research that lead to crippling effects for their finished works.

This article would prove to be an excellent resource for any considering research into martial arts of any culture. Henning repeatedly stresses the need for in depth and painstaking research to ensure that all arguments and conclusions are well founded. For Henning, proper translation is of the utmost importance, as failures in this area more often than not lead to improper conclusions and confusion of truth for the writers audience.

Annotated by: Anthony Kirby (May 2009)

Martial Arts: Taijiquan | other martial art: #FORM.other_Subject#

Topics: history |